The Criterion Collection

[senseabove]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

No, she smeared a dead person who is the only reason why she had a career and who is no longer around to defend himself against her dumb attacks claiming he was sexist, racist, homophobe, etc. His movies (and those from the pre-PC era) are only "problematic" because the notion of political correctness didn't exist then. I really wish John was still around so he could unload on her for criticizing his movies because they didn't conform to political correctness. Her article is dumb clickbait that capitalizes on her only claim to fame (starring in a few of John's movies).

One of her points is that your relationship with something, whether it's a person or a movie, doesn't have to be one-dimensional. You can admire someone or something and also recognize that there are elements which you emphatically and specifically do not admire. Your relationship with a person or an artwork does not have to be one of pure disdain or unquestioning reverence.

And she doesn't smear him. She mentions several times that she owes her career to him ("John believed in me, and in my gifts as an actress, more than anyone else I’ve known, and he was the first person to tell me that I had to write and direct one day."), grants him credit for essentially creating a genre and giving a voice to a group that was, at the time, largely dismissed ("It can be hard to remember how scarce art for and about teen-agers was before John Hughes arrived."), highlights that he specifically gave a voice to female teenagers ("No one in Hollywood was writing about the minutiae of high school, and certainly not from a female point of view."), and even caveats that she also didn't see a problem with most of these things at the time ("If I sound overly critical, it’s only with hindsight."). Beyond that, in at least an attempt to let one of Hughes' peers justify an early offensive piece, she reaches out to the co-writer, who, rather than "unloading on her," distances himself from it ("it never should have flown then"), and she interviews a costar who disagrees with her about one of the situations she now has "issues with." Finally, she caps the piece by summarizing what she thinks is valuable in his films and "why I hope they will endure."

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Whether you agree with her point of view, it sounds like she put a lot of thought into it. Maybe on that Podcast she didn't want to say anything off the cuff that she hadn't fully considered?

If that's the case she should've just not agreed to go on. I believe it was around the time that Breakfast Club was having anniversary screenings and she treated the opportunity more like it was just more PR.

At any rate, his interview with Judd Nelson was really good though.

[whiteberry]

Originally Posted by senseabove

One of her points is that your relationship with something, whether it's a person or a movie, doesn't have to be one-dimensional. You can admire someone or something and also recognize that there are elements which you emphatically and specifically do not admire. Your relationship with a person or an artwork does not have to be one of pure disdain or unquestioning reverence.

Give me a break...treating fictional characters as victims is about as ridiculous as it gets.

[Cremildo]

I have a nagging suspicion: the Legion of Decency will be resurrected soon... And it won't be the religious right that will do it.

[whiteberry]

I can't wait for all the articles about how "problematic" Blazing Saddles is when Mel Brooks dies and how "complicated" his legacy is because he made the movie.

[Kyle15]

when u don't have a story to reveal about a famous filmmaker menacing u so it's time to weave a long one about their movies being offensive and making you uncomfortable having been in them and something-something identity politic

twitter clout: SLAY SLAY SLAY SO BRAVE

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

He said the role took so much out of him, he would never play another character like that again--and he never did. It's still remarkable that Lonesome Rhodes was his first film role, as he demonstrates such a command of the material. It would have been interesting to see him take on darker, more challenging roles throughout the rest of his career.

Onionhead seems like an attempt to soften another character with a dark side by having comedy scenes in it. Coming after No Time For Sergeants, it's an odd mix of moods.

Originally Posted by Gerby

You should check him out in the TV movies Savages (1974), Pray For The Wildcats (1974) & Murder In Coweta County (1983). He is fantastic as a bad guy in all 3 of these.

I did see some of his made-for-tv films back then and Savages was quite good with its Most Dangerous Game variation

[senseabove]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

Give me a break...treating fictional characters as victims is about as ridiculous as it gets.

A) Uh.... What? It's not about character's being victims, it's about how viewers relate to characters...

B) If a film is a hermetically sealed environment and the events and characters it represents have no relationship to or effect on its viewers, why do you care that Ringwald has a problem with, for example, a scenario that uncritically stages a date rape? If you're right, you have nothing to be bothered about. (And did you read the article, especially the part where Ringwald highlights how people she expected to be offended or critical of the movie(s) found them uplifting and encouraging?)

Originally Posted by Cremildo

I have a nagging suspicion: the Legion of Decency will be resurrected soon... And it won't be the religious right that will do it.

Straw men and persecution complexes go great together.

A deluxe release by the most respected (and fairly left-leaning) home video company in the English-speaking world and an article—in the New Yorker, by a lead actress in the film—with a final paragraph that says "I think that it’s ultimately the greatest value of the films, and why I hope they will endure" are definite evidence in your favor.

If anything, people who sympathise with her criticisms are more likely to buy the release now.

[Jlouisbarrett]

Originally Posted by senseabove

A) Uh.... What? It's not about character's being victims, it's about how viewers relate to characters...

B) If a film is a hermetically sealed environment and the events and characters it represents have no relationship to or effect on its viewers, why do you care that Ringwald has a problem with, for example, a scenario that uncritically stages a date rape? If you're right, you have nothing to be bothered about. (And did you read the article, especially the part where Ringwald highlights how people she expected to be offended or critical of the movie(s) found them uplifting and encouraging?)




Straw men and persecution complexes go great together.

A deluxe release by the most respected (and fairly left-leaning) home video company in the English-speaking world and an article—in the New Yorker, by a lead actress in the film—with a final paragraph that says "I think that it’s ultimately the greatest value of the films, and why I hope they will endure" are definite evidence in your favor.

If anything, people who sympathise with her criticisms are more likely to buy the release now.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the poster you’re replying to didn’t actually read the full piece. That article was not anywhere near a “smear campaign” — it was actually one of the more thoughtful, responsible and insightful “think pieces” I’ve seen in this “era of #metoo.”

[ThisKid]

Remember Folks! Just because you made a joke about race and/or sex, doesn't mean that you are a racist/sexist/misogynist/fascist and/or Nazi!

That'll be my take on the topic.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by Gerby

You should check him out in the TV movies Savages (1974), Pray For The Wildcats (1974) & Murder In Coweta County (1983). He is fantastic as a bad guy in all 3 of these.

I think because Griffith spent years creating that folksy image in people’s minds, he made a much more chilling villain. Imagine Fred Rogers playing Hannibal Lechter. Seriously, he was a really good actor.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Jlouisbarrett

I wouldn’t be surprised if the poster you’re replying to didn’t actually read the full piece. That article was not anywhere near a “smear campaign” — it was actually one of the more thoughtful, responsible and insightful “think pieces” I’ve seen in this “era of #metoo.”

Correct. It was not a smear campaign at all. It was just Molly Ringwald addressing criticisms that are valid that have actually been made towards these films for many years now. The first person I ever heard mention of some of the issues in Sixteen Candles was a female friend who is a huge fan of the Hughes films and I don't think it's stopped her from watching them.

[DenOfEarth]

I hear rumors Excalibur has been bought by Criterion, sounds awesome!

[okcmaxk]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

I hear rumors Excalibur has been bought by Criterion, sounds awesome!

Isn’t Excalibur a WB film? They don’t let distributors buy out the films they own, but they do license out films to distributors if that’s what you mean.

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by okcmaxk

Isn’t Excalibur a WB film? They don’t let distributors buy out the films they own, but they do license out films to distributors if that’s what you mean.

Yes but that's what i meant is that WB is letting them license Excalibur on BD, now that would be awesome to see a better transfer than the crummy old BD.

And i wonder if Criterion has plans for The Shining in 4K?

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

I can't wait for all the articles about how "problematic" Blazing Saddles is when Mel Brooks dies and how "complicated" his legacy is because he made the movie.

Native people have been saying this for years, you just haven’t been listening.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

And i wonder if Criterion has plans for The Shining in 4K?

Criterion doesn't release 4K discs, so no.

[blujazz]

Originally Posted by Jlouisbarrett

I wouldn’t be surprised if the poster you’re replying to didn’t actually read the full piece. That article was not anywhere near a “smear campaign” — it was actually one of the more thoughtful, responsible and insightful “think pieces” I’ve seen in this “era of #metoo.”

It's actually really beautifully written, arguments well thought out, captures her train of thought, and also the internal conflict she has with the topic.

[El Sleezo]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

And i wonder if Criterion has plans for The Shining in 4K?

I'm hoping that if 2001 does well enough for them, they'll release all their major Kubricks on UHD themselves. I'm pretty sure they've already made a 4K transfer for Clockwork Orange, at least.

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Criterion doesn't release 4K discs, so no.

I meant in 4K restoration of the film