The Criterion Collection

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by llj

City Lights (and its ending) is a great litmus test to use if you want to figure out if someone is a cynic or a person who has faith in humanity. The ending is either utterly moving or utterly shattering depending on where you stand.

Fun fact: The ending to City Lights is Emma Stone's favorite movie ending of all time. Who says young actors these days don't care about film history? (I'm looking at you, Jennifer "I hate silent movies" Lawrence)

I am sure it is the favorite ending of many of the small portion of the world who have seen it

Also what if one think it is both? utterly moving and shattering at the same time?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by llj

A fan or a casual viewer, yes, I can understand it. But I think someone with a deeper interest in film--and especially someone who works in film--could learn a lot about visual filmmaking, editing, and--for an actor--body language, in silent films.

Yeah, but most actors are fans. They aren't cinephiles. They aren't people who can give a dissertation on Godard. They are fans. That's not a criticism, either. It's just fact. Acting is a skill, like so many other skills.

Heck, there are tons of baseball players, really good ones too, who can't tell you a thing about Ty Cobb or Joe Jackson. That doesn't make them lesser baseball players, since their skill level is still extremely high. But it's just reality.

[llj]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Yeah, but most actors are fans. They aren't cinephiles. They aren't people who can give a dissertation on Godard. They are fans. That's not a criticism, either. It's just fact. Acting is a skill, like so many other skills.

Heck, there are tons of baseball players, really good ones too, who can't tell you a thing about Ty Cobb or Joe Jackson. That doesn't make them lesser baseball players, since their skill level is still extremely high. But it's just reality.

Well, that's true from a practical standpoint. But that doesn't mean I can't b*tch about them all the same. Would I respect LeBron James or Kobe Bryant much less if they didn't know who Bill Russell was? I'd be lying if I wouldn't. While knowledge like that isn't *needed* to perform their present occupations, they should certainly be open to some negative reactions regarding their attitude and character if they were ignorant or even disrespectful of a major part of history in their own sport.

So it goes with my original comment. It's just me b*tching as an aside, not me making any particularly salient point about film knowledge being in any way representative of an actor's actorly skills. I didn't say or imply it was, anyway.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by llj

Well, that's true from a practical standpoint. But that doesn't mean I can't b*tch about them all the same. Would I respect LeBron James or Kobe Bryant much less if they didn't know who Bill Russell was? I'd be lying if I wouldn't. While knowledge like that isn't *needed* to perform their present occupations, they should certainly be open to some negative reactions regarding their attitude and character if they were ignorant or even disrespectful of a major part of history in their own sport.

So it goes with my original comment. It's just me b*tching as an aside, not me making any particularly salient point about film knowledge being in any way representative of an actor's actorly skills. I didn't say or imply it was, anyway.

Well, I would never attempt to impede your b*tching on any subject.

[grape_jelly]

Emma Stone is totes hotter than J-Law anyways, and that's what really matters... right, gang?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by grape_jelly

Emma Stone is totes hotter than J-Law anyways, and that's what really matters... right, gang?

... oh boy ...

[mja345]

Originally Posted by llj

Well, that's true from a practical standpoint. But that doesn't mean I can't b*tch about them all the same. Would I respect LeBron James or Kobe Bryant much less if they didn't know who Bill Russell was? I'd be lying if I wouldn't. While knowledge like that isn't *needed* to perform their present occupations, they should certainly be open to some negative reactions regarding their attitude and character if they were ignorant or even disrespectful of a major part of history in their own sport.

So it goes with my original comment. It's just me b*tching as an aside, not me making any particularly salient point about film knowledge being in any way representative of an actor's actorly skills. I didn't say or imply it was, anyway.

I think part of the reason why the vast majority of current movies are so unbelievably shit is that most of these actors and filmmakers aren't cinephiles. I know, through friends, this guy who wrote "The Wedding Ringer" and "The Breakup", both absolute shite, and dude knows less about cinema than your average suburban mom. And his scripts reflect it. Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson, for example, are two of the few directors doing anything interesting in the framework of the Hollywood system. Or Scorsese; that dude probably has a collection that puts all of ours to absolute shame. These guys, who have real talent, are just huge movie geeks. A lot of people razz Tarantino about being such an over the top movie geek, but the alternative is most current Hollywood directors who seem more interested in the floor plans for their new homes than delving into the history of their chosen profession.

And in regards to your comp with LeBron, I've read multiple accounts that LeBron is one of the biggest basketball geeks known to mankind. Knows the history of basketball like the back of his hand. I think that's what it takes to be on the highest level of a chosen profession. You have to be truly passionate about it, and that often entails just geeking out on it. I don't think some dude who's the 10th man on an NBA bench picking his nose and scratching his ass all game is going home and researching the 1965 Celtics, if you know what I mean. That's what the vast majority of current actors and directors are. They're 10th men. Good enough to get in the league, but spend most of their careers picking up paychecks, riding pine, and doing nothing memorable. In short, I agree completely with you. End of rant haha.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I love silent films but I can understand why other fans, including J-Law, can't.

Oh, and SkyAntoine -- don't even get me started on either of your wretched state's teams.

IMO, J-Law is also the most overrated actress of her generation, the poster child for Hollywood wanting someone "young" to win an Oscar to give the show relevance again. Just like how Hollywood picks and chooses it's "movie stars" they want to create and exploit, like Matthew McConuaghey before A Time to Kill even came out.

More filmmakers should study silent films, because maybe them we wouldn't have these over-wrought boring talk-feats that Tarantino helped usher in, where people now think a movie all dialogue and fails to try anything visual. Actors could benefit as well. Falconetti's wordless performance might be the best acting job in the history of cinema, and it's all done with expression.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

IMO, J-Law is also the most overrated actress of her generation, the poster child for Hollywood wanting someone "young" to win an Oscar to give the show relevance again. Just like how Hollywood picks and chooses it's "movie stars" they want to create and exploit, like Matthew McConuaghey before A Time to Kill even came out.

More filmmakers should study silent films, because maybe them we wouldn't have these over-wrought boring talk-feats that Tarantino helped usher in, where people now think a movie all dialogue and fails to try anything visual. Actors could benefit as well. Falconetti's wordless performance might be the best acting job in the history of cinema, and it's all done with expression.

See, we agree and disagree at the same time. I completely agree about Falconetti. I completely agree that a knowledge of silent films could help filmmakers develop a style that is more visually interesting.

OTOH, I don't find Tarantino's films boring in the least. I also disagree about Lawrence.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

IMO, J-Law is also the most overrated actress of her generation, the poster child for Hollywood wanting someone "young" to win an Oscar to give the show relevance again. Just like how Hollywood picks and chooses it's "movie stars" they want to create and exploit, like Matthew McConuaghey before A Time to Kill even came out.

More filmmakers should study silent films, because maybe them we wouldn't have these over-wrought boring talk-feats that Tarantino helped usher in, where people now think a movie all dialogue and fails to try anything visual. Actors could benefit as well. Falconetti's wordless performance might be the best acting job in the history of cinema, and it's all done with expression.

I just disagree about Tarantino, even if his movies have tons of dialog he does interesting visual things too, not as impressive of course, but few films are these days, I still get impressed from some of the visuals of those old silents, just look at that amazing corn fields shot on City Girl or the reconciliation scene in Sunrise, as for Lawrence, she is a fine actress but I wouldn't say she is going to be the next Meryl Streep, I mean besides maybe getting enough Oscar nominations.

If anyone want to see those clips without watching the whole movies:

[Show spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPNg9iruqU0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnLVMREVA6M#t=44m54s

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I just disagree about Tarantino, even if his movies have tons of dialog he does interesting visual things too, not as impressive of course, but few films are these days, I still get impressed from some of the visuals of those old silents, just look at that amazing corn fields shot on City Girl or the reconciliation scene in Sunrise, as for Lawrence, she is a fine actress but I wouldn't say she is going to be the next Meryl Streep, I mean besides maybe getting enough Oscar nominations.

That's a bit of a tough standard, no?

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

Watched Brazil tonight (got it as a gift), forgot it takes place at Christmas until I started it. Looks so beautiful on bluray, saw so many things I've missed over the years on inferior formats. One of the first films that I related to on a non-conformity level in my late teens, really struck a nerve with my counter-culture mindset at the time. Seeing how great it looks on this format, production-value wise, I'm even more amazed it ever got made. Orwellian/Kafkaesque with Gilliam's signiture abstract qualities and some Tati-like laughs at technology and order. And my girlfriend hated it (but she's wonderful and bought it for me).

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

That's a bit of a tough standard, no?

Lol, yeah, I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't think her performances are as strong to get as many nominations (she has 3 on the last 4 years, which is starting to look as constant as Meryl Streep only she started younger) but I guess it depends on the competition a lot.

Anyway while checking this, just noticed Meryl Streep has won 3 which is a lot, but 1 not for leading, still a long way to beat Katherine Hepburn

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by colbyw

Nice pick on L.A. Confidential! Should've won Best Picture.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

No. It shouldn't have. Rightfully, it didn't. And wouldn't win even if the winner was selected today - some 18 plus years later.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

My only problem with L.A. Confidential is that hardly any of the male characters are wearing fedoras.

I liked LAC the movie a great deal when I saw it at the cinema on initial release. But on subsequent viewing, especially after reading Ellroy's brilliant and savage book, it came off somewhat pale, the second half becoming essentially a buddy cop movie set in older times.

[Polaroid]

I saw Mommy the other day and havn't stopped thinking about it since, even had several re watches. Dolan is so talented, would love to see his work featured in the Criterion Collection, even if there are great blurays releases on his films, it will be nice to have his work in this collection.

Can't wait to see his other films, but seriously, I can't believe I did not see Mommy in cinemas.

Shame we don't have more talent like this guy in the industry!

[ZeTi]

You guys have some 70s surrealistic recommendations for me ? DVD, BD doesn't have to be Criterion either ... i really love:

Black Moon, Solaris, Valerie, El Topo, Holy Mountain, Eraserhead, On the Silver Globe, Hourglass Sanatorium etc. ...

Thanks.

[Zen_Amako]

Originally Posted by ZeTi

You guys have some 70s surrealistic recommendations for me ? DVD, BD doesn't have to be Criterion either ... i really love:

Black Moon, Solaris, Valerie, El Topo, Holy Mountain, Eraserhead, On the Silver Globe, Hourglass Sanatorium etc. ...

Thanks.

Belladonna of Sadness, which should be released on BD in early 2006. It's an animated film from Japan, but it's far from your typical anime. If you enjoy the above films, I'd definitely recommend Belladonna.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by mja345

I think part of the reason why the vast majority of current movies are so unbelievably shit is that most of these actors and filmmakers aren't cinephiles. I know, through friends, this guy who wrote "The Wedding Ringer" and "The Breakup", both absolute shite, and dude knows less about cinema than your average suburban mom. And his scripts reflect it. Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson, for example, are two of the few directors doing anything interesting in the framework of the Hollywood system. Or Scorsese; that dude probably has a collection that puts all of ours to absolute shame. These guys, who have real talent, are just huge movie geeks. A lot of people razz Tarantino about being such an over the top movie geek, but the alternative is most current Hollywood directors who seem more interested in the floor plans for their new homes than delving into the history of their chosen profession. .

I agree with you, but I think there is an another problem occurring simultaneously: cinephiles drawing their influences from an extremely small pool of directors.

Just check out any favourites list by film makers in America under the age of 55, whether it's David Gordon Green or even Paul Thomas Anderson. It's all extremely predictable. i.e American films from the late 60's until the early to mid 80's mostly (e.g Kubrick, Malick, Scorsese, Coppola, Altman etc). If they have foreign favs, they are usually genre films or ones made by directors with fairly accessible styles that are often referenced or imitated like Kurosawa.

Even a director like James Gray, who has a respectable knowledge of film, tends to repeatedly draw influences from the same directors over and over again.

In their defense though, the majority of the developments in cinema that have occurred over the last few decades have been micro in nature, but that doesn't mean they can't reach back further for inspiration.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by ZeTi

You guys have some 70s surrealistic recommendations for me ? DVD, BD doesn't have to be Criterion either ... i really love:

Black Moon, Solaris, Valerie, El Topo, Holy Mountain, Eraserhead, On the Silver Globe, Hourglass Sanatorium etc. ...

Thanks.

Do yourself a favour and check out Todd Haynes's Safe if you haven't seen it.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Lol, yeah, I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't think her performances are as strong to get as many nominations (she has 3 on the last 4 years, which is starting to look as constant as Meryl Streep only she started younger) but I guess it depends on the competition a lot.

Anyway while checking this, just noticed Meryl Streep has won 3 which is a lot, but 1 not for leading, still a long way to beat Katherine Hepburn

Yeah, I gotcha. It does seem like a lot. Then again, Jennifer has been in some good roles/movies lately. Seems to me, at least.

But yeah, 12 nominations and 4 wins for Hepburn: I don't really see anyone ever catching her.