The Criterion Collection

[pro-bassoonist]

Hello guys,

I had a chance to view the recent 4K restoration of Luchino Visconti's Rocco and His Brothers. It is magnificent. Granted there are no tweaks during the transition to Blu-ray, next year it should be one of the biggest releases in the U.S.

The old Italian DVD will probably be good to keep only for some of the supplemental features (if they are not included on the upcoming release) or nostalgic reasons. Hopefully, we will soon see similar restorations of The Damned and Death in Venice.

There are some really, really big projects coming up next year (one again with Claudia Cardinale).

4K RESTORATION COMING SOON TO BLU-RAY IN AMERICA

Rocco and his Brothers -- Los Angeles Teaser Trailer - YouTube

Rocco and his Brothers - Official Trailer - YouTube

[WinterLand]

With the upcoming BN sale, I just thought that I would ask if it would be worth it to subscribe to the 25$ membership if I live in Europe?

I am registered on the site since I have purchased a few Criterions during their previous sales, then using a 20% off coupon usually.

I see alot of talk about coupons for memebers that they stack up, but I guess not all are online and maybe the ones that are, are not for overseas members and only US?

[darkness2918]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Hello guys,

I had a chance to view the recent 4K restoration of Luchino Visconti's Rocco and His Brothers. It is magnificent. Granted there are no tweaks during the transition to Blu-ray, next year it should be one of the biggest releases in the U.S.

The old Italian DVD will probably be good to keep only for some of the supplemental features (if they are not included on the upcoming release) or nostalgic reasons. Hopefully, we will soon see similar restorations of The Damned and Death in Venice.

There are some really, really big projects coming up next year (one again with Claudia Cardinale).

4K RESTORATION COMING SOON TO BLU-RAY IN AMERICA



Rocco and his Brothers -- Los Angeles Teaser Trailer - YouTube

Rocco and his Brothers - Official Trailer - YouTube

Is the BD coming from Criterion?

[jw007]

jw007 is gettin' back into the mix while he still has the momentum...

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

well, I think your post was no small achievement. it takes some genuine enthusiasm to go where you did. ...and I, for one, can say that the way you described it is dead on.

it is a sublime work. the film, that is.

I know you're a fan of crime sagas/films, as I recall a year or two ago we talked about how much we both admired Michael Mann's movies. Thanks for the mutual agreement again.

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

"Thrilled to have influenced you in a positive way to purchase this film. "

You basterd.

...you've ruined me.

Quite pleased with myself.

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I am not advocating for him to blind buy it, as I know with any film, there is still a chance he might not like it.

While I liked Man on Wire, I personally didn't find it nearly as good as The Thin Blue Line.

Also you should stay away from Herzog's Into The Abyss, which is a great documentary about capital punishment, the concept also bothers me a bit, but that doesn't stop it from happening, or from enjoying (well this is not the right word, but you get the idea) great movies about it, but I understand how something like that could affect the replay value for someone, in which case it is better just to use Netflix.

As you also seem to know, comparing certain great documentary films is unfair. For a biopic on highwire walker Philippe Petit, Man on Wire was an amazing achievement. However, for the innovation that Errol Morris accomplished by going where few men have gone before, into the heart of darkness and into the heart of absolute danger, The Thin Blue Line is remarkable. The fact that I already knew the story of Mr. Petit, there wasn't quite as much illumination for me prior to watching that film, however, having not known a thing about Randall Adams and David Harris in The Thin Blue Line, I was engaged from beginning to end, and that's something not easy to find these days.

On Into the Abyss, I for sure thought of this film while watching Morris' film. Herzog made a great documentary but that was even more about the death penalty, while The Thin Blue Line was about justice vs. punishment.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

With respect to the opinion expressed by d2girls, I'd take it with a grain of salt as The Thin Blue Line is NOT about capital punishment. It is a documentary that details a murder investigation with interview access to major players on both sides of the law.

Yes, agree with that too. It's an infuriating movie too, because of how cases like these were/are handled in the state of Texas and the American justice system (or injustice system).

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by jmclick

I couldn't agree more. And I don't fault the film for not being a doggedly faithful adaptation of the book. Many of what I consider to be among the greatest films ever made deviate significantly from the novels on which they were based.

One example that comes instantly to mind is John Ford's stunning and almost universally revered adaptation of John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. The book ended with a bit of unforgettable symbolism

[Show spoiler]as Rosasharn, whose baby had died in childbirth, suckled a starving stranger to her swollen breast

; the film ended with an unforgettable speech

[Show spoiler]as Ma Joad movingly paid tribute to the strength and perseverance of the common man

. I hold both the book and the film in the highest possible esteem; one is a (yes, I'm going to deliberately and appropriately, I think, use the "m" word) masterpiece of American literature, while the other is a masterpiece of American cinema.

I feel the same way about the two incarnations of In Cold Blood.

See, I found Ford's The Grapes of Wrath merely okay. I love the novel (and, yes, it is a masterpiece), and I can usually separate the two media because I know they're different. But, I really could not get into the film adaptation. It just seemed like a hollowed out version of the novel; with the deletion of characters and the moving around of the plot (well, more like reversing everything), it just didn't work for me. Henry Fonda also doesn't do anything for me and seems wrong for the role (just like I can't see Jack Nicholson as McMurphy, which is why I've never seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, one of my favorite books). I can see how people enjoy the film, but it fell a little flat for me. (Now, it may be a different case when I read East of Eden because I have seen, and really enjoyed, the film.)

I have similar feelings for In Cold Blood. It was a good adaptation of the novel, but something felt missing. It was beautiful and the acting was great, but the preciseness of the book, the Capote flair, was gone. The more I think about it, I'll probably cancel my Amazon pre-order.

[The Great Owl]

Raise your hand if you want an Eraserhead shower curtain or a Royal Tenenbaums shower curtain.





My own hand is not raised, but I know that some of you will be interested.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Raise your hand if you want an Eraserhead shower curtain or a Royal Tenenbaums shower curtain.





My own hand is not raised, but I know that some of you will be interested.

Can I get a 120 Days of Sodom one? I suspect it will be a beautiful brown colour.

[bwdowiak]

I don't think a novel should be compared to its film adaptation... EVER. One is bound to have a skewed approach to whichever came second because of the expectations set by the first. How can you go read Steinbeck's East of Eden w/o making mental images from the film and w/o imagining Cal Trask as James Dean?

or if you read the book first, how can you accept the fact that a large portion of the story has been completely lopped off?

they are two different mediums created by two different artists.. both having its own inherent limitations.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by WinterLand

With the upcoming BN sale, I just thought that I would ask if it would be worth it to subscribe to the 25$ membership if I live in Europe?

I am registered on the site since I have purchased a few Criterions during their previous sales, then using a 20% off coupon usually.

I see alot of talk about coupons for memebers that they stack up, but I guess not all are online and maybe the ones that are, are not for overseas members and only US?

Even for US customers, the bottom with B&N memberships is they can be great if you have a brick-and-mortar store nearby but not so much otherwise.

The ten percent member discount is instore only and their website is very strict about not allowing coupon stacking. When people talk about insane deals during the Criterion sale they're almost always talking about instore purchases.

The only online member benefit is free expedited shipping with no minimum but I would image that's in the US only.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I don't think a novel should be compared to its film adaptation... EVER. One is bound to have a skewed approach to whichever came second because of the expectations set by the first. How can you go read Steinbeck's East of Eden w/o making mental images from the film and w/o imagining Cal Trask as James Dean?

or if you read the book first, how can you accept the fact that a large portion of the story has been completely lopped off?

they are two different mediums created by two different artists.. both having its own inherent limitations.

Right on. I frequently have this conversation:

Person: "Would you like to go see this movie with me?"

Me: "I dunno, have you read the book?"

Person: "Of course! It's one of my favorites!"

Me: "Gotcha. Then No. I would not like to see this movie with you".

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I don't think a novel should be compared to its film adaptation... EVER. One is bound to have a skewed approach to whichever came second because of the expectations set by the first. How can you go read Steinbeck's East of Eden w/o making mental images from the film and w/o imagining Cal Trask as James Dean?

or if you read the book first, how can you accept the fact that a large portion of the story has been completely lopped off?

they are two different mediums created by two different artists.. both having its own inherent limitations.

Just because you shouldn't doesn't mean you won't. I know you shouldn't compare the two--as I mentioned they're two entirely different means of storytelling--but it's nearly impossible to not. I don't think you can truly separate them. I guess I have less of a "problem" when I see the film first and then read the novel than I do if it's the other way around (depending on how much I like the book and how it's adapted). You can't not compare them, so while that's a theoretically good point, it's not necessarily doable. Try as you might to not, I--and I think most of us--will compare them. Even if you go in with the intention of not comparing the film to the source, you're almost automatically thinking about it by trying not to think about it.

When I do read East of Eden, I will think of Cal as James Dean; that's undeniable because of his wonderful performance. I saw the film already knowing that it was an adaptation of only a portion of the novel, so that didn't bug me. I know there is much more story to tell.

tl;dr - it's all tricky with adaptation.

[octagon]

Book/movie comparisons can be completely valid. Sure, simple 'I liked the book better' statements are largely pointless but they're still valid. The fact that movies and books are different mediums doesn't mean they can't be compared.

And more pointed, specific comparisons - I prefer the way the book ended, I liked the book a lot but the movie handled this character better, the movie would have been better if they had focused on this aspect of the book rather than this side issue, I'm glad the oceanographer wasn't banging the sheriff's wife in the movie, I thought that subplot was pretty stupid - can be totally fair.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Namuhana

Just because you shouldn't doesn't mean you won't. I know you shouldn't compare the two--as I mentioned they're two entirely different means of storytelling--but it's nearly impossible to not. I don't think you can truly separate them. I guess I have less of a "problem" when I see the film first and then read the novel than I do if it's the other way around (depending on how much I like the book and how it's adapted). You can't not compare them, so while that's a theoretically good point, it's not necessarily doable. Try as you might to not, I--and I think most of us--will compare them. Even if you go in with the intention of not comparing the film to the source, you're almost automatically thinking about it by trying not to think about it.

When I do read East of Eden, I will think of Cal as James Dean; that's undeniable because of his wonderful performance. I saw the film already knowing that it was an adaptation of only a portion of the novel, so that didn't bug me. I know there is much more story to tell.

tl;dr - it's all tricky with adaptation.

I agree w/ what you're saying here 100%. They shouldn't be compared, but it is near impossible to get the ideas of whatever you happened to see or read first out of your head.

My problem is this: I think it is ok to say, "I enjoyed the book more" but to say "the movie suffered because it didn't cover x or y which the book handled so well" is not a valid critique. I think shadepain4 is echoing my sentiment above - it is actually quite annoying.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

My problem is this: I think it is ok to say, "I enjoyed the book more" but to say "the movie suffered because it didn't cover x or y which the book handled so well" is not a valid critique.

Presumably it would be fair of me to say 'the movie suffered because of the way it handled x'. Why would it be invalid to also note that the source material handled x better? Rebecca would have been a much better movie had Hitchcock not been forced by the production code to eviscerate the ending. The book had a great ending and the movie? Not so much.

That seems to me like a completely fair observation.

And would praising a movie for handling something better than the book be similarly invalid?

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I think shadepain4 is echoing my sentiment above - it is actually quite annoying.

Well, sure but if we're going to start invalidating behavior because some people engage in that behavior in an annoying way then we're going to have to invalidate pretty much anything anybody has ever done or will ever do in the history of ever.

I mean, just look at cinephiles. Or cineastes. Or whatever. The douches who sniff and say things like 'I liked Star Wars a lot better when it was called The Hidden Fortress' can be very annoying but so what.

That doesn't mean it's invalid to ask whether Frances Ha is simply a rehash of the French New Wave. At least I don't think it does.

(and Frances Ha was freaking awesome, btw)

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by octagon

Presumably it would be fair of me to say 'the movie suffered because of the way it handled x'. Why would it be invalid to also note that the source material handled x better?

that's stating a general preference. most (not all) of the examples in your other post are the same. they amount to "I enjoyed the movie/book more." I think that's fine. but to say, and I don't mean to pick on Shell, 'the book gave us a lot more in the way of the background stories for the doomed family' (paraphrase obviously) is not fair. that's not a high level / general preference (which again, I think is ok.) its stating 'I don't like the movie because it was not something that the book was.' inherent limitations and the director's personal idea for how he/she wishes to interpret the material or what he/she wishes to say w/ said material can result in something completely different.

film is a different medium. the director owes nothing to the original material. it is an adaptation. not a Gus Van Sant Psycho homage. it should be judged on its own merits.

consider SP4's hypothetical conversation once again.. let's say he changes his mind and goes to see that movie with his friend. he walks out and says, "it was good!" and his friend says, "I didn't like it because the part about the suspicious neighbors (idk.. off the top of my head here) was left out."

when evaluating that film, what bearing does something that didn't even exist in the film have on whether or not the film was good? its ridiculous, actually.

[Ray Jackson]

Some film adaptations do surpass the books they were based on imo.

Criterion has several of them.

...Picnic At Hanging Rock is a good example.

[D2Girls]

One flew over the cukoos nest is almost objectively the finest film adaptation of a novel. Seriously. In my opinion anyways.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by D2Girls

One flew over the cukoos nest is almost objectively the finest film adaptation of a novel. Seriously. In my opinion anyways.

That's a good one.

List of films that are better than the book imo:

-The Godfather
-The Shining
-The Exorcist
-Picnic At Hanging Rock
-A Clockwork Orange

...those are just the ones that I have in my collection.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by hariseldon

I would go Shawshank and Blade Runner

I will say "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" may be one of the all time greatest titles though Blade Runner was the correct way to title the movie.

I almost put Blade Runner on my list as it's one of my two favorite films of all time.

But I haven't read the book and even if I had, I was afraid of the Sci-Fi geeks showing up at my house with the torches and pitchforks.

[SammyJankis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_2R7T4-78E