The Criterion Collection

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Seems you not only “dismissed” some very classic and essential films (you know, for ‘whatever reason’), but you also should study up on film history.

Yeah, but I have friends. Win some, lose some.

[Scottie]

In case you haven't seen it yet, here's the trailer for the new 4K restoration of The Silence of the Lambs.

New trailer for The Silence of the Lambs | BFI - YouTube

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Seems you not only “dismissed” some very classic and essential films (you know, for ‘whatever reason’), but you also should study up on film history.

what a nice, warm welcome!

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by iScottie

In case you haven't seen it yet, here's the trailer for the new 4K restoration of The Silence of the Lambs.

[Show spoiler]New trailer for The Silence of the Lambs | BFI - YouTube

That is absolutely beautiful. And the grain was lovely. It looked just like it looked when I saw it in the theater. Wow.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

That is absolutely beautiful. And the grain was lovely. It looked just like it looked when I saw it in the theater. Wow.

I was a youngster when the film was in theaters. My buddy and I saw TMNT 2 while his dad went to see The Silence of the Lambs.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Straw Dogs, Plague Dogs, Strontium Dog, Reservoir Dogs. Just put a random word in front of Dog(s) and it sounds cool, even if it's a meaningless title.

Tiny Dogs.

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by italy12

I haven't heard much about Tiny Furniture since its release. Can we discuss that, please??

Criterion bought into the Dunham hype and lost. Once Girls arrived, most people realized that she's nothing more than an egotistical joke that has no idea how satire works. The only groups that didn't figure this out were HBO (who continued to renew her show and are planning another project in the near-future) and the mainstream media (who bought into ego and now believe everyone who graduated high school after 2000 acts like her and therefore made ageism towards younger people acceptable).

Tiny Furniture was a tumor that metastasized to create Girls. Lena Dunham needs to apologize for the multicultural monster she created.

Also, Tiny Furniture has the worst Criterion cover ever. The only person who could have thought that cover looked good had to have been Dunham.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by mja345

Ray, don't forget your sixth question, which you constantly PM to board members.

Would you like to perform a scene by scene re-enactment of "In the Realm of the Senses" with me? I have a small office down in the San Fernando Valley that would be perfect.

Harvey Weinstein said something very similar to me back in 1999 when I was a waiter in New York.

Only his "office" was the men's room at Ruth's Chris Steak House.

...this is the first I've had the courage to talk about it publicly.

[ajburke]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

1. Top Gun...Criterion worthy?

2. Digipaks...beautiful creatures of god or seeds of the Antichrist?

3. Lars Von Trier...genius or sick bastard?...and how do you feel about genital mutilation in cinema?

4. Free association...Jon Mulvaney...your thoughts?

5. Have you seen Salo?

Umm, I was told I could renew my membership here...

1. I kinda love Top Gun, and I think it's a monolith of unintentional comedy that would be impossible to recreate today. If you're on board with that reasoning, then maybe it IS Criterion worthy.

2. The downside is that digipaks take up more space, but on the bright side, they typically include a really nice book, so... no real preference.

3. Love LvT. I've only seen a handful of his films, so I'm really hoping Criterion can release Dogville and others. That said, not a big Antichrist fan.

4. Wishing that I could be Mulvaney sometimes causes me to fall into existential despair.

5. Haven't seen Salo. I've been willing to watch it for some time, but can't bring myself to blind buy it.

PS - Where do I send my $2 in dues, again? Also, do you take check?

[jbieste]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I'm aware that all five of these questions are jokes, but I don't even understand these references....

Ray Jackson is The Man around here. Ever notice there's always one guy who's just a little too cool. The guy who shows up and the fun just starts to happen. When you were little and went to a birthday party the Moms' would always make sure sure that kid got ice cream with his cake. They'd push Becky over to ask how he liked the cake.

That's Ray. Rumor is Mulvaney hates him but it's because of Ray he tries a little harder to be liked. When titles don't get announced or discs have to be replaced Mulvaney makes it right because he knows Ray would never have let it happen. He'll drive by the next week and take out Ray's mail box or knock over his trash bins. Then we'll get something announced like Le Samouraï, a little payback to us for Ray taking a hit. Mulvaney just wants Ray to notice, just wants Ray to tell the world that if Ray Jackson had a hero it would be John Mulvaney.

Ray's not perfect. Every once in awhile he'll do something that's a little off. HR will slap him down and issue a warning about such behavior but you'll have just a little more respect for him. So don't let the talk get to you because no matter what, just a little respect and Ray will always have your back.

So appreciate Ray. He'll let you poke fun at him and laugh, then everyone will laugh because Ray's that kind of guy. If you try and show him up he'll buy you a drink and tell you about the time he fell on his face and made an ass of himself. No one will really believe him but everyone will feel he's our guy, and so will you.

[ShellOilJunior]

The most convincing evidence that Jon Mulvaney exists is Ray Jackson.

Who else could be the person ignoring Ray's emails?

[koberulz]

*backs slowly towards the door*

[italy12]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

Criterion bought into the Dunham hype and lost. Once Girls arrived, most people realized that she's nothing more than an egotistical joke that has no idea how satire works. The only groups that didn't figure this out were HBO (who continued to renew her show and are planning another project in the near-future) and the mainstream media (who bought into ego and now believe everyone who graduated high school after 2000 acts like her and therefore made ageism towards younger people acceptable).

Tiny Furniture was a tumor that metastasized to create Girls. Lena Dunham needs to apologize for the multicultural monster she created.

Also, Tiny Furniture has the worst Criterion cover ever. The only person who could have thought that cover looked good had to have been Dunham.

And what are you going to apologize for, huh??

[theater dreamer]

Oh Jesus, Ray. Too soon, man.

I want to make it clear that I am not making light of the allegations that have been levied against Weinstein. While I am all for the bedrock legal tenet of innocent until proven guilty (hell, I studied law in college), some of the things I've read seems pretty much incontrovertible. Again, if the charges are proven to have merit, and he's found guilty, cast him into the deepest, darkest recess of a prison where they keep the scum of the Earth.

What I am ok with, however, is poking a stick at Hollywood, and its egregious hypocrisy. Now that Weinstein has been outed for being a parasite, the indignation of some has me looking for a vomitorium. His antics (yes, a euphemism) have been common knowledge in Hollywood for some time, and dismissed with comments like, "oh, that's just Harvey being Harvey". Now these same insects of the social elite are coming out and condemning him. Here's an idea to the power brokers in Hollywood: next time that you hear one of your own is likely guilty of rape, and various forms of sexual assault, how about turning the scum bag in, and not just laughing it off?

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Harvey Weinstein said something very similar to me back in 1999 when I was a waiter in New York.

Only his "office" was the men's room at Ruth's Chris Steak House.

...this is the first I've had the courage to talk about it publicly.

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by italy12

And what are you going to apologize for, huh??

What did I do wrong?

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Harvey Weinstein said something very similar to me back in 1999 when I was a waiter in New York.

Only his "office" was the men's room at Ruth's Chris Steak House.

...this is the first I've had the courage to talk about it publicly.

Harv put a little twist on it, didn't he? He asked you to masturbate into a potted plant while he watched.

[Feiereisel]

Ugh, these anti-Dunham screeds never fly with me. The artist is not the art, no matter how invisible the distinction may seem, and the tone of these discussions makes me more and more uncomfortable the more I see them take place, both in this forum and beyond. Bad look, bad take; the knives, so to speak, come out with far too much glee and urgency, tipping the whole thing into the realm of a spiteful personal attack in a way that makes me queasy.

They also almost always smack of the "If it's not perfect, it must be terrible" logic of contemporary internet criticism, as though the work has nothing to offer, which as flawed as it occasionally is--I'll not stump for the middle seasons of Girls--just doesn't wash.

And then there's the way the discussion implicitly supports the idea that canons, like the one established by the Collection, need very stringent gatekeepers to ensure quality, as though quality has any sort of truly objective measure. This "sacred-canon" fallacy allows critical bodies to actively devalue works of art they deem to be unfit for specious and arbitrary reasons, drowning out voices and perspectives that arguably do have a lot to offer. This is an absolute nonstarter for me. I've argued before that the "important" in Criterion's mission statement is intentionally vague, an open-ended word choice that gives the company the freedom to incorporate an diverse range of films into their collection rather than a yardstick by which quality can be directly and accurately assessed, and still think this is the case.

Same thing happened with the Baumbach/Gerwig stuff last week, and to some a lesser extent with the Personal Shopper discussion after the review of the disc went up. Makes me wonder how many people are lurking here, worried to jump in for fear of being sliced for liking something they honestly respond to or feel does have something to offer. And that worries me.

[Buscemi]

The problem with Dunham is that all of her work (Tiny Furniture, Girls, that memoir she wrote that didn't sell) is an extension of herself. She doesn't try to separate the art from the artist. She puts herself front and center and doesn't care who she hurts in the process.

Which also goes into another problem that goes beyond Dunham: we are too nice to vanity projects. In the past, we weren't afraid to call out things for being too self-indulgent. But now, all we do is play to the filmmaker's egos. James Franco could sure use a talking to about his love of himself in his slapped together projects (though I've read The Disaster Artist is good).

[mja345]

See, I'm not someone who thinks Criterion should stick to some arbitrary level of quality. If Criterion put out "Death Wish" (1974), for instance, I would think it's great because it's a very notable film in its particular genre. Others may feel like its beneath Criterion. If they put out "Commando" (1985), that would also be great because it's the pinnacle of absurd action films. These would also be two huge sellers for the label.

I'm not a fan of Dunham's work. I would never buy "Tiny Furniture", but if there were some people who were happy it got released, great. Let's be honest, the vitriol regarding Dunham is exacerbated by the fact she is a very physically unattractive woman. Not saying it's right, but it's true. If she were an attractive woman doing the exact same show, getting naked all the time, with the same act off-screen, the criticism would decrease dramatically.

Buscemi's criticism of Dunham above is very valid, but I've seen a lot of criticism of her which basically boils down to, "Damn, this girl is ugly." And that's unfortunate.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

Which also goes into another problem that goes beyond Dunham: we are too nice to vanity projects. In the past, we weren't afraid to call out things for being too self-indulgent. But now, all we do is play to the filmmaker's egos. James Franco could sure use a talking to about his love of himself in his slapped together projects (though I've read The Disaster Artist is good).

I think it is fine to criticize the movie as a self-indulgent vanity project, but to pretend that self-indulgent vanity projects used to get criticized more harshly seems to be more based on nostalgia than fact.