The Criterion Collection

[octagon]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Speaking of TCM, it's only 4 more days before they kick off their 31 days of Oscar programming.

I like Ben Mankiewicz well enough I suppose but I'm really going to miss Robert Osborne when he eventually slip this mortal coil. Most Oscar month hype/celebrations leave me pretty cold (as do awards shows themselves) but I love their 31 Days of Oscar and he's one of the reasons.

It's definitely a fun month.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Darkcritic

+1 !!!

Really, this thread has been going incredibly far with the Lena Dunham argument . I remember a time when we actually discussed more things other than Dunham or Tiny Furniture. If everyone hates the film/her so much, I suggest we all forget about it. After all, the first step for something to vanish is by forgetting .

I find it kind of refreshing. No Wes Anderson bash in quite some time.

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by rkish

Which film do you have left in the Shimizu set?

I've been watching all these sets in order, so I'm up to Ornamental Hairpin in the Shimizu set and Three Resurrected Drunkards in the Oshima set.
I've also got two to go in the silent Ozu set.
I've finished the three Teshigahara films and the five films in the Nikkatsu set.

[greekak229]

Originally Posted by Eny-

I find it kind of refreshing. No Wes Anderson bash in quite some time.

Eh, not necessarily. I bashed him about one or two pages back ago.

[cineclectic]

Originally Posted by Darkcritic

After all, the first step for something to vanish is by forgetting .

If you're being serious I have to disagree and say that it's the complete opposite. I would hope that if Tiny Furniture ends up not selling very well that Criterion would consider the general input by it's customers through feedback on websites etc. (maybe then 100 pages of Lena Dunham argument will stand out better for them to find )

Maybe Tiny Furniture just won't sell very well and they'll say "Let's try again. Maybe this one wasn't full of enough obnoxious rich brat culture" So then they release something even worse. I also think that a lot of people who consider Criterion's "base" as a bunch of art school students stuck in career limbo because they shot for an art degree in an economy where professional jobs are hard to get as it are forgetting that MOST of us are just movie nerds plain and simple. We want stuff that movie nerds want. We aren't part of this commercialized "hipster" crap that every entertainment corp. is cashing in on.

As a side thought, I think it's so pathetic that people will actually identify as a "hipster". Of course they'll never accept the word but they will accept the label. For example they have no problem living and advertising the cliches that mainstream society has already blatantly pointed out. Why do you think hippie culture died in the early 70's? Because everyone was putting the hippie persona in the spotlight through capitalism which is one of the things (they thought) they were against. I would imagine the same thing SHOULD go for the hipster art-school thing. They thought they were important and unique because of all the "inside" stuff that they were into but now that everyone knows about all that stuff and is laughing about it you would THINK that this faux-culture would die. However, and back to my main point, in this country we are so influenced by consumerism that these "trends" might never die as long as the corporations are still making money by convincing people that they are still a unique individualist even though 7/10 people their age are buying into what they're selling.

So to end my post I will say this. Keep quiet and expect more crap. These people running the show aren't in touch with the consumers. The feedback we put out there is the only way to voice our opinions. When it comes to things like movies, we have to use our consumer rights to even have access to the things we like because they hold the cards. Don't put up with crap like MPAA lobbying to pass "anti-piracy bills" which we know are just a way for Hollywood to tell us what we can and can't see. Don't put up with diminishing pro-consumer things such as public domain laws. Especially don't put up with them trying to tell you something that sucks is just as good as something that is a masterpiece. The wheels are in motion for an establisment of this consumer attitiude that we'll buy whatever they're selling as long as THEY say it's good. If you don't think this has anything to do with the current state of Hollywood and the film industry in general then you aren't thinking about it enough and we as consumers aren't voicing our opinions strong enough. Let's put an end to this crap and protect the sanctity of the art of film because modern consumerism is it's all powerful enemy.

Oh, and if a thread about the Criterion company on a message board about the film distribution industry isn't the place to air your grievances with them then tell me where we should do it because i'd like to know.

[Darkcritic]

Originally Posted by cineclectic

If you're being serious I have to disagree and say that it's the complete opposite. I would hope that if Tiny Furniture ends up not selling very well that Criterion would consider the general input by it's customers through feedback on websites etc. (maybe then 100 pages of Lena Dunham argument will stand out better for them to find )

Maybe Tiny Furniture just won't sell very well and they'll say "Let's try again. Maybe this one wasn't full of enough obnoxious rich brat culture" So then they release something even worse. I also think that a lot of people who consider Criterion's "base" as a bunch of art school students stuck in career limbo because they shot for an art degree in an economy where professional jobs are hard to get as it are forgetting that MOST of us are just movie nerds plain and simple. We want stuff that movie nerds want. We aren't part of this commercialized "hipster" crap that every entertainment corp. is cashing in on.

As a side thought, I think it's so pathetic that people will actually identify as a "hipster". Of course they'll never accept the word but they will accept the label. For example they have no problem living and advertising the cliches that mainstream society has already blatantly pointed out. Why do you think hippie culture died in the early 70's? Because everyone was putting the hippie persona in the spotlight through capitalism which is one of the things (they thought) they were against. I would imagine the same thing SHOULD go for the hipster art-school thing. They thought they were important and unique because of all the "inside" stuff that they were into but now that everyone knows about all that stuff and is laughing about it you would THINK that this faux-culture would die. However, and back to my main point, in this country we are so influenced by consumerism that these "trends" might never die as long as the corporations are still making money by convincing people that they are still a unique individualist even though 7/10 people their age are buying into what they're selling.

So to end my post I will say this. Keep quiet and expect more crap. These people running the show aren't in touch with the consumers. The feedback we put out there is the only way to voice our opinions. When it comes to things like movies, we have to use our consumer rights to even have access to the things we like because they hold the cards. Don't put up with crap like MPAA lobbying to pass "anti-piracy bills" which we know are just a way for Hollywood to tell us what we can and can't see. Don't put up with diminishing pro-consumer things such as public domain laws. Especially don't put up with them trying to tell you something that sucks is just as good as something that is a masterpiece. The wheels are in motion for an establisment of this consumer attitiude that we'll buy whatever they're selling as long as THEY say it's good. If you don't think this has anything to do with the current state of Hollywood and the film industry in general then you aren't thinking about it enough and we as consumers aren't voicing our opinions strong enough. Let's put an end to this crap and protect the sanctity of the art of film because modern consumerism is it's all powerful enemy.

Oh, and if a thread about the Criterion company on a message board about the film distribution industry isn't the place to air your grievances with them then tell me where we should do it because i'd like to know.

Well, I think you are probably reading a bit too much into my post. I sincerely never meant to actually "forgetting" everything, I just suggested to move on. It is truth that by voicing ones corcerns there is a probability Criterion (Or any other company by that matter) will change their attitude towards the customers but I don't really see how this discussion from the past days will change a thing for them. The main factor here, after all, is how many copies the film actually sells and I have not seen a single post "changing" their opinion towards the film. Some people will get it, some people won't but so far everyone who is talking about it right now is in the same side they started on. Also, there is a lot more people who don't discuss in this thread but will find the film likeable. I am not "disagreeing" with you, I just wish we could talk about something else apart from Dunham.

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by *drstrangelove*

can we go back to talking about movies we care about?

+1

[cineclectic]

Ok, here's a movie that I care about and wish it were released on blu-ray AND represents a recent trend (politics) that criterion could cash in on that is actually a great movie.

Peter Watkins' Punishment Park

Just watched it for the second time the other day and was reminded of how realistic and ahead of it's time it actually is/was. It's my understanding that it was never released in the US but I really wish Criterion would pick this up as well as The War Game. With OWS resurrection looming over the horizon when the weather gets warmer and the fact that it's an election year I think releasing this film would give them that extra boost of special interest sales that they are obviously seeking with Tiny Furniture.

Anyone agree with this film's worthiness?

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

IMO, a flawed assumption on several levels BG:

1. Many of us boomers have not yet retired - though gawd knows we keep trying - because our companies won't let us. An increasing number of firms will jump through enormous hoops and strike sweetheart deals just to keep older workers on staff. Why? According to the HR reps I've talked to (while practically begging them to put me out to pasture), generationally we have a better overall work ethic...are more multi-faceted in our experience...typically are more balanced and focused, having already worked through our personal 'shite'...and can communicate via real honest to goodness sentences, not just 142 character leet-speak tweets.

2. Companies actively retain boomers because they end up being less costly in the long run. When HR crunches the numbers each year, as a demographic, we tend to be more dependable...and loyal...so companies are more likely to recoup their hiring 'investment'. Typically, we are more likely to stay put and work through organizational issues instead of bolting for the door at the sight of any competitor waving a fatter paycheque with more indulgent perqs. Generationally (and generally) speaking we are less "fickle".

3. Many companies have also been burned too many times hiring out of the gate from the pool of young 'entitleds', often more interested in cultivating the perfect Zen work experience than delivering certifiable results. The concept of cost vs. benefit? Almost alien. Wants? Continually reframed as "needs". Getting the job done, and done right? Oh, "it's just another iteration". I could go on, but I see this self-absorbed BS play out every day. Weirdly, I get along wonderfully with all age groups, which is another reason why many companies are anxious to retain boomers; we tend to be less "tribal", at least internally, reserving most of those primitive instincts for the larger success of our company vs. its competitors.

4. Finally, most of us boomers also 'paid our dues' in crappy entry level jobs...often serially. I'd actually go so far as to say that anyone worth a toot at any level of an organization or in their own business has at some point done precisely that. In my own case, that was several recessions ago...arguably tenfold worse then because we didn't have the benefit of wider personal and peer internetworking. And woe be to anyone who left their academic cocoon and returned to a small or medium sized town. It was the farm, the factory, the service sector, or nothing. Our guidance counsellors in those days painted just as rosy and unrealistic picture of our post-graduate prospects too.

Just sayin'...

I'm only quoting what my MLIS profs said. Most students graduating aren't expecting management level jobs from the get-go, but the fact that the boomers are unable to retire (in many cases due to their RRSPs going down the tubes due to the recession), doesn't open up the entry positions. There's no upward mobility within an organisation because those at the top aren't moving on.

I think you are also making wide assumptions about the work ethics of the younger generation. How can they prove themselves in an entry level position, when that entry level position doesn't even open up, because the person currently occupying that position isn't allowed to move up to the next level because someone in a senior position hasn't retired? This is also applicable to those who do managed to get hired, and then bolt. Why stay in a job where there's no chance at mobility? I will admit that there are few people who are like that, but I know that it's the type of person, not the age of the person. I myself have worked with boomers who have the same poor work ethic you accuse all of the younger generation of having. So that self-absorbed BS works both ways.

The fact that companies retain boomers who want to retire is silly, and just compounds the problem. How can they expect to compete if they aren't willing to train anyone? You don't just walk into a job knowing everything.

Also, I'm pretty sure this generation you speak so disparagingly of was raised by Boomers. If you're complaining about the attitudes and work ethics, don't you think the boomer parents should have taught them better?

Originally Posted by octagon

I like Ben Mankiewicz well enough I suppose but I'm really going to miss Robert Osborne when he eventually slip this mortal coil. Most Oscar month hype/celebrations leave me pretty cold (as do awards shows themselves) but I love their 31 Days of Oscar and he's one of the reasons.

It's definitely a fun month.

This, I had issues with Bob went on vacation for two months. I love listening to him talk about films, as he seems much more passionate about them than Ben. Ben may have the family connections, but Bob's the man.

[cineclectic]

I like Ben on The Young Turks but it does seem that he is better suited to talk about movies than politics but why he doesn't have a platform to talk about politics IN movies is beyond me because I can't think of a better person to do so. He should start a podcast about it or something.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by cineclectic

I like Ben on The Young Turks but it does seem that he is better suited to talk about movies than politics but why he doesn't have a platform to talk about politics IN movies is beyond me because I can't think of a better person to do so. He should start a podcast about it or something.

I think his HuffPo musings are as close as you are going to get to that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-mankiewicz

edit: Have you seen Watkins's Culloden? That one actually appeals to me more based on subject matter than the two you mentioned, and I was curious as to your opinions on it, and if it's worth a watch.

[cineclectic]

I've only seen Punishment Park and The War Game and was blown away by both. If either of them or anything by Peter Watkins including Culloden is ever released in the US, I will definitely buy it. After watching Punishment Park for the second time, I am excited to explore as much of his work as possible.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by cineclectic

I've only seen Punishment Park and The War Game and was blown away by both. If either of them or anything by Peter Watkins including Culloden is ever released in the US, I will definitely buy it. After watching Punishment Park for the second time, I am excited to explore as much of his work as possible.

Culloden was his first film, and it appears that BFI has handled the DVD release of it. The subject matter appeals to me more because I studied Stuart history in undergrad, and I'm a bit of a English/Scottish/British history buff (It's English and Scottish separate history until 1707, then British because of the Act of Union).

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by *DrStrangelove*

Can we go back to talking about movies we care about?

I would settle for movies we've seen.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I'm only quoting what my MLIS profs said. Most students graduating aren't expecting management level jobs from the get-go, but the fact that the boomers are unable to retire (in many cases due to their RRSPs going down the tubes due to the recession), doesn't open up the entry positions. There's no upward mobility within an organisation because those at the top aren't moving on.

I think this reason is vastly overrated, and basically only serves as a convenient scapegoat for anyone unhappy with their current position, or lack thereof. Do you really believe most companies would not force out retiree age boomers via organizational change or take-it-or-leave-it packages if they truly didn't see a value in retaining them? Ubetcha. In a minute.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I think you are also making wide assumptions about the work ethics of the younger generation. How can they prove themselves in an entry level position, when that entry level position doesn't even open up, because the person currently occupying that position isn't allowed to move up to the next level because someone in a senior position hasn't retired?

The less reported phenomenon - and generationally more discomfiting - is that in many cases it's the companies who want these senior level workers to stay on. Any losses some of those workers experienced during the recession, just makes it easier for them to say "yes" to a retainer deal.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

This is also applicable to those who do managed to get hired, and then bolt. Why stay in a job where there's no chance at mobility? I will admit that there are few people who are like that, but I know that it's the type of person, not the age of the person. I myself have worked with boomers who have the same poor work ethic you accuse all of the younger generation of having. So that self-absorbed BS works both ways.

Absolutely true. But most of those older workers with poor work ethics have already long since been 'downsized' out of the picture. In any case, I was only parlaying the generalities of HR reps in answer to my own questions about an early retirement, and how that relates to your assumption that diminished opportunities for entry-level workers are all because of these awful boomers who lost all their retirement savings, and now can't afford to just go away, as we wish they would. Actually, I don't know anyone my age who wrote down more than 10% to 15% of their retirement funds during the recession. Most of my peers have repeatedly tried to retire, but their companies just keep coming back with "offers they can't refuse". Now why do you suppose any company would do that if they had more faith in the successive generation(s) taking the reins?

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

The fact that companies retain boomers who want to retire is silly, and just compounds the problem. How can they expect to compete if they aren't willing to train anyone? You don't just walk into a job knowing everything.

But they do train! However, too often, barely 3 months out of training, many of these restless little hummingbird souls flit to the next kewl flower.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Also, I'm pretty sure this generation you speak so disparagingly of was raised by Boomers. If you're complaining about the attitudes and work ethics, don't you think the boomer parents should have taught them better?

Yep. But many of those boomer parents were so afraid of turning out a loser that they over-coddled, over-praised, over-protected, and over-indulged their kids to the point where they have no realistic idea (or experience base) about how the world actually works, or how they might fit into it. It's indeed ironic that many boomers remain in jobs and can't retire early because they've raised a generation unable or unwilling to step up with better ideas, or do the hard work required to realize them. It's much easier to just faux-engage via posting, tweeting, friending, or creating yet another meaningless list.

Of course old men always talk like this. We're obliged to. Take it with a grain...

[cineclectic]

One thing i find particularly interesting about Punishment Park is how much more relevant it is today than when it was made. In 1971 the "mystification of the counterculture" had already been overused what with Easy Rider and similar films displaying the plight of the hippie lifestyle in mainstream culture. It's clear that the group of prisoners are simply liberal activists but most people back then would have associated them with the hippie movement. Add in the fact that none of it was actually true yet and it was just a depiction of a potential future tyrannical goverment. Well today it's unfortunately true. The McCerran Act in the movie (which was an actual product of the McCarthy era) became what we know now as the Patriot Act and the more recent National Defense Authorization Act. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib are essentially "Punishment Parks" for Muslims and I cringe to imagine that the near future holds exactly what is in the movie for regular American liberal activists.

Seriously, I would bet money that if Criterion released this movie (which is still somewhat hidden / unheard of) that a TON of OWS protestors and just political-minded people in general would buy it. The only question left is why it's so hidden and unheard of. We can only speculate that it goes beyond international rights issues among distributors..

[cineclectic]

Originally Posted by joie

Cineclectic wrote, " ... with Easy Rider and similar films displaying the plight of the hippie lifestyle in mainstream culture. ..."

Early in Easy Rider, we see that the characters played by Fonda and Hopper are drug dealers, not hippies. Remember where they hid the benjamins?

Yes, but "we blew it" suggests that the whole trip was a quest that was fueled by ideology and even though they may have been successful (up to that point) as drug smugglers they were unsuccessful in achieving what they set out for which suggests they were in fact hippies.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Culloden was his first film, and it appears that BFI has handled the DVD release of it.

Culloden/War Game were released by New Yorker on one disc and the qualty is pretty good...its still available from "Project X".

In case anyone missed it, the recent UK release (MoC) of Punishment Park is region free. It's a pretty good bet that it won't be a CC release.

I heard a rumor that his 14-hour The Journey would be coming out, but that did not materialize.

[cineclectic]

Whoa, totally missed that MoC release! i haven't been following international releases too much lately since there's been enough region A stuff to keep me satisfied. I will definitely consider getting anything good that's region free though! Really wish this would come out in the states so more people would see it though. It seems like the film is only important / relevant to the US in the first place...

Regardless, I do understand that it's controversial nature makes it somewhat undesirable to distributors but really, that hasn't stopped Criterion from releasing left-wing political films in the past. (Battle of Algiers, Che etc.) Personally, I think Punishment Park is definitely the most powerful and emotion-provoking political film I've ever seen. It almost feels like you watched some form of extreme propaganda afterwards but man did that movie succeed in not only it's message but it's experimental nature with situational methods. If you've never seen it or heard about it, the actors are actually improvising all of the political arguments and the fact that what is said is authentic makes the film that much more powerful. Watkins basically took these politically active non-actors, liberal and conservative, put them in a tent, gave them some general directorial instruction and turned them loose. The result is so realistic it's both scary and depressingly authentic to the political polarization of recent times. Well, the liberals are a little more extreme than today i suppose (at least in the ideology they represent) but the authoritarian conservatives are spot-on the same types of people you hear toxic thinking coming from today. If you're an Alex Jones conspiracy type I would suggest NOT watching this though, because it might cause you to lose it entirely.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by cineclectic

Political discussions are not allowed. Please refer to the forum rules.

Thanks.