The Criterion Collection

[Akibiyori]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

[INDENT]We are so quick to lavish praise on films, now; this movie, or that movie finds favor with a critic, and before the ink is dry on their review, it's too oft labeled "a masterpiece". With so much rubbish coming out of Hollywood, the land of recycled ideas, anything resembling originality is deemed must see, its director hailed as a visionary. This noxious hyperbole is the unfortunate reality of a movie industry that, taken as a whole, has lost its soul. Cinephiles are confronted by an inextricable sense of melancholy visiting the theater now, as creativity has largely fallen by the wayside in favor of profit. Movies are no longer about artistic endeavor so much as box office receipts.

Pretty sure people were saying the same exact thing back in the 1920s...and the 30s...and 40s, etc.. I've seen far more than enough common, run of the mill silent films to not fall in for stuff like this. Frankly, the worst of the 1960s was far worse than what we've got right now. Perhaps there was still more greatness then but the art form was younger, so of course there was. This problem isn't unique to film - music, literature, and everything else is struggling for relevancy as well.

I have no trouble finding new things to enjoy and appreciate each year, whether frivolous, purely entertaining, or something more. The problem movies face is the same problem every art form faces today - an increasingly fractured and marginalized culture, nothing truly representative to point to, only personal connection.

[Dollar Colonel]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Eh what? What's with the "now"? Any age in movie history would have its share of originals, derivatives, clunkers and masterpieces. The movies that are remembered beyond their time are the masterpieces, there was no golden age in which they were generated by the bushel. Even "now" you have movies about artistic endeavor. Check out the new stuff that is shown in Indie and world cinema festivals. Makers like Nuri Ceylan, Christian Mungiu, Apichatpong Weerasethakul are putting out bonafide masterpieces of their times. No one is restricted to watching what their mainstream film industry puts out. And now films are not even dependent on theatrical screenings. Netflix is willing to put its money in Roma by Alfonso Cuaron, Buster Scruggs by the Coens - movies which are definitely not about rehashing popular trends.

Yeah it just sounds like snobbish revisionism. Of course the timeless movies are the ones that get attention years afterward while clunkers get forgotten. I'd even hazard to say that your average wide release movie is better made nowadays than ever before.

[nitin]

2018 has been a very strong year, particularly for non-hollywood and non-English cinema. I do think there is an issue with the loss of the mid budget studio movie, you either seem to get $10M or $100M+ from the studios with all the restrictions/interference/expectations budgets like that would impose but there is a lot of strong non-studio product being produced even in Hollywood.

Having said all of that, personally speaking I have noticed a decline in what I would consider ‘great’ films this decade as compared to decades past, but I equally haven’t caught up with a lot of promising sounding (non-Hollywood) stuff from the past 3-4 years yet.

[koberulz]

What's the go with Criterion vs Arrow Dressed to Kill? They look vastly different.

[Dragon Ranger]

If Criterion were ever to venture back into anime I wonder if this title would be considered for release, I believe they released Akira by Otomo back in the laserdisc era?

[captainron_howdy]

Anyone think Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant' should get a Criterion Blu-ray release?

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by captainron_howdy

Anyone think Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant' should get a Criterion Blu-ray release?

It certainly could, given that it won the Palme d’Or, among other accolades. But personally, I’d be more excited to see Drugstore Cowboy first.

[willtopower]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Eh what? What's with the "now"? Any age in movie history would have its share of originals, derivatives, clunkers and masterpieces. The movies that are remembered beyond their time are the masterpieces, there was no golden age in which they were generated by the bushel. Even "now" you have movies about artistic endeavor. Check out the new stuff that is shown in Indie and world cinema festivals. Makers like Nuri Ceylan, Christian Mungiu, Apichatpong Weerasethakul are putting out bonafide masterpieces of their times. No one is restricted to watching what their mainstream film industry puts out. And now films are not even dependent on theatrical screenings. Netflix is willing to put its money in Roma by Alfonso Cuaron, Buster Scruggs by the Coens - movies which are definitely not about rehashing popular trends.

Originally Posted by Akibiyori

Pretty sure people were saying the same exact thing back in the 1920s...and the 30s...and 40s, etc.. I've seen far more than enough common, run of the mill silent films to not fall in for stuff like this. Frankly, the worst of the 1960s was far worse than what we've got right now. Perhaps there was still more greatness then but the art form was younger, so of course there was. This problem isn't unique to film - music, literature, and everything else is struggling for relevancy as well.

I have no trouble finding new things to enjoy and appreciate each year, whether frivolous, purely entertaining, or something more. The problem movies face is the same problem every art form faces today - an increasingly fractured and marginalized culture, nothing truly representative to point to, only personal connection.

I would agree with the push-back against the idea true genius is isolated to the past. *However* and I'm just going out on a limb here, but I think The Passion of Joan of Arc is so good and so affecting that it just hits the viewer so hard, as it may have the OP of the post in question. I know I felt that way. That film has a power rarely seen. While there may be an irony about "before the ink is dry on their review," as it may be true for the selfsame review, I do think there's a chance it's ultimately reflective of The Passion of Joan of Arc. Again, this is all me kinda playing devil's advocate and the kind of overwhelming affect it can have on any viewer.

[bsend]

Originally Posted by Dragon Ranger

If Criterion were ever to venture back into anime I wonder if this title would be considered for release, I believe they released Akira by Otomo back in the laserdisc era?

That's a beautiful cover. I always wanted them to pick up Robot Carnival (1987) but I think Discotek did a great job. There are definitely anime titles to be had, but I think I would prefer Discotek to release those. I think Criterion could do a great job, but I love that Discotek knows to find extras like older English dubs that Criterion wouldn't include.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Maria Falconetti's expression is worth a thousand words.
[INDENT]We are so quick to lavish praise on films, now; this movie, or that movie finds favor with a critic, and before the ink is dry on their review, it's too oft labeled "a masterpiece". With so much rubbish coming out of Hollywood, the land of recycled ideas, anything resembling originality is deemed must see, its director hailed as a visionary. This noxious hyperbole is the unfortunate reality of a movie industry that, taken as a whole, has lost its soul. Cinephiles are confronted by an inextricable sense of melancholy visiting the theater now, as creativity has largely fallen by the wayside in favor of profit. Movies are no longer about artistic endeavor so much as box office receipts.

Thumbs up for a nicely written short review. I just don't really see this happening w/ modern films, though. Ladybird was met with wide crticial acclaim, but I don't think anyone was calling it a masterpiece. Boyhood was another film that was kind of a big thing for some, but it had many detractors.

What recent films have people been quick to call "masterpieces?" I can't think of any.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Thumbs up for a nicely written short review. I just don't really see this happening w/ modern films, though. Ladybird was met with wide crticial acclaim, but I don't think anyone was calling it a masterpiece. Boyhood was another film that was kind of a big thing for some, but it had many detractors.

What recent films have people been quick to call "masterpieces?" I can't think of any.

Er, I think this very much was the case. You don't have to look far to see effusive writing that would qualify as the status you're questioning.

As far as your question, there are far too many to name.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

What recent films have people been quick to call "masterpieces?" I can't think of any.

Roma, just to name the most recent one.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Er, I think this very much was the case. You don't have to look far to see effusive writing that would qualify as the status you're questioning.

As far as your question, there are far too many to name.

yeah, but (and I don't think I need to explain this to you) RT aggregates the general feel that a reviewer had towards a film. so the only thing Ladybird's RT score tells you is that it is hard to find someone who didn't at least find the film agreeable.

"Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee." No one ever said that Sara Lee was the bee's knees, either.

EDIT: I toggled through the first 7 pages of critic snippets for LB and the word 'masterful' is used once to describe the direction and once to describe the screenplay. The word 'masterpiece' does not appear.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

yeah, but (and I don't think I need to explain this to you) RT aggregates the general feel that a reviewer had towards a film. so the only thing Ladybird's RT score tells you is that it is hard to find someone who didn't at least find the film agreeable.

"Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee." No one ever said that Sara Lee was the bee's knees, either.

I'm not commenting on the rating. It's the writing, much of which is pure gush from those various writers, that confirms the film's overly warm reception. I can recall Richard Brody, Michael Phillips, and various other writers that wrote for their reasoning for such high praise from last year.

EDIT: And if you really want to split hairs because they're not tossing out an overused term, then, sure, not every single critic is doing that. But they're astutely detailing their fondness that could be attributed to the term.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

I'm not commenting on the rating. It's the writing, much of which is pure gush from those various writers, that confirms the film's overly warm reception. I can recall Richard Brody, Michael Phillips, and various other writers that wrote for their reasoning for such high praise from last year.

EDIT: And if you really want to split hairs because they're not tossing out an overused term, then, sure, not every single critic is doing that. But they're astutely detailing their fondness that could be attributed to the term.

I don't think anyone who is being honest with themselves considers LadyBird a masterpiece. High praise, and yeah - there's quite a bit of it, doesn't necessarily equate to the coronation of an all-time great film. That's how I read Theater Dreamer's post. Maybe I misunderstood his point.

[Hellspawn28]

Anyone think that City of Lost Children should get a Criterion Blu-Ray release? The Blu-Ray of that movie from Sony is pretty bad. I feel like this movie should have been picked by Criterion by now.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I don't think anyone who is being honest with themselves considers LadyBird a masterpiece. High praise, and yeah - there's quite a bit of it, doesn't necessarily equate to the coronation of an all-time great film. That's how I read Theater Dreamer's post. Maybe I misunderstood his point.

I mean, I trust several of those reviewers, based on their wealth of writing and the fact that they make a convincing case, for their belief of its status. That's the point of great criticism, after all: to genuinely articulate a reaction. You may not agree with it, but their respective reactions feel earned. Hell, I don't with Gerwig's film, but I respect and acknowledge those who do.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

I mean, I trust several of those reviewers, based on their wealth of writing and the fact that they make a convincing case, for their belief of its status. That's the point of great criticism, after all: to genuinely articulate a reaction. You may not agree with it, but their respective reactions feel earned. Hell, I don't with Gerwig's film, but I respect and acknowledge those who do.

I haven't seen the reviews by the two reviewers you mentioned, so I don't know to what extent they gushed over the film. Like I said, though.. generally speaking I just don't feel that this is something prevalent.

There is such a thing as a knee-jerk reaction, too. People who love film and music (and this happens a lot more in music, I think) want to see their next "great" film or hear their next "great" album - so much so that they convince themselves that they've done just that.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I haven't seen the reviews by the two reviewers you mentioned, so I don't know to what extent they gushed over the film. Like I said, though.. generally speaking I just don't feel that this is something prevalent.

There is such a thing as a knee-jerk reaction, too. People who love film and music (and this happens a lot more in music, I think) want to see their next "great" film or hear their next "great" album - so much so that they convince themselves that they've done just that.

I feel like that's too cynical of a read for the response to Gerwig's film, or any acclaimed piece of art, really. (And reduces criticism to a hollow exercise.) The writing is what justifies the take, not the take itself. Anyways, this conversation isn't really going anywhere. There's plenty of writing to be found that lays forth the status of Lady Bird, whether you find it to be genuine or not.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

I feel like that's too cynical of a read for the response to Gerwig's film, or any acclaimed piece of art, really. (And reduces criticism to a hollow exercise.) The writing is what justifies the take, not the take it self. Anyways, this conversation isn't really going anywhere. There's plenty of writing to be found that lays forth the status of Lady Bird, whether you find it to be genuine or not.

it's not a "read" on LB or any film. it's a general impression. I don't think the sentiment for any film in the last 5 years or so is that it's some kind of new masterpiece.

and yeah.. this conversation isn't going anywhere. but you said it first, so you win.

I'm reminded why I have chose not to post here much any more.