Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[REPLAY]

Originally Posted by krasnoludek

Hah! I just came to this forum with the exact same sentiment. These last couple of preorders have made me really irritated in their backwards policy of seemingly fulfilling the most recent orders first, rather than going in the order received. And also I agree with an earlier poster -- they seem to hide behind the weather a lot, but these weather events happen a day or two after they should have already shipped the package. These aren't weather delays but delays in house at SAE.

Ordered Blue Max & Eddy Duchin Story on the first day pre-order was up. Still pending. Sent then a e-mail last night got a reply today.
Everything is backed up they said because the SUN IS SHINING and it's too bright outside. LOL

[iamnoone]

Originally Posted by oildude

Chris@SAE used to post here from time to time. Nice fella. Wish he'd make an appearance but I am afraid he would be bombed with negative posts. It would just be good to get some explanation of their shipping policies. Maybe larger orders go last even if they came in early? Distance from Virgina ships later?

I remember seeing a post on SAE's facebook quite a few months ago that Chris was moving on to other things and it was his final day.

[smoss469]

Originally Posted by REPLAY

Ordered Blue Max & Eddy Duchin Story on the first day pre-order was up. Still pending. Sent then a e-mail last night got a reply today.
Everything is backed up they said because the SUN IS SHINING and it's too bright outside. LOL

I believe that's sarcasm because of the snow they've had over the past week or so. At least they have a sense of humor!

[The Great Owl]

I just addressed this in the main thread for Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, but y'all will get a kick out of it here...

During the final minutes of the commentary track of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, the commentators go off on a tirade about how moviegoers in past times did not nitpick over grain levels and such like today's Blu-ray fans do. They make some good points, but it's so random that it almost seems like a deliberate middle finger to Blu-ray.com.

I'm really not impressed with the commentary track as a whole. The historians read homosexual undercurrents into almost every scene. I see nothing wrong or offensive with that, of course, but I simply took the movie at face value as a buddy film, and the commentary seems to be somewhat far-fetched in redefining the reality of each sequence.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I just addressed this in the main thread for Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, but y'all will get a kick out of it here...

During the final minutes of the commentary track of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, the commentators go off on a tirade about how moviegoers in past times did not nitpick over grain levels and such like today's Blu-ray fans do. They make some good points, but it's so random that it almost seems like a deliberate middle finger to Blu-ray.com.

Isn't the commentary by Nick Redman and two others? Thought I read that somewhere. Of course, I could check myself if my copy weren't still waiting to be shipped.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by oildude

Isn't the commentary by Nick Redman and two others? Thought I read that somewhere. Of course, I could check myself if my copy weren't still waiting to be shipped.

Yep. Audio Commentary with Film Historians Nick Redman, Lem Dobbs, and Julie Kirgo.

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

During the final minutes of the commentary track of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, the commentators go off on a tirade about how moviegoers in past times did not nitpick over grain levels and such like today's Blu-ray fans do. They make some good points, but it's so random that it almost seems like a deliberate middle finger to Blu-ray.com.

It's odd to me that they've created such an adversarial position against this site, given that the reviews of their releases are generally complimentary. The site certainly can't be held responsible for the opinions of every user who posts about the company.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I'm really not impressed with the commentary track as a whole. The historians read homosexual undercurrents into almost every scene. I see nothing wrong or offensive with that, of course, but I simply took the movie at face value as a buddy film, and the commentary seems to be somewhat far-fetched in redefining the reality of each sequence.

That's been an unfortunate trend in film criticism recently, especially in academic circles. Sometimes, those interpretations are valid, as some filmmakers have been intentional about implicitly including that particular story element. However, it often seems that critics and scholars, in an attempt to say something new and different, read a homosexual subtext into films, no matter how far-fetched or preposterous the interpretation may be.

[krasnoludek]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

That's been an unfortunate trend in film criticism recently, especially in academic circles. Sometimes, those interpretations are valid, as some filmmakers have been intentional about implicitly including that particular story element. However, it often seems that critics and scholars, in an attempt to say something new and different, read a homosexual subtext into films, no matter how far-fetched or preposterous the interpretation may be.

Or, in some cases, like Top Gun, the homosexual subtext wasn't intended and yet it's such a completely obvious interpretation when you watch it now that it's a wonder that most people didn't see it.

But I do generally agree with you that some academics, especially in literary or film criticism, have been guilty of wanting the equivalent of a flashy headline to garner quick attention to their work and one way to do that recently has been to recontextualize the work in a homosexual light that seems contrary to the "obvious" intention. The cases where that analysis is just a gimmick will fade quickly, just flashes in the pan, and the ones that will stick are the ones where such an analysis unexpectedly does fit the elements of the film (e.g., Manohla Dargis' IMO very accurate observation of This Means War that all the plot and chemistry suggests that it's the two men who were in love and the woman was a superfluous addition). In short, it comes down to doing good research and having a real insight vs. throwing a half-baked idea out to the public and judging its worth on the reaction it garners, and it all sorts itself out.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

That's been an unfortunate trend in film criticism recently, especially in academic circles. Sometimes, those interpretations are valid, as some filmmakers have been intentional about implicitly including that particular story element. However, it often seems that critics and scholars, in an attempt to say something new and different, read a homosexual subtext into films, no matter how far-fetched or preposterous the interpretation may be.

Although in this case, back in the days when he still gave interviews, Cimino has said that the subtext was intentional (though his phrasing was 'a very slight undercurrent') and, in his Guardian Lecture at the NFT in the 80s, that both Eastwood and Bridges were aware of it.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

That's been an unfortunate trend in film criticism recently, especially in academic circles. Sometimes, those interpretations are valid, as some filmmakers have been intentional about implicitly including that particular story element. However, it often seems that critics and scholars, in an attempt to say something new and different, read a homosexual subtext into films, no matter how far-fetched or preposterous the interpretation may be.

Originally Posted by Aclea

Although in this case, back in the days when he still gave interviews, Cimino has said that the subtext was intentional (though his phrasing was 'a very slight undercurrent') and, in his Guardian Lecture at the NFT in the 80s, that both Eastwood and Bridges were aware of it.

I think that Julie Kirgo's booklet for the Thunderbolt and Lightfoot Blu-ray addresses the homosexual undercurrent in an informative way while also making it clear that the film can be interpreted in a number of ways. I've always enjoyed Kirgo's write-ups in the booklets, and this one is no exception. The commentary track strikes me as more revisionist in nature, though.

During my first viewing of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, it never occurred to me that the film might have homosexual undercurrents. The notion does not bother me, but it simply did not come to mind during my first viewing.

I agree that many film critics these days tend to go overboard when it comes to inserting homosexual subtext into movies where these subtexts are not readily apparent.

Sometimes, the interpretations are warranted. One example is a relationship between Lee Van Cleef's character and Earl Holliman's character in the 1955 film noir, The Big Combo.

Sometimes, though, I think that film critics are grasping for straws. I'm probably in the minority, but I've never believed that Sal Mineo's Plato in the 1955 film, Rebel Without a Cause, is homosexual.

However you slice it, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is a fun movie. It's not a great movie, and it's not some overlooked masterpiece that film classes are going to obsess over in decades to come. It's just one of many 1970s movies that did not claim to be anything other than fun capers, car chases, and meditations of the freewheeling ways of life that would soon come to an end. Think of a lighthearted heist film cooked with dashes of Easy Rider and Two-Lane Blacktop.

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Sometimes, the interpretations are warranted. One example is a relationship between Lee Van Cleef's character and Earl Holliman's character in the 1955 film noir, The Big Combo.

Originally Posted by Mingo

I can't swallow any more salami!

I've always been fond of Montgomery Clift and John Ireland comparing, uh, guns in Red River.

[CarsonDyle]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Sometimes, though, I think that film critics are grasping for straws. I'm probably in the minority, but I've never believed that Sal Mineo's Plato in the 1955 film, Rebel Without a Cause, is homosexual.

You're definitely in the minority on that one. The subtext is so blatant it's practically text.

[krasnoludek]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

I've always been fond of Montgomery Clift and John Ireland comparing, uh, guns in Red River.

YES! That's one of the classics. I love that scene.

But with Montgomery Clift being gay, I think he might have been a little mischievous and gave that scene a gay overtone and John Ireland was game to play along.

[krasnoludek]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

I've always been fond of Montgomery Clift and John Ireland comparing, uh, guns in Red River.

Did I miss the announcement? Criterion is releasing Red River?!?! That's great! I've been waiting for a good release for years and was pretty close to buying the MoC release.

[jetthead]

Originally Posted by krasnoludek

Did I miss the announcement? Criterion is releasing Red River?!?! That's great! I've been waiting for a good release for years and was pretty close to buying the MoC release.

It hasn't been officially announced but there's a listing for it on Amazon.

[krasnoludek]

Originally Posted by jetthead

It hasn't been officially announced but there's a listing for it on Amazon.

preordered

[atfree]

Yep...here's pre-order link on Amazon. From price, it appears to be a Criterion. Release is May 2014

http://www.amazon.com/Red-River-Blu-...+river+blu+ray

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by CarsonDyle

You're definitely in the minority on that one. The subtext is so blatant it's practically text.

How many teenage boys have pin-up photos of Alan Ladd in their lockers? Originally, the photo was of Clift, which would have been far more appropriate.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

It's odd to me that they've created such an adversarial position against this site, given that the reviews of their releases are generally complimentary. The site certainly can't be held responsible for the opinions of every user who posts about the company.

it's quite puzzling in some ways... he's taken it completely personally. it's not like the reviewers or the staff was ranting against him. except for a couple titles (like NOTLD remake) the reviews here have been quite positive.

I think it had to do with Whitesheik being banned personally.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

That's been an unfortunate trend in film criticism recently, especially in academic circles. Sometimes, those interpretations are valid, as some filmmakers have been intentional about implicitly including that particular story element. However, it often seems that critics and scholars, in an attempt to say something new and different, read a homosexual subtext into films, no matter how far-fetched or preposterous the interpretation may be.

Queer theory is really just another academic fad. It's not much different from previous trends, like gender film theory, psychoanalytic film theory, or structuralist-marxist film theory, in that it is too often infused with a political agenda, IMO.