Animated films have been accepted and even encouraged in the past here, the hope being that participants might use them as a means of introducing their young ones at home to the events of the past. If you're asking about next year, just hold off on that. We can discuss these matters when this year's challenge is over.

Again, they're already in for this year and we'll discuss future challenges at a later time.

I feel that kung fu movies don't fit the Drive-In/B-Movie/Exploitation Challenge, at least as I watch them (in the original language with subtitles). I probably said this in a discussion of this issue in a previous year, but I view them as Chinese equivalents of the western, as samurai films are Japanese equivalents of the western.

Discussion after this challenge is over should be interesting and could be useful. I don't understand how film noir became generally acceptable in this challenge (unless it was just exhaustion with the repeated inquiries about it) and zeitgeist is the exception that swallows the rule-it's anything that anyone wants it to be.

There are two kinds of sources: primary and secondary. Primary sources are those artifacts from a given era that give us insight into the people who lived then and there. Secondary sources are those commentaries made by other people from the outside looking in. The argument is that some movies are so consciously of their own times that they exist as a primary source for understanding their eras. Because they're not made after the fact, they would otherwise be ineligible here under the must-be-set-in-a-time-before-its-actual-production clause.

The one movie in my list (so far) that I didn't expect to qualify for this challenge was The Virgin Suicides. I watched Lost In Translation this month, and wanted to watch The Virgin Suicides first. I didn't realize that it was primarily set in the mid-1970s until I was watching it.

I didn't feel that the movie was overly concerned about the period details, although a lot of the music was the Top 40 pop of the time (we really needed the punk that began to get played on the radio about a year after this), and when I saw Josh Hartnett's hair, I was reminded of a couple of my friends from high school.

I assume that Sofia Coppola's aim was to tell a story relevant to contemporary teenagers, and I doubted whether this movie fit this challenge except in the most technical sense, but then I thought about it some more. I was about the age of the younger Lisbon sisters in the mid-1970s, and the process of deciding whether to include this movie in my list made me think back to that time. I knew a girl, who was a few years older than me, who killed herself then. I suspect that Coppola successfully conveyed the emotional world of the novel (which I have not read), and for me she captured the emotional feel of high school in this time, while still producing a work relevant for today's teenagers.

For the above reasons, The Virgin Suicides worked as a historical movie for me, as well as a reminder (as my wife sometimes observes when I comment on the price of hamburgers or gasoline) that this was a long time ago and I'm getting old.

Noir came in with zeitgeist, since many of them are a product of the times. I think for a lot of people, they take zeitgeist to include much more than it actually does.

Louis Jourdan is still with us and turns 91 tomorrow. TCM is running a bunch of his films, including some that are eligible for this challenge (AMAZONS OF ROME, MADAME BOVARY, DANGEROUS EXILE). I'll try and watch one of those or LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN. I watched one of his films for this challenge on Saturday: ANNE OF THE INDIES (1951), an unsung pirate movie with a great Jean Peters in the title role.


From MADAME BOVARY (1949):

I have often complained in these challenge discussion threads that they are way too inclusive.

My opinion: No film should be included unless it depicts an event that occurred PRIOR to the making of the film. Just because a film is made in the 1930's does not qualify it as a HISTORICAL film. That event should be an actual historical event ... and should not be a side note to the story (like X-Men First Class), but should be a major event in the story. That would exclude many Westerns, since though they depict a past time, it is still a fictional event. The only grey area I can see is a fictional film set in an actual historical war -- like MASH ... but my tendency would be to exclude them if they don't center around an actual historical event in the war.

It would have to be a specific war, correct? Rather than, say, Act of Valor, which is a military film but not about a war.

My preference is for looser rules just because I use the challenges as a way to catch up on unwatched items. So I would favor costume dramas even if they don't depict a particular historical event. However, I agree that it doesn't make sense to include films noir that depict a period that was contemporary to them at that time.

Duly noted. I'll address matters of specificity for future challenges more thoroughly in a couple of weeks.

Was this a question for this year's challenge or about hypothetical tighter restrictions going forward?

It was originally formulated as a question for this year, but what little I read about Act of Valor makes it pretty clear (to me) that it wouldn't qualify so it's more of a long-term clarification (war, but not military).

I agree on this particular challenge. The other challenges are broad enough to carry everything else.

I view this challenge as the opposite of the Make Your Own Challenge.

Previously, I was of the mind that "War" was acceptably synonymous with military films in general. Now that we have an Action Challenge, though, I guess it's fair to reexamine the breadth of our scope here. My original thought on the matter was that this was basically the Cowboys & Soldiers Challenge and I wasn't terribly concerned about those military films that weren't set during a specific war. This will require some consideration.

That's pretty much what I was thinking, but changed my mind when I read the guidelines. It kind of raises questions on numerous titles: Red Dawn (fantasy? zeitgeist?), Taps (probably not), Rambo?

I'm late on my updates, but I have now finally seen the Dollars/Man with No Name Trilogy! I shared my thoughts on A Fistful of Dollars earlier in this thread. Here are my thoughts on For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (links go to my Letterboxd reviews, quoted here for your convenience).

For a Few Dollars More
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
For a Few Dollars More
Watch a film that takes place during a century prior to the 20th Century (19th Century)
WESTERN - Watch a Clint Eastwood Western

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Watch a film that takes place during a century prior to the 20th Century (19th Century)
WAR - Watch 5 movies that take place during different American wars (Civil War)
WESTERN - Watch a Clint Eastwood Western

Alas, I've yet to see a single one of your examples but I know enough that your point is well taken. As I've noted previously, I'm of the mind that the advent of the Action Challenge allows us to become more discerning about such matters.

Since so much of the discussion thread the last page or so has been dominated by concerns over shoring up our eligibility standards, I'm curious to know how everyone feels about their own selections to date. Have you watched something expecting it to fit the spirit of this challenge as you understand it, but then felt it strayed too far? Have you changed your mind any about what the nature of this challenge is (or should be) because of something you've watched?

Question: which version of GOOD, BAD, UGLY did you see? The theatrical cut we saw here in the U.S. remains my favorite Leone. (I should point out I've seen every Leone western in theaters, either on initial release or reissue a couple years later.) The version that was "restored" about 9 or 10 years ago was, IMHO, an atrocity. The scenes that were put back in completely destroyed Leone's beautiful rhythms while not adding anything of value to the film. If that's the version you saw, I can understand your ambivalence.

Also, it helps to see these films in theaters with appreciative audiences. I remember seeing GOOD, BAD, UGLY on a triple bill with THE WILD BUNCH and BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE some 40 years ago and the crowd applauded three times during the credits of GBU: for Eli Wallach, Ennio Morricone, and Sergio Leone. We used to go to quadruple bills in Times Square that ran all three films in the "Dollars" trilogy plus Eastwood's first starring American western, HANG 'EM HIGH.

Zeitgeist. We were living in the cold war at the time. It wasn't the first time we had a movie dealing with the red scare where the commies invade and take over America. 60 years ago we had the film Invasion USA.

I think Red Dawn is a decent example of zeitgeist.

I haven't seen Red Dawn or Rambo either. Taps I would recommend for general viewing, but unless we're going really broadly military it wouldn't qualify. Military academies are by nature sort of timeless (I've never attended one so this is just my impression) so I don't think you'd count Officer and a Gentlemen, Lords of Discipline, Cadet Kelly, etc.

Just got home from a little family vacation. Two days with family in New Jersey, then two days doing touristy things in NYC. Anyone have any documentaries to recommend on the area/city?

Did the Empire State Building last night, and am searching for docs on it as soon as I post this.

September 11 films and the documentary known as Ghostbusters and it's sequel.

There was also the NY miniseries by Burns-not-Ken

The DVD that the library has is this 1-disc edition from 1998. There are some scenes that were only in the Italian cut, but they're presented individually as bonus content and not added to the film itself. Run time is 161 minutes.

That brings up a subject I'm planning to explore in a blog post soon, actually, about the appeal of seeing classic/catalog films in a theater.

So you saw the right version. Sorry it didn't bowl you over. Maybe if your first screening of it was in a theater...
I've seen it well over a dozen times over the years, either in theaters, on VHS or DVD. I have gotten tired of FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, though.

I was going to watch some noir once I finished my westerns but I changed my mind and started watching things based on history and not just films that take place prior to today and calling them eligible. Even then, I felt slightly dirty counting David Copperfield. What's the difference between a costume drama and a western? Less drama and more action is about it.

C'est la vie. Perhaps it will grow on me. It wouldn't be the first time I was unimpressed by something that later I counted among my favorites.

The original novel by Dickens shows Copperfield born 1820 and follows his life from there. It was serialized from 1849-1850, and was subsequently collected and published as a novel. I'm reminded of Mr. Holland's Opus, which followed the teaching career of the titular character across a few decades comparable in scope to the life story of Copperfield. How would you feel about Opus for our challenge?

I would take this opportunity to note that three years ago, I was against the inclusion of costume dramas as part of the challenge. I also resisted zeitgeist films until this year. In fact, going through our 2010 discussion thread I'm reminded how many of these issues of eligibility became frustrating matters in the first place. I've come to favor all-inclusiveness mostly because the argument was made that my original scope was "too limited" and that I was attempting to impose too academic a perspective on this challenge. Do we feel differently now?

Also, I just realized that in addition to forgetting to comment on making my way through the Dollars/Man with No Name Trilogy, I've failed to post my thoughts on Grey Owl...