The Criterion Collection

[Brad1107]

Anyone seen the clue in the new Criterion newsletter? A drawing of a raccoon with a blue scarf around its head. Any ideas?

[Brad1107]

Oh right, a Grey Gardens upgrade. Think it was already talked about a day or two back. My bad.

[ravenus]

I have a very modest collection of Criterion releases, and I thought I'd just share a pic with you folks (This is BDs + DVDs combined - apart from what's here I also ordered for Island of Lost Souls and Howard's End BD's):



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by retablo

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.

My point is that it's disingenuous, and downright dumb, to compare them when one is more important than the other and requires decades of schooling and experience to become proficient. Hell, your benchmark to become credible is this industry is to simply watch a lot of movies. Man, that sure is hard and intellectually difficult. Saving lives will ALWAYS be better than touching someone's life. I can't believe you're elevating this lowly (yes, it's lowly to me, compared to other professions) medium to such great importance when it has very little, outside of culture.

Originally Posted by cineclectic

^ 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?

I don't consider myself a film buff, but instead someone who happens to enjoy and discuss the medium. My main motivation behind watching movies is to be entertained and to improve my writing. I don't see it as anything other than entertainment and a way to establish culture, unlike that retablo guy who thinks its the same as saving lives and prolonging them in society. The balls on that guy, elevating ART to the level of SCIENCE, when the former is a distraction and the latter a form of progress. If this medium disappeared, I wouldn't shed a single tear. In fact, I dare say that my writing would improve far, far more if I were to read more than I already do, something I do quite a bit.

[drbikeshorts]

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.

There's a few things wrong here and the first is having an opinion about films you've actually seen. What's that about?
You say Makavejev is an outstanding film-maker, yet you don't mention his size and weight. He could be a whale for all we know.
Also, Makavejev didn't see The Godfather before making these three films, which is pretty smug of him.

[Antonmassacre1]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

There's a few things wrong here and the first is having an opinion about films you've actually seen. What's that about?
You say Makavejev is an outstanding film-maker, yet you don't mention his size and weight. He could be a whale for all we know.
Also, Makavejev didn't see The Godfather before making these three films, which is pretty smug of him.

Whoa burn. Best post of the week!

[Brad1107]

Just watched Pierrot Le Fou for the first time. My first Godard. Hmmm, how very interesting.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

There's a few things wrong here and the first is having an opinion about films you've actually seen. What's that about?
You say Makavejev is an outstanding film-maker, yet you don't mention his size and weight. He could be a whale for all we know.
Also, Makavejev didn't see The Godfather before making these three films, which is pretty smug of him.

You forgot to mention that he slept with Criterion to get an Eclipse set (obviously was pretty bad at it since it's not a BD), and that he slept around to get his films made. Other than that, you have just about all the derp covered in this thread.

Originally Posted by Antonmassacre1

Whoa burn. Best post of the week!

Agreed. For the past few days, I'm beginning to wonder if the Criterion forum has been taken over by 4chan with all the posts made by "seriuz film fans who are teh experts cause tehy watches teh gawdfathr."

The only people in this forum professing to be film experts are the ones who proclaim to watch a bunch of classic films, and are laying criticism against Dunham for not watching the Godfather because she doesn't like mafia films. They claim she comes across as arrogant and smarmy on her blog, yet they're saying her film is junk based on a trailer, while implying and outright calling her a prostitute and criticising her looks. Pot meet kettle. Last time I checked, serious film fans didn't make fun of a person's weight or looks "because it's funny," and there's a difference between a fictional character or a person being self-deprecating. Serious film fans also don't werite off a film and lay so much vitriol against a director or film based on a trailer, without having seen the film.

If being a film expert means acting in this fashion, I'm awfully glad I'm not one.

[Hawkguy]

^ +100

[Unfrozen]

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'll be polite and say that you won't take cinema out of the trash bin it's currently resting in.

[Monty70]

Just finished watching the Three Colors trilogy Criterion Blu ray set. (I wanted to see White before I sent the disk back for replacement) What an beautiful swan song for Kieslowski. I found White and Red to be my favorites, though Blue was wonderful also.

Great set with extensive supplements.

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by Brad1107

Just watched Pierrot Le Fou for the first time. My first Godard. Hmmm, how very interesting.

You should've picked another Godard film to start with, I believe. Even if you want to stick with blu-ray, Brad, I would've pushed you toward watching Breathless first.

It's funny how most people's first exposure to Godard around here seems to be Pierrot le fou because it's on blu-ray. There are better films from Godard available on DVD if people can somehow find it possible to watch a film in 480p in this day and age. For some people on here, it seems as if certain films and/or directors didn't even exist until the blu-ray format, which is kind of sad. It's actually crazy to think that before home video came along people either saw a film projected in a theater or somewhere else, or they didn't. Someone from the 1920s might have only ever seen their favorite film one time because there were no options to watch it at home. It's crazy, I tell ya.

[Darkcritic]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

There's a few things wrong here and the first is having an opinion about films you've actually seen. What's that about?
You say Makavejev is an outstanding film-maker, yet you don't mention his size and weight. He could be a whale for all we know.
Also, Makavejev didn't see The Godfather before making these three films, which is pretty smug of him.

Also, does anyone here has already seen the set? Would love to hear your opinion .

[keldons]

Originally Posted by Unfrozen

I'll be polite and say that you won't take cinema out of the trash bin it's currently resting in.

One of the most cliched and stereotypical things to say. International cinema is alive and well with all kinds of great filmmakers and filmmaking is getting cheaper and more accessible allowing for more minds and idea to come into the industry. Not to mention there is unprecedented access to the classics and the obscure thanks to Criterion and many other boutique labels, not to mention the ways to get films online (may or may not be legal )

Just because Hollywood is in a big slump doesn't mean the industry is, and saying cinema is in a "trash bin" shows off a hell of a lot of ignorance.

[Unfrozen]

Originally Posted by keldons

One of the most cliched and stereotypical things to say. International cinema is alive and well with all kinds of great filmmakers and filmmaking is getting cheaper and more accessible allowing for more minds and idea to come into the industry. Not to mention there is unprecedented access to the classics and the obscure thanks to Criterion and many other boutique labels, not to mention the ways to get films online (may or may not be legal )

Just because Hollywood is in a big slump doesn't mean the industry is, and saying cinema is in a "trash bin" shows off a hell of a lot of ignorance.

Cinema is in such a good place that you referenced an easier access to classics two sentences into your rant about an informed opinion that you happen to disagree with.

[keldons]

Originally Posted by Unfrozen

Cinema is in such a good place that you referenced an easier access to classics two sentences into your rant about an informed opinion that you happen to disagree with.

films, classic and modern are more accessible than ever. Of course, nitpicking is easier than actually giving an intelligent response.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by Unfrozen

Cinema is in such a good place that you referenced an easier access to classics two sentences into your rant about an informed opinion that you happen to disagree with.

Please explain your informed opinion then, rather than just stating cinema is in the trash bin.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

You should've picked another Godard film to start with, I believe. Even if you want to stick with blu-ray, Brad, I would've pushed you toward watching Breathless first.

It's funny how most people's first exposure to Godard around here seems to be Pierrot le fou because it's on blu-ray. There are better films from Godard available on DVD if people can somehow find it possible to watch a film in 480p in this day and age. For some people on here, it seems as if certain films and/or directors didn't even exist until the blu-ray format, which is kind of sad. It's actually crazy to think that before home video came along people either saw a film projected in a theater or somewhere else, or they didn't. Someone from the 1920s might have only ever seen their favorite film one time because there were no options to watch it at home. It's crazy, I tell ya.

A Bout de Souffle/Breathless is on blu ray...so are Vivre sa Vie, Le Mepris/Contempt, and even Une Femme Mariee if you can venture into Region B-playing land...

Pierrot le Fou is probably not the best Godard to start with yes, though it and Vivre sa Vie are currently my favorites of his.

I see many recommend A Bout de Souffle/Breathless as the first Godard-watch, and that's appropriate given its position in the greater cinematic canon and his own catalog, but I'd actually recommend Vivre sa Vie: Godard's maturation as a filmmaker is fairly evident, as he synthesizes the rough-and-tumble elements that were groundbreaking in A Bout de Souffle and organizes them into a (far) more cohesive and polished film. For this reason I recommend it as a (safe) alternative to introduction to the Godard oeuvre, at least in terms of his '60s output.

[Unfrozen]

You're really making a convincing argument for contemporary film.

[*DrStrangelove*]

Can we all just forget about Lena Dunham and the fact that she doesn't like/didn't watch The Godfather? Cause really, who cares? She got a Criterion release and there's nothing you or anybody here could do about it. Just don't buy the blu ray guys.