The Criterion Collection

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Mansinthe

clockwork orange: i wish he would have included the last chapter of the book as well.

I dunno. While I respect Burgess and what he intended in that last chapter, I think it's a much more powerful story without it. Contrary to what I said in a previous reply that I thought Kubrick made some poor choices in his adaptations of Lolita and The Shining, I think his adaptation of A Clockwork Orange improves upon the novel.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

When the ending to 2001 always comes, I always feel this deep sadness in the pit of my stomach. It is the most unusual feeling I ever experienced in cinema. It is such a mysterious and unknown ending that it is frankly one of the greatest endings in any movie I've ever witnessed. There is just no explanation and no words, which means its pure genius. I don't need to wrap any of this in spoilers as I expect everyone here has seen that movie, but when that StarChild appears, I can only wonder what would happen next. How did time speed up so fast (or slow down) for Bowman? That furnished room with florescent lighting was so sterile and alien to me. How could a human being endure that isolation? Was death in that instance also rebirth? Anyway, these questions have been asked trillions of times, but these are my thoughts.

The ending shouldn't be sad. Anything but. The film is about the evolution of mankind. People talk about how unemotional Kubrick was with the film, but that's the point. He was portraying mankind as being, for all practical purposes, evolutionarily stunted. Turning Bowman into the Star Child is the mysterious aliens' way of uplifting mankind to the next level, just as they did at the dawn of time when they turned the pre-hominids into tool-users.

I must say, many people claim that very few movies can top the books they're based on. The Shining is one of the few films that many people say is actually better than the book.

I disagree. I think the film comes a poor second to the novel. Over time, I've lost my taste for Stephen King's work, but The Shining was a brilliant horror novel.

I don't think 2001 can lose any bit of its glamour, because Solaris will never come close to matching that film's power.

There I agree with you. I like Solaris, but it's actually my least favorite Tarkovsky film. And I know that many people think it's better than 2001, but I don't agree.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I cannot wait until Picnic at Hanging Rock comes to Blu-ray. That is one haunting cinematic masterpiece. Great double feature night with The Last Wave.

That is a good double feature. The Last Wave is one of my favorite fantasy films of all time.

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by ravenus

The movie that haunted me completely as a kid was Picnic at Hanging Rock. I was probably about 8-9 when I saw it and did not understand a lot of the subtext the film had (about Victorian repression and the incongruity of such a settlement in an weathered harsh environment), but I could feel the sadness and wistfulness of the film (of course, the beautiful Miranda was the anchor that held my interest). My interpretation of the film then (and to an extent even now) is a Pied Piper like calling to the girls who I imagined went through some enchanted portal to another dimension.

The film that freaked me out as an adult were The Innocents and Peeping Tom.

Oh The Innocents could really use a Criterion release, a great horror film. I had to have it for Halloween so I recently picked up the DVD. I love Gothic and atmospheric horror films and this is in my top 5 of all time in that regard.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I still need to see The Killing, because it does look up my alley as far as film noir and such are concerned. I have not been particularly compelled so far, because I have mixed reactions to Kubrick's stuff, but the genre value of that film is winning me over toward purchasing it.

It's my second favorite noir film of all time, right behind John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle. That both films star Sterling Hayden is a coincidence (or is it?)

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I still need to see The Killing, because it does look up my alley as far as film noir and such are concerned. I have not been particularly compelled so far, because I have mixed reactions to Kubrick's stuff, but the genre value of that film is winning me over toward purchasing it.

See The Killing now!!!

One of Kubrick's best and one of his most accessible. Most of my friends are very inexperienced when it comes to cinema and this is always the first Kubrick I show them. They always love it, such an entertaining and hard-boiled noir.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

I'm forgoing the North American release until I watch the original cut. I finally decided to suck up the $40 and import it from YesAsia.

Yeah, I just posted a blog entry which mainly consists of me whining about the changes. Ugh.

Are we gonna get the Untampered version here in the US on BluRay?

[Judex]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Ugh. I want to see The Grandmaster, but Weinstein's touch has me wary. Still, Wong Kar Wai's cinema is something that should be experienced on the big screen. Ahh.. maybe I'll just import the intended cut.

Might just see Ain't them Bodies Saints instead.

That doesn't open here for another two week.

[The Great Owl]

I'm watching the one-hour documentary on the Stripes Blu-ray now. Bill Murray's interview was filmed in Tokyo, on the set of Lost in Translation, apparently during one of the blue-lit dance club scenes. Pretty funny, because this totally accentuates Murray's character situation in Lost in Translation.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Saying "he only directed it" is a bit weird, but his contribution was, pretty much, work for hire. A lot of people tend not to think of it as a "real" Kubrick film. I'm not sure that Kubrick did.



You're not the only one. It's dead last in my list, and it's the only film of Kubrick's that I don't hesitate to say that I dislike. The primary reason is that I think Kubrick made a lot of poor choices in adapting the novel (the novel is a brilliant piece of literature). One of those choices, in disagreement to one of your remarks, is the casting of Peter Sellers as Quilty. In the novel, Quilty was a disturbing, shadowy figure; Sellers made him comical. (And for the record, I'm not really a fan of Sellers. I wasn't even especially taken with his performance(s) in Strangelove.

The only choice in adaptation that I thought was brilliance on Kubrick's part was having Humbert's planned seduction of Lolita take place at a motel hosting a state policeman's convention (it was a different sort of convention in the novel, and I forget what). The irony of that seemed spot on.

Then again, Nabokov liked the movie, so what do I know?

What I consider poor choices in adaptation from the novel is why I don't rate The Shining higher, as well

Originally Posted by jayembee

As much as I love 2001, it's not my favorite SF film; but A Clockwork Orange is. At least, I think it's the best SF film in terms of being the best film that's science fiction, not the film that's the best science fiction. 2001 is better as science fiction, but I still think Metropolis, Blade Runner, and Death Watch are better SF.



Interesting thing about Barry Lyndon. Back when it first came out, I had a co-worker who didn't think that any movie was ever worth watching more than once. But he confessed that he'd gone to see Barry Lyndon four times.

Originally Posted by jayembee

The ending shouldn't be sad. Anything but. The film is about the evolution of mankind. People talk about how unemotional Kubrick was with the film, but that's the point. He was portraying mankind as being, for all practical purposes, evolutionarily stunted. Turning Bowman into the Star Child is the mysterious aliens' way of uplifting mankind to the next level, just as they did at the dawn of time when they turned the pre-hominids into tool-users.



I disagree. I think the film comes a poor second to the novel. Over time, I've lost my taste for Stephen King's work, but The Shining was a brilliant horror novel.



There I agree with you. I like Solaris, but it's actually my least favorite Tarkovsky film. And I know that many people think it's better than 2001, but I don't agree.

Well, thanks for all your responses to my thoughts...

It's too bad we disagree so much on everything regarding cinema, but I guess that just adds more of a challenge to the whole discussion.

I think Sellers is brilliant and will always be. Lolita would have never been so unique had Sellers' performance hadn't been comical, but otherwise conventional and "disturbing".

I find myself watching Barry Lyndon more and more, and I don't know or understand why this happens to me. It's unexplainable.

I guess I feel a whole range of emotions when 2001 ends. I feel uplifted too though, not just sad. Maybe a happy kind of sad. An "awe".

Over the last 20 years, I've heard so many people on the street here tell me how The Shining was better than the book. I still have to agree it is, having read it. How many horror films can achieve the level that The Shining achieves in just 2 hours? The recent documentary Room 237 is a perfect example of just how deep this film is. Make sure you watch that documentary and you will see just how there is more subtext and hidden meanings in that film than you think.

[Mansinthe]

if you talk about shining do you mean the longer US cut or the EU cut?
i have only seen the shorter cut so far.

and i just ordered:

videodrome
wild strawberries
yi yi
seconds
marketa lazarova
the magician

B&N is changing prices for more and more movies, and making them more expensiv each day (29-> 34$)

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I think Solaris is every bit the equal to 2001...Primarily because it explores the human condition-- our search for meaning and our binds with memory--with as much tact as 2001 explores the nature of time, technology, evolution, etc. They have two very different goals, and in my mind, they are both just as successful in what they achieve.

Solaris is the Russian equivalent to 2001, but it certainly cannot be the counterpart to 2001. I think Solaris is a beautiful film that indeed captures the human condition, and if you combined both films together, you might have the ultimate science fiction movie from that era. Yes, both films are highly successful, but I just cannot agree that you can raise Solaris to the level of 2001. Arthur C. Clarke's book and work is not comparable to Stanislaw Lem's 1961 novel. The music choices are not as powerful in Solaris as it is in 2001. In fact, Solaris is devoid of music. Tarkovsky called 2001 a "sterile" film, but what did Kubrick call Solaris? Does anyone know what Kubrick's opinion of Solaris was?

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I've always wanted to see Room 237, but not enough to go way out of my way. I'm sure that it would be quite fun to check out all the conspiracy theories, though.

I highly implore you to watch this documentary or buy it on Blu-ray, if you're also a huge fan of The Shining like I am. Please check this out! You will be blown away. It's essential viewing for any Kubrick fans.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by Judex

That doesn't open here for another two week.

Just watched it. Good stuff. The material isn't really original, but the execution is worthwhile. Its dirty and somewhat poetic look makes it compelling enough. You basically know what's going to happen by the end, but the director still makes it work. Mara is terrific and better than everything else surrounding her. She resembles the classical era incredibly well.

But yeah, check it out if you get the chance, especially if it's on the big screen. The general aesthetic makes it worth it.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I cannot wait until Picnic at Hanging Rock comes to Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by SilentxStatik24

Oh The Innocents could really use a Criterion release, a great horror film. I had to have it for Halloween so I recently picked up the DVD.

I'm assuming you fellows need to have region A friendly releases because otherwise both Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Innocents have amazing blu-ray releases from Second Sight and BFI respectively that will stand strong against most Criterion releases.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jw007

Solaris is the Russian equivalent to 2001, but it certainly cannot be the counterpart to 2001. I think Solaris is a beautiful film that indeed captures the human condition, and if you combined both films together, you might have the ultimate science fiction movie from that era. Yes, both films are highly successful, but I just cannot agree that you can raise Solaris to the level of 2001. Arthur C. Clarke's book and work is not comparable to Stanislaw Lem's 1961 novel. The music choices are not as powerful in Solaris as it is in 2001. In fact, Solaris is devoid of music. Tarkovsky called 2001 a "sterile" film, but what did Kubrick call Solaris? Does anyone know what Kubrick's opinion of Solaris was?

Come on, that's not even a valid criticism.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Come on, that's not even a valid criticism.

I've never heard any music used from Solaris in pop culture. On the other hand, the main theme from 2001 (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) has been used in so many endless political commercials, TV ads, films and the media. One must take that into account when comparing films. If a single film uses music that is timeless and is mega popular and billions of people around the world have heard this, then it only elevates the power and originality of the film. Tarkovsky's Solaris has probably been rarely seen amongst pop culture in comparison to 2001, and that alone says just how important "popularity" is when talking about original works of art or films.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jw007

I've never heard any music used from Solaris in pop culture. On the other hand, the main theme from 2001 (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) has been used in so many endless political commercials, TV ads, films and the media. One must take that into account when comparing films. If a single film uses music that is timeless and is mega popular and billions of people around the world have heard this, then it only elevates the power and originality of the film. Tarkovsky's Solaris has probably been rarely seen amongst pop culture in comparison to 2001, and that alone says just how important "popularity" is when talking about original works of art or films.

You don't know how ridiculous that sounds. Popularity and exposure to billions does not equate power and originality. Is an unseen masterpiece something less than a masterpiece seen by hundreds of millions? No. First, the piece was not composed for 2001--hence not original. Second, just as many people have heard (and been moved by) Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On." That doesn't make Titanic or that song any more powerful and original, on the contrary, it makes it an easier target of ridicule and parody.

There are just so many ways to argue this--so I'll just pick a random argument--okay, got one. Solaris does not need music, not all films need music. That would rob the film of the atmosphere and, subsequently, the power the film has to contemplate what exactly is the relationship between those on the space station and the planet itself...in turn, we are also forced to dwell on our lives, our memories and our beliefs about the universe. Cranking up the music would have robbed the film of its thought provoking nature because then the film would have divulges too much, simplified the themes rather than building on top of them.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

You don't know how ridiculous that sounds. Popularity and exposure to billions does not equate power and originality. Is an unseen masterpiece something less than a masterpiece seen by hundreds of millions? No. First, the piece was not composed for 2001--hence not original. Second, just as many people have heard (and been moved by) Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On." That doesn't make Titanic or that song any more powerful and original, on the contrary, it makes it an easier target of ridicule and parody.

There are just so many ways to argue this--so I'll just pick a random argument--okay, got one. Solaris does not need music, not all films need music. That would rob the film of the atmosphere and, subsequently, the power the film has to contemplate what exactly is the relationship between those on the space station and the planet itself...in turn, we are also forced to dwell on our lives, our memories and our beliefs about the universe. Cranking up the music would have robbed the film of its thought provoking nature because then the film would have divulges too much, simplified the themes rather than building on top of them.

I had a feeling you were going to tear me apart for saying that. Lol.

Your point has been made. Music is non-essential to films. I can adhere to that belief. I think the few instances there is music in 2001, or any other film for that matter that uses well edited music in the story, is brilliant. I think the combination of music and visuals creates a power that I find nowhere else. For instance, at the end of Field of Dreams, if there hadn't been music there, the effect would not have been as powerful at all. Many men cry at the end of that film because the music elevates the whole narrative of that last scene. There are times when music is essential and times when it isn't. The brilliance of Kubrick is that he was able to use music in key sequences and knew that it would create a more powerful effect on the viewer and in the film. I don't know how or why you would even discuss the movie Titanic in this context (I'm not talking about hit songs by Celine Dion or whatever), so you're a bit off track there.

I suppose, by your argument, that since I created a "masterpiece" film seen by a dozen people, that means its equal to a great film such as 2001. Your argument is, if nobody has seen someone's "masterpiece" film, its still on the same level as one of the greatest films of all time (even though nobody has seen it). I guess its all subjective. And yes, I know that Strauss' music was not original for the film, but the way Kubrick used it was wholly original. Frankly, nobody can ever hear that music without thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey! Now that is what I call lasting power.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

Well, thanks for all your responses to my thoughts...

It's too bad we disagree so much on everything regarding cinema, but I guess that just adds more of a challenge to the whole discussion.

Well, as the saying goes, if we agreed on everything, one of us would be redundant.

I think Sellers is brilliant and will always be. Lolita would have never been so unique had Sellers' performance hadn't been comical, but otherwise conventional and "disturbing".

There was nothing conventional about Quilty in the novel. If memory serves, he doesn't even appear "on screen" as it were in the novel -- except perhaps for a bit towards the end -- but is largely a metaphor for Humbert's paranoia and guilt.

It's not just that Sellers is comical, it's that he's almost slapstick. I just think it was the wrong tone for the story. But as I said, I don't consider myself a fan of Sellers. His best performance was, in my opinion, the least overtly comical: in Being There. In Dr. Strangelove, I thought George C. Scott (who was one of the most deadly serious actors around) was funnier in his one role than Sellers was in his three put together.

Over the last 20 years, I've heard so many people on the street here tell me how The Shining was better than the book. I still have to agree it is, having read it. How many horror films can achieve the level that The Shining achieves in just 2 hours?

Oh, I think quite a few can. But that's just me. I didn't find the film particularly scary, but then, people are surprised that I didn't find The Exorcist scary, either (the only scene in The Exorcist that made me squirm was when Regan was in the hospital getting a spinal tap).

Alien freaked me out, though it's lost its power to do that over the many years and viewings. Halloween freaked me out, and still does. Suspiria freaked me out, and also still does. The Shining never did.

Anyway, when I first read the novel, it had just come out in paperback. I was working my way through it, and it was getting late. I said to myself, "I'll finish this section, and then get to bed." The end of that section was the scene with the wasps. It was another 50 pages before I could finally put the book down. There wasn't a single scene in the film that wigged me out like that scene in the book.

Or take the bit with the woman in Room 217. That scene in the book scared the shit out of me. That scene in the film was almost laughable, with the cackling old woman coming after Danny. I can't help but think how much more powerful that scene would've been if we just saw Danny pull back the shower curtain, blanch, run for the door, and as he struggles to open the door, a hand reaches out from off-screen and grabs him by the shoulder. Fade to black. In this case, less would definitely have been more.

There are many things I like about the movie, but there are too many things that, in my opinion, are wrong with it that I don't esteem it as highly as most.