The Criterion Collection

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by DLizzle

I'm surprised so many people have opinions like this. Here's a few questions, which may or may not be relevant to this discussion: In 500 years, will filmmakers be required to watch The Godfather to be considered serious about their craft? How many films currently in existence are required viewing, or necessary pieces of film history? If someone has seen 99 of AFI's Top 100 films but hasn't seen Citizen Kane and doesn't want to, can they be considered a serious filmmaker? Should a filmmaker today be considered serious if they haven't seen Transformers or Avatar?

Why would you think film will still exist in 500 years? It's barely been around for a century. I'm guessing 500 years from now it'll just be in museums. That is assuming museums still exist.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by silentblu

Yes, smugly. What's the point of bringing it up otherwise? It's her loss...thinking The Godfather is just a mafia narrative. Whatever.

Museums will still exist as will the Chicago Cubs who will be in their 604th consecutive rebuilding year.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

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. "

Tradition doesn't mean that's the correct way to go about it. I have no interest in seeing ANYTHING from the beginning of cinema, let alone what is considered the best of all time, like Citizen Kane. If I made a movie, I don't think this disinterest should disqualify me in any way. Appealing to tradition is never a good thing and doing so in a manner like this is just, to be frank, nonsensical. If you don't watch these early movies, you'll likely make a bad movie. How does that work? It doesn't follow logically.

Originally Posted by retablo

Imagine a doctor going into surgery with only a limited amount of knowledge - I wouldn't trust his or her output anymore than a filmmaker who doesn't even know the history of cinema. The more things you see, the more knowledge you have. THAT'S where you get original ideas and films.

Did you really just compare filmmaking to being a doctor, the latter of which requires decades of meaningful schooling and experience, and is a profession that saves lives?

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

Speaking of Egoyan, The Sweet Hereafter has always been a favorite of mine, and one that I have long hoped Criterion would release.

I need to see The Sweet Hereafter again, as I didn't like it much at the time. It seemed to be very heavy-handed with Egoyan's pet themes that were much more subtle in The Adjuster and Exotica.
I actually wrote my honours thesis on The Adjuster and Exotica, as well as Calendar and reference to Family Viewing and Family Viewing. I haven't seen any of these films since the 90s.
I did see and like Chloe, but it was a much more conventional thriller.

[*DrStrangelove*]

After watching the second part of World on a Wire gotta say it will be a day one purchase for me. I really regret not preordering it when I I preordered Anatomy of a Murder. I'm not really a sci fi fan at all but I'm glad I gave it a shot. It's definitely worth full price.

[zeroman987]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Tradition doesn't mean that's the correct way to go about it. I have no interest in seeing ANYTHING from the beginning of cinema, let alone what is considered the best of all time, like Citizen Kane. If I made a movie, I don't think this disinterest should disqualify me in any way. Appealing to tradition is never a good thing and doing so in a manner like this is just, to be frank, nonsensical. If you don't watch these early movies, you'll likely make a bad movie. How does that work? It doesn't follow logically.

I think you are misinterpreting that poster's point and you are definitely misunderstanding my point. I also think the posters who are condemning this discussion are being a little harsh considering this has sparked conversation about actual films in the collection above "announcement day!" and "I bought..." That said, let me try to be a little bit clearer as to my point as I cannot speak to the poster's point:

(1) My original post earnestly questioned the appeal of the film. I genuinely wanted to know why people enjoyed (or did not enjoy this film). I am in a similar position as the filmmaker - I recently graduated from a post-graduate professional school and I am trying to establish myself in my field of choice. While I do not live at home, I have been working jobs which I am completely overqualified for. (grocery store, etc). I guess the difference between me and the filmmaker/character in the film, based on the trailer and the synopsis of course, is that I know what I want to do.

Yet, despite this fact, I watched the trailer, I watched the 3 reasons, I have read a synopsis and I have read reviews of the film. None of these things have made me think that I would enjoy the film. I would like to know why a film which should appeal to me, doesn't.

(2) After some discussion, a quote by the filmmaker was posted. In that quote she said she did not enjoy Bigger Than Life and refused to watch the Godfather because mafia stories did not interest her (I am paraphrasing). I stated that I believed that she did not take her craft seriously. I compared her refusing to watch the Godfather to a lawyer who would not read Blackstone's Commentaries. People posted responses, some were glib and some were sincere, but none of them actually addressed my points.

I still do not believe that she takes her craft seriously based on that quote. Despite the fact that you can be a passable, even good, lawyer if you do not read the foundational materials for your area of law, it says something about you that not only do you willfully refuse to improve your knowledge of your chosen profession but also flaunt it in such a dismissive way. It demonstrates her lack of maturity and arrogance. I sincerely hope that she humbles herself and realizes that generally when people label something a classic, they have a good reason to. The Godfather is important to film making in the same way Blackstone is important to the common law, property law in particular.

(3) If you are still reading my long winded and very condescending rant, hear this: I have yet to question her film's place in the Criterion Collection. Criterion is a company which distributes films. Being in the Criterion Collection is no special honor and I take no offense to having a movie I have never seen be in the "collection". Frankly I do not care. That said, I am surprised at how defensive people have gotten because I am pointing out perceived flaws in the director in a calm, logical manner.

The absolute best response to anything I have said in this thread was a link to a review by Roger Ebert. I read the review and it actually sparked an interest in the film. Did I miss something in the trailers? Is this film something more than some faux moppet mugging her sour and pouty face at the camera because life is just so darn unfair? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Then again, I don't agree with everything Ebert says, he is probably the best movie reviewer ever (and I mean that), but his credibility as a critic of films is suspect at worst and mediocre at best.

Now this response was the best because (1) it actually answered my original question and (2) drove discussion of the film. Still, I would rather hear why you like the movie in your own words.

Regardless, people should not take such offense to being challenged. The only way to test your opinions and ideas is to put them up against a challenger. Sitting in a room where everyone just agrees with each other does nothing to improve film, film criticism or society at large.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

zeroman, I think if the director of Tiny Furniture explained in more detail why she doesn't like mafia movies, it wouldn't be a big deal. What do you think makes The Godfather so important to the medium?

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by zeroman987

I think you are misinterpreting that poster's point and you are definitely misunderstanding my point. I also think the posters who are condemning this discussion are being a little harsh considering this has sparked conversation about actual films in the collection above "announcement day!" and "I bought..." That said, let me try to be a little bit clearer as to my point as I cannot speak to the poster's point:

(1) My original post earnestly questioned the appeal of the film. I genuinely wanted to know why people enjoyed (or did not enjoy this film). I am in a similar position as the filmmaker - I recently graduated from a post-graduate professional school and I am trying to establish myself in my field of choice. While I do not live at home, I have been working jobs which I am completely overqualified for. (grocery store, etc). I guess the difference between me and the filmmaker/character in the film, based on the trailer and the synopsis of course, is that I know what I want to do.

Yet, despite this fact, I watched the trailer, I watched the 3 reasons, I have read a synopsis and I have read reviews of the film. None of these things have made me think that I would enjoy the film. I would like to know why a film which should appeal to me, doesn't.

(2) After some discussion, a quote by the filmmaker was posted. In that quote she said she did not enjoy Bigger Than Life and refused to watch the Godfather because mafia stories did not interest her (I am paraphrasing). I stated that I believed that she did not take her craft seriously. I compared her refusing to watch the Godfather to a lawyer who would not read Blackstone's Commentaries. People posted responses, some were glib and some were sincere, but none of them actually addressed my points.

I still do not believe that she takes her craft seriously based on that quote. Despite the fact that you can be a passable, even good, lawyer if you do not read the foundational materials for your area of law, it says something about you that not only do you willfully refuse to improve your knowledge of your chosen profession but also flaunt it in such a dismissive way. It demonstrates her lack of maturity and arrogance. I sincerely hope that she humbles herself and realizes that generally when people label something a classic, they have a good reason to. The Godfather is important to film making in the same way Blackstone is important to the common law, property law in particular.

(3) If you are still reading my long winded and very condescending rant, hear this: I have yet to question her film's place in the Criterion Collection. Criterion is a company which distributes films. Being in the Criterion Collection is no special honor and I take no offense to having a movie I have never seen be in the "collection". Frankly I do not care. That said, I am surprised at how defensive people have gotten because I am pointing out perceived flaws in the director in a calm, logical manner.

The absolute best response to anything I have said in this thread was a link to a review by Roger Ebert. I read the review and it actually sparked an interest in the film. Did I miss something in the trailers? Is this film something more than some faux moppet mugging her sour and pouty face at the camera because life is just so darn unfair? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Then again, I don't agree with everything Ebert says, he is probably the best movie reviewer ever (and I mean that), but his credibility as a critic of films is suspect at worst and mediocre at best.

Now this response was the best because (1) it actually answered my original question and (2) drove discussion of the film. Still, I would rather hear why you like the movie in your own words.

Regardless, people should not take such offense to being challenged. The only way to test your opinions and ideas is to put them up against a challenger. Sitting in a room where everyone just agrees with each other does nothing to improve film, film criticism or society at large.

My issues with this discussion weren't opinions on the film, although many here are guilty of the same behaviors they accuse Durham off, but of the personal attacks against Durham herself, such as referring to her as a whale and a land beast, and stating that she slept around to get her film made and added to the Criterion Collection. The argument that she can't make a good a good film
because she never watched The Godfather because she dislikes Mafia films, and because she didn't enjoy Bigger Than Life is a silly one, as you are only judging her based on a couple blog posts. We don't know what films she does like, and who does influence her.

Just because one watches "Classic films" and/or Criterions, doesn't make one an expert , or even serious film fan, just as much as someone who doesn't isn't unqualified to make films.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

My issues with this discussion weren't opinions on the film, although many here are guilty of the same behaviors they accuse Durham off, but of the personal attacks against Durham herself, such as referring to her as a whale and a land beast, and stating that she slept around to get her film made and added to the Criterion Collection.

Whoa. People here actually said that? They are that upset that a film they don't like is in this collection and that only way for it to be there is to sleep with the relevant parties? This is why people think Criterion fans are colossal, to quote from the Social network, "pretentious douchebag[s]."

[Criterion Collector]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

My issues with this discussion weren't opinions on the film, although many here are guilty of the same behaviors they accuse Durham off, but of the personal attacks against Durham herself, such as referring to her as a whale and a land beast, and stating that she slept around to get her film made and added to the Criterion Collection. The argument that she can't make a good a good film
because she never watched The Godfather because she dislikes Mafia films, and because she didn't enjoy Bigger Than Life is a silly one, as you are only judging her based on a couple blog posts. We don't know what films she does like, and who does influence her.

Just because one watches "Classic films" and/or Criterions, doesn't make one an expert , or even serious film fan, just as much as someone who doesn't isn't unqualified to make films.

+1

If she looked like Marilyn Monroe, these comments would never have been uttered. I still fail to see the reason that her looks (good or bad) would determine what type of filmmaker she is.

If anyone here seriously believes that she had sex with staff members at Criterion to get into the collection, then nothing I could say would be worth typing, you can continue to believe that.

I also fail to see why the fact she has, or hasn't seen, The Godfather, or any other film any of us deem "important" (or unimportant even), would determine weather or not she is capable of making a good film. I understand the idea of watching great films to see how they are made. That's great, educating yourself is fine, but to say that someone absolutely cannot make a good film because they haven't watched a particular film is simply false.

The opposite doesn't hold true either. Just because you have seen every film under the sun, doesn't necessarily mean you will make great films. A couple of perfect examples are three directors that get brought up in this very thread, from time to time.

Tarantino has arguably seen every film under the sun. He also infuses his work with the things he loves about his favorites, and does it in a way that is entertaining. The joy and care he puts into his work comes across in a "fun" way to the viewers.

Yet, there are plenty here who do not find Tarantino's work to be good. Rather, they enjoy the films he was influenced by instead. There is nothing wrong with that. That is a valid point of view to have.

Another example is the Coen brothers. They too, fill their films with references to their sources of influence. They also take great joy in making films they will enjoy. Yet again, there are many here who do not like their work and feel it is a little "Hey, look at what I am copying". There is nothing wrong with that either. Another valid point to have.

As you can see, having a director who is a huge film fan, and enthusiastically flaunting it, doesn't automatically make them a great filmmaker either.

From actually having watched Tiny Furniture, I honestly think she could make an interesting film if she gave her characters something interesting to do...not just little snippets of life, so to speak. This film felt like "big budget home videos" to me, but I did see a filmmaker who has the potential to make a great film...given a proper story and script.

I'll say it again, it wasn't that bad. Certainly not bad enough to attack her personally.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by *DrStrangelove*

After watching the second part of World on a Wire gotta say it will be a day one purchase for me. I really regret not preordering it when I I preordered Anatomy of a Murder. I'm not really a sci fi fan at all but I'm glad I gave it a shot. It's definitely worth full price.

Fassbinder will only get better. I'm sure this will sell well for the non-Fassbinder crowd being "sci-fi" in look.

[Darkcritic]

Yesterday, I finished watching the Eclipse Series 18: Dusan Makavejev Free Radical set and I can't believe how impressed I ended. I own both this and the Eclipse Series 21: Oshima's Outlaw Sixties set but I still need to watch some films of the later. This may be my first Eclipse experience but that didn't matter as I have a really strong feeling all the films exposed here should have gotten a proper spine; they are unbelievably good. Dusan Makavejev is now one of my favorite filmmakers if just for these three films. So, lets comment on each of them to explain myself a little better ...

Man is Not a Bird - This is easily one of the most impressive "debut" films I have ever seen. Makavejev seems to be so innovative and mature as a filmmaker that you are put into serious doubt. All the actors clicked here but the most amazing thing was the underneath analyzes about the life under a totalitarian regime. Makavejev seems to have a constant interest in freedom and individuality. The way everything works may be just the background but, to me, it was the most interesting part. The look at the social life, the traditions, the ploretariat and the upper class, everything.

Love Affair, or the Case of the Missing Switchboard Operator - The best film of the bunch and one of the best films I have ever seen, period. It blew me away in a way I never expected. Here, everything that made his debut film so good comes back and feels more complete. The social critique, the intriguing camera use, the use of normal people as main characters (The women are truly gorgeous but they felt real too). The story is really simple but really interesting too. The kind of story that leaves you asking yourself if something was good or bad by painting in grey shades. The social critique was more focused and in my opinion more powerful. The way Belgrade is portrayed is amazing. The people, the streets, the Yugoslavian Anthem playing in the background. A real threat to the senses.

Innocence Unprotected - The most peculiar film of the best as it is practically inexplicable. A lot of experimentation here, from the use of old footage to the modern-time intercuts. This one blurrs the line between documentary and fiction in almost impossible ways. The first Yugoslavia's "talkie" picture mixed with interviews, anecdotes and experiences of those involved at it. The rise of a symbol for the people and one hell of a production story. This is stated in the film but I am surprised just how they managed to make this "film" (The silent talkie, not the Makavejev's "cut") on such horrible conditions and risking being sent to a concentration camp.

Overall, Dusan Makavejev came off as an outstanding filmmaker. Everything here is really different from the rest of the collection but this one, an Eclipse set (A tad ironical), is probably my favorite "Criterion" release to date. My highest recommendation.

[*DrStrangelove*]

Originally Posted by Darkcritic

Yesterday, I finished watching the Eclipse Series 18: Dusan Makavejev Free Radical set and I can't believe how impressed I ended. I own both this and the Eclipse Series 21: Oshima's Outlaw Sixties set but I still need to watch some films of the later. This may be my first Eclipse experience but that didn't matter as I have a really strong feeling all the films exposed here should have gotten a proper spine; they are unbelievably good. Dusan Makavejev is now one of my favorite filmmakers if just for these three films. So, lets comment on each of them to explain myself a little better ...

Man is Not a Bird - This is easily one of the most impressive "debut" films I have ever seen. Makavejev seems to be so innovative and mature as a filmmaker that you are put into serious doubt. All the actors clicked here but the most amazing thing was the underneath analyzes about the life under a totalitarian regime. Makavejev seems to have a constant interest in freedom and individuality. The way everything works may be just the background but, to me, it was the most interesting part. The look at the social life, the traditions, the ploretariat and the upper class, everything.

Love Affair, or the Case of the Missing Switchboard Operator - The best film of the bunch and one of the best films I have ever seen, period. It blew me away in a way I never expected. Here, everything that made his debut film so good comes back and feels more complete. The social critique, the intriguing camera use, the use of normal people as main characters (The women are truly gorgeous but they felt real too). The story is really simple but really interesting too. The kind of story that leaves you asking yourself if something was good or bad by painting in grey shades. The social critique was more focused and in my opinion more powerful. The way Belgrade is portrayed is amazing. The people, the streets, the Yugoslavian Anthem playing in the background. A real threat to the senses.

Innocence Unprotected - The most peculiar film of the best as it is practically inexplicable. A lot of experimentation here, from the use of old footage to the modern-time intercuts. This one blurrs the line between documentary and fiction in almost impossible ways. The first Yugoslavia's "talkie" picture mixed with interviews, anecdotes and experiences of those involved at it. The rise of a symbol for the people and one hell of a production story. This is stated in the film but I am surprised just how they managed to make this "film" (The silent talkie, not the Makavejev's "cut") on such horrible conditions and risking being sent to a concentration camp.

Overall, Dusan Makavejev came off as an outstanding filmmaker. Everything here is really different from the rest of the collection but this one, an Eclipse set (A tad ironical), is probably my favorite "Criterion" release to date. My highest recommendation.

I'm gonna check these out. I've been looking for some recommendations so thanks! Already added them to my Hulu que

[retablo]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

The argument that she can't make a good a good film because she never watched The Godfather because she dislikes Mafia films, and because she didn't enjoy Bigger Than Life is a silly one, as you are only judging her based on a couple blog posts. We don't know what films she does like, and who does influence her.

It's not really that, but the egotistical tone of her blog posts. It shows me she has little regard for cinema, yet it's the medium in which she works and would assumingly love. She should be receptive to ANY film, because you never know when you'll like something regardless of past experiences. That's like being a social worker and judging people by the color of their skin before they walk into your office. It shows immaturity and amateurishness, but hey, we'll see if she ever makes another film.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Tradition doesn't mean that's the correct way to go about it. I have no interest in seeing ANYTHING from the beginning of cinema, let alone what is considered the best of all time, like Citizen Kane. If I made a movie, I don't think this disinterest should disqualify me in any way. Appealing to tradition is never a good thing and doing so in a manner like this is just, to be frank, nonsensical. If you don't watch these early movies, you'll likely make a bad movie. How does that work? It doesn't follow logically.

That's pretty sad then. There are great films from the beginning of cinema. i can count more great films from the 1910-1920 then I can count from 2001-2011. You know, that's back in a time when telling a story was the most important thing -- not 2 second edits, explosions, and ADHD camerawork and the same CGI in every film.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Did you really just compare filmmaking to being a doctor, the latter of which requires decades of meaningful schooling and experience, and is a profession that saves lives?

And your point is? You mean one should be respected and the other not? One is a science that saves lives, the other is an art that touches peoples lives. Sorry that you feel cinema is such a lowly thing.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by Criterion Collector

As you can see, having a director who is a huge film fan, and enthusiastically flaunting it, doesn't automatically make them a great filmmaker either.

I love David Lynch, and he professes to be a person who watches very few films...mainly because he says he doesn't have the time. But then, he also doesn't blog about the wonderful and revered films he categorically refuses to watch.

[Trekkie313]

When is Rochelle, Rochelle and Checkmate getting a Criterion release?

[Show spoiler]

[SammyJankis]

Rochelle, Rochelle's final scene is one of the most stunning scenes I've ever seen, but honestly, I'd much rather have Chunnel, solely for the cinematography. I want to see those vivid colors get the proper treatment, and I'm sure Criterion would do it justice.

[Icemouth]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Tradition doesn't mean that's the correct way to go about it. I have no interest in seeing ANYTHING from the beginning of cinema, let alone what is considered the best of all time, like Citizen Kane.

[cineclectic]

Originally Posted by Icemouth

^ that confused me as well.

what's up with all of these self-proclaimed film buffs/professionals saying they could give a damn about film studies?

it's like someone showing up to a tryout for a position in a rock band with a guitar hero controller and saying "just try to keep up with me guys i'm really good".

and yes it changes everything when someone "starts it" by actually attempting to gain credit as an expert like ms. dunham does in her blog. there should rightfully be a reactionary response from the people that realize they not only know movies better than her but could make better films if only their parents were rich NYC artists with the hookup.

also never thought i'd be critisizing Criterion as much as i have lately but man the Godzilla thing is pretty bad if only for the reason that CC are the undispited kings of packaging. this kind of tarnishes their track record (as well as spine #597)

the funniest thing is the response from criterionbots who can't swallow a single drop of criticism about Criterion. god forbid we would actually realize how fragile of a company Criterion is and how they could easily sell out and ruin themselves if the fans don't keep them in check. i think the company is leaps and bounds above just about any other i can think of, but i also hope they'll be there for as long as i'm alive, putting out great films for me to get excited about until the day i die.

so yes, i will critisize them and any less than exceptional (or at least very good) release and mistake they make. i will also make jokes about the directors of said released film(s) because that's fun to do. and whale jokes are funny when it's a reference to a line in the movie in question. and lena dunham is clueless as to how to make something worthy of even kissing criterion's feet for a release in mine and many other loyal customers' opinions. end of this. final word.