The Criterion Collection

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Yeah---I was about to say: if that bothers you, you either stop caring about it or have to ignore a few decade's worth of great Italian films.

Or just read the subtitles slower so you don't have time to notice the lips not matching the dialogue!

I've heard that some actors reported about working with Fellini that he would have them simply count out loud in character, rather than saying actual lines of dialogue when filming, eliminating the need for memorizing and making little difference in the final product that would be dubbed into numerous different languages, and those actors had difficulty working with directors who actually recorded their sound on the set. Whether or how much that odd practice was actually done is difficult to say. There are Fellini films where some English-speaking actors are obviously speaking English, while some Italian-speaking actors are obviously speaking Italian.

[Scottie]

I just finished it. I do respect Federico Fellini for what he made, especially because it was somewhat autobiographical, but I didn't like the film. Part of this stems from my confusion with the film and part of it stems from my lack of interest in the subject.

I understand that Guido had writers block and that he was struggling to make a film that would appeal to the general public, but by the end of the film, I was totally lost on what was real and what wasn't.

It was a very cluttered film, in my opinion, with Guido dealing with all of the individuals who wanted a part in the film, to trying to come up with a creative screenplay, and to just dealing with not losing his mind throughout the course of this film.

I'm sure a lot of individuals like it, but it wasn't for me.

Originally Posted by retablo

Welcome to Italian cinema. They typically never recorded live sound, so everything was dubbed later. I thought the same thing the first time I watched the Leone westerns, but I came to enjoy it as kind of a stylistic quirk.

Thank you for the clarification. This is the first Italian film that I've seen so I was a little unsure of what to make of it. I had no idea they never recorded live sound. I thought I was going crazy or something and that it was only me who noticed it lol.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I'm sure a lot of individuals like it, but it wasn't for me.

Well, it's often referred to as one of (if not, the) greatest film ever....so a lot of people certainly like it!

I'm with you, though. I'm not a big fan...I understand the importance to an extent, but just as with The Rules of the Game, I don't understand what makes the film so uniquely special that it would be so often considered one of the very best.

[RiFiFi1955]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Well, it's often referred to as one of (if not, the) greatest film ever....so a lot of people certainly like it!

I'm with you, though. I'm not a big fan...I understand the importance to an extent, but just as with The Rules of the Game, I don't understand what makes the film so uniquely special that it would be so often considered one of the very best.

It's funny because I agree with this to a certain extent. While I love 8 1/2, I can't help but to feel the same way about The Rules of the Game. My opinion is biased though toward 8 1/2...one because of my love for Italian Cinema/Culture and two because it has Claudia Cardinale in it

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

It's funny because I agree with this to a certain extent. While I love 8 1/2, I can't help but to feel the same way about The Rules of the Game. My opinion is biased though toward 8 1/2...one because of my love for Italian Cinema/Culture and two because it has Claudia Cardinale in it

I actually feel that way more about The Rules of the Game. I enjoyed it when I watched it for the first time, but I was genuinely confused about why it was so highly regarded. I may sound ignorant when I say this, but that film felt like nothing special to me...like it could have been any other film of the time. I've read a lot about it since then, but I still have no idea why it is so often considered one of the best films ever.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Well, it's often referred to as one of (if not, the) greatest film ever....so a lot of people certainly like it!

I'm with you, though. I'm not a big fan...I understand the importance to an extent, but just as with The Rules of the Game, I don't understand what makes the film so uniquely special that it would be so often considered one of the very best.

I don't know either.

It wasn't anything special, in my opinion.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I don't know either.

It wasn't anything special, in my opinion.

Twenty bucks says you change your mind in five years. Fellini has a way of rooting himself into your subconscious...either that or you end up selling off all your criterions in the future, quite a few times a year we see posters doing this.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

I've heard that some actors reported about working with Fellini that he would have them simply count out loud in character, rather than saying actual lines of dialogue when filming, eliminating the need for memorizing and making little difference in the final product that would be dubbed into numerous different languages, and those actors had difficulty working with directors who actually recorded their sound on the set. Whether or how much that odd practice was actually done is difficult to say. There are Fellini films where some English-speaking actors are obviously speaking English, while some Italian-speaking actors are obviously speaking Italian.

There's a great scene in Truffaut's Day for Night - another film that needs to come to blu - that plays on this. I can't say I've ever noticed this but I'm not too much of a lip-reader when it comes to my cinema.

Originally Posted by iScottie

I understand that Guido had writers block and that he was struggling to make a film that would appeal to the general public, but by the end of the film, I was totally lost on what was real and what wasn't.

It was a very cluttered film, in my opinion, with Guido dealing with all of the individuals who wanted a part in the film, to trying to come up with a creative screenplay, and to just dealing with not losing his mind throughout the course of this film.

The film is cluttered because the protagonist has director's block: it is therefore an entirely accurate depiction of that state. Another note: Guido is a stand-in for Fellini himself, who at the time had director's block and worked through it with this film. The picture is incredibly autobiographical, and this symbiosis between real and fantasy, life and cinema, provides the bedrock for its acclaim - it is the rawest of looks into the psychological process that goes into the undertaking of a film.

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

I actually feel that way more about The Rules of the Game. I enjoyed it when I watched it for the first time, but I was genuinely confused about why it was so highly regarded. I may sound ignorant when I say this, but that film felt like nothing special to me...like it could have been any other film of the time. I've read a lot about it since then, but I still have no idea why it is so often considered one of the best films ever.

Much like Citizen Kane, The Rules of the Game can be obscured (in terms of its 'greatness') by how much of it has been appropriated in the cinema since. Overlapping characters, foreground + background action, deep focus cinematography, a dependence on the long take and the blocking/choreography inherent with this...this is common filmic knowledge now. On a textual level, I can maybe see how this picture can be taken as underwhelming, though I'd disagree.

I think its greatness also lies, perhaps moreso, in its subtext - as an example of film to excite, incite, and comment. Renoir said of Europe at the time of this film that it was "dancing at the edge of a volcano", and The Rules of the Game ingeniously portrays that with its characters who are oblivious to the world around them. It was incredibly misunderstood by the French public at the time, and the Nazis even had it banned. Of course this is not the only film in history to which this particular thing can be said, but such coupled with its immaculate form and filmic technique solidifies its reputation as a seminal film.

[joie]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

I actually feel that way more about The Rules of the Game. I enjoyed it when I watched it for the first time, but I was genuinely confused about why it was so highly regarded. I may sound ignorant when I say this, but that film felt like nothing special to me...like it could have been any other film of the time. I've read a lot about it since then, but I still have no idea why it is so often considered one of the best films ever.

If I remember correctly, what is on Criterion's disc is a "restoration" cut. It is not the cut that was pulled almost as soon as the film was released, and it is not the cut that French critics heaped praise upon after WW II had ended. That, too, was not the release cut.

I've learned to be wary of anything called a "restoration," "director-approved," "director's cut" or "extended cut." The one we have now might be an "extended cut," but, then again, there may be something missing.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

Much like Citizen Kane, The Rules of the Game can be obscured (in terms of its 'greatness') by how much of it has been appropriated in the cinema since. Overlapping characters, foreground + background action, deep focus cinematography, a dependence on the long take and the blocking/choreography inherent with this...this is common filmic knowledge now. On a textual level, I can maybe see how this picture can be taken as underwhelming, though I'd disagree.

I think its greatness also lies, perhaps moreso, in its subtext - as an example of film to excite, incite, and comment. Renoir said of Europe at the time of this film that it was "dancing at the edge of a volcano", and The Rules of the Game ingeniously portrays that with its characters who are oblivious to the world around them. It was incredibly misunderstood by the French public at the time, and the Nazis even had it banned. Of course this is not the only film in history to which this particular thing can be said, but such coupled with its immaculate form and filmic technique solidifies its reputation as a seminal film.

While it's unlikely that I will come to appreciate The Rules of the Game in that way, since I really didn't get much out of it, I want to respond that I know exactly what you mean about Citizen Kane. I'm not a fan of Citizen Kane, but I believe it's one of the most essential films made, JUST for the use of film techniques. I didn't notice the extent of it until looking closer into the film in classes, but Citizen Kane is really a film textbook---filled with just about every basic filmmaking technique example you need, and for that reason alone I appreciate it, even if I don't necessarily enjoy it.

[Lutz]

The major difference with Italian dubs is that they feature a sound mix done professionally by the people who made the film. Where a lot of American dubs are done on the cheap by a studio who wants to turn a quick buck.

And maybe people will enjoy 8 1/2 better when you have worked for years and enjoyed many more lovers?

[SolidBlu]

when is the next B&N criterion sale? thanks

[Xtempo]

Originally Posted by SolidBlu

when is the next B&N criterion sale? thanks

I think July if you can wait that long

[Scottie]

I just watched Fat Girl.

I liked the movie, but the ending, in my opinion, was really out there. I understand where it was trying to go, but that was the most extreme way to depict something.

[Show spoiler]A lot of people think it didn't happen, but I think it did. She basically overcame the offender by not giving into his demands.

The movie didn't hide anything, though. That's for sure.

[NoirFan]

My main memory of Fat Girl was watching it for the first time in a film class,

[Show spoiler]and having a roomful of people scream when the guy suddenly axed his way through the windshield. I don't think I've been that physically startled by a moment in any film since I was an impressionable young 'un.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

My main memory of Fat Girl was watching it for the first time in a film class,

[Show spoiler]and having a roomful of people scream when the guy suddenly axed his way through the windshield. I don't think I've been that physically startled by a moment in any film since I was an impressionable young 'un.

Yeah...I don't think anyone expected that to happen. It was just so random, in my opinion.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I just watched Fat Girl.

I liked the movie, but the ending, in my opinion, was really out there. I understand where it was trying to go, but that was the most extreme way to depict something.

[Show spoiler]A lot of people think it didn't happen, but I think it did. She basically overcame the offender by not giving into his demands.

The movie didn't hide anything, though. That's for sure.

I really like the ending. The ending was supposed to leave an impression--and it really does. It basically gets its point across through an extreme way to make you remember it. I've never heard someone say it didn't happen though...It most certainly does happen, and it's sort of what she wanted (that sounds pretty awful...but hey, she did).

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

I really like the ending. The ending was supposed to leave an impression--and it really does. It basically gets its point across through an extreme way to make you remember it. I've never heard someone say it didn't happen though...It most certainly does happen, and it's sort of what she wanted (that sounds pretty awful...but hey, she did).

I know what you mean.

[Show spoiler]It was an extreme way to get a point across. And you're right - she wanted it to happen basically. She was pretty much envious of Elena throughout the film and she got her wish of having sex with someone that she didn't love. She even said it wasn't rape.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I don't know either.

It wasn't anything special, in my opinion.

I'm not a huge Fellini fan... maybe you should try La Strada, which is more "straightforward"? That's his best film IMO, before he went off the rails into his self-indulgences (just like Godard). I find both of their earlier works more rewarding because they are actually "about" something.

[Xtempo]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

When I was in fourth grade, I read Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH.

The Secret of NIMH came out in theaters the following year, with "Frisby" changed to "Brisby." I loved the movie and it goes without saying that The Great Owl made quite an impression on me.

I can't remember if I read the book but I always found it odd they changed the name. I ordered it Have you seen the sequal?

There's more to the nickname, "The Great Owl", though.

A friend from high school and I were in the middle of a road trip several years ago, and we started talking about how fun it would be to create our own religion to see how many followers we could draw in. We jokingly decided that we were going to create a religion that worshiped The Great Owl and that we would spread the word about the wisdom of The Great Owl to the masses.
Even today, it's still an inside joke. We talked on the phone a few months back, and my friend said, "I'm glad that I did not spend $700,000 on a mortgage for a three-bedroom house in Atlanta back in 2004, like everyone was telling me to back then. The Great Owl told me that it was a bad idea."

That's awesome