The Criterion Collection

[deadheadbill]

Originally Posted by diskspinner

Complete haul from B&N sale

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

All good choices. I especially love Leave Her to Heaven, Gene Tierney is so good in that one.

Edit: Don't know how my quote got so effed up lol.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I love the new Criterion After Hours cover personally. Great colors, and illustration.One of my favorite covers of the year so far.

Here's a great interview artist Sister Hyde did with Forbes, that discusses the process of the cover (they also discuss The Trial's cover with artist Nessim Higson):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrynk...h=51ce0bdf103a

We are definitely living in an age where virtually no artist ever lets their art speak for itself. I'm not necessarily saying that would be a preferable method, but I have to admit I skip a lot of these self-analyses/explanations/appraisals/indulgences and just wish some of these creative people would shut the hell up and let their creativity do its job.

(Rant over). (Maybe).

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

We are definitely living in an age where virtually no artist ever lets their art speak for itself. I'm not necessarily saying that would be a preferable method, but I have to admit I skip a lot of these self-analyses/explanations/appraisals/indulgences and just wish some of these creative people would shut the hell up and let their creativity do its job.

(Rant over). (Maybe).

Do you get this upset when listening to an audio commentary with a director, and they mention their influence for a specific scene, or the film in general? It's really no different. Same for writers, chefs, musicians, etc... I actually don't mind at all learning the basis for a work of art, and what influenced the artist. I'd also be surprised if this was really a modern convention as you make it out to be. Pretty sure as long as artists have existed, there have been plenty that have never let the art speak for itself. I'd just say if it bothers you so much, then simply ignore it. Don't listen to audio commentaries, don't read articles with artists, or interviews with writers, etc...It's not like those artists are going out of their way to seek out an interview with Forbes. They were asked to talk about their covers. What artist would realistically turn that down? This is afterall part of their livelihood, and they could easily get more commissions based on those kinds of articles.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Do you get this upset when listening to an audio commentary with a director, and they mention their influence for a specific scene, or the film in general? It's really no different. Same for writers, chefs, musicians, etc... I actually don't mind at all learning the basis for a work of art, and what influenced the artist. I'd also be surprised if this was really a modern convention as you make it out to be. Pretty sure as long as artists have existed, there have been plenty that have never let the art speak for itself. I'd just say if it bothers you so much, then simply ignore it. Don't listen to audio commentaries, don't read articles with artists, or interviews with writers, etc...It's not like those artists are going out of their way to seek out an interview with Forbes. They were asked to talk about their covers. What artist would realistically turn that down? This is afterall part of their livelihood, and they could easily get more commissions based on those kinds of articles.

I actually don't like commentaries by people who worked on films unless they are discussing other people's films. And I rarely read interviews with creative artists unless they are capable of discussing other things besides just THEIR art and what it all means. I much prefer critics, historians, theorists, etc. So I already do pretty much ignore all of it as you suggested, but I think I'm still entitled to my opinion of it? It's probably ok that we disagree?

I've worked in a creative capacity my entire adult life and worked for all the major studios in LA as a writer/script editor/etc. and for the most part I never saw any purpose in discussing the work I created, not even to boost recognition or sales. If I'm in the minority, so be it. True, I never became rich and famous, but I did something I enjoyed and was paid for it. Working often as a ghost writer I had to learn to disregard my ego and vanity many times, but it's ok because I believe in my heart that most artists are the worst interpreters of their own creations. Creative and critical judgments come from separate parts of the brain and some are stronger in one than the other, which is why the argument of ridiculing a critic by saying "I'd like to see you make a better movie" is silly.

Even as just an objective audience member or reader or whatever spectator I might be at any given point, I want to try and do the work myself in understanding and appreciating art. That to me is part of the incredible joy of art. But when something proves especially challenging, I usually don't turn to the artists for help. So we can agree to disagree!

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I actually don't like commentaries by people who worked on films unless they are discussing other people's films. And I rarely read interviews with creative artists unless they are capable of discussing other things besides just THEIR art and what it all means. I much prefer critics, historians, theorists, etc. So I already do pretty much ignore all of it as you suggested, but I think I'm still entitled to my opinion of it? It's probably ok that we disagree?

I've worked in a creative capacity my entire adult life and worked for all the major studios in LA as a writer/script editor/etc. and for the most part I never saw any purpose in discussing the work I created, not even to boost recognition or sales. If I'm in the minority, so be it. True, I never became rich and famous, but I did something I enjoyed and was paid for it. Working often as a ghost writer I had to learn to disregard my ego and vanity many times, but it's ok because I believe in my heart that most artists are the worst interpreters of their own creations. Creative and critical judgments come from separate parts of the brain and some are stronger in one than the other, which is why the argument of ridiculing a critic by saying "I'd like to see you make a better movie" is silly.

Even as just an objective audience member or reader or whatever spectator I might be at any given point, I want to try and do the work myself in understanding and appreciating art. That to me is part of the incredible joy of art. But when something proves especially challenging, I usually don't turn to the artists for help. So we can agree to disagree!

Some fair points. I kept thinking about Picasso's Guernica when reading your posts on the matter. Picasso made a bold statement with that work. Not only the very title of the piece, but what he said about it during and after completing it. His input helped turn it into one of the most powerful anti-war statements ever produced. I have to wonder if events would have unfolded the same way had he took your stance, left the work untitled, and just let the world decide for themselves what the hell he had painted. A cover artist is not Picasso of course, nor are they changing history with their cover, but the same kinds of principles can apply to both.

Even knowing what Guernica is about, one can still find their own meaning in the work. Hell, that happens with movies too. A director could say the film was about such and such, and you'll have people on reddit saying the director is wrong, and it's really about this and that. I'm rambling on a bit, but think what I'm getting at is, even if an artist speaks about his work, that doesn't mean it's the final say on it.

Even on a subconscious level, there are things in that artist's creation that they themselves may not even realize are there. I just read an article yesterday where Robert Eggers was talking about his influences for The Northman (2022). He cited Conan the Barbarian as a big influence on it. And despite not intentionally doing some nods and tributes to that film, he realized after, that he still somehow did. An artists own interpretation of their work is perhaps not as subjective as the the interpretations you, or I would have, but they're not purely objective either. So in that sense, I don't personally see any harm in them adding their own voice to their creations. It doesn't mean we have to agree, or strictly adhere to their interpretations.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Some fair points. I kept thinking about Picasso's Guernica when reading your posts on the matter. Picasso made a bold statement with that work. Not only the very title of the piece, but what he said about it during and after completing it. His input helped turn it into one of the most powerful anti-war statements ever produced. I have to wonder if events would have unfolded the same way had he took your stance, left the work untitled, and just let the world decide for themselves what the hell he had painted. A cover artist is not Picasso of course, nor are they changing history with their cover, but the same kinds of principles can apply to both.

Even knowing what Guernica is about, one can still find their own meaning in the work. Hell, that happens with movies too. A director could say the film was about such and such, and you'll have people on reddit saying the director is wrong, and it's really about this and that. I'm rambling on a bit, but think what I'm getting at is, even if an artist speaks about his work, that doesn't mean it's the final say on it.

Even on a subconscious level, there are things in that artist's creation that they themselves may not even realize are there. I just read an article yesterday where Robert Eggers was talking about his influences for The Northman (2022). He cited Conan the Barbarian as a big influence on it. And despite not intentionally doing some nods and tributes to that film, he realized after, that he still somehow did. An artists own interpretation of their work is perhaps not as subjective as the the interpretations you, or I would have, but they're not purely objective either. So in that sense, I don't personally see any harm in them adding their own voice to their creations. It doesn't mean we have to agree, or strictly adhere to their interpretations.

I agree and I certainly didn't mean to make it sound like my preference is a catch all principle and/or practice, not even for me. Of course, there are exceptions. Everything I learned about watching, making and understanding films starts and ends with the book HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT. And what is that? The artist talking about his art! So my philosophy is not without holes and that's as it should be anyway because you never want to become enslaved by your opinions.

I don't mean to drop names so let me just say that I was lucky enough to be friends with a very famous author whose initials are R.B. and he told me exactly what you said about the subconscious. He said the best way to create is to feed your subconscious every chance you get and then trust it to come out when you are creating. That's why I often disagree with those who are quick to judge deep observations made by critics and teachers and who counter them by saying the filmmakers themselves never intended any of that stuff to be in there. Like you wrote about Robert Eggers above, don't dismiss the subconscious. Celebrate it!

Great discussion! I love talking about these things, but it's OT to a degree so I'll stop now.

[gekats]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Do you get this upset when listening to an audio commentary with a director, and they mention their influence for a specific scene, or the film in general? It's really no different. Same for writers, chefs, musicians, etc... I actually don't mind at all learning the basis for a work of art, and what influenced the artist. I'd also be surprised if this was really a modern convention as you make it out to be. Pretty sure as long as artists have existed, there have been plenty that have never let the art speak for itself. I'd just say if it bothers you so much, then simply ignore it. Don't listen to audio commentaries, don't read articles with artists, or interviews with writers, etc...It's not like those artists are going out of their way to seek out an interview with Forbes. They were asked to talk about their covers. What artist would realistically turn that down? This is afterall part of their livelihood, and they could easily get more commissions based on those kinds of articles.

George Seferis, a famous greek poet and Nobel prize winner, has written: "The interpretation of any work is an interpretation of ourselves, not of the one who created it, but of the one who reads, sees or hears it".

And here a question arises: Is it legitimate for any artist to limit the horizon of his audience's expectations?

I think not. Hence, in this sense, artists' analysis of own output is misguided and should be avoided. It would be best for audiences to be allowed freely to communicate with the works.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

A director could say the film was about such and such, and you'll have people on reddit saying the director is wrong, and it's really about this and that.

Even on a subconscious level, there are things in that artist's creation that they themselves may not even realize are there.

Best Interview Question Ever - Steven Spielberg "Thank you for that." - YouTube

[The Coconut God]

Originally Posted by gekats

George Seferis, a famous greek poet and Nobel prize winner, has written: "The interpretation of any work is an interpretation of ourselves, not of the one who created it, but of the one who reads, sees or hears it".

And here a question arises: Is it legitimate for any artist to limit the horizon of his audience's expectations?

I think not. Hence, in this sense, artists' analysis of own output is misguided and should be avoided. It would be best for audiences to be allowed freely to communicate with the works.

As much as I like the quote, I couldn't disagree more with the conclusion.

Film, like art in general, is at its core a form of communication. Artists are trying to communicate ideas, feelings, stories, etc.

As with all communication, there is always a degree of personal interpretation - we read and feel things differently, we're more or less able to translate the language being used, etc. There will be subconscious elements to what is being imparted, and meanings will change with time, just like it happens with words, but that doesn't mean we're not ultimately trying to understand each other, as well as ourselves.

There's a phenomenon in film fandom I like to call "The Emperor's New Clothes Effect", where ambiguity, ellipses and obfuscation tend to be overvalued, even when the content is actually vacuous. It's as if the value of a film is the sum of its potential interpretations, even as we each assign our own, and therefore don't much expand our knowledge or get out of our comfort zone through the experience. Meanwhile, we tend to undervalue complex and articulate works where the author is actually trying to say something.

I gained considerably more respect for Bergman for nonchalantly dispelling the mystery from the beginning of Persona in the interview quoted in the Criterion booklet. That knowledge should not stop you from assigning your own interpretations to the work if you so want. If knowing what the filmmaker tried to say or where they got their ideas from ruins the film for you, then perhaps it wasn't that good to begin with, and you were only protecting a delusion.

[gekats]

Originally Posted by The Coconut God

As much as I like the quote, I couldn't disagree more with the conclusion.

Thanks for the insightful post. Reading your post, I take all your points, yet fail to see how my pervious statements contradict yours..

One potential difference lies in perspective. My comment was from the creators' viewpoint, rather than that of the audience, which I think yours was based on.

Of course the audience is free to draw individual conclusions from a work of art, taking into account what an artist has to say about his/her output or not.

It is the artists, I argue, who should trust their own work to speak for itself and remain silent rather than provide "authoritative" self-analysis, which I feel distracts us (the audience) from the inherent qualities of the work they have put so much effort to produce.

Why would an artist resort to self-analysis (harmless promotional pieces mentioned in previous posts notwithstanding)? Do they feel their work is weak enough that they need to play the role of an advocate? Do they feel the audience is not able to grasp whichever deeper "meaning" it is they are trying to convey that they have to provide a roadmap?

In either case, this could be considered a contradictory or patronising stance, respectively.

Naturally, having a general discussion with an artist about his/her inspiration, beliefs, viewpoints is desirable to understand his work in a deeper way. (For instance, Pasolini's Heretical empirism is a masterpiece and very insightful; his points about editing spot on.) But a scene-specific/point-by-point analysis of some (own) work, I think destroys the alchemy of art appreciation and (for me at least) diminishes the respect I have for the creator. My two cents..

[Taylor3978]

The first shot of Roy Batty in Blade Runner is actually a reverse of a shot later in the movie where he is with Tyrell (where he is saying ruefully, Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for).



For a long time, I thought this was a brilliant bit of foreshadowing by a master storyteller.

But it turns out that they just realized while editing the film that they didn't have a shot introducing Roy, so they took a shot from later in the film and reversed it, figuring the audience would never notice.

Always a good idea to listen to the artist.

[The Coconut God]

Originally Posted by gekats

Of course the audience is free to draw individual conclusions from a work of art, taking into account what an artist has to say about his/her output or not.

It is the artists, I argue, who should trust their own work to speak for itself and remain silent rather than provide "authoritative" self-analysis, which I feel distracts us (the audience) from the inherent qualities of the work they have put so much effort to produce.

Why would an artist resort to self-analysis (harmless promotional pieces mentioned in previous posts notwithstanding)? Do they feel their work is weak enough that they need to play the role of an advocate? Do they feel the audience is not able to grasp whichever deeper "meaning" it is they are trying to convey that they have to provide a roadmap?

In either case, this could be considered a contradictory or patronising stance, respectively.

Naturally, having a general discussion with an artist about his/her inspiration, beliefs, viewpoints is desirable to understand his work in a deeper way. (For instance, Pasolini's Heretical empirism is a masterpiece and very insightful; his points about editing spot on.) But a scene-specific/point-by-point analysis of some (own) work, I think destroys the alchemy of art appreciation and (for me at least) diminishes the respect I have for the creator. My two cents..

There are at least three angles to an artist "explaining" their own work.

One is, yes, that they would want to make sure their message gets across. When the reason for creating art is to express yourself, if you're asked to elaborate or explain, of course you will do it - just like in any conversation. No, I don't think this diminishes the work, and IMO it's a loaded assumption that it does. There's no shame on either side to require additional explanation before you fully understand something. You might need a bit of explanation to understand a scientific article, a mathematical formula, or simply words in a foreign language. Why wouldn't that apply to art? Again, that need not erase the personal meaning you assigned to it before getting the "translation"...

Secondly, the artist might want to talk about their experience expressing themselves through film. I think that's fascinating to look into. Should it be off limits simply because it inherently ruins your interpretation of their work (based on the subjective standards you set for yourself)?

Lastly, it is a learning experience for aspiring filmmakers. The director wanted to say X, and that's how they went about it. Maybe you think it worked very well and you will borrow and adapt the approach yourself, or maybe you don't think they succeeded in getting the message across at all, so you'll look for a different approach, helping cinema grow in the process...

Call me a sadist, but "destroying the alchemy of art appreciation" (in the inflated, obstinately personal sense I glean from you)... sounds wonderful! We should do that more, and see and accept the truth and humanity behind art. I'm still willing to appreciate it when broken - indeed, I might appreciate it more.

[jcs913]

Was flat out blown away by how good One False Move was. The PQ is fantastic and I vaguely remember seeing the movie a while ago, but was more than pleased with it now. A fantastic drama with outstanding performances from all. A bit predictable ending, but great all-around. Highly recommended to all on the fence and at $25 on sale, it's a no-brainer.

[Egbert Souse]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

We are definitely living in an age where virtually no artist ever lets their art speak for itself. I'm not necessarily saying that would be a preferable method, but I have to admit I skip a lot of these self-analyses/explanations/appraisals/indulgences and just wish some of these creative people would shut the hell up and let their creativity do its job.

(Rant over). (Maybe).

I used to be a graphic designer and while on the surface it may seem indulgent, some of Criterion's frequent artists - especially Sister Hyde and Greg Ruth - are exactly the sort of people I want to know more about their creative process. I'm someone who reads the ten page articles on every bit of minutiae relating to remastering or restoration. Not everyone's cup of tea, but let the geeks geek out.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Taylor3978

The first shot of Roy Batty in Blade Runner is actually a reverse of a shot later in the movie where he is with Tyrell (where he is saying ruefully, Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for).

For a long time, I thought this was a brilliant bit of foreshadowing by a master storyteller.

But it turns out that they just realized while editing the film that they didn't have a shot introducing Roy, so they took a shot from later in the film and reversed it, figuring the audience would never notice.

Always a good idea to listen to the artist.

I enjoy your first interpretation much more than the truth. So in this specific case, for me it's a bad idea to listen to the artist.

[MifuneFan]

New Blu-ray release for Night of the Living Dead coming out October 31st. Presumably it will drop the digipak for a plastic case.

https://www.importcds.com/night-of-t...d/715515289016

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

New Blu-ray release for Night of the Living Dead coming out October 31st. Presumably it will drop the digipak for a plastic case.

https://www.importcds.com/night-of-t...d/715515289016

A step in the right direction. Now if Criterion releases some steelbook limited editions (with original poster art) they will be on par with their top competitors.

I guarantee no one is going to wait for the next sale to buy a limited edition original poster art steelbook Criterion release.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

A step in the right direction. Now if Criterion releases some steelbook limited editions (with original poster art) they will be on par with their top competitors.

I guarantee no one is going to wait for the next sale to buy a limited edition original poster art steelbook Criterion release.

Steelbooks? Ew! Please no!

[Fellini912]

My Back to the Future trilogy 4k steelbook sold by Zavvi.

The original poster art by master Drew Struzan

Just for comparison see below:

[Gigantic Gene]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

A step in the right direction. Now if Criterion releases some steelbook limited editions (with original poster art) they will be on par with their top competitors.

I guarantee no one is going to wait for the next sale to buy a limited edition original poster art steelbook Criterion release.

Criterion is about to hit their 40th year in business, so how about we celebrate them for what they have successfully accomplished? I'm not a packaging collector and can't stand LEs and FOMO because I just want the movies and content. As long as there's still a SE I'm happy though. Criterion's mission has always been to make these works available to as many people as possible and on as many formats as possible, while keeping them in print for years and years to come. The majority of their competitors are looking to make quick returns on their investments and use as many FOMO options as possible to sell them out. If it goes out of print in a year, they're still quite happy. But I'm not. lol. I hope Criterion never has to rely on steelbooks and the like to sell movies.