The Criterion Collection

[TajSamKojiJesam]

Originally Posted by mja345

If you really want to get into Yakuza films, I'd get into Arrow's "Battles Without Honor and Humanity" set and watch them first (they've been re-released individually). Then, I'd go to "Pale Flower", which is a masterpiece IMO. Then, I'd go with the Suzuki films, which are almost spoofs of the genre. I love Suzuki, but I wouldn't start with his films because he would make one think that the entire genre is kind of daft. Then, you can get into the Takashi Miike and Johnnie To stuff. That's how I got deep into the Yakuza genre. Just my two cents.

I actually wouldn't recommend the BWHaH set (even though the movies themselves are great) for a newbie to yakuza films because the series is packed with characters and events unraveling at a very fast pace so it can be really difficult to follow what's going on. But yeah, Seijun Suzuki may not be the obvious first choice either. So all in all, I'd say Pale Flower and Pigs and Battleships are probably the best two to start with.

[MJD64]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Except none of those need Criterion editions because the current discs (or 4K discs in the case of Moonlight & Ex Machina) are more than sufficient. Let's stop wasting spine numbers with wishlist titles Criterion doesn't need.

I was giving my own interpretation of reading that clue and there are scores of Criterion releases where the PQ is fine on a previous release (The Breakfast Club being a recent example) and Criterion improves on supplements (which Under The Skin is fairly light on). Aren't you the same guy who felt compelled last year to jump on my post hoping for a Criterion release of Excalibur with the admonition that Warners doesn't license titles (when there were plenty of Warners titles already in the collection or forthcoming)? That title is now strongly rumored for eventual release.

For the record, I'm not one of those hyperbolic posters wishing unrealistically for any and all favorites to be issued through Criterion. I'll post what I like, and if you don't like it feel free to put me on ignore...and spare me your rude, Voice Of God retorts (which seem to be your specialty).

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by yarulbcool

Pasolini, Rossellini, Eisenstein, the list goes on and on. I would even argue all of Tarkovsky's work, despite his issues with the party in USSR, has a deep connection with Hegel and Marx. All of these folks make Moore look like he's about to go vote in favor of the war in Iraq or something.

.

These days he probably would, the effin sell out.

[randomengine]

Originally Posted by paustin

I'd like to see Criterion do The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, it has to be on their list as much Gilliam as they have.

Absolutely. I had just mentioned that in conversation with my father last week.

[Swift1246]

Please don’t talk politics in the Criterion thread. It’s 2018 and we all see enough of that shit everywhere else in the world.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by mja345

I write legislation for a living and work with politicians all the time and the thing that's so f**ked up is both sides are in the pockets of corporate interests, just in different ways. Very few of them represent the constituents that vote for them. Conservatives do it blatantly, while liberals try to throw you off the scent by making you think that they're the good guys. I'm a liberal dude, but most Democratic politicians are pure shit, just in a more subtle way than their Republican counterparts. The most glaring difference is Democrats don't pander to the religious right, which is frankly one of the most disgusting factions of our society. When you see politics up close, you hold your principals dear, but reject virtually every politician around because they usually get obliterated by the system.

As for Michael Moore, he's a cheerleader. He doesn't really further discussion, but just re-enforces pre-conceived notions. The man has talent, but doesn't always put it to the best use. When you compare him to a guy like Errol Morris, who lets his work stand on its own, Moore can't compare. Morris, as far as I'm concerned, is the documentary filmmaker that is the gold standard. Probably along with the Maysles. Great documentary filmmakers like Eugene and Andrew Jarecki and Joshua Oppenheimer have clearly been influenced by both Morris and the Maysles in terms of getting to the core of truth.

I'm halfway through Wormwood right now on Netflix and so far, it's incredible. But I've come to expect nothing less from Mr. Morris.

[GaragePoet]

so what's all this nonsense?

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by GaragePoet

so what's all this nonsense?

[Show spoiler]

Only the thing this thread has been talking about for the last day.

[MifuneFan]

Go back a couple pages and start reading.

[GaragePoet]

ah, i glanced at the last couple pages but didn't look 8 pages back where it was originally posted.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by yarulbcool

Forgive me everyone for commenting so much, I just find people's responses pretty interesting in terms of the desire to shy away from politics when consuming political messages (that and all the new years alcohol!).

When you say you "see value in unbiased, factual exploration of certain events," you're automatically taking a stance by claiming the rest isn't factual. Because I feel like I need to say it again here, Michael Moore is a bit boring for my tastes (I'm just not really entertained by his work that much) and I don't really give him much attention, but what is conspiratorial about anything he says? What isn't "factual" about his portrayal of class in Western society (you call it economics).

Given this is the criterion thread, it's probably safe to bet most of us are interested in classic, arthouse, or film that has been impactful. Thus, we should probably be willing to read a bit more about the context of these films in terms of what was going on in modern society during their creation. You can't really get that by watching the film itself nor the supplements criterion provides. I really recommend those shying away from politics to read a bit of social theory in between films.

Certainly, I'm not afraid to read into things.

But when it comes to docs, the first thing I think about going in is that I want it to teach me something factual. I have some pretty cool docs in my collection that covers the Battle of Thermopylae, Atlantis, lots of WWII history, and space exploration (For All Mankind being among them). I do not expect (or even want) an alternate interpretation of these subjects that goes against the grain. It's great when they shed light on details and subjects I was otherwise oblivious to, but if they ever started pushing an agenda (like, I dunno, saying the Allies should have lost WWII and let Germania become a thing), then wouldn't they lose credibility?

But those are subjects that can be substantiated by facts and primary sources. They're objective. What Moore covers is a lot more subjective. So I guess what I should have said is that I prefer objective subjects than subjective--history, science, nature I can dig, but social and political issues can be a hit or a miss for me.

As I peruse FB and various articles online, I find we live in a weird time where truth (facts?) are harder to figure out, since it's easy for one potentially wrong or biased source to proliferate data across larger areas. And there's always some kind of fear-mongering and shaming behind these posts. They're made for an immediate, sensationalist reaction that will spur more proliferation, and likely makes money for somebody. Myths wind up becoming truths. I think Moore does something similar for films. They're fun films to see, sure, but I don't necessarily agree with them all.

When I mentioned economics, I was thinking specifically of Roger and Me. Not sure where this talk of shootings came out of that.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by GaragePoet

so what's all this nonsense?

[Show spoiler]

Is that supposed to me Miami Vice in the bottom corner?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Is that supposed to me Miami Vice in the bottom corner?

The Scarlet Empress (1934) ("M" Press)

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

The Scarlet Empress (1934) ("M" Press)

Awesome deduction.

I'm no good at figuring these clues out. I take it the bowling ball heading for the bullets is Bowling for Columbine, and maybe the big tree is Tree of Life. Seems too obvious though. No clue about anything else.

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Is that supposed to me Miami Vice in the bottom corner?

What's with that face? Miami Vice is a masterpiece.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

What's with that face? Miami Vice is a masterpiece.

The face was inquisitive. I use it to express myself thinking. Nothing to get defensive about.

[Scottie]

A special edition of Miami Vice with both cuts remastered would be a dream come true.

[themp3000]

The only film on my Criterion wish list for 2018 is Elem Klimov's 1985 masterpiece Come and See. With it being on FilmStruck, I s'pose its just a matter of not if but when. I like to keep my expectations in check and my wishes small and realistic to avoid big disappointment. New year, new outlook!

[1godzillafan]

Obviously the guy on the moon with a flag means Beast of Yucca Flats.

"Flag on the moon...how did it get there?"

[evilive]

Man, I got pretty excited when I saw those bullets thinking, Full Metal Jacket, but then I saw the bowling ball and arrow, and everyone commenting Bowling for Columbine. Fxck.