The Criterion Collection

[joie]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Huh? He is catching

Right! So he can't be out. Who is the guy with the propellor cap? Is that no. 88?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by joie

Right! So he can't be out. Who is the guy with the propellor cap? Is that no. 88?

The catcher is tagging the "Odd Man" and the umpire has signaled he is out. Thus, "The Odd Man Out"

[octagon]

Originally Posted by joie

Right! So he can't be out. Who is the guy with the propellor cap? Is that no. 88?

I'm not sure but the guy in the propeller cap wearing shorts, one polka-dotted sock and a cape might - and I stress might - be the odd man.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by mallomar

When I say pretentious, I think I mean an unseemly attempt to seize at unearned profundity. I once had a writing teacher who said that novice writers often grab at magic words like sun, moon, ocean, light, etc., when they want to make readers feel something without doing the hard work of making them feel it. When I watch these latter-day Malicks, all I can feel is how desperately he wants me to think certain things about him: that he is brilliant, profound, life-affirming, inspired, etc. I feel manipulated: either I contort my own inner experience of his images unreasonably so that I can hit the ground running at 100 sentimental miles an hour and choke up over the image of a kid playing in a sprinkler, or I just don't get it, do I? And in his case, as distinct from the case of other artists I might drop the p word on, this manipulation is doubly embarrassing because the sensibility underlying it feels so overlapped with that of commercial photography and advertising.

I guess for TTOL it all depends on your experiences, memories, etc, i know some people didn't see anything more than eye candy, but for me it was a truly unique experience, for the same various reasons other members here have mentioned.

Anyway i wouldn't call a film pretentious just because i can see the intentions of the director and i am not reacting to them, it could be because of several reasons, but then again i am not sure i can call any movie pretentious, is there any film out there were everyone agrees it is very pretentious?

[vader4]

It's funny that we're still having debates over "The Tree of Life" three years after its release. I may not like the movie all that much, but that is one of the qualities that you have to give it, if I'm still hearing/talking about it, it did something right.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Not at all. I've double-dipped on plenty of films that Criterion have released that I already own in inferior editions*. It's just that the existing Tree Of Life Blu-ray is a technical marvel, the transfer couldn't be bested.



*It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World being a recent example. If TOL got the IAMMMMW treatment (second cut, decent extras) then it wouldn't be a pointless release.

Well, I think Criterion isn't only about the transfer. It's more than that..
I mean why people wish for Criterion to release this and that?
Why not be content with just a good transfer from any other studio?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm not sure but the guy in the propeller cap wearing shorts, one polka-dotted sock and a cape might - and I stress might - be the odd man.

I feel like I'm playing Who's on First

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by joie

Voiceover narration is a Malick stock-in-trade, I know. But even with written fiction an audience is sophisticated enough to discover a story without narration, through the characters' interactions, for example. Voiceover in film or reliance on a narrator in written fiction may be a poor storyteller's -- someone pretending to tell a story -- crutch.

add: pretentious in the sense of pretending to tell a story

But why does it have to be a bad thing? Who says it is? Yes I get it can come across as lazy but I think it adds to the films, if done well that is, and for me it is done very well - why should Malick be like everyone else and make films without voice over? He make this film how he wants to make them and he does it for himself, he's not forcing it on others an does not forcing people to like them. Whats wrong with a film using poetry and philosophy and exploring other mediums rather than just visual imagery?

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

or Brad Pitt staring at a baby's foot.

this is a great post. don't know what else to say other than that I agree 1000%

the first pic is Anne Geddes. the second... well you know

Whats wrong with beautiful/naturals shots/imagery? Many films replicate paintings or use images from other films in their films as homages or w/e whats wrong with that?

TTOL is exploring life and death, whats wrong with showing a baby or w/e? He isn't putting it in for the sake of beauty or to make us connect with it.

Here is a great example of someone doing it wrong and this makes me laugh so hard lol

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey | Official Trailer - YouTube

[Ausjdm]

Originally Posted by jw007

Yes and yes. I'll take any extra footage of anything from that guy. And I don't care if its a 5 minute shot of a flower blooming in slow motion.

Badlands is good, Ausjdm, but The New World is better.

Lol Fine you win JW I like New World better myself. Just figured Badlands gets forgotten many times...

[aes3728]

Originally Posted by iScottie

As others have pointed out, October 2014's newsletter clue seems to be hinting at Carol Reed's 1947 film-noir, Odd Man Out.

My guess is it comes out in May, that 5 has to be for something.

[dsman71]

Ill have to revisit Odd Man Out .. that's the James Mason film if I recall

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by captveg

I was fairly indifferent to it when I saw it in college about 15 years ago. It's grown on me. Watch the video essay on the disc as it has some good insight that may help you appreciate and understand it more.

I watched it in a college class myself. I don't own the movie.

I only have Seventh Seal at the moment, but I do intend to own more of his films. Maybe at some point I'll rewatch it and like it enough to buy it. It's on YouTube I believe.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by mallomar

Point well taken. But I think it is not fair to say that all adjectives that are used loosely by the ill-informed should simply be off limits.

I don't think anybody's saying that words like pretentious are off-limits. But when words are routinely abused they do become - I think reasonably - a little more suspect.

You mentioned pornography earlier and I'm assuming you were by extension referencing Justice Stewart's 'I know it when I see it' definition of obscenity and it's a solid analogy.

Asking why something is pretentious is very similar to asking why something is pornographic or obscene in that the answer will often ultimately boil down to 'well, it just is'. The rub here is 'ultimately'.

If charges of obscenity were routinely used as a knee-jerk synonym for 'I just don't like it' I think a reasonable observer could be excused for looking at such charges with a slightly - or maybe more than slightly - jaundiced eye and for dismissing definitions of obscenity that offer nothing beyond 'well, I know it when I see it and I saw it so there you go'.

Originally Posted by mallomar

Okay, more than you wanted to know probably. But if the problem is what do I MEAN by pretentious, that's my first best shot.

You make a reasonable case. I'm not really sure I agree with much of it but since I don't really have a horse in the 'is Mallick and/or TToL pretentious' race I'm reluctant to get bogged down in the particulars.

But don't take that to mean I'm dismissing your effort in making a case in the first place.

Originally Posted by mallomar

Also, do I get extra credit for a) not finding subtitles or long run times problematic; b) not finding movies with hard-to-pronounce titles arthouse crap; and c) loving the Godfather and 2001? (Even if my childhood favorites are, in fact, criminally underrated masterpieces.)

Strike 'criminally' (that just sets my teeth on edge) and we can talk.

Oh, and wait...when was your childhood? I love nostalgia as much as the next guy but the current veneration of All Things 80s is getting a little out of hand.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by mallomar

Point well taken. But I think it is not fair to say that all adjectives that are used loosely by the ill-informed should simply be off limits.

When I say pretentious, I think I mean an unseemly attempt to seize at unearned profundity. I once had a writing teacher who said that novice writers often grab at magic words like sun, moon, ocean, light, etc., when they want to make readers feel something without doing the hard work of making them feel it. When I watch these latter-day Malicks, all I can feel is how desperately he wants me to think certain things about him: that he is brilliant, profound, life-affirming, inspired, etc. I feel manipulated: either I contort my own inner experience of his images unreasonably so that I can hit the ground running at 100 sentimental miles an hour and choke up over the image of a kid playing in a sprinkler, or I just don't get it, do I? And in his case, as distinct from the case of other artists I might drop the p word on, this manipulation is doubly embarrassing because the sensibility underlying it feels so overlapped with that of commercial photography and advertising.

Okay, more than you wanted to know probably. But if the problem is what do I MEAN by pretentious, that's my first best shot.

Also, do I get extra credit for a) not finding subtitles or long run times problematic; b) not finding movies with hard-to-pronounce titles arthouse crap; and c) loving the Godfather and 2001? (Even if my childhood favorites are, in fact, criminally underrated masterpieces.)

Originally Posted by James78

I wonder if we call films pretentious when we don't understand them?

I always thought that James78's post about pretention was very insightful and probably the best post.

Just to add a bit more, here is a quote from Ionesco 'Bald Soprano':


MARY: I'm going to recite a poem, then, is that agreed? It is a poem entitled "The Fire" in honor of the Fire Chief:

The Fire
The polypoids were burning in the wood
A stone caught fire
The castle caught fire
The forest caught fire
The men caught fire
The women caught fire
The birds caught fire
The fish caught fire
The water caught fire
The sky caught fire
The ashes caught fire
The smoke caught fire
The fire caught fire
Everything caught fire
Caught fire, caught fire.
[She recites the poem whie the Smiths are pushing her off-stage.]

MRS. MARTIN: That sent chills up my spine...

MR. MARTIN: And yet there's a certain warmth in those lines...

FIRE CHIEF: I thought it was marvelous.

End of quote

The appreciation of art is always subjective. I would just hate to be the fire chief.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by dsman71

Ill have to revisit Odd Man Out .. that's the James Mason film if I recall

Yep, that's the one.

I need to give it another look at some point too. For some reason it didn't really do a lot for me. Same with They Made Me A Fugitive. I just expected more.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

... is there any film out there were everyone agrees it is very pretentious?

Please, people can't agree that water is wet (what about when it freezes, you didn't think about that, did you, hah) so I'm going to go with no on that

Me? I don't like to throw the p-word around too much either but Crash (best picture Jack Nicholson startled 'whoa Crash' Crash, not the car crash Crash) is one of the exceptions. For my money it was one long series of trite, superficial observations intentionally masquerading as something deeper and more profound.

[JJJ225]

Carol Reed! James Mason! Can't get much better than that!

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

I always thought that James78's post about pretention was very insightful and probably the best post.

re: the cartoon

it is clever, but I, for one, am ALWAYS saying what I represent - probably to the point where I share too much (i.e. have too vocal of an opinion)

having an opinion that is in stark contrast to the popular opinion is not the easy thing to do. nobody is being challenged when they use the word breathtaking, awe-inspiring, etc. to heap mounds of praise upon TTOL.

but pretentious (?), which, as I have mentioned before, is a subjective adjective not unlike 'beautiful' or 'sad,' is a banned word

[Polaroid]

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! - YouTube

Replace Britney with Terrence Malick and this is how I feel...

[joie]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

But why does it have to be a bad thing? Who says it is? Yes I get it can come across as lazy but I think it adds to the films, if done well that is, and for me it is done very well - why should Malick be like everyone else and make films without voice over? He make this film how he wants to make them and he does it for himself, he's not forcing it on others an does not forcing people to like them. Whats wrong with a film using poetry and philosophy and exploring other mediums rather than just visual imagery?



Whats wrong with beautiful/naturals shots/imagery? Many films replicate paintings or use images from other films in their films as homages or w/e whats wrong with that?

TTOL is exploring life and death, whats wrong with showing a baby or w/e? He isn't putting it in for the sake of beauty or to make us connect with it.

Here is a great example of someone doing it wrong and this makes me laugh so hard lol

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey | Official Trailer - YouTube

Narration is certainly not a bad thing, if the story is about characters who rarely, if ever, talk. Then, it's the right thing -- the only thing? -- to do; the voiceover functions as an interior monologue. It worked very well in "Badlands." I suppose "Tree of Life" is about some characters who have little to say to one another, but why? In "Badlands," the unspeakableness of the crime spree could explain why Kit and his girlfriend had little to say to each other.

add: I suppose some may think that the beauty of the world cannot be expressed verbally, so there's no talk of it (?)