The Criterion Collection

[theater dreamer]

I think you're making an awful lot of assumptions about how some of us watch films. Yes, I often look at lists of the greatest movies ever made, as voted upon by critics. But don't think for one second that I'm forcing myself to do anything I don't want to do. You make it sound as if we're willingly subjecting ourselves to Chinese water torture. Nothing could be further from the truth. We're not sheep, and the inference is a bit insulting. If a select group of highly-respected critics and historians vote a movie onto a particular list, they do so because said film held some real artistic merit, or, something about that film resonated with them. That is reason enough for me to check it out.

If you look at a list of the ten most beautiful places on Earth, do you go see them because a bunch of people you'll never meet selected those locales? Or, do you go because you genuinely want to witness something exquisite?

There are days where I just don't feel like watching a two hour film. My back is terrible, and many nights my pain level is sufficiently high where I just turn the tv on, and it serves as background noise. I float in and out of consciousness, and will watch whatever is on. When I feel better, I will select a film, or two, that are on my to-watch list, and put them on. Many of these appear on the Sight & Sound critics list, or the AFI Top 100 American Films list. Or, it might just be a Best Picture winner that I have not seen. Because of these lists, and the discussions we've held here, I've discovered many films I now count among my favorites. And, I've not regretted watching a single film that appeared on these lists. Not a one. How will I know if I enjoy a genre of film, or not, if I don't give it a chance? If one never takes chances in life, one is confined to living a very dull life within their comfort zone. I choose to live, and try new things. What's the worst that can happen if I watch a film the critics gushed about, and don't like it? I'm out two hours of my life, and a little bit of money. What's the best that can happen? I might discover a whole new culture, or a new auteur, and, in the process, discover something about myself that changes who I am for the better.

You watch movies the way you want to; please don't be telling others how we should and should not be watching ours.

Originally Posted by llj

I was merely commenting on the 3 Women conversation in here, and in particular Ray Jackson's cold reception to it, coupled with the trend of people who go through all the "classic" movies they make a mission to watch in a very short time (say 20 movies in the next 4 weeks) seemingly without a care or knowledge as to what they're about or what genre they are or whether they are even interested in it. I find that fascinating, behaviour wise.

I know a lot of cinephiles who go out and compile a critics' list of "the top 100 films ever" (either from AFI or IMDB or some other poll--I imagine that's how Mulholland Drive viewings suddenly shot up in here in the past few weeks) and then just go through the entire list in no particular order, either randomly or not or whether they are in the mood for it or not. In short, it's like "forcing" yourself to watch something based on some kind of perceived rep a film has.

This results in, quite often, people running into a great film at the wrong time simply because they weren't in the right frame of mind to watch it.

People shouldn't simply choose to watch a movie based solely on its rep. You should watch it because you're genuinely interested in what it's about. Like, I have a feeling if 3 Women were not a Criterion release and had NO reputation whatsoever, Ray wouldn't have even touched it. And I wouldn't blame him.
.

[fdm]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

This would be a problematic stance for me as I don't want to know what a movie is about before watching it. I watch it to find out what it's about.

Even though it was a quickie review in an a/v mag, kind of had the movie Room spoiled for me yesterday. I'm with you, the less I know the better the first time through. Would have preferred going into it blind(er) if/when I finally get to it.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I think you're making an awful lot of assumptions about how some of us watch film

Is he, or are you being too sensitive? C'mon, are you telling me that you haven't watched a film that is in the 'canon' with the wrong mindset and have thus misunderstood it or got less out of it than you may perhaps otherwise would have under more ideal conditions?

I think it's important to know what you are watching. It saves time. Sure you can always 'adjust' while watching, but you run the risk of missing vital details or points because of preconceived notions.

A good example I can think of recently is The Death of King Louis XIV, the new Albert Serra film. I spoke to many people after the screening at the Melbourne Film Festival who thought it was 'boring' because they were expecting a more typical 'historical' film, not a claustrophobic art film about a king who never leaves his bed that is shot in one room. Perhaps if they were familiar with the style of the director and/or the kind of film it is they could have enjoyed it or at least avoided it.

[bwdowiak]

There was a good documentary about Chaplin on TCM last night called The Birth of The Tramp. I saw a good portion of it, but some fatherly duties kept me from seeing the film in its entirety. For someone who knows little about him, there was a lot of good information. It covered his life from birth up through the time at which he began to not only direct and star in his films, but produce them as well. So, I believe that was through about 1917.

Is this film a bonus supplement on any of his Blu-ray releases?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

There was a good documentary about Chaplin on TCM last night called The Birth of The Tramp. I saw a good portion of it, but some fatherly duties kept me from seeing the film in its entirety. For someone who knows little about him, there was a lot of good information. It covered his life from birth up through the time at which he began to not only direct and star in his films, but produce them as well. So, I believe that was through about 1917.

Is this film a bonus supplement on any of his Blu-ray releases?

It's included with Flicker Alley's release of the Mutual comedies


https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Chapl...101335/#Review

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Is he, or are you being too sensitive? C'mon, are you telling me that you haven't watched a film that is in the 'canon' with the wrong mindset and have thus misunderstood it or got less out of it than you may perhaps otherwise would have under more ideal conditions?

I think it's important to know what you are watching. It saves time. Sure you can always 'adjust' while watching, but you run the risk of missing vital details or points because of preconceived notions.

A good example I can think of recently is The Death of King Louis XIV, the new Albert Serra film. I spoke to many people after the screening at the Melbourne Film Festival who thought it was 'boring' because they were expecting a more typical 'historical' film, not a claustrophobic art film about a king who never leaves his bed that is shot in one room. Perhaps if they were familiar with the style of the director and/or the kind of film it is they could have enjoyed it or at least avoided it.

I don't think your example shows that it's important to know what you're watching, it shows the benefit of *not* having preconceived notions when going into a film.

[malakaheso]

Sure, but that is pretty much impossible outside of theoretical fantasy land. We all have preconceived notions, we don't go in blind. How many of us will watch a film without first knowing something of the genre or the director or any other aspect? Precious few, otherwise we wouldn't have genres, styles or formulas.

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Sure, but that is pretty much impossible outside of theoretical fantasy land. We all have preconceived notions, we don't go in blind. How many of us will watch a film without first knowing something of the genre or the director or any other aspect? Precious few, otherwise we wouldn't have genres, styles or formulas.

What he said. It's impossible to not go into something with any pre-conceived notions at all.

I do think one needs to be in a different mindset to watch Barry Lyndon than Neighbor 2. It is not a detriment. On the contrary, it's probably for the best.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

What he said. It's impossible to not go into something with any pre-conceived notions at all.

I do think one needs to be in a different mindset to watch Barry Lyndon than Neighbor 2. It is not a detriment. On the contrary, it's probably for the best.

I suppose the matter is then whether a film meeting or not meeting our preconceived notions is something we let effect our opinion of the film.

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

What he said. It's impossible to not go into something with any pre-conceived notions at all.

I do think one needs to be in a different mindset to watch Barry Lyndon than Neighbor 2. It is not a detriment. On the contrary, it's probably for the best.

I see both sides of the coin. I'm a big fan of lists and the majority of my non-Criterion BDs are on my shelves because of a list (AFI, Sight and Sound, best PQ/AQ, etc.) I also give a lot of weight to the people I follow on Letterboxd for film recommendations and reviews/ratings. And, I agree that it is hard not to go into a film without pre-conceived notions because it is highly acclaimed or has a 7.8 on iMDb.

However, my enjoyment in a film is completely independent of what others think. For example, I was extremely disappointed recently with Rules of the Game. Widely accepted as one of the greatest movies of all time, I thought it was just meh. Double Life of Veronique is another that comes to mind even though I consider every other Kieslowski as a near masterpiece.

There's a big difference between using the opinions of others to be informed vs. making their opinions your own.

[Banned User]

I don't think its impossible to have no pre-conceived notions. I do it all the time. However to me there is a huge difference between general pre-conceived notions like feeling I will like a movie because of the actor/director and seeing a trailer or reading a synopsis which builds an actual notion of what to expect from the movie in my mind.

Most of my blind buys are just that. I may know a favorite actor or director, but have no pre-conceived ideas of the plot or how well I will receive the film.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Is he, or are you being too sensitive? C'mon, are you telling me that you haven't watched a film that is in the 'canon' with the wrong mindset and have thus misunderstood it or got less out of it than you may perhaps otherwise would have under more ideal conditions?

Nope, I haven't. Because, if I'm not in a receptive mindset, which is often the case because of the issues I'm dealing with physically, I put on something I've already seen. Or, I just lie down for a few hours, and then see how I feel. I'm not going to watch something that's been labeled a "great" film unless I can devote 100% of my attention to it. And, if I'm distracted, for whatever reason, I'm not ready to experience the film the way it was meant to be seen. If my ultimate goal is to review films, what kind of a reputation would I build if I half-assed it?

And, as to your my possibly "being too sensitive" quip, here is what I was directly responding to:

coupled with the trend of people who go through all the "classic" movies they make a mission to watch in a very short time (say 20 movies in the next 4 weeks) seemingly without a care or knowledge as to what they're about or what genre they are or whether they are even interested in it. I find that fascinating, behaviour wise.

First of all, how does this individual have the first clue as to what I, or any other film goer, might have read, or discussed, in advance of watching one of these classics? It's one giant assumption, and it is completely baseless. I always look up a film before I watch it, at the very least to see who is directing, the on screen talent involved, and a basic synopsis for what I'm about to see.

I have nothing at all against ljs. I've enjoyed their contributions to the forum. But when I see something I think is highly inaccurate, I'm always going to take issue with the statement (not the person making the statement). I saw a glaring generality about film enthusiasts who took their cues from critics lists, and, at least in my case (and, I'm sure with others, as well), it was completely inaccurate. Perhaps saying it was "insulting" was a poor choice of words on my part; more accurately, I should have said it was perplexing. For that, I apologize.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by llj

I know a lot of cinephiles who go out and compile a critics' list of "the top 100 films ever" (either from AFI or IMDB or some other poll--I imagine that's how Mulholland Drive viewings suddenly shot up in here in the past few weeks) and then just go through the entire list in no particular order, either randomly or not or whether they are in the mood for it or not. In short, it's like "forcing" yourself to watch something based on some kind of perceived rep a film has.

This results in, quite often, people running into a great film at the wrong time simply because they weren't in the right frame of mind to watch it.

While not everyone and the case overtime, I agree. I now people who have done this. I've probably done it to a degree. Often, I find that I enjoy a film more watching it a second time, because then I can watch it without being tied to plot, since I know what happens.

But definitely pretty much everybody interested in film has forced themselves to watch something because of rep, - or - been forced to watch something in film school or other places and come away disliking it for that reason. But other times, they dislike it because they just don't like it, like me with The Tin Drum and Odd Man Out.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

And, as to your my possibly "being too sensitive" quip, here is what I was directly responding to:




ljs Quote:

"coupled with the trend of people who go through all the "classic" movies they make a mission to watch in a very short time (say 20 movies in the next 4 weeks) seemingly without a care or knowledge as to what they're about or what genre they are or whether they are even interested in it. I find that fascinating, behaviour wise."


First of all, how does this individual have the first clue as to what I, or any other film goer, might have read, or discussed, in advance of watching one of these classics? It's one giant assumption, and it is completely baseless. I always look up a film before I watch it, at the very least to see who is directing, the on screen talent involved, and a basic synopsis for what I'm about to see.

I have nothing at all against ljs. I've enjoyed their contributions to the forum. But when I see something I think is highly inaccurate, I'm always going to take issue with the statement (not the person making the statement). I saw a glaring generality about film enthusiasts who took their cues from critics lists, and, at least in my case (and, I'm sure with others, as well), it was completely inaccurate. Perhaps saying it was "insulting" was a poor choice of words on my part; more accurately, I should have said it was perplexing. For that, I apologize.

speaking to the highlighted quote from ljs, people do do this.

have you ever heard of the saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it?"

[ShellOilJunior]

There are some people that takes lists as challenges to knock out all the entries. Last year when the Third Man toured in 4k there were a couple teens outside the theater lobby that made it a point to take selfies outside the theater to post online as "proof" they had seen the film.

It's the 21st century. I find it amusing.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

It's the 21st century. I find it amusing.

Imagine how people in the 23rd century find our century amusing.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

There are some people that takes lists as challenges to knock out all the entries. Last year when the Third Man toured in 4k there were a couple teens outside the theater lobby that made it a point to take selfies outside the theater to post online as "proof" they had seen the film.

It's the 21st century. I find it amusing.

Or maybe they just wanted a memory of having seen the film on the big screen?

I don't see anything "21st century" about that behavior outside of the fact that it was a "selfie" they were taking.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Sure, but that is pretty much impossible outside of theoretical fantasy land. We all have preconceived notions, we don't go in blind. How many of us will watch a film without first knowing something of the genre or the director or any other aspect? Precious few, otherwise we wouldn't have genres, styles or formulas.

Sure. I have preconceived notions about films that I see. But experience has taught me that my preconceived notions have a good chance of being wrong. How many times have you watched a film with the expectation (based on whatever criteria you choose) that you're going to like it, and end up not liking it? That happens to me a fair amount, and on the flip side, I have seen films that I thought I probably wasn't going to like, and ended up liking them after all. Hell, it's even common for me while watching something to think for the greater part of the film that it's just not working for me, only to find that it all pulls together in the last 20 minutes, and I end up liking it.

There are films that I have seen and either disliked or just didn't like that are highly praised films, and I have copies around with the idea that I'll give them another try. Maybe I was just having an off day when I saw it the first time. But my tastes have also changed over the course of time, and I recognize that something I might've dismissed at one point is something that I might like now.

Back in the 90s, I blind-bought a lot of Criterion LDs. They released so many great films that I was familiar with, I figured it was worth giving it a shot with ones I knew nothing about. And I ended up discovering a lot of filmmakers that have ended up being among my favorites.

Because of that experience, I feel that it's a very worthwhile endeavor to try things that your preconceived notions tell you you probably won't like, because maybe you will despite those notions. Challenging your preconceptions helps you expand your viewpoints.

At worst, you can tell yourself, "Well, that was a mistake," and move on. That's happened to me on occasion, but it hasn't stopped me from trying something new the next time.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jw007

Imagine how people in the 23rd century find our century amusing.

They'll be bored with movies that don't allow the audience to become part of the actual movie.

[SkyAntoine]

As a collector of the entire Criterion filmography, 99% of my purchases are blind buys. There are probably 20% of the films that I don't necessarily enjoy (some I flat out despise). That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate why they are in the collection or appreciate that other people enjoy them and have found them worthy of inclusion in the Collection.
My enjoyment is seeing all the numbers line up on my shelves and knowing I could revisit at any time. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks...