The Criterion Collection

[20th Century Boy]

It is possible for people to dislike Woody Allen and Lena Dunham's work because it simply doesn't resonate with them. Their personalities/scandals probably don't help, but some people found out about these aspects of their personalities AFTER assessing much of their work. Yes. It's possible.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I'm totally in the same boat as you. I don't find her unattractive at all, but I am put off by the large arm tattoo she has. That's just not my thing. I've not seen Tiny Furniture nor Girls but I did see her host an episode of SNL and I found her to be appealing at the time.

Just to reiterate my earlier post, she's an outspoken young female and sometimes that all people need to hate on a person, especially males, and especially when they're commenting on the internet.

Guys who are misogynists (I went to college with a ton of these types of guys and have worked with a lot of these types) don't like women ever to be outspoken, but the vitriol is heightened dramatically when it's a woman who's not conventionally attractive.

My GF has a co-worker who dated a guy who's a complete misogynist a-hole. We saw "A Most Violent Year" with them and another couple in theaters and he was saying afterwards that he likes Jessica Chastain as an actress. Knowing how he thinks, I said to him, "But I thought you didn't like feminists." He goes, "Oh, it's okay because she's hot." My buddy and I just rolled our eyes.

That's how these kind of guys think. Fortunately, most of the guys that post here are enlightened. But so many dudes aren't. Dunham is a prime target for these types for reasons that go far beyond her actual work. Most of them have never even watched her work.

[shane01]

We still have a way to go if we can't judge a female artist's work/career without discussing if she's attractive. I don't think people are discussing Joe Swanberg or Sean Baker's looks. Whatever you think of Dunham's work, her looks shouldn't come into the discussion. I get that she often uses her own body in her work, but debating whether she's hot or not outside of the work feels gross.

[Feiereisel]

Originally Posted by shane01

We still have a way to go if we can't judge a female artist's work/career without discussing if she's attractive. I don't think people are discussing Joe Swanberg or Sean Baker's looks. Whatever you think of Dunham's work, her looks shouldn't come into the discussion. I get that she often uses her own body in her work, but debating whether she's hot or not outside of the work feels gross.

Thank you.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by shane01

We still have a way to go if we can't judge a female artist's work/career without discussing if she's attractive. I don't think people are discussing Joe Swanberg or Sean Baker's looks. Whatever you think of Dunham's work, her looks shouldn't come into the discussion. I get that she often uses her own body in her work, but debating whether she's hot or not outside of the work feels gross.

I'm on board with this. I felt compelled to write what I did, however, mostly as a response to some previous posts describing her as physically unattractive.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by shane01

We still have a way to go if we can't judge a female artist's work/career without discussing if she's attractive. I don't think people are discussing Joe Swanberg or Sean Baker's looks. Whatever you think of Dunham's work, her looks shouldn't come into the discussion. I get that she often uses her own body in her work, but debating whether she's hot or not outside of the work feels gross.

I agree, but denying that this is part of the reason why there has been so much hatred around Dunham is burying one's head in the sand. We can't solve a problem if we deny that it exists.

[Reddington]

Just reading the reviews here and on Beaver for the BFI Region B release of The Wages of Fear. I've only seen the Friedkin remake and have the original in my Criterion wishlist. Interestingly, according to both reviews the BFI has about 5 minutes of additional footage compared to the Criterion BD. Beaver suggests that the BFI is the French theatrical or "uncensored" version. But in a film from 1953, I'm left wondering what might have been cut from a "US" version.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Reddington

Just reading the reviews here and on Beaver for the BFI Region B release of The Wages of Fear. I've only seen the Friedkin remake and have the original in my Criterion wishlist. Interestingly, according to both reviews the BFI has about 5 minutes of additional footage compared to the Criterion BD. Beaver suggests that the BFI is the French theatrical or "uncensored" version. But in a film from 1953, I'm left wondering what might have been cut from a "US" version.

When I found out this morning that my beautiful Criterion Blu-ray of The Wages of Fear is no longer the definitive edition of the movie...

[Feiereisel]

Originally Posted by mja345

I agree, but denying that this is part of the reason why there has been so much hatred around Dunham is burying one's head in the sand. We can't solve a problem if we deny that it exists.

Arguably the solution is to actively reframe the discussion to keep it focused on pertinent/relevant things (i.e. the work itself).

Again, if the conversation about a particular artist seemed clearly focused on the quality of the work rather than verging (by intention or accident) into someone's right to be an artist or their appearance, I would find the discussion less off-putting.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I went with a woman I was completely in love with, and living with, but not involved with -- I know, sounds weird. Whatever.

But I will never forget that experience of watching the film with Annie. We left the theater, barely talked, went to the bar, and then discussed it. I really believed it was terrifying. This was a long time ago. People weren't that used to this sort of story. Now, everyone is familiar with not only the film itself, but many parodies of it.

But watch it for the first time in the theater, when it first came out? Damn. That was an experience.

I can say I was there when Army of Shadows first played in US theaters. A terrific experience.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I went with a woman I was completely in love with, and living with, but not involved with -- I know, sounds weird. Whatever.

But I will never forget that experience of watching the film with Annie. We left the theater, barely talked, went to the bar, and then discussed it. I really believed it was terrifying. This was a long time ago. People weren't that used to this sort of story. Now, everyone is familiar with not only the film itself, but many parodies of it.

But watch it for the first time in the theater, when it first came out? Damn. That was an experience.

When The Silence of the Lambs was first released, I went to see it with a group of guys in my dorm during my freshman year of college.

When I returned, I had my dorm room to myself, and I just sort of paced back and forth for an hour or two while I was thinking about the movie. I love it when a film stuns me like that.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by shane01

We still have a way to go if we can't judge a female artist's work/career without discussing if she's attractive. I don't think people are discussing Joe Swanberg or Sean Baker's looks. Whatever you think of Dunham's work, her looks shouldn't come into the discussion. I get that she often uses her own body in her work, but debating whether she's hot or not outside of the work feels gross.

You're right, but I don't think anyone involved in the current discussion is actually doing that. Really I'm not all that familiar with Dunham's work but I know who she is because she has a much higher profile than many female filmmakers, and I know that she receives a lot of vitriol from people. I think it's because she's an outspoken young female, someone else thinks it because she is perceived to be unattractive. We are not justifying these beliefs, just speculating on what it is that people don't like about her because I'll hazard a guess that many of those people haven't seen much of her work either.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I can say I was there when Army of Shadows first played in US theaters. A terrific experience.

I can imagine.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

When The Silence of the Lambs was first released, I went to see it with a group of guys in my dorm during my freshman year of college.

When I returned, I had my dorm room to myself, and I just sort of paced back and forth for an hour or two while I was thinking about the movie. I love it when a film stuns me like that.

Yeah, there's no real experience like that. I was like that the other night after re-watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003). It drains the life out of you, makes you feel like life itself is just a worthless pursuit. It's beautifully shot (the cinematography is amazing) and it has a gorgeous cast. It's ironically beautiful and one of the sickest things you'll ever see. And I've seen a lot of horror movies.

But when I returned from The Silence of the Lambs I was different. I can't explain it. But it was an experience that changed me somehow. And I had already read the book before I saw the film. But there is something about sitting there in the dark theater, watching something execute on the screen. It's different.

Anyway, sounds like we both had intense experiences with the film. Good to know.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Reddington

Just reading the reviews here and on Beaver for the BFI Region B release of The Wages of Fear. I've only seen the Friedkin remake and have the original in my Criterion wishlist. Interestingly, according to both reviews the BFI has about 5 minutes of additional footage compared to the Criterion BD. Beaver suggests that the BFI is the French theatrical or "uncensored" version. But in a film from 1953, I'm left wondering what might have been cut from a "US" version.

From the incomplete description on the IMDb, it sounds as if there are three cuts of the film.
152 minutes - original French theatrical release
148 minutes - final director's cut (not clear when this was prepared)
131(?) minutes - original US theatrical release which was heavily cut to remove "anti-American" sentiment (ie, criticizing the policies American companies practice in Latin American countries).

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

You're right, but I don't think anyone involved in the current discussion is actually doing that. Really I'm not all that familiar with Dunham's work but I know who she is because she has a much higher profile than many female filmmakers, and I know that she receives a lot of vitriol from people. I think it's because she's an outspoken young female, someone else thinks it because she is perceived to be unattractive. We are not justifying these beliefs, just speculating on what it is that people don't like about her because I'll hazard a guess that many of those people haven't seen much of her work either.

For a lot of people who have problems with her, I think their frustration goes beyond her being outspoken. You can be outspoken while also exhibiting virtues such as humility and respect for others with whom you disagree on various political social issues. She has demonstrated through a pattern of behavior over the years that she in incapable of acting in this way, instead coming across as self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, completely sure of herself, and ideologically inflexible to an ingratiating degree. Speaking only for myself, when anyone acts like this over an extended period of time, I end up wanting to put as much distance between myself and that person (and their art) as possible. Whether the person is male or female, attractive or unattractive--these do not enter into the equation.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

...instead coming across as self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, completely sure of herself, and ideologically inflexible to an ingratiating degree. Speaking only for myself, when anyone acts like this over an extended period of time, I end up wanting to put as much distance between myself and that person (and their art) as possible.

...says the guy with the Orson 'Portrait of Humilty' Welles avatar

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

131(?) minutes - original US theatrical release which was heavily cut to remove "anti-American" sentiment (ie, criticizing the policies American companies practice in Latin American countries).

As well as homosexual subtext.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

When The Silence of the Lambs was first released, I went to see it with a group of guys in my dorm during my freshman year of college.

When I returned, I had my dorm room to myself, and I just sort of paced back and forth for an hour or two while I was thinking about the movie. I love it when a film stuns me like that.

While I didn't physically pace back and forth for either, both Dunkirk and Blade Runner 2049 had a similar impact on me - and considerably more so than any other "mainstream" films I've seen for years. So much so in fact that I saw Dunkirk twice and have seen Blade Runner 2049 three times now - with each viewing equally as thought-provoking.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Reddington

While I didn't physically pace back and forth for either, both Dunkirk and Blade Runner 2049 had a similar impact on me - and considerably more so than any other "mainstream" films I've seen for years. So much so in fact that I saw Dunkirk twice and have seen Blade Runner 2049 three times now - with each viewing equally as thought-provoking.

Blade Runner 2049 is my favorite movie of 2017 so far. I was resistant to the idea of a sequel and I had low expectations going into this film, but this turned out to be the biggest cinematic surprise in recent memory.

2017 has produced four bona fide classic films for me so far: Blade Runner 2049, IT, Get Out, and Baby Driver.
In any normal year, any of these four films would have made the number one spot with flying colors, so this year has been quite nice for fans of cinema.

Dunkirk is right up there behind the above four, though. It's been a long time since I've felt so helpless while watching a film. It's my favorite Christopher Nolan movie by a long mile.

(My townhouse is located within walking distance of two big theaters, so I go to a lot of new movies these days, and I review them all.)

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Blade Runner 2049 is my favorite movie of 2017 so far. I was resistant to the idea of a sequel and I had low expectations going into this film, but this turned out to be the biggest cinematic surprise in recent memory.

2017 has produced four bona fide classic films for me so far: Blade Runner 2049, IT, Get Out, and Baby Driver.
In any normal year, any of these four films would have made the number one spot with flying colors, so this year has been quite nice for fans of cinema.

Dunkirk is right up there behind the above four, though. It's been a long time since I've felt so helpless while watching a film. It's my favorite Christopher Nolan movie by a long mile.

(My townhouse is located within walking distance of two big theaters, so I go to a lot of new movies these days, and I review them all.)

Ironically, while I like the original Blade Runner it never grabbed me as it did others, and I am certainly not precious about it. Perhaps that freed me to enjoy Villeneuve's sequel without set expectations, or the laundry-list of demands that many fans had and which seemingly led to disappointment for some. Definitely my film of the year, too.

Also agree that Dunkirk is Nolan's best.

Interesting fact: The train scene at the end of the film was shot on the steam preservation railway my father volunteers at in the UK. They were all sworn to secrecy prior to its release.