The Criterion Collection

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

As for the wider debate, about how film culture has developed in the modern age, I remember a lecturer pal of mine (who's been in the business far longer than me) once bemoaning the fact, as he saw it, that with greater choice came a more limited consensus outlook on cinema. He claims it has turned students lazy. Being from the generation he was criticising I disagreed with him from the off, but I've since seen signs of it myself. It's quite a complicated issue, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that out of the class of 20 second-year film studies students I taught last week only three of them had seen Breathless.

This interests me greatly. Please forgive my naïveté, but when one identifies themself as a "film student", is the understanding that their eventual goal is to be involved in the production of films, ie as a director or cinematographer, or is their aim to be a film scholar? Or, perhaps, might your class have a mixture of both?

I'd surmise both paths would see a lot of overlapping in their early education. Assuming this, benchmark films like The Birth of a Nation, Battleship Potemkin, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Citizen Kane and Breathless, to name a few, would be requisite viewing. I would even add in great works like Faces, Chinatown, Rear Window and Last Year at Marienbad, if I were going to direct.

How, then, does one make it to the second year of film school having never seen these?

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

As for the wider debate, about how film culture has developed in the modern age, I remember a lecturer pal of mine (who's been in the business far longer than me) once bemoaning the fact, as he saw it, that with greater choice came a more limited consensus outlook on cinema. He claims it has turned students lazy. Being from the generation he was criticising I disagreed with him from the off, but I've since seen signs of it myself. It's quite a complicated issue, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that out of the class of 20 second-year film studies students I taught last week only three of them had seen Breathless.

The other issue is that with everything being available to us, it buries a lot of films and makes it harder for people to find films on their own as well. The best way is to inform people of films. I personally only know famous films because I've kept my ears (and eyes) open as well as simply blind buying titles because their name and cover looked interesting. If you ask me, in this day it is best to point people in the direction they should be digging to find great cinema rather then expecting them to do it themselves, there is just too much cinema in general available for people to focus on looking for it themselves definitely with classic cinema. I was one of the few in my class to have watched Blade Runner and all I told the class after the film was to watch the final cut of the film before really forming an opinion on the film since the teacher had to show us the theatrical cut due to time.

My films class opened my doors to Charlie Chaplin's work (which was long overdue since I was always interested, I just had other films I wanted to watch... still kinda do), got me to notice my love of French films... and how much I really don't like Italian films like L'avventura (which I keep bring up, which is arguably a good thing since the film has stuck with me).

[mrjohnnyb]

I don't know if any of you are aware, but DVD Planet is having a 10% off sale that lasts until tomorrow (3/20.) The main reason that I mention this is that they are currently selling Jacques Rivette's Out 1 for $51.45. There is a mandatory shipping charge of $2.99 for this item, however with the discount code (LUCKY) the entire charge, if shipped within the USA, is $49.29.

I know that this is not a Criterion release, but I have heard this particular product discussed a number of times on this thread. In addition, for all region-free player owners, DVD Planet has an extensive "Import" section. You may want to check it out.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

As for the wider debate, about how film culture has developed in the modern age, I remember a lecturer pal of mine (who's been in the business far longer than me) once bemoaning the fact, as he saw it, that with greater choice came a more limited consensus outlook on cinema. He claims it has turned students lazy. Being from the generation he was criticising I disagreed with him from the off, but I've since seen signs of it myself. It's quite a complicated issue, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that out of the class of 20 second-year film studies students I taught last week only three of them had seen Breathless.

Your friend raised a very interesting point that I never quite considered.

I have to say I agree with his assessment to some extent. On one hand, the greater choice provides individuals with a wide range of cinema to be seen, enjoyed, or analyzed. On the other hand, it has the potential to restrict these individuals to the familiar and - as you said - make them somewhat lazy.

[KINGDANGER]

Originally Posted by celticmoon

Great to see Fantastic Planet added to the collection.

This is great news. I haven't seen Fantastic Planet in over 20 years! Probably on USA network or TNT at 3am.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by mja345

I'm not blaming today's kids for being less intellectually curious. It's simply inevitable with the shift in our society. Viral videos are the new form of entertainment for kids, which has made sitting down and watching a slower-paced two hour film seem incredibly arduous for them. Also, streaming allows people to be incredibly lazy with their viewing habits if they aren't inherently curious, which many people aren't. If you want to watch the same television show all the time, you can do that. Another aspect is that when many of us were growing up, we discovered films that we may not have otherwise watched by flipping through channels. I remember watching films like "Rosemary's Baby", "The Shining" and "Raging Bull" when I was a kid simply because I came upon them on various movie channels and they caught my interest. Now, with streaming, you can essentially tailor your viewing habits so you never watch something unfamiliar or out of your comfort zone.

It's also easier to bail on something that you don't like instantly.

If you rented an unfamiliar movie from a store for, I don't know, $3, and it doesn't click with you right away, you'd probably feel obliged to sit through the whole thing just to get your money's worth and find that, by the end, it turned into quite a good movie after all.

If you subscribe to Netflix and can watch an unlimited number of movies or TV shows for $7.99 a month, if something doesn't grab you in the first 10 minutes, you might just stop it and move onto the next one just as if you were channel-surfing.

On the other hand, I could be completely wrong, as for me, it's just an intellectual exercise. I've been subscribed to Netflix for years now, and haven't bailed on any movie. Many, many times, I've been thinking as the movie progresses, "This doesn't seem to be as good as I was expecting," only to find that it all pulls together in the last 20 minutes. And I've never rented films from a video store, except for when I first got into the LD format, and until I built up my own library of LDs, I was renting some from a nearby store.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

IMDB was a great help to be able to seek movies from certain actor or director who you really enjoyed, otherwise in those years I gather it was even hard to find the names of other movies directed by Kubrick for example if you wanted, otherwise it probably was just like it happens to me with music scores: "ohh there is the name of that guy that sounds familiar, that means it will probably be good".

It really wasn't that hard. There were certainly lots of books published on film, including studies on various genres and filmmakers (directors and actors, mostly), as well as series of books listing the films that were released for a given year (Screen World, edited by John Willis, is one example that goes back to about 1950; the same guy also released a similar annual series on the plays produced in a given year). Hell, even screenplays were published in book form.

[shadedpain4]

It's super rare for me to be so excited about a Criterion release that I consider it a day one purchase, but A Brighter Summer Day is one of those rare releases. I'm happy to say it showed up today so I have all weekend to dig into it.

Stoked.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

It's super rare for me to be so excited about a Criterion release that I consider it a day one purchase, but A Brighter Summer Day is one of those rare releases. I'm happy to say it showed up today so I have all weekend to dig into it.

Stoked.

I am very excited to watch my copy this week.

My first and only experience with Yang was with Yi Yi a year or two ago. In short, I loved the film and plan to rewatch it before I watch A Brighter Summer Day. It's honestly one of the most effective films I have ever seen.

I would really like to diversify myself more with Asian cinema.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jw007

Ray Jackson, great points you made on today's digital sea of interactivity.

I think the saying of "every person is a filmmaker" today is quite true though.

In fact, I just got back from NYC earlier in the week after having attended a New Order concert at Radio City Music Hall, and decided to shoot HD video on my Samsung Galaxy S6 smartphone. I edited together a 14 min. smartphone film. Yes, a "smartphone film". I hear now there are film festivals just for smartphone movies. I've done some video editing in the past but nothing too professional. I don't consider myself professional by any means either, even though my B.A. is in Film Studies. That's purely scholarly though, and not anything in terms of production or craft.

However, with the advent of amazing advanced video technologies, the one big pro of today's society is, anyone can be a filmmaker because our smartphones and cameras all shoot digital video.

And now audio has improved even more, even on smartphones, where I don't even need an external shotgun mic to connect to my device to capture average to good audio! I shot 2 songs from New Order directly through my smartphone's mic and it sounds pretty good.

If anyone wants to watch my short film, here it is! (featuring one of my best friends, Marc "Rock"):

New Order, New York (A Smartphone Film) - YouTube

Great video man.

That's the coolest water fountain I've ever seen.

Your point is a very valid one and I think it cuts both ways. The film world has been heavily democratized over the past two decades with the advent of the Internet and digital video. The ability for ordinary people to make and edit real films without the limitations of expensive equipment and a 35mm shooting process is pretty remarkable.

I was just watching a movie called Another Earth a couple nights ago--winner of Sundance--made for $100,000 and shot on digital video.

But there are times when I wonder how many of us film geeks are content to hole up in our home theater bunkers, with our massive collection of HD-quality movies and simply luxuriate in the work of other filmmakers, instead of actually going out and trying to make our own. I wonder how different things might be if those same film geeks owned a projector and a handful of 16mm/35mm prints instead of a blu-ray player and 2000 blu-rays.

I don't know the answer, but it's something I think about.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Great video man.

That's the coolest water fountain I've ever seen.

Your point is a very valid one and I think it cuts both ways. The film world has been heavily democratized over the past two decades with the advent of the Internet and digital video. The ability for ordinary people to make and edit real films without the limitations of expensive equipment and a 35mm shooting process is pretty remarkable.

I was just watching a movie called Another Earth a couple nights ago--winner of Sundance--made for $100,000 and shot on digital video.

But there are times when I wonder how many of us film geeks are content to hole up in our home theater bunkers, with our massive collection of HD-quality movies and simply luxuriate in the work of other filmmakers, instead of actually going out and trying to make our own. I wonder how different things might be if those same film geeks owned a projector and a handful of 16mm/35mm prints instead of a blu-ray player and 2000 blu-rays.

I don't know the answer, but it's something I think about.

Thank you sir! And thank you for viewing my quickly-put-together little movie!

Another Earth is a great indie film. It's proof that as long as you have a great story and good actors, you don't need a million dollars to make a professional film. Of course a little bit of CGI thrown in (if even for a minute or two), would be the icing on the cake (and if I recall, this film had just a tiny, tiny bit of CGI).

I've hit an "antsy" phase in my life yet again recently. I'm finding that making movies, instead of watching movies, is even more thrilling. I particularly have been re-inspired by my own stupid smartphone actually. I think going out and making art (whether its music or cinema) is one of the greatest things a human being can do in his or her life. I'm amazed that great filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard, Park Chan-wook and Sean Baker are incorporating smartphone shooting in their films. Are we seeing a new trend towards handheld smartphone cinema? With 1080p video and improvements in onboard audio, I'm starting to wonder if we'll ever need to spend more than a few thousand dollars on the actual technical aspects of a production.

One of my best friends I know (not the guy in my movie) said he'd rather be making music than watching music. I have to agree. The interactive experience of creating something gives me a high that (actively or passively) watching something is doing less and less of these days.

[bwdowiak]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the film Che? It doesn't seem to be a very popular title at all, especially considering it isn't even 10 years old and most people have probably heard of it.

I bought a copy of the Criterion DVD for $6.40 today. The discs will be mint. Don't know the condition of the digipack but I'd bet it'd have at least some wear.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Does anyone have any thoughts on the film Che? It doesn't seem to be a very popular title at all, especially considering it isn't even 10 years old and most people have probably heard of it.

I bought a copy of the Criterion DVD for $6.40 today. The discs will be mint. Don't know the condition of the digipack but I'd bet it'd have at least some wear.

Well made film, but far too sympathetic to Che for my tastes. Carlos is a much better film in the collection about a terrible person imo.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Does anyone have any thoughts on the film Che? It doesn't seem to be a very popular title at all, especially considering it isn't even 10 years old and most people have probably heard of it.

I bought a copy of the Criterion DVD for $6.40 today. The discs will be mint. Don't know the condition of the digipack but I'd bet it'd have at least some wear.

It's a well-made film. I think the first part of the film is significantly better than the second. Also, the highlight of it for me was definitely Del Toro's great performance as Che Guevara.

Would I watch it again? No. However, for $6 I don't think you lost out on much.

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I only lived few years and as a kid in a pre internet-imdb era and I can't really envision how it was since I wasn't as much into movies at that age.

But I gather it was really hard to know much about the industry, I mean the only way to get information was through ads of new films or magazines, and people used to rent movies just based on the covers in video stores (well normal people probably still do, but on streaming services).

IMDB was a great help to be able to seek movies from certain actor or director who you really enjoyed, otherwise in those years I gather it was even hard to find the names of other movies directed by Kubrick for example if you wanted, otherwise it probably was just like it happens to me with music scores: "ohh there is the name of that guy that sounds familiar, that means it will probably be good".

In the late 90s/early 00s, IMDb and their top 250 list was an indispensable resource for me in finding new actors/directors (until everyone started using the site and upvoting Fight Club into the top 10.) The list is watered down now, but it's still a decent starting point for people wanting to get into cinephilia (that word sounds so dirty).

It was also the perfect time to become a cinephile because of the unprecedented amount of information about films available, thanks to the normalization of the internet. Plus, streaming services weren't yet available, so after reading about a film I was interested in, I could go to the library/video store, pick up the VHS/DVD box and make a physical connection with the film.

Another big part of what appealed to me about renting videos was the anticipation of finally getting to watch the film(s) I picked out to rent. The video store that stocked the obscure titles was more than 30 minutes away, so I never had to worry about the instant gratification "burnout" that people who binge watch Netflix have to deal with. I think it's the same reason I still shoot film instead of digital: there are very few things more exciting to me than the anticipation of getting a roll of color film that I shot back from the lab, or developing a roll of B&W film myself and seeing how the pictures came out.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

But there are times when I wonder how many of us film geeks are content to hole up in our home theater bunkers, with our massive collection of HD-quality movies and simply luxuriate in the work of other filmmakers, instead of actually going out and trying to make our own. I wonder how different things might be if those same film geeks owned a projector and a handful of 16mm/35mm prints instead of a blu-ray player and 2000 blu-rays.

I don't know the answer, but it's something I think about.

Originally Posted by jw007

I've hit an "antsy" phase in my life yet again recently. I'm finding that making movies, instead of watching movies, is even more thrilling. I particularly have been re-inspired by my own stupid smartphone actually. I think going out and making art (whether its music or cinema) is one of the greatest things a human being can do in his or her life. I'm amazed that great filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard, Park Chan-wook and Sean Baker are incorporating smartphone shooting in their films. Are we seeing a new trend towards handheld smartphone cinema? With 1080p video and improvements in onboard audio, I'm starting to wonder if we'll ever need to spend more than a few thousand dollars on the actual technical aspects of a production.

One of my best friends I know (not the guy in my movie) said he'd rather be making music than watching music. I have to agree. The interactive experience of creating something gives me a high that (actively or passively) watching something is doing less and less of these days.

It's not that simple.

Harlan Ellison once said, "A writer isn't a writer because he wants to be a writer; he's a writer because he has to be a writer." I don't accept that completely, but I agree with the core of it, and that's that an artist has to feel passion for what he's doing.

I love movies. I love books. I love music. I love art. But I can't honestly say that I have the passion to create any of it. I have the skills. I've tried doing art -- mostly pencil sketches, some scratchboard -- and while I've been reasonably satisfied with what I've done, I've never felt compelled to keep at it. I played piano back in my teens, but gave it up because while I could learn a piece and play it proficiently, I never felt I really understood what I was doing musically. It was more or less rote learning. I picked up guitar, and that worked much better for me. But even then, I made it to a certain plateau and didn't really feel compelled to go any further. At this point, I haven't played in probably 12-15 years, and I don't really miss it.

As for the part of your post that I bolded above, I think doing anything that you feel passionate about is the "greatest thing" that you can do with your life. Not everyone is built the same way. Some people create, others just observe. I don't think the latter are the lesser for it.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

The list is watered down now, but it's still a decent starting point for people wanting to get into cinephilia (that word sounds so dirty).

Just last night, I heard someone on TV use the word "Wikipediaphiles", and I remarked to my wife that that sound much too much like "Wikipedophiles".

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Your friend raised a very interesting point that I never quite considered.

I have to say I agree with his assessment to some extent. On one hand, the greater choice provides individuals with a wide range of cinema to be seen, enjoyed, or analyzed. On the other hand, it has the potential to restrict these individuals to the familiar and - as you said - make them somewhat lazy.

These forums are great proof of that. All of these incredible films available on home video and yet a relative few dominate the conversation. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if 80% of collections are made up of a core group of 400 or so titles.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

This interests me greatly. Please forgive my naïveté, but when one identifies themself as a "film student", is the understanding that their eventual goal is to be involved in the production of films, ie as a director or cinematographer, or is their aim to be a film scholar? Or, perhaps, might your class have a mixture of both?

Generally speaking it's a mixture of both.

How, then, does one make it to the second year of film school having never seen these?

That's the million dollar question!

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

These forums are great proof of that. All of these incredible films available on home video and yet a relative few dominate the conversation. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if 80% of collections are made up of a core group of 400 or so titles.

This is so true. Even us self-proclaimed film nerds can have a narrow focus when considered as a whole.