The Criterion Collection

[jayembee]

Not everyone is necessarily down on every filmmaker with a questionable past. Warner Archive, for example, released Polanski's The Fearless Vampire Killers just last October. And many of his or Allen's or Trier's films or those of any other persona non grata filmmakers are available in countries all over the world.

I suspect that some labels would get less grief than others, depending on how wide their market is. A WAC release of a Polanski film would slip by because WAC is pretty much an on-line label only. Anyone who came across a copy of The Fearless Vampire Killers at a Bull Moose store would more likely complain to Bull Moose for having it for sale than WAC for releasing it.

Whatever "taboo list" Criterion may or may not keep, it's not preventing them from continuing to offer six of Polanski's films on BD and/or DVD (Knife in the Water, Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion, Tess, Macbeth, and Cul-de-Sac) and four of Trier's (Breaking the Waves, Antichrist, The Element of Crime, and Europa).

[Gacivory]

So it looks like Arrow is going 4K. Their Friday announcements got leaked on Amazon.

[FragnitoM]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Celine and Julie Go Boating on the Criterion Channel starts with the Criterion logo. Would say it’s a good chance it’s getting a Criterion release!

Also all the Mike Leigh films start with the logo. Maybe a box set? Could see Secrets & Lies get a release, since I just imported the UK release.

I have all of Leigh's films/tv programs in one form or another on R1 or R2 Bluray/DVD, but I'd buy a box in a second. How amazing would an interview of Leigh by the Safdie brothers be??

I would really like Happy Go Lucky, Vera Drake, and All or Nothing to get criterion blu-rays, even if that meant James Corden entered the collection.... They're coming to the channel in June, but I don't think they'll have Criterion logos. All or Nothing and Vera Drake might have the best chance since they were originally released by New Line/MGM

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Not everyone is necessarily down on every filmmaker with a questionable past. Warner Archive, for example, released Polanski's The Fearless Vampire Killers just last October. And many of his or Allen's or Trier's films or those of any other persona non grata filmmakers are available in countries all over the world.

I suspect that some labels would get less grief than others, depending on how wide their market is. A WAC release of a Polanski film would slip by because WAC is pretty much an on-line label only. Anyone who came across a copy of The Fearless Vampire Killers at a Bull Moose store would more likely complain to Bull Moose for having it for sale than WAC for releasing it.

Whatever "taboo list" Criterion may or may not keep, it's not preventing them from continuing to offer six of Polanski's films on BD and/or DVD (Knife in the Water, Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion, Tess, Macbeth, and Cul-de-Sac) and four of Trier's (Breaking the Waves, Antichrist, The Element of Crime, and Europa).

All of which were acquired before MeToo.

And, yes, I do believe that Criterion would get more grief than many other labels. It's certainly a business-related, diplomatic move for them to refuse titles like "House/Jack" or "The Tenant". I doubt that it's because they don't think the films are worthy inclusions for Criterion, it's more that it's not worth offending a large group of their customers.

Rumor had it that they had acquired Bertolucci's "Last Tango" just shortly before that became hugely controversial again. Then, as I said, their simple tribute post to Bertolucci the day after he died was swarmed by complaints and insult. There was a reason that their packaging, synopsis, etc. for "A Dry White Season" omitted any mention of Brando. (That was shortly after). I'd say the chances of them releasing "Last Tango" any time in the future were zero.

Anyway, these views admittedly represent only my own opinion on the matter. Moving on....

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by FragnitoM

I have all of Leigh's films/tv programs in one form or another on R1 or R2 Bluray/DVD, but I'd buy a box in a second. How amazing would an interview of Leigh by the Safdie brothers be??

I would really like Happy Go Lucky, Vera Drake, and All or Nothing to get criterion blu-rays, even if that meant James Corden entered the collection.... They're coming to the channel in June, but I don't think they'll have Criterion logos. All or Nothing and Vera Drake might have the best chance since they were originally released by New Line/MGM

All or Nothing is my favorite Leigh and the one on Blu I want the most!

[BluLobsta]

I really have to read more. I never realized that Brando was so controversial. Someone so talented yet so complex in his views. Seemingly anti-semitic one moment and passionately supporting Dr. King and civil rights the next. His views on his trade craft of acting were also a bit blunt. Now that I think about it, I just picked up On the Waterfront and there is not a single interview or documentary of Brando on there. I wonder if this will color my perception of the film at all.

[regeyer]

I'll be honest. I don't really care what an actor's personal views are. It's acting. Playing a role. So many times the actor is completely unlike the characters they play. One that pops to mind, from TV, is Kelsey Grammar and his role as Dr. Frasier Crane. Grammar is the polar opposite of the role he played so well. There are many, many more examples.

Therefore, I don't care if an actor is a conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican. I don't care what their views are on most issues. The only exception would be if an actor, director, etc. were to be found guilty of a crime such as rape, murder, or something else heinous. In those cases it would be hard for me to enjoy their work.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Oh we’re still having this conversation?

[BluLobsta]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I'll be honest. I don't really care what an actor's personal views are. It's acting. Playing a role. So many times the actor is completely unlike the characters they play. One that pops to mind, from TV, is Kelsey Grammar and his role as Dr. Frasier Crane. Grammar is the polar opposite of the role he played so well. There are many, many more examples.

Therefore, I don't care if an actor is a conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican. I don't care what their views are on most issues. The only exception would be if an actor, director, etc. were to be found guilty of a crime such as rape, murder, or something else heinous. In those cases it would be hard for me to enjoy their work.

Yeah, I see your point. I really enjoy the Mission Impossible movies for an action-packed thrill-ride. I may not necessarily agree with some of Cruise's religious beliefs or his off-screen antics but I sure have fun watching his movies.

[BluLobsta]

Originally Posted by regeyer

My bad. I just popped in for my morning coffee

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

Yeah, I see your point. I really enjoy the Mission Impossible movies for an action-packed thrill-ride. I may not necessarily agree with some of Cruise's religious beliefs or his off-screen antics but I sure have fun watching his movies.

I'll be honest, when the accusations of molestation/rape came out about Sylvester Stalone I could not watch his movies. It wasn't until a year later that I could bring myself to watching one of his movies. Now, was he guilty? I don't know. He claims to be innocent and the alleged crime took place far too long ago for him to be charged with anything. So, about a year after the accusations came out, with no proof either way, I was able to give him the benefit of the doubt and I started to rewatch his movies.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I'll be honest. I don't really care what an actor's personal views are. It's acting. Playing a role. So many times the actor is completely unlike the characters they play. One that pops to mind, from TV, is Kelsey Grammar and his role as Dr. Frasier Crane. Grammar is the polar opposite of the role he played so well. There are many, many more examples.

Therefore, I don't care if an actor is a conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican. I don't care what their views are on most issues. The only exception would be if an actor, director, etc. were to be found guilty of a crime such as rape, murder, or something else heinous. In those cases it would be hard for me to enjoy their work.

Same here. I myself am liberal, but I have no problem watching movies with actors who are conservatives, such as Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Charlton Heston, John Wayne, James Woods, et alia. Not to mention the late, underrated Fred Dalton Thompson.

Same goes for people behind the camera. But sometimes it might, depending on a specific film. I don't have any problems watching most Woody Allen films, though I confess that it's hard to watch something like Manhattan nowadays without it being colored by the accusations against him. And while it's been a while since I've watch Kill Bill, I'm not sure I can watch it again without being affected by the stories of Tarantino's treatment of Uma Thurman during the shoot.

But all this is nothing new. Stories abounded regarding Fatty Arbuckle and Errol Flynn, after all, just to name two. It doesn't effect how I approach watching films with either of them.

[BluLobsta]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I'll be honest, when the accusations of molestation/rape came out about Sylvester Stalone I could not watch his movies. It wasn't until a year later that I could bring myself to watching one of his movies. Now, was he guilty? I don't know. He claims to be innocent and the alleged crime took place far too long ago for him to be charged with anything. So, about a year after the accusations came out, with no proof either way, I was able to give him the benefit of the doubt and I started to rewatch his movies.

Yes, a most sacred trust in our culture. Innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers.

[koberulz]

That's a legal standard, not an ethical standard.

[JasonMichael]

Originally Posted by acroyear2

There's a few podcasts that are dedicated to reviewing every Criterion release in sequential order by spine numbers.

I've discovered Criterion Quest, Lost in Criterion, and Criterion Creeps ( as of this post are up to spines 246, 402, and 199 respectively). Any others did I miss?

Personally if I was tackling such an endeavor I'd be tempted to jump around the spine numbers to review the films best known and most dear to me first.

I think if you jumped around and reviewed the ones you were most interested in first, you'd likely lose interest in covering the rest of Criterion's releases.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by koberulz

That's a legal standard, not an ethical standard.

Exactly so. It’s like someone once said to me, imagine finding out many years after the fact, that your daughter has been attacked or raped by someone she knew, and for whatever reason, it wasn’t reported and the statute of limitations passed. If you’re any kind of person at all, the chances are infinitesimal that you would say, “oh well, presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law!”

Everyone has to make up their mind where they stand on individual cases and not everything is black and white. But the justice system is not a replacement for a moral compass. Even at its best, its standard is reasonable doubt, not, nope, we have absolute certainty this person didn’t commit a crime.

Now back to movies?

[ShellOilJunior]

The way I look at it. Someone associated with the production of one of your favorite movies has probably snorted coke. Can't cancel all those films and filmmakers or we'd be left with little.

It's possible to separate the artist from the art.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

The way I look at it. Someone associated with the production of one of your favorite movies has probably snorted coke. Can't cancel all those films and filmmakers or we'd be left with little.

It's possible to separate the artist from the art.

It's easy to do that with a director, cameraman, a crew member, or anyone who doesn't appear in the movie. It's not so easy to do that when the person who has committed the heinous crime is a major actor in the production.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

The way I look at it. Someone associated with the production of one of your favorite movies has probably snorted coke. Can't cancel all those films and filmmakers or we'd be left with little.

It's possible to separate the artist from the art.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Paper Moon (1973)



Peter Bogdanovich's What's Up, Doc? was probably the best expiring movie I watched last month. His Paper Moon will probably be the best I watch this month. Both star Ryan O'Neal. In this, he's joined by his daughter, Tatum O'Neal, who famously won the Academy Award while her dad failed to garner even a nomination.

I've made no secret of the fact that I don't consider Ryan O'Neal a great actor (I actually thought Buddy Lembeck from Charles in Charge played the lead in Barry Lyndon because the acting was at about the same level). With that said, there's always been something undeniably appealing about Ryan O'Neal - for whatever reason. Of all the movies I've seen him in, this is easily his best role, his best performance, and proves that he wasn't just another pretty face. One thing he does better than almost anyone is express white hot, rumbling, ferocious anger. Not to be an armchair psychologist, but I have a feeling that's the case because he wasn't faking it. Needless to say, he was a very troubled man (more on that below).

In contrast to that, the movie is a sheer delight. Tatum O'Neal is a 9-year-old girl whose mother just died, and con man Ryan O'Neal - whose character may or may not be her biological father - shows up at the funeral and offers to drive her to some relatives in another state. It isn't long before she's out-conning the con man. Pretty quickly, they become reluctant partners-in-crime. Their relationship and its evolution is the heart and soul of the movie.

Sadly, things were much rockier in real life: Peter Bogdanovich tyrannically required 40-50 takes to coax that performance out of Tatum - or so he claims - which makes me wonder if the usually wooden Ryan benefited from the same process. Even worse: According to Tatum O'Neal's autobiography, Ryan O'Neal struck her after she was nominated and he wasn't. I wish I hadn't read the Trivia section of IMDb after watching the movie!

DaBargainHunta's Decree: Despite everything, Paper Moon is still considered a classic for a reason - it's a genuinely great film, and tons of fun to boot. You won't forget the image of a 9-year-old girl chain smoking cigarettes like it's going out of style! (Subtitles included? Yes!)

Yeah Paper Moon is a wonderful film. Tatum O'Neal's performance is spellbinding! She unarguably steals the film and much deservedly won her oscar for it. It should've been for best actress instead of supporting since she is pretty much the star of the film IMO. It's possibly one of my top 5 all time favorite performances. Ryan O'Neal is great as well but frankly his performance is nothing compared to Tatum's. It's such a shame about her extremely troubled life. Both of her books are heartbreaking. I've been hoping either Paramount or Criterion would release Paper Moon (along with Tatum's other classics The Bad News Bears and Little Darlings) on blu in the states but since I just went region free I just got the Eureka release and it's a terrific package. For anyone who's region free I strongly recommend it for this timeless classic.