The Criterion Collection

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by 14728

I still don't want to watch his films, because every time you buy one of his films, you're supporting a man who gave alcohol and drugs to a middle schooler, and then they had sex. I do NOT want to support any man like that.

I enjoy Roman Polanski's movies, and see nothing wrong with continuing to purchase and enjoy his releases that appeal to my tastes.

I'm appalled by the particulars of this story, of course, but I leave it at that. I've never been one to express indignation at the outcome of a famous court case or investigation, since I only know of everything secondhand through the media and since I was not on an actual jury or investigative committee. I also take for granted that there are probably a great many directors, actors, and artists whose work I enjoy watching that have committed horrible deeds that I know little or nothing about.

I dunno. When I go into a restaurant to order a hamburger, I do not scrutinize the cook's criminal background. Likewise, when I want to see a film that looks cool, I see a film that looks cool.

In the case of Roman Polanski, I'll leave the judgment up to God, because that responsibility is way above my own pay grade. Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, and The Tenant are still awesome flicks no matter what.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Regardless of what's posted online, his films were shown in 1.85 in the US, and he knew that. Hence, the storyboard above that specifically states 1.85 framing. He safe framed for 1.33 for home video, but that was secondary to 1.85.

Well, he didn't completely protect the 1.33:1 frame. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the helicopter blades in the opening shots in the "fullscreen" versions.

[The Bronx Bull]

Originally Posted by Dragun

The Shining was framed for 1.85:1.

Who do you think wrote those notes on there? Those are hilarious. They're written in plainspeak and so meticulous... "BAD BAD BAD."

Since we're all well-aware of Kubrick's incessant penchant for details, is it safe to assume it's the man himself?

I recently watched 2001: A Space Odyssey, again, and Dr. Strangelove. His films just have that "perfect" feel to them.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by The Bronx Bull

Who do you think wrote those notes on there? Those are hilarious. They're written in plainspeak and so meticulous... "BAD BAD BAD."

Since we're all well-aware of Kubrick's incessant penchant for details, is it safe to assume it's the man himself?

I recently watched 2001: A Space Odyssey, again, and Dr. Strangelove. His films just have that "perfect" feel to them.

Yes, they are Kubrick's notes. Also the book (Stanley Kubrick Archives) is a must-have for any film lover.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

Yes, it can be a bit ambiguous when it comes to these different aspect ratios. I think its best to go with the "intended" aspect ratio the director wanted.

Certainly. Back when Criterion released Robocop they transferred it at 1.66:1, because that's the way Verhoeven originally framed it. When MGM/UA released their own version, they transferred it at 1.85:1, because that's the way it was seen in US theaters. I'd go with the director's intent.

On the other hand, sometimes the director makes a stupid-ass decision. When Criterion originally released Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville on laserdisc in 1995, they letterboxed it at its OAR (2.35:1). When they put it out on (non-anamorphic) DVD three years later, it was 1.33:1 pan-&-scan, because Godard requested it. I don't know why he did; I can only assume that he felt that the loss of resolution through letterboxing at the OAR was more detrimental than the loss of image.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I dunno. When I go into a restaurant to order a hamburger, I do not scrutinize the cook's criminal background.

Well sure, but if a restaurant opens in your neighbourhood and you know it's run by a rapist of minors who fled his country to avoid going to jail, you start eating there?

[joie]

Plea bargains happen because the prosecution doubts that it can prove the stiffer charge. Bear that in mind if you're ever arrested, charged and offered a plea bargain.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by joie

Plea bargains happen because the prosecution doubts that it can prove the stiffer charge. Bear that in mind if you're ever arrested, charged and offered a plea bargain.

So?

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Well sure, but if a restaurant opens in your neighbourhood and you know it's run by a rapist of minors who fled his country to avoid going to jail, you start eating there?

I get your point, but I still draw boundaries in the case of Roman Polanski about matters that concern me and matters that don't concern me. All that really concerns me is that I enjoy several of his films enough to purchase them.

This is one of those icky lines of discussion, because, if one thinks about these things too much, it saps the enjoyment out of moviegoing. This is why I generally try my best to separate the off-screen antics of filmmakers from their actual work.

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by jw007

Yes, it can be a bit ambiguous when it comes to these different aspect ratios. I think its best to go with the "intended" aspect ratio the director wanted. If Stanley Kubrick wants us to watch The Shining in 1.33, then I will watch it in 1.33.

Agreed. There was big hoopla for a certain vampire slaying blonde's tv show a while back because it was 4:3 on dvd and the spin off was 16:9. The show creator released a statement saying that was how ths shows were shot an intended, so that's how he wanted them release.

[returnofthemack]

I watched videodrome last night and after words I was flipping through the extras and the one that really stood out to me was the fear on film interview with landis, carpenter and cronenberg. it was pretty cool to listen to three greats talk horror. im normally not a huge extras person but this was great

[The Bronx Bull]

Originally Posted by Eny-

Yes, they are Kubrick's notes. Also the book (Stanley Kubrick Archives) is a must-have for any film mover.

Excellent, I will look into it!

I was recently able to locate a copy of the (relatively hard-to-find) Stanley Kubrick 9-film collection Blu-Ray set. There is a look-alike out there, I believe it's a region-free version, which only contains seven films and the packaging is completely different. Along with the Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece collection, I'm really enjoying working my way through both director's works. Most of the films I've seen, but they get better with each viewing.

[Oscar Rothman]

Originally Posted by joie

Plea bargains happen because the prosecution doubts that it can prove the stiffer charge. Bear that in mind if you're ever arrested, charged and offered a plea bargain.

Utterly pointless and nonsensical post. Are you trolling?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I get your point, but I still draw boundaries in the case of Roman Polanski about matters that concern me and matters that don't concern me. All that really concerns me is that I enjoy several of his films enough to purchase them.

This is one of those icky lines of discussion, because, if one thinks about these things too much, it saps the enjoyment out of moviegoing. This is why I generally try my best to separate the off-screen antics of filmmakers from their actual work.

Exactly. That's all part of tabloid culture, which I am not a part of, not cinephilia. To employ a well-worn saying--let the art speak for itself.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I get your point, but I still draw boundaries in the case of Roman Polanski about matters that concern me and matters that don't concern me. All that really concerns me is that I enjoy several of his films enough to purchase them.

This is one of those icky lines of discussion, because, if one thinks about these things too much, it saps the enjoyment out of moviegoing. This is why I generally try my best to separate the off-screen antics of filmmakers from their actual work.

I actually have no problem with people watching and enjoying his work. If you can separate the art from the artist, more power to you.

I find the defence of him disgusting, which is why I entered the conversation at all. (Not saying you were defending him, btw, that specific response was to that one line that didn't really make sense to me)

On the whole, I haven't seen much of his work, as it so often contains rape, which ruins my enjoyment of films/tv etc...

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I actually have no problem with people watching and enjoying his work. If you can separate the art from the artist, more power to you.

I find the defence of him disgusting, which is why I entered the conversation at all. (Not saying you were defending him, btw, that specific response was to that one line that didn't really make sense to me)

On the whole, I haven't seen much of his work, as it so often contains rape, which ruins my enjoyment of films/tv etc...

There can't be more than a few films with rape in his filmography.

And rape shouldn't ever be enjoyable. You're not alone in that respect. If a film deals with the issue respectfully, I have no problem with it.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

There can't be more than a few films with rape in his filmography.

And rape shouldn't ever be enjoyable. You're not alone in that respect. If a film deals with the issue respectfully, I have no problem with it.

I bet there's more than you think.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I bet there's more than you think.

I bet? Lets bring in Octagon to give us the exact count. I can only think of two right now...

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I bet? Lets bring in Octagon to give us the exact count. I can only think of two right now...

Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby?

By the way, I can't believe I own 8 of his films on Blu-ray. Oh, what a terrible man I am.

[Show spoiler]

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I actually have no problem with people watching and enjoying his work. If you can separate the art from the artist, more power to you.

I find the defence of him disgusting, which is why I entered the conversation at all. (Not saying you were defending him, btw, that specific response was to that one line that didn't really make sense to me)

On the whole, I haven't seen much of his work, as it so often contains rape, which ruins my enjoyment of films/tv etc...

I love how you say they often have rape, and then follow it up by saying you bet they do. Talk about talking out of your ass. Sounds like you're just looking for a reason to dislike his work based on his issues in real life.