The Criterion Collection

[trombone dixie]

I simply can't wait for HIGH AND LOW.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Beauty & The Beast is a GREAT picture. It has a truly magical quality, no pun intended. If you've not seen it, it's a lot more surreal than you might expect given the story's Disneyfication in recent years. Give me early-20th century effects over CGI any day.

I have been on a LIFELONG QUEST to ram a copy of Cocteau's Beauty & the Beast straight down the throat (for their own benefit and education, of course) of every idiot who grew up on Linda "Tim Burton's Alice" Woolverton's travesty of the original tale--Or at least make them watch it once, Clockwork-style.
"But the Disney must be a classic, it got an Oscar 'n stuff!"...I can take Jiminy Cricket, dwarves with names, and mermaids with happy endings, but the graffiti Linda scrawled over the original story was nothing short of character assassination.

So......let's see a show of hands: How many here have never seen the Cocteau Criterion in ANY form, DVD, Netflix or theater?
I know it's preaching to the choir on a Criterion thread, but just to get a more or less unscientific sampling of what people think the "real" story is like. It's one step on the road to cultural therapy.

(I've advocated that parents show it to their kids at least once instead--
Or, if it's a bit too dark for the youngers, at least the analogous Roger Vadim-directed episode of "Shelley Duvall's Faerie Tale Theater", which basically cribbed every Cocteau shot in color, and substituted Susan Sarandon and Klaus Kinski.)

[captveg]

I'm a fan of both the Cocteau film and the Disney film. This'll be my third time owning the Cocteau (DVD, DVD re-release, BD), and I happily purchased the Disney film for the third time (VHS, DVD, BD). There's plenty to enjoy in both.

[Zen_Amako]

My first viewing of Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast was about nine years ago, but I saw Coppola's Dracula when it was first released. Coppola cribbed a LOT from Cocteau when he made his Dracula. One of the special features on the Criterion Bram Stoker's Dracula laserdisc showed clips from Beauty and the Beast and compared them to similar sequences in Dracula. That was actually my first exposure to Cocteau's film.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Yankees0222

I bought the BBS set a while ago but I'm just now getting around to watching it..... I was just wondering how you guys would rank them in order from Best to least best (I'm sure there arnt any bad ones ). I'm not sure which to start with.... Thanks : )

Actually, you might want to watch them least best to best, so you know there's always something better coming.

While I say this all the time about a variety of films, you have to understand these films within the context of their time, including what it was like to make a very low budget anti-Hollywood movie. Unless you watch movies made for the internet, we don't have films at all like this today. These were made by new filmmakers who were experimenting with the form.

"A Safe Place" is probably the worst of the bunch. Tuesday Weld plays a very selfish woman (or maybe two) in a story that is both confusing and goes nowhere. Orson Welles is in the movie in an obvious and terrible performance that I think was purposely bad. (Maybe he was pissed that he wasn't getting paid much.)

"Drive, He Said" is about a college basketball star who tries to have an affair with a mentor's wife. It was considered to be a very personal and radical film in its time, but it doesn't hold up well today.

"Head" is a mess (even though it was "written" by Jack Nicholson) and I've always harbored a suspicion that it was made purposely to destroy the Monkees career. The picture did nothing commercially because it was too confusing and too different from the TV show for the young, largely female Monkees fans and hipper audiences wouldn't see it because it was the Monkees. I think you had to be stoned to see this one. IIRC, the Blu-ray.com reviewer loved this film, but different strokes...

"The King of Marvin Gardens" is a pretty good character piece with some fine performances as is "Five Easy Pieces", even if Nicholson's character is unlikable. "Easy Rider" is probably the most commercial of all the films and has a great soundtrack, which is interesting because when they made it, they probably thought it was the most radical. It also shows some small towns and cultures in the U.S. that simply don't exist anymore. And Peter Bogdonovich's "The Last Picture Show" is easily the best of the lot with a fine story, a great performance from a very young Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shepard playing essentially the same character she would play in "The Hearbreak Kid", as well as Ben Johnson (Sugarland Express), Cloris Leachman (Young Frankenstein), Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist) and Eilenn Brennan (The Sting, Private Benjamin, FM). Also beautiful black & white photography and brief frontal nudity, which was shocking in its time.

All IMO, of course.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

The Kills had a RSD single with a Velvets cover this year, didn't they? Based on what little I know about your tastes, they seem up your alley although maybe a bit derivative -- but they do borrow heavily from the Warhol Factory aesthetic. Jamie Hince even looks a little like John Cale. They are both massive Edie Sedgwick fans as well. I've seen them live 3 or 4 times and they are always fantastic.

Yeah, the Cheap and Cheerful video oozes of Warhol/pop art and have made a John Cale comparison with Jamie (in a million years would I ever say he = John Cale because no one does.). I believe they did covers of Velvet's Venus in Furs and Pale Blue Eyes (and think the single is Pale Blue Eyes). Both are 2 of the best Velvets covers I have heard (Venus in Furs prob better), the other being Nirvana's Here She Comes Now.

They also have a new album that came out a week or 2 ago and still need to pick up. Like I said, I don't really listen to alot of today's bands, but I made a connection with them due to my likes of The Velvets, the Warhol scene, etc. With her, I follow The Dead Weather stuff, but that is hit or miss (loved most of the 1st album), due to me not being a huge Jack White fan, but I respect his stance in today's music scene and would gladly listen to him than everything you see on T.V. (what little of music is left on T.V.).

My taste in music is everywhere though.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

I've seen the Cocteau a few times but have never seen the Disney, but I have heard those schmaltzy songs and don't think I could sit through a feature full of them. I tend to consider the pictures separate from one another, like the Lon Chaney Phantom of the Opera and the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. To each their own.

It's not the musical numbers that grate, or even the "Disneyfication", it's Woolverton's utter pop-cluelessness about what the tale was about--
Yes, there were stories that Disney "didn't know what to do" with the long passage of time in the original tale and felt they had to creatively make up for it--But that still didn't excuse their version turning the Beast into a loud, selfish jerk who is "punished" for his insensitivity, and Beauty into the soul of progressive feminism(she's the only one in her village who--gasp!--reads books!) who must show him the error of his testosterone-driven ways.
In the original tale, the Beast is generous but trapped by his own misunderstood angst, and it's Beauty who has to learn the lesson about seeing past appearances...But, heavens, we can't have the female character learning lessons, that might suggest they were imperfect!
(Again, if you cringed watching what Linda did with "Alice", you ain't seen clueless yet. )

The Cocteau captured the eerie-corridor sense of magic in the castle, and the ominous elegance of a dinner table that didn't sing and dance.
(Come to think of it, that's a pretty good Three Reasons suggestion: "#3: The Candelabras don't sing.")



...Sheesh, even Ron Perlman and Linda Hamilton, with their Shakespearean sonnets and medieval sewers, got closer to the spirit of the original tale than Disney!

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by EricJ

It's not the musical numbers that grate, or even the "Disneyfication", it's Woolverton's utter pop-cluelessness about what the tale was about--
Yes, there were stories that Disney "didn't know what to do" with the long passage of time in the original tale and felt they had to creatively make up for it--But that still didn't excuse their version turning the Beast into a loud, selfish jerk who is "punished" for his insensitivity, and Beauty into the soul of progressive feminism(she's the only one in her village who--gasp!--reads books!) who must show him the error of his testosterone-driven ways.
In the original tale, the Beast is generous but trapped by his own misunderstood angst, and it's Beauty who has to learn the lesson about seeing past appearances...But, heavens, we can't have the female character learning lessons, that might suggest they were imperfect!
(Again, if you cringed watching what Linda did with "Alice", you ain't seen clueless yet. )

The Cocteau captured the eerie-corridor sense of magic in the castle, and the ominous elegance of a dinner table that didn't sing and dance.
(Come to think of it, that's a pretty good Three Reasons suggestion: "#3: The Candelabras don't sing.")



...Sheesh, even Ron Perlman and Linda Hamilton, with their Shakespearean sonnets and medieval sewers, got closer to the spirit of the original tale than Disney!

I'm the very last person who will defend Disney, but I think there is room for both takes on this story. For an animated musical from the early 90s, Beauty and the Beast is very strong. Sure, it dates, but it doesn't take anything away from the Cocteau film. At all.

And Howard Ashman was one of the finest lyricist of his day.

[frozenhamster]

I'd like to know, why is it important to get the essence of the original tale? The Disney film is different from the original story and the 1946 film, but that hardly makes it less worthy. To my mind it is a beautiful film, with a more engaging emotional core than either the original story or the Cocteau film. I love the 1946 version, with its gothic beauty and stunning surreal effects work. But I find that film to be at once more atmospheric and more cerebral. The Disney version attempts just enough atmosphere and intellectualism in order to hold up some more developed characters and stronger emotional beats. As much as I love watching Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, I don't cry like I do when Belle's tears bring the Beast back to life. Two different approaches, and in my mind both are amazing examples of cinema.

I also don't think the film is dated at all, and the music is some of the finest for a musical film since the 60s, or maybe earlier. In fact, I always wish there had been more songs instead of dialogue scenes. Ashman was something of a genius and it's so unfortunate we lost him so early.

[charnier]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Actually, looking at the DVDBeaver comparison it seems they dulled it down quite a bit for the Blu-ray.


I'll check it out.

I just find it a bit odd. I don't in any way dispute that the films should be dull with muted colours, but I don't see much of any steely blues or colours like the SC Rouge in Le Samourai or Army of Shadows.

For example compare this shot from AoS to the two from Rouge. Top one being Criterion, which is much closer in my opinion:




(Caps from DVDBeaver.)

I realize this is a fallacy because it's assuming the films should look similar, but it doesn't seem like a stretch. And taking this into account I don't feel the Criterion should immediately be disregarded as completely incorrect.

Pyoko, also find the trailer for Army of Shadows on youtube; the one with the French voiceover, and look at the colour differences there. That shows segments of the films in normal colour, presumably before post-production - look at Gerbier sitting down before he gets captured, look at the colour of the blood on the hand holding the pill. Notice how it looks quite different from the finished film.

Edit - back to Le Cercle Rouge, I think the first three caps in Beaver - Mattei in the train carriage and on the ground, and Corey in Rico's apartment illustrate the colour differences best.

[bugsy_pal]

Originally Posted by frozenhamster

I'd like to know, why is it important to get the essence of the original tale? The Disney film is different from the original story and the 1946 film, but that hardly makes it less worthy. To my mind it is a beautiful film, with a more engaging emotional core than either the original story or the Cocteau film. I love the 1946 version, with its gothic beauty and stunning surreal effects work. But I find that film to be at once more atmospheric and more cerebral. The Disney version attempts just enough atmosphere and intellectualism in order to hold up some more developed characters and stronger emotional beats. As much as I love watching Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, I don't cry like I do when Belle's tears bring the Beast back to life. Two different approaches, and in my mind both are amazing examples of cinema.

I also don't think the film is dated at all, and the music is some of the finest for a musical film since the 60s, or maybe earlier. In fact, I always wish there had been more songs instead of dialogue scenes. Ashman was something of a genius and it's so unfortunate we lost him so early.

I'm afraid that I have to agree with the others - the Disney version was an abomination. I say this not in relation to the 'original', as I have not seen it. I just feel strongly that the Disney version epitomises everything wrong about their output in the 80s and beyond. The charm of their earlier cel animation is gone, and the songs reek of Andrew Lloyd Webberisation - faux operetta pap. The characters lack charm and are interchangeable with those of The Little Mermaid etc. - the big muscly guy whose name I have forgotten is a thoroughly odious character and should not be in a 'kids' movie. All in all, I found it an unpleasant experience.

[painted_klown]

Hello Criterion collectors.

This is a bit off topic (not about the newest releases) but I am trying to collect all of the spines and had a couple of questions.

First, I bought a copy of "The Harder They Come" and the audio on it sounds pretty terrible IMO. The dialogue sounds very sibilant, tinny, and thin, as does the music on the soundtrack. Has anyone else experienced this?

Also, what should be the "top dollar" paid for a legit (frosted white ring and nimbus logo) copy of "The Killer" DVD? I have tracked down a copy that may be legit, I have e-mailed the guy asking for info and pics, but he wants $150.00 for it...that seems a bit steep to me. What do all of you think?

Thanks.

-Dave

[24framesasecond]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Have you seen the "Satellite" video? They've certainly cultivated a look of French new wave film stars born 40 years too late. French new wave films such as The Criterion Collection's Pierrot Le Fou or Band of Outsiders, for example. (got to keep a semblance of "on-topic")

Yeah, I seen Satellite off their new album. Did you see them on Conan last week playing it? It's on youtube if you didn't.

[painted_klown]

Originally Posted by 24framesasecond

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used

Unfortunately, due to piracy and other issues, it's not quite as simple as going to Amazon, e-bay, Half, etc. and ordering up a copy of these DVDs.

I wish that was the case, as I would (probably) be about done with tracking down all of the OOP Criterions and working on getting all of the in print BDs.

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

No dis intended toward the late Mr. Ashman, I'm just not high on Disney specifically and cannot abide musicals generally. And brilliant composer or not, that title song just annoys me to no end, even 20 years later. (request: we need a Scanners-esque head exploding smiley)

I wasn't trying to set up a Cocteau vs. Disney war (although Cocteau wins ) but rather trying to keep people from dismissing the Cocteau version unseen based on their attitude toward the Disney version. More generally -- but thanks in part to the Disney version -- the story is seen as a fairy tale specifically for young girls, and I'd hate for dudes to let that keep them from checking out the Cocteau film.

You first paragraph I can't disagree with, cause you don't like Disney stuff or musicals. But none of your second paragraph is true. If your friends think they are too butch to watch a movie based on a story adapted as a musical 20 years ago then they aren't going to like the Cocteau film.

They only person perceiving a Cocteau vs Disney war is you. It seems like everyone else knows that this isn't Highlander. Remember when everyone still liked Casablanca after Barb Wire came out?

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by painted_klown

Hello Criterion collectors.

This is a bit off topic (not about the newest releases) but I am trying to collect all of the spines and had a couple of questions.

First, I bought a copy of "The Harder They Come" and the audio on it sounds pretty terrible IMO. The dialogue sounds very sibilant, tinny, and thin, as does the music on the soundtrack. Has anyone else experienced this?

Also, what should be the "top dollar" paid for a legit (frosted white ring and nimbus logo) copy of "The Killer" DVD? I have tracked down a copy that may be legit, I have e-mailed the guy asking for info and pics, but he wants $150.00 for it...that seems a bit steep to me. What do all of you think?

Thanks.

-Dave

In my opinion, $150.00 for a used copy of "The Killer" is high. Not every "legit" copy of "The Killer" has the white frosted ring. Mine does not, but it does have the nimbus logo and the numbers match etc.

If you buy on Amazon, you are protected. Ask for pictures from the seller(s). I saw several that were much more affordable.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by BasicGreatGuy

In my opinion, $150.00 for a used copy of "The Killer" is high. Not every "legit" copy of "The Killer" has the white frosted ring. Mine does not, but it does have the nimbus logo and the numbers match etc.

If you buy on Amazon, you are protected. Ask for pictures from the seller(s). I saw several that were much more affordable.

Edited to add: "The Harder They Come" sound issue you mentioned, is the same for me. If I am not mistaken, it has been noted in several reviews.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

You first paragraph I can't disagree with, cause you don't like Disney stuff or musicals. But none of your second paragraph is true. If your friends think they are too butch to watch a movie based on a story adapted as a musical 20 years ago then they aren't going to like the Cocteau film.

And I've always been of the opinion that the original B&B was one of the only "guy-safe" fairy tale out there, and probably the best-known XY-friendly tales in Perrault or Grimm.
At least it WAS, before Disney gave the girl top billing. Take a look at the archived pre-Disney version, and think your friends will be....surprised.

(That's probably why Woolverton dumping all the blame on The Guy just rankled right up my spine, when the original Beast had enough to deal with already: How much does a guy have to DO, to get a little respect for himself? )

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And I've always been of the opinion that the original B&B was one of the only "guy-safe" fairy tale out there, and probably the best-known XY-friendly tales in Perrault or Grimm.
At least it WAS, before Disney gave the girl top billing. Take a look at the archived pre-Disney version, and think your friends will be....surprised.

(That's probably why Woolverton dumping all the blame on The Guy just rankled right up my spine, when the original Beast had enough to deal with already: How much does a guy have to DO, to get a little respect for himself? )

Weird. I'm starting to think some people just have lady problems.

Out of curiosity, do you guys react as strongly when adaptations of Peter Pan tell the story as Peter's story, even though the story is really about Wendy coming to terms with growing up?

Or is it that boys just won't relate to girl characters because they have cooties?