indieWIRE has posted the partial results of their critics' poll:http://www.indiewire.com/movies/2007/12/critics_poll_07.html. The rest of the list will follow tomorrow. I'm happy to hear that Carlos Reygadas' amazing SILENT LIGHT didn't qualify for the list because it's found a US distributor, although Tartan Films' vague statements about it don't give me much hope for its fate. (Going straight-to-DVD would be a worse fate than not getting released at all; this film demands a big screen as much as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and 2001.)

Here's a link to the article Steve refers to. (see below)

Interesting list of films, which lists directors like Rhomer, Maddin and Ferrara being unable to get their new films distributed.

I at least hope that Ferrara's GO GO TALES gets a R1 NTSC DVD release, because his last film, MARY, still isn't out on R1 DVD as far as I know.

http://www.indiewire.com/movies/2007/12/critics_poll_07.html

Can there be a more arcane top ten list than this? Or do New York editors get together over lunch to pick the ten best unpublished novels?

I think there's a big difference when it comes to film, since a lot of movies have a strong life in the festival market yet don't get theatrical distribution. More often than not this has nothing to do with the quality of the work, but the simple fact that the films aren't "commercial".

Vincent

Of course they seem arcane, they don't have distributors. Lists of undistributed movies always focus on highly acclaimed films that critics have seen at international film festivals. I saw SECRET SUNSHINE, USELESS, YOU THE LIVING, and THE MAN FROM LONDON only because I went to the Toronto Film Festival. They are all very worth seeing, and will probably remain mostly unseen in the US because distributors don't feel there in a large enough audience here for slow, artistically-challenging, foreign films.

There's a bit of a difference between an unpublised novel and a completed film that can't get distributed in the U.S.

I'm sure that (New York) book publishing houses do have in-house discussions whether deserving novels in foreign languages should be translated into English and published.

Unpublished novels are a bad analogy to films that go undistributed in the U.S. Would you have a problem with THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS running a poll about the 10 best novels published - in English or any other language - outside the U.S. in 2007 without American publication lined up? Thanks to the proliferation of film festivals in North America, the existence of subtitles, other region DVDs and piracy, SECRET SUNSHINE is a lot less arcane here than some great, untranslated Korean novel. The films in this poll do have some access to North American audiences, but mostly through roundabout means.

I see now that my analogy was terribly unfair. Whereas the ten best unpublished novels are known by less than 1 per cent of the reading public, the ten best unreleased films are probably familiar to perhaps 2 per cent of the film-going public.

To me, it's more reasonable to champion the unseen work of a collective than that of an individual, just as a very general, unspecific to the work in question, rule.

which of course makes them lousy. If they were worthy of distribution or publication, ignorance of them wouldn't exist.

And as we all know, only things that are popular and well-known are good.

:rolleyes:

Vincent

If America's publishers were as timid as America's film distributors, then that list of ten best unpublished novels would almost certainly include the work of Joyce, Murakami, Dostoyevsky, Zola, Cervantes, Proust, Marquez, Pynchon and Vonnegut.

David, I wonder if you're looking at the indieWire list sideways; it is, of course, "arcane", and not a list most people can compile, and the vast majority of the country don't know the movies being listed, and never will. But that's probably the point. The purpose isn't the same as most year-end Ten Best lists, in which the reader saw or had opportunity to see most or all of the films. The list is to intended to get discussion and interest buzzing about some films the compilers find worthwhile, in the hope that someday you WILL be able to see them. I think the list is supposed to be helpful and interesting, not simply esoteric.

It's a scientific fact :lol:

The very act of writing about a film like FROWNLAND or THE ROMANCE OF ASTREE AND CELADON makes it less "arcane." When the indieWIRE list was presented by the VILLAGE VOICE (which ran no poll last year and is doing a very similar one in conjunction with the L.A. WEEKLY this year), it coincided with a series at the Brooklyn Academy of Music of the past year's best films. This always incldued a sampling from the undistributed list, including many films that had never played New York. The list was always intended to help get films seen.

By all means let's begin the discussion and the buzz about the list. Contra the opinions of Messrs Blanton and Pereira, every one of the titles may be outstanding. Alas, I must excuse myself from the debate for I've seen not one film on the list. I will note that the excellent BUDDY'S BATH, a film I shot and directed, was not included, but that is not to suggest that it is equal in merit to those mentioned.

I dunno - I found it a rather over-sudsy affair, myself.

Don't let my gruglings dissuade you, however - keep scrubbing away at it! Don't let all your hard work go down the drain!

This is a joke, right?

Vincent

No, I've not even seen the top-ranked SECRET SUNSHINE.

Believe me, they won't :unsure: