The Criterion Collection

[CraigThom]

Originally Posted by jayembee

As for movies, I'm disappointed when I hear younger people expressing a dislike for black-&-white and/or "old" films. But I can deal with differing tastes in movies much more than I can with the idea that watching a movie, even a dumb one, on a smartphone is perfectly fine.

I have an untested theory, which may be complete crap, that lack of exposure to black and white movies and television as children may make them difficult for some people to transparently process. They may notice the black and white images the whole time, unlike the rest of us, who just see people and places.

I have heard people state that lack of color is the problem, not that it's a euphemism for "old".

Until I was eight all the television I saw was black and white, so I don't even notice.

I also hate the idea -- becoming more and more prevalent -- that old 4x3 TV shows have to be stretched out to fit 16x9 TV screens to be worth watching. I had hoped that widescreen TVs would put an end to Fullscreen Madness, but that disease has simply mutated.

I think a large number of people just don't care about accuracy or quality, regardless of age. Probably a majority.

If DVDs hadn't been a lot more convenient than VHS I don't think they'd have displaced them. Blu-ray is not more convenient than DVD, so DVD still dominates.

When I was sixteen I got a part time job washing dishes. Because I was living at home and had no expenses, I saved my little pay checks and spent about $600 on a receiver, a turntable, and a pair of used speakers. According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ that's $2500 in today's dollars. It was important to me to have decent sound. It wasn't great, but it's what I could afford.

Now people are completely happy with tinny ear buds and Bluetooth speakers. They write rave reviews for soundbars. They are thrilled with "subwoofers" with drivers smaller than the eight-inch woofers in my first, entry-level pair.

Most people just don't care how things look or sound (expect maybe how unsightly the big TVs and speakers are in their living rooms).

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by spargs

Yeah, I specifically remember reading Ebert's review in the Chicago Sun Times back in 1984 when the 139 minute cut cut hit theaters in the US... as he had seen the 229 minute version previously at Cannes, he actually addressed both cuts in his review. He gave the 229 minute cut 4 stars, and called the butchered cut a travesty and gave it 1.5 stars.

Edit: the original review posted on rogerebert.com looks to have been slightly tweaked to reference the 229 minute cut being available on video which wouldn't yet have been available at the time of the US theatrical release of the 139 minute cut. It also doesn't show the 1.5 star rating, but I'm pretty confident it was there in print in the original paper review.

Yup. Here's the header from his 1986 movie companion:

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Again, this tired old argument of cherry picking. What matters is the best, not the worst or the forgotten. When people compare American film in the 70's to last decade, for example, there is no reason to bring up Airport or The World's Greatest Lover, just as there is equally no reason to bring up Catwoman or The Hunted, unless we are having a discussion about bad and/or forgotten/underrated films.

Granted it's hard for us to see the best now, but it's very easy to see why people would think pop music was poor now compared to the late 60's and early 70's or even the mid 80's.

That is not the case if you're trying to compare quality of films then to films today and then compare the best of then to the worst of today (which will likely be forgotten in 40 years, upon which then you'll be able to more accurately compare these decades since we'll have the same rose-tinted view of this decade that we now do of the 70s). Either you should compare the mass-market junk of then with the mass-market junk of today, or the best of then with the best of today. Even doing the best picture nominees vs each other would be less disingenuous than complaining about what the kids are watching today vs the classics from back then (which they assuredly weren't watching then either!).

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

That is not the case if you're trying to compare quality of films then to films today and then compare the best of then to the worst of today (which will likely be forgotten in 40 years, upon which then you'll be able to more accurately compare these decades since we'll have the same rose-tinted view of this decade that we now do of the 70s). Either you should compare the mass-market junk of then with the mass-market junk of today, or the best of then with the best of today. Even doing the best picture nominees vs each other would be less disingenuous than complaining about what the kids are watching today vs the classics from back then (which they assuredly weren't watching then either!).

The entire purpose of my post was to provide a counterbalance to the typical argument of cherry picking on one hand with the other typical argument that 'things were just better back in the old days' on the other. They seem to be the two positions most commonly argued for by most people on either side of the debate.

All I'm pointing out is that the debate is not at all limited to those positions, and that's it very easy to compare like with like. It's also possible that we are just experiencing a slump period and things will rebound soon. Maybe.

[Vinyl]

Originally Posted by CraigThom

When I was sixteen I got a part time job washing dishes. Because I was living at home and had no expenses, I saved my little pay checks and spent about $600 on a receiver, a turntable, and a pair of used speakers. According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ that's $2500 in today's dollars. It was important to me to have decent sound. It wasn't great, but it's what I could afford.

Now people are completely happy with tinny ear buds and Bluetooth speakers. They write rave reviews for soundbars. They are thrilled with "subwoofers" with drivers smaller than the eight-inch woofers in my first, entry-level pair.

Most people just don't care how things look or sound (expect maybe how unsightly the big TVs and speakers are in their living rooms).

I have been listening to vinyl for as long as I can remember. My first lucid memory is actually listening to my now worn out copy of the best of Fats Domino on my parents record player. When I grew up I was given that stereo system when I moved into my own room. Now I am rocking my sisters old stereo from the 80's. I wouldn't have it any other way because it just sounds better and is more tactile.

Now, when I am out and about, like at work I am limited to my earbuds and mp3s. Our society seems to be headed into this mobile direction because we have become more mobile. The whole mobile craze has been building ever since the Sony Walkman, it's just picked up a lot of speed in the last few years.

Gone are the days of sitting in the basement/rec room with big cans on our head listening to LPs. It's sad but we feel that we have other things to be doing. Some of us actually do, others are choosing other distractions.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by oildude

I agree with what you are saying. I would like to comment on a particular year in the academy awards in your post that I have seen cited several times over the years as an example of when a "lesser film" undeservedly won the best picture award. How Green Was My Valley is a wonderful, brilliant, and beautiful film, immortalized in cinema history by stellar performances and John Ford directing at the top of his game. I have seen all of the candidates from 1941 and in my opinion that year the academy got it right.

Is it my favorite film from that year? No, I have rewatched Bogie in The Maltese Falcon many more times than How Green Was My Valley (although it is Welles' Citizen Kane that is usually held up as an example of academy misjudgment by some professional and armchair critics when this topic pops up). Let's face it, 1941 was an incredible year for best picture candidates (compare that to much of what we see today).

But John Ford hit it out of the park at the right moment with his well written little melodrama. Films are often judged by the current times in which they exist. One of the supplements on the How Green Was My Valley blu-ray delves into how the impact of the film, with its potent cocktail of ethnic traditions, family values, social upheaval, the life of a mining community, their shared joys, loss, and pain, all arriving on the eve of America's entry into WWII, resonated with the public in a way no other film that year ever could. Ultimately the proof of timelessness is in the film itself, and How Green Was My Valley still resonates to this day. It is just as powerful and thought provoking as it was in 1941. Late in his life John Ford was given the chance to choose one film from his vast body of work as his personal best to showcase at a film retrospective on great directors. He chose How Green Was My Valley.

Although I'd probably take Kane if I had to pick, I'm perfectly fine with How Green Was My Valley winning. It really is a masterpiece, underrated by most film buffs.

[RickDee]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

Although I'd probably take Kane if I had to pick, I'm perfectly fine with How Green Was My Valley winning. It really is a masterpiece, underrated by most film buffs.

Not in the same ballpark as Kane. How many greatest list have you ever seen where How Green Was My Valley that even made the top 25 films of all time? Top 50? Eberts Great Movies? Answer is none that I have seen. Not sure I would even put Green in Ford's top 5 films.

[MifuneFan]

Den forsvundne pølsemaker (The sausage maker who disappeared) was clearly the best film from 1941

Den Forsvundne Pølsemaker.1941. - YouTube

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by RickDee

Not in the same ballpark as Kane. How many greatest list have you ever seen where How Green Was My Valley that even made the top 25 films of all time? Top 50? Eberts Great Movies? Answer is none that I have seen. Not sure I would even put Green in Ford's top 5 films.

You must not be very good at reading comprehension.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by oildude

I agree with what you are saying. I would like to comment on a particular year in the academy awards in your post that I have seen cited several times over the years as an example of when a "lesser film" undeservedly won the best picture award. How Green Was My Valley is a wonderful, brilliant, and beautiful film, immortalized in cinema history by stellar performances and John Ford directing at the top of his game. I have seen all of the candidates from 1941 and in my opinion that year the academy got it right.

Is it my favorite film from that year? No, I have rewatched Bogie in The Maltese Falcon many more times than How Green Was My Valley (although it is Welles' Citizen Kane that is usually held up as an example of academy misjudgment by some professional and armchair critics when this topic pops up). Let's face it, 1941 was an incredible year for best picture candidates (compare that to much of what we see today).

But John Ford hit it out of the park at the right moment with his well written little melodrama. Films are often judged by the current times in which they exist. One of the supplements on the How Green Was My Valley blu-ray delves into how the impact of the film, with its potent cocktail of ethnic traditions, family values, social upheaval, the life of a mining community, their shared joys, loss, and pain, all arriving on the eve of America's entry into WWII, resonated with the public in a way no other film that year ever could. Ultimately the proof of timelessness is in the film itself, and How Green Was My Valley still resonates to this day. It is just as powerful and thought provoking as it was in 1941. Late in his life John Ford was given the chance to choose one film from his vast body of work as his personal best to showcase at a film retrospective on great directors. He chose How Green Was My Valley.

Oildude, I need to clarify this, because my inclusion of How Green Was My Valley in a list of films that have seen their critical impression lessen over time was poorly worded on my part. I did not mean to suggest that the film's standing has declined. I did, however, mean to suggest that Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon have seen their standing greatly improve over time, and as a result, if that 1941 Best Picture vote were held again, the outcome might be different as a result. All three films are timeless, and if any of them were released today, I believe they'd fare quite well against contemporary films.

When lists of the greatest films of all-time are released, Welles' masterpiece is always very near the top of the list, and John Huston's classic film is included in many of them. It may be that critics need to go back and watch How Green Was My Valley again. It seems to be one of those gems that never quite gets the praise it deserves, though it shows fairly often on TCM. Inexplicably, there are some classic films that just seem to be overlooked, or undervalued, and I don't know why. We discussed The Asphalt Jungle here earlier, and I'd contend it's one of the best noir films I've ever seen. Yet you never really hear anything about it. That's perplexing, because not only does the film stand on its own merits, it also marks one of the first appearances of Marilyn Monroe, who remains one of the most popular film stars in history some fifty plus years after her death. Yet, the film has never been released on Blu-ray in any country.

Originally Posted by ravenus

While some kind of artistic foundation is advantageous, it is not IMO necessary and definitely does not have to be in the same medium. There are great directors who have come from other art mediums or who are not products of film school and/or film watching binges. Watching too many films might also be an impediment to developing your own virgin vocabulary.

A great director is going to develop their own style regardless of what they've seen. And, I absolutely agree that consequential directors can come from other disciplines. A painter will have developed an innate sense of visual composition, and have a wonderful command of light and dark, and color. I can't help but think that would carry over when developing their own film pallet. But why forego watching the classic films of the past when seeing them can only benefit their education? Why reinvent the wheel if its not necessary? I don't think it should be a requirement to binge watch all the great films, but a working knowledge of Hitchcock, F.W. Murnau, Carl Theodore Dreyer, Bergman, Kurosawa and a few others can only spark creativity, and critical thinking, in a young director's mind.

Originally Posted by CraigThom

I think a large number of people just don't care about accuracy or quality, regardless of age. Probably a majority.

Though unintentional, you've just described the major shortcoming of our electorate in America, too.

Originally Posted by Vinyl

I have been listening to vinyl for as long as I can remember. My first lucid memory is actually listening to my now worn out copy of the best of Fats Domino on my parents record player. When I grew up I was given that stereo system when I moved into my own room. Now I am rocking my sisters old stereo from the 80's. I wouldn't have it any other way because it just sounds better and is more tactile.

Now, when I am out and about, like at work I am limited to my earbuds and mp3s. Our society seems to be headed into this mobile direction because we have become more mobile. The whole mobile craze has been building ever since the Sony Walkman, it's just picked up a lot of speed in the last few years.

Gone are the days of sitting in the basement/rec room with big cans on our head listening to LPs. It's sad but we feel that we have other things to be doing. Some of us actually do, others are choosing other distractions.

Not only have we gone mobile, we've slowly become dehumanized, too. Why talk to somebody face to face, or call them, when you can text them? Why ask a person a question when you can blurt a few words in the general direction of your phone, and have Siri spit the answer out? We're slowly losing our ability to relate to one another. While technology can be a great thing, it should never be a replacement for human interaction. I wonder how so many of us were able to survive without cell phones?

I think what we are seeing in Hollywood with the dumbed down movies, and remakes ad nauseam, is symptomatic of a larger problem. I hesitate to bring this up, but look at what's going on with this upcoming Presidential election. While I understand that there is a frustration that's boiling over with Washington, we're allowing certain politicians to present things as fact that are, in actuality, complete fabrications. We've lost our ability to think critically, and we'll blindly accept whatever we hear on television as Gospel. When I think of the countless men and women who have sacrificed their lives so we could live with these incredible liberties, and I see the wanton disregard for the truth displayed by our would-be leaders, it sickens me. And we allow it to happen because we are lazy. I can't help but think we're the Roman Empire in decline.

The next Criterion film I'm going to buy is My Dinner with André. Just two gentlemen at a restaurant having a fascinating conversation. There's obviously a lot more to the narrative than I'll remark upon here, but in the simplest of terms, that's the crux of the movie. Roger Ebert listed it as the eleventh-best film of the 1980s. Now, with knowledge of what the film entails, how many younger moviegoers today would make it twenty minutes in without walking out? I mean, there are no car chases, no gun fights, no aliens or explosions. No keggers, no nudity, no elves, Jedis or Muggles. Only lots of big words that would require the use of a dictionary, and a requisite long attention span.

Oh, and BTW, I am delighted, at least, to see that vinyl records are making a comeback. It may be a little victory, but I'll take anything I can get.

[SammyJankis]

Just got back from Everybody Wants Some!!. For anyone that is sick of the super serious attitude that's prevalent through theaters, this is for you - or, you know, anyone that likes Linklater in general, especially Dazed and Confused. This is a lot lighter than that one, reveling more in its era and finding the humor within its ensemble in any given moment. One of the biggest delights is that it manages to separate every single one of its characters and not reduce them to mere archetypes (for the most part.) Plus the soundtrack kicks ass.

Really, it's just a lot of fun, and it finds value within that fun. Haven't had this good of a time at the theater in a long time.

[bwdowiak]

saw two French films this weekend - only have time to talk about one... the other was Certified Copy which was really good.

here are some unorganized thoughts on the new film by Arnaud Desplechin, director of Criterion's A Christmas Tale, Trois Souvenirs De Ma Jeunesse or My Golden Days, it's somewhat unfortunate title for English audiences.

nostalgic, warm, and a rather enjoyable watch. I enjoyed seeing the homage being paid to Francois Truffaut, but Desplechin may have leaned on his influences a tad too much. he also chooses a somewhat different narrative structure that leads to a little bit of confusion and may not have been entirely necessary. knowing the French translation prior to and during the film may have provided me with a bit more understanding. oh well. worth a watch. I wouldn't be surprised if it picks up a little steam and has a Criterion release in the future. I think members of this forum, especially those of French cinema and Truffaut will find much to enjoy here.

anyone else see it?

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

saw two French films this weekend - only have time to talk about one... the other was Certified Copy which was really good.

I'm glad you enjoyed Certified Copy. I haven't been able to stop thinking about the film since it came out. There's a lot of symmetry between Certified Copy and its companion film Like Someone in Love and both invite repeat viewings.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

There have been a couple films savaged by the critics largely because a studio stuck their nose where it didn't belong, and the released version could best be described as horribly disfigured. Sergio Leone's epic Once Upon A Time in America is always the first film that comes to my mind when studio or distributor malfeasance is discussed. The prevailing thought process at the time of release was that American audiences would never sit for an almost four hour long film, so the film's distributor, the Ladd Company, had the film cut down from 229 minutes to 139. Not only did they chop off an hour and a half, they did away with the non-linear sequencing of the film. So, what American audiences got was a film that resembled Leone's artistic creation in name only.

Quite a few others like that come to mind-Inital 2 cuts of von Stroheim's Greed, a few of Welles films like The Magnificent Ambersons and Touch of Evil, Gilliam's Brazil, etc. Not on the same scale as those but one that always irked me was the producer's demand that Jacques Tourneur show the creature in Night/Curse of the Demon. Not only show it; but basically open the film with it! Fortunately the film recovers from that blunder but to handcuff a director from the Val Lewton school of Less is More really is mind boggling.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I'm glad you enjoyed Certified Copy. I haven't been able to stop thinking about the film since it came out. There's a lot of symmetry between Certified Copy and its companion film Like Someone in Love and both invite repeat viewings.

a darn near great film, actually. I really liked the first 30 minutes of Like Someone in Love and I really hated the end. I'd have been a fool not to give Kiarostami another chance with Certified Copy and I'm glad I did. I'll write more about it if I have time.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

Quite a few others like that come to mind-Inital 2 cuts of von Stroheim's Greed, a few of Welles films like The Magnificent Ambersons and Touch of Evil, Gilliam's Brazil, etc. Not on the same scale as those but one that always irked me was the producer's demand that Jacques Tourneur show the creature in Night/Curse of the Demon. Not only show it; but basically open the film with it! Fortunately the film recovers from that blunder but to handcuff a director from the Val Lewton school of Less is More really is mind boggling.

Isn't it funny how greatly the idea of a "director's cut" can differ depending on the era of film discussed. Ask a twenty-something film fan, and immediately the extended Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit director's cuts might spring to mind. When something like The Two Towers, or An Unexpected Journey saw their first release, there was a clamor for the more exhaustive director's cut. Invariably, many of the fans decided to wait for the more bloated editions, with all the extra documentaries etc crammed in, in addition to the scenes that get added back into the film. It's become a means of making money, as countless fans double dip. When director's cuts of classic films are discussed, though that label might be a tad vaguely applied, it oft means that the film as it's been widely viewed by the public was somehow the bastardized result of studio or censor interference. In this case, the re-released film is often vastly superior, because society has become more accepting of content that might have been deemed too risqué in the past.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I'm glad you enjoyed Certified Copy. I haven't been able to stop thinking about the film since it came out. There's a lot of symmetry between Certified Copy and its companion film Like Someone in Love and both invite repeat viewings.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

a darn near great film, actually. I really liked the first 30 minutes of Like Someone in Love and I really hated the end. I'd have been a fool not to give Kiarostami another chance with Certified Copy and I'm glad I did. I'll write more about it if I have time.

I'm going to buy Certified Copy at the end of the month, though, honestly, I'm torn as to which release to buy. Interestingly enough, I first discovered the film while browsing British releases on our site. I saw Juliette Binoche (who I adore) on the cover, and the designation of Best Actress at Cannes; my curiosity piqued, I immediately began reading about the film. It was the region free Artificial Eye copy that initially caught my eye, and for some reason, it didn't register that Criterion had released the film, too.

I guess it all boils down to The Report, Abbas Kiarostami's first film from 1977, which Criterion includes in their release. Have you guys watched it, and is it good enough to justify the additional expense? I'm going to be paying for the import shipping, anyway, so my choice is the Artificial Eye import, which will cost about $8.40 USD, or the Criterion which would cost three times as much.

I might add, I wish the Criterion cover was as colorful as the import. I'm not one to usually harp on a film's cover, as it's just window dressing--the film is what matters--but in this case, I have to. There's no comparison here.



Colorful and beautiful, or....drab. Edit: mea cupla. Having not seen the film, I didn't understand the cover's context. Please forgive me as I extract my head from my buttocks.

Thanks in advance for any input you guys might have.

[Scottie]

From Criterion's Instagram.

Technicolor frames from Douglas Sirk's WRITTEN ON THE WIND, starring Robert Stack and Lauren Bacall.

Maybe some day.

[Ray Jackson]

I'm grilling a Douglas Sirk steak even as we speak.

Bloody as hell.

...just the way I like it.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by iScottie

From Criterion's Instagram.





Maybe some day.

I was this close (holds fingers really close together) to buying All That Heaven Allows while Amazon had the Criterion films on sale. But I decided to wait. I have so much to catch up on already, and so many directors to delve into, and I want to purchase that and Ali: Fear Eats the Soul at the same time, and then watch them back to back.