The Criterion Collection

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Nothing

por que, Scottie? please elaborate.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by spargs

Doesn't look like today. The Criterion website (at least for the past couple flash sales) usually goes offline for maintenance for a brief time either the night before or the morning of the day of the flash sale. That hasn't happened yet.

Originally Posted by fancyclaps

That's it, I'm throwing my monitor through the window.

And I even got up early this morning........

[GxyExpress999]

My wallet is smiling now.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by joie

I once read the full novel, which had a forward by Meredith. He bemoaned the U.S. edition's butchering of the novel's structure and omission of the last chapter. He wrote that he structured it to be a novel in three parts of seven chapters each, so I got the impression that he didn't approve of the omission of chapter 21. I got the impression it was something done by the U.S. publisher, because with chapter 21, where Alex has matured considerably, the publishers thought the novel wouldn't be as shocking and sell as well.

edit: I believe I read the 1987 edition published by Norton, the one complete and with Burgess' forward. A criticism of the original U.S. edition is that it's not a novel, I.e., it doesn't show that Alex has developed as a character.

He didn't, but was pressured into it, thus resulting in the Kubrick film and him disowning the film and the novel as the American version led to people totally misconstruing his work, and thinking it glorified violence. Since 1986, the unexpunged version has been released worldwide, which causes those who were familiar with the film before the novel, to dislike the last chapter and think the film is far, far superior.

Both the film and the novel have their merits, although I can totally see Why Burgess would hate both by the end of his life. I know of people who think the Ludovich technique is a good thing, and we should start using it. Totally missed the point there.

[monsterbash]

[QUOTE=bwdowiak;10463439]there's an explanation for "why?" each one of these films lost (except maybe Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas)

TWBB lost to another amazing film that I don't think anybody has any regrets about the fact that they voted for it - (No Country...)

the Academy has always held in high regard films that deal with social issues. that's why Apocalypse Now got the short end of the stick.


I think superior films have sometimes been victims of a sort of "vote splitting." Goodfellas was a gangster picture with Godfather III in the same group, Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line were both WWII masterpieces and lost to Shakespeare In Love, Apocalypse Now was the victim of a Deer Hunter / Vietnam hangover (Kramer vs. Kramer is a great film anyway).

[bwdowiak]

[quote=monsterbash;10464045]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

there's an explanation for "why?" each one of these films lost (except maybe Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas)

TWBB lost to another amazing film that I don't think anybody has any regrets about the fact that they voted for it - (No Country...)

the Academy has always held in high regard films that deal with social issues. that's why Apocalypse Now got the short end of the stick.


I think superior films have sometimes been victims of a sort of "vote splitting." Goodfellas was a gangster picture with Godfather III in the same group, Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line were both WWII masterpieces and lost to Shakespeare In Love, Apocalypse Now was the victim of a Deer Hunter / Vietnam hangover (Kramer vs. Kramer is a great film anyway).

I can't remember the explanation, but the voting process actually eliminates the possibility of "vote splitting." at least that is what Dean Richards (film critic) said on a Chicago radio station last week.

[adamhopelies]

[quote=bwdowiak;10464121]

Originally Posted by monsterbash

I can't remember the explanation, but the voting process actually eliminates the possibility of "vote splitting." at least that is what Dean Richards (film critic) said on a Chicago radio station last week.

There's an explanation of how it works here.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsono...oscar-20150219

Voters basically rank the nominees in that category (as opposed to simply choose their favourite one in the other categories).

[littleprince32]

[quote=adamhopelies;10464292]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

There's an explanation of how it works here.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsono...oscar-20150219

Voters basically rank the nominees in that category (as opposed to simply choose their favourite one in the other categories).

But this type of ranking the nominees has only been in effect since the 2009 Oscars. (And before 1943, if you want to go back that far) Between 1944 and 2008 Best Picture was chosen like all the other categories. Simply picking your favorite.

[StLouisRibs]

[quote=bwdowiak;10464121]

Originally Posted by monsterbash

I can't remember the explanation, but the voting process actually eliminates the possibility of "vote splitting." at least that is what Dean Richards (film critic) said on a Chicago radio station last week.

Well, yes, now there are (and it still wouldn't really prevent it, as if two films are "splitting the vote" then hypothetically they'd be ranked second and third and thus not have either's votes move up to the other), but it used to just be a straightforward preference ballot.

The most clear example of vote splitting is probably Network and All the President's Men - both are films with political edges about the media, though they're totally different in their execution. Rocky won out, which is totally fine with me, as Rocky's still sensational.

[ShellOilJunior]

Kubrick was right to drop Chapter 21. The point had already been made in the film.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by littleprince32

But this type of ranking the nominees has only been in effect since the 2009 Oscars. (And before 1943, if you want to go back that far) Between 1944 and 2008 Best Picture was chosen like all the other categories. Simply picking your favorite.

ok. something new. I see.

I'm still not sure I like the idea of "splitting votes." that's kind of assuming that the Academy voters have small brains. it assumes that voters who have a preference for war films, movies about the mob, etc. are inclined to choose one or the other film that is represented by their preferred genre.

[captveg]

GoodFellas lost to Dances with Wolves because it was early 1991. DwW had dominated all the awards shows. It had won the Golden Globe, DGA, PGA, and WGA. It was the overwhelming favorite. GF had its die hard supporters but they were far, far fewer at that time than they became in the years to come.

And while I love Scorsese and GF, DwW is also an excellent film. To me this is an example of two great films with only one being able to win, which happens time to time (1962: Lawrence of Arabia and To Kill a Mockingbird; 2007: No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood; etc.)

DwW is also a very important film for the industry as it showed producers that they could finance longer, epic films again, which they had abandoned after Heaven's Gate bankrupted UA ten years earlier. Without DwW there is no Braveheart, or Titanic, or Lord of the Rings.

It also moved Hollywood films into being more realistic with the use of non-English languages and subtitles. Far, far more films were now willing to use subtitles for these scenes, whether it was the Spanish in Traffic, or the Elvish in LOTR.

I can understand not liking the film for tastes reasons, or liking GF more, but from an objective point of view it's a great production, exceptionally written, beautifully shot, finely acted, and overall executed with confidence and precision; and it's an important film for the context of its time in the atmosphere of 1990 Hollywood. It will never have the geek-out love people have for GF, but there's certainly not the gap between those two films in quality as there is for, say, Raging Bull and Ordinary People (with OP being a good, solid film, but nothing exceptionally remarkable outside of the performances; of course, no way was RB winning in 1981; it was way too aggressive for that Academy voting body).

[AaronJ]

All this talk of A Clockwork Orange just reminds me I need to read the novel again. I have read it, but it was in AP English in high school which, for me, was sometime in the 17th century. I am pretty sure I have a copy somewhere.

[captveg]

In regards to A Clockwork Orange, it's a naturally divisive film. Honestly, it amazes me that it was as popular at the box office and among voters to the degree that it was, even for nominations. Even 2015 audiences with 45 more years of media saturation are commonly shocked by the film.

It probably also wasn't helped by other factors, such as Kubrick feeling he needed to pull the film from the UK after copy-cat violence from some wannabe youth gangs, or from Gene Kelly being absolutely pissed about how Singin' in the Rain was used in the film. A lot of the Academy at that time was still Old Hollywood, and Kelly was royalty within that group. No doubt that many would have refused to vote for the film based on defending their longtime friend and his views alone (the "Mickey Rooney ain't voting for gay cowboys" effect).

[littleprince32]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

ok. something new. I see.

assuming that the Academy voters have small brains.

Now you're starting to get it. This is a correct assumption.

But seriously, I think in the case of say... Godfather III/Goodfellas/Dances with Wolves, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that if Godfather hadn't been nominated then most of the people who voted for it to win would have voted for Goodfellas instead of Dances (or Ghost or Awakenings). Most people do have genres or types of movies they prefer over others. How many Halloween or Hostel fans do you know who also like romantic comedies? I doubt there are too many.

But at the end of the day over 50% of Oscar voters are white, upper-middle class, male, and over the age of 55. Been that way for 87 years. The movie that appeals the most to that group of people will always end up winning.

[littleprince32]

Originally Posted by captveg

or from Gene Kelly being absolutely pissed about how Singin' in the Rain was used in the film. A lot of the Academy at that time was still Old Hollywood, and Kelly was royalty within that group. No doubt that many would have refused to vote for the film based on defending their longtime friend and his views alone (the "Mickey Rooney ain't voting for gay cowboys" effect).

This reminds me of an interview Malcolm gave where he claimed Kelly didn't actually care about the film or the how the song was used, but since Kubrick never paid him he was seriously, seriously p****d and vowed to do everything he could to trash it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by littleprince32

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that if Godfather hadn't been nominated then most of the people who voted for it to win would have voted for Goodfellas instead of Dances (or Ghost or Awakenings).

I don't agree with this at all. if my memory serves me correctly, and captveg sorta alluded to it, Dances With Wolves was a runaway train at the Oscars that year. ...and who in their right mind would have voted for Godfather III?

or the point about Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line being in the same year... those two films could not be any different.

Originally Posted by littleprince32

Most people do have genres or types of movies they prefer over others. How many Halloween or Hostel fans do you know who also like romantic comedies? I doubt there are too many.

this I do agree with, but how many of these folks are tasked with voting for a major award like the Oscars?

[JohnnyF]

Originally Posted by littleprince32

But at the end of the day over 50% of Oscar voters are white, upper-middle class, male, and over the age of 55. Been that way for 87 years. The movie that appeals the most to that group of people will always end up winning.

Don't forget, the lions share of Academy members are Actors. It skews films directed by one of their own (Costner for DwW and Redford for Ordinary People).

[mande2013]

Well Kubrick, much like the best of Hitchcock, may just be a tad "vulgar" for AMPAS just like Pynchon is a bit "vulgar" for Stockholm.

If there's a flash sale, I'm going to hold off I think. I bought Every Man for Himself from Amazon, since I just really wanted that one, and I also ordered Pialat's We Won't Grow Old Together on blu-ray, not a Criterion, but still an expense.

As for recent Criterion releases that are on my wish list, I still need to get My Darling Clementine at some point. I also want Don't Look Now, An Autumn Afternoon, and The Soft Skin. La Cienaga and Cries and Whispers are in the 'maybe' pile. That Jacques Demy set is looking seductive, but I don't know, I don't think I'd rewatch them enough for it to be warranted, and I'm content with them being on Hulu plus. As for Jacques Tati, I bought the standalone Studo Canal blu-ray of PlayTime, which is the same 4K restoration, so I don't know.

Le Silence de La Mer, Satyricon, and The Merchant of Four Seasons are high up on my to see list, but I don't do blind buys unless in truly extreme cases.

I recently watched Make Way for Tomorrow, which is a very good film. I don't think I'd actually buy it though. It becomes a bit too sentimental towards the end.

I would have bought the Criterion release of The Leopard years ago if it had the proper transfer.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Kubrick was right to drop Chapter 21. The point had already been made in the film.

Well, not really. The way the film resolves, the solution to what was done to Alex was to reverse the effects, making Alex into a functioning psychopath again. Burgess believed that that was wrongheaded. His resolution was to have Alex grow out of his desire for violence.

You may disagree with Burgess on how the problem should've been solved, but the point he was making hadn't already been made in the film.