The Criterion Collection

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Been doing some research and this Three Colors trilogy has a lot of glowing reviews.

$40 is a heck of a lot for a blind buy, but I must admit...I'm intrigued.

Already spent too much during this sale.

May have to decide between getting this or keeping Hiroshima Mon Amour (which I still haven't unwrapped yet.)

...how do you feel about that AaronJ?

Then buy the 3 colors on DVD. If you want singly...start with Red.

[ijustblumyself]

I love Kurosawa and Ozu, but I do think Ozu is the superior artist.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

It matters to me.

They're saying that Ozu has two films that are better than Kurosawa's best.

...that's poppycock.

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

"but when you're distilling an entire art form down a few hundred titles does it really matter where one lands on that list?"


Why even make the list then?

As for your first statement, it's not "poppycock". It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with that assessment. And that's because it's not all about what you and you alone think. Which brings us to the second statement...

Because the list represents a consensus of opinion of a number of critics. It's not an edict from the Dark Overlord of the Universe.

But more importantly...I find such a list interesting because I know what my choices are, so I don't need to see a list that essentially just like mine so I can feel good about having the same opinions as a group of top critics. I want to see what they -- who are assuredly know more than I about film -- think.

Don't you like to see your opinions challenged?

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jayembee

As for your first statement, it's not "poppycock". It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with that assessment. And that's because it's not all about what you and you alone think. Which brings us to the second statement...

Because the list represents a consensus of opinion of a number of critics. It's not an edict from the Dark Overlord of the Universe.

But more importantly...I find such a list interesting because I know what my choices are, so I don't need to see a list that essentially just like mine so I can feel good about having the same opinions as a group of top critics. I want to see what they -- who are assuredly know more than I about film -- think.

Don't you like to see your opinions challenged?

"Don't you like to see your opinions challenged?"

Sure...why not?

And then I like to politely state why I disagree with those who disagree with me.

...what's wrong with that?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

"Don't you like to see your opinions challenged?"

Sure...why not?

And then I like to politely state why I disagree with those who disagree with me.

...what's wrong with that?

Nothing. But you didn't really do that. You didn't explain why you think the two Ozu films are not better than Kurosawa's best. You just called the assessment "poppycock".

And I say it isn't "poppycock". Quite frankly, I think Tokyo Story and Late Spring are most definitely better than Seven Samurai. Hell, I can even think of two other Kurosawa films that are better than Seven Samurai, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the critics who voted in this poll are idiots because they think Seven Samurai is Kurosawa's best film.

[Shout92]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

It's not Criterion, but seeing as you like A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, I would recommend getting Julie Taymor's ACROSS THE UNIVERSE (2007) for its amazing use of Beatles songs to construct the plot and characters, besides the performances worked into the story. Plus, it has stunningly beautiful HD imagery and a great soundtrack. You should also have GOOD OL' FRIEDA (2013), a great documentary about the Beatles' secretary.

I hated -- HATED! -- Across the Universe. Felt like bad high school musical production of a lot of those songs. A few worthwhile moments, but not enough for a feature film. I MIGHT be tempted to give it a rewatch at some point, but it's not a movie I can see myself changing my opinion, despite being a big fan of the Beatles.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Nothing. But you didn't really do that. You didn't explain why you think the two Ozu films are not better than Kurosawa's best. You just called the assessment "poppycock".

And I say it isn't "poppycock". Quite frankly, I think Tokyo Story and Late Spring are most definitely better than Seven Samurai. Hell, I can even think of two other Kurosawa films that are better than Seven Samurai, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the critics who voted in this poll are idiots because they think Seven Samurai is Kurosawa's best film.

I didn't say that they were idiots.

I just don't think that Ozu is a better or more important director than Kurosawa.

Which that list's rankings would seem to suggest.

And I actually agree with you about Seven Samurai. Not one of my favorite Kurosawa films. Ikiru, Red Beard, Ran and High and Low are all superior for my money.

But I do think Seven Samurai is easily one of the ten most influential films ever made.

...thus it should be higher on the list.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

I love Kurosawa and Ozu, but I do think Ozu is the superior artist.

I love both, but I disagree. I think Kurosawa had a lot more range. He tackled period samurai films, detective noir stories, family dramas and more. . Ozu spent most of his career dealing with the family dynamic in/around Tokyo, even retelling the same story in different ways over his career. I think Ozu was a master of that, he really understood the struggle between father and daughter, husband and wife, etc... but as a filmmaker he never branched out too much from that territory. Kurosawa wasn't just a great director either, he was an amazing writer, editor, and visual artist. He experimented frequently with new camera techniques, many which are mimicked today. He demanded the best out of his actors and it shows. There were many Ozu films on the other hand that have several mediocre performances in them.

Ozu was more consistent with his particular style of filming, and used less camera and editing techniques as he got older. He wasn't big on innovations coming out (e.g. Cinemascope). You can say he was a bit stubborn as a filmmaker. All of this gives us what many of us love about Ozu films though. They have a very relaxed, and immersive feel to them. They're simply filmed, but in the sense that you aren't distracted by anything and can focus solely on the story.

So I think both were among masters at what they chose to focus on, but overall I think Kuroswa was the superior filmmaker of the two and made a greater impact to the industry.

[ShellOilJunior]

Naturally lists are subjective but it does seem silly for some elite intelligentsia to declare such and such films are the best in the history of cinema.

I don't think it's fair to number lists and declare winners. Instead, I have my favorites:

Director: Woody Allen
Film: Lawrence of Arabia
Lead actor: Peter O'Toole in Lawrence
Lead actress: Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Naturally lists are subjective but it does seem silly for some elite intelligentsia to declare such and such films are the best in the history of cinema.

why is that silly? I'd certainly be more interested in the lists of people who spent their lives studying film than some random dude.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I didn't say that they were idiots.

I didn't say you did. Nevertheless...

"poppycock
[pop-ee-kok]

noun
1.
nonsense; bosh."

It's not an unreasonable leap to say that if you think their opinions are poppycock that you might think they're idiots.

I just don't think that Ozu is a better or more important director than Kurosawa.

Which that list's rankings would seem to suggest.

And if that's your opinion, that's fine. But calling another's opinion poppycock is not the same as disagreeing with it. It's saying that that other's opinion has no legitimate value.

But beyond that, I disagree that placing two Ozu films ahead of one of Kurosawa's suggests that any of the critics voting in the poll think Ozu is a more important director than Kurosawa. You might read that into it, but that's on you. The poll is about the films, not the filmmakers. Otherwise, one could just as well argue that because Vertigo is #1, that the poll is suggesting that Hitchcock is the most important director in the history of cinema. I'm sure that there are a number of people who actually believe that, but I'm willing to bet that a significant percentage of the critics who voted in this poll do not.

[shadedpain4]

I think we should all pitch in and get one of these for Ray Jackson for Christmas.

What's your size?

[popcorntreect]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I think we should all pitch in and get one of these for Ray Jackson for Christmas.

What's your size?

That website is awesome. Thanks for sharing it.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by Clare2904

Happy belated Birthday

Thank you very much. That's very kind of you.

[SlickDamian]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Question for you guys:

If you had to make a short list of the headiest films you've ever bought from Criterion, what would they be?

By headiest, I mean films that made you think about something--big ideas, scientific ideas, philosophical ideas, abstract narratives, esoteric stories etc.

Which films challenged your mind the most in some way?

Paris, Texas
The Double Life of Veronique

[SexySamSosa67]

You guys reckon Criterion will pick up American Beauty? It could use a new 4K transfer. And it's an artsy film in general.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I know it's supposed to be highly subjective and therefor divisive by nature.

But I have a real issue with some of the choices on that list.

...two Ozu films in the top 15 and not one Kurosawa?

...The Godfather doesn't even crack the top 20?

...Godfather II isn't even top 30?

...Sunset Boulevard not even top 50?

...Ikiru at 127?!!

I don't even think Kobayashi made the list.

What's really instructive is to get hold of the previous Sight and Sound Surveys from 1952, 1962, 1972, etc., and then compare them. Ingmar Bergman, for example, didn't crack the Top Ten list until 1972, when Persona tied with L'Avventura for 5th place and Wild Strawberries barely squeezed in at 10th place in a tie with Ugetsu Monogatari.

Sergei Eisenstein was voted the Top Director of all time in the 1962 poll. By 1972, he had fallen to 5th place, overtaken by Orson Welles, Jean Renoir, Bergman, and Luis Bunuel.

I think of these polls, and others like them, as "snapshots", simply picturing critical consensus at a given point in time. They're invaluable as such, and I enjoy studying them, but they rarely reflect my own critical opinions and personal tastes.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I didn't say you did. Nevertheless...

"poppycock
[pop-ee-kok]

noun
1.
nonsense; bosh."

It's not an unreasonable leap to say that if you think their opinions are poppycock that you might think they're idiots.



And if that's your opinion, that's fine. But calling another's opinion poppycock is not the same as disagreeing with it. It's saying that that other's opinion has no legitimate value.

But beyond that, I disagree that placing two Ozu films ahead of one of Kurosawa's suggests that any of the critics voting in the poll think Ozu is a more important director than Kurosawa. You might read that into it, but that's on you. The poll is about the films, not the filmmakers. Otherwise, one could just as well argue that because Vertigo is #1, that the poll is suggesting that Hitchcock is the most important director in the history of cinema. I'm sure that there are a number of people who actually believe that, but I'm willing to bet that a significant percentage of the critics who voted in this poll do not.

"It's not an unreasonable leap to say that if you think their opinions are poppycock that you might think they're idiots."

You can parse my words using the dictionary all you want. But to me "poppycock" is nothing more than an innocuous, somewhat goofy way of describing something you disagree with.

...anything more than that is coming from your head, not mine.


I disagree that placing two Ozu films ahead of one of Kurosawa's suggests that any of the critics voting in the poll think Ozu is a more important director than Kurosawa. You might read that into it, but that's on you.

And you might not read that into it, but that's on you.

The poll is about the films, not the filmmakers.

It's not logical to say that director X has five films on a list like this, while director Y has only one and not conclude that the general consensus among critics is that director X is the better or the more important filmmaker. Of course the list has some bearing on how critics generally feel about certain directors. You can't judge their films without judging them as filmmakers.

I'm not even disagreeing with any particular critic, because I can't do that by looking at the list without knowing who voted for what. I just said I don't agree with the end result.

That's what the rankings are there for. To encourage people to see films they otherwise wouldn't...yes...but also to spark debate.

No harm, no foul.

[RojD]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Naturally lists are subjective but it does seem silly for some elite intelligentsia to declare such and such films are the best in the history of cinema.

I don't think it's fair to number lists and declare winners. Instead, I have my favorites:

Director: Woody Allen
Film: Lawrence of Arabia
Lead actor: Peter O'Toole in Lawrence
Lead actress: Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday

WOW! Someone who likes Lawrence of Arabia as much as I do! It's my favorite film, too. I even went to Jordan with some friends to camp in Wadi Rum and skip around singing "I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carrrr-lo. And Peter O'Toole was tremendous. So much is right in that film.

Favorite Director: Jean Renoir (but I really, really like PT Anderson)
Favorite lead actress: Catherine Deneuve in Repulsion (or Ingrid Bergman in Spellbound) (or Louise Brooks in Pandora's Box) (or Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine)

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jmclick

What's really instructive is to get hold of the previous Sight and Sound Surveys from 1952, 1962, 1972, etc., and then compare them. Ingmar Bergman, for example, didn't crack the Top Ten list until 1972, when Persona tied with L'Avventura for 5th place and Wild Strawberries barely squeezed in at 10th place in a tie with Ugetsu Monogatari.

Sergei Eisenstein was voted the Top Director of all time in the 1962 poll. By 1972, he had fallen to 5th place, overtaken by Orson Welles, Jean Renoir, Bergman, and Luis Bunuel.

I think of these polls, and others like them, as "snapshots", simply picturing critical consensus at a given point in time. They're invaluable as such, and I enjoy studying them, but they rarely reflect my own critical opinions and personal tastes.

Great points.