Etcetera

25 More Films For The National Film Register

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 07:32:34 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Librarian of Congress James Billington notes "that up to half the films produced in this country before 1950 -- and as much as 90 percent of those made before 1920 -- are lost forever."  Since 1989, the Library of Congress (LOC) has been doing something about this by supporting an effort to identify, find and preserve American films which have proven to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically" significant.  The question put before you is -- are this year's 25 selections to the National Film Registry in keeping with the LOC's stated goals?

This year's list leans heavily in the direction of film classics with titles such as "Grand Hotel", "Wuthering Heights", "12 Angry Men", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", and "Naked City" fitting in that category.  There was only one film from the 90s and one from the 80s that made the list.  There was an animated entry --  one of the first long-form Disney cartoons (featuring Walt himself playing Practical Pig).  And there was a much smaller film, "Peege", a jarring treatment of the disposability of seniors in American families from the 70s.  The 25 on this year's list join the 450 films already on the NFR (arranged alphabetically).

As in any critical judgment like what sort of film deserves to be on what type of list, there are those who will find fault with selections made.  So it will be at TnT.  You might note that there is no new Hitchcock on the list while his classic "Strangers On A Train" remains unnamed.  That David Lynch gets some love with "Eraser Head" but not "Blue Velvet" ought to raise an eyebrow or two.  I could go on and on and name other movies missing from the NFR, all of which are culturally, historically or aesthetically significant (nudge, nudge "Pulp Fiction"), but I'll stop and let you have your say.  What films do you absolutely and positively believe deserve to be on the NFR?  Conversely, which ones do you think ought to be removed?  

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, film, classic films, National Film Register, film preservation (all tags)

This story: 2 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

A Couple I'd Like To See Added:

TonedEff.

Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 09:27:39 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

In addition to the three films mentioned in the write up, I would humbly suggest the following movies deserve inclusion:

  1. Oklahoma -- Sort of encapsulates what a big screen musical of the 50s is all about.
  2. The Great Escape -- Great cast and gripping story.  One of my favorite WWII movies.
  3. Dirty Harry -- If for no other reason than to recognize one of the iconic figures of American movies.
  4. The Sixth Sense --  The mother of all twist ending movies.
  5. Die Hard -- I mean if you're going to have Rocky on the list, why not this one that spawned another franchise.  Plus, it's a great movie.
  6. Airplane -- What's not culturally or aesthetically significant about Lloyd Bridges declaring "I sure picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue" and Robert Stack parodying himself?
  7. The Omen -- A really, really great "the Anti-Christ is among us" flick.
  8. Reefer Madness -- If this isn't culturally, historically and aesthetically significant, what is?

Shoot me, but I'd add Godfather III to the list to round out the saga of the Corleone family.  I know this will never happen in my lifetime, but if there isn't at least one pron movie on it (think Deep Throat) this list fails to capture a good portion of the history, culture, and aesthetics of that last half of 20th century American cinema.

2

Popular Films Shouldn't Be There...

port1080.

Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 02:39:39 PM EST

none

Really, the films that most need preserving are the ones that nobody cares about. Considering how easy it is to milk money out of the nostalgia industry, and how cheap it is to press DVDs (or BluRay/HD-DVD for that matter) these days, most films with any sort of audience appeal should be reasonably safe for years to come. Therefore, I do think it makes sense to concentrate on the older and more obscure films and hold off on the more recent works. Time and perspective also help in determining whether a film really deserves to be there or not - sometimes it takes a few decades to realize the impact a certain film might have had, and sometimes films that appear to be hot stuff end up being somewhat underwhelming in retrospect (Forrest Gump, for example, or really pretty much any Tom Hanks drama, for that matter).

This story: 2 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment