https://www.theyshootpictures.com/2021poll.htm
Please make sure you cast your vote. And spread the word!
TSPDT Poll: 25 Favourite Films
Nice info.
I added my list.
I added my list.
"I too am a child burned by future experiences, fallen back on myself and already suspecting the certainty that in the end only those will prove benevolent who believe in nothing." – Marran Gosov
-
Evelyn Library P.I.
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:36 pm
Oooo, this sounds fun! I'll be sure to submit a ballot.
Done! I couldn't resist voting for a Mary-Kate & Ashley movie
Done! I couldn't resist voting for a Mary-Kate & Ashley movie
wondering if i should go into full-on troll-mode here...... 
but seriously guys, if we banded together, and made a collective list of garbage, and each of us submitted it accordingly, we could rig this mamajama
but seriously guys, if we banded together, and made a collective list of garbage, and each of us submitted it accordingly, we could rig this mamajama
I). »Hitler, ein Film aus Deutschland« (Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, 1977);
II). »Melancholie der Engel« (Marian Dora Botulino, 2009);
III). “Dogville” (Lars von Trier, 2003)/“Manderlay” (Lars von Trier, 2005);
IV). “Nymphomaniac: Volume I” (Lars von Trier, 2013)/“Nymphomaniac: Volume I – The Director’s Cut” (Lars von Trier, 2013)/“Nymphomaniac: Volume II” (Lars von Trier, 2013)/“Nymphomaniac: Volume II – The Director’s Cut” (Lars von Trier, 2013);
V). “The House That Jack Built” (Lars von Trier, 2018);
VI). ״הבורגנים״ (איתן צור, 2004/2003/2002/2001/2000);
VII). «Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma» (Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1975);
VIII). «Vase de noces» (Thierry Zéno, 1974);
IX). «Singapore Sling: Ο Άνθρωπος που Αγάπησε ένα Πτώμα» (Νίκος Γεωργίου Νικολαΐδης, 1990);
X). “Savage Grace” (Tom Kalin, 2007);
XI). “Shadows” (John Cassavetes, 1958);
XII). “Faces” (John Cassavetes, 1968);
XIII). “A Woman Under the Influence” (John Cassavetes, 1974);
XIV). “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie” (John Cassavetes, 1976)/“The Killing of a Chinese Bookie – The Director’s Cut” (John Cassavetes, 1976);
XV). “Opening Night” (John Cassavetes, 1977);
XVI). »Vredens Dag« (Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 1943);
XVII). »Ordet« (Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 1955);
XVIII). »Gertrud« (Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 1964);
XIX). “Abigail’s Party” (Mike Leigh, 1977);
XX). “Life Is Sweet” (Mike Leigh, 1990);
XXI). “Safe” (Todd Haynes, 1995);
XXII). »Sátántangó« (Tarr Béla, 1994);
XXIII). «No Quarto da Vanda» (Pedro Costa, 2000);
XXIV). «Juventude em Marcha» (Pedro Costa, 2006);
XXV). »Sensuela» (Teuvo Tulio, 1972).
Runner-ups to round-up places XXVI–XXX: «La Règle du jeu» (Jean Renoir, 1939); “What Happened Was…” (Tom Noonan, 1994); “The Wife” (Tom Noonan, 1995); ״להוציא את הכלב״ (ניר ברגמן, 2007); ״תעשה לי ילד״ (יובל שפרמן, 2008).
II). »Melancholie der Engel« (Marian Dora Botulino, 2009);
III). “Dogville” (Lars von Trier, 2003)/“Manderlay” (Lars von Trier, 2005);
IV). “Nymphomaniac: Volume I” (Lars von Trier, 2013)/“Nymphomaniac: Volume I – The Director’s Cut” (Lars von Trier, 2013)/“Nymphomaniac: Volume II” (Lars von Trier, 2013)/“Nymphomaniac: Volume II – The Director’s Cut” (Lars von Trier, 2013);
V). “The House That Jack Built” (Lars von Trier, 2018);
VI). ״הבורגנים״ (איתן צור, 2004/2003/2002/2001/2000);
VII). «Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma» (Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1975);
VIII). «Vase de noces» (Thierry Zéno, 1974);
IX). «Singapore Sling: Ο Άνθρωπος που Αγάπησε ένα Πτώμα» (Νίκος Γεωργίου Νικολαΐδης, 1990);
X). “Savage Grace” (Tom Kalin, 2007);
XI). “Shadows” (John Cassavetes, 1958);
XII). “Faces” (John Cassavetes, 1968);
XIII). “A Woman Under the Influence” (John Cassavetes, 1974);
XIV). “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie” (John Cassavetes, 1976)/“The Killing of a Chinese Bookie – The Director’s Cut” (John Cassavetes, 1976);
XV). “Opening Night” (John Cassavetes, 1977);
XVI). »Vredens Dag« (Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 1943);
XVII). »Ordet« (Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 1955);
XVIII). »Gertrud« (Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 1964);
XIX). “Abigail’s Party” (Mike Leigh, 1977);
XX). “Life Is Sweet” (Mike Leigh, 1990);
XXI). “Safe” (Todd Haynes, 1995);
XXII). »Sátántangó« (Tarr Béla, 1994);
XXIII). «No Quarto da Vanda» (Pedro Costa, 2000);
XXIV). «Juventude em Marcha» (Pedro Costa, 2006);
XXV). »Sensuela» (Teuvo Tulio, 1972).
Runner-ups to round-up places XXVI–XXX: «La Règle du jeu» (Jean Renoir, 1939); “What Happened Was…” (Tom Noonan, 1994); “The Wife” (Tom Noonan, 1995); ״להוציא את הכלב״ (ניר ברגמן, 2007); ״תעשה לי ילד״ (יובל שפרמן, 2008).
Last edited by Cinephile on Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:45 am, edited 8 times in total.
^ Sensuela, nice
Forgot to send in my votes, even made a letterboxd list and everything lol.
Forgot to send in my votes, even made a letterboxd list and everything lol.
I would be interested to know what you think are some wonderfully crafted films that unjustly get dismissed as "teen girl stuff". There are a few that I really enjoy, most specially A Cinderella Story, which I believe would be lauded as modern day Lubitsch if a more "esteemed" director had their name attached to it.Evelyn Library P.I. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:31 pm Oooo, this sounds fun! I'll be sure to submit a ballot.
Done! I couldn't resist voting for a Mary-Kate & Ashley movie
Mean girls and clueless are good 
Definitely. I feel like they're widely regarded as classics in cinema circles tho, especially Clueless
once i was at a friend's house, lots of us were drinking and shit, and cats were talking about throwing on a movie. i was like "how about a high school classic we can just have on in the background" (i don't want them putting on s/t i might want to watch in more focused circumstances) my friend is like "like what" and i'm like "i dunno, dazed and confused, clueless, fast times" and then this person that i do not know is like "haha you went from clueless to fast times, what a random jump!" and i'm like "well they're both movies directed by amy heckerling that take place at high school..." and she's like "oh, well SOR-RY for not being a movie buff" and to this day i have no idea what i could have possibly said differently. i didn't care if she thought i was weird or disjointed or w/e about movies (i had known this person for an hour and determined that she was a fucking idiot), but like, if i had not pointed out the VERY STRONG connection b/w fast times and clueless i would've been doing a disservice to, not so much her or just her, but to everyone else there by not imparting that info
fuckin neurotypicals man. i found out recently that apparently it's normal for neurotypicals to decide to offer ideas/argumentation simply for social posturing, rather than for moving forward and improving the discussion. fucking mindblowing
once i was at a friend's house, lots of us were drinking and shit, and cats were talking about throwing on a movie. i was like "how about a high school classic we can just have on in the background" (i don't want them putting on s/t i might want to watch in more focused circumstances) my friend is like "like what" and i'm like "i dunno, dazed and confused, clueless, fast times" and then this person that i do not know is like "haha you went from clueless to fast times, what a random jump!" and i'm like "well they're both movies directed by amy heckerling that take place at high school..." and she's like "oh, well SOR-RY for not being a movie buff" and to this day i have no idea what i could have possibly said differently. i didn't care if she thought i was weird or disjointed or w/e about movies (i had known this person for an hour and determined that she was a fucking idiot), but like, if i had not pointed out the VERY STRONG connection b/w fast times and clueless i would've been doing a disservice to, not so much her or just her, but to everyone else there by not imparting that info
fuckin neurotypicals man. i found out recently that apparently it's normal for neurotypicals to decide to offer ideas/argumentation simply for social posturing, rather than for moving forward and improving the discussion. fucking mindblowing
LOL i fall for it every time too. it's a kind of trollingCurtis, baby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:54 am
fuckin neurotypicals man. i found out recently that apparently it's normal for neurotypicals to decide to offer ideas/argumentation simply for social posturing, rather than for moving forward and improving the discussion. fucking mindblowing
they can easily bait me into arguing passionately while everyone stares at me like i'm nuts. i have to be careful 
-
Evelyn Library P.I.
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:36 pm
I went through a bit of a phase a few years ago where I watched several '90s & early '00s teen girl movies, and they meant something to me, despite their problems. I wouldn't say many of them are especially well-crafted and a lot of them have some pretty icky moral problems, chiefly homophobia. Anyway, some thoughts on what I remembering watching:
In general, I think the auteur genre film canon remains too determined by movies for and about boys and men. Until recently, no auteur critic could be expected to champion Amy Heckerling as the Howard Hawks of her era, because almost all the auteur critics were cishet men who would respond to Rio Bravo's portrait of a cishet male friend group but not respond to Clueless's portrait. And so long as you wouldn't be taken seriously as a critic unless you responded to almost all of the (cishet male) greatest hits, the people who thought Clueless was art wouldn't be welcomed into critical respectability. To this day, the directors championed as vulgar auteurs are chiefly men making movies for predominantly male audiences, whereas someone like Anne Fletcher or Nancy Meyers, who could just as easily warrant such assessment, are ignored.
As for that woman who was like SORRY for not being a movie buff, I fully support dismissing such people!! People who think one's knowledge is threatening or pretentious, rather than interesting and good for discussion, can be crossed off the list of compatible conversation partners. That's why I love this forum, where we can say things like Teuvo Tulio was hot without getting looked at funny
- I liked Bring It On, despite problems.
- I adored Legally Blonde (and even liked Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde)
- I didn't like Mean Girls at all, tbh - I found it's messaging confused, and I didn't find it fun.
- 10 Things I Hate about You was disappointing.
- But then there's Clueless - Clueless is really in a league of its own, I think, and deserves to be considered a great work of popular film art.
- There's also 13 Going on 30, whose trailers (seen at age 11) suggested the most trans resonant movie I'd ever been exposed to. I still haven't watched it, as I don't want to be disappointed. Sort of like those scholars of Ancient Greece who decided to never actually go see the Parthenon, for fear it wouldn't live up to expectations.
- Only recently have I started exploring Mary-Kate & Ashley - the movies have problems, but aren't artless, and they carry an immense emotional weight for me as the VHS aisle girl movies I was too afraid to ask for for Christmas when I was 6. In that context, it barely matters if they're good, because OMG I'm actually watching Mary-Kate & Ashley.
In general, I think the auteur genre film canon remains too determined by movies for and about boys and men. Until recently, no auteur critic could be expected to champion Amy Heckerling as the Howard Hawks of her era, because almost all the auteur critics were cishet men who would respond to Rio Bravo's portrait of a cishet male friend group but not respond to Clueless's portrait. And so long as you wouldn't be taken seriously as a critic unless you responded to almost all of the (cishet male) greatest hits, the people who thought Clueless was art wouldn't be welcomed into critical respectability. To this day, the directors championed as vulgar auteurs are chiefly men making movies for predominantly male audiences, whereas someone like Anne Fletcher or Nancy Meyers, who could just as easily warrant such assessment, are ignored.
As for that woman who was like SORRY for not being a movie buff, I fully support dismissing such people!! People who think one's knowledge is threatening or pretentious, rather than interesting and good for discussion, can be crossed off the list of compatible conversation partners. That's why I love this forum, where we can say things like Teuvo Tulio was hot without getting looked at funny
So different from some other websites!Evelyn Library P.I. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:17 pm I went through a bit of a phase a few years ago where I watched several '90s & early '00s teen girl movies, and they meant something to me, despite their problems. I wouldn't say many of them are especially well-crafted and a lot of them have some pretty icky moral problems, chiefly homophobia. Anyway, some thoughts on what I remembering watching:
- I liked Bring It On, despite problems.
- I adored Legally Blonde (and even liked Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde)
- I didn't like Mean Girls at all, tbh - I found it's messaging confused, and I didn't find it fun.
- 10 Things I Hate about You was disappointing.
- But then there's Clueless - Clueless is really in a league of its own, I think, and deserves to be considered a great work of popular film art.
- There's also 13 Going on 30, whose trailers (seen at age 11) suggested the most trans resonant movie I'd ever been exposed to. I still haven't watched it, as I don't want to be disappointed. Sort of like those scholars of Ancient Greece who decided to never actually go see the Parthenon, for fear it wouldn't live up to expectations.
- Only recently have I started exploring Mary-Kate & Ashley - the movies have problems, but aren't artless, and they carry an immense emotional weight for me as the VHS aisle girl movies I was too afraid to ask for for Christmas when I was 6. In that context, it barely matters if they're good, because OMG I'm actually watching Mary-Kate & Ashley.
In general, I think the auteur genre film canon remains too determined by movies for and about boys and men. Until recently, no auteur critic could be expected to champion Amy Heckerling as the Howard Hawks of her era, because almost all the auteur critics were cishet men who would respond to Rio Bravo's portrait of a cishet male friend group but not respond to Clueless's portrait. And so long as you wouldn't be taken seriously as a critic unless you responded to almost all of the (cishet male) greatest hits, the people who thought Clueless was art wouldn't be welcomed into critical respectability. To this day, the directors championed as vulgar auteurs are chiefly men making movies for predominantly male audiences, whereas someone like Anne Fletcher or Nancy Meyers, who could just as easily warrant such assessment, are ignored.
As for that woman who was like SORRY for not being a movie buff, I fully support dismissing such people!! People who think one's knowledge is threatening or pretentious, rather than interesting and good for discussion, can be crossed off the list of compatible conversation partners. That's why I love this forum, where we can say things like Teuvo Tulio was hot without getting looked at funny
Heathers is easily my favorite of this sub-genre.
-
Monsieur Arkadin
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 5:56 pm
Having just cranked through the entire John Sayles filmography... I felt like Baby It's You, his foray into the "teen girl" sub-genre was a particularly strong effort. Plus it was fun to google afterwards in an attempt to figure who the hell Robert Downey Jr. was. (spoiler... he was drinking tea in the background of one scene because all his lines were cut.) Roseanna Arquette is a sort of underutilized talent in my opinion. So it was fun to see a whole film built around her.
i have fond memories of valley girl with a young nicolas cage
pretty in pink and other john hughes movies not so much
pretty in pink and other john hughes movies not so much
i was born in '87 so i only caught up to the clueless cult in the early 2000s, but by then it was already considered an unimpeachable cultural object at least in my upstate ny friend circle. andrew sarris but it on his top ten of the year list! andrian martin picked it as one of the ten best of the 90s in the 2000 film comment poll!
amy heckerling auteurism is a little more complicated i think. her legacy rests on 3 movies (fast times, clueless, and vamps) made over 3 decades, with some noble failures (loser, johnny dangerously, i could never be your woman) and some pretty dire mainstream films (the two "look who's talking" movies, national lampoon's european vacation) mixed in. i haven't seen the clueless tv series but the other tv work is fine but anonymous in the way tv work for hire often is. i think it was really the cult success of vamps, and her and silverstone's victory tour of us arthouse theaters the cemented her as a real auteur behind clueless. i have a feeling there will be a pretty revealing autobiography written at some point.
there has been a lot written about how classical auteurism (which counters the discontinuities caused by industrial/studio film production by looking for patterns across a broad body of work) fails women filmmakers, who for a number of reasons too obvious to state here tend to have more limited, discontinuous careers; a blake edwards gets to auteur status through sheer stubbornness and attrition, while an amy heckerling (or a susan seidel or etc...) never even gets there. i'd say this is largely confined to english language industries though.
fwiw all the original vulgar auteurist kids were really into step up and (although i can't stand nancy meyers*) the intern took more space on my admittedly limited twitter feed than most other movies of that year.
13 going on 30 makes a great double bill with the deeply strange zac effron movie 17 again.
*i liked the parent trap as a kid
amy heckerling auteurism is a little more complicated i think. her legacy rests on 3 movies (fast times, clueless, and vamps) made over 3 decades, with some noble failures (loser, johnny dangerously, i could never be your woman) and some pretty dire mainstream films (the two "look who's talking" movies, national lampoon's european vacation) mixed in. i haven't seen the clueless tv series but the other tv work is fine but anonymous in the way tv work for hire often is. i think it was really the cult success of vamps, and her and silverstone's victory tour of us arthouse theaters the cemented her as a real auteur behind clueless. i have a feeling there will be a pretty revealing autobiography written at some point.
there has been a lot written about how classical auteurism (which counters the discontinuities caused by industrial/studio film production by looking for patterns across a broad body of work) fails women filmmakers, who for a number of reasons too obvious to state here tend to have more limited, discontinuous careers; a blake edwards gets to auteur status through sheer stubbornness and attrition, while an amy heckerling (or a susan seidel or etc...) never even gets there. i'd say this is largely confined to english language industries though.
fwiw all the original vulgar auteurist kids were really into step up and (although i can't stand nancy meyers*) the intern took more space on my admittedly limited twitter feed than most other movies of that year.
13 going on 30 makes a great double bill with the deeply strange zac effron movie 17 again.
*i liked the parent trap as a kid
TSPDT has started, gradually, revealing the outcomes of this poll.