The Criterion Collection

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by RojD

Pretty big Altman fan here, especially of the large ensemble movies like Nashville, Prêt-à-Porter, and Kansas City. I have an inexplicably deep response to his last movie, Prairie Home Companion, which seems to have so much truth in it.

There's the aesthetic pleasure I get out of his films, watching him thread the many lines of narrative together so they reflect, echo and affect each other; he looks back to Rules of the Game and forward to Boogie Nights and Magnolia. And the clear-eyed philosophy that seems to inform these resonates with me, too. I feel a kinship with Altman's way of seeing the world, like I do with John Huston's. I don't find his works cold, and I don't find (most of) his characters unsympathetic. Well, no more unsympathetic than I would anyone if I knew the mix of admirable and unadmirable in us all. I don't find celebration or joy in Altman, but there's an embracing, practical stoicism in him that I like.

And there's the visual beauty, too.

Don't forget DW Griffith, RojD. Intolerance was really the film that broke the most ground as far as "hyperlink" or multi-narrative films go.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

The only problem there is that Rome's "self-indulgence" not only did not collapse, but actually blossomed in the years after Fellini. In fact, it became a national obsession during the Berlusconi era.

Not if you're talking about Ancient Rome's.

Originally Posted by Fellini912

Roger Ebert was a great film critic. Such a naive moralistic take on Rome's fall would make me believe he was not a good historian.
It is almost common knowledge today that Rome's collapse was multifactorial. The two most influential factors for Rome's collapse were its persistent military expansion and its poor economy. These same factors probably caused the Great British Empire to shrink.

Although color 70's-Fellini tends to focus on its growing boredom and disaffection with its own hedonism, which wasn't helping much either.
(It's not the historical Fall of the Empire, it's a Roman comedy by Petronicus, ahem, loosely adapted by Fellini into a 60's-70's metaphor....SHEESH! )

[minister_x]

Originally Posted by Cabanon

is there a big difference between the normal & Criterion release of Dazed And Confused ?

A bit of a difference. Mostly in extras (Criterion has more, though Universal has a few novelty extras). Also in colours on the transfer. See the following:

http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=18627

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...dvd_review.htm

[Polaroid]

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-ma.../greatest-docs

The Greatest Documentaries of All Time

Features some Criterions - and a lot that should be in collection - good read if anyones into Documentaries

[I KEEL YOU]

Caps-a-holic also did a comparison:

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ID=158#auswahl

For a Universal blu ray release, the Universal blu ray of Dazed isn't bad compared to some of their other releases. But the Criterion is just flat out better. If you're from region A, or can play region A, it's an easy choice. Even with the price difference.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Don't forget DW Griffith, RojD. Intolerance was really the film that broke the most ground as far as "hyperlink" or multi-narrative films go.

Intolerance had multiple story lines, but they didn't really intersect. When it comes to early hyperlink films, I think of the two Grands: Grand Hotel and Grand Illusion.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by belcherman

Intolerance had multiple story lines, but they didn't really intersect. When it comes to early hyperlink films, I think of the two Grands: Grand Hotel and Grand Illusion.

Not physically (i.e.: the characters interacting). But it was cut in a matter where the stories intersected thematically. I suppose that metaphysical element, the hands of an omnipresent sculptor that ties the seemingly unrelated stories together, is what fascinates me the most about these films, so that's why more grounded films like Grand Hotel don't usually pop into my mind. For example, the films I most directly associate with that style are Babel, Cloud Atlas, and Magnolia; all of which I find to be the complete fruition of what D.W. Griffith was after also.

[monorail91]

Originally Posted by aes3728

If there was still any doubt to Fellini's Satyricon, the top 10 list from this month is by Mary Ellen Mark, and on the email it says that she took still photos for Satyricon.

Coincidence? I think not.

The Criterion digital marketing / social media team are masters of user engagement and manipulation, by subtly placing these titles in our subconscious.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Except The Master isn't really 'tidy' like his other films, at least not from memory anyway. It's difficult to have a discussion about that film because there doesn't seem to be many clear ideas about what it's actually about.

I will say that i enjoyed the power struggle between the central characters and thought it was more interesting to watch than 'There will Be Blood.

It's good to see him move in a less predictable direction though. The Master was a ballsy film.

Maybe 'tidy' and 'moralizing' can be attributed to Magnolia or Boogie Nights, but I don't see that in There Will Be Blood. And perhaps this is just stating my preference for the simplistic, but I thought the power struggle in TWBB was infinitely more interesting because I knew what their motives were.

I respect your opinion, but would you be willing to expound upon why you prefer The Master to TWBB? You acknowledge that people don't seem to know what the film is about - that it is thematically vague. Is that preferable?

This is more of a general statement and not necessarily directed at you, but why is it that "vague" always seems to get celebrated? At least in these circles. I do appreciate films like Last Year at Marienbad and The Double Life of Veronique, but on occasion, "vague" just doesn't work for me. While it is certainly possible that there are films that I simply can not wrap my head around, there are others for which I can draw the safe conclusion that there just isn't anything there.

I would like to see The Master again. There were things I liked about it, but the fact that yes, it isn't clear what the message is, kind of causes one to lose interest while watching the film.

[SammyJankis]

I know that question was not directed towards me, but I'm one of those that would rank The Master above There Will Be Blood (and everything else PTA has done, with the exception of the Sandler flick.) This film feels like PTA had completely shed off the influences he's been channeling in his earlier films and developed his own particular style. I can't think of another film that had the feeling of this one.

Admittedly, my initial viewing was a confounding one. It was far more abstract than I was expecting and I wasn't exactly sure what I should have taken away from it. I let it sink in for a couple of days and still had a feeling of confusion. A few weeks go by and I see it again in theaters. The film felt clearer and it's thematic concerns seemed entirely in line with everything PTA has done. He's always has an interest with characters searching for a connection - There Will Be Blood being the notable exception, which kind of plays like an anti-Anderson picture. Here it's shown through a character dealing with it in broad terms. Frankly, the "scientology" aspect has never interested me, and I often forget about while watching it.

Coupled with gorgeous cinematography (those blues are lovely) and what is, I think, the greatest performance of this decade, you get one of PTA's upper-tier films. Once you get past its seemingly abstract nature, you're left with a familiar theme that's conveyed in a manner you're not entirely used to and a somewhat hypnotizing style. I was talking to a friend about this a while ago, and we both came to an agreement that There Will Be Blood is more emotionally engaging while The Master is more intellectually engaging.

[Abdrewes]

Just a heads up: Il Grido, The Vanquished, and Story of a Love Affair are all on Fandor.

(I'm trying my best to stay out of the Paul Thomas Anderson conversation seeing as Magnolia is my favorite film of all time)

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

I know that question was not directed towards me, but I'm one of those that would rank The Master above There Will Be Blood (and everything else PTA has done, with the exception of the Sandler flick.) This film feels like PTA had completely shed off the influences he's been channeling in his earlier films and developed his own particular style. I can't think of another film that had the feeling of this one.

Admittedly, my initial viewing was a confounding one. It was far more abstract than I was expecting and I wasn't exactly sure what I should have taken away from it. I let it sink in for a couple of days and still had a feeling of confusion. A few weeks go by and I see it again in theaters. The film felt clearer and it's thematic concerns seemed entirely in line with everything PTA has done. He's always has an interest with characters searching for a connection - There Will Be Blood being the notable exception, which kind of plays like an anti-Anderson picture. Here it's shown through a character dealing with it in broad terms. Frankly, the "scientology" aspect has never interested me, and I often forget about while watching it.

Coupled with gorgeous cinematography (those blues are lovely) and what is, I think, the greatest performance of this decade, you get one of PTA's upper-tier films. Once you get past its seemingly abstract nature, you're left with a familiar theme that's conveyed in a manner you're not entirely used to and a somewhat hypnotizing style. I was talking to a friend about this a while ago, and we both came to an agreement that There Will Be Blood is more emotionally engaging while The Master is more intellectually engaging.

good post, Sammy.

Yes, I agree with you when you say that it feels like this film is uniquely his own. Although I, too, couldn't make much of it in one viewing, I kind of gathered that PTA is trying to say something about the J Phoenix character and his trying to find his place in society. I'm hoping that I'll have the same revelations that you had when I do sit down with it a second time.

I posted the other day about how sometimes we have certain expectations for a film only to feel somewhat disappointed when the film doesn't seem to play within those 'rules,' so to say, of what we have become accustomed to. It is probably fair to say that this one demands at least two watches.

I, was, actually a bit surprised at how well There Will Be Blood played for me during my 3rd watch a few weeks ago. The themes there are definitely more accessible, but still I found that I was able to devote more attention and thought to some of what might have been a little lost on me the first two times.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I respect your opinion, but would you be willing to expound upon why you prefer The Master to TWBB?

I hated Paul Dano's performance. I thought it threw the entire film off balance and i didn't find it at all convincing. I understand I'm in a minority on that, but he was very off putting to me. The film as a whole was probably more well made than The Master was.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

This is more of a general statement and not necessarily directed at you, but why is it that "vague" always seems to get celebrated? At least in these circles. I do appreciate films like Last Year at Marienbad and The Double Life of Veronique, but on occasion, "vague" just doesn't work for me. While it is certainly possible that there are films that I simply can not wrap my head around, there are others for which I can draw the safe conclusion that there just isn't anything there.

Being 'vague' and 'ambiguous' is not necessarily a virtue, but I think it worked for The Master because it felt like more of an 'existential' kind of story about lonely or 'dispossessed' people who are looking for somewhere to belong. In many ways i think the film uses the two main characters to comment on the desire for freedom vs dependence. Also, I think it's also saying something about the way that the desire for power and control of others has consequences, for both the the perpetrator and the 'victim' alike, even if that person appears to be resisting attempts at control, which most of us tend to do but are nonetheless affected.

I honestly need to see it again though before committing to any particular reading of the film, but it did leave me with plenty of ideas, and i really liked the whole push-pull dynamic of the central relationship.

[aes3728]

Over on DVDBeaver they have posted reviews of August's first 3 and all look incredible. Especially Love Streams

[ultlife2013]

Some of you guys need to re watch these films you talk about, because some of you are misremembering some part of these films. PTA films never seem to be too vague, they just don't hold your hand throughout the whole film.

It would be cool if a boxset of his films came out by criterion but the blurays already come with great aq and vq scores with lots of extras. I don't know what criterion could even add to be honest.

[Polaroid]

My favourite PTA film has to be Magnolia, its incredible!

SO much emotion in that film, its incredible.

[ultlife2013]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

My favourite PTA film has to be Magnolia, its incredible!

SO much emotion in that film, its incredible.

He got an amazing performance out of tom cruise, that last scene with him was insane. One of the best performances of his career, they should work together again for another film. I would watch that no doubt.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by ultlife2013

He got an amazing performance out of tom cruise, that last scene with him was insane. One of the best performances of his career, they should work together again for another film. I would watch that no doubt.

Yeah - I am not usually a fan of Tom Cruise but he was good in this... think I'm gonna watch Magnolia tonight now haha

Philip Seymour Hoffman was great in it though

[Thebunk]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

PTA is always the one that people use as a comparison. PTA's multi-narrative ensemble films are generally far more morally and emotionally simplistic than what Altman's films were in that style, especially in the 'old days'. I suspect that's largely why they are preferred by the younger generations--including my own--because they are more accessible. That's not a knock on PTA necessarily, but there are many young film buffs out there that actually think PTA improved on Altman's style, which is completely absurd. He didn't 'improve' on it at all. He dumbed it down.

Magnolia is a well made film but unlike, say, Nashville, it tells you what to think and feel at almost any given moment.

Well I will preface this by saying that I am a pretty big fan of PTA and Boogie Nights is my favorite film of all time and Magnolia which I just rewatched this past weekend still holds up well in my opinion. So given that, I think you can infer pretty quickly where I am in terms of the PTA vs. Altman battle (not that there is a battle).

I can see how some may say how PTA ties things up a bit easier then Altman and does not allow one to draw as many conclusions on their own. That said, I think that speaks as much to Altman's weaknesses as it does PTA's strengths (again in my opinion). Short Cuts was "neat: (have not washed Nashville yet) but really, in terms of being emotionally invested in the characters, well I just wasn't. They all felt kind of cartoonish and one dimensional where as with nearly everyone in Boogies Nights, I feel like I have been through the highs and lows.

Also, PTA incorporates just as much Scorsese as he does Altman into these two films which I think speak to not only PTA's use of the camera and music to drive scenes (particularly emotional scenes) but also the overall flow of the film (many parallels with Goodfellas and Casino I find).

There is no denying Altman's influence but as I have tried to make the point before, just because you come first, does not mean you are best. Again, my opinion only.

[Thebunk]

Originally Posted by ultlife2013

He got an amazing performance out of tom cruise, that last scene with him was insane. One of the best performances of his career, they should work together again for another film. I would watch that no doubt.

Agreed. I am not sure what other A list actor that have never been known for their acting chops made such a great performance that is the opposite of what they are known for. Sandler in PDL is an easy comparison of course but does not come close in my opinion.