The Criterion Collection

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by DetroitSquirreL

C'mon mate...he gave us 'Baby I Love Your Way'

[Show spoiler]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QiwD...ature=youtu.be

You go!

[buffetfroid]

Originally Posted by Monty70

It's interesting that you call The Wicker Man a "horror" film. Christopher Lee reminisced once in an interview that the director proclaimed half way through production that they were making a musical.

It does have some nice British folk interludes. I've got it on CD!

[Narcissus]

Originally Posted by DetroitSquirreL

C'mon mate...he gave us 'Baby I Love Your Way'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QiwD...ature=youtu.be

But He Followed It With:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7ti4aYD-7Y

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Touché, miss...touché.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

I dunno, that read pretty "footnote and sidebar" to me...more akin to the privileged doodlings of a frustrated academic. My point though was not who or what Frampton was, but what he wasn't, and that's "influential" or "important". I didn't make that up either; I got it from Criterion's own masthead/tagline for many years which proudly read: "An important series of..."

Nope. Got me there.

Certainly true for narrative film; for example, initially I was very indifferent to the works of David Lynch and David Cronenberg, but now consider both of them Kubrick-class cinematic treasures. Conversely, in the 70s I was a big Ken Russell fan...but then I grew up.

However, with Roarschach-style experimental films, you pretty much get what they have to offer on the first pass...

That's not necessarily true, because I still think you can still examine them later and find something you may not have picked up on earlier. You can still dislike the film, and not agree with what the film maker was trying to do, but you can still learn something from it. I probably didn't articulate myself well enough. I also find it a bit hard to swallow that you can remember films you wrote off 30 years ago, when I have issues remembering films I've written off last week. If I don't like something, I usually try to block it.

BTW, Harvard also disagrees with you: http://hcl.harvard.edu/hfa/collections/frampton.html

There's also this: http://hollisframpton.org.uk/bio.htm

And a whole slew of other resources.

I think I'm done playing Devil's Advocate now, as I still haven't watched any Frampton myself. I'm not debating whether or not you like or dislike Frampton, but the fact that you see him as un-influential and unimportant, when he clearly was.

It's a bit like Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. He was an influential silent film actor who's work is almost all but forgotten today because of the scandal with Virginia Rappe and the crap William Randolph Hearst did to him. People tend to focus on that, rather than his actual cinematic output. Arguably, quite a few people do the same thing with Polanski today. They don't look at his films, and/or write him off because he's a "child rapist." Another example would be of The Monkees, who most people see as "a manufacutred image, with no philosophies," when they did some innovative stuff with in the gorup, and as solo artists. I'm probably stretching things there by comparing Frampton with these examples, but I just feel you're being dismissive of him based on what you watched, rather than actually looking up any information on him.

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

It's my cup of tea. The term "Avant-garde" in films can be such a wide range of things, I'm sure you like something.

True, I suppose Suzuki and Godard are a bit avant-garde and experimental. I guess what I mean is that while I appreciate what Brakhage did, I can't see myself watching his films enough to own them. I do not deny his contributions to film making though.

[ShellOilJunior]

I think it's only fair to give Frampton a chance. I haven't seen his work myself so I cannot dismiss it nor can I gauge the influence of it.

[ShellOilJunior]

Does anyone check out the blogs of artists Criterion typically uses for cover art? I see the artist who did THE ORGANIZER had posted the cover on her blog BEFORE Friday's announcements....

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

That's not necessarily true, because I still think you can still examine [experimental films] later and find something you may not have picked up on earlier. You can still dislike the film, and not agree with what the film maker was trying to do, but you can still learn something from it. I probably didn't articulate myself well enough. I also find it a bit hard to swallow that you can remember films you wrote off 30 years ago, when I have issues remembering films I've written off last week. If I don't like something, I usually try to block it.

I was careful to draw the distinction between narrative films and experimental/avant garde films. The former is skewed towards content, and indeed, at different stages of your own development you will respond differently to the stories, characters, and themes presented. However, the latter is often more about form, which is - and again this is just my opinion based on my own experiences - less likely to draw me back and re-engage my senses. I mean, once you get it, you get it.

For example, as much as I admired the audacious brilliance of Michael Snow's Wavelength, would I ever sit through that again? Nah. It had its intended effect, making me

[Show spoiler]contemplate the movement of the frame through space instead of the movement of objects within it. I saw a fairly early screening of that film hosted by the filmmaker himself, and you have to remember that this was the late 60s - no Internet, not even a film journal blurb that might have given away the nature of this cinematic stunt - nothing prepped us for the natural expectation that something - anything - would eventually enter that frame, which of course, it never did. The titular subject of the film remained visible at all times, just displaced through time and space.

I don't see how one could get anything more from that pure expression of film form via repeat viewings. It works only once per individual central nervous system. Even knowing in advance that

[Show spoiler]Wavelength is 45 minutes long - which we didn't and couldn't during that early screening - can't help but alter its effect on an audience.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I'm probably stretching things there by comparing Frampton with these examples, but I just feel you're being dismissive of him based on what you watched, rather than actually looking up any information on him.

Hold on. People formed opinions about art and artists long before the Internet or Wikis existed. My sampling of Hollis Frampton's work 30 years ago was admittedly no more than a third of his shorts. And although I don't recall the specifics of them now - except that damn lemon - I still remember how I felt back then. That's all you're hearing now...the verbal equivalent of my massive shrug at the time.

As previously noted, I still think there are better and more prolific avant garde filmmakers whose works do hold up to further scrutiny, and were much worthier of a Criterion Blu-ray showcase than Frampton. Canada's own NFB for one major under-appreciated example...

[rkish]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Thanks for writing this up.
I can't help thinking these BFI's is the way to go, because you get a second film as an extra. It's the same with a couple of the Eureka/MoC films, like Pigs and Battleships, which comes with a second Imamura film, Stolen Desire. That's hard to pass up.
Plus, it's a surprise it has taken Criterion this long to release one Ozu on blu-ray.

You're welcome doc!

Agreed...this will likely be one of the only directors, whose films I will purchase from both BFI and Criterion. Collecting BFI, due to the fact that they are going to release ALL of his 32-33 existing films. Collecting CC mainly for the supplements and commentaries...though I'm pretty confident that they will release some, but not all of his films on either BD or DVD.

It's ironic for me with the way BFI is releasing the Ozu films...mostly two on the same disc with each release. That's been done here by most of the major labels, but for some reason, I can't buy them...maybe it's the cheap packaging...maybe it's having two feature films together...just seems cheap to me...I guess if you call it a "supplemental" film...that makes it OK.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Yup, it's already in my cart

I don't own any Imamura yet and I want to get this film...but money's tight right now and I have a few things still coming here in the next few weeks/months. I'm waiting a bit to see if the price drops a bit.

I've actually got "Wings" coming next week...due to a gift card. I'm really excited about this one...heard a lot of great things about it and the only Silent Oscar makes it a gimme on my list...those like me that are enamoured by the silents will understand what I mean!

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by rkish

I've actually got "Wings" coming next week...

Mine is coming the week after with the MGM Hitches, the BR.com review is up. Looks good. Just gotta hope WB follows up with Big Parade, Crowd, etc that were promised before they put the kabosh on catalog releases (before Archive, you know what I mean).

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Does anyone check out the blogs of artists Criterion typically uses for cover art? I see the artist who did THE ORGANIZER had posted the cover on her blog BEFORE Friday's announcements....

Speaking of early hints...Criterion Cast posted the image for Alambrista in March of last year!

http://criterioncast.com/2011/03/16/...ista-revealed/

[ShellOilJunior]

I wonder if we'll see RED RIVER any time soon. One would think it'd be something they drop a hint for in the New Year's drawing.

Although, I don't recall a New Year's hint for Stagecoach and Red River is a much better John Wayne film, imo.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

Mine is coming the week after with the MGM Hitches, the BR.com review is up. Looks good. Just gotta hope WB follows up with Big Parade, Crowd, etc that were promised before they put the kabosh on catalog releases (before Archive, you know what I mean).

Yeah...I noticed the review for Wings this morning...looks like a no-brainier. Congrats to Paramount and I am truly psyched for this!

EDIT: I just took a look at the screen shot from Wings. We obviously haven't seen the whole restored film...but it looks like we get original title/dialogue cards to boot...

[plattopus]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Does anyone check out the blogs of artists Criterion typically uses for cover art? I see the artist who did THE ORGANIZER had posted the cover on her blog BEFORE Friday's announcements....

Where was this?

[BohemianGraham]

You know what, not a lot of people talk about Zazie dans le metro. Why don't we discuss that for a bit?

[gpn]

Originally Posted by Monty70

It's interesting that you call The Wicker Man a "horror" film. Christopher Lee reminisced once in an interview that the director proclaimed half way through production that they were making a musical.

Britt Ekland has a nice song and dance number.

[Darkcritic]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

You know what, not a lot of people talk about Zazie dans le metro. Why don't we discuss that for a bit?

I blind-bought it back in July and still have not seen it ! I can't comment much but there was an interview somewhere that got me to it. It featured Amelie's director Jean-Pierre Jeunet and he called Zazie dans le Metro a major influence over his own film. Amelie is my girlfriend's favorite film so I figured out it could be a great opportunity to show her this one. We still haven't got to see it yet but I expect to watch it this or next weekend with her .

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by Darkcritic

I blind-bought it back in July and still have not seen it ! I can't comment much but there was an interview somewhere that got me to it. It featured Amelie's director Jean-Pierre Jeunet and he called Zazie dans le Metro a major influence over his own film. Amelie is my girlfriend's favorite film so I figured out it could be a great opportunity to show her this one. We still haven't got to see it yet but I expect to watch it this or next weekend with her .

Zazie dans le Metro is adorable and it's pretty obvious the influence it had on Jeunet. I blind-bought it myself and the wife and I loved it.
Some of the extras and the essays place the film in its historical and political context, but as an Australian watching the film decades later, most of it was lost on me.
Apparently, the book it was based on was quite subversive and Malle had to come up with ways to capture or adapt the novel's style.
If you want something fun and satirical, I can highly recommend it, and when you're done, get stuck into the extras.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I wonder if we'll see RED RIVER any time soon. One would think it'd be something they drop a hint for in the New Year's drawing.

Nothing official, of course, but I read that there are problems with the elements.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Zazie dans le Metro is adorable and it's pretty obvious the influence it had on Jeunet. I blind-bought it myself and the wife and I loved it.
Some of the extras and the essays place the film in its historical and political context, but as an Australian watching the film decades later, most of it was lost on me.
Apparently, the book it was based on was quite subversive and Malle had to come up with ways to capture or adapt the novel's style.
If you want something fun and satirical, I can highly recommend it, and when you're done, get stuck into the extras.

I also blind bought it during the July sale, without even researching the film. I also loved it to bits. I've been trying to track down the novel, without any luck so far. Zazie for some reason reminds me of Ramona ****by, from the Beverly Cleary books, but a bit more mouthier, and far more French. I think a lot of it has to do with her haircut, as Ramona has the same cut on my editions of the books I had growing up, and also became Malle apparently de-aged Zazie (unlike other adaptations where children are aged-up).

I find that the film bombards you, and moves at a breakneck pace, so I've had to watch it a few times to pick up on stuff that I've missed because I'm watching what's going on in the foreground, and reading the subs, that I've missed stuff in the background.

Edit: Wha? Since when is a children's book dirty enough to be censored?