The Criterion Collection

[keldons]

Originally Posted by Unfrozen

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

You didn't explain how you would "take cinema out of the trash bin its currently resting in."

I think we need to see that first Especially since you're the "informed" one.

[cineclectic]

I'm sorry if some of you fail to understand sincere fan criticism that is intended to promote the well-being of the company. It's also a shame that you latch on to the "political correctness" card when the complaints don't align with what is seemingly your acceptance of the idea that a label such as "important classic and contemporary films" shouldn't be carefully applied to, i don't know, important films. This has nothing to with personal attacks and claiming to be an expert and everything to do with feeling alarmed that one of the last few genuine small-medium sized businesses in the film distribution industry is showing signs of following the money down the rabbit hole into capitalist blunder-land.

Do you think that if the customers hadn't raised such a stink about the Michael Bay releases in the 90s that Criterion would have just accepted their mistakes? If tons of their customers would have gleefully purchased those abominations, increased Criterion's revenue and demanded that more mainstream hollywood stuff be released they would have done just that. Next thing they're signing deals with hollywood left and right and before you know it they are owned by commercial hollywood just like 95% of everything else the US film industry.

So please put the personal attack bs aside, because it's not only irrelevant it's a distraction you're just latching onto because you can't defend your side of the argument properly. It's like when someone criticizes a politician on their policy, the other side comes back with "you're racist" or "sexist" if the politician has a minority racial background or is a woman. We need to get past this distraction device people.

Finally I want to clarify since I was the one who made the whale reference which most of you didn't "get". In Tiny Furniture the main "character" (if you can even call it that since the movie is seemingly based on her actual uninteresting life) is so fixated on the fact that she's defied all odds against society by essentially not caring that people call her fat. The fact that she barely even crosses the boundaries of being considered chubby is one thing (something that is more than likely NOT causing her to lead an oppressed existence like she claims) but the fact that this idea shows through as a self-absorbed "look at me i'm a rich spoiled filmmaker who really has nothing to say about the harsh realities of life because i never had to genuinly face any" makes this film the very OPPOSITE of what constitutes an important film. For this director to make a debut film in the form of an autobiography and spend the whole time bragging about her self-perceived worth as an artist through cliches of societal oppression which are more than likely ingenuine to her actual life, well all i can say is the result is CLEARLY not Criterion worthy. This film has little to no value as an artistic work and in fact the ideas conveyed are dangerous to a generation which finds any excuse it can to be less than great because we are all special little snowflakes that deserve as much credit and recognition as anyone else. In the art world, this kind of thinking is toxic and must be discussed / debated.

[keldons]

dude, cineclectic, no one cares. You admitted you haven't seen the film. Your posts are a joke.

[Unfrozen]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

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

Lighting is all but non-existent in contemporary films, as is the use of color.

Pretentiousness is an issue in films like 'Jesse James'. Filmmakers ape other styles of classic directors - in Jesse James case, Terrence Malick. Many contemporary films take themselves too seriously.

Directors "hand hold" their audience. Aronofsky is the first name that popped in my head. He assumes his audience can not draw any conclusions for themselves.

Genre filmmaking is all but dead. All that's left are the fake B movies, which I don't care for.

Cinema is in the toilet for people who like classic hollywood, exploitation/genre/b/cult movies and cinematic arthouse films.

[cineclectic]

I did watch it the other night, and it's just as bad as I thought it would be from watching the three reasons vid. EVERYTHING i detected about the film through those clips were true about the film as a whole.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Masters of Cinema's Une femme mariée is region-free, actually, and comes with a big thick booklet that would make Criterion themselves envious.

Noted. What I get for assuming...

But yeah I might have to pick that up shortly. MoC's having a sale of sorts right now, but with all of the catalogs releasing on Tuesday, in conjunction with the BB Upgrade & Save, I'm trying to be a good boy and hold myself to just one...

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by Unfrozen

Lighting is all but non-existent in contemporary films, as is the use of color.

Pretentiousness is an issue in films like 'Jesse James'. Filmmakers ape other styles of classic directors - in Jesse James case, Terrence Malick. Many contemporary films take themselves too seriously.

Directors "hand hold" their audience. Aronofsky is the first name that popped in my head. He assumes his audience can not draw any conclusions for themselves.

Genre filmmaking is all but dead. All that's left are the fake B movies, which I don't care for.

Cinema is in the toilet for people who like classic hollywood, exploitation/genre/b/cult movies and cinematic arthouse films.

As Keldons pointed out, you're only looking at Hollywood. It's also just your personal opinion, and preferences. Others don't always feel the same way.

Originally Posted by *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.

Agreed. I'm just hoping this won't be a continuing trend for anything Criterion releases.

[Darkcritic]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

I pretty much agree with your assessment of the Makavejev set, and I applaud your thoughtful review of it. I don't know if it's an underappreciated set because people just don't know about it, or if they are scared away by his later, more notorious films like W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism, Sweet Movie, and, um, The Coca-Cola Kid. The last film in the set is a bit of a stylistic precursor to W.R. but the other two films are more firmly in the vein of neorealistic cinema, with some beautiful (if gloomy) cinematography.

It's funny how mainline releases tend to drive some of Eclipse discussion here -- lately due to the Suzuki Blu-rays there has been a fair amount of talk about Nikkatu Noir, Oshima and Kurahara. Maybe the upcoming Kalatozov Blu-ray and the Czech New Wave set will spark some peripheral interest in the Makavejev set.

If you like Jarmusch, I highly recommend the droll Aki Kaurismäki Proletariat Trilogy set, and I'm also a fan of the William Klein set, which has satirical films in the same general stylistic vein as Godard's mid-'60s "pop-art" films. I love the Ackerman set, too, although it's definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

I have only seen the first film of the Ploretariat Trilogy, Shadows in Paradise and I easily putted it in my 2011 Top-10 . In fact, when I was buying these Eclipse sets I thought about getting this one instead of Eclipse Series 21: Oshima's Outlaw Sixties but ended up with the later (Never saw an Oshima film before, though). The Eclipse Series 9: The Delirious Fiction of William Klein looks like another real winner . I will probably get it by the next sale. I wish more people look at this kind of sets, they are wonderful gems for any film collection. My next purchase is going to be the Eclipse Series 31: Three Popular Films by Jean Pierre Gorin .

[georgec]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

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

[Show spoiler]

I still can't believe Sack Lunch got a Criterion release.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

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.

Numéro deux, Le gai savoir, La chinoise, Histoire(s) du cinéma. These are the ones you should be watching.

[silentblu]

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.

No way. Pierrot le fou is great. Possibly my favorite.

[nateynate87]

Originally Posted by georgec

I still can't believe Sack Lunch got a Criterion release.

Chunnel is another one I'd love to see

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by nateynate87

Chunnel is another one I'd love to see

I'm hoping for The Gold of Cairo or Home for Purim.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

Noted. What I get for assuming...

But yeah I might have to pick that up shortly. MoC's having a sale of sorts right now, but with all of the catalogs releasing on Tuesday, in conjunction with the BB Upgrade & Save, I'm trying to be a good boy and hold myself to just one...

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

No worries, most of their releases tend to be Region B so it's a common mistake. That title can typically be had for around £10 ($17 or so), so it's a nice deal even if you miss their sale this month.

Their Murnau Blu-rays (Sunrise and City Girl) are also region-free and both highly recommended to anyone reading this!

Sale of sorts?

[cineclectic]

These seinfeld references are so IRONIC that i suddenly feel the overwhelming thirst for Pabst Blue Ribbon. It's also IRONIC that Blue Velvet rules and isn't in the collection. Hey guize, do you think Moonrise Kingdom will get an exclusive Criterion release? Boy I really hope that the HBO series "Girls" gets the Carlos treatment. Mumblecore, dubstep, knitted sweaters from goodwill.

Seriously though, it's only a matter of time before the the word "Criterion" becomes synonymous with "hipster". I really wouldn't be surprised if there's some guy sitting in his living room right now with his TOMS cordones propped up while he watches the supplements on Mystery Train and munches on vegan popcorn.

[octagon]

Is there another kind of popcorn?

[cineclectic]

it's quite IRONIC that i said that, isn't it?

[CHEЯNOБLY!]

Originally Posted by cineclectic

Seriously though, it's only a matter of time before the the word "Criterion" becomes synonymous with "hipster". I really wouldn't be surprised if there's some guy sitting in his living room right now with his TOMS cordones propped up while he watches the supplements on Mystery Train and munches on vegan popcorn.

...I already find similarities between the two. I wouldn't be surprised if hipsters only buy movies if they're release by Criterion.

[DLizzle]

I wonder which films Georges Melies saw in order to make him a worthwhile filmmaker.

[zeroman987]

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.

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.

I omitted the rest of your quote because I never once attacked Dunham because of her weight, said she had sex with anyone to get her film released or anything of the sort so I will assume that portion of your post did not apply to me.

I never said that her dislike of Bigger than Life or her refusal to watch the Godfather did not make her qualified to make films. This is what I actually said:

Her refusal to watch the Godfather and the way she expresses her refusal shows a lack of seriousness and a lack of commitment to improving her craft. Someone who is serious about their job is eager to improve themselves. A good lawyer will at least read part of Blackstone's Commentaries because they are an important resource for understanding the law. A good lawyer will be eager to do their continuing legal education and engaging the material in a way so that they will receive the most benefit.

When she says she doesn't want to watch the Godfather, she is saying that she has nothing to learn from the film. She fails to realize that as a filmmaker, these films are not entertainment. Rather, films which are universally recognized as classics are her treatises and her textbooks. If she were serious about her job, she would be "reading" these "treatises and textbooks".

No one has responded to this point. Not one person. The only responses I have gotten are appeals to authority (other famous film makers don't care to watch these movies) and misstatements of my actual words (you need to watch good films to be a good film maker). I was attacking what I perceived as arrogance and foolishness (probably an attempt on her part to seem "edgy" and "cool") by the film maker. It made me doubt her seriousness as a film maker. I never really questioned her ability to a good film (give 100 monkeys 100 typewriters and 100 years and you get Romeo and Juliet).

That said, the trailer, the 3 reasons and every synopsis and review I have read (other Roger Ebert's review) has not made me want to see this film. No one in this thread has said why they like the film and based on the above sources, the film looks like a 24 year old woman looking at the camera with a sour expression on her face complaining that her dear mother has allowed her to live at home. Also she screeches at her mother (who is a saint, based on the trailer) who has graciously allowed her into her home without any expectation of rent or living expenses. If I wanted to see someone act like a inconsiderate, entitled and ungrateful child, I would go to my Uncle's house and spend time with my 16 year old cousin.

I don't understand why people vehemently defend this person's film without actually giving any reason why it is good. Do you not know why you think it is good? What is so great about this film? Why do you like it? Is there something that I am missing? Or is the truth that it is actually a 24 year old women with a sour expression on her face pouting for the camera for 90 minutes?

[Show spoiler] (also she has awkward sex apparently - according to Ebert's review)