The Criterion Collection

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by Wooden Lens

I wish film theory and just film classes in general were mandatory in every High School. But of course, I'm ridiculous and crazy about cinema.

It would be too depressing. Half of the students would become as disengaged and uninterested as they were in English class. If I had those classes in high school, I'd be sitting in the corner crying, lamenting the lack of artistic taste of everyone else. Because it's not like cinema is entirely subjective. I saw plenty of films in high school - but they were always stuff like Polanski's Macbeth or Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. Great films in their own regards, but the focus was never focused on the cinematography - or if it did touch on some of the visual elements, only very briefly.

The other issue would be the selection of texts: because I have to say, some of the texts I covered in English class were awful messes of literature chosen for their simplicity in communicating the basic concepts of literature, with little timeless appeal and mostly just being messes. And is a wide knowledge of cinema as applicable as a wide knowledge of literature? Because just as with books I feel a person comes to cinema; cinema does not come to them.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Ausjdm

Damnit Ray this is the second time this mystery movie full body massage has been mentioned I must see this masterpiece! Probably big emphasis on master....CENSORED....lol.

One of the greatest movies ever made imo.

You'll laugh, you'll cry...you'll question everything you thought you knew about the world we live in.

Bryan Brown deserved an Oscar nomination for that performance.

How he was able to maintain his composure during that shoot is a miracle.

...a true professional.

[llj]

Originally Posted by Wooden Lens

I wish film theory and just film classes in general were mandatory in every High School. But of course, I'm ridiculous and crazy about cinema.

What also annoys me is when someone says that they couldn't get into a movie because the main character isn't "likable" and that they "can't relate" to someone who's not likable.

The implications of this complaint, beyond the obvious narcissism of only being able to relate to someone who's "likable", suggests to me that complexity and distinctiveness in a character is not something that is actually desired by many viewers. The more distinct and complex a character is, the less "likable" they are to a broad audience, simply because a person's appeal narrows the more his or her likes, dislikes, insecurities, and politics are defined.

This is not to say that a complex character can't still be likable, but more that "likability" shouldn't be a big priority. What matters more is if the character is *interesting* rather than likable.

[DaBargainHunta]

I'm with everyone who wants film classes in high school. For most (all?) of us, they weren't available until college. But you also need the right teachers/professors. As much as we all love film, a professor who is boring as hell or just parroting the status quo isn't going to get the kids truly invested in the topic/hobby. The best film professor I ever had taught film like it was literature, which is an approach I had never been exposed to before. And he encouraged debate and dissenting opinions. I definitely criticized a couple of his darlings, and he loved that. Some teachers/professors are too butthurt when a student disagrees with the "right" answer - their way of thinking.

[Wooden Lens]

Originally Posted by llj

What also annoys me is when someone says that they couldn't get into a movie because the main character isn't "likable" and that they "can't relate" to someone who's not likable.

The implications of this complaint, beyond the obvious narcissism of only being able to relate to someone who's "likable", suggests to me that complexity and distinctiveness in a character is not something that is actually desired by many viewers. The more distinct and complex a character is, the less "likable" they are to a broad audience, simply because a person's appeal narrows the more his or her likes, dislikes, insecurities, and politics are defined.

This is not to say that a complex character can't still be likable, but more that "likability" shouldn't be a big priority. What matters more is if the character is *interesting* rather than likable.

Oh, that's such a monumental pet peeve of mine. Nobody complains about great character's in classic literature not being completely likable and encompassing various facets of grey. Why that same sense of thought isn't extended to film is beyond me. I just think a good majority of people look towards cinema as a serious art form still. Sad, but totally true.

I mean look at the reaction over The Witch opening this weekend. People walked into that movie with various degrees of expectations (granted marketing and reviews don't always help) but it seems (based on Cinemascore at least) that most people weren't willing to take the film as presented to them once those house lights dimmed down. Instead of worrying about what wasn't meeting they're expectations they lacked the ability to be fully immersed in this gloriously dark horror (and I don't mean SCARES) show!

uff.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

One of the greatest movies ever made imo.

You'll laugh, you'll cry...you'll question everything you thought you knew about the world we live in.

Bryan Brown deserved an Oscar nomination for that performance.

How he was able to maintain his composure during that shoot is a miracle.

...a true professional.

I thought his performance was...wooden...

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by llj

What also annoys me is when someone says that they couldn't get into a movie because the main character isn't "likable" and that they "can't relate" to someone who's not likable.

The implications of this complaint, beyond the obvious narcissism of only being able to relate to someone who's "likable", suggests to me that complexity and distinctiveness in a character is not something that is actually desired by many viewers. The more distinct and complex a character is, the less "likable" they are to a broad audience, simply because a person's appeal narrows the more his or her likes, dislikes, insecurities, and politics are defined.

This is not to say that a complex character can't still be likable, but more that "likability" shouldn't be a big priority. What matters more is if the character is *interesting* rather than likable.

I think "likability" of the main character is a perfectly legitimate criterion for deciding if you enjoy a movie or not. Whether it's a legitimate criterion for deciding whether a movie is "good" or not is another issue.

I mean, a movie can still be a remarkable work of art if it's depressing as all get-out, but can you really blame someone for saying that they didn't enjoy, say, Leaving Las Vegas because it was just too damn depressing?

[14728]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I think "likability" of the main character is a perfectly legitimate criterion for deciding if you enjoy a movie or not. Whether it's a legitimate criterion for deciding whether a movie is "good" or not is another issue.

I see what you did there!

[llj]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I think "likability" of the main character is a perfectly legitimate criterion for deciding if you enjoy a movie or not. Whether it's a legitimate criterion for deciding whether a movie is "good" or not is another issue.

I mean, a movie can still be a remarkable work of art if it's depressing as all get-out, but can you really blame someone for saying that they didn't enjoy, say, Leaving Las Vegas because it was just too damn depressing?

Anyone is free to dislike anything or anyone for a variety of reasons--I have an intense and illogical dislike for Ashton Kutcher, for instance--but I certainly think that grading a protagonist on likability for each and every movie one comes across is a very limiting way of considering what makes a "good" narrative, especially in a discussion.

If someone says, "I didn't like Goodfellas because Henry isn't likable," how much more is there to discuss? It's a conversation ender, because the person has drawn a hard and fast rule on the ground that cannot be changed or moved. It is simply what it is, and a statement that discourages discourse. It doesn't matter that Henry is funny or interesting or what he does in the movie is interesting, the fact that he is NOT LIKABLE is the be all and end all for this person, and I find that hangup exasperating. Now, it's one thing if it's someone who's not a movie buff saying this, but those people who write reviews regularly--whether it's an amateur or professional--do themselves and their readers a disservice by harping on the likability of a protagonist.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

One of the greatest movies ever made imo.

You'll laugh, you'll cry...you'll question everything you thought you knew about the world we live in.

Bryan Brown deserved an Oscar nomination for that performance.

How he was able to maintain his composure during that shoot is a miracle.

...a true professional.

Ray, I just discovered 'FBM' has never even been released on DVD. Are you rolling with VHS on that or going with the Mr. Skin clips on your hard drive? These are choices a man must make.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I take you for a big Shannon Whirry fan.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I thought his performance was...wooden...

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by mja345

Ray, I just discovered 'FBM' has never even been released on DVD. Are you rolling with VHS on that or going with the Mr. Skin clips on your hard drive? These are choices a man must make.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I take you for a big Shannon Whirry fan.

I bought a bootleg dvd copy online a few years ago.




Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I take you for a big Shannon Whirry fan.

...she was great in Out For Justice.

[Scottie]

I just watched I Knew Her Well and I'm very conflicted.

In one regard, I'm disappointed with the film. When I read the comparisons with this and La Dolce Vita, I was immediately sold. However, while the two films share some similarities, this one comes nowhere close to Fellini's masterpiece. I guess my expectations were incredibly high.

On the other hand, the pacing of the film (which I wasn't particularly fond of) actually makes the film what it is. It's difficult to make a character study on the difficulties and artificialities of fame, success, parties, and glitz and glamour without showing a character in a constant state of repetition, going nowhere.

I think the final few minutes of the film are remarkable, but in terms of the whole of the film, I don't know. There were times I wish it was shorter, more direct, and more to the point.

[Wooden Lens]

I think I really just come to these message boards now for the GIFs.

I love each and everyone of you guys

[Gusto-Guus]

Looking at Todd Haynes filmography, what are the chance I'm Not There coming to Criterion?

Edit: Also, can you guys share your opinions on the color red in The American Friend? Seemed to be pointed out a lot for some reason.

[jw007]

In response to John Klein's post regarding Moon being a candidate for a Criterion release, I have to say its a great science fiction film that reminds me of Soderbergh's Solaris in some ways (at least in terms of the feeling of isolation).

It would indeed be nice if Criterion could add a contemporary sci-fi film to their collection (not saying that Robinson Crusoe on Mars is bad, but its dated and reminds me of classic episodes of 60's Star Trek).

Other modern sci-fi movies of the last 5-10 years that would be intriguing and a decent fit in the Criterion Collection:

Melancholia

Ex Machina

Under the Skin

Another Earth

Anyone care to add more "cerebral" sci-fi movies to the list, from within the last 5-10 years?

[joie]

Originally Posted by jw007

In response to John Klein's post regarding Moon being a candidate for a Criterion release, I have to say its a great science fiction film that reminds me of Soderbergh's Solaris in some ways (at least in terms of the feeling of isolation).

It would indeed be nice if Criterion could add a contemporary sci-fi film to their collection (not saying that Robinson Crusoe on Mars is bad, but its dated and reminds me of classic episodes of 60's Star Trek).

Other modern sci-fi movies of the last 5-10 years that would be intriguing and a decent fit in the Criterion Collection:

Melancholia

Ex Machina

Under the Skin

Another Earth

Anyone care to add more "cerebral" sci-fi movies to the list, from within the last 5-10 years?

Gravity

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by jw007

In response to John Klein's post regarding Moon being a candidate for a Criterion release, I have to say its a great science fiction film that reminds me of Soderbergh's Solaris in some ways (at least in terms of the feeling of isolation).

It would indeed be nice if Criterion could add a contemporary sci-fi film to their collection (not saying that Robinson Crusoe on Mars is bad, but its dated and reminds me of classic episodes of 60's Star Trek).

Other modern sci-fi movies of the last 5-10 years that would be intriguing and a decent fit in the Criterion Collection:

Melancholia

Ex Machina

Under the Skin

Another Earth

Anyone care to add more "cerebral" sci-fi movies to the list, from within the last 5-10 years?

How are people forgetting the incredible 'Primer' and/or 'Upstream Colour'

Upstream Color Official Teaser #1 (2013) - Shane Carruth Movie HD - YouTube

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by jw007

In response to John Klein's post regarding Moon being a candidate for a Criterion release, I have to say its a great science fiction film that reminds me of Soderbergh's Solaris in some ways (at least in terms of the feeling of isolation).

It would indeed be nice if Criterion could add a contemporary sci-fi film to their collection (not saying that Robinson Crusoe on Mars is bad, but its dated and reminds me of classic episodes of 60's Star Trek).

Other modern sci-fi movies of the last 5-10 years that would be intriguing and a decent fit in the Criterion Collection:

Melancholia

Ex Machina

Under the Skin

Another Earth

Anyone care to add more "cerebral" sci-fi movies to the list, from within the last 5-10 years?

It's been a while since I watched it, but I just got in Dark City. Combination of neo-noir and sci-fi, in the same vein as Blade Runner. Brilliant film by Alex Proyas, and....Jennifer Connelly.... is in it. Ooolala. I have had such a thing for her since the very first time I saw her.



Career Opportunities might have been John Hughes' worst script, but the film did leave a lasting impression for other reasons.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

It's been a while since I watched it, but I just got in Dark City. Combination of neo-noir and sci-fi, in the same vein as Blade Runner. Brilliant film by Alex Proyas, and....Jennifer Connelly.... is in it. Ooolala. I have had such a thing for her since the very first time I saw her.



Career Opportunities might have been John Hughes' worst script, but the film did leave a lasting impression for other reasons.

You and I share similar taste in fine women I see too.