The Criterion Collection

[StLouisRibs]

A gimmick is not a bad thing! It just is the hook, the one thing that sets it apart. Europa has the gimmick of being shot on all rear-projection backdrops, more or less. The movie would be nothing without it! That's why Boyhood is an important achievement. It's a glorious, wonderful gimmick, and they are entitled to be proud of it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by StLouisRibs

A gimmick is not a bad thing! It just is the hook, the one thing that sets it apart. Europa has the gimmick of being shot on all rear-projection backdrops, more or less. The movie would be nothing without it! That's why Boyhood is an important achievement. It's a glorious, wonderful gimmick, and they are entitled to be proud of it.

Devo performed with flower pots on their heads and the same thing can be said. That doesn't make them great, but I guess that's what you're saying.. ? not sure. "The film would be nothing without it." Yeah, I agree.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

To this day the only performance by Patricia Arquette that I was ever impressed by was in True Romance.

She was great in that.

...underwhelming in everything else imo.

Totally agree - need to watch that one again!

Originally Posted by iScottie

Yeah, because the kids were trained professionals when production started.

And the point is? there are many great child actors out there and if they were going to do such a large project then give them some acting lessons and push them a little.

I personally wouldn't have used them or pushed them a bit harder... well I think I may have had the kids taken away from me but still.

Also pretty sure Anaïs Reboux was not a professional actress and she was very convincing in Fat Girl.

[812crew]

I watched Days of Heaven last night for the first time in 15 years (and when I saw it before, it was on VHS). It's obviously not a movie for everyone, but of course the imagery looked amazing on blu-ray. For the story, I think one thing that Criterion does well is include features that try and make sense of your potential misgivings (I really liked the interview with camera operator John Bailey who used the word "impressionistic" not just in relation to the images, but in relation to the narrative as well. That's a perfect word for the movie. You just come in and out of narrative moments -- -- often with very little emotional resonance. It's unlike anything we're used to, so it might seem off-putting, but it's a unique style that I think really works for the movie).
Anyway, the reason I'm posting is: I came across an Interview with the young actress in the film who let it be known that the narration was never intended from the get-go. In the editing, they brought her in and just let her ramble over some of the imagery. When I read that, I was completely shocked. The narration is really amazing at times, and to think a lot of it was spontaneous was really exciting to hear (some people may think Malick just "lucked" into the POV of his movie then...but I think a movie like this benefits from a director who searches patiently for lucky moments. As Wexler says in the supplements, they were often just wandering around the fields trying to "find" shots, so a lot of the imagery was probably "luck" too. There are very few directors that search for their movie while it's being made, and I think that's what makes Malick's movies so recognizable. You feel like you're watching glimpses of things that other people could have never gotten, as opposed to someone like Spielberg where everything feels almost over structured at times).
Anyway, here's the article if anyone's interested:
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/cal...a-manz-6431204
Thanks!

[InTheMood]

I can understand some people don't like it that it's pretty much always mentioned that Boyhood took 12 years to make when someone is talking about it and I'm not sure if I like it either BUT what made the film so great for me was seeing the characters grow older during the runtime. It made me feel like I'm living with the characters and it made a big impression on me.

So if this "gimmick" (I don't see it as such) is taken away, I don't see it as the same film.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

To this day the only performance by Patricia Arquette that I was ever impressed by was in True Romance.

She was great in that.

...underwhelming in everything else imo.

She is really great in Human Nature, and was perfect in Lost Highway. She was also creepy as hell in Stigmata, excellent casting there.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by InTheMood

I can understand some people don't like it that it's pretty much always mentioned that Boyhood took 12 years to make when someone is talking about it and I'm not sure if I like it either BUT what made the film so great for me was seeing the characters grow older during the runtime. It made me feel like I'm living with the characters and it made a big impression on me.

So if this "gimmick" (I don't see it as such) is taken away, I don't see it as the same film.

I really love the idea of seeing the character really grow before your eyes rather than using like 3 or 4 different actors, but the rest of film for me was not good :/

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I really love the idea of seeing the character really grow before your eyes rather than using like 3 or 4 different actors, but the rest of film for me was not good :/

I thought it was an OK film. Not bad...but not anything earth shattering aside from the 12 year span. I like Dazed and Confused, but it doesn't have a strong narrative either sort of like American Graffiti. Those cover a day in the life of the characters. Boyhood seemed like the same concept to me except one 12 year day.

However, I'm fine with the "gimmick" of filming over 12 years and seamless transitions. Perfectly fine with this being in the collection especially since Linklater is now a fixture.

I thought it was much better than the gimmick of the single shot in Birdman. I was not a big fan of that movie.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by SkyAntoine

I thought it was much better than the gimmick of the single shot in Birdman. I was not a big fan of that movie.

It wasn't done in a single shot. It was shot and edited to look like it was all done in a single shot (which is why people praise the editing of the film). The only film I know that successfully pulled off an entire single shot film that was over an hour was Russian Ark.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by John Klein

It wasn't done in a single shot. It was shot and edited to look like it was all done in a single shot (which is why people praise the editing of the film). The only film I know that successfully pulled off an entire single shot film that was over an hour was Russian Ark.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Victoria-Blu-ray/144419/

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Victoria-Blu-ray/144419/

Make that two films.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Victoria-Blu-ray/144419/

Haven't heard of that, apparently is the longer one out there, and here are a few more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_shot_(film)

I was sure Russian Ark was the first one

Anyway for me I don't care if it is one shot, I mean it is a great achievement for the crew and production involved, but if they are going to let small mistakes slip because of that, I prefer if it is shot normally.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Haven't heard of that, apparently is the longer one out there, and here are a few more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_shot_(film)

I was sure Russian Ark was the first one

That explains why I've never come across a one take film... only one was ever made in the US, all the others are foreign.

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by John Klein

It wasn't done in a single shot. It was shot and edited to look like it was all done in a single shot (which is why people praise the editing of the film). The only film I know that successfully pulled off an entire single shot film that was over an hour was Russian Ark.

I meant to put quotes around "single shot". That was interesting for about 45 minutes and then I lost interest. Yet, IMO, it was gimmicky similar to Boyhood.
Godard's tracking shot in Weekend is one of the two or three things I absolutely love about that movie. Although there are 100 things I hate about the movie, the gems outweigh the rest of the film to where I still very much appreciate it.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by John Klein

That explains why I've never come across a one take film... only one was ever made in the US, all the others are foreign.

Victoria played here for a few weeks a few weeks back but I was never able to make the showtimes work. I'm looking forward to checking out the blu when it releases.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Victoria played here for a few weeks a few weeks back but I was never able to make the showtimes work. I'm looking forward to checking out the blu when it releases.

Seeing that the film is over 2 hours long and it is all done in one take, I'm very interested in seeing it. That is very impressive... it'll also be a lot of fun looking for the people who made mistakes.

Originally Posted by SkyAntoine

I meant to put quotes around "single shot". That was interesting for about 45 minutes and then I lost interest. Yet, IMO, it was gimmicky similar to Boyhood.
Godard's tracking shot in Weekend is one of the two or three things I absolutely love about that movie. Although there are 100 things I hate about the movie, the gems outweigh the rest of the film to where I still very much appreciate it.

The editing didn't even get me with Birdman, all the amazing acting did.

Weekend, I actually enjoyed the short romance. I have to rewatch it for the camera work and editing.

[Polaroid]

La Casa Muda was played as one take but I think they cheated - same for its remake.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

La Casa Muda was played as one take but I think they cheated - same for its remake.

It is on the list of "edited to look like one shot".

[ThatOneGuy]

To break away from the conversation really quick, I do actually have questions about a couple of releases that I'm looking at.




How good are these releases? I'm planning on saving up for The Complete Jacques Tati but considering it is $75, I want to make sure it is actually worth it. M is just purely out of curiosity.

[inderweltsein]

Originally Posted by John Klein

Seeing that the film is over 2 hours long and it is all done in one take, I'm very interested in seeing it. That is very impressive... it'll also be a lot of fun looking for the people who made mistakes.
The editing didn't even get me with Birdman, all the amazing acting did.

I saw Victoria in Berlin last year. And I have to say that the single shot is as much as useless as the false one in Birdman (on the opposite of The Russian Ark).
For me, it has no artistic value, just only a producer motto chosen for promoting it later, rather than any artistic choice.

One of the most useless film I saw in Berlin ... (But as I am one of those that think Knight of Cups is one of the two best films I saw in Berlin, and that these 2 Berlin films being also 2 of the 3 best films of 2015 for me, all three far above almost anything else [except one or two films], YMMV)