The Criterion Collection

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by GentleGiant

I rewatched it this past weekend and was once again stunned by how perfect that film is. Nary a misplaced frame in the entire thing. To me, it's a work of cinematic art - no less!

For me, it was a transcendental film, in that it was the first film I ever saw (back in 1968) that made me realize that film could be looked at as Art, not simply another way of telling stories.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Lawrence in 4K is a miracle (If there's a showing by you then don't miss it). The blu-ray is immaculate. I watched it again just last week and found myself picking my jaw off the floor.

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

If I decide I can only handle one of them, it'll be Lawrence of Arabia.

It really is a toss-up. Both are films where no matter how technically accomplished a home video release might be, they really need to be seen at least once on a big screen to see just how astonishing they are.

[GentleGiant]

Originally Posted by diskspinner

I made not 1 but 2 lists for the last week of B&N sale. Any recommendations to move films from Level 2 to Level 1 or vice versa will be great...

Level 1 (Higher priority, bold signifies I am almost certain to get these)

Ace in the Hole
Ali: Fear eats the soul
BBS Story Box
L'avventura
High and Low
In the Mood for love
Jules & Jim
Like Someone in Love
Monsieur Verdoux
Repulsion
The River
Seconds
Vivre Sa Vie

Level 2 (Lower priority, bold signifies some encouragement may cause move to Level 1 list)

The Big Chill
La Dolce Vita
Gates of Heaven/Vernon, Florida
Harakiri
A Hard day's night
Hoop Dreams
John Cassavetes Box
The Killers
Limelight
Paths of Glory
Il Sorpasso
The Thin Blue Line
World on a Wire

I am planning to get 1 box (BBS or Cassavetes) & 8-10 titles.

Harakiri is definitely worth picking up, as is the upcoming Kwaidan. Kobayashi is an absolute master.

I would also recommend Il Sorpasso, which is a beautiful little gem of a film by Dino Risi. One of my personal favorite Criterions.

[diskspinner]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Harakiri should be on level 1 imo.

One of the greatest movies ever made.

...and the black and white transfer is simply outstanding.

Originally Posted by BobbyMcGee

These are all must-haves IMO:

Ace in the Hole
Ali: Fear eats the soul (if you don't own it already, also recommend All That Heaven Allows, which Ali is a remake of)
BBS Story Box
High and Low
In the Mood for love
Monsieur Verdoux
Repulsion
Harakiri
Limelight
A Hard day's night

Get the rest when the next sale comes around.

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Keep Harakiri bold, but move it to level 1, then bold In The Mood For Love and you'll be off to a great start with that list.

Thanks everybody, Harakiri moved to Level 1 (not in the post but in my wishlist here)

Noted down some of your recommendations, will work on them...

[diskspinner]

Originally Posted by GentleGiant

Harakiri is definitely worth picking up, as is the upcoming Kwaidan. Kobayashi is an absolute master.

I would also recommend Il Sorpasso, which is a beautiful little gem of a film by Dino Risi. One of my personal favorite Criterions.

Thanks...I have recently watched Il Sorpasso & I liked it, I kept it a little lower priority, because I may not watch it before the next sale...

[Vinyl]

I haven't seen anyone bring it up, but is anyone excited about the upgrades of Night and the City and The Honeymoon Killers?

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

That first part is just demonstrably false.

Countless art film directors have lavished Kurosawa with praise and adoration.

Kubrick, Jim Jarmusch, Terry Gilliam, Woody Allen and too many others to name in one post.

I just watched Lynch's Wild at Heart for the first time this weekend, and noticed he lifted the dog carrying a human hand straight from Yojimbo. I'm new to Lynch, but from what I've seen, he's not exactly a blockbuster filmmaker.


*Oh, and Ray, your avatar is disgusting LOL

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jayembee

And that's it for me in this discussion.

I lied. One more side point. In addition to the Top 250 Critics Poll, there's also (at the same site) a Top 100 Directors Poll. That is, a poll of the 100 Best Films chosen by directors rather than critics, just to be sure there's no misunderstanding.

If it makes Ray Jay feel any better, there's only one Ozu film in the list -- although it's the #1 pick -- and two Kurosawas. Kubrick, Fellini, Godard, and Bergman are all tied for the most films in the list, with four each.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Does the fact that Robert Bresson has the most films on the list (7) mean that the poll considers him the most important director ever, even more important than (in addition to those listed above) Hawks (6), Powell & Pressburger (6), Buñuel (6), Hitchcock (5), Kubrick (5), Bergman (5), Ford (4), Fellini (4), Tarkovsky (4), and Truffaut (2!)?

Bresson also underscores another potential problem with getting too caught up in the numbers with surveys like this.

Bresson has seven total titles on the list but his highest placed title comes in at sixteen.

Is the S&S 250 simultaneously saying that Bresson is the best, most important director in the history of film -and- that there are fourteen other better, more important directors?

[bwdowiak]

picked up In The Mood For Love and La Grande Illusion. I've seen the former and although I didn't fall in love with it on first viewing, the fact that it stuck with me and made it to the top of my "buy" list is a really good sign. I'm excited about seeing it again.

[repulsed]

I see people mentioning Harakiri as essential in the collection. I would like to hear what people think of Sansho the Bailiff in relation to Harakiri as I just watched Sansho and loved it but didn't get to Harakiri yet.
Probably this week after a couple other Asian movies I'm going to watch before I get to it.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by repulsed

I see people mentioning Harakiri as essential in the collection. I would like to hear what people think of Sansho the Bailiff in relation to Harakiri as I just watched Sansho and loved it but didn't get to Harakiri yet.
Probably this week after a couple other Asian movies I'm going to watch before I get to it.

Sansho is way ahead of it for me. I like Harakiri plenty, but Mizoguchi is in another league.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Francis Ford Coppola has four films on the list. This is more than (among others) Sergei Eisenstein (2), Vittorio de Sica (1), Luchino Visconti (1), Robert Altman (1), David Lean (2), D.W. Griffith (1), Woody Allen (2), John Cassavetes (3), Agnes Varda (1), Jean-Pierre Melville (1), and Pier Paolo Passolini (1).

Do you really think that that means the poll is claiming that Coppola is a more important filmmaker than any of those worthies? Not to mention directors that have no films on the list, like Frank Capra, John Huston, Elia Kazan, Otto Preminger, King Vidor, the Coen Brothers, Jean Cocteau, Shohei Imamura, or Zhang Yimou?

Does the fact that Robert Bresson has the most films on the list (7) mean that the poll considers him the most important director ever, even more important than (in addition to those listed above) Hawks (6), Powell & Pressburger (6), Buñuel (6), Hitchcock (5), Kubrick (5), Bergman (5), Ford (4), Fellini (4), Tarkovsky (4), and Truffaut (2!)?

Charles Laughton has a film on the list: The Night of the Hunter. Does that make him a more important director than any of those without films on the list, even though it's a only film he directed?

I will grant you that "more important" directors are probably going to have more films on the list, for the simple reason that being outstanding filmmakers means that they're more likely to make outstanding films. But the poll really is about the films, not the filmmakers.

And that's it for me in this discussion.

Nothing about this is scientific.

But if one director has several films on the list and another director does not, then it's only logical to reach a conclusion that the former director's body of work is generally more renowned among critics.

There may be outliers that contradict the conclusion, but it doesn't change the fundamental logic of the premise.

...at least not in my eyes.

It's all academic anyway.

[ijustblumyself]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

I'll second this. I didn't "get" Ozu until I started to look at him from a formalism perspective. I think it was Mark Cousins who made me aware of the sheer range of depth (achieved thru his use of framing) and that really did take my breath away.

As for the wider question, I'd take Ozu over Kurosawa any day of the week. I've never really been convinced by the latter, though it ought to go without saying that I recognise his talent and achievements.

Yeah I'd honestly argue that from a formalist perspective, Ozu was the more radical and experimental filmmaker of the two. His use of blocking and framing is almost unparalleled (especially in Floating Weeds), and the way in which he plays with editing is always just awe-inspiring. His style isn't flashy, but once you step back and start to realise how perfectly composed every single frame is, how each image seems to intermingle with the next, the way his 'pillow shots' can have a range of different effects on you in a matter of seconds, you begin to see his mastery of the craft. He may have less range than Kurosawa, but I'd still argue that he's makes better films. No director has better articulated change and the passing of time on film.

[Ray Jackson]

I was at Barnes and Noble today and I almost bought Pickpocket...on DVD.

It's a film that I really like, but don't necessarily feel compelled to own.

But the dvd is only $25 and only $12.50 with the sale.

...decided to take a day or two to think about it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

[Show spoiler]I saw Jules and Jim yesterday. While I will say that the film met with my approval, it is probably my least favorite of the recent Criterion films I’ve seen. Speaking generally about it… I thought that before seeing it that Jules was a girl. WRONG. And the idea I had in my head about what the film would be like was also wrong - that is because I was not aware that it was based on a novel. And, of course, that means voiceover narration. So much information is given by the narrator that it is difficult to keep up. All of that can be dealt with, however, with the rewind button on the remote control so that wasn’t my biggest grievance with the film. Cohesively adapting a novel that encapsulates several decades into a 1 hour and 45 minute film is/was quite an achievement. However,

[Show spoiler] I felt no sympathy for the Jeanne Moreau character, Catherine, and could only minimally relate to the plight of dear Jules and the doomed Jim. Catherine was shameless and selfish. I can use those adjectives to modify a 5 letter word that starts with ‘B’, but I’ll be nice here on blu-ray.com. The men were fine, but really the story could have been called 'Catherine' as she and her neuroses are the center of these two mens’ universe .

It being so very literal, I could perhaps make more sense of it and appreciate it more upon subsequent viewings. It isn’t likely, however, with so many great films to see, that I will get around to it soon.

I think many people are turned off by Jules and Jim because it is quite difficult to keep up with the amount of detail provided in the opening voice over narration. Since we start the movie with nothing vested in the characters, it makes it difficult to maintain focus, as well. Having to read subtitles just exacerbates the issue. I absolutely adore this movie and had a first time viewing experience very similar to others who have posted here – I thought Jeanne Moreau’s character was an insufferable (insert not nice word here.) My original thoughts from late 2013 are in the post quoted above. (SPOILER ALERT - don't read if you haven't seen it.)

I have to say, too, that there is nothing OVER stylized about that opening or about the film in general. Saying it is over stylized implies that Truffaut was trying to be too slick. That might be your opinion, but I don’t catch that vibe at all. Fun note, too: Martin Scorsese has acknowledged borrowing from that opening scene saying that “the first two minutes of Jules and Jim were the most liberating of them all.”

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

For me, it was a transcendental film, in that it was the first film I ever saw (back in 1968) that made me realize that film could be looked at as Art, not simply another way of telling stories.

I don't think this is a universal film though as the masses or at least most of the general viewing public wouldn't have the patience or appreciation to sit through this. Try asking a younger person between the ages of 18-35 if they ever saw this movie and likely they'll be clueless about it. Those who have seen it will probably tell you either "I fell asleep trying to watch it" or "This was the most boring film ever". I also feel this movie appeals more to the male gender than female gender as 9 out of 10 women I've talked to never include 2001: A Space Odyssey on their top Kubrick films lists.

[Vinyl]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

picked up In The Mood For Love and La Grande Illusion. I've seen the former and although I didn't fall in love with it on first viewing, the fact that it stuck with me and made it to the top of my "buy" list is a really good sign. I'm excited about seeing it again.

Awesome, La Grande Illusion is such a great film.

[adamhopelies]

Does anyone know how much Criterion charge for shipping their posters to the UK?

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I think many people are turned off by Jules and Jim because it is quite difficult to keep up with the amount of detail provided in the opening voice over narration. Since we start the movie with nothing vested in the characters, it makes it difficult to maintain focus, as well. Having to read subtitles just exacerbates the issue. I absolutely adore this movie and had a first time viewing experience very similar to others who have posted here – I thought Jeanne Moreau’s character was an insufferable (insert not nice word here.) My original thoughts from late 2013 are in the post quoted above. (SPOILER ALERT - don't read if you haven't seen it.)

I have to say, too, that there is nothing OVER stylized about that opening or about the film in general. Saying it is over stylized implies that Truffaut was trying to be too slick. That might be your opinion, but I don’t catch that vibe at all. Fun note, too: Martin Scorsese has acknowledged borrowing from that opening scene saying that “the first two minutes of Jules and Jim were the most liberating of them all.”

I love Jules and Jim. Here's an excerpt from my User Review of the Blu-ray that I wrote for this site shortly after the release...


In pre-World War I Paris, an Austrian writer, Jules, befriends another aspiring writer, Jim, and the two enjoy sharing philosophies and company before their lives are forever altered when they cross paths with the buoyantly unpredictable Catherine. Even now, over 50 years after its release, François Truffaut's 1962 movie, Jules and Jim, is a bewildering head-scratcher of a cinematic oddity that utilizes fluidly engaging cinematography and clever editing to find an uncanny grace in the dynamics of these three often-unlikeable characters who are entwined in a love triangle over a span of decades.

When I first saw Jules and Jim years ago, by way of the 2005 Criterion DVD, my Southern "good old boy" self wanted to talk some sense into the two title characters and steer them away from Catherine's center-of-attention neediness. I wanted Jules and Jim to keep walking after Catherine jumped into the Seine, and spend the rest of the day playing a round of golf. I wanted Jules to forget about Catherine and go back to the hot "steam engine girl." I wanted Jim to forget about Catherine and devote his full attention to the loyal and lovely Gilberte. In the end, though, even I was drawn into the web of Catherine because of the undeniable talents of Jeanne Moreau, who is one of the most wonderfully expressive actresses in cinema history. I'm hard-pressed to imagine any other actress who could have made the character of Catherine even remotely tolerable to audiences, and Moreau's seemingly effortless ability to appeal to my sympathies floors me with each subsequent viewing, even if I still find myself having facepalm reactions when watching how Jules and Jim both respond to her fickle, and sometimes cruel, impulses. In Truffaut's visual and aural world, life with Catherine is a irresistible merry-go-round that whisks us away with fast-paced opening narration, a footrace across a bridge, sweeping overhead shots of rural countryside splendor, a bicycle ride on a country road, and 360-degree camera turns.

As I viewed the new Criterion Blu-ray edition of Jules and Jim last night, I was reminded of why the world of these three characters has such an unlikely allure. I love listening to Jules's and Jim's musings on art and writing, I love how Oskar Werner (The Spy Who Came in from the Cold) and Henri Serre (Le Combat Dans L'île) infuse liveliness into their respective characters of Jules and Jim when these characters might have come off as dismissive or cowardly in the hands of any other actors, and I love how Jeanne Moreau's Catherine conveys vulnerability through her eyes and mannerisms even during her most disruptive turns. I like the contrasts of the art culture of Paris with the horrors of World War I trench warfare. More than anything else, I enjoy how Jules and Jim communicates the passage of time in an organic way that simultaneously shows how characters mature over the years and how their deeply-instilled affinities can never really be laid to rest.