The Criterion Collection

[812crew]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Fanny and Alexander is not "horror" at all, although there are a few moments late in the film that can be unsettling. There's one "WTF?" getaway scene that leaves most viewers scratching their heads, but it's all in the fun. (You'll know the scene that I'm talking about when you see it.)

It's a terrific movie to see around Christmas, because it has one of the coolest screen depictions of the holiday.

Agreed that it's a great Christmas movie (Part 1, at least). Just saw it for the first time a few weeks ago, and that was the first thing I thought. I will say, I've picked up a ton of Bergman movies in the past year, and F&A falls kind of in the middle for me, possibly nearer the bottom (I only watched the extended TV version btw). I'm such a huge fan of Persona & Cries and Whispers that everything I see after that never reaches that kind of intensity for me. I love all of his movies though, and F&A delivered on a lot of levels. The shots are great (as always), the acting is great (as always), and it's really a good depiction of "life seen through the eyes of a kid". And I enjoyed the fact that it was kind of a "different" Bergman movie. It's psychologically intense at times, like all of his movies, but there's also a really different kind of innocence and sense of wonder to it that most of his movies lack.

[jhiggy23]

I apologize if this has been answered, but for those with Samsung tvs, can you access Filmstruck on there?

[Edward J Grug III]

So, some friends of ours just started getting into classic movies, and we've started a weekly movie club where my wife and I screen (usually) our favourite films. This week we had just received In a Lonely Place and thought we'd screen that, and man, we HATED it. My write up from Letterboxd - contains spoilers:

[Show spoiler]Oh man, this was meant to be such a slam dunk, and we hated it so much!

First of all, yes, it looked beautiful, and the performances were great (especially Gloria Grahame) and the film was expertly made.

And on paper is was SO for us, Bogart, directed by Nicholas Ray, a noir, an adaptation of a Dorothy B Hughes novel.

This movie is, as my wife said, a domestic violence apologist's film. The main character is a violent, drunk who is played by the (usually) charming Humphrey Bogart, who is such a genius we should just accept his beating of everyone who crosses his path as eccentricity?

His agent is a terrified old man who tiptoes around him to avoid being punched - though it's never super clear why. He's been in a dry spell and not bringing in money. He's just such a great guy deep down? Because he sends flowers to the girl that got murdered on his account, and money to the kid he nearly beat to death? He enables his drunk friend's drinking habit?

He goes to his friend's house and talks him into strangling his wife for his entertainment?

The movie ends with him nearly killing his fiance, but then pulling back when the phone rings, and we're meant to feel sorry for their failed relationship because the call came a week too late?

We look down on this piece of shit who beats his girlfriends and he sadly walks away and think 'dang, shame she didn't marry him?' It should have been a celebration of her close call!

This quote from Wikipedia says a lot:

"The film differs from the novel in several substantial ways. For example, in the film Steele is innocent of the murders he's suspected of committing, and is sincere in his desire to be a successful screenwriter; in the novel, he is a violent sociopath who claims to be a crime novel writer in order to sponge off of relatives."

So the writer changed the main character into a poorly done-by genius, who as one of our friends points out is told to 'stick to the book' but is above that. Can't help but think the movie would have been better if it had stuck to the book. And suggests he's just plain unlucky that people suspect him of being a murderer?

This is the second time we've screened a movie at Movie Club without having seen it first, and sadly last time turned out about as well (Nothing Sacred).

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by iScottie

That's like asking which kid is your favorite.

But only if one of your kids is CLEARLY better. (It's Fanny & Alexander)

[nitin]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

So, some friends of ours just started getting into classic movies, and we've started a weekly movie club where my wife and I screen (usually) our favourite films. This week we had just received In a Lonely Place and thought we'd screen that, and man, we HATED it. My write up from Letterboxd - contains spoilers:

[Show spoiler]Oh man, this was meant to be such a slam dunk, and we hated it so much!

First of all, yes, it looked beautiful, and the performances were great (especially Gloria Grahame) and the film was expertly made.

And on paper is was SO for us, Bogart, directed by Nicholas Ray, a noir, an adaptation of a Dorothy B Hughes novel.

This movie is, as my wife said, a domestic violence apologist's film. The main character is a violent, drunk who is played by the (usually) charming Humphrey Bogart, who is such a genius we should just accept his beating of everyone who crosses his path as eccentricity?

His agent is a terrified old man who tiptoes around him to avoid being punched - though it's never super clear why. He's been in a dry spell and not bringing in money. He's just such a great guy deep down? Because he sends flowers to the girl that got murdered on his account, and money to the kid he nearly beat to death? He enables his drunk friend's drinking habit?

He goes to his friend's house and talks him into strangling his wife for his entertainment?

The movie ends with him nearly killing his fiance, but then pulling back when the phone rings, and we're meant to feel sorry for their failed relationship because the call came a week too late?

We look down on this piece of shit who beats his girlfriends and he sadly walks away and think 'dang, shame she didn't marry him?' It should have been a celebration of her close call!

This quote from Wikipedia says a lot:

"The film differs from the novel in several substantial ways. For example, in the film Steele is innocent of the murders he's suspected of committing, and is sincere in his desire to be a successful screenwriter; in the novel, he is a violent sociopath who claims to be a crime novel writer in order to sponge off of relatives."

So the writer changed the main character into a poorly done-by genius, who as one of our friends points out is told to 'stick to the book' but is above that. Can't help but think the movie would have been better if it had stuck to the book. And suggests he's just plain unlucky that people suspect him of being a murderer?

This is the second time we've screened a movie at Movie Club without having seen it first, and sadly last time turned out about as well (Nothing Sacred).

I am not sure you are supposed to like or feel sorry for Bogart's character though?

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by nitin

I am not sure you are supposed to like or feel sorry for Bogart's character though?

Strongly disagree. The ending is played as tragic, and unfortunate.

[AlexHarvey]

"In A Lonely Place" is one of my favorite films, and the ending is perfect film noir.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by AlexHarvey

"In A Lonely Place" is one of my favorite films, and the ending is perfect film noir.

I'm glad you enjoy it. I feel like the book's ending would have been better. Shame the version of it Ray shot doesn't still exist.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Strongly disagree. The ending is played as tragic, and unfortunate.

But tragic and unfortunate in the traditional noir sense though? ie Fatalistic. I dont think the movie makes any apologies for where Bogart's character ends up, it is entirely his fault.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by nitin

But tragic and unfortunate in the traditional noir sense though? ie Fatalistic. I dont think the movie makes any apologies for where Bogart's character ends up, it is entirely his fault.

I outlined a few reasons why I think the movie is very apologetic for him in my review.

*He's just eccentric
*The price of genius
*He is shown doing 'nice' things after the fact

[Show spoiler]Even in the last act, he goes to the agent who he's punched in the face (who is clearly in a domestic abuse relationship with him) and doesn't apologize, makes jokes and offers to buy him something to clear it up. The agent comes back and sits at the table and he's a terrified rabbit.

I don't think the ending is really "tragic and unfortunate in the traditional noir sense" as it isn't the character that is shown to be doomed, but this romance. He is going to go right back to the life he had (only, presumably with a massive success from his genius script).

[flyry]

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

I'm underwhelmed with Filmstruck. "Free 14-day trial!!" Whoopeee ... except I can't cast from Android to my Chromecast, and there's no iOS app to play via Airplay or native on my Apple TV.

WTF good is a new film service I can only watch on a tablet or phone??

I want to sign up with the $100/year subscription, but there's no reason to start trial that I can't watch on my TV (unless I do mirroring on my Chromecast, which would be lame).

Casting your browser tab is the fix right now, but according to Filmstruck's responses to reviews on their android app, they are working on chromecast support now.

IMO they should have had everything ready for launch. Chromecast, Roku, Samsung TVs etc.

The selection is much much better than it was during the beta, which was mainly everything that was still on Hulu at the time.(which led me to further avoid using it)

I'll probably subscribe if they have chromecast support added when my extended beta user trial ends at the end of the year.

[pedromvu]

Counting the last days of Criterion on Hulu, I watched:

The End of Summer: as much as I love Ozu, for some reason it was harder for me to connect with this, I guess from the begining scene I thought it was going to be about a different thing, but it focus mainly on the elderly father of the family, still solid movie. 7/10

Le Plaisir: Interesting compendium of 3 short stories, but I couldn't help thinking this could have been better in the hands of Renoir, still they were visually impressive at least. 7/10

Casque d’Or: Another one that reminded me in parts to Renoir, but this was much better, especially the first half hour, it's incredible the way it sets up the main characters and how they fall in love almost without words, from other movies I have seen this is very hard to do convincingly. 8/10

Germany Year Zero: I must admit I wasn't such a fan of the Bergman\Rossellini set or of Rossellini in general, Stromboli was probably the best, but this is really something, the best so far from him, I've yet to watch the other 2 on the trilogy though. 8/10

Mon Oncle d’Amérique: Why is this movie not in the collection? Resnais at his best, this was really refreshing the way it plays in parts as a documentary, philosophical essay and regular narrative, I was a bit worried at first, but suddenly everything clicks together. 9/10

Next up: Floating Clouds, Salvatore Giuliano, French Cancan, The Ascent, The 47 Ronin.

[ThatOneGuy]

Because of recommendations on here, I decided to blind buy Y Tu Mama Tambien.

[klauswhereareyou]

Advice time: I just received a Criterion multi disc set that I ordered from Barnes and Noble, and one of the discs is missing. Should I contact Criterion and see if they will furnish me a disc for the one that is missing from the set, or should I just return it to Barnes and Noble?

[yhzmr]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I outlined a few reasons why I think the movie is very apologetic for him in my review.

*He's just eccentric
*The price of genius
*He is shown doing 'nice' things after the fact

[Show spoiler]Even in the last act, he goes to the agent who he's punched in the face (who is clearly in a domestic abuse relationship with him) and doesn't apologize, makes jokes and offers to buy him something to clear it up. The agent comes back and sits at the table and he's a terrified rabbit.

I don't think the ending is really "tragic and unfortunate in the traditional noir sense" as it isn't the character that is shown to be doomed, but this romance. He is going to go right back to the life he had (only, presumably with a massive success from his genius script).

Complex characters are a reflection of people in the real world. No one is absolutely good and very few are purely evil.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Advice time: I just received a Criterion multi disc set that I ordered from Barnes and Noble, and one of the discs is missing. Should I contact Criterion and see if they will furnish me a disc for the one that is missing from the set, or should I just return it to Barnes and Noble?

Criterion is usually good at fixing issues, so if you are not on a short return time limit with B&N, try Criterion first to see what they do.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by yhzmr

Complex characters are a reflection of people in the real world. No one is absolutely good and very few are purely evil.

I'm not sure what your point is here?

[scottpcusa]

I watched Blind Chance on Hulu last night before the Criterion films expire and I already want to watch it again. It looks like this will be a stock-up-on-more Kieślowski Criterions B&N sale for me.

Seriously...I already want to watch it again!

[Edward J Grug III]

To be clear - I am not faulting anyone for liking In a Lonely Place - If you love it, more power to ya.

My (and the three people I viewed it with last night's) reading of the film is it is very much a domestic violence apologist film. If you have a different reading, by all means, present it and back it up.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

To be clear - I am not faulting anyone for liking In a Lonely Place - If you love it, more power to ya.

My (and the three people I viewed it with last night's) reading of the film is it is very much a domestic violence apologist film. If you have a different reading, by all means, present it and back it up.

Thanks for bringing up well reasoned points from your point of view, Edward. It's been years since I've seen In a Lonely place, but I wouldn't doubt if I didn't consider the darker implications of his character simply because it's genre stuff and that's that. Casual violence and misogyny are par for the course with noir and sometimes it either slides right past me or I enjoy it at face value as a fan of these type of films.

I'm now scrambling to figure out if I overlooked anything during my viewing of Cover Up last night. (Which was hugely enjoyable as a Christmas themed Noir btw)