1989 poll

[liquidnature]

any chance of a deadline extension? if not that's okay. have a couple i'm wanting to watch but have limited time. watching beijing watermelon right now which i'm really loving

[Lencho of the Apes]

If there's a popular mandate, I suppose we could extend; we've never done it before. Me personally, there are movies I had hoped to see left over at the end of every polling period, so I just shrug and move on. (Do people possibly think that a three-week period isn't enough in general and we should change the schedule to 4 weeks for each year polled?)

PS: The next year scheduled is 1906, which makes a week of wiggle room possible. The usual schedule would be
1989 Mar 4 - Mar 25/1906 Mar 25 - Apr 1/19XX Apr1 - Apr 22
but we could equally well do it as
1989 Mar 4 - Apr 1/1906 Mar 25 - Apr 1/19XX Apr1 - Apr 22 and allow people to use the week of Mar 25 - Apr 1 for 1906 plus 1989 or 19XX as they see fit.

Open call for expressions of preference, speak your minds!

[thoxans]

speak your minds!

did you watch sndn3bwo!? if not, extend! if so, cool! and still extend! i think that actively engaging with the poll, and watching a flick specifically for it, is grounds for an extension

[Lencho of the Apes]

What, you've quit stalking me? That herts. Yes, I watched it. Your vote is registered.

But I thought actively engaging with the poll and watching movies specifically for it was the core of the game here. I couldn't care less about people who swan in on the day a new year is announced to tell us what they like from that year and then bail -- it feels as though they're perfect ascended masters and know everything already.

[liquidnature]

If there's a popular mandate, I suppose we could extend; we've never done it before. Me personally, there are movies I had hoped to see left over at the end of every polling period, so I just shrug and move on. (Do people possibly think that a three-week period isn't enough in general and we should change the schedule to 4 weeks for each year polled?)

PS: The next year scheduled is 1906, which makes a week of wiggle room possible. The usual schedule would be
1989 Mar 4 - Mar 25/1906 Mar 25 - Apr 1/19XX Apr1 - Apr 22
but we could equally well do it as
1989 Mar 4 - Apr 1/1906 Mar 25 - Apr 1/19XX Apr1 - Apr 22 and allow people to use the week of Mar 25 - Apr 1 for 1906 plus 1989 or 19XX as they see fit.

Open call for expressions of preference, speak your minds!

oh okay, no worries. hadn't paid much attention to the scheduling. no reason to extend it just for me, sounds like you have a good system. besides, i can't ensure that will actually have time to watch more

[Curtis, baby]

i rewatched when harry met sally... well, i saw it when i was a kid. it was racist and sexist. but better than i expected. won't make my list tho

[kanafani]

But I thought actively engaging with the poll and watching movies specifically for it was the core of the game here. I couldn't care less about people who swan in on the day a new year is announced to tell us what they like from that year and then bail -- it feels as though they're perfect ascended masters and know everything already.

I think the individual ballots are actually the most useful aspect of these polls. I just go through the lists of the folks I share common with whom I share a minimum of interests/taste, et voila, I have a nice list of recommendations to refer to immediately or later. Sometimes I watch a handful of movies during the game, and sometimes I watch none, not because I have already achieved Jedi-level mastery of the year, but because my movie viewing time is limited, and there are always other things I want to see beyond 1989 stuff. Anyway...

[MatiasAlbertotti]

I actively engage with the polls in general. I arrange my movie schedules around this year polls, and one or two other things.

I would like to get one more week, I'm in the middle of the Dekalog and would like to view Nostos and one or two more things. Still, I have left over movies in my hard drive from every year poll since I started participating in the forum. It's no big deal if collectively the decision is to move on to the next poll.

[Lencho of the Apes]

I think the individual ballots are actually the most useful aspect of these polls. I just go through the lists of the folks I share common with whom I share a minimum of interests/taste, et voila, I have a nice list of recommendations to refer to immediately or later. Sometimes I watch a handful of movies during the game, and sometimes I watch none, not because I have already achieved Jedi-level mastery of the year, but because my movie viewing time is limited, and there are always other things I want to see beyond 1989 stuff. Anyway...

The initial ballots are indeed quite useful... and it would not be good for me to be intolerant of people whose movie-watching time is limited... but there are people for whom "and then bail" routinely is the sum of their involvement. They and only they, who seem to miss the point of "ongoing discovery" that the exercise gives opportunity for, are the ones who get up my nose.

[Silga]

I agree with Matias. I too schedule most of my film watching according to the Year Polls. I watched 14 films from 1989 and at least 4 or 5 of them will end up on my final list.

[nrh]

for some reason this one seems like a good year for an extension? 90% of me saying that is because a huge number of movies on my immediate priority watches list just happen to be this year as well...

[ofrene]

Same here. I too schedule movie watching based on year polls and some director's poll (especially after not going local cinematheque actively) and always thought 3 weeks is short and tight for year poll...

[ofrene]

Eight Taels of Gold is unexpectedly good. Sammo Hung is soooooo good at romance...

https://youtu.be/9JUWuDYEk4Q

八兩金.jpg (142.42 KiB) Viewed 3097 times

[Lencho of the Apes]

Very good, then; unless a lot of dissenting voices come forward, 1989 will run until the end of 1906's week.

Does anyone else beside ofrene (and myself, honestly) think polls in general should run for four weeks?

[nrh]

Eight Taels of Gold is unexpectedly good.

totally forgot this was '89...mabel cheung is a pretty underrated director. her "an autumn's tale" is also great and makes a kind of pair with this.

[Silga]

Does anyone else beside ofrene (and myself, honestly) think polls in general should run for four weeks?

I think these polls should run for four weeks. Also, we are running short on years that are still left to do, so going with four weeks would extend the current run of year polls.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Does anyone else beside ofrene (and myself, honestly) think polls in general should run for four weeks?

Four weeks for polls would get my vote!

[rischka]

Very good, then; unless a lot of dissenting voices come forward, 1989 will run until the end of 1906's week.

Does anyone else beside ofrene (and myself, honestly) think polls in general should run for four weeks?

sounds good to me. i always have stuff left over

[Lencho of the Apes]

running short on years

I'm up for starting the whole cycle over when we reach the end... but that's a discussion for another day.

[karl]

Has no one else watched Banana Paradise, not the best Taiwanese film of the year only because it had the bad luck to be released in the same year as The Greatest Chinese-Language Film Ever Made (https://rateyourmusic.com/list/unj/gold ... age-films/)? There's a pretty Blu-Ray copy on KG.

Or There Were Seven Simeons, one of the best documentaries ever made? A family of nice clean-cut Siberian musicians, desperate to escape the USSR, hijack an plane with terrible results. If you want a real downer for the evening it's a good choice. My better 75% was crying at the end. I posted a link to Youtube on page 1 of this thread.

And really, gosh, more people should see that Kazakh film Revenge: whoa!

Three rocksolid suggestions from Karl, though few here seem to share a minimum of my interests/taste. There's no accountin' for, eh?

I too am enjoying 1989. Plenty riches in these tail-end-of-Communist-era Soviet and Central & Eastern European films.

[flip]

i prefer three weeks if we're voting on that

[Lencho of the Apes]

Noted, thanks. Five in favor of four weeks, one in favor of three.

[pabs]

.
Four for me too.

But you know what? It'll only make me feel like I've got more time so I'll end up postponing things even more, and once again and I'll not see everything I planned to see.

I also have tons of leftover unseen films every poll.
.

[...]

But I thought actively engaging with the poll and watching movies specifically for it was the core of the game here. I couldn't care less about people who swan in on the day a new year is announced to tell us what they like from that year and then bail -- it feels as though they're perfect ascended masters and know everything already.

Really? wow...

[mesnalty]

Four weeks would definitely take some pressure off. On the other hand, I'm gonna have tons of films left over to watch whether it's three or four, so I'm happy either way.

[MatiasAlbertotti]

I'd love to have four weeks, I´d certainly watch more movies for the year polls.

Also, even if it's not part of the discussion, knowing that once we finish all the years we might start all over again makes me happy

[Silga]

knowing that once we finish all the years we might start all over again makes me happy

I'm smiling about this too.

[kanafani]

Lost in New York... I guess attractive bad actresses running in the streets of New York is not sufficient to evoke a compelling sense of the fantastique. I get where the Rivette comparisons are coming from, but... Rivette is on a whole different quantum level when it comes to maximizing the contribution of his actresses. Some of that is due to the difference in talent of the respective troupes/casts, but it goes much deeper than that: With Rivette, you feel that the performers are totally invested in the movie and are full conspirators/collaborators in the artistic process, which contributes immensely to the sense of bottomless wonder in his movies, the feeling of experiencing a fully formed magical parallel universe with its endless intrigues and conspiracies. There is none of that in Rollin's movie. There are interesting aspects and images, but they do not amount to much, not to me anyway. And the tawdry voice-over does not help matters at all ("what is the dream? What is reality?", "We are magical little girls. I look straight into your soul", "bla bla bla"). This feels like an overly ambitious, self-important attempt at artsy eroticism that fails in both registers. The only other Rollin movie I've seen is some forgettable euro trash thing with lesbian vampires... I don't remember the name. I guess he's just not for me.

[rischka]

ha i was just wondering yesterday how you would take this. i get where you're coming from but i sorta found the amateur quality charming

that said i still don't think i 'get' rivette. i couldn't finish duelle and the pirate movie was worse. don't stone me i will certainly try again

started watching near death and it's totally absorbing

[kanafani]

that said i still don't think i 'get' rivette. i couldn't finish duelle and the pirate movie was worse. don't stone me i will certainly try again

I did not know of this Rivette condition. It must not be left untreated. Did you try some of his other movies? The Duchess of Langeais? La Belle Noiseuse? Up, Down, Fragile? Quite different from duelle/noroit