2020 Movie Challenge

Varda is a blind spot for me. Have yet to watch any of her films.
Need to start on that at some point

The Criterion Channel seems to have a ton of her stuff, and watching it in order is really fun.

Cleo from 5 to 7 and Le Bonheur were particularly excellent.

I wouldn't recommend using Varda for your ten...she's got a good five

I liked all 10 of the films I watched from her. And there were still plenty left in the Criterion Varda collection.

I recognize that there may be some films, and That goes for any chosen director really, that may not be any good. It’s part of the risk taken upon choosing them for their ten films.
In this case it isn’t about the quality, but rather the experience gained from having watched their filmography. The ability to compare them to their contemporaries and other directors of such fame. I’m sure there will be plenty of quality films regardless.
That said, I decided to go with Youssef Chahine for The 2021 challenge. Mostly because he is an unknowing director to me up until a few months ago when I watched Cairo Station.
And I enjoyed Cairo Station, so there’s promise there.

The only argument against using Varda is that a good chunk of her filmography consists of shorts so it makes it a little easy to go through her filmography. In any case, my key criteria for picking directors/actors to dive into is that they've got to be interesting no matter how bad the individual films you watch may be.

(also hate to tell you this @Takoma11 but BPM didn't win the Palme d'Or)

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Whups!! I had it on a different list that also included films that were nominated.

I'm pretty sure I watched Brief Encounter this year, but I was planning to watch Paris, Texas soon anyways so that should have me covered.

The films I watched from Varda were mostly shorts (because I watched them in the order she made them), but I don't find shorts to be a lesser medium. And I like seeing how directors translate their sensibilities from a 5 minute film to a 90 minute one.

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast rule against watching shorts, it's just been my impression based on previous challenges that to have to make the time and effort to watch features is what makes the challenges, well, challenging.

That’s been my impression as well, and one I follow, but I think we can cut her some slack considering she did join pretty late.

I don't consider it "cheating" to watch shorts as part of a well-rounded cinematic "diet". I really like short films. I could have watched exclusively short films for Varda if it were just about cutting corners, but I was really interested in watching a filmmaker's work in strict chronological order.

I actually think that short films often get short shrift (no pun intended). They are often less well known and less talked about, but some of them are amazing. Varda's Salut les Cubains was an incredibly original, visually stimulating film that would have probably grown tiresome if stretched to a 70 minute run time. The time I invested in Varda's Salut Les Cubains was much better spent than the two and a half hours I gave to Mission Impossible: Fallout, that's for sure. I see no reason to count the latter as legit for a challenge and not the former.

I mean, didn't several of us watch Where Evil Dwells, which is only 28 minutes long?

I'm just a new guy but I agree that "shorts are movies too". I included many in the Halloween challenge.

Keaton's two-reelers, Un Chien Andalou, Tex Avery cartoons- all important, in my view.

Yep. Which is why I didn’t really kick up much fuss over it. I specifically eyed Where Evil Dwells when I thought about it, as I was typing.
Still, I avoid shorts for this, unless a specific category, because it makes it more challenging for myself. But! I recognize each get their own enjoyment out of this, so as long as you enjoyed them, that’s all that matters
I’m not policing this, as it isn’t my responsibility to do so, so please don’t take it as I am.

Not at all.

To me, the spirit of the challenge (and of any film challenge) is to expose myself to a diverse range of films, especially genres and creators I might otherwise never check out. I consider a film's run time to be maybe the least "essential" element of the film. Occasionally (as in something like Jeanne Dielman) the run time is an integral part of what is being presented in the film, but most of the time it's not something I think much about unless a film seems unnecessarily long in a way that implies too much going on or a lack of editing.

I am pretty regimented when it comes to accomplishing tasks/challenges (some might say more like OCD, but whatever). I wouldn't find it logistically hard to watch feature length films for all of the categories. For context, in addition to what I watched for this challenge I watched 90 other feature length films this year, and then a whole other 30 films for the Halloween challenge.

I genuinely consider short films to be worth my time. I also think that short films have a different vibe, just like the different skill set that it takes to write a compelling book using 170 pages instead of 400. If I start thinking about reading or movie watching as an endurance sport (where I have to sit through a certain number of pages/minutes or it doesn't "count"), I think it would take some of the joy out of it for me.

But that's just my approach. As you say, this is a personal challenge, there's no prize money at stake, and people should just take from it what makes them feel good.

As you already mentioned, since this is personal and up to each participant to decide, it shouldn't be an issue. That said, the degree of difficulty severely drops once you start including short films. Where Evil Dwells is not really an exception, because it was the longest film available I (and I assume the rest of you) could find for that specific category.

I guess.

I mean, I started the challenge in July (about 15 films I'd already watched in 2020 counted for the categories). I watched 14 films that were less than feature length (including Where Evil Dwells). The inclusion of some short films didn't make the challenge fly by.

I also think that challenges like this are the perfect opportunity to find high quality short films. Andrea Arnold's Wasp (which I watched for the Oscars category) was excellent. I wouldn't have encountered it if not for this challenge, and I'm glad I didn't swap it out for something feature-length.

I say quality over quantity. Krysar was much more interesting than How to Train Your Dragon.

Maybe short films could be added as a category in the future, if at all, to include them since they are a part of cinema history, and as Tak has already pointed out, worthy of being watched on their own merits.
Not a regular addition mind you, but something to consider for the future challenges.

@Takoma11 it's completely up to you and of course exploration is more important than anything in this challenge.


As I stated in the OP: 'How you count films is up to you. This is not a contest and it is up to each and every one to decide how they want to do this.'

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

I'm not so much defensive about my inclusion of short films as I am feeling like, generally speaking, I wish that short films weren't so frequently seen as lesser or even as their own category. Almost similar to the way that "foreign films" are often lumped together. There's a huge difference between Duck Amuck and something like Wasp. They are in different universes of tone and theme and even run time. Yet they would both get put under that same umbrella.

In short, the hill I'm choosing to die on is that everyone should have about 5-10% of their viewing be short films. And if you don't, um, you're doing it wrong.

As far as I'm concerned the length of a film is just another element, along with color/B&W, silent/talkie, 3D/2D, that does not signify the relative quality of the film. Some things benefit from length, others brevity.

Are Poe's short stories considered lesser works than King's The Stand because that's a massive novel? Is a 30-minute prog rock song more valid than a 2-1/2 minute Beatles song because it was "harder" to make?

In fact, I would like to see more short films now that our current streaming culture has eliminated our reliance on Prime Time TV time slots. And it's tough to get a short film shown in a theater but not to get it on a streaming platform.

To use an example that most can relate to: Back when SNL insisted on turning their skits into dreadful movies that nobody liked, I used to lament that 2-reelers were no longer a thing. A 20-minute It's Pat would no doubt be much more palatable than the 90 minute version we got.

(I realize I've just completely undermined my own argument by invoking It's Pat, but here's hoping my message came across anyway. Sometimes less is more)