The Criterion Collection

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by dvining

I don't have a problem with the label of "dated", but when it gets thrown around as an actual critique I find it silly.

"This is so dated."

"Well, how good is it? Because you've told me nothing about whether it is good or bad."

I recently reconnected with a movie loving friend who I had not spoke to or seen in 10 years. I somehow thought he would have gone on the same film exploration journey that I had been on over recent years, only to find that his top 25 or so films of all time do not contain a single film that pre-dates 1990.

He will occasionally watch an older film and nearly every time he comes back to me he says, "man, the acting, though... I can't get past it." I think that's unfortunate for him as the golden age for great actors and actresses is part of a bygone era.

[tama]

Originally Posted by Scottie

Man, I'd love Magnolia to get the C treatment.

I'd love for it to get a UHD treatment.

[Gacivory]

Also. Who at Criterion or anywhere do I have to threaten to get, As I Was Moving Ahead Occasionally I Saw Brief Glimpses of Beauty, on Blu?

Give me more Jonas Mekas!

[dvining]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I recently reconnected with a movie loving friend who I had not spoke to or seen in 10 years. I somehow thought he would have gone on the same film exploration journey that I had been on over recent years, only to find that his top 25 or so films of all time do not contain a single film that pre-dates 1990.

He will occasionally watch an older film and nearly every time he comes back to me he says, "man, the acting, though... I can't get past it." I think that's unfortunate for him as the golden age for great actors and actresses is part of a bygone era.

Star Wars is the starting point for a lot of movie lovers in the past couple of generations.

There are essentially two directions to go from that. You either go forward in time to the movies that were influenced by Star Wars, or you go backward in time to the movies that influenced Star Wars.

I went backwards, first through Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, and it's become a love of cinema as opposed to a love of blockbusters. It's not a moral judgement, just a difference in taste and experience.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I think the OP who said There Will Be Blood hasn't aged well probably meant to say that it didn't hold up for repeat viewings.

There are a lot of things that can make a film seem dated, so I certainly think that's a thing. ..and yes, I think I agree that period pictures are mostly immune to being dated.

A film that takes the prize for coming off as dated is Woman of the Year. I definitely support the modern sentiment for woman's equality in the workplace, but I'm very far from what anyone would call a social justice warrior. The end of WOTY actually made me nauseous and angry, though, it was so ridiculous. But yeah, a product of its time.

Absolutely, films can be dated and it can be a legitimate critique.

An example I have is The Brady Bunch Movie which I recently rewatched.

The movie worked so well back in the 90s because it juxtaposed the style, morals and behaviour of the 70s Bradys with the modern attitudes of the era in which it was made.

It's just that the style, morals and behaviour of the 90s are themselves out of date compared to 2021 so watching it now, it doesn't have the same effect on the audience as it did back in 1995.

It's not a critique than can be applied to all films, particularly if it's just used to dismiss a film at hand just because it's old, and it doesn't mean that the movie as a whole still doesn't have good qualities.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by Vigojean

I stopped watching Malick after Tree of Life. What am I missing? I liked everything I’ve seen of his. I just suddenly stopped watching.

The common critique is that Malick has become a parody of himself with To the Wonder, Knight of Cups, and Song to Song. It's informally called the ennui trilogy, and all are about men disconnected from any meaning in the world, looking for real connection. To the Wonder is essentially about Malick's own relationship with one of his wives. Knight of Cups is about how much he hates Los Angeles (also the death of his brother at a young age that also fed into The Tree of Life). Song to Song is, in my opinion, one of his best films and one of the most obvious manifestations of his Eden themes since The New World.

A Hidden Life, if it were 45 minutes shorter, would be one of his best films. However, even knowing that it's 45 minutes too long, I was still hit harder emotionally by the end of that film as Franz Jägerstätter's journey comes to its end that I was literally in tears, which does not happen a whole lot for me.

Needless to say, I do not agree with the generalized consensus that he's become a self-parody. He leaned heavily towards a technique that relied on capturing moments of emotional truth from his actors and then rebuilding them into a story in editing, but since he's actually really good at making that happen, the stories are there and do carry emotional weight. There were hints of his approach in his earlier films, but nothing was so heavily dominated by it until To the Wonder (though The Tree of Life used the technique a lot as well).

[HipsterTrash]

I think the comment is deleted but The Master is superb and totally not a Seinfeld episode.
I saw that and Looper in the same day. While I enjoyed the latter more that day, The Master was in my mind for the next two following weeks. It's a great follow up to his opus.
But like most millennial cinephiles, I'm a huge PTA fan. Def my fave working filmmaker.

And I know he said his debut film would never be on Criterion, I feel like he was joshing around. Maybe Hard Eight has a chance to finally make it the Region A.

[BamaDullard]

Originally Posted by Vigojean

As far as I’m concerned, every movie is a product of its time and can never be dated. Is the original Scarface dated? What about 1983 Scarface? The only way a movie can avoid being “dated” is to do what they did in Pulp Fiction and Royal Tenenbaums—that is, throw every decade on the screen. The hairstyles and fashion in those movies range from 1930s-1990s. That’s it.

But how can you include styles from the future? Won’t it still be dated years later?

[BamaDullard]

If I can chime in on the dated films subject, I don’t necessarily buy that two movies from the same period can “date“ better or worse than the other. It’s usually that there’s a difference in quality between the two. For example, The Sting didn’t age more than Badlands it just isn’t as good.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by BamaDullard

If I can chime in on the dated films subject, I don’t necessarily buy that two movies from the same period can “date“ better or worse than the other. It’s usually that there’s a difference in quality between the two. For example, The Sting didn’t age more than Badlands it just isn’t as good.

Sure it can, depending on the subject matter, film-making techniques, references to the zeitgeist contained therein, etc.

[Shanghai Express]

On average, 1930s (and 40s) MGM movies aged far worse than 1930s Paramount and Warners movies. That’s my two cents.

[dylrichard02]

Originally Posted by dvining

Star Wars is the starting point for a lot of movie lovers in the past couple of generations.

There are essentially two directions to go from that. You either go forward in time to the movies that were influenced by Star Wars, or you go backward in time to the movies that influenced Star Wars.

I went backwards, first through Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, and it's become a love of cinema as opposed to a love of blockbusters. It's not a moral judgement, just a difference in taste and experience.

That's a great point! I started with Star Wars and went forward into the newer sci-fi/adventure stuff. I got into the comic book movies for a while but got very bored, very quickly. I then moved backwards and I have not regretted it. I rarely watch anything that has come out since 2000, with the rare exception of an A24 film or a newer film by a director like (interestingly enough) Mallick, Lynch, or PTA and whatever new film Wes Anderson makes. I really don't see why anyone would rather watch a new horror movie when stuff like Texas Chainsaw or Rosemary's Baby exists.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by dylrichard02

That's a great point! I started with Star Wars and went forward into the newer sci-fi/adventure stuff. I got into the comic book movies for a while but got very bored, very quickly. I then moved backwards and I have not regretted it. I rarely watch anything that has come out since 2000, with the rare exception of an A24 film or a newer film by a director like (interestingly enough) Mallick, Lynch, or PTA and whatever new film Wes Anderson makes. I really don't see why anyone would rather watch a new horror movie when stuff like Texas Chainsaw or Rosemary's Baby exists.

In my experience, it's almost never about the movies themselves, but about being part of the conversation.

Sure, they could watch Rosemary's Baby and get scared or blown away or bored or whatever, but who amongst their friends are talking about it? No, that's no way to live, watching things and having opinions about them that none of their friends care about. So, in order to keep up, they watch what their friends are watching, and that's all new stuff.

When I started working where I work now about 8 years ago, I found a guy on my team who also liked movies. I immediately went into a small spiel about movies, and I just saw his eyes glass over. When I was done, he responded with a comment about the most recent Transformers movie, and I realized my mistake. "Yeah, that was sure splodey." I'm still friends with the guy, but we don't really talk about movies anymore except occasionally and in his direction. He's actually a member of this very site, though he never comments.

[Vigojean]

Originally Posted by BamaDullard

But how can you include styles from the future? Won’t it still be dated years later?

No, because the point is, the movie just has to look like it didn’t come out THAT year/decade. There’s nothing 1994 about Pulp Fiction and there’s nothing 2001 about Tenenbaums. They discombobulated the audience by throwing all those 20th century fashion/hairstyles/props on the screen.

Terry Gilliam’s Brazil takes place “sometime in the 20th century.” Ok...wtf does that mean? He just threw every decade on the screen, but it can’t be dated, because there’s nothing 1985 (the year it came out) about the movie.

As for styles, that’s a non-issue to me honestly.

[dylrichard02]

Originally Posted by dvining

In my experience, it's almost never about the movies themselves, but about being part of the conversation.

Sure, they could watch Rosemary's Baby and get scared or blown away or bored or whatever, but who amongst their friends are talking about it? No, that's no way to live, watching things and having opinions about them that none of their friends care about. So, in order to keep up, they watch what their friends are watching, and that's all new stuff.

When I started working where I work now about 8 years ago, I found a guy on my team who also liked movies. I immediately went into a small spiel about movies, and I just saw his eyes glass over. When I was done, he responded with a comment about the most recent Transformers movie, and I realized my mistake. "Yeah, that was sure splodey." I'm still friends with the guy, but we don't really talk about movies anymore except occasionally and in his direction. He's actually a member of this very site, though he never comments.

I have a friend at work who has been asking me to watch the Synder Cut since it came out. I think that's part of the DC, Transformers, and Marvel popularity. They're easy to talk about, so everyone watches them. I have to constantly tell him (and others I know) I am not spending 4 hours of my time on it. Just like I don't feel like catching up on 13 movies so I can see Wanda Vision. I think that's why I am on here so much, so I can at least talk about movies I watch.

[Vigojean]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

But like most millennial cinephiles, I'm a huge PTA fan. Def my fave working filmmaker.

Haha no kidding. Speaking as an older millennial, we thought Tarantino, Wes Anderson and PTA were the Holy Trinity and everyone else was “corny.” I’ve grown up since then, but PTA is still a modern master and would rank him above any Gen X/Baby Boomer director. I’m talking Lynch, Tarantino, Scorsese, the Coens, Jarmusch, Almodovar...and I love those guys. But it feels blasphemous to put anyone above PTA. I just can’t do it. I’d have to go back to the old masters (Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Welles, Bergman) to find a better director.

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by Vigojean

Haha no kidding. Speaking as an older millennial, we thought Tarantino, Wes Anderson and PTA were the Holy Trinity and everyone else was “corny.” I’ve grown up since then, but PTA is still a modern master and would rank him above any Gen X/Baby Boomer director. I’m talking Lynch, Tarantino, Scorsese, the Coens, Jarmusch, Almodovar...and I love those guys. But it feels blasphemous to put anyone above PTA. I just can’t do it. I’d have to go back to the old masters (Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Welles, Bergman) to find a better director.

I always saw Tarantino as the defining Gen X director. Like the one people would choose to represent them.
And PTA is a Gen X guy himself yet I find his work is more modern. Hard to truly say what I'm thinking.
But I would think Nolan is the more defining director of millennials. Or at least the go to for people who love movies and want to be filmmakers.

And yeah. If I had to go for someone I could possibly pick over PTA, it would be a classic. Kurosawa, Kubrick, Ozu, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Herzog.

[jkoffman]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

Maybe Hard Eight has a chance to finally make it the Region A.

Region free:

[Vigojean]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

I always saw Tarantino as the defining Gen X director. Like the one people would choose to represent them.
And PTA is a Gen X guy himself yet I find his work is more modern. Hard to truly say what I'm thinking.
But I would think Nolan is the more defining director of millennials. Or at least the go to for people who love movies and want to be filmmakers.

And yeah. If I had to go for someone I could possibly pick over PTA, it would be a classic. Kurosawa, Kubrick, Ozu, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Herzog.

Ok I was making special exceptions for Tarantino for a long time but I have to face reality: he’s a Boomer lol. 1963 is not Gen X, even though he FEELS like a Gen X director. I gotta put him with the old folks like Scorsese and Lynch.

And if Chris Nolan is the defining director for millennials, then that’s sad.....nothing against the guy, but his fanbase gives me a neckbeard/Joe Rogan feeling

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Vigojean

But it feels blasphemous to put anyone above PTA. I just can’t do it. I’d have to go back to the old masters (Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Welles, Bergman) to find a better director.

I wanna preface this by saying PTA is one of my favorite directors. But I could never put him above someone like David Lynch, because I still don’t think PTA has found an original voice. His first films, I feel like he was trying to do his versions of Nashville and California Split, and almost everything since The Master has been straight-up cribbing from Kubrick’s playbook, especially Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut. (I always argue that Phantom Thread is completely a Stanley Kubrick film.)

I *do* love him. He’s undoubtedly a master craftsman. But unlike the Coens and Lynch (or even Wes Anderson, who I think is great but kind of lesser), I feel like he’s completely imprisoned by his influences and I can’t think of a single thing in his films that says, oh, that’s a PTA frame, that’s a PTA scene. That’s what makes an all-timer, IMO.