The Criterion Collection

[Meek12345]

Originally Posted by BrianS

Is Criterion rumored to release Welles' Macbeth? Olive just recently released it.

I know that they're going to release Othello later this year.

Sorry about that. I wasn't aware that Olive had already released Macbeth back in 2012 (just looked it up a minute ago). I remember that a member here posted that Chimes at Midnight could happen and then maybe Criterion will pick up other Welles Shakespeare adaptations, if they can. Well, thanks for pointing out my mistake. I will go back and edit my original post.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by jw007

You took the words right out of my mouth. I remember watching that trailer and being blown away by it. And it was so much more moving than the actual film.

Did you see Jupiter Ascending? I heard from people it was just beyond bad. A friend of mine actually walked out of the theater (or at least nearly did).

Sadly I'm avoiding at all costs - before it was made I read about it and it sounded fascinating and so bold - but it just looks naff, I don't think the casting is particularly amazing either.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Hated Cloud Atlas, its one of those films where the trailer was better than the actual film lol.

I realize that I never expressed an opinion on it. I really liked it. I understand the point of view that the filmmakers' reach exceeded their grasp -- and to some extent I agree -- but I think the pluses considerably outweigh the minuses.

I get what they were trying to achieve, but it was too big for them tbh, I was so excited about it but no, it just didn't work - maybe if it was a trilogy of film and each film was one story? I don't know.

That would've been exactly the wrong way to go. Given that the premise, in the simplest possible terms, is "everything is connected", it seems to me that the worst possible thing they could've done is to divide everything up into separate films.

I never got the hate for The Fountain - it was so beautiful and had so much emotion. Also, the special effects are incredible and won't date, Aronofsky tried to make everything ons screen real, the flowers that appear are real and even the gold effect was made from chemical reactions which were mesmerising.

Now that's a film that I hated. I don't think it was Aronofsky's fault, though. Warner had no faith in it, and nickel-and-dimed it to death, leaving it an unsatisfying, confused mess. Aronofsky's original vision for the film, as detailed in the extras on the DVD, sounded compelling.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I realize that I never expressed an opinion on it. I really liked it. I understand the point of view that the filmmakers' reach exceeded their grasp -- and to some extent I agree -- but I think the pluses considerably outweigh the minuses.



That would've been exactly the wrong way to go. Given that the premise, in the simplest possible terms, is "everything is connected", it seems to me that the worst possible thing they could've done is to divide everything up into separate films.



Now that's a film that I hated. I don't think it was Aronofsky's fault, though. Warner had no faith in it, and nickel-and-dimed it to death, leaving it an unsatisfying, confused mess. Aronofsky's original vision for the film, as detailed in the extras on the DVD, sounded compelling.

I think his worst film has to be Noah - just a mess, although I love his section on the creation of the universe, but it's a bad film sadly! His best work has to be Pi and Requiem and The Wrestler is incredible!

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I realize that I never expressed an opinion on it. I really liked it. I understand the point of view that the filmmakers' reach exceeded their grasp -- and to some extent I agree -- but I think the pluses considerably outweigh the minuses.



That would've been exactly the wrong way to go. Given that the premise, in the simplest possible terms, is "everything is connected", it seems to me that the worst possible thing they could've done is to divide everything up into separate films.



Now that's a film that I hated. I don't think it was Aronofsky's fault, though. Warner had no faith in it, and nickel-and-dimed it to death, leaving it an unsatisfying, confused mess. Aronofsky's original vision for the film, as detailed in the extras on the DVD, sounded compelling.

Whenever I see someone call The Fountain a confused mess (you're not the first), I always wonder if they watched the same movie I did. I'm not intending to disparage your opinion, I've just always been genuinely unsure what about the film people find messy or confusing.

It's one of my favorites.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Whenever I see someone call The Fountain a confused mess (you're not the first), I always wonder if they watched the same movie I did. I'm not intending to disparage your opinion, I've just always been genuinely unsure what about the film people find messy or confusing.

It's one of my favorites.

Yeah I never found it a mess or confusing - wasn't it one of aronofskys favorite films he made?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Whenever I see someone call The Fountain a confused mess (you're not the first), I always wonder if they watched the same movie I did. I'm not intending to disparage your opinion, I've just always been genuinely unsure what about the film people find messy or confusing.

It's one of my favorites.

I wish I could give you a helpful response, but it's been, what, almost 10 years since I've seen it, and I haven't had any incentive to try and remember enough details of the film to present a coherent review.

I will say that I really liked the "present" story, thought the "past" story was OK, but it was the "future" story that lost me. I get what Aronofsky was trying to say, but I just don't think he managed to say it well enough.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Yeah I never found it a mess or confusing - wasn't it one of aronofskys favorite films he made?

It may well be, but I'm not sure that that would mean much. It's like the how people should never proof-read their own work, because they tend to see what they intended to say rather than what's actually on the page. Aronofsky might be seeing what's in his mind rather than what's actually on the screen.

I vaguely remember reading something from Aronofsky defending the film, and coming up with reasons why the film was poorly received that essentially blamed it on the cultural zeitgeist of the time or some such thing. Or that the public wasn't receptive to the message he was trying to convey.

OK, if that's what he believed, that's what he believed. But it seems to me that instead of blaming the audience for not wanting to listen to his message, he should at least consider that maybe he didn't convey his message as clearly as he thinks he did.

[jw007]

Should Aronofsky be in the Criterion Collection?

[jw007]

Happy 100th Orson.

Here's to another 100 years.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by jw007

Should Aronofsky be in the Criterion Collection?

Pi or Requiem definitely.

I would say Pi is more 'worthy' - not sure about The Wrestler....

[Scottie]

I'm in the process of finishing up the First Era of Shoah and I can't say that I particularly care for it.

I can't shake the lingering feeling of exploitation on Lanzmann's part. His intentions seem to be for more personal reasons than educational reasons. I mean, I've watched almost five hours of the film today and aside from a few new perspectives on the Holocaust, I haven't learned anything new or been made to feel as if I was by their side in their sufferings.

I do enjoy the fact that Lanzmann is incorporating interviews with survivors and German soldiers, but everything feels incredibly dragged out. I am a prospective journalist and I understand the importance of follow-up questions to comments, as they provide more color, credibility, and more personal touches to the interviews, but Lanzmann questions every remark that someone says, operating somewhat like a child who constantly asks, "why?"

The documentary is nine and a half hours long and I initially thought it would be off-putting, but the pacing is very much tolerate. Still, I would have liked to see more isolated interviews with both the survivors and the oppressors, seeing both sides of the Holocaust, and being made to feel like I was in their places.

One cannot deny, however, that many of the interviews could be shortened if Lanzmann did not continue to linger on such petty details, such as whether a Polish woman likes living in her house. Who cares?

What I dislike the most about the interviews, though, is not the petty questions, but the harmful questions he is asking.

Q: "How did you feel when you buried your wife and child?"

A: "Gee wiz, I sure enjoyed picking up their corpses and throwing dirt on them!" (Like...come on...)

[StingingVelvet]

After finally watching Scanners again on BD and the excellent features on that disc I REALLY hope we get the rumored early Cronenberg box set. That's now on my highest level of wish list.

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

100 years ago on this day Babe Ruth hit his first home run (Polo Grounds off Jack Warhop).

Warhop was pitching when Ruth hit his 2nd home run, as well.

Speaking of Yankees, when are we going to see blu releases for Pride of the Yankees and Bang the Drum Slowly? I think the latter would make a nice addition to the Criterion Collection.

[CriterionBlues]

Originally Posted by iScottie

One cannot deny, however, that many of the interviews could be shortened if Lanzmann did not continue to linger on such petty details, such as whether a Polish woman likes living in her house. Who cares?

He is asking these questions because he wants to see whether the non-Jew townspeople acknowledge and have any feelings towards the fact that they benefited from the holocaust. When watching the film, the thesis is clear, but I'm not sure they picked up on it.

There are some justifiable criticisms about Lanzmann and his techniques. He cares more about the subject than his subjects and I won't deny that he is challenging and sometimes confrontational. Some of the better interviews are yet to come, such as the barber, the Nazi, and a survivor from Auschwitz.

After the first third, I was also reticent about the film. One thing that bothered me was that they had the third translator involved, which extended the running time and slowed down the film. It is used more in the beginning than middle and latter part of the film. I also could see that Lanzmann had an agenda, but as he moved further into the subject, it seemed to be larger than just anti-Polish as his accusers have said. There are some remarkable stories and I came to a far better understanding of what happened as a result.

I hope you can stick with it. Let us know what you think when finished.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by CriterionBlues

He is asking these questions because he wants to see whether the non-Jew townspeople acknowledge and have any feelings towards the fact that they benefited from the holocaust. When watching the film, the thesis is clear, but I'm not sure they picked up on it.

There are some justifiable criticisms about Lanzmann and his techniques. He cares more about the subject than his subjects and I won't deny that he is challenging and sometimes confrontational. Some of the better interviews are yet to come, such as the barber, the Nazi, and a survivors from Auschwitz.

After the first third, I was also reticent about the film. One thing that bothered me was that they had the third translator involved, which extended the running time and slowed down the film. It is used more in the beginning than middle and latter part of the film. I also could see that Lanzmann had an agenda, but as he moved further into the subject, it seemed to be larger than just anti-Polish as his accusers have said. There are some remarkable stories and I came to a far better understanding of what happened as a result.

I hope you can stick with it. Let us know what you think when finished.

Thanks for the information.

I am definitely going to stick with it. Hopefully I will see a more polished, meaningful picture by the time it's over.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by iScottie

One cannot deny, however, that many of the interviews could be shortened if Lanzmann did not continue to linger on such petty details, such as whether a Polish woman likes living in her house. Who cares?

I have just seen 1 hour of it, and i am not sure if i want to continue, aside from your point, i think it could be shortened even more if we could avoid hearing every bit of dialog twice with the translation, although i am not sure if this spoken translation keeps going on for the whole doc.

Edit: Just saw CriterionBlues helpful post about my point

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I have just seen 1 hour of it, and i am not sure if i want to continue, aside from your point, i think it could be shortened even more if we could avoid hearing every bit of dialog twice with the translation, although i am not sure if this spoken translation keeps going on for the whole doc.

It does. Furthermore, Lanzmann asks the same questions to multiple people so we get to hear a good hours worth about gas vans (and many of the sentiments were the same).

[CriterionBlues]

Originally Posted by iScottie

It does. Furthermore, Lanzmann asks the same questions to multiple people so we get to hear a good hours worth about gas vans (and many of the sentiments were the same).

My memory is that a lot of the later interviews don't have a third translator. It's basically only when they are interviewing Polish locals. Later they talk to more German and French people, which Lanzmann speaks.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by CriterionBlues

My memory is that a lot of the later interviews don't have a third translator. It's basically only when they are interviewing Polish locals. Later they talk to more German and French people, which Lanzmann speaks.

Yeah, I'm in the process of watching the first part of the Second Era and no translators have come into play yet.

This part is also a hell of a lot better because Lanzmann is finally taking a step back and letting the subjects speak on their own accord. The barber's story, for example, is quite powerful.