The Criterion Collection

[Swift1246]

Well, shit

[Slap-Happy]

Don't their sales start at 12 EST? Guess its not happening today

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by Slap-Happy

Don't their sales start at 12 EST? Guess its not happening today

I save my Criterion e-mails. The last one, October 9th 2014 began at 2pm Eastern Time.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by mande2013

But more importantly, let's discuss why the "film school" favorites never actually seem to win Best Picture, films like Goodfellas, There Will Be Blood, Apocalypse Now, A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, Citizen Kane, Chinatown(although this one lost to The Godfather Part II), Sunset Blvd, The Pianist, Raging Bull, and so on. Are these films just too vulgar for AMPAS?

there's an explanation for "why?" each one of these films lost (except maybe Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas)

TWBB lost to another amazing film that I don't think anybody has any regrets about the fact that they voted for it - (No Country...)

the Academy has always held in high regard films that deal with social issues. that's why Apocalypse Now got the short end of the stick.

A Clockwork Orange lost to, arguably, what is a better movie (French Connection)

Sunset Boulevard lost to All About Eve... not too bad.

The Pianist lost to Chicago in a year during which everyone was like "HOO-ray, the musical is back!!" bollocks. it is a total crap movie and, IMO, one of the worst BP winners. oh, and don't forget The Pianist is Roman Polanski.. that in itself doesn't go over well with some.

[GxyExpress999]

In-stock items still say "Ships within two business days." IIRC it was changed to something like "ships within 3-5 days" right before the sale started?

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by joie

Kubrick adapted the U.S. edition, which was missing the last, 21st, chapter.

It's still an edited version, is it not? US editors didn't think it was good, and Burgess agreed to cut it. The novel was sold in tact elsewhere.

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

This isn't directed at you specifically but I usually find the least useful opinions on falso s to be the people who wrote the source material, followed quickly by those who have read the source material. Those people tend to have the hardest time seeing the film as it's own work, and are frequently unable to view it or establish opinions of the work without comparisons to the source, myself included.

I probably avoid films that are adapted if I'm familiar with the source material for the same reasons.

I was simply stating fact. I own a copy of the novel, and I have also purchased the film in two different formats. I also don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to criticise adaptations. Sometimes the film is equal or better, while others, it makes almost no sense to Call a film an adaptation, as all they really took was the title and characters. Sometimes a movie is just terrible regardless of how faithful an adaptation is. For me, my issue isn't so much a bad adapt, but the fact people only rely on the film version and don't bother with the source material. It's slightly annoying if it's just casual conversation, but extremely grating and a big no no if someone is trying to get out of reading a novel for academic work/discussion.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Well, there was at the time some negativity toward A Clockwork Orange because of what was perceived to be a glorification of violence. (Personally, I think anyone who thinks that the film glorifies violence isn't paying attention.)

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I suppose when the author of your source material says so, and thinks you ruined the symbolic structure of his work by adapting the edited version, then Yea, people will most likely think the film glorified violence.

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

This isn't directed at you specifically but I usually find the least useful opinions on films to be the people who wrote the source material, followed quickly by those who have read the source material. Those people tend to have the hardest time seeing the film as it's own work, and are frequently unable to view it or establish opinions of the work without comparisons to the source, myself included.

Well, yes and no. The opinions of the writer of the source material is certainly valid, and in this case, I certainly respect Burgess's feelings about the film. That doesn't stop me from thinking the film is a brilliant piece of work, and one that works better for me than the novel does.

On the other hand, I don't think that what BG said is particularly relevant, because I doubt that most people at the time had any idea what Burgess had to say about the film, so his feelings about it wouldn't have colored their reactions to the film. Most people's negative reactions that I encountered at the time had more to do with Kubrick associating pleasant music such as "Singin' in the Rain" or "The Thieving Magpie" with rape and other disturbing acts. Kubrick deliberately did this for irony, and it's underscored by Alex's horror that his treatment ends up making him nauseated whenever he hears his "beautiful Ludwig Van".

At any rate, even without using the ideas from the novel's last chapter, the film does not glorify violence. It's violent, sure, but that's not the same thing. Our reaction to the indignation of the removal of Alex's choice becomes much more potent and surprising after we are shown the extent of his psychopathy.

I probably avoid films that are adapted if I'm familiar with the source material for the same reasons.

I happily watch films adapted from material I'm both familiar with and like. I find it interesting to see how it can presented as a film, and often react well to the changes necessary to present the story in a different medium. When I have complaints about a film adaptation, it's because I think the filmmaker made changes that aren't as effective as the way things were in the source.

For example, while I think Kubrick's adaptation of A Clockwork Orange was an improvement on the novel, I think he made serious missteps in his adaptations of Lolita and The Shining.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Well, yes and no. The opinions of the writer of the source material is certainly valid, and in this case, I certainly respect Burgess's feelings about the film. That doesn't stop me from thinking the film is a brilliant piece of work, and one that works better for me than the novel does.

On the other hand, I don't think that what BG said is particularly relevant, because I doubt that most people at the time had any idea what Burgess had to say about the film, so his feelings about it wouldn't have colored their reactions to the film. Most people's negative reactions that I encountered at the time had more to do with Kubrick associating pleasant music such as "Singin' in the Rain" or "The Thieving Magpie" with rape and other disturbing acts. Kubrick deliberately did this for irony, and it's underscored by Alex's horror that his treatment ends up making him nauseated whenever he hears his "beautiful Ludwig Van".

At any rate, even without using the ideas from the novel's last chapter, the film does not glorify violence. It's violent, sure, but that's not the same thing. Our reaction to the indignation of the removal of Alex's choice becomes much more potent and surprising after we are shown the extent of his psychopathy.



I happily watch films adapted from material I'm both familiar with and like. I find it interesting to see how it can presented as a film, and often react well to the changes necessary to present the story in a different medium. When I have complaints about a film adaptation, it's because I think the filmmaker made changes that aren't as effective as the way things were in the source.

For example, while I think Kubrick's adaptation of A Clockwork Orange was an improvement on the novel, I think he made serious missteps in his adaptations of Lolita and The Shining.

I think it does have relevance, because Kubrick and Burgess eventually fell out, and Burgess denounced his novel due to the criticisms against the film. Apparently Kubrick left it up to him to defend the film against the charges of glorified violence:

[ccg1978]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

there's an explanation for "why?" each one of these films lost (except maybe Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas)

TWBB lost to another amazing film that I don't think anybody has any regrets about the fact that they voted for it - (No Country...)

the Academy has always held in high regard films that deal with social issues. that's why Apocalypse Now got the short end of the stick.

A Clockwork Orange lost to, arguably, what is a better movie (French Connection)

Sunset Boulevard lost to All About Eve... not too bad.

The Pianist lost to Chicago in a year during which everyone was like "HOO-ray, the musical is back!!" bollocks. it is a total crap movie and, IMO, one of the worst BP winners. oh, and don't forget The Pianist is Roman Polanski.. that in itself doesn't go over well with some.

Agree with everything you say except that Clockwork Orange pwns French Connection. You wisely put "arguably" in there earning you extra points!

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I think it does have relevance, because Kubrick and Burgess eventually fell out, and Burgess denounced his novel due to the criticisms against the film. Apparently Kubrick left it up to him to defend the film against the charges of glorified violence:

But that's a different argument. At the time the film was released, and even to (at least) the following year when it was nominated for Oscars, what Burgess had to say about the film (or his novel) had nothing to do with how people reacted to the film.

The causality is completely bass-ackwards. Your argument was that people reacted to the film in a certain way because of Burgess, when it's more accurate that Burgess's issues with the film (and the novel) were a reaction to how viewers of the film reacted to it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ccg1978

Agree with everything you say except that Clockwork Orange pwns French Connection. You wisely put "arguably" in there earning you extra points!

I've actually only seen FC once (a long time ago) and didn't walk away with a whole lot. my hunch tells me, however, that a rewatch would go over well.

I've seen Clockwork probably 4 or 5 times and my feelings have varied from, "omg! one of my favorites ever!" to "hang on.. what is he trying to say here? whatever it is, he didn't say it very well" to "i get it.. i think so, anyway." maybe right now I don't hold it in high regard because I prefer many of his other films over this one.

[The Great Owl]

Regarding Kubrick and literary sources, I'm one of the few people who loves Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's The Shining just as much as I love the source novel.

I think that everything about Jack Torrance's character in Stephen King's novel is there in the movie and that Jack Nicholson did a fine job of externalizing the inner conflicts of the character so that we can see everything on the screen. Many fans of the novel disagree vehemently, though.

[fancyclaps]

I can't take it! When is the sale starting!

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Regarding Kubrick and literary sources, I'm one of the few people who loves Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's The Shining just as much as I love the source novel.

I think that everything about Jack Torrance's character in Stephen King's novel is there in the movie and that Jack Nicholson did a fine job of externalizing the inner conflicts of the character so that we can see everything on the screen. Many fans of the novel disagree vehemently, though.

Ditto. In fact, I like the film more.

I've said this before, but you have to approach The Shining as a Kubrick production, not a Stephen King adaptation.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by jayembee

But that's a different argument. At the time the film was released, and even to (at least) the following year when it was nominated for Oscars, what Burgess had to say about the film (or his novel) had nothing to do with how people reacted to the film.

The causality is completely bass-ackwards. Your argument was that people reacted to the film in a certain way because of Burgess, when it's more accurate that Burgess's issues with the film (and the novel) were a reaction to how viewers of the film reacted to it.

Not really as like I said, Kubrick was the one who left it up to Burgess to respond to the claims, and disregarded some of his opinions before the film was released. It's luke he himself tried to blame the source material, by letting Burgess try to bear the brunt of the criticism. A lot of people here seem to dislike chapter 21, but, perhaps at the time, it might have been better in the film adaptation. Take The Casual Vacancy for example, the BBC has modified the ending, with Rowling's consent, because it's too much of a downer for viewing, but fine in print. That's just my thought.

Also, I'm one of the few who preferred Kubrick's lolita to the novel, so take anything I say with s grain of salt.

[spargs]

Originally Posted by fancyclaps

I can't take it! When is the sale starting!

Doesn't look like today. The Criterion website (at least for the past couple flash sales) usually goes offline for maintenance for a brief time either the night before or the morning of the day of the flash sale. That hasn't happened yet.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by spargs

Doesn't look like today. The Criterion website (at least for the past couple flash sales) usually goes offline for maintenance for a brief time either the night before or the morning of the day of the flash sale. That hasn't happened yet.

The CC page currently has two Watership Down Promo slides, somethings gotta give.

[fancyclaps]

Originally Posted by spargs

Doesn't look like today. The Criterion website (at least for the past couple flash sales) usually goes offline for maintenance for a brief time either the night before or the morning of the day of the flash sale. That hasn't happened yet.

That's it, I'm throwing my monitor through the window.

[silverlakephil]

Originally Posted by spargs

Doesn't look like today. The Criterion website (at least for the past couple flash sales) usually goes offline for maintenance for a brief time either the night before or the morning of the day of the flash sale. That hasn't happened yet.

Originally Posted by fancyclaps

That's it, I'm throwing my monitor through the window.

Chill out. here's a weird Al video to put everything in perspective

"Weird Al" Yankovic - First World Problems - YouTube

[joie]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

It's still an edited version, is it not? US editors didn't think it was good, and Burgess agreed to cut it. The novel was sold in tact elsewhere.

I once read the full novel, which had a forward by Meredith. He bemoaned the U.S. edition's butchering of the novel's structure and omission of the last chapter. He wrote that he structured it to be a novel in three parts of seven chapters each, so I got the impression that he didn't approve of the omission of chapter 21. I got the impression it was something done by the U.S. publisher, because with chapter 21, where Alex has matured considerably, the publishers thought the novel wouldn't be as shocking and sell as well.

edit: I believe I read the 1987 edition published by Norton, the one complete and with Burgess' forward. A criticism of the original U.S. edition is that it's not a novel, I.e., it doesn't show that Alex has developed as a character.