The Criterion Collection

[OrchidClub]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I couldn't get Psycho out of my head when watching it lol ... was too much XD

Now you mention it it does really feel like a full adaptation lol

Not really. This is such a tired observation, especially when it comes from De Palma's detractors (not saying you're one of them but it is something they often point out when trying to dismiss his films).

Dressed to Kill has certain structural similarities to Psycho, it's true, but I don't find the two films very much alike at all. The tone of both films are drastically different. If anything, De Palma seems more influenced by the eroticism of Bunuel than the cold, harsh atmosphere of Psycho. And I'd like to point out that there are many aspects of De Palma's films that stand apart from Hitchcock – he goes places that Hitchcock never would have dared to go. The only time that Hitchcock ever displayed the explicit brutality that is apparent in De Palma's films was in Frenzy, particularly during the rape/murder scene. And he never filmed anything as explicitly erotic as Dressed to Kill or Body Double. Perhaps he would have if the censors would have let him.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Dressed to Kill, especially, I thought was a second- or third-rate attempt at pretending to be Hitchcock.

Sure, one could look at Dressed to Kill as second-rate Hitchcock but compare it to Frenzy and one could make the case that guys like Dario Argento and DePalma out-Hitchcocked Hitchcock when it came to integrating more explicit sex and violence with Hitchcock's approach to suspense.

Granted, the 70s weren't exactly Hitchcock's prime but these is a sense with Frenzy that Hitchcock was almost imitating his imitators (Bird with the Crystal Plumage, for instance) and wasn't quite as good at it as they were.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I couldn't get Psycho out of my head when watching it lol ... was too much XD

Now you mention it it does really feel like a full adaptation lol on that subject - what is Gus Van Sants Psycho like? I have never seen, but I'm a huge fan of his films, Elephant in particular (which would be nice in collection)!

If you rewatch it with this in mind, knowing De Palma is doing it, the film is a much better experience. He "samples" quite a bit in his movies. I think he fell flat on his face with the similar Body Double. Makes Dressed To Kill look like a masterpiece.

Van Sant's Psycho is a colour shot-for-shot remake. He changes one scene where

[Show spoiler]Norman masturbates while looking through the peephole (as Hitchcock had planned to)

but other than that it's pretty much mimicking the original in every way it can. I find it fascinating. It's an act of sheer pointlessness making it or to remake any film of Psycho's status, so to think studio execs were lining up money to do it and got Van Sant who said "why?" and then did what he did is kind of hilarious. Is he a hero? He might have saved us from a Citizen Kane remake or worse.

[scorsetinogilliam]

Originally Posted by OrchidClub

Not really. This is such a tired observation, especially when it comes from De Palma's detractors (not saying you're one of them but it is something they often point out when trying to dismiss his films).

Dressed to Kill has certain structural similarities to Psycho, it's true, but I don't find the two films very much alike at all. The tone of both films are drastically different. If anything, De Palma seems more influenced by the eroticism of Bunuel than the cold, harsh atmosphere of Psycho. And I'd like to point out that there are many aspects of De Palma's films that stand apart from Hitchcock – he goes places that Hitchcock never would have dared to go. The only time that Hitchcock ever displayed the explicit brutality that is apparent in De Palma's films was in Frenzy, particularly during the rape/murder scene. And he never filmed anything as explicitly erotic as Dressed to Kill or Body Double. Perhaps he would have if the censors would have let him.

Amen to all of this. Those that label De Palma as simple derivatives of Hitch, clearly haven't seen either film in recent memory and jump to the buzz word conclusion.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by scorsetinogilliam

Amen to all of this. Those that label De Palma as simple derivatives of Hitch, clearly haven't seen either film in recent memory and jump to the buzz word conclusion.

I don't think De Palma is, in general, trying to be Hitchcock -- I certainly can't think of another film of his that seemed overtly Hitchcockian. But I do think he was consciously trying to make a Hitchcock film with Dressed to Kill. I saw that movie in the theater when it was first released, and thought the Hitchcock hommage (I'll be polite) was screamingly obvious.

On edit: I feel obliged to mention that I've not seen the film since.

There's nothing wrong with trying to do a Hitchcock-style film. I think that was John Carpenter's idea when he made Halloween. It's just that I think De Palma failed at it (and Carpenter didn't).

[scorsetinogilliam]

I'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts post-double feature of Psycho/Dressed to Kill, since you haven't seen it in so long. I would also argue that Carpenter was aping Powell's Peeping Tom, more than Hitchcock or Psycho.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I don't think De Palma is, in general, trying to be Hitchcock -- I certainly can't think of another film of his that seemed overtly Hitchcockian. But I do think he was consciously trying to make a Hitchcock film with Dressed to Kill. I saw that movie in the theater when it was first released, and thought the Hitchcock hommage (I'll be polite) was screamingly obvious.

On edit: I feel obliged to mention that I've not seen the film since.

There's nothing wrong with trying to do a Hitchcock-style film. I think that was John Carpenter's idea when he made Halloween. It's just that I think De Palma failed at it (and Carpenter didn't).

I feel like De Palma hammered the point home and made you think of Psycho during his film, on purpose. It's always seemed that way to me. He had a nice thread that he followed and played with. Some of his other films do this but not in such a heavy handed way. For me it's part of the reason the film works so well. If you take this element away it's a lesser film.

[scorsetinogilliam]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

I feel like De Palma hammered the point home and made you think of Psycho during his film, on purpose. It's always seemed that way to me. He had a nice thread that he followed and played with. Some of his other films do this but not in such a heavy handed way. For me it's part of the reason the film works so well. If you take this element away it's a lesser film.

Completely agree. One of De Palma's greatest strengths lies within his ability to do just that. Forces a pre-decided framework upon the viewer to open up the world of discovery within it.

[Sifox211]

Originally Posted by belcherman

1. Which of Criterion's past announcements most excited you? In other words, which single release, when announced, made you say "OMG, YES!!!!"?

2. Which future release, if announced, would most excite you? Disregard the probability of it actually happening. In other words, you can include Warner Bros, or even Disney titles, in your wished-for release.

1. Either the Qatsi trilogy or the complete Jacques Tati.
2. A Canterbury Tale - as always

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

... 2. Chabrol's Le Boucher

I saw this on its original theatrical run in the '80s and was mightily impressed - been wanting to see it again ever since.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by octagon

Granted, the 70s weren't exactly Hitchcock's prime but these is a sense with Frenzy that Hitchcock was almost imitating his imitators (Bird with the Crystal Plumage, for instance) and wasn't quite as good at it as they were.

Sort of like how U2 imitates Coldplay on their most recent album.

Frenzy does share a distinct vibe with the Argento films from that decade, and it stands a distance apart from the earlier Hitchcock works. Family Plot, by comparison, felt almost like an attempted return to familiar Hitchcock territory.

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by OrchidClub

Not really. This is such a tired observation, especially when it comes from De Palma's detractors (not saying you're one of them but it is something they often point out when trying to dismiss his films).

Dressed to Kill has certain structural similarities to Psycho, it's true, but I don't find the two films very much alike at all. The tone of both films are drastically different. If anything, De Palma seems more influenced by the eroticism of Bunuel than the cold, harsh atmosphere of Psycho. And I'd like to point out that there are many aspects of De Palma's films that stand apart from Hitchcock – he goes places that Hitchcock never would have dared to go. The only time that Hitchcock ever displayed the explicit brutality that is apparent in De Palma's films was in Frenzy, particularly during the rape/murder scene. And he never filmed anything as explicitly erotic as Dressed to Kill or Body Double. Perhaps he would have if the censors would have let him.

That's the thing, he's basically Hitchcock with added bloodshed and nudity. I wouldn't call the nude scenes, for the most part, in De Palma's works erotic, at least not in the tasteful way Bunuel and others film them, so much as sleazy and gratuitous. And that's fine, I view much of De Palma's movies that I've seen as just plain fun (excluding Scarface, Blow Out, The Untouchables which are all very well done films) like Carrie, Sisters, Dressed to Kill, Body Double, even Mission: Impossible (obviously more mainstream but has its issues), but I don't see them as high art. I say this as someone who likes De Palma btw. The Hitchcock scenes in his films are way too obvious though, even if you didn't know about De Palma's love affair with Hitchcock you'd certainly recognize at least one of the scenes in De Palma's filmography. Basic Instinct is an example of a film that I found to be Hitchcockian without feeling forced or having practically lifted scenes. Charade is another.

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by iScottie

The only Brian De Palma film I like is Passion. In fact, I love it.

Blow Out is solid, but the others...

Huge Phantom of the Paradise fan myself. Also really like Sisters and Hi, Mom!

[Clare2904]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

How the hell am I belittling him???

I was asking really as I never expected them to be considered a big release and it made me excited to see them!

Oh just realised it was you, no surprise there then, you aint worth my time so toodles! Maybe you should take your own advice haha.

"made you say "OMG, YES!!!!"

It would make HIM/HER say "OMG, YES!!!!" not YOU. You don't consider it a big release but others would.

Your choices, IMO, are not worthy but I appreciate that everyone here is different and what can be expected is ANYTHING.

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by belcherman

2. Which future release, if announced, would most excite you? Disregard the probability of it actually happening. In other words, you can include Warner Bros, or even Disney titles, in your wished-for release.

2. Anything Mikio Naruse, but especially Floating Clouds. Also, would love if they did anything from China, such as Zhang Yimou's early stuff like Ju Dou or anything from Jia Zhang-ke. Oh, a Ugetsu blu ray too....

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by belcherman

OK, now that the post-announcement quiet has set in and we've all adjusted to the excitement or disappointment of the latest announcement (Night and the City for me, thank you very much), I thought I'd ask folks the following two questions:

1. Which of Criterion's past announcements most excited you? In other words, which single release, when announced, made you say "OMG, YES!!!!"?

2. Which future release, if announced, would most excite you? Disregard the probability of it actually happening. In other words, you can include Warner Bros, or even Disney titles, in your wished-for release.

My answers:

1. Red River
2. The Big Sleep (both cuts)

1. Up until yesterday, my favorite announcement was Nashville. But Night and the City is the one I've been praying for. The British cut is supposed an entirely different film from the American release ... it's longer, Googie Withers is billed above the title, and I've read that Gene Tierney has a lot more footage. I can't wait to see if some of the scene stills in my collection that don't show up in the American release may show scenes that appear in the British version.

2. I would come unglued if Criterion announced they had the rights to Disney's long-suppressed Song of the South and were going to release it on blu-ray. But I would be just as excited if they announced The Macomber Affair ... the TCM print is execrable and fades out before the end. It's always been one of my favorite films, and I haven't seen a decent print of it in over 25 years.

[JohnnyF]

Looks like my copy of Howard's End has bronzed. Any idea how long it takes Criterion to send out a replacement disc?

[oildude]

Originally Posted by belcherman

1. Which of Criterion's past announcements most excited you? In other words, which single release, when announced, made you say "OMG, YES!!!!"?

2. Which future release, if announced, would most excite you? Disregard the probability of it actually happening. In other words, you can include Warner Bros, or even Disney titles, in your wished-for release.

My answers:

1. Red River
2. The Big Sleep (both cuts)

1. Most exciting release announced: The Spy Who Came in From the Cold

2. Actually, a lot of upgrades, but I will stick to only new titles I really would like to see enter the collection. Can't pick just one, so I will give my top ten (hey, look another list ) :

The Grey Fox (1982, Phillip Borsos)
The Day of the Jackal (1973, Fred Zinnemann)
Gallipoli (1981, Peter Weir - a Paramount title handed off to WB, so no-go on this one but I can dream)
Tender Mercies (1983, Bruce Beresford)
In a Lonely Place (1950, Nicholas Ray)
The Asphalt Jungle (1950, John Huston)
Village of the Damned (1960, Wolf Rilla)
Ponette (1996, Jacques Doillon)
Ulzana's Raid (1972, Robert Aldrich)
The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954, Mark Robson)

So many I want are in the hands of WB.

Oh, and while I am not a rabid fanboy there is one to file under the "ain't gonna happen ever crazy talk" category - Star Wars the original for the sole reason that, sitting alone with my thoughts late at night deep down in my heart of hearts, I have to admit.....I really want to see Han shoot first.

[jshaide]

Originally Posted by belcherman

OK, now that the post-announcement quiet has set in and we've all adjusted to the excitement or disappointment of the latest announcement (Night and the City for me, thank you very much), I thought I'd ask folks the following two questions:

1. Which of Criterion's past announcements most excited you? In other words, which single release, when announced, made you say "OMG, YES!!!!"?

2. Which future release, if announced, would most excite you? Disregard the probability of it actually happening. In other words, you can include Warner Bros, or even Disney titles, in your wished-for release.

1. Hmmm. . .I remember being especially excited for Island of Lost Souls, Blow Out, and Kiss Me Deadly.

2. A couple come to mind: Underground, White Cat Black Cat, Begotten/Shadow of the Vampire, Greed

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by JohnnyF

Looks like my copy of Howard's End has bronzed. Any idea how long it takes Criterion to send out a replacement disc?

I sent my bronzed copy of Summer Hours in via first class mail and received my replacement copy within 9 working days ... if that's any help.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

That's the thing, he's basically Hitchcock with added bloodshed and nudity. I wouldn't call the nude scenes, for the most part, in De Palma's works erotic, at least not in the tasteful way Bunuel and others film them, so much as sleazy and gratuitous. And that's fine, I view much of De Palma's movies that I've seen as just plain fun (excluding Scarface, Blow Out, The Untouchables which are all very well done films) like Carrie, Sisters, Dressed to Kill, Body Double, even Mission: Impossible (obviously more mainstream but has its issues), but I don't see them as high art. I say this as someone who likes De Palma btw. The Hitchcock scenes in his films are way too obvious though, even if you didn't know about De Palma's love affair with Hitchcock you'd certainly recognize at least one of the scenes in De Palma's filmography. Basic Instinct is an example of a film that I found to be Hitchcockian without feeling forced or having practically lifted scenes. Charade is another.

One person's sleazy and gratuitous is another person's mood setter or bit of realism. I tend to be in the "they're just boobs" camp and not see it as sleazy or jarring in any way, but I know a lot of people (in America especially) feel differently.

In any event I think De Palma being a more 80's style Hitchcock is something he would take as a compliment. Also I tend to think the definition of "high art" depends on who you ask, and is a wholly subjective (and thus useless) term.