The Criterion Collection

[aes3728]

Upgrade of Mamma Roma? A literal mother and the guy shouting "Row Ma"

*or perhaps just Fellini's Roma

[captveg]

I think Fellini's Roma is exactly it.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by silverlakephil

I think people at Criterion Forums correctly guessed it as Bringing Up Baby?

Nice, I think that is right but maybe I am just biased because I want to watch that again.


Why do people say it is Roma though? other than the director factor? I don't remember any boat scene with a baby.

Edit: duh I get it now, has to be Roma then, since Fellini appears in it giving directions.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by captveg

I think Fellini's Roma is exactly it.

Would they really need someone with megaphone for that though? Wouldn't a rowing mother be enough to imply row ma...roma. I think reading into him yelling "row ma!" is a bit of a stretch.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Would they really need someone with megaphone for that though? Wouldn't a rowing mother be enough to imply row ma...roma. I think reading into him yelling "row ma!" is a bit of a stretch.

As stated above you, it's Fellini directing the action.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by captveg

As stated above you, it's Fellini directing the action.

I see, makes sense. I was stuck on seeing him as a young adult, or kid, which was throwing me off. In the first of the film, a young Fellini does make sense too.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I see, makes sense. I was stuck on seeing him as a young adult, or kid, which was throwing me off. In the first of the film, a young Fellini does make sense too.

Well not exactly young as the drawing, he had to be more than 50.

[Scottie]

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Well not exactly young as the drawing, he had to be more than 50.

In the movie itself though, it portrays his youth

[Will G]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

In the movie itself though, it portrays his youth

I think your confusing Roma with Amarcord

[silverlakephil]

What exactly is the Mother holding in her lap? A big hunk of cheese, bread, watermelon?

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Will G

I think your confusing Roma with Amarcord

I believe this one also has scenes portraying his youth, but there is a particular scene where he is shooting a scene with a camera mounted on a car, don't remember if he has the megaphone, but I believe at some point it has to appear.

[jw007]

I noticed some trash talk against Terry Gilliam earlier today and I just wanted to say that I consider this man's films to be works of art. His imagination is meticulous, his productions are daring and his stories are original as hell. I don't judge the man character... I judge the man's art, and there isn't another director like him out there. He deserves limitless respect and acclaim in my opinion.

[jw007]

Criterion July Newsletter clue! Any thoughts?

[sem]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

That cut of the film and the fact that Gilliam came out on top both prove what an idiot Sheinberg was.
Gilliam has every right to be happy that he got his way with the film HE co-wrote and directed (you know, did the actual work on?).
Who gives a shit if he was one of the higher ups, he made an incredibly stupid decision and just about ruined the film. If Gilliam had been wrong his cut wouldn't have ever seen the light of day.

Both versions were bad and after the producer realized that, he was trying to get at least something that he could sell to wider audience. In the movie business, unless the director has a contractually stipulated final cut (and very few do), the producer has control.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by sem

Both versions were bad and after the producer realized that, he was trying to get at least something that he could sell to wider audience. In the movie business, unless the director has a contractually stipulated final cut (and very few do), the producer has control.

Which was his mistake. Brazil is clearly not a film intended for mass audience consumption.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by sem

Both versions were bad and after the producer realized that, he was trying to get at least something that he could sell to wider audience. In the movie business, unless the director has a contractually stipulated final cut (and very few do), the producer has control.

The directors and theatrical cuts are great, even if you dont like them personally they're very good movies.
On top of that Sid Sheinberg was NOT the producer, Armin Milchan was but Sheinberg was head of the studio at the time.
His judgement call was shit in the end which history and critics both agree with, as far as Im concerned Gilliam should be happy to have gotten around all that.

[silverlakephil]

Originally Posted by jw007

Criterion July Newsletter clue! Any thoughts?

Already been discussed since the previous page. Consensus seems to be Fellini's Roma .

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Will G

I think your confusing Roma with Amarcord

[mja345]

Gilliam pre-2000 was a fantastic filmmaker. Not to everyone's taste, granted, but still a true talent. Unfortunately, "Fear and Loathing" has become canonized by frat boy types because of the debauchery, but that is a masterful movie. I can't imagine anyone doing a better adaptation of that novel. I remember my dad taking me to that movie in the theaters when I was 11 or 12 (I grew up in a very liberal household) and it was like a blur of colors. I then watched it about 5 or 6 years later and was blown away by how batshit crazy and no-holds-barred it was. That film still holds up for me and it amazes me it was ever green-lit by a major Hollywood studio. Can you imagine that movie being released in the current climate of Hollywood filmmaking? Or two actors going as far as Depp and Del Toro in those roles? Hell no.