The Criterion Collection

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by CraigThom

It may have been a very good film, but I was a teenager who had just read the book at the time, and I know I would have hated it even more than I hate the Lynch version.

I enjoyed the documentary, and it was an amazing collection of people involved, but the changes to the story would have been tough to handle. Maybe by now in that alternate universe I would be able to separate the movie from the book, but not then.

I liked Straight Story a lot, although the license he took with geography really bothered me at times.

You do bring up a good question of interpretation? Should a director be entirely faithful to the book or source or make it his own?

I believe there are good examples of both, but there more examples of terrible interpretations when the film is more faithful to the source.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

You do bring up a good question of interpretation? Should a director be entirely faithful to the book or source or make it his own?

I believe there are good examples of both, but there more examples of terrible interpretations when the film is more faithful to the source.

I think for me it just depends on the director doing the interpretation. Some just do it better than others.

In my opinion a faithful adaptation of Dune just couldn't be done in a single films running time (3 hrs or so being max run time) without some sort of creative changes. Even still, it is the sort of film that is going to cost millions so you will also always have to deal with some form of studio (& test audience) approval. I think Jodorowsky was smart for accepting and not attempting to do it without the financing or right people, and I think Lynch learned a lot from blindly jumping into it and hating his work.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

You do bring up a good question of interpretation? Should a director be entirely faithful to the book or source or make it his own?

I believe there are good examples of both, but there more examples of terrible interpretations when the film is more faithful to the source.

I'm sure that there some exceptions, but I generally dislike more "faithful" adaptations. In fact, the complaint "they changed too much from the book" is very close to the top of my list of things that irk me. Even in music, although a cover (music to music as opposed to book to screen) is apples and oranges, there's nothing more lame than a blow by blow retread cover song.

[ShellOilJunior]

There's going to be some fierce competition for blu-ray of the year.

Persona, La Dolce Vita, A Hard Day's Night, etc.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

I was also left wondering whether Fellini's portrayal of women is vaguely sexist, or more a satire of his shallow male protagonist's view of women. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Er, vaguely sexist....He is Italian, after all. (Just wait till you get to La Citta Delle Donne. )

After 8-1/2, you can spot the traditional lineup of female characters in any Fellini film: The glamorous aging actress, the not-so-glamorous aging actress, the threateningly sexy Anita Ekberg, the friendly prostitute giving out free samples, the ferally free-spirited wild-girl teen, etc.
Just good old postwar Italian chauvinism, bordering on misogyny, in its prime.

[Helikaon]

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

Just finished a rewatch of 8 1/2, and just like all great films I got something new out of it.
I was also left wondering whether Fellini's portrayal of women is vaguely sexist, or more a satire of his shallow male protagonist's view of women. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Here's a little write-up I did for 8 1/2 for a Top 100 of all time list over at Rotten Tomatoes last year with a personal anecdote you might find interesting:

A few years ago I was working in a bookshop, and one evening I had to assist a Dutch author named Rosita Steenbeek during a reading. She struck me as a very erudite woman, sensual with a sharp wit about her. She conversed easily on many different topics, but suddenly started talking about Federico Fellini. She had been his last lover, as it so happens.

As soon as the reading was over I rushed up to her and all but shouted that I loved Fellini and that 8½ was my favourite film. She laughed, like you image a woman would laugh in a Fellini film, and replied that she had loved him too. "He was the love of my life," she said.

Fellini could be a real bastard towards women, and Steenbeek is an example. Dutch author Arthur Japin wrote how Fellini kept her in a small room, never far from the phone, hoping he would call. This sad story is very similar to that of Carla, played by Sandra Milo in 8 ½, a character I love to watch. Her cute sound effects (*SMAK!*) reflect Fellini's roots in comics, and her breasts--oh, boy!--her breasts just beg to be fondled by Marcello all day.

Few films get away with flaunting the life of their director so audaciously without seeming too self-indulgent, but 8½ has, and somehow it succeeds in making us forget, or at least forgive, the misogyny and has us believe that, in fact, Fellini really did love women.

[Tardis20]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Are there plans to release more Harold Lloyd films?

I sure hope so! Kid Brother would be an automatic buy. I'd love Dr Jack and anything else I haven't seen!

[Helikaon]

To add to that, I think Fellini loved women too much, which I think shows in his movies.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

You do bring up a good question of interpretation? Should a director be entirely faithful to the book or source or make it his own?

I believe there are good examples of both, but there more examples of terrible interpretations when the film is more faithful to the source.

By bringing his or her own vision to the table, a director can sometimes create a literary adaptation that captures the feel of a source better than a strictly "faithful" adaptation.

I've always held the opinion that the 1930s Universal adaptations of Dracula and Frankenstein capture the spirit of their literary sources better than any subsequent adaptations, although these two films differ extensively from the novels. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is far removed from the Bram Stoker literary character, while Boris Karloff's Frankenstein is far removed from the Mary Shelley literary character, but there's just a special spark and a pathos in both movies that evokes the atmosphere of the books so well.

I am also a huge fan of Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's The Shining, and, although most people, including the author himself, are fond of casting stones at Kubrick's interpretation, I think that Kubrick did a stellar job of externalizing the struggles of the characters in the novel. In my opinion, Kubrick's adaptation is miles above the more faithful television miniseries version of the book that was scripted by King during the 1990s.

On the flip side, James Franco's well-intended adaptation of William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying actually seems faithful to a fault. By trying valiantly to convey every nuance of the Faulkner tale while failing to bring anything unique to the screen, the Franco movie falls short of capturing the grit and resignation of the source.

To bring this full circle, I like how David Lynch's Dune brought a distinctly 1980s vibe to the story. I like the similarities of the film to the book, but I also like how Lynch's Dune is a movie for its time. In my opinion, it's way better than the miniseries version of the novel that was released several years later.

[The Great Owl]

Speaking of literary adaptations, I purchased The Innocents at Barnes & Noble today. Barnes & Noble has the double member discount today, and I also used a $10 gift card.

I have not seen The Innocents in years, so I'm really looking forward to this Blu-ray. I'm probably going to wait until Sunday, when I'm back in town, to watch it, though.

[DionJits]

Originally Posted by bdmartin134

I feel like I could get this answer quicker in here than the Deals Forum.
How often does Costco switch out their Criterions? Went yesterday hoping for The Innocents, didn't have it yet, but did have All That Jazz.

Had the same curiosity myself yesterday when I ran in to my local Costco to check their stock.

It seems like a weird deal Costco & Criterion have agreed to. The titles are extremely limited, and the in-store selection rarely changes over.

Of course, if I'm looking to stock up on about fifteen copies of "The Big Chill" and "All that Jazz," I'm good to go.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

No, I'm talking for mass audiences... because after I saw the documentary called Jodorowsky's Dune, I realized just how epic this could have been. Make sure you watch this if you haven't and you'll see what I mean too : https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Jodor...lu-ray/102188/

I know someone who saw that documentary, and thought Jodorowsky's film would've ended up a mess. There were a lot of talented people involved in the production, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the end product is going to be good.

[blu-bry]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Speaking of literary adaptations, I purchased The Innocents at Barnes & Noble today. Barnes & Noble has the double member discount today, and I also used a $10 gift card.

I have not seen The Innocents in years, so I'm really looking forward to this Blu-ray. I'm probably going to wait until Sunday, when I'm back in town, to watch it, though.

I just watched "The Innocents" last night. I had only seen it once before on TCM a couple of years ago.
The Criterion Blu-ray is impossibly beautiful - wow! I did find the cinematographer's use of vignetting a little distracting at times. It was an interesting choice, but maybe a little too obvious for me. Regardless, it is a beautiful release and I can't wait to dig into the special features, including the commentary.

[blu-bry]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I know someone who saw that documentary, and thought Jodorowsky's film would've ended up a mess. There were a lot of talented people involved in the production, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the end product is going to be good.

That's a real possibility, and a good point. I can't tell you how often I've been left cold by films with an "all star cast". Sometimes more established talents involved in one project seem to trip over each other to be noticed.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

You do bring up a good question of interpretation? Should a director be entirely faithful to the book or source or make it his own?

My standard response to this question is "The primary responsibility of a filmmaker is to make a good film; fidelity to the source is secondary. Blade Runner is terrible as an adapation of Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but I would not want to live in a world that did not have Blade Runner in it."

I believe there are good examples of both, but there more examples of terrible interpretations when the film is more faithful to the source.

It really depends on the resultant work. Some of the changes Kubrick made in adapting Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange were for the better, but some of the changes he made in adapting Stephen King's The Shining were for the worse.

Given a choice, I'd rather the filmmaker stay truer to the spirit of the original work than to the letter of it. I think Niels Arden Oplev's version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a more accurate "translation" of Stieg Larsson's book than David Fincher's was, but Fincher's version felt truer to the spirit of the book. I preferred Fincher's film.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by blu-bry

That's a real possibility, and a good point. I can't tell you how often I've been left cold by films with an "all star cast". Sometimes more established talents involved in one project seem to trip over each other to be noticed.

It was a long-standing joke in my family to say ironically, "With a cast like that, how can it miss?"

That was one of my problems with Lynch's Dune. It had a (for me) a dream cast, and each one of them ended up either completely wasted (I mean, Linda Hunt being reduced to nothing more than saying, "I am the housekeeper!"? Seriously?) or being completely miscast.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Some of the changes Kubrick made in adapting Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange were for the better, but some of the changes he made in adapting Stephen King's The Shining were for the worse.

what changes did he make that you consider to have been ill-advised. not challenging you as I haven't read the book. I'm very curious though as I'm aware that King had a great deal of contempt for Kubrick's adaptation.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

what changes did he make that you consider to have been ill-advised. not challenging you as I haven't read the book. I'm very curious though as I'm aware that King had a great deal of contempt for Kubrick's adaptation.

The biggie was the old woman in the bathtub. The scene as it played out in the book, was one of the hands-down scariest moments in horror fiction. The scene as it played out in the movie came off looking silly.

The second was Kubrick's changing the topiary into a hedge maze. The given reason was that he didn't believe that the state of visual effects was up to showing hedge animals moving. What he seemed to fail to understand is that, with one exception (the hedge lion attacking Halloran toward the end; which simply could've been left out, as it ended up being anyway), the animals were never actually seen moving; Danny only noticed that they had moved. This could've been easily accomplished.

As it was, the hedge maze offered nothing in the way of suspense. If Kubrick had done anything to suggest that the maze was changing as Danny was running through it, and as such that Danny might be trapped in it (and possibly caught by Jack) it might've worked OK. But as it was, pfft.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

what changes did he make that you consider to have been ill-advised. not challenging you as I haven't read the book. I'm very curious though as I'm aware that King had a great deal of contempt for Kubrick's adaptation.

Yah he HATED kubricks adaptation, Kubrick made it his own and Kubrick knew what he was doing, notice how he changed the car colour and in the intro you see the car (same colour as one in book) hit by a lorry in the snow? Thats Kubricks big 'Screw you, this is my story now'.

I love it and I'm glad Kubrick made the changes, the bush scene in book would have looked terrible >.< the maze worked so much better and was consistent throughout the entire film, the entire hotel was alive and was in a way a maze.

Beside Kubrick didn't make the shining, he made took an idea and a theme and made his own film. He made it so much better.

ALso to the guy above, you do see Danny lost in an ever changing maze. The tricycle scene, he goes in a3 loops and each time it changes and the set changes, he goes through corridors that don't exist. Notice how there is a window in the office at start, that window should NOT exist.

Kubrick showed who the hotel was alive and moving so well, even by make continuity errors on purpose and forces us to see them without us questioning it.

[The Great Owl]

My one and only complaint about Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining takes place when

[Show spoiler]Wendy sees the play written entirely as, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." The camera shows Jack walking up behind her. Personally, I would have shown Wendy reading the sheets of paper only to turn around and see Jack standing right behind her. This has nothing to do with the source material, but Kubrick wasted the opportunity for a solid honest-to-goodness jump scare.

Stephen King's book is primarily about alcoholism and parental responsibility. It's an easily relatable novel, because much of the story is told from Jack's third person point of view as he dwells on his past alcohol-induced mistakes and he ponders his inadequacies as a father. In Kubrick's movie, all of these things come into play, but Jack Nicholson has to externalize the emotions and thoughts, since cinema cannot put us into someone's mind in the same way that third-person narration in literature can. I believe that Kubrick and Jack Nicholson both do an amazing job conveying the thematic gist of the novel to the screen. The supernatural element of the hotel is downplayed, but I think that this works for the best in terms of Kubrick's angle of approach for telling Jack Torrance's story. I also believe that Kubrick does a fantastic job of depicting Wendy and Danny as individuals who are both traumatized by abuse. In the Stephen King novel, Wendy is an attractive blonde. In the movie, though, Kubrick wanted to depict Wendy as the type of woman who would stay with an abusive husband. Shelley Duvall is superb for the part.

Kubrick's decision to use a hedge maze instead of hedge animals is an awesome out-of-the-park home run. The hedge maze works so incredibly well in cinematic terms.

Kubrick's use of brightness and light to intensify the scares is ingenious, because it's unlike most horror films out there.

The Shining is my personal favorite Stanley Kubrick movie for so many reasons.