The Criterion Collection

[Nuck Horris]

I think Criterion should include isolated scores or CDs with their releases.

They should also do same price limited signed copies of nearly every new release. (Like Tales of Halloween.)

But they won't because they hate us.

[mrjohnnyb]

I have ben waiting patiently for a release of the 1968 Cuban classic, Memories of Underdevelopment by the late director Tomás Gutiérrez Alea. A restored print will be shown at this year's New York Film Festival:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/g...stival-n657371

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by mrjohnnyb

I have ben waiting patiently for a release of the 1968 Cuban classic, Memories of Underdevelopment by the late director Tomás Gutiérrez Alea. A restored print will be shown at this year's New York Film Festival:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/g...stival-n657371

It's been a few years since I saw this, but I remember being struck by how non-propagandistic it was (nothing at all like I Am Cuba or other Communist Agitprop), not at all what I expected.

I could picture Memories of Underdevelopment being in the Criterion Collection.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Dang it! I was in Detroit today!

Seriously?!?!?!?!

Me too!

First time for me in Detroit actually (other than driving by it 13 years ago).

I spent the entire weekend there with 2 friends and we went to see Sigur Rós at the Fox Theatre last night downtown! Man, that was the 2nd time seeing this epic band and they were great. Obviously many of us know them from their song "Staralfur" from The Life Aquatic (which they also played last night).

Here's a video clip I shot of their entire song "Kveikur" by the way if anyone wants to watch.

Sigur Rós performs "Kveikur" at the Fox Theatre in Detroit, MI, October 1, 2016 - YouTube

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

But of course they give priority to more "important" 60's films such as the two Valley of Dolls elephant droppings.

These guys are right in that one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other but it's nice to see some interest / love in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. Incidentally, I HAVE seen both SN&SM and The Valley of The Dolls and I'd choose Saturday Night and Sunday Morning every day of the week and twice on Saturday nights and on Sunday mornings.

[bwdowiak]

My wife and I watched the three films in Kieslowski’s Three Colors Trilogy over the past week. Like Scottie going into Dekalog, my expectations were pretty high. My opinion on the films is pretty inconclusive as the three films don’t just demand multiple viewings, they require multiple viewings. That’s fine, but I have to say that Red, which is about 95 minute film without credits, is so ambiguous for the first 88 minutes or so, that it could cause one to lose interest. I read Ebert’s review and I almost wish I hadn’t. I wonder how long or how many watches it would have taken me to piece together the themes Ebert discusses in his review. …and I’m gonna take a hack at one of the sacred cows: I thought

[Show spoiler]the ending was just plain silly. I guess there is some meaningful resonance behind the characters surviving the ferry accident,

but for a first time watch, it really comes across like an artistic stab in the dark.

Nevertheless, I do want to see all of these films again and will probably appreciate them more after a second watch. The most surprising thing about the three films was how good White is. All I had heard prior to seeing these films was that Red was a sublime masterpiece, Blue was great, too, and oh… there’s White, which is ok. I thought White was mysterious, funny, it featured the best music score, and might have contained the best scene in all three films

[Show spoiler](the poignant one in which the main character shoots the man w/ the phony gun.)

It reminded me of a better version of Truffaut’s A Gorgeous Girl Like Me. I hadn’t seen this type of film from Kieslowski up until now. It was quite different and unexpected. I’d rank them as follows:

White
Red
Blue

[Thebunk]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

My wife and I watched the three films in Kieslowski’s Three Colors Trilogy over the past week. Like Scottie going into Dekalog, my expectations were pretty high. My opinion on the films is pretty inconclusive as the three films don’t just demand multiple viewings, they require multiple viewings. That’s fine, but I have to say that Red, which is about 95 minute film without credits, is so ambiguous for the first 88 minutes or so, that it could cause one to lose interest. I read Ebert’s review and I almost wish I hadn’t. I wonder how long or how many watches it would have taken me to piece together the themes Ebert discusses in his review. …and I’m gonna take a hack at one of the sacred cows: I thought

[Show spoiler]the ending was just plain silly. I guess there is some meaningful resonance behind the characters surviving the ferry accident,

but for a first time watch, it really comes across like an artistic stab in the dark.

Nevertheless, I do want to see all of these films again and will probably appreciate them more after a second watch. The most surprising thing about the three films was how good White is. All I had heard prior to seeing these films was that Red was a sublime masterpiece, Blue was great, too, and oh… there’s White, which is ok. I thought White was mysterious, funny, it featured the best music score, and might have contained the best scene in all three films

[Show spoiler](the poignant one in which the main character shoots the man w/ the phony gun.)

It reminded me of a better version of Truffaut’s A Gorgeous Girl Like Me. I hadn’t seen this type of film from Kieslowski up until now. It was quite different and unexpected. I’d rank them as follows:

White
Red
Blue

I think you are putting too much stock in the ending regarding the

[Show spoiler]ferry as showing the protagonists all together. Yes on the surface it is a neat way to tie the films together but really, what makes these films a trilogy is not the films relationships with one another but the main themes of France which is explored. Also, and perhaps you missed this initially but this is not the only scene where characters from the different films intersect.

Lastly, I find your rankings very interesting as I would go in reverse order. I thought Blue was an absolute epic masterpiece - artistic while also telling a rich story from start to end. A great marriage of style and substance if you will.

Also be sure to check out the features of these films before re-watching them. I think they not only provide a lot of great insight but also make you want to re-watch them again.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Thebunk

I think you are putting too much stock in the ending regarding the

[Show spoiler]ferry as showing the protagonists all together. Yes on the surface it is a neat way to tie the films together but really, what makes these films a trilogy is not the films relationships with one another but the main themes of France which is explored. Also, and perhaps you missed this initially but this is not the only scene where characters from the different films intersect.

Lastly, I find your rankings very interesting as I would go in reverse order. I thought Blue was an absolute epic masterpiece - artistic while also telling a rich story from start to end. A great marriage of style and substance if you will.

Also be sure to check out the features of these films before re-watching them. I think they not only provide a lot of great insight but also make you want to re-watch them again.

I don’t have any qualms with the three films unified as a trilogy. I just thought the scene was silly. Maybe there is some kind of meaning to it. Maybe Kieslowski is trying to say something there. I’ve gone (and am going) cukoo for cocoa puffs about The Dekalog coming out and I like Kieslowski overall, but I have been critical of other directors in the past (e.g. Resnais and Antonioni) for similar types of vagaries. I did notice the characters intersecting in the other stories, but are they there just to be there? It felt that way to me. If there is some kind of meaning

[Show spoiler] behind old folks struggling to put a glass bottle in a green recycling bin,

you guys can spoil it for me now and let me know what that might be. To me, it is just whimsy, self-conscious artistry.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by jw007

Seriously?!?!?!?!

Me too!

First time for me in Detroit actually (other than driving by it 13 years ago).

I spent the entire weekend there with 2 friends and we went to see Sigur Rós at the Fox Theatre last night downtown! Man, that was the 2nd time seeing this epic band and they were great. Obviously many of us know them from their song "Staralfur" from The Life Aquatic (which they also played last night).

Here's a video clip I shot of their entire song "Kveikur" by the way if anyone wants to watch.

Sigur Rós performs "Kveikur" at the Fox Theatre in Detroit, MI, October 1, 2016 - YouTube

Too funny. The wife and I were in Detroit to....

[Show spoiler] Also see Sigur Ros at The Fox Theatre of course. Sorry we didn't say hello! Going tonight in Toronto as well.

[CPinheiro]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

If there is some kind of meaning

[Show spoiler] behind old folks struggling to put a glass bottle in a green recycling bin,

you guys can spoil it for me now and let me know what that might be. To me, it is just whimsy, self-conscious artistry.

Kieslowski once said: "I don't film metaphors. When I film a scene with a bottle of milk, the bottle is simply a bottle of milk; when it spills, it means milk's been spilt. Nothing more"

Which is funny considering that his movies seem to be full of symbolism.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by CPinheiro

Kieslowski once said: "I don't film metaphors. When I film a scene with a bottle of milk, the bottle is simply a bottle of milk; when it spills, it means milk's been split. Nothing more"

Which is funny considering that his movies seem to be full of symbolism.

that is interesting because, yes, there does seem to be a lot of random things happening in his films. how about

[Show spoiler]everybody's favorite flasher

in The Double Life of Veronique?

[Show spoiler]
I guess I should just accept it as a dude who felt inclined to show his junk, which is fine... I suppose.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by CPinheiro

Kieslowski once said: "I don't film metaphors. When I film a scene with a bottle of milk, the bottle is simply a bottle of milk; when it spills, it means milk's been split. Nothing more"

Which is funny considering that his movies seem to be full of symbolism.

This reminds me of an instance where Bresson said his films aren't pessimistic.

He's not necessarily a pessimist of human nature, but he's definitely pessimistic about socioeconomic structures.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

that is interesting because, yes, there does seem to be a lot of random things happening in his films. how about

[Show spoiler]everybody's favorite flasher

in The Double Life of Veronique?

[Show spoiler]
I guess I should just accept it as a dude who felt inclined to show his junk, which is fine... I suppose.

Maybe he flashed someone once and felt guilty? After all, he does include an elderly person struggling because he once ignored someone struggling and felt guilty for not helping lol.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by CPinheiro

Which is funny considering that his movies seem to be full of symbolism.

SF/fantasy writer (and all-around amazing person) John M. Ford once said, "All stories are actually three stories: the one the writer writes, the one the reader reads, and the one where the first two meet by moonlight."

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

My wife and I watched the three films in Kieslowski’s Three Colors Trilogy over the past week. Like Scottie going into Dekalog, my expectations were pretty high. My opinion on the films is pretty inconclusive as the three films don’t just demand multiple viewings, they require multiple viewings. That’s fine, but I have to say that Red, which is about 95 minute film without credits, is so ambiguous for the first 88 minutes or so, that it could cause one to lose interest. I read Ebert’s review and I almost wish I hadn’t. I wonder how long or how many watches it would have taken me to piece together the themes Ebert discusses in his review. …and I’m gonna take a hack at one of the sacred cows: I thought

[Show spoiler]the ending was just plain silly. I guess there is some meaningful resonance behind the characters surviving the ferry accident,

but for a first time watch, it really comes across like an artistic stab in the dark.

Nevertheless, I do want to see all of these films again and will probably appreciate them more after a second watch. The most surprising thing about the three films was how good White is. All I had heard prior to seeing these films was that Red was a sublime masterpiece, Blue was great, too, and oh… there’s White, which is ok. I thought White was mysterious, funny, it featured the best music score, and might have contained the best scene in all three films

[Show spoiler](the poignant one in which the main character shoots the man w/ the phony gun.)

It reminded me of a better version of Truffaut’s A Gorgeous Girl Like Me. I hadn’t seen this type of film from Kieslowski up until now. It was quite different and unexpected. I’d rank them as follows:

White
Red
Blue

Frankly I've never thought of these films as requiring multiple viewings, I mean compared to some of the Tarkovsky stuff, these are quite easy to follow, they are ambiguous at parts but in my case it never hinders the enjoyment or understanding of what is going on since the films are so beautifully shot, acted and the music is great on all three, personally my favorite score is the one from Red, my personal favorite of the three too.

I would say if you have already enjoyed other Kieslowski films, maybe you just happen to watch this in the wrong time, or wrong mindset, I know these movies get a lot of praise around here, and deservedly so, but I think it could also affect's one's perception if you never seen them before.

BTW, following our other discussion, watched Far From Heaven this weekend and I was not really a fan unfortunately , it seems to have a pretty straightforward melodramatic approach, and some of the performances are way too stilted, I guess in the end I am not much of a fan of Haynes other than for Carol

[jw007]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Too funny. The wife and I were in Detroit to....

[Show spoiler] Also see Sigur Ros at The Fox Theatre of course. Sorry we didn't say hello! Going tonight in Toronto as well.

Dude, that was a great show, wasn't it!? But it was reportedly supposed to be a 3 hour set with an intermission and I clocked it at around 2 hours and 18 minutes! I mean, no complaining from me of course! Where were your seats? Our friend Tarrah got super pricey tix near the front of the stage as well as this tablet book with all 3 members of Sigur Ros signing it inside.

In keeping this conversation Criterion-related, what's your favorite Wes Anderson film?

[MifuneFan]

I'm 30 mins into Weekend (1967)...

Note to self: Never drive in France.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I'm 30 mins into Weekend (1967)...

Note to self: Never drive in France.

One of the most chaotic films I ever watched!

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by CPinheiro

Kieslowski once said: "I don't film metaphors. When I film a scene with a bottle of milk, the bottle is simply a bottle of milk; when it spills, it means milk's been split. Nothing more"

Which is funny considering that his movies seem to be full of symbolism.

I think he means he didn't knowingly film anything to serve as symbolism but if it come out in the mes en scene then so be it.

There are apologists for Hitchcock's Under Capricorn (One of the few Hitchcock misfires) that claim the director intended deeper symbolism in the film because there are certain paintings in the background of some scenes. They use this in an attempt to elevate a banal picture. I think it's ridiculous.

It's like when Welles used a blind girl in Touch of Evil. People asked him what the symbolism was for the film and he just said he felt like doing it. Also, more recently Louis C.K. cast a Jamaican woman to be his ex-wife on his show. People asked him how is it possible his two daughters are white. He said he just felt the actress was great for the role.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Frankly I've never thought of these films as requiring multiple viewings, I mean compared to some of the Tarkovsky stuff, these are quite easy to follow, they are ambiguous at parts but in my case it never hinders the enjoyment or understanding of what is going on since the films are so beautifully shot, acted and the music is great on all three, personally my favorite score is the one from Red, my personal favorite of the three too.

I would say if you have already enjoyed other Kieslowski films, maybe you just happen to watch this in the wrong time, or wrong mindset, I know these movies get a lot of praise around here, and deservedly so, but I think it could also affect's one's perception if you never seen them before.

BTW, following our other discussion, watched Far From Heaven this weekend and I was not really a fan unfortunately , it seems to have a pretty straightforward melodramatic approach, and some of the performances are way too stilted, I guess in the end I am not much of a fan of Haynes other than for Carol

Sure, as far as plot goes, the films are fairly straight-forward, but what about the themes and meaning? In Red,

[Show spoiler]I spent a good portion of the film fairly sure of the fact that her boyfriend on the other line is really only 3 doors away and is having an affair w/ a blonde haired woman. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the first scene of the movie, doesn’t Kieslowski explicitly show this? I gather that one of his themes is that the young man (whose identity we discover later on in the film - an identity I accept, but nevertheless can only be accepted in a fictional universe. It is an identity I wouldn’t have been able to detect if I were to have 100 first watches) may as well have been her b/f, or could be her b/f if the universe had unfolded differently. You’re saying you understood all of that and processed it as KK perhaps intended?

How about White? I liked the vibe of this film and I liked the comedy, but

[Show spoiler]I let out a “wtf?” at the end of the film. What was the conversation about him travelling to Hong Kong (was it HK? It was an Asian city, but I don’t remember which) only to have him peering through binoculars at his funeral? I accept the ‘leaps’ that Kieslowski takes in this one because they run consistent throughout the film – how does he get so rich so quickly? what did he do to get rich? I think the answer to that is ‘who cares?’ don’t they say in the film that she was seen with him the last day he was alive? Huh? …and then she goes to prison for killing him? Again, I don’t think it is important and KK is taking some kind of leap here. But still, I think there could be answers possibly revealed during subsequent viewings. Or… maybe it is just, as cpinheiro mentioned, KK showing spilt milk just for the sake of showing spilt milk.