The Criterion Collection

[llj]

Originally Posted by mja345

The ultimate scene, in a great film, that would never fly today:

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

Heh. You know, I think it could still fly. Bond was always an anti-hero and he wasn't ever really supposed to be a good person. They've tried to make him more likable over the years but being a womanizer was always a part of his personality. And he still IS a womanizer, just a less obvious one now.

Don Draper got away with it every week on Mad Men and people still got it, because people knew Don wasn't a good person.

[llj]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Why, only SJWs have the right to label others who don't see rape and sexism in everything?

If you don't like what I write, exclude me from your "safe space" (i.e. add to ignore list).

See, while I've had my own run-ins with SJWs as well, this kind of condescending attitude defeats whatever point you tried to make, and I find that people who make fun of "liberals" for terms such as "safe spaces" and all that eventually can't take it when "telling it like it is" turns around on them.

[llj]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

I love all the outrage over Sixteen Candles but not The Razor trilogy or any of the other Japanese exploitation movies Criterion has the rights to.

Part of it is because 16 Candles is a mainstream film targeted at a generalized audience. Exploitation films are for a niche audience and expected to be picked up more by genre enthusiasts and/or weirdos. It's the same as railing against porn--basically pointless since everything that offends you about them is basically the point of those films. Sixteen Candles isn't going out to explicitly offend people, but still does, that's what gets people going.

So there's that conflict there.

I'm not offended by Sixteen Candles, but I can see where some people are coming from. All that said, unlike some of the others here, I don't think it's "unworthy" of Criterion for being racially/feministically insensitive. I just think it's a mediocre film at best and not very important other than being John Hughes directing debut

[jw007]

Ahh, I'm kicking myself for forgetting to vote in ShellOilJunior's poll!

Well, I love the results!

One question, jw007 would like to know if there was a "top posters" list, cause I remember one question in the past was about who the top members in the Criterion thread were and listed them.

Happy 2017 everyone! May the year be filled with plenty of Criterion film enrichment and entertainment!

[Scottie]

Hopefully 2017 brings us a standalone version of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

[I]About the voting:

Thanks a lot for all the info about the votes

But I am seeing something odd, it seems McCabe & Mrs Miller doesn't have any votes in Best release of the year or best new spine , I understand if no one else picked it, but at least I voted for it in those categories did it really only got 1 vote?

[ThisKid]

Originally Posted by MTRodaba2468

On a slightly different topic, a user on another forum I frequent came up with a new theory on the letters in the clue...



A long shot, indeed, but one I could get behind...

That's a very good idea.

Again, with dual meaning clues, this maybe true.

Polyester is a satire on suburban life.

This would definitely fit in the collection.

I can even smell it coming.
*nudge nudge*

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by BTSMGL

...I am not quite sure if you're being serious here or not, Smegma.



Very weird that you're all attacking me for thinking movies that depict rape in a positive/humorous light are problematic. Hmmmm.

For the love of God, don't show this guy Multiple Maniacs.

[nitin]

Lee Kline has said in the past that Sixteen Candles was a personal favourite and would be a dream release. I don't think there is anything more as to its inclusion than that, personal taste.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Smegma

I was questioning BTSMGL's moral outrage over the utterance of the word 'f*ggot', by a teenager, in the 1987 movie "Monster Squad".

Moral outrage? He said it was unfortunate.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Hopefully 2017 brings us a standalone version of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg.

I think you're probably best off buying the box set and selling off the pieces you don't want.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Thanks a lot for all the info about the votes

But I am seeing something odd, it seems McCabe & Mrs Miller doesn't have any votes in Best release of the year or best new spine , I understand if no one else picked it, but at least I voted for it in those categories did it really only got 1 vote?

Good catch. I tallied the scores with COUNTIF and the film was listed with an ampersand on the summary sheet so it missed it. I've updated the post.

McCabe received 1 vote for worst cover, 19 points for best new spine (3rd Place) and 7 points for best release.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I think you're probably best off buying the box set and selling off the pieces you don't want.

Already went that route.

[Scottie]

Just watched Dheepan. If this isn't one of the best films of this decade, I don't know what is.

[UncleBuckWild]

I know it's a long shot, but could the Cuban flag indicate Memories of Underdevelopment.

... since it was recently restored by Scorsese’s Film Foundation.
http://wexarts.org/film-video/leadin...ilm-foundation

Or perhaps part of the World Cinema Project, Vol. 2?

[Gull Cottage]

I'm hoping the box with the question mark is Tom DiCillo's brilliant and underrated Box Of Moonlight!

[weir]

I see someone has already started a card for Sixteen Candles.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Sixte...lu-ray/171335/

[BTSMGL]

Originally Posted by Smegma

I am 100% serious. What makes you draw a moral line in the sand over one thing but not another?

I remain incredibly stupefied that someone insists a thing can't be both accurate and unfortunate at the same time.

Are we even sure Smegma knows what "unfortunate" means?

I can't believe that I'm being asked to defend my opinion that the word "f*ggot" being prevalent and common in the 1980s was unfortunate.

I can see Smegma reading a book set in the antebellum South and being INCENSED that no one's calling black people the n-word.

No one's calling for censorship here, dude. I'm saying it's unfortunate there was a time in the recent past a word like "f*ggot" could be wielded so casually and cavalierly (as seen in the movie "Monster Squad", which I'll reiterate I am a big fan of). Chill the hell out, Smegma.

[BTSMGL]

Originally Posted by senseabove

We're talking about fiction, not depicting reality. John Hughes did not make a documentary, and neither Mark Twain nor Harper Lee was writing reportage, but their fictions reflect features of the social world in which they were created, features that were selected—consciously or unconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, critically or uncritically—by the authors. You'll find plenty of people who appreciate Huckleberry Finn while acknowledging that, while period-appropriate, it's, yes, unfortunate that racism was so prevalent that giving people implicitly pejorative nicknames based on physical features over which they have no control was perfectly acceptable. We can talk about how wonderful a book Huckleberry Finn is, how clever a writer Mark Twain was, and also about the prevalence and function of racism in late-19th Century Literature from the American South (and, for that matter, why it's different from racism in early-20th Century Literature from the American South, like Harper Lee). There's also a difference between depicting racism accurately and uncritically, like Twain does, and depicting racism accurately and critically, like Lee does.

And no, no one has suggested that we make the completely illegitimate move from specific, uncritical instances of racism and sexism to condemning all depictions of all bad things ever. Nor is anyone saying Criterion shouldn't release Sixteen Candles because of any racism or sexism or that anyone else shouldn't watch it and enjoy it, by the way, though some have questioned its artistic merit and whether that warrants inclusion in the collection. It has been suggested that, if Criterion is releasing Sixteen Candles, it might be good for them to acknowledge in some way that the movie uncritically depicts racism and sexism, not so it can be avoided by "Social Justice Warriors" who want to eject it from their safe space, but so that those features of the movie can be contextualized.

Because we can still talk about racism and sexism, how it surfaces in 1980s American teen comedies, point out uncritical instances of sexism and racism and why they're a problem, still enjoy the fictions in which they occur, and still be aware that there are problems with sexism and racism beyond them.

Some of us are saying "You can't judge Sixteen Candles for its racism and sexism because of the time and context in which it was made." Others of us are saying, "Okay, but let's be aware of that context and not let it slide by without comment." That's all.

^^^ What they said, better than I could've.

Here's another example that might help...

Brian K. Vaughan currently writes a book called "Paper Girls" which is set in the 1980s. In one of the first issues (if not the very first, I can't recall) he has one of the main characters call a bully a "f*ggot". Brian K. Vaughan KNOWS this is an incredibly offensive slur, but he also knows that in the 1980s the word wasn't as taboo as it is now, and thus would have been uttered casually. His use of the word doesn't make me wince as much because I know where he's coming from in his use, though it did take me by surprise (purposefully, since they dedicated an entire splash page to the character yelling the word, for shock value). The fact that almost immediately afterwards a second character scolds the first one for using it also helps.

The movie "Monster Squad", which was released in 1987, has a scene where one of the main characters calls his teacher a "f*ggot" behind his back. It would not be inconceivable to believe that the writers of the movie didn't give much of a thought to it, since as we've already established ad nauseam the word was prevalent and common in those years. Not as many people were enlightened to how harmful the word is. Thus, the movie's use of the word is, for lack of a better word, earnest. Not malicious per se (it's not directed towards a homosexual), but sincere.

If you still can't understand my point, then carry on Smegma.

[MeMynonsense]

Watched The Phantom Carriage in the wee hours of new year’s morning and it was quite the haunting experience I was looking for.
The film is nothing if not a technical accomplishment in visual storytelling and uses everything from translucent superimpositions, multiple-exposures, colour-tinted photography to create some stunningly unsettling imagery. The relatively straight-forward supernatural account is told through a complex series of meandering flashbacks and eventually works like morality tale much like Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.
My viewing pleasure was further elevated by the spectacularly moody experimental score by KTL - creepy, uninhibited, atmospheric that brilliantly complements the eerie visuals. As Pro-B mentioned in his review Matti Bye’s orchestral score is more conventionally buoyant that might get a tad overbearing at times.

Going in I was aware of Bergman’s reverence for TPC and the impact it had on some of his more famous works particularly The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries but had absolutely no clue that it also served as the inspiration for the famous “Here’s Johnny” sequence in The Shining!
The Phantom Carriage is one of the best advertisements of early, inventive bag-of-tricks film-making and necessary recounting of one of the most important life lessons - Don’t get killed on New Year’s Eve