The Criterion Collection

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'm sorry, but if editing/camera placement/sound design/lighting/mis en scene/ //////// doesnt matter, than who cares. Smart directorial choices make a film. Why visualize a story if construction doesn't matter, to save you reading time?

Agreed.

I once had a screenwriting professor that said style (all the above) in a film doesn't matter or make a good film..and that the story is the most important thing...

...and I don't intend on taking a class with him again.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Rosemary's Baby is a cult classic, yes, but I went into the film with extremely high standards. Everybody calls it one of the best horror films of all time, but the film fell short with me. A lot of people argue that it's a remake to Repulsion, which makes me enjoy this film a bit better, but it wasn't a favorite film of mine by any means. I was actually thinking that it was going to be more demonic scary than psychological scary. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it. I know that I'll end up revisiting this film.

Everyone is obviously entitled to his or her opinion, and I don't want to dispute that. However, it almost seems like, with a few of the movies, your preconceived expectations led you to not like a few of the films as much as you could have, had you gone in without the preconceived ideas of what you thought it should be.

I bet if you re-watch Rosemary's Baby — this time with the notion that is IS about psychological fear instead of the former*— then you will appreciate it a LOT more.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I wouldn't knock any ones personal tale on a film. What I do have a problem with is implying direction and construction are arbitrary.

I accept the fact that we can only view a film from our limited viewpoint and knowledge, which is why I admire writing that can eloquently state the virtues of any film I disliked.

I greatly admire J Rosenbaum because even though I frequently disagree with his reviews, they allow me to see a film through another lens and always engage my intellect. You know, because afterall, sometimes my lens is dirty.

I'm not stating that direction and construction are arbitrary.

I understand that they are critical elements in any good film. However, it seems to me that a lot of people appreciate films JUST from this "beauty" perspective and not from anything else.

Originally Posted by retablo

Everyone is obviously entitled to his or her opinion, and I don't want to dispute that. However, it almost seems like, with a few of the movies, your preconceived expectations led you to not like a few of the films as much as you could have, had you gone in without the preconceived ideas of what you thought it should be.

I bet if you re-watch Rosemary's Baby — this time with the notion that is IS about psychological fear instead of the former*— then you will appreciate it a LOT more.

Yeah haha. I agree with you.

I think it would be a good idea to start going into films not expecting much. However, several of the films that I'm "neutral" about were seen before I had a stronger appreciation for filmmaking and the underlying elements to them. Therefore, I think a revisit should be entitled for several films.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Agreed.

I once had a screenwriting professor that said style (all the above) in a film doesn't matter or make a good film..and that the story is the most important thing...

...and I don't intend on taking a class with him again.

I would walk out as soon as he uttered that.

Take for example Amer (one of your favorite films) there's virtually no plot, just ingenious ways of communicating ideas and feelings.

Maybe THE example is Red Desert. If that same script was directed by Stanley Kramer or Don Siegel ir anybody else, it would be abysmal.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I would walk out as soon as he uttered that.

Take for example Amer (one of your favorite films) there's virtually no plot, just ingenious ways of communicating ideas and feelings.

Exactly...I often use that film as an example. I think it's one of the best I've ever seen, and that's ALL from style. I can't go through the mandatory mechanical checklist of character goals, character needs...because I don't care, I love the film because of the look, the atmosphere...

(Yeah, I realize the discovery of sexuality serves as a loose story--but you know what I mean )

Unfortunately, everyone else agreed with the guy but me.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I'm not stating that direction and construction are arbitrary.

I understand that they are critical elements in any good film. However, it seems to me that a lot of people appreciate films JUST from this "beauty" perspective and not from anything else.

Are you equating decisions to eye candy? That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the ideas behind the construction. If it was all about beauty, I would consider Tarsem a great director on par with Terrence Malick (which I certainly don't believe)
Example: Miami Vice isn't a beautiful film per se (according to most people), but I believe there's genius in the choices employed by Mann.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I think it would be a good idea to start going into films not expecting much. However, several of the films that I'm "neutral" about were seen before I had a stronger appreciation for filmmaking and the underlying elements to them. Therefore, I think a revisit should be entitled for several films.

My opinions change drastically when I gain new info/appreciation, then rewatch something I may have disliked before.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by James78

I would have thought that a screenwriting professor would think that the screenplay is the most important part of a film.

For me, a great film is one where all different elements come together. I watched Holy Motors last night and was absolutely amazed by it. Direction, story, music, acting, editing, etc. It's a shame that it's not part of the Criterion Collection!

Well, that's right...except he specifically said that "we don't watch movies for style", and the story was the only truly important part. (This was after a student described seeing something where they liked the visuals and music, and he asked about the story).

So..yeah...totally wrong on his part.

Edit: On Holy Motors: At least this way it's on blu-ray sooner...it would have taken much longer for Criterion to release it.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

With all three now on Blu-ray, I occasionally like to watch YOMIMBO followed by A FISTFULL OF DOLLARS and LAST MAN STANDING. Each is fun on its own, and seeing them together makes it easier to savor the similarities and differences.

Nice! I haven't seen Last Man Standing in years, and I wouldn't mind revisiting it.

I just finished watching For a Few Dollars More. It's an underrated movie out of the three, and it looks spectacular on Blu-ray.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by James78

I don't know about that. You think you're right. He think he's right. Everyone's happy!

Everyone else did, too, so no offense taken

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Exactly...I often use that film as an example. I think it's one of the best I've ever seen, and that's ALL from style. I can't go through the mandatory mechanical checklist of character goals, character needs...because I don't care, I love the film because of the look, the atmosphere...

(Yeah, I realize the discovery of sexuality serves as a loose story--but you know what I mean )

Unfortunately, everyone else agreed with the guy but me.

Yes! I'm not dying to read the screenplay, because I read it through the rust, decay and contrast in the cinematography.

Take for example, Zachary Snyder. He knows how films look and are constructed, but has no idea why.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Are you equating decisions to eye candy? That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the ideas behind the construction. If it was all about beauty, I would consider Tarsem a great director on par with Terrence Malick (which I certainly don't believe)
Example: Miami Vice isn't a beautiful film per se (according to most people), but I believe there's genius in the choices employed by Mann.

I guess it comes down to the old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

I read this thread and these forums daily and I notice a lot of people talking about beauty. For example, "I just watched ______. It was a very beautiful film." Maybe I'm not reading what the user is posting properly, but when I think of beauty, I equate it to Terrence Malick films. Terrence Malick has a keen eye for detail and he captures the natural environment wonderfully.

I feel as if a lot of people like films just based off the superficial environmental details and not the meanings of the films. While Terrence Malick has a great eye for beauty, he also has films with great scripts, as well. This is the ideal movie in my opinion. A perfect blend of screenplay, with great character actors, and a great capture of the environment and natural landscapes.

Take The Double Life Of Veronique, for example. I find it to be a very beautiful film. It has an excellent and original screenplay, great acting, and Kieslowski was able to capture the environments of France and Poland in great detail and with vibrant colors. A film like 8 1/2, for example, isn't beautiful in my opinion because it doesn't live up to my preconceived notions of beauty.

I'm not a film critic by any mean and I understand that we all have styles that we like better than others, but any film with a great screenplay, great quality acting in which I lose myself in the film, and the ability to capture the beauty of both the natural environment is typically a favorite of mine. I also really enjoy films that I can relate to or feel a character's emotions.

I don't know if that makes sense, but it's my thoughts on filmmaking, in general. I don't want you guys to think that I'm some superficial viewer or something because that's not the case at all. I enjoy delving into the underlying themes of films and seeing a new side to hit. However, As I've stated earlier, I appreciate filmmakers for what they do and the concepts they explore. If I find the concept lacking in a film or the acting to seem weak, then I typically don't enjoy a film. Not everything is for me.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Roninblues

For those who missed it, these are iScottie viewpoints and they aren't saying that you have to have the same experience or viewpoint. You come on a forum and ask strangers which movies you should buy which one you should watch first with no parameters other than looking for group approval. iScottie has done reviews of films expressing personal thoughts and feelings. If you really have an opposing viewpoint, be specific. If it is just a difference of taste, why would you care? Do you need a group hug?

End of rant.

This. He seems to prefer films that make him feel something to films that don't. Who doesn't?

The fact that specific films that make me feel certain things don't appear to have the same effect on him is hardly the end of the world.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by octagon

This. He seems to prefer films that make him feel something to films that don't. Who doesn't?

The fact that specific films that make me feel certain things don't appear to have the same effect on him is hardly the end of the world.

Exactly.

If I can feel something or relate to a character, then those are the best movies in my opinion. Like I said earlier, we live in a unique world with our own ideas and beliefs. Not everybody likes the same two things.

Originally Posted by James78

We're all members of this website because we enjoy films, for whatever reason. I'm sure nobody thinks badly of you. You contribute a lot to this forum!

Thanks James, I appreciate it

[The Great Owl]

Going along with the discussion here...

Whenever I sit down to watch a previously unseen movie, my one request for the filmmakers is, "Tell me a story." That's all. Tell me a story that takes me out of my world and places me into the world of the film. For me, the story comes first and foremost over style or innovation.

The style and innovation of the filmmaking, however, are often instrumental in determining a film's ability to transport me into its world to tell me a story. This is why the creative use of color in Red Desert, for example, puts me into the trance where I empathize with the characters. Last Year at Marienbad even succeeds in telling me a "story" by way of haunting images in repetition that make me question the truth of what is presented in a way that enriches the effect.

If the story is strong enough to keep me engrossed, though, then the contrivances of a movie do not bother me (contrivances like Alfred Hitchcock's use of "McGuffins", for example.).
I'm about to revisit a film that I've seen dozens of times, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. This entire film is based on a blatant contrivance where the world inhabited by the characters is limited to the boundaries of the movie screen. Throughout the film, the characters do not see something until the audience sees it. This is why, during the film, characters who are standing in a wide open space of a desert plain where they should be able to see others approach from over a mile off are shocked and surprised when they hear the click of a pistol and suddenly notice someone standing ten feet from them. This contrivance would break down if I were not captivated by the story, but the effectiveness of the story allows this contrivance to work in stylistic terms.

I do not believe that there is anything shortsighted about placing the story first over style or technique, in other words, because that's what I do. One can enhance the effectiveness of the other, though.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I guess it comes down to the old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

I read this thread and these forums daily and I notice a lot of people talking about beauty. For example, "I just watched ______. It was a very beautiful film." Maybe I'm not reading what the user is posting properly, but when I think of beauty, I equate it to Terrence Malick films. Terrence Malick has a keen eye for detail and he captures the natural environment wonderfully.

I feel as if a lot of people like films just based off the superficial environmental details and not the meanings of the films. While Terrence Malick has a great eye for beauty, he also has films with great scripts, as well. This is the ideal movie in my opinion. A perfect blend of screenplay, with great character actors, and a great capture of the environment and natural landscapes.

Take The Double Life Of Veronique, for example. I find it to be a very beautiful film. It has an excellent and original screenplay, great acting, and Kieslowski was able to capture the environments of France and Poland in great detail and with vibrant colors. A film like 8 1/2, for example, isn't beautiful in my opinion because it doesn't live up to my preconceived notions of beauty.

I'm not a film critic by any mean and I understand that we all have styles that we like better than others, but any film with a great screenplay, great quality acting in which I lose myself in the film, and the ability to capture the beauty of both the natural environment is typically a favorite of mine. I also really enjoy films that I can relate to or feel a character's emotions.

I don't know if that makes sense, but it's my thoughts on filmmaking, in general. I don't want you guys to think that I'm some superficial viewer or something because that's not the case at all. I enjoy delving into the underlying themes of films and seeing a new side to hit. However, As I've stated earlier, I appreciate filmmakers for what they do and the concepts they explore. If I find the concept lacking in a film or the acting to seem weak, then I typically don't enjoy a film. Not everything is for me.

Does the "meaning" have to be explicitly stated to be there? I think not. Take for example camera placement and variable framing: does a close up mean the same thing as a two shot? No. It's another decision we have to grapple with and yet too many people dismiss basic film grammar.


In the words of David Fincher, "there's maybe two ways to shoot a given scene, one of those happens to be wrong."

[brandon_260]

I just want to revisit the point of owning Criterion films without watching or caring about the supplements. If that's the case, why not just streaming it using Hulu or another service?

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

The style and innovation of the filmmaking, however, are often instrumental in determining a film's ability to transport me into its world to tell me a story. This is why the creative use of color in Red Desert, for example, puts me into the trance where I empathize with the characters. Last Year at Marienbad even succeeds in telling me a "story" by way of haunting images in repetition that make me question the truth of what is presented in a way that enriches the effect.

Right! I see all your points--- style does matter, it's not useless.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

I just want to revisit the point of owning Criterion films without watching or caring about the supplements. If that's the case, why not just streaming it using Hulu or another service?

The novelty of ownership unfortunately (fortunately for Criterion and Classic Films though)

[joie]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Nice! I haven't seen Last Man Standing in years, and I wouldn't mind revisiting it.

I just finished watching For a Few Dollars More. It's an underrated movie out of the three, and it looks spectacular on Blu-ray.

I've read that Kurosawa made more money from Sergio Leone's Fistfull of Dollars than he made from all his own films combined! He sued and got a percentage of the international box-office, because Leone "borrowed" a lot from Yojimbo.