The Criterion Collection

[jshaide]

So much unfortunate 30s bashing going on. I'm livid.

[sawdustandtinsel]

Originally Posted by LPMA

Reddit says it’s fan-made.

https://amp.reddit.com/r/criterion/c...days_of_being/

That's a shame, guess I should've checked that. I think something similar happened with Come and See a while ago.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I maintain that Josef von Sternberg was avant garde in his thinking.

And how is that? If you wouldn't mind elaborating.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Yeah, that for me too is where I thought an otherwise excellent post went off the rails. For comparison with other films of the period, L'age D'or, Blood of a Poet, and Limite are avant-garde; Sternberg is not.

It's easy to tell who has seen The Salvation Hunters (von Sternberg, 1925) and who has not. von Sternberg's first movie was unequivocally avant-garde and predates all the titles you just listed. It's on Youtube for your viewing pleasure.

He later worked that sensibility into Hollywood movies (most obvious in The Scarlet Empress, but evident everywhere you care to look) and his movies are excellent for it. I'm getting the new set in July, no question about it.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

There are nice ways to be helpful and snipey ways to say the same thing.

You're an abrasive snipe, you know that?

Only well-informed insiders should be allowed to post here.

You assume too much. You have no idea what Criterion owns or doesn't own or which titles have scans and which don't or how long it takes to negotiate this deal or that deal so you shouldn't be accusing others of what you just did.

Actually, I do, since I know people who work there Peter Becker is a nice friend. Care to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about now? There's assumption, then there's you.

It's funny the pot calling the kettle black, since you have been posting misinformation in every thread you've been in lately. Are you just trolling for another ban like all your other accounts on several other forums?

[The Great Owl]

A thought popped into my head just now, since I arrived compulsively early to the northeast metro Atlanta side of town to see the U2 concert this evening.

How’s this for a dream Criterion title?...

A multi-disc box set of the complete televised Live Aid concert from 1985.

In addition to the iconic performances (Queen/David Bowie, U2, Phil Collins, reunited Led Zeppelin members, Duran Duran, etc.), Criterion could assemble the donation-pledge commercials that featured celebrities, they could feature documentaries about Bob Geldof and the other organizers, and they could even feature supplements about why the best intentions of the project led to some unfavorable results (money sent to Ethiopia to help starving people actually used for weapons for the dictatorship to further subdue the poor, etc.).

This way, years from now, when your grandchildren ask you what the big deal was about “that old U2 band”, you can show them the band’s performance of “Bad” from that concert.

[peschi]

the current DVD release is I think the best possible quality you can get, since it was shot on video (not film).

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by mande2013

it's just my impression that in general, there are certain cinephiles who tend to give the benefit of the doubt to old studio auteurs over 'arthouse' directors, due to a Romanticised fixation with the archetype of the "humble craftsman". I could be imagining things, but that's just my impression.

I find it's far more often implied in reverse, with a tendency in many to develop a Romanticised fixation with the archetype of the "50s/60s auteur" that assumes that because they rejected conventional craftsmanship (for want of a better word) it automatically gives their films an intellectual and thematic superiority that - certainly in the case of most nouvelle vague films which favored style over substance/posturing (delete as per your prejudices) - often simply isn't there.

Indeed, the worst part of the Cahiers du Cinema crowd's legacy was their attempt to create an orthodoxy that dismissed all earlier cinema that wasn't made by their favorites as devoid of worth while insisting even the very worst films of the American studio directors they lionised had true merit, something that even those same directors wouldn't claim (and in the case of Ford and Hawks would violently refute). Certainly there's a snobbery in some against much produced during the golden age of the studio system that feels like an intellectual justification for people who think they're smarter than those who won't watch old black and white films when in fact they too won't watch old black and white films - unless they have subtitles.

(Not that this is just a nouvelle vague/golden age issue: one of the board of directors of the British Film Institute infamously claimed that "Cinema began with Taxi Driver," which effectively wipes out the best of the nouvelle vague era as well. Generally the newer tends to be hailed over the older, with a curious tendency to take 'sides' on one era or another as the only one of true value rather than appreciating the fact that every era and style has its masterpieces and its abominations.)

In short, it cuts both ways.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Actually, I do, since I know people who work there Peter Becker is a nice friend. Care to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about now? There's assumption, then there's you.

What a really nasty post. You just have to pick a fight, don't you?

You started this. I don't believe you have deep insider information about Criterion. You're bluffing. Even if you did, you can't be criticizing other people for discussing movies without knowing what you claim to be keeping to yourself.

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's funny the pot calling the kettle black, since you have been posting misinformation in every thread you've been in lately. Are you just trolling for another ban like all your other accounts on several other forums?

You're a damn liar and a vindictive snipe.
I have not posted misinformation. I haven't said or done anything wrong.

It isn't a crime or a sin to post a mistake. Fortunately, I haven't posted any mistakes. You're quick to judge and condemn and to keep the provocations coming.

I will continue to share my love for movies and to share what I know. You're not going to bully me here. Go about your business and stop trying to provoke a fight.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Originally Posted by mande2013 View Post
it's just my impression that in general, there
are certain cinephiles who tend to give the
benefit of the doubt to old studio auteurs over
'arthouse' directors, due to a Romanticised
fixation with the archetype of the "humble
craftsman". I could be imagining things, but
that's just my impression.

I find it's far more often implied in reverse, with a tendency in many to develop a Romanticised fixation with the archetype of the "50s/60s auteur" that assumes that because they rejected conventional craftsmanship (for want of a better word) it automatically gives their films an intellectual and thematic superiority that - certainly in the case of most nouvelle vague films which favored style over substance/posturing (delete as per your prejudices) - often simply isn't there.

Indeed, the worst part of the Cahiers du Cinema crowd's legacy was their attempt to create an orthodoxy that dismissed all earlier cinema that wasn't made by their favorites as devoid of worth while insisting even the very worst films of the American studio directors they lionised had true merit, something that even those same directors wouldn't claim (and in the case of Ford and Hawks would violently refute). Certainly there's a snobbery in some for much produced during the golden age of the studio system that feels like an intellectual justification for people who think they're smarter than those who won't watch old black and white films when in fact they too won't watch old black and white films - unless they have subtitles.

(Not that this is just a nouvelle vague/golden age issue: one of the board of directors of the British Film Institute infamously claimed that "Cinema began with Taxi Driver," which effectively wipes out the best of the nouvelle vague era as well. Generally the newer tends to be hailed over the older, with a curious tendency to take 'sides' on one era or another as the only one of true value rather than appreciating the fact that every era and style has its masterpieces and its abominations.)

In short, it cuts both ways.

I find both eras and types fascinating. French cinema in the 1950s and and 1960s was very exciting, although not as exciting, to me personally, as it was in the 1930s when the cinema was still new and artists were still pushing it to see what it could do. French cinema continues to be of interest. Except perhaps for Godard. After Breathless I lose interest in his films. As to your other point, I can't comprehend anyone who thinks "Cinema began with Taxi Driver." I read that somewhere before and it's just too preposterous for me take seriously. Especially when you consider all the cinematic education that underpinned that film.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I can't comprehend anyone who thinks "Cinema began with Taxi Driver." I read that somewhere before and it's just too preposterous for me take seriously. Especially when you consider all the cinematic education that underpinned that film.

Horrifying, isn't it - especially when you consider that (though they were de-prioritized during the time that individual was on the board) the BFI's remit included film preservation, study and education. Which is probably why the BFI's catastrophic purge of all its most experienced and knowledgeable staff during their era as part of the campaign of 'cultural renewal' by the then-director of the BFI (who equally infamously regularly dismissed film as 'a mere chemical process') went through unopposed.

[Richard--W]

I heard about this catastrophe that befell the BFI. Were they very young, the crowd that moved in and took over? We've had similar catastrophes on my side of the pond. The digital era has ushered in a much younger crowd that resents the experience and knowledge of the older crowd, although not that much older.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

in the 1930s when the cinema was still new and artists were still pushing it to see what it could do

As a silent movie fan I have a problem with statements like this. I agree that the 1930s was a Golden Age for movies, but I don't agree that it was because "cinema was still new." In my opinion (and it is just that, an opinion) it was caused by primarily the advent of sound. Suddenly you had whole new genres (musical, screwball comedies) that were instantly popular and you had the opportunity to remake a lot of films from the silent era, with the benefits that offers (just redo the successful ones). Add to that the infusion of talent from Europe (primarily fleeing Nazi Germany) and hey presto we have a Golden Age! I personally also suspect that the enforcement of the Hays Production Code had an effect as well, since it forced filmmakers to be more creative when wanting to explore "forbidden territory."

If you go back and look at silent movies, it's obvious that in the latter half of the 1920s there was a dramatic development in cinematography (helped by lighter cameras) and style. I've seen film critic Mick LaSalle claim that it's possible to identify the year a 1925-1930 silent film is from based on its style, the development was that rapid in those years. So while the 1930s were indeed a Golden Age, the ramp-up to that era happened even earlier - in the silent era when "cinema was still young."

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I heard about this catastrophe that befell the BFI. Were they very young, the crowd that moved in and took over? We've had similar catastrophes on my side of the pond. The digital era has ushered in a much younger crowd that resents the experience and knowledge of the older crowd, although not that much older.

Mostly early middle-age, but they didn't come from film backgrounds. Wilf Stevenson (or Baron Stevenson of Balmacara as he now is), who all but destroyed the BFI as it once was, was 41 at the time and politically connected - he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister Gordon Brown's best man at his wedding and later a senior policy advisor during Brown's catastrophic premiership - and was brought in to introduce an internal market economy (which basically meant that if the video or book publishing label wanted to use stills from the picture library they had to pay the highest market rate, for example, to boost the income of individual departments: instead they'd just use a cheaper photo archive and the money would flow out of the BFI).

His reign of error was driven purely by economic theory and idealogy and a love of new technology rather than film - one of his priorities was reducing the space used archiving materials and digitising everything, with duplicates destroyed because they couldn't sell donations - and making archiving video games their number one priority because they were the vanguard of the new 'moving image culture' (he was big on buzzwords). He had open contempt for the BFI members, ran down the National Film Theatre, alienated nearly every major film historian in the world - there was a massive groundswell of opinion to have him removed - and overspent on white elephants that left him constantly going to J.P. Getty Jr. with the begging bowl to bail out the BFI when his money-saving antics ended up busting the annual budget. Like most doctrinaire economists he was a truly terrible businessman because he underestimated and misunderstood both the 'product' and its consumers. Naturally he held on to the job for nearly ten years before his own policy that any BFI employee who had worked there for ten years should be fired to keep its thinking 'fresh' caught up with him and he resigned.

I could go on - and on - but suffice to say it was a truly dark time, and even 20 years on all the incredible damage he did to the BFI has yet to be undone.

[DaBargainHunta]

*Ahem*

https://forum.blu-ray.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

[Kyle15]

Bates Motel is called Bates Motel because he lives there. This should be common knowledge by now.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

A thought popped into my head just now, since I arrived compulsively early to the northeast metro Atlanta side of town to see the U2 concert this evening.

How’s this for a dream Criterion title?...

A multi-disc box set of the complete televised Live Aid concert from 1985.

In addition to the iconic performances (Queen/David Bowie, U2, Phil Collins, reunited Led Zeppelin members, Duran Duran, etc.), Criterion could assemble the donation-pledge commercials that featured celebrities, they could feature documentaries about Bob Geldof and the other organizers, and they could even feature supplements about why the best intentions of the project led to some unfavorable results (money sent to Ethiopia to help starving people actually used for weapons for the dictatorship to further subdue the poor, etc.).

This way, years from now, when your grandchildren ask you what the big deal was about “that old U2 band”, you can show them the band’s performance of “Bad” from that concert.

Interesting idea, and certainly Criterion territory given releases like the Monterey set, Festival, and Gimme Shelter. Although I'm not sure the might of Criterion could get Page and Plant to agree to the inclusion of the Led Zep debacle, which is missing from the DVD (coincidentally, I just finished reading Phil Collins' autobiography in which he covers their behavior that day, and his frustration with it, in some detail).

Live Aid took place during my last year at high school. I had a part-time job every Saturday, and the manager refused my request for the day off to watch it, so I quit the position. Epic day in front of our 20" TV with mono sound.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Aclea

I find it's far more often implied in reverse, with a tendency in many to develop a Romanticised fixation with the archetype of the "50s/60s auteur" that assumes that because they rejected conventional craftsmanship (for want of a better word) it automatically gives their films an intellectual and thematic superiority that - certainly in the case of most nouvelle vague films which favored style over substance/posturing (delete as per your prejudices) - often simply isn't there.

Yes, but there is no getting around the fact that American films rarely, if ever, explore abstract ideas in the way that European ones do, or at least did, so it's not a completely baseless assertion. There is really no American equivalent of Tarkosvky or Sokurov, for example, or Resnais. I agree with you that it's silly to assume superiority based on a 'rejection of conventional craftsmanship' and narrative, but I think that's a strawman. Nobody really thinks like that, at least nobody worth listening to anyway. Maybe a rookie college cinephile might have thought that way in the 60's or 70's.

What Mande is talking about is a kind of reverse snobbery which is far more common among today's younger cinephiles who aren't nearly as enamored with directors like Antonioni as the older boomers were.

It constantly changes. Some directors are in for a while then they are out, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Aclea

(Not that this is just a nouvelle vague/golden age issue: one of the board of directors of the British Film Institute infamously claimed that "Cinema began with Taxi Driver,"

This is the reason why I rarely take Anglophone critics seriously when it comes to film. Because they often make stupid statements like that, in addition to being too aesthetically conservative.

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by Reddington

Interesting idea, and certainly Criterion territory given releases like the Monterey set, Festival, and Gimme Shelter. Although I'm not sure the might of Criterion could get Page and Plant to agree to the inclusion of the Led Zep debacle, which is missing from the DVD (coincidentally, I just finished reading Phil Collins' autobiography in which he covers their behavior that day, and his frustration with it, in some detail).

Live Aid took place during my last year at high school. I had a part-time job every Saturday, and the manager refused my request for the day off to watch it, so I quit the position. Epic day in front of our 20" TV with mono sound.

Forget all of that just give us Let it Be with the full rooftop concert.

Please Criterion. Please I beg you. Play Apple whatever they want just make it happen.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Yes, but there is no getting around the fact that American films rarely, if ever, explore abstract ideas in the way that European ones do, or at least did, so it's not a completely baseless assertion.

I'm afraid I think it is. Even back in the silent era some American filmmakers did just that, and continued to straight through to the present day - but, just like Tarkovsky, Sukurov or early Resnais before he became more accessible*, they were directors outside the mainstream who often struggled to find much of an audience. As with all forms of experimental or avante garde filmmaking there were differences in approach, style and success that are in part dictated by national character and budget, but that doesn't change the fact that American filmmakers did explore abstract ideas.

* It's notable that among Resnais' influences for Same Old Song, he cited both the BBC and MGM versions of Pennies from Heaven and... Ernst Lubitsch (who he also cited as an influence on Stavisky).

I agree with you that it's silly to assume superiority based on a 'rejection of conventional craftsmanship' and narrative, but I think that's a strawman.

Again, I disagree: Mande specifically seems to be using the argument that 'humble craftsmen like Lubitsch and Tourneur are used as clubs' like a club himself to beat them as inferior to Antonioni and Tarkovsky because they made for the most part entirely different kinds of films - which is an apples to oranges comparison (talking of strawmen, does anyone seriously ever compare those four directors?). With the bizarre assertion of a conservative agenda it's possible that something may be lost in translation when writing in what I presume from the location is a second language, but it seems like yet another of that common manifestation of deriding the past by picking inapplicable examples to boost a favored era/movement. And another example of that attempt to impose an era-specific starting point orthodoxy on film appreciation, with the golden age once again relegated to the dark ages compared to the mid-20th Century European enlightenment. Which seems a pretty emphatic form of critical conservatism in its own right.

Nobody really thinks like that, at least nobody worth listening to anyway.

Now that is a strawman since you're trying to have it both ways - especially since many people clearly do think that way and constantly insist on correcting anyone who doesn't share their aesthetic judgment.

What Mande is talking about is a kind of reverse snobbery which is far more common among today's younger cinephiles who aren't nearly as enamored with directors like Antonioni as the older boomers were.

Few of whom seem to care any more for golden age movies: the 70s is the new 'last great age' of cinema for many of them, with the Antonioni era that preceded and to some degree influenced it discarded to the dustbin of history just as the Cahiers du Cinema crowd discarded so much of what went before them. Though, of course, they're now finding their decade is being trashed in favor of the growing movement arguing for the 80s as the last great age of cinema by another generation...

This is the reason why I rarely take Anglophone critics seriously when it comes to film. Because they often make stupid statements like that, in addition to being too aesthetically conservative.

Except that was not a critic, but a member of the BFI's board with little interest in or knowledge of cinema who, like so many board members of so many artistic bodies, took the job because it looked good on his headed notepaper - and who was widely ridiculed for his views by 'Anglophone critics.' Though in truth is what he said any more outrageous or ignorant than claiming the same for Antonioni or Tarkovsky? It seems simply a question of geography and which point in time you choose to arbitrarily declare as the moment movies became truly sophisticated.