<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: More List-o-Mania
    
      by Jonathan Rosenbaum</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=943838&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: More List-o-Mania
    
      by Jonathan Rosenbaum</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#963831]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#963831]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David Ehrenstein]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[My List:
    
    1. Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train (Patrice Ch&Atilde;&copy;reau, 1998)
    2. 8&Acirc;&frac12; (Federico Fellini, 1963)
    3. The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955)
    4. Un condamn&Atilde;&copy; &Atilde;&nbsp; mort s'est &Atilde;&copy;chapp&Atilde;&copy; (Robert Bresson, 1956) 
    5. La Commune (de Paris, 1871) (Peter Watkins, 2000)
    6. The Red Shoes (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, 1949)
    7. Lola Mont&Atilde;&uml;s (Max Ophuls, 1955)
    8. La Cicatrice Interieure (Philippe Garrel, 1972)
    9. The Devils ( Ken Russell and Derek Jarman, 1971).
    10. Performance (Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg, 1970)
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David Ehrenstein]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:13:21 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#949092]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#949092]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[No. My only option is adding this brief afterword, which I've also written for the Spanish translation of the book (coming out first--I don't yet have a date for the American paperback).
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:08:07 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#953142]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#953142]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Mike Bartlett]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Phew - that's a relief in a funny kind of way - it's always been a personal favourite of mine. I look forward to the paperback edition of Essential Cinema - will there be other changes from the hardback version?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Mike Bartlett]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:41:37 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#952233]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#952233]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[This was sheer, embarassing oversight--along with my omission of Flaming Creatures in the same list. I'm owning up to both errors in an Afterword I've written for the eventual paperback edition of Essential Cinema.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:07:55 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#957902]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#957902]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Mike Bartlett]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Hi, Jonathan. Since the publication of your 1,000 list, it's acted as a great guide for what to seek out. But I'm puzzled - where's Chimes at Midnight? Didn't you at one point pick this as one your top ten films of all time? Surely it's as good as Kane, Ambersons and Touch of Evil?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Mike Bartlett]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 04:12:51 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#951695]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#951695]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Andrew]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I, like Kevil Lee, am watching films from the They Shoot Pictures (TSP) Top 1000 list (which changes every 6 months). It's a less personal, more general list that's been a wonderful starting point for a 20-year-old novice cinephile. It contains most of the basics for a cinematic education, as well as many still underrated films near the bottom: Irving Lerner&acirc;&#128;&#153;s Murder by Contract is one example. I too have enjoyed films from Jonathan's own personal Top 1000 list: Bunuel's The Young One and Fuller's White Dog are two gems missing from the other list. I suppose Mr. Rosenbaum tires of hearing: "Where is Casablanca?&acirc;&#128;&#157; or &acirc;&#128;&#156;Where is Gone with the Wind?" I enjoy his lists more because they are highly personal selections, which are not as much influenced by cultural pressures or critical consensus as are other populist lists. 
    
    Also: there is a checklist website which They Shoot Pictures links: http://www.listsofbests.com/list/591
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Andrew]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:10:18 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#956439]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#956439]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[binkieandmarcel]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[To Jonathan and all of you who responded to my request for a film studies reading list, thanks. I forgot to mention that I have read several of Jonathan's books, with pleasure and instruction, but they are the only books on film that I've read besides those of Stanley Cavell.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by binkieandmarcel]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:28:34 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#948410]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#948410]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Adam]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[The worst thing about the They Shoot Pictures website is that it features inane reviews by someone named Dan Schneider.  Here's an example:
    
    http://www.theyshootpictures.com/review_vertigo.htm
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Adam]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:11:49 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#968775]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#968775]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Cole]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[villainx: I hope you don't mind me saying, but it seems you aren't that familiar with Mr. Rosenbaum's criticism.
    
    There is a world of difference between being asked for "the best year for film" (as though it can be answered objectively) and Mr. Rosenbaum's "best lists" (a self-aware subjective exercise). It is the same difference between Paul Schrader's film canon and Mr. Rosenbaum's 1000 favorite films. When Mr. Rosenbaum makes his lists, he is quite aware of their subjectivity and how much he has yet to see (when talking about the great Japanese directors, he confesses that he has yet to experience a Naruse film). When the ilk of Paul Schrader and the AFI make their lists, it comes as across as some grand, objective, and unassailable statement, as though subjectivity were totally absent from their enterprise and that they have seen all that there is to see. When one looks at Paul Schrader's canon, one notices which films are missing. When one looks at Mr. Rosenbaum's list, one notices which films are mentioned.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Cole]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:14:19 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#964958]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#964958]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[villainx]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Ignatius, eh, my shoddy sentence structure fail me as I was responding to Jonathan's view of a best year choice as" a futile exercise" because "no one has seen all the movies", even while he merrily makes his assorted lists. 
    
    Was meant to be a friendly jab.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by villainx]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:39:53 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#970564]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#970564]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Danny Onions]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[No &acirc;&#128;&#156;BEST OF&acirc;&#128;&#157; list is ever going to satisfy everyone, but maybe that&acirc;&#128;&#153;s beside the point. Lists tend to be very subjective (as to the personality and experience of their creator) and are insightful for their inclusions as well as omissions. Maybe the disgust generated by the &acirc;&#128;&#156;AFI&acirc;&#128;&#153;S BEST OF&acirc;&#128;&#157; lists is due to the sense of definitive they attempt to impart coupled with the (added insult) hidden agenda of marketing DVD&acirc;&#128;&#153;s. After all, what are the Oscars, but a glorified &acirc;&#128;&#156;BEST OF&acirc;&#128;&#157; list that&acirc;&#128;&#153;s also a thinly veiled attempt to market Hollywood&acirc;&#128;&#153;s wares. I just wish lists were more a little more imaginative: the list I keep (and constantly revise) is &acirc;&#128;&#156;10 Movies I Haven&acirc;&#128;&#153;t Seen, But Want To&acirc;&#128;&#157;. After a dozen years of searching out Jacque Rivette&acirc;&#128;&#153;s &acirc;&#128;&#156;OUT 1&acirc;&#128;&#157; I finally got to scratch that off my list. Sadly, Stroheim&acirc;&#128;&#153;s &acirc;&#128;&#156;McTeague&acirc;&#128;&#157; still tops my list, closely followed by Welle&acirc;&#128;&#153;s &acirc;&#128;&#156;When are you going to finish Don Quixote?&acirc;&#128;&#157;
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Danny Onions]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:35:03 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#957819]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#957819]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Ignatius]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[But villainx, I think the difference is that Jonathan's lists more readily admit their subjectivity ("favorite films"), whereas th AFI list, or the Schrader list (for a more recent example), or an descriptor like "the best year for film" suggests an air of "academic" inquiry, a (perhaps subconcious) attempt to seem objective. I don't think we'd have as much of a problem with the AFI list if it was called "The 100 Favorite Movies of the Members of the American Film Institute." Then we'd just be saying, "Oh, well, some of these are shoddy choices, and it's pretty obvious they have't seen a lot of movies, but, on the whole, some of these are pretty good choices." Monolithic lists or statements require study of similair proportions.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Ignatius]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:35:52 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#963260]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#963260]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[villainx]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["I tend to find this a futile exercise because no one's seen all the candidates. "
    
    Ha.  Which is different from the exercise of 100 American movies, 1000 favorite movies, Best of the 90s, annual top 10, because it's not futile?  or everyone has seen the candidates?  or both?
    
    "Some recommended books (a short list)"
    
    I would also add Jonathan's PLACING MOVIES.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by villainx]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:21:50 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#953897]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#953897]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jim Gerow]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I think Jonathan's list strikes a very good balance among narrative, documentary, avant-garde and animation, feature-length and short, American and foreign films. I'm grateful for the link to the They Shoot Pictures list. The scale and comprehensiveness of the project would seem to make it more worth studying than most of the individual lists. I expect that the list will become most interesting for me as I work my way down toward the bottom, where I'll find more titles I haven't seen yet (of the top 200 there's only one I haven't seen, The Travelling Players).
    
    Also a very helpful book list for rounding out my collection. Of the less well-known titles, I'm going to order Tom Gunning's book on Lang. I also want to re-read Manny Farber's book. The Chris Fujiwara book on Tourneur, The Cinema of Nightfall, is excellent.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jim Gerow]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:51:30 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#951183]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#951183]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Andy Horbal]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Mr. Rosenbaum,
    
    Will you be revisiting your American Films list now that <A HREF="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i34f42e1d7ddfde7432e89f7132649a9f">the AFI is revisiting theirs</a>?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Andy Horbal]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:51:07 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#954990]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#954990]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jason Guthartz]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Not a single work in that list by James Benning, Robert Breer, Shirley Clarke, Bruce Conner, Chuck Jones, Arthur Lipsett, Len Lye, Gregory Markopoulos, et al?  Only one apiece from Frampton, Gehr, Ivens, Kubelka, and Warhol?  And only four from the greatest film artist of all, Brakhage?  Can it get any more absurd?  (Breer and Markopoulos are particularly egregious omissions.)
    
    Elite film culture has been so hermetically isolated from the other arts of the 20th century, that very few seem to be bothered by such a pervasive bias in favor of so-called "narrative" film (which is actually very abstract, by focusing on concepts like "story" and "characters" rather than what is actually projected onto the screen).  As long as critics are preoccupied with reflecting a type of politically-correct cosmopolitanism -- name-checking "foreign" films in order to avoid being labeled "provincial" and to appear "hip" -- and fail to call into question modes of perception, then the true scope of the art of cinema will continue to be conveniently ignored.
    
    binkie - besides Jonathan's books, I'd recommend Stan Brakhage's "Metaphors on Vision", P. Adams Sitney's "Visionary Film", Bruce Kawin's "How Movies Work," and David Bordwell's "Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema" (currently out of print, but incredibly insightful - even if you've never seen an Ozu film).  Some links you might find helpful:
    http://www.restructures.net/chicago/film-links.htm#misc
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jason Guthartz]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:34:26 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#948780]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#948780]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[To answer some of the above queries, in ascending order:
    
    1. Some recommended books (a short list): Noel Burch's THEORY OF FILM PRACTICE, Manny Farber's NEGATIVE SPACE (expanded edition), Andrew Sarris's THE AMERICAN CINEMA, Andre Bazin's WHAT IS CINEMA? (two volumes), James Naremore's MORE THAN NIGHT and THE MAGIC WORLD OF ORSON WELLES, Tom Gunning's book on Fritz Lang. Chris Fujiwara's book on Jacques Tourneur  
    
    2. I haven't had time to count how many of the 1000 items on the list I've seen.
    
    3. I don't have any opinion about the strongest year for films. I tend to find this a futile exercise because no one's seen all the candidates.
    
    4. Why no Gone With the Wind or Cold Water? Simple. Because I don't like them enough to include them.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:09:33 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#966423]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#966423]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[binkieandmarcel]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Hi Jonathan. On the subject of lists, I wonder if you could sometime offer a list/syllabus of readings for people who'd like to become film "literate." I was all-but-dissertation in English, so I know how to think about style, theme, character, etc. in literature, and I tend to judge films like novels, which obviously misses most of what makes film so unique. It's frustrating to be so clueless really when I hear people talk about "film language" etc. At this point in my life, I hardly have the time to educate myself just by watching tons of movies. I have my own favorite films, but I couln't make a very compelling case for why I like them so much, much less why they might be great films.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by binkieandmarcel]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:20:15 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#959187]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#959187]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Adam]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Jonathan, out of curiosity, I was wondering roughly how many of the TSPDT top 1000 you yourself have seen.  I imagine that the number is pretty close to that of this Kevin Lee fellow.  I also ask because when I notice that a particular film hasn&acirc;&#128;&#153;t made it onto your own 1000 list, I wonder whether it's the case that you haven't seen the film in question or that you just didn't think it worthy of inclusion.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Adam]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:32:50 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#949636]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#949636]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[villainx]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Craig, but 30-34 isn't a year.  
    
    66?  The only flick there that I'm familiar with is Blow Up.  I'm a bad movie snob.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by villainx]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:28:46 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#969852]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#969852]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Craig]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I forgot rowland Brown, Howard Hawks,John Stahl, Max Ophuls, Clarence Brown, Lewis Milestone, and God knows who else.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Craig]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:50:06 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#947319]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#947319]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Craig]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I meant to say "not only in american movies".  I think a great case can be made for the films of the early thirties(1930-1934)So many directors even minor ones were doing their best work at this time, and the unsung treasures abound.  Directors like Lacava, Dieterle, Bacon,Green, Del Ruth, Florey, Browning, Leroy,Fleming,Garnett,Wellman(with the exception of Track of the Cat), were never better.
    and Major artists like Mamoulian, Lubitsch, Dreyer, Pudovkin, Ozu, Fejos,Vertov,Renoir, Vigo, Dovzhenko,Eisenstein,D'arrast,Cukor,Wyler,Medvedkin,pabst,Lang, Murnau, Feyder,Leisen, Vidor, Borzage, Walsh were producing major works.  W.c. Fields and the Marx Brothers were at their artistic peaks as well.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Craig]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:42:07 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#951430]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#951430]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Oleg]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[1966 was the strongest year in my opinion:
    such important movies as Au hasard Balthazar, Persona, Andrei Rublev, The Battle of Algiers, Blow-Up, The Round-up, Hunger, The War Game, Closely Observed Trains, Rise of Louis XIV, Red Angel, Pornographers, The Ugly Story, Stravinsky Portrait.
    But I personally find the most precious part of Mr. Rosenbaum's list is the last one since 80s. Though his choice of not inclusion 'A Woman's Tale' is absolutely excusable, as he exposed me to O&Atilde;&sup1; g&Atilde;&reg;t votre sourire enfoui?, Goodbye, Dragon Inn and many other deserving  films, respectively.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Oleg]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:28:46 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#963681]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#963681]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Craig]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[1939 has been consistently overrrated as a movie year. I've always thought a case could be made for the early thirties being the greatest period in American movies(1930-1933)there are unsung treasures galore in this period, and only in American cinema.  I could also go with 1950(Any year that contains All About Eve, La Ronde, Sunset Boulevard, Stars in My Crown, Winchester 73,Adam's Rib, Rashomon, In a Lonely place,Born Yesterday,Third Man, Furies, Kind Hearts and Coronets, and many others can't be ignored.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Craig]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:13:56 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: More List-o-Mania]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#948568]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/22/more-list-o-mania/#948568]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[villainx]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Regarding your list, Jonathan.  No Gone with the Wind?  Or Cold Water?  
    
    But my main comment was for which would you, or anyone here, say is the strongest movie year?  I was leaning towards 1939 because I caught Rules of the Game and Last Chrysanthemum (and love Only Angels Have Wings).  But I suppose the Nouvelle vague years probably will win out.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by villainx]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:30:02 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




