The Criterion Collection

[Bad Sandwich]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Buddy, I don't care where it comes out, I'm not gonna buy it - I'm only saying it makes no difference to your life if another guy hopes a film doesn't come out from a label they like.

If this is what gets you worked up, I don't even know what to tell you.

Well "pal of mine" (lmfao) that it clearly has no bearing on my daily life has no bearing on my right to express how utterly dumb I find the concept. Just how far into Obviousville are we going to trek here?

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Bad Sandwich

Well "pal of mine" (lmfao) that it clearly has no bearing on my daily life has no bearing on my right to express how utterly dumb I find the concept. Just how far into Obviousville are we going to trek here?

I'll probably stop when I get to your house.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Inconceivable!

But on the flip side: why doesn't Irreversible deserve the prestige? Just because some viewers find it distasteful? That didn't stop oodles of other viewers from loving the experience of it and giving it praise and awards. It also doesn't stop other controversial or critically-divisive films from earning the prestige of a Criterion release. So why single out this one film? It's not the same as asking for Class of Nuke 'Em High to have a Criterion release or anything (that one would probably soil the company's reputation way more than Irreversible).

No one said it didn't deserve it. You're having an argument that nobody is having.

[ijustblumyself]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

With Salo, Pasolini is showing a negative perspective towards a fascist state, it's torture and violence has a symbolic purpose.

I do not need a 19 minute rape scene in a film to illustrate a woman's distress accordance to the naive idea of causality as a dominant function in life. There is a clear line between shock value and being distasteful.

Buñuel's slicing an eyeball versus him using a machete for 3 minutes on a woman.

The scene is meant to be visceral, it's meant to make you angry. The film begins with an act of violence which, in many other films would be 'justified'. What we get isn't justified, we just bare witness to the brutal reality of it.

By showing the disgusting nature of both the act and the retaliation I think the film successfully achieves what it sets out to do. But obviously, this is debatable.

[zkirkland]

Scanners for 17 and some change? SIGN ME UP!

[Bad Sandwich]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I'll probably stop when I get to your house.



No one said it didn't deserve it. You're having an argument that nobody is having.

That would be cute if it made a lick of sense (i.e. if I was the one saying laughably obvious things that don't warrant mention)

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Bad Sandwich

That would be cute if it made a lick of sense (i.e. if I was the one saying laughably obvious things that don't warrant mention)

Now you think I'm cute! No wonder we've become fast friends!

[myka22]

I think Irreversible would be an excellent film for Criterion to release because it doesn't even have a blu-ray edition. I find it slightly annoying when people clamor for Criterion to release films that already have excellent blu-ray releases. However, they were offered and passed on Enter the Void, so that may be an indication of how they feel about Noe.

Also, I got Ace in the Hole today and that booklet is just awesome.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

With Salo, Pasolini is showing a negative perspective towards a fascist state, it's torture and violence has a symbolic purpose.

I do not need a 19 minute rape scene in a film to illustrate a woman's distress accordance to the naive idea of causality as a dominant function in life. There is a clear line between shock value and being distasteful.

Buñuel's slicing an eyeball versus him using a machete for 3 minutes on a woman.

9 minutes. Not 19.

I think the length is crucial. Often, rape is trivialized in film by "tasteful" cuts that shelter us from the full extent of the horror. So, I applauded Noe for showing such hateful action in its full ugliness. I can understand why some may find it distasteful, but I can't imagine anyone finding the scene erotic.

This is a exactly why I hate (most) PG -13 violence. It trivializes it by making it seem light and without much consequence.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

No one said it didn't deserve it. You're having an argument that nobody is having.

Oh...well, thank goodness for that.

From the previous comments, I had interpreted that you were making the argument that folks don't want a Criterion release for it.

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

The scene is meant to be visceral, it's meant to make you angry. The film begins with an act of violence which, in many other films would be 'justified'. What we get isn't justified, we just bare witness to the brutal reality of it.

By showing the disgusting nature of both the act and the retaliation I think the film successfully achieves what it sets out to do. But obviously, this is debatable.

I honestly wondered if I would have liked the film a little better if it was told chronologically, making the revenge seem justifiable.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

9 minutes. Not 19.

I think the length is crucial. Often, rape is trivialized in film by "tasteful" cuts that shelter us from the full extent of the horror. So, I applauded Noe for showing such hateful action in its full ugliness. I can understand why some may find it distasteful, but I can't imagine anyone finding the scene erotic.

I think it has even more impact since it runs without any cuts.

[Bad Sandwich]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Now you think I'm cute! No wonder we've become fast friends!

Yeah, shucks! Btw I missed that little chestnut where you pretended that this sort of garden variety sardonic dismissiveness of something that strikes you as dumb constitutes "getting worked up". ALSO adorable
You're a real peach, no two ways about it

[SammyJankis]

Next up, five years on from "Enter The Void," Gaspar Noé has his next project brewing, entitled "Love." And of course, it sounds edgy. Maraval describes it as “a sexual melodrama about a boy and a girl and another girl...a love story, which celebrates sex in a joyous way. Gaspar feels that most films that touch on sex in traditional cinema are dark and dramatic, this will be really joyous… He says it’s a film that will give guys ‘a hard-on and make girls cry’.

Oh boy.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Oh...well, thank goodness for that.

From the previous comments, I had interpreted that you were making the argument that folks don't want a Criterion release for it.

He didn't say it didn't deserve it, and I certainly didn't say it (as I haven't seen it).

He didn't like the film and hoped they didn't release it. Liking something and talking about what the film deserves are two different things.

(I have no idea what he thinks the film deserves, maybe he has a strong opinion on that, I don't know)

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I think it has even more impact since it runs without any cuts.

I'm pretty sure most people would agree. Adding to that, the camera is stationary most of the time (as I recall). If Noe wanted it to be arousing, he would have employed some fluid camera movement throughout.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

He didn't say it didn't deserve it, and I certainly didn't say it (as I haven't seen it).

He didn't like the film and hoped they didn't release it. Liking something and talking about what the film deserves are two different things.

(I have no idea what he thinks the film deserves, maybe he has a strong opinion on that, I don't know)

[vader4]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

My wife wanted to watch this film when it was in theaters. I was very reluctant to watch it, because it had about 20 cautionary signs around the movie poster saying no refunds when you enter the room.

It is a terrible and unwatchable film, in my opinion, it's graphic violence and rape scenes are very distasteful. I find nothing poetic or enlightening in this film. This is the film I would discourage people to watch. The "pretentious" (I hate using this word) ending, is a simple, nihilistic statement that reveals nothing whatsoever, trying to justify all events prior (I believe the director is very naive)

I gave Noé a second chance when I watched Enter the Void which is by far a better film (although it still had a very simplistic view towards life). I prefer Refn's films, who has a very similar artistic view and style as Noé, with deeper subject matter.

Sorry, but in conclusion, I hope Criterion never releases this film.

I seldom join in on discussions in this thread, but I wholeheartedly agree with this. Irreversible is disgusting and gratuitous. Also, nice shout out to Refn.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

The scene is meant to be visceral, it's meant to make you angry. The film begins with an act of violence which, in many other films would be 'justified'. What we get isn't justified, we just bare witness to the brutal reality of it.

By showing the disgusting nature of both the act and the retaliation I think the film successfully achieves what it sets out to do. But obviously, this is debatable.

Yes it is debatable.

Actually the only good, in my opinion, this film has brought forth is the question of what is entertainment versus pornography and torture.

Like the main character in Videodrome, what he considered entertainment might as well been real torture.

A 19 min rape scene and a man's head being beat to a pulp for over a good minute is not what I define as entertainment or even watchable.

To each his own.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by vader4

I seldom join in on discussions in this thread, but I wholeheartedly agree with this. Irreversible is disgusting and gratuitous. Also, nice shout out to Refn.

Aww, come on Vader.

Oh and: NINE, 9, IX minutes.

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Criterion doesn't automatically equal prestige, as evidenced by such releases as Salo, Naked Lunch, Videodrome, or Eraserhead. Well, maybe those are more tasteful, but content-wise they have some pretty icky parts too.

Irreversible is not a movie I'd recommend to anybody necessarily, but it is an arthouse movie that leaves a hell of an impact, and I think it falls into Criterion's catalog pretty well. I might even get it if they do.

Just because something has "icky parts" (what?), that doesn't mean there can't be a sense of prestige.

[musick]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

Yes it is debatable.

Actually the only good, in my opinion, this film has brought forth is the question of what is entertainment versus pornography and torture.

only extremes with you and no middle ground

Originally Posted by Fellini912

A 19 min rape scene and a man's head being beat to a pulp for over a good minute is not what I define as entertainment or even watchable.

To each his own.

still sticking with this fictitious 19 minute scene, I guess you saw a version many of us haven't

[fahrenheit290]

Originally Posted by musick

sure, and while they are at it they can release any of the others from my wishlist that the rights holders have yet to release in North America

The Elephant Man

I would love to see a release of The Elephant Man. If done right, the B&W could be gorgeous. The cast of this film is impressive, from John Gielgud to Wendy Hiller to Anne Bancroft's cameo. Hopkins really carries it. Of course, John Hurt is wonderful.