The Criterion Collection

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by rkish

Have a better day. Why are you sitting in the dark?

Oh, it's not a bad day, per say. It's just work, which is always terrible. I share a large office with one other guy and we just usually keep the lights off through the day. When people come in here, we just tell them that we're either vampires, trying to save on energy costs or whatever else we can come up with that day.

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by *DrStrangelove*

Whats the difference between the 1925 version and the 1942 version (I don't know much about Chaplin)

With the introduction of sound, Chaplin went back and re-cut the 1925 silent version to include more music, remove the intertitles, and add a voice-over narration so that the film would be relevant in the age of sound. He then pretty much discarded the 1925 version and claimed the '42 version to be the "definitive" version and the final say on the film.

[*DrStrangelove*]

Originally Posted by DarkRyder

I watched both A Married Woman and Alphaville today, and neither sparked anything in me like most of Godard's work. Especially Alphaville. I felt it was weird on purpose and more of a mockery towards Godard's style than a real Godard film. It was frustrating and just not an interesting watch for me. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe the film is not for me. Sad, because I was yearning for a Godard sci-fi once I heard about it.

Are there any defenders of Alphaville on these boards?

Have you watched Week End? you should watch Week End.

[*DrStrangelove*]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

With the introduction of sound, Chaplin went back and re-cut the 1925 silent version to include more music, remove the intertitles, and add a voice-over narration so that the film would be relevant in the age of sound. He then pretty much discarded the 1925 version and claimed the '42 version to be the "definitive" version and the final say on the film.

hmmm interesting...I wonder why he would do that 17 years later? So which version does everyone prefer? I've seen part of this film a while ago on Netflix but can't remember which version I saw.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

With the introduction of sound, Chaplin went back and re-cut the 1925 silent version to include more music, remove the intertitles, and add a voice-over narration so that the film would be relevant in the age of sound. He then pretty much discarded the 1925 version and claimed the '42 version to be the "definitive" version and the final say on the film.

Thanks CC. WOW another helpful post too!! I was just going to link the review....

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by *DrStrangelove*

hmmm interesting...I wonder why he would do that 17 years later? So which version does everyone prefer? I've seen part of this film a while ago on Netflix but can't remember which version I saw.

I'm pretty sure Chaplin went back to it because it was such a success upon its 1925 release. There was no way it could be re-released as a silent film, though, because everyone wanted sound at that time in 1942. I'm just trying to recall the stuff that's mentioned in the extra features on the disc. Also, note that the Chaplin Estate only view the 1925 version as a "supplement" to the Chaplin-preferred 1942 version.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

I'm pretty sure Chaplin went back to it because it was such a success upon its 1925 release. There was no way it could be re-released as a silent film, though, because everyone wanted sound at that time in 1942. I'm just trying to recall the stuff that's mentioned in the extra features on the disc. Also, note that the Chaplin Estate only view the 1925 version as a "supplement" to the Chaplin-preferred 1942 version.

Thanks Chris! I don't even think MK2/WB included the 1925 version on their DVD...will have to pull out my copy later to confirm.

[toddly6666]

Both versions of The Gold Rush look amazing by the way. I think I prefer the look of the 1925 version. The 1942 version seems brighter, but both look pretty damn amazing.

[DarkRyder]

Originally Posted by *DrStrangelove*

Have you watched Week End? you should watch Week End.

I'm going in chronological order, that way to get accustomed to Godard's style and as he progresses. The next two are Pierrot le fou and Masculin Feminin. I've heard awesome things with both, so hopefully this will be the pick from a brief downwards spiral that started with Band of Outsiders (though, again, I must reiterate, I did not hate Band of Outsiders. I really still don't know what to think of it. It's not bad, but it didn't leave me with much, unlike A Married Woman and Alphaville).

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by DarkRyder

I'm going in chronological order, that way to get accustomed to Godard's style and as he progresses. The next two are Pierrot le fou and Masculin Feminin. I've heard awesome things with both, so hopefully this will be the pick from a brief downwards spiral that started with Band of Outsiders (though, again, I must reiterate, I did not hate Band of Outsiders. I really still don't know what to think of it. It's not bad, but it didn't leave me with much, unlike A Married Woman and Alphaville).

I may have missed your comments but what did you think of A Woman is a Woman?

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by DarkRyder

I'm going in chronological order, that way to get accustomed to Godard's style and as he progresses. The next two are Pierrot le fou and Masculin Feminin. I've heard awesome things with both, so hopefully this will be the pick from a brief downwards spiral that started with Band of Outsiders (though, again, I must reiterate, I did not hate Band of Outsiders. I really still don't know what to think of it. It's not bad, but it didn't leave me with much, unlike A Married Woman and Alphaville).

I'm finding it funny which ones you like best, because Band Of Outsiders and Alphaville are my favorites. It's been a while since I've watched any Godard though.

[Cocophone]

I was at a family gathering and my brother-in-law was telling me what a mess The Thin Red Line was. I just stared off into the distance. I think he was expecting a plot line that went from A to B to C etc and didn't understand the philosophical exploration that is The Thin Red Line.

[Hendershot737]

Originally Posted by Cocophone

I was at a family gathering and my brother-in-law was telling me what a mess The Thin Red Line was. I just stared off into the distance. I think he was expecting a plot line that went from A to B to C etc and didn't understand the philosophical exploration that is The Thin Red Line.

I've met many people like this...yet I absolutely love the film

[DarkRyder]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I may have missed your comments but what did you think of A Woman is a Woman?

It didn't do much for me either, sadly. It seems like a beautiful film, but in the end I just did not take anything away from it, unlike something like Contempt. I liked the segments where it would have a close up on characters and they had a very natural conversation, but that is all really. The story (and I know story isn't exactly the most important thing with Godard) just wasn't doing anything for me. Maybe on another view I'll get more appreciation out of it, but when it finished I was left with such a dull feeling. The cinematography was beautiful though.

[Darkcritic]

Originally Posted by Cocophone

I was at a family gathering and my brother-in-law was telling me what a mess The Thin Red Line was. I just stared off into the distance. I think he was expecting a plot line that went from A to B to C etc and didn't understand the philosophical exploration that is The Thin Red Line.

Probably not your case, but I could totally understand someone who didn't liked The Thin Red Line. At times, the film comes off as unnecessarily "philosophical". Also, I am probably in the minority here but I don't see all the praise Malick gets for his philosophical implications. To me, his films may resonate with some but ultimately say less than they should because of the way he handles it. In fewer words, I feel his films present "heavy-handed" philosophy just for the sake of it .

[captveg]

Originally Posted by rkish

Thanks Chris! I don't even think MK2/WB included the 1925 version on their DVD...will have to pull out my copy later to confirm.

It was there, on the second disc.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by rkish

Geez...do you mean that Spider guy? Gad, that guy complains about everything!

For me he will always be CassevettesGodard

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Darkcritic

Probably not your case, but I could totally understand someone who didn't liked The Thin Red Line. At times, the film comes off as unnecessarily "philosophical". Also, I am probably in the minority here but I don't see all the praise Malick gets for his philosophical implications. To me, his films may resonate with some but ultimately say less than they should because of the way he handles it. In fewer words, I feel his films present "heavy-handed" philosophy just for the sake of it .

I think we sometime can praise too much (even more so when we like them, dare I mention Ozu ). I really enjoy poetry (don't laugh now but I always enjoyed reading poems) and that's how I view or go into Malick's movies, a moving poem. True that many people look too much for "meanings" in movies and sometimes there is just nothing to find, Malick being one of those, you just enjoy where he his taking your mind and sort of make your own conclusions. I do admit that like you I can see and understand how they could just not "get" or understand Malick, there is no right or wrong.

[Cocophone]

I believe Malick was a philosophy professor at MIT

[bdmartin134]

Finally tracked down a double disc Criterion-esque case for Ben Button. Got it for $4.xx free shipping from Casetopia on eBay. The cover art does not look bad, just obviously smaller than the rest, but not by much. I prefer this over the standard clear case.. Sorry for the large pics, not trying to clutter the board!!
IMAG0019.jpg

IMAG0022.jpg

IMAG0024.jpg