Round Three (Week 11)

Since completing the first round in this challenge, we have watched 8 more films in the past 11 weeks. Just goes to show how much time this process is taking and how busy we both are.

Traffic

This film by Steven Soderbergh was very impressive. I had seen parts of it before (or the whole movie without remembering all of it) and love the various ways that Soderbergh uses to convey changes and differences between the characters' worlds. In the interweaving of lives affected by drug trafficking, Soderbergh creates a fabric close to reality. The performances were spectacular, and only a few times did I notice a character giving a speech about the issue at hand (**cough** Topher Grace **cough**) as though serving as a megaphone for the director or writer. Overall, it was an amazing, valuable film.

Hard Boiled

This was my very first Chinese action film. Apparently John Woo made Chow Yun-Fat famous through this and many other action films. The introduction was excellent, with a huge build-up to an undercover operation to thwart an illegal guns trade. The action and violence was baffling, and way ahead of its time. I noticed where many recent American action films gained inspiration in the flying through the air shootouts and selective slow motion. The primary relationship in the film between a rough cop (Yun-Fat) and a deep undercover cop (Tony Leung Chiu-Wai) was complex and interesting, and I was invested in the character and the story. Considering the relative culture gap, this was a notable accomplishment on the part of the film, and I can definitely understand why John Woo made our list.

Erin Brockovich

I have seen this movie over and over again throughout my young adult life. I have always loved it and to me, it is Julia Roberts most complete and impressive acting job of her career. She is on the edge of categories for me in terms of whether she is more of a character actor or a flexible, versatile actor. Watching this movie again made me believe in her range, and the telling of this story happens so beautifully. I tried to watch this time with a critical eye and even so I was wrapped up in the humanity of this movie, loving the characters and the real people that they represent.

Once a Thief [**SPOILER ALERT**]

This action-comedy by John Woo came out a year before Hard Boiled. In this film the culture gap was more apparent for me, maybe because of the comedy aspect. I didn't understand why the characters did half of what they did, and the strange relationship turns and quick changes in emotion (not to mention the crazy-huge gun battles) made me confused for much of the film. Three orphans (two boys and a girl) who were raised by a thief grow up to become thieves, one of the men now dating the woman (his sister?). When he apparently dies, the other man (who has always been in love with her) begins seeing her, and when the other man comes back from the dead in a wheelchair (which in a climactic battle he leaps from after being shot in his paralyzed legs to reveal he actually WASN'T paralyzed) he shifts between moody glaring at them and bouncy, cheerful proclamations of his broken heart. In the end, they travel the world together and the couple gets married. The permanent third wheel "watches" their baby and does housework in a comical ending where he THROWS THE BABY. It just threw me for a loop, but was a funny, interesting movie to watch.

The winner is Steven Soderbergh! Whether it is due to my more solid connection to the culture in which his films exist or my continued awe for Erin Brockovich, his movies were more fluid, complete, and understandable. I would love to see Woo's later work, but probably won't have time as we still have 180 movies left to watch FOR THIS OUTER BRACKET.

Hard Brockovich

Our third contest had Steven Soderbergh (known for passionate complicated dramas) vs. John Woo (famous for his Hong Kong action films). For Soderbergh we watched Erin Brockovich and Traffic and for John Woo we had some trouble finding his top works on Netflicks. Ideally we would have watched some from the For A Better Tomorrow series but instead we watched Hard Boiled and To Catch a Theif.

Traffic - 40/50
Genre- Ensemble Drama 9/10 The fact that Soderbergh is able to weave together so many plots and performances in which the actors don't interacte in many scenes is pretty amazing.
Characters- 8/10 Catherine Zeta Jones as the house wife married to a murderous drug dealer, and Benicio Del Torro as a Mexican law officer stand out amoungst many.
Mood, Theme, Ambience- 7/10 Confusion and fear on all sides eventually gives way to a calming peace.
Invetivness- 8/10 - One of the first films to use the color tinting that is so popular in films today. The way they use yellow tinting to highten the opressive heat in Mexico is very effective.
Film Quality- 8/10 The many sided picture of the drug trade in America works well from all angles.

Hard Boiled - 30/50
Genre - Action 6/10 extreemly violent for an action film and while inventive tends to drag in some of the less interesting action scenes.
Characters- 6/10 some of the most interesting work is done by the characters with less screen time. Such as the honorable villian who won't kill innocents.
Mood, Theme, Ambience - 4/10 Pretty much everything is blatently explained on screen in violent blood rippig detail. Some interesting work done in the realm of what makes a cop and villian.
Inventiveness - 8/10 This is where Woo does his best work. The long continuous action sequence that goes into and out of an elevtaor in one shot. The scene where the two opponents in the hospital end up on opposite sides of a group patients in a hospital.
Film Quality - 6/10 Too needlessly violent and obvious with the plot lines but pretty inventive in the action sequences and some of the characters.

Erin Brockovich - 38/50
Genre- Courtroom Drama - 8/10 This film changed the way the courtroom drama is done without ever being in a courtroom.
Characters - 8/10 fresh bold characters all over but lead clearly by Julia Roberts in the lead role of the woman who won't take no for an answer.
Mood, Ambience, Theme - 7/10 Stories of a woman in a man's world had been pretty typical by the late 90's but the way in which this film exploits stereotypes felt fresh and honest the entire way through.
Inventiveness - 7/10 The story felt a little too classic to truely feel inventive but the ways in which the plot twists and turns in unexpected ways without feeling unrealistic was pretty well done.
Film Quality- 8/10Classic story, pitch perfect script, and characters that by the end you were nearly cheering for.

To Catch a Thief- 30/50
Genre - Action Comedy 6/10 Action scenes too unrealistic and some of the Comedy too slapstick.
Characters- 5/10 Chow Young Fat showed range into comedy that I had never seen before in a cast that otherwise didn't stand out.
Mood Ambience Theme - 5/10 Introspection into what it was too be a friend/family and to be in love as well as the duality in most people between right and wrong. Pretty much what you would expect.
Inventivness - 8/10 Again Woo's best stuff is in the action sequences. You see things here such as the dance around red alarm wires and halting above the floor best sceen in Mission Impossible later.
Film Quality- 6/10 Some interesting stuff in the action sequences the comedy was only so-so maybe it didn't translate well.

The 2nd Match

This match-up ended up being incredibly interesting and the director pairing was more similar than anticipated. All of the directors are obviously talented, and the fluency of many of the films we watched in this match was elegant and beautiful. Making the final choice was difficult, because for each side, there was an incredible film in tandem with a disappointing film with potential for excellence.

The Exorcist

I had already seen this movie from William Friedkin, but watching it again from a more critical perspective, I found it just as entrancing and horrifying. This movie is classic horror, and uses no cheap tricks to get you involved, disgusted, and scared. It's visually interesting and wonderfully shocking to see this tale of evil unfold, slowly building to its crashing peak of an ending. I had forgotten how intense the characters were from Regan's desperate mother to the psychologist priest in the midst of a crisis of faith. One aspect that is totally unforgettable is how seamlessly Regan transitions from an innocent, likable little girl into a terrifying, sick monster.

No Country for Old Men

I really enjoyed watching this movie. It was impressive and visually amazing. I found it to be beautiful, apparently full of deep meaning and symbolism, and interesting. But there was a let-down in this film. It feels as if the Coen brothers are expecting you to repeatedly watch this movie and break it down into parts in order to glean the meaning from its pieces. I really, really wanted to get what they were trying to say, but found that it didn't happen quite clearly enough. I really loved the course of the film, but was disappointed in its lack of conclusive purpose. I'm sure it was there, but if it takes more than many discussions, repeated viewings and research to get the point, then it's a little too complex for the film genre, in my opinion.

The French Connection

Ugh. I'm sorry, I understand the appeal of this movie in its potential for intrigue and complex characters, but jeez, does it have to be so boring? It was difficult to keep watching this movie, and we had to distract ourselves with multitasking to get through the whole thing. I can't tell if the extremely fake blood from the opening sequence (which seemed completely pointless) and the incredibly slow scenes in which nothing happens just can't match the quick pace of the modern movies I'm used to or if this film is lacking in the hook department, but either way, the strengths can't overcome the downfalls. The lack of development of the relationship between the two main characters, police detective partners, and the seemingly random slow camera work just make too much of a hurdle for Gene Hackman's superb acting and the brilliantly extended chase scene through Brooklyn starting with a sniper shot and ending on the stairs of an above-ground subway platform to overcome. I'm glad I never have to watch this movie again. Sorry, Mr. Friedkin.

Fargo

I had seen Fargo before this competition, and similar to the experience of re-watching The Excorcist with a keener eye, I enjoyed it as much if not more than the previous times I've watched it. The film blends comic moments with intense violence without feeling contrived. The audience falls in love with Margie, the pregnant police chief of a small Wisconsin town, and not just because of her cute, mid-western accent (dontcha know) or genuine smile, but more because of her frank, open nature and quick intelligence. Like No Country, the movie feels carefully planned, but everything fits naturally and in the end we feel the conclusive message of the film: if we can keep our focus on the truly important parts of life, we can navigate through the seemingly impossible challenges and shocking realities that it presents us with. Not everyone deals with life this way, and once they have made a choice that focuses on what is less important (money, power, pride, or a fictional version of oneself), the situation quickly snowballs into tragedy.

Clearly, the Coen bros. are the winners as I didn't feel bored while watching either of their films. Next match-up: Steven Soderberg vs. John Woo!

Exorsizing the Coen Bros.

So the second round of the Director Showdown has now just come to a close. It saw William Friedkin facing off against the Coen Brothers. We have included the brothers together as they almost always work exclusively together.

For William Friedkin we watched: The Exorcist, and The French Connection.
For the Coen Bros. we watched: No Country For Old Men, and Fargo.

The Exorcist: Obviously this film is one of the most, if not the most, important horror films of all time. It reinvents the genre from older horror films that more closely resembled gore comics of the 1950s and brought the genre more in line thematically with dramatic films of the 1970s. The characters of Reagen, her mother, and the priest who's faith is being tested are all classically memorable and work well to write the script for similar characters well into today. Thematically Friedkin makes the horror genre relevant to a mainstream audience by melding issues of religious faith and modern society. One great example of this in the film are the scenes where the priest visits his elderly mother who is slowly deteriorating in a 70s version of a nursing home. You see a clear analogy to christ walking amongst the lepers but in this version of the story the christ-like savior is unable to save anyone. His faith is tested just as the mother's love for her daughter is tested by satan himself. The film blows away all previous attempts at horror special effects and remains today a horrific spectacle.

Genre: Horror 10/10
Characters: 7/10
Mood/Theme/Ambiance: 9/10
Innovation: 9/10
Film Quality: 8/10

Total: 43/50

No Country For Old Men: This film, much like The Exorcist, will have an indelible impact on the many films like it to come. It clearly is playing thematically on the western motifs throughout the film and spends much of the film building up a standard good vs. bad cowboy storyline. Though while the initial storyline itself may seem standard in no way does the film feel stale. In fact it feels quite the opposite bending standard plot points to its will like the chase scenes between Llewelyn Moss and Anton Chigurh right down to the heroes final shootout with the bad guy which takes place completely off camera. The characters as well feel typical and expected yet extraordinarily crisp and Anton Chigurgh may well be the best Western bad guy ever created. In my opinion the film's only fault comes in its complex themes and symbolism which one is able to recognize as important but no where near able to comprehend after a single viewing. So one is left after the initial viewing without a clear ending or understanding of what the film is about but a desire to understand what was going on.

Genre: Western 9/10
Characters: 9/10
Mood/Theme/Ambiance: 10/10
Innovations: 8/10
Film quality: 5/10

Total: 41/50

The French Connection: This film is for me a big disappointment. Winning Best Picture in 1972 and vaulting Gene Hackman into mega star status, I felt this film was set to blow me away. But instead after two failed attempts at getting through this film and finally managing to make my way through it, I was instead simply left expecting more. The first problem with the film is how slow it is. It does work hard to make everything feel real and gritty but in this it fails to make important aspects of the plot stand out or connect with the audience. Its clear that it is trying to make a realistic cop drama but in its attempts to access the banality of a typical investigation it simply succeeds in accessing the bordom cops must feel on an overnight stakeout. Its two main lead characters are interesting enough. An intelligent loving French drug dealer facing off against a gritty in your face New York cop did manage to flip the script on the typical cop drama storyline but that's about all it does. It may simply be that watching the film nearly three decades after it was made means that the topical and groundbreaking aspects fall by the wayside but there's little I can do to help that. I also will never understand how it is that Gene Hackman's portrayal of a bird-dogging gritty drunk of a cop is going to get young twenty something girls into bed. It did have an awesome chase scene though. Oh and it also had a lack of an ending which was again clearly intended but left the audience wanting more.

Genre: Cop Drama 5/10
Characters: 6/10
Mood/Theme/Ambience: 5/10
Innovations: 4/10
Film Quality: 4/10

Total: 24/50

Fargo: This films stands in stark comparison to The French Connection by doing many of the things that it did right and avoiding its pit falls. It centers around the true story of a kidnapping gone wrong in small town Wisconsin. The small town cop sent to investigate blows the audience away with her brilliance and folksy ways. The film is full of characters that you will remember and quote for days and this includes one scene characters such as the two Wisconsin bimbos that Marge interviews towards the middle of the film. As the plot unfolds the audience becomes clearly aware of how the characters internal faults lead them on into more and more precarious situations until it the film climaxes in one of the most memorable body dismembering scenes of any film.

Genre: Cop Drama 8/10
Characters: 9/10
Mood/Theme/Ambience: 8/10
Innovations: 8/10
Film Quality: 8/10

Total: 41/50

The Coen Bros won out with an average score of 41 over William Friedkin's 34 average. So the Coen bros will face Milos Forman in the second round.

The Battle of the Normans - We have a winner

After many weeks and four movies, we have a winner from the duel between Norman Jewison and Norman Taurog. Here are my reactions to the four movies and why the winner is Jewison:

Fiddler on the Roof

This movie was astoundingly well done in my perspective. It had all of the perfect elements of a musical and translated a theater production onto the screen beautifully. The addition of camera work and scene transitions enriched the story and movement of the characters. One of my favorite elements of camera work in the film is when Tevye begins a spoken internal monologue while talking with each of his daughters about their potential husbands. At this point, the camera suddenly shows that he is distant from his daughters physically as he talks to God about whether to allow them to marry. As I am rating movies based on how they make me feel, this movie carries a great deal of weight.

Boys Town

I can definitely see why this film was so impacting and important in its time. Coming from 1938, when the prevailing thinking was that someone was born bad and stayed bad throughout their lives (an idea which still pervades our current systemic and internal functioning), this film was progressive and possibly even subversive. The idea was shocking that someone could take a large group of orphan boys and foster in them a sense of community and responsibility. But Father Flanagan sticks to his belief that "no boy is bad" and viewers of the day were probably astounded that this story was based on reality. Beyond these powerful messages, the film was slightly stiff and formulaic, though there were moments from Mickey Rooney that were incredibly endearing, and the small, lovable orphan aptly named Pee Wee was irresistibly cute.

In the Heat of the Night

Oh my goodness. I can't believe I hadn't seen this amazing movie before beginning this tournament. Sydney Poitier helps this movie to burn with his apparent passion and commitment as an actor. The tension is palpable throughout the film, emanating from the screen and affecting the viewer. This is one of those films that so fluidly helps me to see another situation, another perspective and circumstance. This film is a sort of time machine that can help me better understand where we have been as a country and why. The acting, costuming, setting, and camera-work all came together to communicate with an audience. This movie is expressive and true and I loved it.

Pardners

Jerry Lewis is a master of physical comedy and the camaraderie and comedic partnership is apparent between him and Dean Martin. They bring the audience in to view their inside jokes and their own love for each other as great friends. I can't tell if this relationship between the stars puts up a slight barrier because we know that we can't be a part of it or whether I don't connect to the comedy as closely because it's from a different time period. Whatever it is, I found myself simply observing rather than enjoying a lot of the jokes. It is obvious that the two stars and the audience have come to expect a formula and they stick to it. But the movie is nevertheless fun.

So, our first winner is Norman Jewison! Congrats, Norman, you move on to face William Wylar. dun dun dun.

The first showdown

So after watching the first four movies of our massive director showdown I am ready to pick an initial winner...but first the completely unnecessary movie rating system with which I have made my decision:

Fiddler on the Roof - Norman Jewison
Genre- Musical - With its amazing blending of familial love and tragedy, bigotry and racism, and more memorable show tunes than you can believe 9/10.
Characters- From Tevye who somehow manages to be everyone's version of the lovable father to minor characters like Yente the town matchmaker filled with characters you can't forget 8/10.
Mood Theme Ambiance- The tavern scene where the jews and russians literally weave in out of each others dances to higlight how the two groups weave in and out of each others lives is worth 3 points alone- 8/10
Inventivness-Jewison adapted the film from the stage musical so he had a platform to work from but the way in which he brings the non stage elements to the film is remarkable. Note the end visual sequences of the jews leaving the villiage looking like something out of a Mark Chagall paitning. 7/10.
Film Quality- So many of the songs still live on today that you won't believe how many you know. Also the dancing will replay in your head for days and days. 9/10.

Total Score: 41/50

Boy's Town: Norman Taurog
Genre- Bio pick - the interesting true story of the life of Father Flannigan an American Catholic priest who starts a town for children run by children. 6/10
Characters- While Mickey Rooney blew me away with his charisma and acting chops the rest of the characters including Spencer Tracy's Flannigan seem all too saintly to be real. 4/10
Mood Theme Ambience - There is an interesting interplay between hope and doom that lives within each boy and ties together many of the characteristics of the Catholic faith. 5/10
Inventiveness - Taurog writes the script on how to get the most out of child actors. Give them lots of screen time doing action stunts and slapstick but let the adults do the heavy hitting emotionally. 6/10
Film Quality - I wouldn't say there were many magical moments in this film but I would definatly say that the story was centered and direct to its point. 5/10
Total Score: 26/40

In the Heat of the Night: Jewison
Genre: Crime Drama- Cleary takes the genre to a new level making dramatic statements about race, culture, and common humanity all the while interweaving a well put together crime tale: 9/10
Chracters - While Sidney Poitier would begin to be criticized for always playing a perfectly ideal black male his Det Tibbs comes across as angry but lovebale. Rod Steiger plays a near perfect southern sherrif and the rest of the cast fits well 8/10
Mood Ambience Theme - So much of the story is told through what is not said but implied and in todays less overtly racist time i feel like i missed a lot of it. One scene that highlights the mood well is when Poitier states he'll get a room at a motel only to have a local black family laugh as they carry his bags inside. 7/10
Inventiveness - A black man had never struck a white man on screen before this film and wouldn't have if they had followed the original script. Between Jewison and Poitier they worked one of the most racially charged moments of this or any film in possibly the most racially charged time in American History. 8/10
Film Quality - Movie moments abound in this film showing Jewison's range. 8/10
Total: 40/50

Pardners: Norman Taurog
Genre- Comedy - a film that easily highlights the slapstick commedy of Martin and Lewis. but is often too smooth and too polished. 5/10
Characters- the duo each play two characters both a father and a son but to say that the characters are over the top in an understatement 4/10
Mood Ambience Theme- An anti government moral message about the wild west with a bit to say about the nature of being partners 4/10
Inventivness- How Lewis can pull off that many falls and stunts in such long takes is amazing. Nothing else really stands out 3/10
Film Quality- The pair seems to be having a great time together. but the overall film comes off a bit too polished. 4/10
Total: 20/50

Average Jewison: 40.5/50
Average Taurog: 23/50

And my winner for this round is Norman Jewison.

Battle of the Normans

The first competition of our director show-down will feature Norman Jewison and Norman Taurog. While initially I had never heard of either of these directors and they seemed to sprout from obscurity from my perspective of limited experience, they are actually incredibly influential, powerful directors with impressive carreers.

Norman Taurog was a director from the earliest days of American filmmaking in the 1920's. He primarily made short films in mass numbers. He became notable for the film Skippy, the adaptation of a comic strip involving impoverished children of the slums. This film won him his best director award in 1931. Unfortunately, we won't be able to watch his first big hit as it is not available on DVD. His next major film nomination came for the film Boys Town, which began Mickey Rooney's carreer. I'm very excited to see him as a teenager. From this point he became more known for comedies rather than hard-hitting dramatic films and his formula for easy-going, family films that involved elements of song was utilized when studios wished to bring Elvis Presley to the screen. Taurog and Presley teamed up for a number of films, all widely successful, including Jail House Rock and Blue Hawaii. Taurog's third most notable credit goes to uniting the comedy team of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis for the first of many highly successful films. We will be watching Pardners, which is considered by many to be the quintessential Martin-Lewis team-up.

Norman Jewison was a highly successful director in the 60's and 70's working in the genres of light comedy, hard-hitting socially concious films, and musicals. One of Jewison's most notable musicals was Jesus Christ Superstar, which managed to tackle a grand theatrical story and bring the essence of the 1960's to the screen. The musical genre and social consciousness came together in the widely successful Fiddler on the Roof. This film granted him a nomination for Best Director from the Academy. He won Best Picture and Best Director for one of the most important race relation films of all time: In the Heat of the Night, which dared to talk about the highly current issue of race relations amid the riots occurring in the late 1960's. His work with race relations and film has never truly ended; in the late 90's, he produced The Hurricane, a film starring Denzel Washington as a boxer who has been wrongfully convicted of a crime and spends life in prison.

I´m very excited to see how this match-up turns out, but seeing as the victor will be meeting up with Wyler, they probably will only see two rounds.

The Match-Ups

Just one more time for reference, the top 32 directors (listed in a previous post) are not competing at all in the first round. The rest of the directors were divided into two groups, "upper" and "lower" and then randomly drawn out of a hat, so that one "upper" director was paired with a "lower" director for the first round of matches. Whomever wins in the first round will then meet up with one of the top 32 directors in the second round. The first round match-ups are as follows:

1. Norman Jewison vs. Norman Taurog (winner faces William Wyler)
2. The Coen Brothers vs. William Friedkin (winner faces Milos Forman)
3. Steven Soderberg vs. John Woo (winner faces George Cukor)
4. Orson Wells vs. Tony Scott (winner faces Joseph Mankewitz)
5. Quintin Terantino vs. Michael Bay (winner faces John Huston)
6. Sidney Pollack vs. George Hill (winner faces Robert Altman)
7. Peter Jackson vs. Bob Fossi (winner faces King Vidor)
8. Buster Keaton vs. Robert Rossin (winner faces Frank Capra)
9. Charlie Chaplin vs. Wes Anderson (winner faces Woody Allen)
10. Frank Borzag vs. Joseph Von Straussberg (winner faces Michael Curtiz)
11. John Hughes vs. David Lynch (winner faces Clint Eastwood)
12. Roman Polanski vs. Sam Wood (winner faces David Lean)
13. Brian DePalma vs. Paul Anderson (winner faces Sydney Lumet)
14. Gus van Sant vs. Warren Beaty (winner faces Francis Ford Coppola)
15. M. Night Shymalan vs. Robert Benton (winner faces Stanley Kubrick)
16. Tim Burton vs. Fritz Lang (winner faces Billy Wilder)
17. Robert Redford vs. James Ivory (winner faces Martin Scorsese)
18. Spike Lee vs. Mark Robson (winner faces Federico Felini)
19. Robert Zemekis vs. Barry Levinson (winner faces Ridley Scott)
20. Ron Howard vs. David Cronenberg (winner faces Eli Kazan)
21. George Lucas vs. Ernst Lubitsch (winner faces George Stevens)
22. Peter Weir vs. Leo McCarey (winner faces Oliver Stone)
23. Mel Brooks vs. Peter Yates (winner faces Cecil B. Demille)
24. Akira Kurisawa vs. Christopher Nolan (winner faces John Ford)
25. Michael Mann vs. Jim Sheraton (winner faces Frank Zinneman)
26. Lewis Milestone vs. Bernardo Bertolucci (winner faces Frank Lloyd)
27. Mel Gibson vs. Richard Brooks (winner faces Clarence Brown)
28. James Cameron vs. Otto Preminger (winner faces Alfred Hitchcock)
29. Howard Hawkes vs. Steven Dawldry (winner faces Mike Nichols)
30. Ang Lee vs. Arthur Penn (winner faces Frank Wise)
31. Ingmar Bergman vs. Vencente Minelli (winner faces Joel Schlesinger)
32. Carol Reed vs. Gore Verbinski (winner faces Steven Spielberg)

So there it is, folks. This part alone will take us about a century to complete. Then comes round two. Hope you'll be along for the crazy ride.

Laura's "Hippie" Rating System

As it seems that in my absence Eirik has taken it upon himself to portray my rating system as a hippie, go-with-the-wind, flight of fancy, I thought I might post to clear things up. There is definitely an element of "just gonna see how it feels" in the way I plan to process the films we are watching during this epic contest, but I think the reasoning behind this system and a more complete description will make me sound like less of a lazy ass. Not that I am any less of one.

Anyhow, I was trying to determine how much research would be going into the watching of each film, especially since Eirik had revealed to me that he was planning on taking technological advancements and impact into consideration. I am of the opinion that a really high quality film should be impactful whether or not the viewer has done research on the film. Also, great directors can produce timeless work that brings the context along with all of the elements in the film, not requiring someone to research the time in which it takes place or the context of the film in order to fully experience it.

I am coming from the perspective of the everyday movie watcher, as someone who would like to experience the film rather than dissect it. I have no intention of guarding myself against information and will welcome input in general conversation and the processing of a film with others who have seen it; these are things that I do all the time when I see movies. Basically, I am going to include everything that Eirik has in his detailed rubric, but rather than researching and examining a film to determine scores in each category, I plan to let the movie wash over me and see how much it impacts me when I watch it for the sake of watching it.

Also, I'm about to have a bunch of homework so I don't need to add any on myself.

My Vote

So my last and final setup post before the actual contest begins will be about how it is that I am coming to my decisions about films. While it appears that Batgirl will be applying the "How did it make me feel" mantra to her votes I felt that if I really wanted to do this right I had to put a little more thought into hw it was that I am coming to a decison on these films.

So will mulling it over I felt that it was important to put as much as effort as possible into discovering a way to make it so that no genre of film or era of film was signifigantly benefited or hindered by my decision. So my vote is going to be based on 5 catagories each with a ranking of 1-10 for a maximum score of 50 each film. Each director will then have 2 scores per round which will then be averaged for their average score for their films. The director with the higher average score moves on. This I think helps to promote those directors that consistently made excellent work rather than simply having a great film that get one or two amazing scores. Also as we move from round to round and new scores are brought in all the directors scores will be averaged to create their single average score for moving on or not.

Now the Five catagories I sill be using are ( each will be rated on a 1-10 scale per film) :

1. Genre- What genre was the film and how effective, influential, and creative was the film within that genre? This will benefit directors who shot exclusivley within a genre and make it possible to compare Teminator to The Maltese Falcon without signifigantly harming either.

2. Characters- Did the film craft full and complete characters? Were these chracters new and interesting and interact properly with themselves and plot the elements of the film? This is again possible to judge cross genre and eassily throughout time.

3. Mood, Theme, and Abience- How did the director utilize the non-plot driven elements of the film to complete the film? Again something that is going to be doable cross genre.

4. Inventiveness- In what ways was this film groundbreaking? This catagory is going to include both techinle achievements in film making as well as in new plot elements that then become standard or character interactions that become standard plot devices afterwards. This I think will help to benefit earlier films that may seem typical to a modern viewer that has seen the same plot elements over and over again in later films. But it will also to be possible to note which plot elements of new current films feel new and fresh.

5. Film Quality- How did the overall film fit together to make a singular statement or story? What wpic movie moments were created? Also did the director do at making a complete film?

Directors (cont.)

So the directors have been seeded as follows:
#1- Steven Spielberg, William Wyler, Billy Wilder, Martin Scorsese
#2- Woody Allen, Fred Zinneman, John Ford, Frank Capra,
#3- Alfred Hitchcok, John Huston, David Lean, Geroge Stevens,
#4- Elia Kazan, Sydney Lumet, Joseph Mankewikz, Mike Nichols,
#5- Francis Ford Coppolla, Geroge Cukor, Ridley Scott, Robert Wise,
#6- Oliver Stone, Robert Altman, Clarence Brown, Clint Eastwood,
#7- King Vidor, Michael Curtiz, Frank Lloyd, Stanley Kubrick,
#8- Milos Forman, Cecil B. Demile, Federico Fellini, Joel Schlesinger

These directors will have no oppenent in the first round.

Now the final 64 we broke into higher and lower group and then randomly paired them about the brackets:

Higher Group (in no particular order) Lower Group (again no order)
1. Charlie Chaplin 1. Michael Bay
2. Peter Weir 2. Leo McCarey
3. Ron Howard 3. John Woo
4. Peter Jackson 4. Tony Scott
5. Norman Jewison 5. Bob Fosse
6. Sydney Pollack 6. Wes Anderson
7. Roman Polanski 7. Paul Anderson
8. Carol Reed 8. Warren Beatty
9. Ingmar Bergman 9. Richard Brooks
10. David Lynch 10. Stephen Daldry
11. Steven Soderbergh 11. Barry Levinson
12. Frank Borzag 12. William Friedkin
13. Robert Zemeckis 13. Robert Benton
14. Robert Redford 14. Bernardo Bertolucci
15. James Cameron 15. Vincente Minelli
16. Mel Gibson 16. Geroge Hill
17. Howard Hawks 17. Norman Taurog
18. Ang Lee 18. Peter Yates
19. Spike Lee 19. Josef Von Sternberg
20. Michael Mann 20. Jim Sheridan
21. M. Night Shaymalan 21. Robert Rossen
22. Gus Van Sant 22. Mark Robson
23. Coen Bros. 23. Otto Preminger
24. Brian De Palma 24. Sam Wood
25. Mel Brooks 25. Arthur Penn
26. Buster Keaton 26. Ernst Lubitsch
27. George Lucas 27. Jamesd Ivory
28. Quentin Tarantino 28. Gore Verbinski
29. Orson Welles 29. Christopher Nolan
30. Tim Burton 30. Joel Cronenberg
31. John Hughes 31. Fritz Lang
32. Akira Kurosawa 32.

Directors

I have decided to combine two posts into one to sort of speed this setup process along. So therefore I am going to include both who the directors are and how they were seeded in this post.

Seeding for those that don’t know is a tool for tournament makers to attempt to ensure that the teams most likely to win meet in the championship match. Basically instead of randomly picking names out of a hat and possibly having the two top directors meet in the first round you rank the directors based on how you think they are going to do and put them at different places in the bracket to ensure that if they win your top matches will be towards the end of the tournament.

For this tournament we broke directors into groups of four and then randomly pulled them out of a hat for the top spots to still give some spontaneity to it. This would be very similar to how March Madness NCAA Championship Tournament is done.

Normally seeding is based on a team record or ranking but we don’t really have that when it comes to directors so I’ve again decided to base this on awards won and other distinctions. So basically directors received ranking points for the following: 3 points for a film that won either best picture or director in the Academy Awards. 2 points for a film wining either best director or best picture in the Golden Globes or is on the AFI top 100 movies list. And Finally 1 point for each film that that otherwise did not get the director a point but I feel is of noteworthy significance.

The Rules

Each Round two directors will face off.

We will watch 2 new films from each director per round and then based on that information determine who will move on in the tournament. In each successive round the director’s previous films watched will be considered as well as the films watched for that round.

If a director runs out of movies only the films watched in previous rounds will be considered. But the lack of film material will can be considered towards whether or not they move on in the tournament.

Director’s films will be selected for viewing in order from most hyped to least hyped. Films will first be selected where the director won the academy award for best director. Next films in which the director did not win best director but won best picture. Following that films that did not win the Academy Award for either award but won the Best Directing Category in the Golden Globes. Following that films that won the Best Picture in the Golden Globes. Following winning films will be films that were nominated for the above awards and did not win also following the same order of importance. Following that we will defer to the highest films that the director has on the AFI top 100 movies of all time. Once that list has been exhausted films will be selected based on whichever film the director is most known for amongst their remaining films. At this point it will likely be subjective but I will attempt to consult as many notable sources as possible. If there are ever films that are tied the films highest on the AFI top 100 will be the tie breaker. If that fails to work we will select the films that we most want to see.

If a film is inaccessible (i.e. not on DVD and therefore not retrievable via Netflix) then it cannot be considered in the tournament.

Both I and batgirl reserve the right to go back and adjust our reviews or picks based on the viewing of more material or changing of our mind. All reasons for adjustments though will be noted in the individual review.

Decisions of which director moves on in the tournament will be made based on whatever system the individual reviewer has decided to use. I believe that Batgirl has chosen to use some sort of hippie power whatever feels best system. While I on the other hand have determined a far more rigorous scoring system that I will blog about in the future.

Project Overview

I have started this blog to chronicle what is easily the most ambitious, likely longest, and certainly unnecessary projects of my life. Determining whom is my all time favorite film director. Now I understand that most people when confronted with a task like this normally rack their brain remembering favorite films and usually pick the first director they come across twice or perhaps dig a little deeper and watch a few films by some of the greats and then make a choice and call it a day.

But (unfortunately for me and anyone subjected to the future of this blog) that’s not my style. I have instead created the first (at least to my knowledge and I am sure as hell not going to look into whether it’s true or not) There Can Be Only One March (starting in July) Madness Director Showdown To The Death!!!...(not to the death).

We (and by we I mean me and my unfortunate co-blogger and girlfriend Batgirl who didn’t tell me to stop) have selected the 96 all time most recognizable/decorated/hyped directors of all time, placed them in a giant Tournament Seeded Bracket where they will face off 1-1 placing their best 2 films against one another and the winner moving on until a champion has been crowned.

Now a quick math breakdown has shown that with an 2 movie minimum per round per director and assuming an average running time of 2 hours per film were looking at a minimum of 760 hours of movie watching and I’m pretty sure that’s conservative.

Now I’m sure you have tons of questions: What Are the Rules? What Director’s Were Picked? Where Can I Complain About What Director’s Were Picked? What Qualifications Did You Use For Seeding The Tournament? What The Hell Is Seeding? Did You Make Some Sort of Giant Tournament Bracket For This And Hang It In Your Living Room? All these Questions and more, in fact many more, in fact far too many more questions to be answered in the posts to come. So tune in next week (or whenever I next post) Same Completely Under-Qualified Movie Critic Time, Same Completely Under-Qualified Movie Critic Channel.