The Criterion Collection

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I know that feeling. I could not understand most of what they were saying either.

By the way, according to Pro-B's review, Criterion has provided subtitles.

Has there ever been a release where they haven't provided english subs? I thought it was standard for all of their blus at least.

[hustlermane]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I love Red River. I watched the Criterion Blu-rays of both versions this past weekend, and I figure that the theatrical version will end up being one of my most-watched Criterion titles in the long run.

So you definitively prefer the theatrical release? Seems its been divisive so far, interesting. Love the film, but only the one thats been around for ages.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

Has there ever been a release where they haven't provided english subs? I thought it was standard for all of their blus at least.

The only one that I've noticed thus far was The Complete Monterey Pop Festival.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by hustlermane

So you definitively prefer the theatrical release? Seems its been divisive so far, interesting. Love the film, but only the one thats been around for ages.

I prefer the theatrical release of Red River. There's not a huge difference between the pre-release and the theatrical release, save for the narration and a longer scene at the end. I like the Walter Brennan narration in the theatrical version.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

Has there ever been a release where they haven't provided english subs? I thought it was standard for all of their blus at least.

my understanding is that there are no English subs that appear while the English language is being spoken in Carlos which is extremely unfortunate, IMO. if I recall correctly, about 50% of the film is English and it is spoken by people with about 900 different accents. only the non-English dialogue is subtitled.

[bwdowiak]

some people here might find this article interesting. I surfed in upon it this morning. certainly, popular audiences are not seeking more "art-y" films in 2014; some of what she says, however, about there being more art in some of the more pulpy, kitschy American films from the mid 20th century than there is in some of the more "high culture" cinema is pretty interesting and something I partially agree with. (subconsciously, although I really enjoy a lot of world cinema from the previous century, it could be why my collection is mostly American films.) maybe we are too hard on ourselves if we don't immediately connect with a film. at what point does film watching feel like "homework"?

anyway, enough of me.. enjoy!:

http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/a...oing-to-pieces

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

my understanding is that there are no English subs that appear while the English language is being spoken in Carlos which is extremely unfortunate, IMO. if I recall correctly, about 50% of the film is English and it is spoken by people with about 900 different accents. only the non-English dialogue is subtitled.

Yeah, that's the case for most of their films, unfortunately.

You will occasionally get that diamond in the rough that has two English subtitle tracks - one strictly for the foreign language and the other for both English and the foreign language.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

some people here might find this article interesting. I surfed in upon it this morning. certainly, popular audiences are not seeking more "art-y" films in 2014; some of what she says, however, about there being more art in some of the more pulpy, kitschy American films from the mid 20th century than there is in some of the more "high culture" cinema is pretty interesting and something I partially agree with. (subconsciously, although I really enjoy a lot of world cinema from the previous century, it could be why my collection is mostly American films.) maybe we are too hard on ourselves if we don't immediately connect with a film. at what point does film watching feel like "homework"?

anyway, enough of me.. enjoy!:

http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/a...oing-to-pieces

There are films where we can figuratively see the director's signature stamp on the screen in almost the same way that we see an artist's signature on the corner of a painting. When I went to see Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless at a theatrical showing a few months ago, a local film professor mentioned during the post-movie discussion that this was one of the early examples of a film where the director's "trademark" is just as evident as the actual storytelling. If I watched several Jean-Luc Godard films or several Wes Anderson films in a row without knowing the identity of the director, then I would probably be able to ascertain that these films were created by the same person.

Many of my favorite films, however, are the films that focus on storytelling without placing emphasis on a director's trademark style. If I were to watch all of the Robert Wise films, all of the Otto Preminger films, or all of the Billy Wilder films in a row without knowing the identify of those directors, then I might not realize that they are created by the same person. We can spot Alfred Hitchcock films because he appears in each one, but even he utilized diverse stylistic approaches to the extent that I might have trouble realizing, for example, that To Catch a Thief was directed by the same person who directed Psycho had I not known beforehand. I rarely pay mind to who directs the James Bond movies that I love, and they're all just "James Bond movies" to me.

In general, the films with overt director trademarks feel more "homeworky" to me than the films that focus on pure storytelling without drawing attention to the style. I do love the early Godard films, like Breathless, but I lose interest in the post-1965 Godard films where his style becomes more obtrusive. I feel alienated when I'm watching Wes Anderson films, because his stylistic approaches give me the impression that I'm on the outside watching people enjoy an inside joke.

I'm inclined to think that most pre-1960 films did not display overt "director trademarks." Fritz Lang, John Ford, Akira Kurosawa, and Yasujirō Ozu utilized common camera techniques and such for their films, but I also get the impression that people did not flock to these films simply because of name recognition of the director.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, for me, storytelling usually overcomes style in terms of whether or not a film feels like homework.

That said, the only Criterion title I own that feels "homeworky" is Robert Altman's Nashville. While I was watching it a few months ago, I felt that storytelling was second fiddle to a need to be subversive or witty.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

[Show spoiler]There are films where we can figuratively see the director's signature stamp on the screen in almost the same way that we see an artist's signature on the corner of a painting. When I went to see Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless at a theatrical showing a few months ago, a local film professor mentioned during the post-movie discussion that this was one of the early examples of a film where the director's "trademark" is just as evident as the actual storytelling. If I watched several Jean-Luc Godard films or several Wes Anderson films in a row without knowing the identity of the director, then I would probably be able to ascertain that these films were created by the same person.

Many of my favorite films, however, are the films that focus on storytelling without placing emphasis on a director's trademark style. If I were to watch all of the Robert Wise films, all of the Otto Preminger films, or all of the Billy Wilder films in a row without knowing the identify of those directors, then I might not realize that they are created by the same person. We can spot Alfred Hitchcock films because he appears in each one, but even he utilized diverse stylistic approaches to the extent that I might have trouble realizing, for example, that To Catch a Thief was directed by the same person who directed Psycho had I not known beforehand. I rarely pay mind to who directs the James Bond movies that I love, and they're all just "James Bond movies" to me.

In general, the films with overt director trademarks feel more "homeworky" to me than the films that focus on pure storytelling without drawing attention to the style. I do love the early Godard films, like Breathless, but I lose interest in the post-1965 Godard films where his style becomes more obtrusive. I feel alienated when I'm watching Wes Anderson films, because his stylistic approaches give me the impression that I'm on the outside watching people enjoy an inside joke.

I'm inclined to think that most pre-1960 films did not display overt "director trademarks." Fritz Lang, John Ford, Akira Kurosawa, and Yasujirō Ozu utilized common camera techniques and such for their films, but I also get the impression that people did not flock to these films simply because of name recognition of the director.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, for me, storytelling usually overcomes style in terms of whether or not a film feels like homework.

That said, the only Criterion title I own that feels "homeworky" is Robert Altman's Nashville. While I was watching it a few months ago, I felt that storytelling was second fiddle to a need to be subversive or witty.

good post, Owl.

to add to Wes Anderson and Godard, I'd say you also are well aware when you are watching a Kubrick film and a Terrence Malick film to name a few others off the top of my head. I, personally, don't agree that this group of filmmakers create movies that feel like "homework" (except for some later Godard,) but I see what you are saying when comparing them to Kurosawa, Ford, etc.

films by Kieslowski, Antonioni, Resnais, and Wong War Kai all have that "high culture" quality that Kael is referring to. I certainly do enjoy some of their films, but my appreciation is more in line with the way in which I would appreciate a painting or poetry. I think sometimes we like to have our heads spin a little bit and not be able to reach something in a tangible way; it's one type of pleasure we take from the movies.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

good post, Owl.

to add to Wes Anderson and Godard, I'd say you also are well aware when you are watching a Kubrick film and a Terrence Malick film to name a few others off the top of my head. I, personally, don't agree that this group of filmmakers create movies that feel like "homework" (except for some later Godard,) but I see what you are saying when comparing them to Kurosawa, Ford, etc.

films by Kieslowski, Antonioni, Resnais, and Wong War Kai all have that "high culture" quality that Kael is referring to. I certainly do enjoy some of their films, but my appreciation is more in line with the way in which I would appreciate a painting or poetry. I think sometimes we like to have our heads spin a little bit and not be able to reach something in a tangible way; it's one type of pleasure we take from the movies.

I'll agree with the bolded sentence. I'll also agree that not all of the stylistic directors create films that feel like homework to me.

In fact, my main reason for slogging through a film like Robert Altman's Nashville may not be for just for stylistic reasons, but rather that the film seems to place more emphasis on "representing" something than with telling a story. (I gave that film a favorable review here, because I like how Criterion makes a case for it in the overall package, but I do not see myself revisiting it as often as I revisit Hitchcock films or Kurosawa films.)

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

good post, Owl.
to add to Wes Anderson and Godard, I'd say you also are well aware when you are watching a Kubrick film and a Terrence Malick film to name a few others off the top of my head. I, personally, don't agree that this group of filmmakers create movies that feel like "homework" (except for some later Godard,) but I see what you are saying when comparing them to Kurosawa, Ford, etc.

My heart goes out to those who feel they "have" to sit all the way through Last Year at Marienbad, because they feel it'll be "good for them", and they'll learn something about direction. (But not much--They shoulda known better.) If that's not "Homework" because someone told you to do it, at the very least, it's Nasty Medicine. Insert Malick/Tree of Life discussion here.
OTOH, anything Billy Wilder does can rivet you to the seat for an hour and a half, "Ace in the Hole" included, and Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is a three hour movie that feels like one hour at its slowest.

I'd put Breathless more in the former category, of a director who's almost snubbing the audience with the "right to establish his style" being more important than the audience's right to follow a movie.
A director should be a film fan first, and if he's working too hard to do something Different, there's a little too much hostility for the art form there before he started, and it's going to show. And sooner or later, that misdirected anger is going to be directed at the paying audience....Or, as the Monty Python foreign-film sketch put it, "The director is saying to us, the audience, 'Go on, protest, do something about it, assault the manager, demand your money back.'"

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by EricJ

My heart goes out to those who feel they "have" to sit all the way through Last Year at Marienbad, because they feel it'll be "good for them", and they'll learn something about direction. (But not much--They shoulda known better.) If that's not "Homework" because someone told you to do it, at the very least, it's Nasty Medicine. Insert Malick/Tree of Life discussion here.

I'm not sure if that is an endorsement for or against LYaM. I love it, but was not a fan of Hiroshima, Mon Amour which (dare I say it at the risk of triggering yet another post about how people don't use the word properly) felt pretentious.

Originally Posted by EricJ

I'd put Breathless more in the former category, of a director who's almost snubbing the audience with the "right to establish his style" being more important than the audience's right to follow a movie.
A director should be a film fan first, and if he's working too hard to do something Different, there's a little too much hostility for the art form there before he started, and it's going to show.

for me (and for Kael, too) I wouldn't put Breathless in that category. my theory about why many have such disdain for the film is that the jump cutting (nearly all of which appears in the first 10 minutes of the film) can be off-putting and does seem to call attention to itself. the film, although revolutionary, seems to owe a lot to the American cinema that preceded it and not just in the way Belmondo idolizes Bogart.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by EricJ

My heart goes out to those who feel they "have" to sit all the way through Last Year at Marienbad,...

So does mine though perhaps for very different reasons.

[szyzk]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

...the Billy Wilder films...

Lost Weekend was just delivered today. I can't wait to dig in to it!

I've grown to appreciate that Wilder's only "stamp" on the films he worked on was great writing and/or great camera direction with nothing to distract from the story.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jrsl76

It always seems that the sale is supposed to go until the day before the last July release. Most of the times, we've still been able to get that last July release in the sale. I hope we can again. I am looking forward to The Big Chill.

I'm just happy that the Demy set will be out during the sale. That and the World Cinema Project set are the two I'm most interested in.

[Polaroid]

Shoah came today perfect condition except for 2 nasty stickers stuck to front and half ripped off -.-

Advertised as Brand New and paid full whack! can't contact company due to Amazon banning me lol - oh well sent Criterion $5 for a replacement case...

Beautiful packaging and artwork though - not sure when I will watch, still got Zatoichi to start and a few other Criterions i've put bought and not got around to watching...

Cant wait for my AK 100 boxset to arrive though, advertised as perfect condition so fingers crossed - don't think I got a bad deal £350 /$585... annoying they are DVD's but its a stunning boxset and a great selection of films for me to delve into, got a few on Bluray but very excited Only paid so much as £80 of it was import charges!!!! > greedy buggers!!!

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by szyzk

If the sale lasts through the release of Insomnia I'll end up with Zatoichi and the final seven Criterion blus I want to own (excluding the three OOP titles I can't get my hands on: Le Cercle Rouge, Chungking Express and Pierrot le Fou). It will be nice to be caught up & only worried about new releases from that point!

Unless, of course, you decide that you want other already-released titles that you previously didn't think you wanted.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

some people here might find this article interesting. I surfed in upon it this morning. certainly, popular audiences are not seeking more "art-y" films in 2014; some of what she says, however, about there being more art in some of the more pulpy, kitschy American films from the mid 20th century than there is in some of the more "high culture" cinema is pretty interesting and something I partially agree with. (subconsciously, although I really enjoy a lot of world cinema from the previous century, it could be why my collection is mostly American films.) maybe we are too hard on ourselves if we don't immediately connect with a film. at what point does film watching feel like "homework"?

anyway, enough of me.. enjoy!:

http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/a...oing-to-pieces

There were certainly times when I wanted to applaud Kael for something she said, and other times when I'd just roll my eyes and think she was being an idiot.

If I had a problem with the general thrust of her point (assuming that the quoted excerpts are reflective of her actual point of view) it's the apparent one-size-fits-all approach to art vs entertainment. In other words, that appreciating the artistry of auteurists (whether it be Godard or Kubrick or Tarr or Wong Kar-Wai) cannot intersect with appreciating the Jeet Kun Do (Bruce Lee's school of martial art, which he described as "the style without style") approach to filmmaking.

I'm rather proud of the fact that I can appreciate with equal fervor an amazingly crafted artistic film like The Turin Horse and a screwball comedy like His Girl Friday.

I also think Kael was insane for not wanting to see a film more than once, and deciding that her feelings about it were complete and unchanging after one viewing. There are any number of times that I liked a film at one point in my life, and disliked it at another point in my life. And I've been fascinated the times I've had to ruminate on a film over time, and come to an insight after a few days or even a few weeks that I didn't have right when the end credits rolled.

[JJJ225]

I don't always agree with Pauline Kael, but her writing is almost always worth reading.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

I don't always agree with Pauline Kael, but her writing is almost always worth reading.

A good critic is rarely one who agrees with you all the time. A good critic will challenge your beliefs, get you to look at things in a way that you hadn't done before, and generally infuriate the crap out of you while making you glad they did.