The Criterion Collection

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

There are many reasons and while I know this is mostly off subject I can maybe share my own with you.

Yes Criterion do offer nice bonus features and they are very different then the normal special features of other movies. They talk about the history of the movie, it's creator and the process of the story. Also another thing they do very well is care for restoration. Are they perfect? Some will tell you they are, others will still find things wrong with them but in general you can expect a well made restoration handled with care. When you consider the age of the movies they do releases some of them do come out as near perfection as possible. My own personal reason, they release movies that would not be handle by most studios. Rare movies, art house movies, movies that do not sell in great numbers cause to be honest they would not hold a lot of attraction for most people out there. As a example, I like the movie of Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu. Now without Criterion what would be the chances of his movies ever being released on DVD or Blu-ray? Probably from none to zero So for people like myself who enjoy the more main stream movies of Hollywood but still love watching different styles of movies and world cinema, Criterion is really a wonderful option that we would not have otherwise.

I would agree with you completely, adding only that as a huge movie fan, Criterion allows for the discovery of some truly great movies that I would not otherwise have had access to, or awareness of, prior. I may not enjoy every Criterion movie, but I know with my taste in films I would never hesitate to buy one of their editions of a movie I've never seen before in the hope that it will be a great experience.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

I would agree with you completely, adding only that as a huge movie fan, Criterion allows for the discovery of some truly great movies that I would not otherwise have had access to, or awareness of, prior. I may not enjoy every Criterion movie, but I know with my taste in films I would never hesitate to buy one of their editions of a movie I've never seen before in the hope that it will be a great experience.

Exactly. I do not buy all of them cause the range is so wide it's impossible to enjoy everything they release but I rent as many as I can find and while I may not enjoy all of them it's pretty rare to find a movie in their collection that does not bring out some emotions in one way or another.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Just offering an alternative topic to Lena Dunham and Hitler.

I just went back and read a few pages back, yeah it's been a bit, shall we say hostile in here

GROUP HUG EVERYONE

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by georgec

I rewatched bits of The Last Temptation of Christ last night. It's such an amazing movie. The last scene with Judas and Jesus in the village is maybe one of my favorite dialogues in film. Keitel's performance is amazing, as is Dafoe's.

This is probably my most anticipated release of the year so far.

I'm looking forward to this, too. When I first saw it I was new to Scorsese and wasn't impressed with his work. In the last two years I've revisited several of those films and have a very different opinion. In the case of this film, I think I was too aware of the original controversies over the film and I didn't find anything terribly worth arguing over.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by georgec

I rewatched bits of The Last Temptation of Christ last night. It's such an amazing movie. The last scene with Judas and Jesus in the village is maybe one of my favorite dialogues in film. Keitel's performance is amazing, as is Dafoe's.

This is probably my most anticipated release of the year so far.

I was wondering, have you ever seen Jesus De Montreal? I think it's not an easy one to find on DVD

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

So she likes films that people don't, and hates films that people do. I loved Bigger than Life, because James Mason was not acting like how most people expect James Mason to act. She didn't, no big deal. She doesn't like The Godfather trilogy because it doesn't resonate with her, yet that's a crime against humanity. Why?

As you said, she's no more ridiculous than anyone on this board.

She has a right of course to express her opinion, just like many and any on this board do.

Having known of this opinion though, it can serve as a functional reason to not watch her film - for some. Just like anyone can take with a grain of salt people who's perspectives/posts on this board they don't agree with.

For the record I have no interest in seeing Tiny Furniture. I haven't been up in arms about it at all - I just won't watch or buy - but it's been amusing to see the reaction it has engendered.

[zeroman987]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

I agree with what you say if we are talking about life, but art is different.

I haven't seen any of any Dunham's work, even though it is only a click away on youtube or netflix. For whatever reason, there is always something else I would rather watch more. But as consistently irritated as I am with the upper middle class complaining about white people problems, that doesn't mean that a movie about them can't have some insight into the human condition.

If I was to look at the protagonist of The Music Room, how is he any better? He didn't earn any of the wealth that he squanders on music and his petty competition with his neighbor, and yet it is hard not to feel something for him. And I would be hard pressed to describe that movie as anything less than great.

I personally enjoy the work of writer/directors like Anderson or Baumbach or Payne who have, so far, made movies from the point of view of modern sad white middle class people. But I would rather see their particular insights into worlds that they know than their best guess at a Color Purple sequel.

I guess I should have quoted what I was responding to. It would have made my response a little clearer. I was responding to her comments on The Godfather and Bigger Than Life and how those comments reveal her approach to film making.

My actual point, which was obscured by my rant on "kids these days" (because I have met many people with the exact same attitude and they are all insufferable), was that she has no perspective. I think that is what separates her efforts from Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach. For example, in Rushmore, the main character, Max, is incredibly childish and self centered for most of the film. He wants what he wants, without regard to those around him. However, as the film progresses, he grows as a "person." He realizes how his selfish actions have hurt the people around him and that he can achieve his goals without stepping on others. He also recognizes his limitations. He learns that he should be content with what is in reach to him and that he cannot do everything that he wants to do. The supporting characters, who also act like children at times, also grow and suffer the consequences of their mistakes.

The difference between Max and Aura is that Max is still a child, while Aura is a "(wo)man-child." From the trailer and the 3 Reasons, Aura sits through the whole film mugging for the camera without a hint of irony or self awareness. Maybe this is the result of a poorly cut trailer, but I can't help but believe this is representative of the content of the film. There is a difference between a story about a dysfunctional family or dysfunctional people and a person who has not accomplished much in their life moaning about how they have no idea what they want to do about their life.

What bothers me about her comments about the Godfather and Bigger Than Life is not that she does not enjoy those films, it's that she is so arrogant that she refuses to even watch the Godfather. Look at the early work of Piet Mondrian, Salvadore Dali and Pablo Picasso. You will find sketches of the human body, landscape paintings and bowls of fruit. Dali did not start out drawing pictures of sweaty clocks. He realized that in order to create art, one must have an understanding of what art actually is and why it is beautiful. Maybe this is because I have had to suffer reading property and contract cases from 1700s England, but I firmly believe that you must have the proper respect for what has come before in order to create something which subverts, references or emulates it. You don't necessarily have to like it, but being aware of what it is and why it works (or doesn't work) in order to better hone your own craft. It is like she doesn't understand that she wouldn't be watching the film for enjoyment, but rather she would be watching the film to become a better film maker. Her comments reveals that she is not so interested in making films as much as she is interested in showing the world what a unique and clever person she is.

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Yep, check out her thoughts on everyone's "darling," Wes Anderson: http://www.hammertonail.com/reviews/...t-film-review/

As you said, she's no more ridiculous than anyone on this board.

I think it's amusing so much has been written here against her and against Wes Anderson. But it's also a little sad we all waste so much time and space on things we don't like, instead of talking about what we love.

Also, Lena Dunham's opinion about The Godfather and The Wire is wrong

[painted_klown]

Regarding Criterion's library of films:

I want to say that (at first glance) it may seem as if they have "a bunch of stuff I never heard of". If, however, you take a look at their offerings not only on BD, but on DVD as well, you will more than likely find a LOT of films you are familiar with.

To name a few...Fear and Loathing, Videodrome, Dazed and Confused, Sid & Nancy, Robocop, The Rock, Armageddon, Chasing Amy, The Blob, Godzilla, 12 Angry Men, This is Spinal Tap, Che, Dead Ringers, Do The Right Thing, Five Easy Pieces, Easy Rider, Hamlet, Hard Boiled, The Killer, My Own Private Idaho, The Silence of the Lambs, The Thin Red Line, Straw Dogs, Traffic, etc.

That short list doesn't even include the Hitchcock films, a couple Monty Python flicks, Wes Anderson titles, Felini's work, Stanley Kubrick's additions, their music videos, documentaries, and live concerts, nor the Kurosawa's that people may be familiar with!

I get tired of the notion that there isn't any well known, or popular films in the Criterion collection. Most people don't really check to see what is in there.

Now if they could just get their hands on Fright Night 2.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

it's also a little sad we all waste so much time and space on things we don't like, instead of talking about what we love.

Human nature!

[ccfixx]

The newest newsletter clue hints at a blu-ray upgrade of Grey Gardens.

[Dr_Bedlo]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I was wondering, have you ever seen Jesus De Montreal? I think it's not an easy one to find on DVD

Oh....that takes me back a bit....I remember seeing that film at a film festival, and then a couple of times at a semi-local art house movie theater. I would love to see Criterion pick that up for blu-ray (or any studio for that matter...I'm easy/not that picky).

Maybe some Atom Egoyan?!?!?

[cineclectic]

For the record, she calls herself a whale in the movie. Watch the three reasons vid again if you don't believe me. And no it isn't sexist or demeaning to point out that she was the right type of person at the right time (overweight females are currently trendy) and if it weren't for this fact she might not have ever won any independent spirit awards or criterion releases. The modern pop culture wannabe elitists jump at the chance to have their very own symbol of trendy oppression which makes the ISA and Criterion look good. I mean I appreciate both (love Criterion) but they have to be called out on this kind of crap.

This idea that we should accept art at face value undermines the very reason both the Independent Spirit Awards and the Criterion Collection exist. I think what's great about what they do is that they promote quality art and introduce it to the masses. When less than quality stuff is given the same recognition as great works of art it's up to the masses to call them out on it. Otherwise, people like Lena Dunham will continue to make these pieces of garbage because everyone is telling them what a great job they're doing and they won't even strive to be better.

[Presence]

Whale? Maybe a large land animal but I'd still get her a tossin' or two.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Her take on Nick Ray:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-...afest-edition/

Dunham: For me, forgetting that I'm watching people act is such a thrilling sensation. That's what I look for when watching movies. . . . I'm a total movie geek, but I can't get into movies like Nicholas Ray's. I'll go with my friends and they'll say, "Bigger Than Life—that was incredible." And I was so distracted the entire time by watching James Mason act in that fashion.

Her blog:

http://www.hammertonail.com/author/lena-dunham/

From the Red Riding review:

David Thomson opens an essay on the Red Riding trilogy by stating: “Red Riding is better than The Godfather.” I’m not sure if this is true, because I’ve never seen The Godfather. According to every guy I’ve ever dated, this renders me ineligible for making films or even discussing them. But I know myself, for better or worse, and mafia narratives (be they tragic, comic, starring a Pacino, a De Niro, or even my beloved Hugh Grant) leave me utterly cold. I guess I’m generally nonplussed by a complex web of crime. For instance, I cannot get into The Wire and refuse to be sorry, or to “hang on until season two.”

She just appears to be another clueless "filmmaker" who has no respect for cinema as a whole, or its history. Which is why so many bad films get made nowadays, because younger people disrespect the art and think they know better than 100 years of classics and tradition.

If she was a real "movie geek", she would sample all sorts of films, bot pass judgement on things she hasn't seen. That's affectionately called "talking out of her a**."

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by retablo

She just appears to be another clueless "filmmaker" who has no respect for cinema as a whole, or its history. Which is why so many bad films get made nowadays, because younger people disrespect the art and think they know better than 100 years of classics and tradition.

If she was a real "movie geek", she would sample all sorts of films, bot pass judgement on things she hasn't seen. That's affectionately called "talking out of her a**."

While I would agree she's a poor fan of film, and I won't argue for or against the quality of her film, I do not agree that respecting old art is a necessity for producing new art. If her movie is poor, it's not because she has not watched The Godfather, and I'm sure plenty of great films have been created by other people who have similarly not watched The Godfather or other specific "classic films."

Being a film fan is neither a necessary NOR sufficient criteria for being a filmmaker. One's passion can lie in subject matter or some particular element expressed through film, and not give a damn about the entire history of film-making in other contexts.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

While I would agree she's a poor fan of film, and I agree her particular film is poor, I do not agree that respecting old art is a necessity for producing new art. Her movie is not poor because she has not watched The Godfather, and I'm sure plenty of great films have been created by other people who have similarly not watched The Godfather or other specific "classic films."

I don't. Perhaps her film is bad because she refuses to acknowledge what makes great films great. I don't particularly care for mafia films either, but I will watch them and make an opinion based on the film itself, not the subject matter. It's silly for her to judge something so harshly without even seeing it... and this isn't just a fan, it's someone who works in the industry. New art is always based on old art - whether its expanding on it, or copying it, or taking something it did and trying to put a spin on it. Poetry writers would have no clue how to write poetry without first reading poetry. Same thing with writing a book, or script, or making films. Which is another reason the pioneers like Griffith and Eisenstein were so amazing - they created an art form with no prior knowledge of it, no history, anything. Just paintings, really.

I work in Hollywood and, unfortunately, this type of thinking is becoming more common. And it's precisely the reason we have so many bad films these days. It's sad.

[cineclectic]

I think what bothers a lot of critics about the works of people with the "Lena Dunham" personality is that their unwarrented pretentiousness almost always shows through in their work. Anyone with awareness of these fake personality traits is going to critique them accordingly. Their stuff often sucks because of their obvious lack of inspiration / influence yet they have no problem flaunting an attitude that their work does and that they know what they're doing. Then somone pats them on the back and reassures them and then tells them they're part of some kind of new wave of film making which is actually nothing more than some faux pop culture bs. Mumblecore? I mean come on!

I will also add that i recently watched an episode of the show "Portlandia" and it seriously made feel ill. I can't stand this idea that bohemian culture is now some kind of pop culture movement with all the merchandising and capitalist interest to go along with it. Like I said with Criterion's support of Tiny Furniture, it makes them undermine their own credibility because of how backwards and hypocritical the idea of considering things that are popular for that reason alone just as good as things that actually deserve such recognition is.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by retablo

I don't. Perhaps her film is bad because she refuses to acknowledge what makes great films great. I don't particularly care for mafia films either, but I will watch them and make an opinion based on the film itself, not the subject matter. It's silly for her to judge something so harshly without even seeing it... and this isn't just a fan, it's someone who works in the industry. New art is always based on old art - whether its expanding on it, or copying it, or taking something it did and trying to put a spin on it. Poetry writers would have no clue how to write poetry without first reading poetry. Same thing with writing a book, or script, or making films. Which is another reason the pioneers like Griffith and Eisenstein were so amazing - they created an art form with no prior knowledge of it, no history, anything. Just paintings, really.

I work in Hollywood and, unfortunately, this type of thinking is becoming more common. And it's precisely the reason we have so many bad films these days. It's sad.

You say new art is "always" based on old art, then heap praise on Griffith and Eisenstein for creating something new without prior history and knowledge to draw on. Those two ideas seem at odds to me. Is it easier to create new art by drawing from older, already successful, art? Yes. Would I recommend people purposefully ignore old art? No. Will most people who try brand new ideas be successful? No. But the truly novel successes are the ones that stand out, the ones that people remember. And I will not fault someone for trying something new or striking off on their own.

I don't disagree with any particular assessment of Dunham, I don't think she's a great artist. But I disagree with the general sentiment expressed that not having watched The Godfather is some fatal flaw that prevents her or anyone else from ever being a great artist. There were great films made before The Godfather. There were great films before Citizen Kane. There are great films now, before whatever the next watershed film is released that people will be taking about for the NEXT 50 years. Etc.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's silly for her to judge something so harshly without even seeing it... and this isn't just a fan, it's someone who works in the industry.

Just to clarify the exact degree of irony here - are you saying it's not at all silly for fans to judge something harshy without even seeing it or are you saying it's not as silly?