The Criterion Collection

[smoss469]

I think it's obvious that Wes doesn't make movies for the general public.

That being said, his new one looks fantastic.

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by smoss469

I think it's obvious that Wes doesn't make movies for the general public.

That being said, his new one looks fantastic.

Yes. But I really liked Moonrise Kingdom and adored Life Aquatic. I am clearly capable of liking the man's work.

[smoss469]

Originally Posted by demonknight

Yes. But I really liked Moonrise Kingdom and adored Life Aquatic. I am clearly capable of liking the man's work.

Never said you weren't.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

There was a study done on the IMDB boards a few years ago. "Pretentious" was one of the top 3 or 4 used words on the entire site.

Well, that's the thing, it's a term that's easy to use when you need an easy blanket word to dismiss a work outright. I mean, it's easier to label a film like Last Year at Marienbad "pretentious" than to elaborate what is so wrong about it...especially for those unwilling to engage with the film on its own terms. Now, I think it's totally okay to use the term if you have a handle on what is so pretentious about the film. Just give us a good answer as to how a film is "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

Two brief examples:

I'll confess, I have no clue what Marketa Lazarova is about. Does that make the film pretentious or did my great disdain for movies with chapter breaks get in the way of me engaging with the film? Definitely the latter. Now, for the flip side of the discussion, I think The Fountain is a pretentious film. I think I have a grip on what Aronofsky was trying to say, and how exactly he fell short, so I have no problem using that term when discussing the film.

[The Great Owl]

I just finished watching Elia Kazan's Panic in the Streets, and am now watching one of the disc documentaries about Richard Widmark. Such an amazing actor who has been featured prominently in the Collection. Criterion really needs to upgrade Pickup on South Street and Night in the City.

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by smoss469

Never said you weren't.

But you did say that they weren't for everyone.

[demonknight]

So... What are the chances of SLC Punk! I would like it, preferably from Criterion, before the sequel comes out next year.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

A buddy of mine felt the same way. I asked him repeatedly why it was "pretentious" and he failed to give me a reason each time.

"Pretentious" is often used in place of "art film". In other cases, I find people use it when they don't understand a film. It's OK to have differing opinions. I just find most of the time that word is used there's no evidence to support the claim.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'm 99.9% sure you hate my guts, so you probably will not even acknowledge this post, but I agree with this sentiment. "Pretentious" like "random" is one of the most overused words in the English dictionary. It is never used in the right way.

well, the two of you are in luck because I am going to tell you what is pretentious about Tree of Life...

a google search of the definition of pretentious as, is Andrew provided: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. given that definition, I ask you - what does Terrence Malick, filmmaker (not cosmologist, mind you) know about the origin of human life? can you attest to Malick's brilliance as a filmmaker by providing any fair artistic analysis of that 20 minute stretch of the film? (the science experiment slide show or whatever you want to call it is the sequence that I found objectionable.) the ending of the film didn't really work for me, although I find that part to be open to artistic interpretation. everything in between for me was fine. I wish it had not been ruined by that... (may I?) pretentious montage.

SOJ - I agree. The term IS sometimes used to describe an art film or something that someone does not understand. The problem I have here is that Malick doesn't understand this topic either.

a synonym for pretentious, btw, is 'showy'. if the title To The Wonder does not suggest something showy, then I may need a better dictionary.

[bwdowiak]

btw... SOJ - it isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. by assuming that someone not may not understand the meaning of the word, you are as guilty as those who do, in fact, use it as a blanket statement.

[smoss469]

Originally Posted by demonknight

But you did say that they weren't for everyone.

Yes I did, in response to this:

Sorry, Wes. This is not the case for the vast majority.

[Mansinthe]

would really love to see a bluray upgrade for these..

Three Films by Hiroshi Teshigahara (Pitfall / Woman in the Dunes / The Face of Another) (The Criterion Collection) (1964)

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Pale Flower is a relentlessly bleak movie about how all of our efforts for emotional connection and devotion are ultimately futile. How can anyone not fall head-over-heels in love with this movie?

Mwahahaha.

I watched and reviewed Pale Flower shortly after starting my big film noir marathon, and it's really amazing how well the film succeeds at capturing the fatalist aesthetic of the American classic film noir era in the post-WWII years. I think that Akira Kurosawa pulled off film noir brilliantly with Drunken Angel, Stray Dog, and The Bad Sleep Well, but Masahiro Shinoda's Pale Flower sees that and raises it. It's a beautifully-filmed work that carries the noir vibe into avant garde territory.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

You're entitled to view it that way, but I certainly don't. If it was yet another noir that wallows in fatalism, I would not be a fan of it. I think it's more of an isolated story about one particular dude being drawn back into a ruinous lifestyle even after serving a stint in prison. I don't see it as a film that provides a universal commentary about "all our efforts" in love and connection.

I'm with Abdrewes on this even though Owl admitted he exaggerated a bit with that first sentence. I don't think this film, Pale Flower, touches my soul and infiltrates my heart and captures all the dreams, hopes and awe of my life. It's an intriguing and small film about the criminal underworld though. I'm sure plenty of ex-gangsters and criminals would be drawn to this film because its about a burnt out hitman who has to act on yet another matter of revenge for his gang. I can think of countless amounts of films about a "former gangster trying to go clean but has to do one more hit before retiring". It's actually a very conventional story with very conventional themes about very conventional characters but the only saving grace this film has to me is its brilliant directing and cinematography. That's it.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Well, that's the thing, it's a term that's easy to use when you need an easy blanket word to dismiss a work outright. I mean, it's easier to label a film like Last Year at Marienbad "pretentious" than to elaborate what is so wrong about it...especially for those unwilling to engage with the film on its own terms. Now, I think it's totally okay to use the term if you have a handle on what is so pretentious about the film. Just give us a good answer as to how a film is "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

Two brief examples:

I'll confess, I have no clue what Marketa Lazarova is about. Does that make the film pretentious or did my great disdain for movies with chapter breaks get in the way of me engaging with the film? Definitely the latter. Now, for the flip side of the discussion, I think The Fountain is a pretentious film. I think I have a grip on what Aronofsky was trying to say, and how exactly he fell short, so I have no problem using that term when discussing the film.

Yes, same goes with me. I think too many people resort to calling something "pretentious" when they simply don't understand it (in this case a film). "Pretentious" is a widely overused term.

Ironically I also agree that The Fountain is pretentious however! Just how I feel that Cloud Atlas is pretentious! I understood both films but couldn't stand how obvious everything was in these movies. I mean, do these directors/writers really have to be so obvious and blatant about their messages? I'm drawn to movies that choose not to reveal too much and leave a lot to the imagination. Kubrick's films do this for me because a lot of questions are unanswered (such as in Eyes Wide Shut, which is a modern day classic). When a film is trying too hard and showing too much, I just get turned off.

[Ausjdm]

Originally Posted by jw007

Yes, same goes with me. I think too many people resort to calling something "pretentious" when they simply don't understand it (in this case a film). "Pretentious" is a widely overused term.

Ironically I also agree that The Fountain is pretentious however! Just how I feel that Cloud Atlas is pretentious! I understood both films but couldn't stand how obvious everything was in these movies. I mean, do these directors/writers really have to be so obvious and blatant about their messages? I'm drawn to movies that choose not to reveal too much and leave a lot to the imagination. Kubrick's films do this for me because a lot of questions are unanswered (such as in Eyes Wide Shut, which is a modern day classic). When a film is trying too hard and showing too much, I just get turned off.

I think thought provoking and pretentious get mixed together all too often.... Although I love D.A. films, The Fountain didn't do it for me. I highly recommend the graphic novel of this. The artwork is amazing def check out if you like the movie. It Explains more details.

Speaking of I just saw The Wolf of Wall Street. Talk about excess, my lord this is Scorcese at its extreme! I'm torn on this one. It's a movie about bad people doing bad things. Zero likability to the characters. But you end up feel like a hypocrite at the same time. I mean if someone told you go work at this company you gotta rob, cheat, & steal but you'll make millions on millions, that's a temptation hard to resist for most...

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Ausjdm

I think thought provoking and pretentious get mixed together all too often.... Although I love D.A. films, The Fountain didn't do it for me. I highly recommend the graphic novel of this. The artwork is amazing def check out if you like the movie. It Explains more details.

Speaking of I just saw The Wolf of Wall Street. Talk about excess, my lord this is Scorcese at its extreme! I'm torn on this one. It's a movie about bad people doing bad things. Zero likability to the characters. But you end up feel like a hypocrite at the same time. I mean if someone told you go work at this company you gotta rob, cheat, & steal but you'll make millions on millions, that's a temptation hard to resist for most...

I've been reading reviews about this new Scorcese movie and just how much greed and excess are the big themes of the film. This is a Scorcese movie on steroids it sounds like! Has he gone too far? How much further can Scorcese go? He is no stranger to controversial movies so this is definitely a bold film he's directed. I'll probably see it soon, most likely in the movie theater too. I think the film is timely for today though and I think each and every capitalist ought to see this film.

Glad to hear you also thought The Fountain didn't do it for you either!

[manunited1]

Speaking of Wes Anderson... Where is the Life Aquatic bluray man?! I feel like that would be his most obvious movie that needs high def... That and Darjeeling which we got already and is on my list to grab.

On to the pretentious subject; I think Moonrise kingdom takes the cake. I hated that the most out of all his work. It was some bullshit fantasy world that Wes Anderson wishes could have been his childhood. The whole thing felt like some ultra hipster fairy tail Boy Scout adventure filled with extra awkward and ultra intelligent mini grown ups. Fantastic mr. Fox was a close second in that category.

[Hartley]

Just a heads up for Canadian Criterion fans in case anyone hasn't mentioned it. Up here the Cineplex store has everything 50% off including all their Criterion films. They aren't listed as Criterion, so you'll have to search individual titles. Annoying layout to the site and their MSRP is listed a couple dollars higher than in the States, but about as good a deal as we get up here on new Criterion stuff!

[Cocophone]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

a google search of the definition of pretentious as, is Andrew provided: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. given that definition, I ask you - what does Terrence Malick, filmmaker (not cosmologist, mind you) know about the origin of human life? can you attest to Malick's brilliance as a filmmaker by providing any fair artistic analysis of that 20 minute stretch of the film? (the science experiment slide show or whatever you want to call it is the sequence that I found objectionable.) the ending of the film didn't really work for me, although I find that part to be open to artistic interpretation. everything in between for me was fine. I wish it had not been ruined by that... (may I?) pretentious montage.

First, I agree with you the ending of Tree of Life didn't work for me. I was expecting an ending with an atheist feel to it. However, I think Malick has sufficient educational background to include philosophical interpretations of the origin of life, as well as, the meaning or lack of meaning for one's existence.

I consider Malick's films to be philosophical explorations rather than pretentious displays of film making.

Malick studied philosophy under Stanley Cavell at Harvard University, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1965. He went on to Magdalen College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar. After a disagreement with his tutor, Gilbert Ryle, over his thesis on the concept of world in Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein, Malick left Oxford without a doctorate.[13] In 1969, Northwestern University Press published Malick's translation of Heidegger's Vom Wesen des Grundes as The Essence of Reasons. Returning to the United States, Malick taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[Ausjdm]

Originally Posted by jw007

I've been reading reviews about this new Scorcese movie and just how much greed and excess are the big themes of the film. This is a Scorcese movie on steroids it sounds like! Has he gone too far? How much further can Scorcese go? He is no stranger to controversial movies so this is definitely a bold film he's directed. I'll probably see it soon, most likely in the movie theater too. I think the film is timely for today though and I think each and every capitalist ought to see this film.

Glad to hear you also thought The Fountain didn't do it for you either!

Yes def in our capitalist society we're in everyone should see it no doubt. Oh god the whole movie is about extreme and excess. Some where Gordon Gekko watched this movie and even he's blushing after this lol. Like I said the main character is not someone you'll like, but I give Leo props he pulls it off amazingly. It also Has a Pain and Gain feel to it that your just watching like this stuff couldn't of really happen but yes it did! Side note damn I wander who Scorese and the team paid off to get it a R rating Because its Super graphic and I've seen Shame, irreversible, enter the void, blue valentine, dreamers, showgirls, kids, bad education, antichrist etc.. Idk how they rate stuff sometimes. Wasn't saving private Ryan pg13 lol?

[Visco.]

I apologize if this is completely off topic but I was wondering if anyone knows the release date for Enough Said.

I did a search looking for a thread but I couldn't find one about the film (although I'm pretty sure the search function on tapatalk is useless).

I googled it and I got an answer that says January 14th but that's seems too soon. Maybe amazon just failed to update their pre-order info?