The Criterion Collection

[llj]

The problem with official definitions is that they are often 4 or 5 years too late to a new word or new meaning of an old word!

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by llj

Yes, I'm sure there will be an argument that it was used before the 2000s, but if so, it was rarely used outside of the most niche writing circles. You certainly didn't have college and high school kids using it as liberally as they do today. And I've honestly never heard it ever used in place of 'hepcat', personally.

And if anyone can find the earliest movie that had the term "hipster" as it is used today, please name it! I'd like to know, personally.

Are you implying that books are only for the niche-dwelling elites and movies aren't? Have you looked at the best seller lists lately? Or any year in since the first penny dreadful?

Regardless, it's clear to me that you are prepared to defend your position to the death, whereas I will quit when I get bored. You win.

[llj]

Originally Posted by belcherman

Are you implying that books are only for the niche-dwelling elites and movies aren't? Have you looked at the best seller lists lately? Or any year in since the first penny dreadful?

Regardless, it's clear to me that you are prepared to defend your position to the death, whereas I will quit when I get bored. You win.

Whoa now, I wasn't aware we were even in an argument! Now I'm picturing you furiously typing on your keyboard in intense concentration while I'm just tossing off stream of consciousness not-to-be-taken-TOO-seriously crap ...

[Hoke Moseley]

You know it's not a good day for this thread when 3 separate people have posted screenshots of the definition of hipster.

[mrjohnnyb]

I have always preferred beatniks to hipsters, but according to thesaurus.com, the terms are synonymous.

[Purplenoon]

This IS still the Criterion Collection thread, right?

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Don't shoot the messenger...

A bunch of pompous hipster snobs who are more interested in a label than the films themselves.

This seems to be the original 'bomb' that was thrown. Interesting how the subsequent discussion managed to so quickly deflect entirely to the definition of 'hipsterism'. I think the poster was actually more focused on the idea of snobbery, pomposity, and the idea of purchasing the label for the label's sake to inflate one's on-line status. He could more effectively have left out the hipster reference and instead included, perhaps, pretentiousness, self-satisfaction, and tendencies toward egotism and self-promotion-and-congratulation.

I don't think he meant to malign either the folks at Criterion or the average poster here, any more than I would want to, but there is an element in the thread that has gained some strength in recent years which predisposes towards the criticisms he suggests. In the words of the Dothraki, "it is known". Fortunately that's one of the reasons the site's 'ignore' function was designed, so that people could avoid irritations and not just 'boycott' a particular site altogether.

And those of us who raise an eyebrow are neither insecure nor suffering from 'purchasing regrets' as someone fatuously suggested.

And please, the term hipster may have been appropriated from the zoot-suit (google it) wearing, jazz-oriented hepcats of the '40's but there is no other connection whatsoever.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

This seems to be the original 'bomb' that was thrown. Interesting how the subsequent discussion managed to so quickly deflect entirely to the definition of 'hipsterism'. I think the poster was actually more focused on the idea of snobbery, pomposity, and the idea of purchasing the label for the label's sake to inflate one's on-line status. He could more effectively have left out the hipster reference and instead included, perhaps, pretentiousness, self-satisfaction, and tendencies toward egotism and self-promotion-and-congratulation.

I don't think he meant to malign either the folks at Criterion or the average poster here, any more than I would want to, but there is an element in the thread that has gained some strength in recent years which predisposes towards the criticisms he suggests. In the words of the Dothraki, "it is known". Fortunately that's one of the reasons the site's 'ignore' function was designed, so that people could avoid irritations and not just 'boycott' a particular site altogether.

And those of us who raise an eyebrow are neither insecure nor suffering from 'purchasing regrets' as someone fatuously suggested.

And please, the term hipster may have been appropriated from the zoot-suit (google it) wearing, jazz-oriented hepcats of the '40's but there is no other connection whatsoever.

Yes, you are correct. And in making that post, my intention was not to imply that people who post on this thread are not genuine in their appreciation of the actual films themselves, but there is an element to the fanbase where it seems that it all begins and ends at Criterion.

[Doctor Jack]

So anywho, anyone watch any Criterion related movies lately?

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

So anywho, anyone watch any Criterion related movies lately?

Well, I watched A TASTE OF HONEY last night for the first time since college (great film, btw) and plan to watch WOMAN OF THE DUNES and Welles' THE IMMORTAL STORY tonight, both for the first time.

[surfdude12]

I loved Devil's Backbone but have one question (please answer if you know):

[Show spoiler]
The movie shows that the juice in the jar holding the dead fetus is basically a cure for ED (erectile dysfunction). Its in the script. They also say in the script that the spine of the fetus is Devil's backbone because the babies were unwanted and thus put in jar. WTF is that about? The fetus has "devil's backbone" (dark spine), so how does that relate to the movie title?? So confused

[Lastyear]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Seriously? You've never seen a hipster wearing a fedora? It's like the cliche thing for a hipster to do and I can't think of anything more old fashioned than that.

Rarely see a hipster in a fedora around here. They usually wear a porkpie hat

[mja345]

Wow, people need to chill out. I'm well-aware of how people perceive Criterion fans. As snobbish a-holes who ignore cinema that isn't seen as high-brow. Very few Criterion films cater to that set IMO. Most are just good films from every era that cater to cinephiles, but I can understand the stereotype. Criterion mostly just releases good films they can get their hands on from any era, nothing more, nothing less. If there are people who latch onto the label to make themselves feel important, then that's on them.

This board is very divided between people who frequent the threads of high-brow labels and those who frequent the threads of lower-brow labels (Code Red, Scorpion, Vestron, Vinegar Syndrome, etc.) I visit both types because I enjoy both kinds of films and I tend to encounter totally different members. I don't view myself as a high-brow fan or a low-brow fan, just a film fan. I'm one of a few posters who overlaps both kinds of threads, not to pat myself on the back, just stating fact. It's as if fans of low-brow cinema see Criterion fans as snobs, and fans of high-brow cinema see fans of low-brow cinema as unsophisticated peons. I'm a fan of both kinds of cinema and hope to be a messenger of peace on these here boards because I visit both kinds of threads. Let's stop this. Kumbayaaaaa haha.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by mja345

This board is very divided between people who frequent the threads of high-brow labels and those who frequent the threads of lower-brow labels (Code Red, Scorpion, Vestron, Vinegar Syndrome, etc.) I visit both types because I enjoy both kinds of films and I tend to encounter totally different members. I don't view myself as a high-brow fan or a low-brow fan, just a film fan. I'm one of a few posters who overlaps both kinds of threads, not to pat myself on the back, just stating fact. It's as if fans of low-brow cinema see Criterion fans as snobs, and fans of high-brow cinema see fans of low-brow cinema as unsophisticated peons. I'm a fan of both kinds of cinema and hope to be a messenger of peace on these here boards because I visit both kinds of threads.

I've always had one foot in the ivory tower and one foot in the gutter when it comes to cinema, so I also frequent the drive-in/grindhouse studio threads along with the Criterion and Cohen Media threads. (I would mention Olive as a highbrow label, but they released the Pauly Shore movie, Bio-Dome, which I love and cannot go without.)

Kino Lorber is one studio I've come to love, because they seem to cater to all tastes. There's room in my collection for both Separate Tables and Steele Justice.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I've always had one foot in the ivory tower and one foot in the gutter when it comes to cinema, so I also frequent the drive-in/grindhouse studio threads along with the Criterion and Cohen Media threads. (I would mention Olive as a highbrow label, but they released the Pauly Shore movie, Bio-Dome, which I love and cannot go without.)

Kino Lorber is one studio I've come to love, because they seem to cater to all tastes. There's room in my collection for both Separate Tables and Steele Justice.

Kino and Olive seem to go high and low. Owl, you're one of the few members I see in both kinds of threads. There needs to be more overlap of 50s and 60s French cinema with 80s horror and T&A comedies. Nothing better than following up a Criterion movie with a T&A comedy. Proper balance in life.

[pedromvu]

I can predict this thread will have a lot less posts after the moderators arrive , it's happened many times, and this message will probably be gone too.

Anyway, @bwdowiak, I enjoy your film posts in the time I've been knowing you from this thread, but I feel like this has happened before, and I am not accusing you or anything but I think it would be better to take these silly posts less seriously.

I also agree with you that the original post that started this about some other member having half of his collection being criterion is silly, but I feel like one longer and clearer post would be enough to let us know your stance instead of a never-ending angry discussion over a silly thing like that.

After all this is the internet and you should know you are not going to change anybody else opinion

[ajburke]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by mja345

wow, people need to chill out. I'm well-aware of how people perceive criterion fans. As snobbish a-holes who ignore cinema that isn't seen as high-brow. Very few criterion films cater to that set imo. Most are just good films from every era that cater to cinephiles, but i can understand the stereotype. Criterion mostly just releases good films they can get their hands on from any era, nothing more, nothing less. If there are people who latch onto the label to make themselves feel important, then that's on them.

This board is very divided between people who frequent the threads of high-brow labels and those who frequent the threads of lower-brow labels (code red, scorpion, vestron, vinegar syndrome, etc.) i visit both types because i enjoy both kinds of films and i tend to encounter totally different members. I don't view myself as a high-brow fan or a low-brow fan, just a film fan. I'm one of a few posters who overlaps both kinds of threads, not to pat myself on the back, just stating fact. It's as if fans of low-brow cinema see criterion fans as snobs, and fans of high-brow cinema see fans of low-brow cinema as unsophisticated peons. I'm a fan of both kinds of cinema and hope to be a messenger of peace on these here boards because i visit both kinds of threads. Let's stop this.

Originally Posted by mja345

kumbayaaaaa haha.

Originally Posted by the great owl

i've always had one foot in the ivory tower and one foot in the gutter when it comes to cinema, so i also frequent the drive-in/grindhouse studio threads along with the criterion and cohen media threads. (i would mention olive as a highbrow label, but they released the pauly shore movie, bio-dome, which i love and cannot go without.)

kino lorber is one studio i've come to love, because they seem to cater to all tastes. There's room in my collection for both separate tables and steele justice.

Oh, you guys. This is why you are both among my favorite members.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by mja345

Wow, people need to chill out. I'm well-aware of how people perceive Criterion fans. As snobbish a-holes who ignore cinema that isn't seen as high-brow. Very few Criterion films cater to that set IMO. Most are just good films from every era that cater to cinephiles, but I can understand the stereotype. Criterion mostly just releases good films they can get their hands on from any era, nothing more, nothing less. If there are people who latch onto the label to make themselves feel important, then that's on them.

This board is very divided between people who frequent the threads of high-brow labels and those who frequent the threads of lower-brow labels (Code Red, Scorpion, Vestron, Vinegar Syndrome, etc.) I visit both types because I enjoy both kinds of films and I tend to encounter totally different members. I don't view myself as a high-brow fan or a low-brow fan, just a film fan. I'm one of a few posters who overlaps both kinds of threads, not to pat myself on the back, just stating fact. It's as if fans of low-brow cinema see Criterion fans as snobs, and fans of high-brow cinema see fans of low-brow cinema as unsophisticated peons. I'm a fan of both kinds of cinema and hope to be a messenger of peace on these here boards because I visit both kinds of threads. Let's stop this. Kumbayaaaaa haha.

[Show spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jorJh8DTMVM

[belcherman]

I wasn't going to chime in again on this "conversation," but all this talk about hipsters and neo-hipsters makes me think of this:

https://youtu.be/tOp_77i58Ks

From 1993. Sui generis hipster doofus.

Smile, folks.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

[Show spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jorJh8DTMVM

I gotta say, Ray, we all need "Wind Beneath Our Wings" sometimes. Thanks, pal.