[Show spoiler]
People are inherently attracted to conspiracy theories. On a psychological level, these theories give a feeling of power to those who feel powerless under strenuous everyday circumstances. The allure of conspiracy theories is similar to the allure of fictional books or movies, because fictional stories restore order, in a subconscious sense, to aspects of our lives that often have no apparent logic or reasoning. The willingness to succumb to a conspiracy theory, whether it be about the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, flu vaccines, the COVID-19 pandemic, or a Presidential election, is simply a mental attempt to attribute a narrative to disappointing, confusing, or horrific scenarios. When a person who often feels helpless is drawn to such theories and believes that he or she is one of the inside few who has a "real scoop" to tragedies, then that person is endowed with a self-esteem boost.
Most clear-thinking adults understand that a theory involving massive coordinated efforts on the part of multiple people to conceal a perceived truth (space aliens in Roswell, New Mexico or microscopic tracking devices inside vaccines, for instance) is likely false. When I look through my social media news feed on a daily basis and see distant acquaintances imploring, "Wake up, America!", before sharing nonsensical conspiracy memes, I wonder if these people who believe that the government is keeping monumental labyrinthian secrets from us have ever tried to keep a surprise birthday party secret from a friend.
The 1974 political thriller, The Parallax View, directed by Alan J. Pakula as the second feature in what would be known as his "Paranoia Trilogy" that also includes Klute (1971) and All the President's Men (1976), hit theaters in the midst of the Vietnam War aftermath, civil unrest, and the Watergate scandal, when the masses were questioning whether or not government truly had the best interests of its citizens in mind. This film, which draws its title from the "parallax" phenomenon, where the perception of objects and motion varies according to vantage point (Think of telephone poles that fly by quickly to a motorist's eyes while trees farther away from the road seem to stay in place.), is a wildly fun testament to the fact that the process of delving into a conspiracy theory rabbit hole can be exciting, even when the rational mind is aware of logical fallacies.
The plot, concerning an unkempt, but ambitious journalist, played by Warren Beatty, who investigates the death of a senator and is ultimately drawn into the thrall of a secretive organization that covertly pulls the puppet strings behind major world events, merely grazes the brain, but its machinations command the viewer's attention in the same way that tabloid newspaper stories about UFO landings and Egyptian mummy curses catch the eye while one is waiting in a grocery store checkout lane. I can imagine that most people in the theater audiences upon this movie's release realized that the organization of assassins and its recruitment strategies were a tall order, but the filmmakers bring the concept to life in such a fast-paced and captivating way that we all want desperately to believe it.
Cinematographer Gordon Willis (The Godfather, Annie Hall) is the winning ingredient here, with his use of angular vistas, straight lines, and frame divisions within camera perspectives that often resemble comic book panels. The music score by Michael Small also pulls us closer, like flies to a spider's web, to immerse us into the espionage proceedings.
Warren Beatty is a revelation as the inquisitive reporter who, because of his past reputation for alcoholism and media sensationalism, may or may not be a reliable narrator. Through all of his escapades, he showcases a charm that eases us into his quest. I am reminded of his starring part as a compulsive gambler in The Only Game in Town (1970), because of the way that his manic energy allows us to sympathize with his bad decisions in Las Vegas. Be on the lookout for memorable appearances by Paula Prentiss (The Stepford Wives) and William Daniels (The Graduate) as well.
If you want action, then The Parallax View delivers in spades. A harrowing moment on top of the Space Needle in Seattle at the opening gives way to bar fights, car chases, and explosions. The use of American flag colors to great effect during the unnerving conclusion anticipate a similar fireworks scene in Brian De Palma's 1981 dark masterpiece, Blow Out.
This Criterion Blu-ray delivers the lightning-pace goods with a beautiful 4K restoration transfer and a technical presentation that is practically beyond reproach. Everything looks naturally "1970s filmic" as it should. An introduction with Alex Cox is...fascinating. Brief, but essential interview footage from Pakula, Willis, and assistant Jon Boorstin rounds out a tremendous release.
Nice review. I'll definitely check out the film.
BTW, I'll be sharing the below snippet to my own news feed. Thanks in advance. 🖤
How do the Criterion and Indicator Dietrich/Von Sternberg sets compare? I can look at extras lists all day but without sampling any of them, it's a bit difficult to tell which is more worthwhile.
people are inherently attracted to conspiracy theories. On a psychological level, these theories give a feeling of power to those who feel powerless under strenuous everyday circumstances. The allure of conspiracy theories is similar to the allure of fictional books or movies, because fictional stories restore order, in a subconscious sense, to aspects of our lives that often have no apparent logic or reasoning. the willingness to succumb to a conspiracy theory, whether it be about the kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, flu vaccines, the covid-19 pandemic, or a presidential election, is simply a mental attempt to attribute a narrative to disappointing, confusing, or horrific scenarios. When a person who often feels helpless is drawn to such theories and believes that he or she is one of the inside few who has a "real scoop" to tragedies, then that person is endowed with a self-esteem boost.
most clear-thinking adults understand that a theory involving massive coordinated efforts on the part of multiple people to conceal a perceived truth (space aliens in roswell, new mexico or microscopic tracking devices inside vaccines, for instance) is likely false. When i look through my social media news feed on a daily basis and see distant acquaintances imploring, "wake up, america!", before sharing nonsensical conspiracy memes, i wonder if these people who believe that the government is keeping monumental labyrinthian secrets from us have ever tried to keep a surprise birthday party secret from a friend.
If Kino had trouble with Verhoeven's early Dutch films, maybe Criterion can twist that darn producer's arm for them. Would love all of those to be released.
Woody Allen? Currently considered controversial. Same thing with Roman Polanski. Criterion won't touch anything of theirs right now due to a renewed interest in their past discretions.
Has Criterion ever actually said anything about either one to confirm that as a likely explanation for them avoiding either one?
In the 15 years that Criterion released laserdiscs (1984-1999) they only ever released two Polanski films, both of which they re-issued on DVD (and one of those on BD) over the next 10 years. They also released three more of his films over the next five years.
Given that Criterion has the reputation of acquiring licenses for films and then not releasing them until years later, there's no reason to believe -- other than wanting to believe -- that Polanski's current reputation has made them skittish.
As for Allen, again, they released two of his films on LD, the second of which, Crimes and Misdemeanors, was released in 1997, five years after the allegations of abuse first came out. That they haven't licensed any of his films for DVD and BD could be accounted for by the fact that other labels have fallen over themselves to release his films in those formats.
Now, it may well be true that Criterion is antsy about releasing films from either director because of their reputations. But there's nothing that suggests that That Is Unquestionably The Reason.
Given that Criterion has the reputation of acquiring licenses for films and then not releasing them until years later, there's no reason to believe -- other than wanting to believe -- that Polanski's current reputation has made them skittish.
Someone mentioned that Criterion was trying to pick up the film The Tenant to release for years, but Paramount wouldn't give it to them. Then Paramount finally was willing to give it them recently, but Criterion passed on it which was odd as they were asking for it for a long period of time. Shout then swooped in and picked up the film.
Ever since the Me Too movement became a thing, Criterion haven't released Polanski and Von Trier movies. Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's not. I don't think it is.
Ever since the Me Too movement became a thing, Criterion haven't released Polanski and Von Trier movies. Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's not. I don't think it is.
Ever since the Me Too movement became a thing, Criterion haven't released Polanski and Von Trier movies. Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's not. I don't think it is.
They also haven't released any Akira Kurosawa movies since Dreams in 2016. They've only released one Sam Fuller movie since their previous two were released 10 years ago. They haven't released any Truffaut films since 2015. And the list goes on. Are we to conclude that there's something hinky about them as well? No one wants to believe in coincidence, but it happens all the time.
I'm not saying that Criterion isn't giving Allen and Polanski the cold shoulder because of their personal issues. I'm just saying that it's short-sighted to claim that that must be the reason for the lack of releases just because it seems like the obvious reason.
I'm not saying that Criterion isn't giving Allen and Polanski the cold shoulder because of their personal issues. I'm just saying that it's short-sighted to claim that that must be the reason for the lack of releases just because it seems like the obvious reason.
Not sure if you saw my previous post, but Criterion passed on licensing The Tenant after it became available, which was a film they were trying hard to for a long period of time. That alone should tell us something.
Not sure if you saw my previous post, but Criterion passed on licensing The Tenant after it became available, which was a film they were trying hard to for a long period of time. That alone should tell us something.
All it tells us is that they 'passed on licensing The Tenant after it became available'.
I’d imagine the decision to work on titles is down to the teams at the labels. Shout doesn’t have the same public presence as Criterion, so there’s a difference.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
