The Criterion Collection

[Professor Echo]

Arguably the best character actor of all time, Wallace Ford, continues to get Criterion love.

[Show spoiler]

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by ihaveblink

I don't really get the "male gaze" critique in this or any medium. My g/f watched Lost Highway and loved seeing PA nude. So what exactly does this mean? Only straight men want to see nude women? I'm not trying to start a whole thing by asking this but I just don't get the whole "male gaze" critique.

cakefactory a few posts above sums it up very well.

It's not about enjoying or not enjoying the nudity. It's about what perspective we're seeing it from. Is the nudity necessary to the story, or is it simply the director's fantasy and/or sex drive?

I'll give another example. The Hot Spot, which is a movie I'm a big fan of, I cannot deny is very male gaze-y. Is it necessary to see Jennifer Connolly complete nude on the beach? Does it add to the story? Or is it simply there to arouse audience members attracted to women? The latter. Dennis Hopper does the same thing with Jodie Foster in Backtrack—the nudity is completely pointless. And hey, don't get me wrong, as a straight man, I won't deny I like seeing an attractive woman in the nude, but I am also am aware when it's necessary or not in a film. Lynch, like Hopper (and they were probably friends since they worked together) is guilty of the same thing. What does Laura Dern's 2 second topless scene in Wild At Heart putting her bra on add to the story? Nothing. It's there to show a young pretty lady's breasts, nothing more. In Lost Highway, if Lynch framed the shots to avoid showing Arquette's private parts, what would we have lost? Nothing.

[ihaveblink]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

My limited understanding is that there's different ways of filming a character like hers. It's most definitely not impossible to have a nude scene that wouldn't be described that way. But, generally if the camera is really focusing on her sexy parts and seems designed to titillate the audience, that's considered "the male gaze." Especially if the character is just sort of laying around passively instead of actually doing anything in the scene, or if the camera is meant to represent a male character looking at her from a position of power (ex POV shots, or over the shoulder). I mean, there's obviously gray area here, and it's not like all stuff with "the male gaze" is objectively negative or anything. And it can be pretty easy to subvert it, like in say, a scene like the infamous interrogation scene in Basic Instinct, where yes, we're getting a look at her naughty bits, yes we're looking from the perspective of men drooling over her, but she has all the power in the scene.

For one of the archetypal examples of "the male gaze" try watching a video about how Michael Bay filmed Megan Fox in the first two transformers movies. She's all oiled up, the camera REALLY gets in tight and gives long shots of her butt, the only point of the shots is to drool over her body and establish how sexy she appears to Shia Lebouf.

For another obvious example from trashy mainstream movies, the difference between the way the camera treats Gal Gadot in Justice League vs in the movie Wonder Woman. The former makes sure the camera goes up her skirt during action scenes, always oils her up, likes to make her outfit look sexier and more revealing, basically making sure that viewers are titillated. While in Wonder Woman, she has the exact same outfit and is doing much of the same stuff, but the shots are framed and presented in a way that is done for the action instead of the sexuality.

First, I thank you for your response and appreciate the brevity of your explanation. But doesn't this all rely on the notion that only hetero men are the ones finding this titillating? That's where I find it somewhat outdated and kind of problematic. It kind of removes specific agency for female writers, directors, and viewers. It also says that as a man I should find these things appealing to my specific gaze, when that isn't always true.

Also thinking about this, maybe too much so, is Top Gun a movie for "the male gaze"?

[ihaveblink]

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

cakefactory a few posts above sums it up very well.

It's not about enjoying or not enjoying the nudity. It's about what perspective we're seeing it from. Is the nudity necessary to the story, or is it simply the director's fantasy and/or sex drive?

I'll give another example. The Hot Spot, which is a movie I'm a big fan of, I cannot deny is very male gaze-y. Is it necessary to see Jennifer Connolly complete nude on the beach? Does it add to the story? Or is it simply there to arouse audience members attracted to women? The latter. Dennis Hopper does the same thing with Jodie Foster in Backtrack—the nudity is completely pointless. And hey, don't get me wrong, as a straight man, I won't deny I like seeing an attractive woman in the nude, but I am also am aware when it's necessary or not in a film. Lynch, like Hopper (and they were probably friends since they worked together) is guilty of the same thing. What does Laura Dern's 2 second topless scene in Wild At Heart putting her bra on add to the story? Nothing. It's there to show a young pretty lady's breasts, nothing more. In Lost Highway, if Lynch framed the shots to avoid showing Arquette's private parts, what would we have lost? Nothing.

Lol. I don't even remember Laura Dern being nude in WAH.

But I'm assuming it did mean something to LD and I would say that she probably wouldn't say "Because Lynch wanted to give the boys something to look at". So I just find that very ... myopic I guess. It also assumes quite a lot about sexuality that I just think is so outdated. But I thank you for clarifying.

[kmhofmann]

Originally Posted by Stewynewy

As MifuneFan mention, tread lightly when looking into it, as the film really hinges on a certain surprise that is better left unspoiled.

Don't Look Now is in my top 10 films of all time. For me it captures a constant state of dread that no other film has replicated for me. It feels like something bad is going to happen but you don't quite know what and when. This in combination with the beautiful scenery of Venice, it's slower pace, and unconventional editing keep your eyes glued to the screen (well for me at least). Also, Pino Donaggio's score is simply magnificent, and is one of the great film soundtracks of all time.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

What a wonderful film!

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Arguably the best character actor of all time, Wallace Ford, continues to get Criterion love.

[Show spoiler]

I’d argue for Ward Bond. He finally got the stardom he craved on Wagon Train but the great majority of his career was spent in character roles. In films, he’s probably best known for his association with friend John Wayne and director John Ford. Here’s a couple of his Ford films from the Collection:

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by ihaveblink

First, I thank you for your response and appreciate the brevity of your explanation. But doesn't this all rely on the notion that only hetero men are the ones finding this titillating?

No, not really. I think the term originated due to probably 95% of all movies ever produced having been made by men for a heterosexual audience. It's easier for shorthand to continue using it since it's a long-established term instead of saying something like "the gaze that makes women look sexy to people that are attracted to women."

That's where I find it somewhat outdated and kind of problematic. It kind of removes specific agency for female writers, directors, and viewers. It also says that as a man I should find these things appealing to my specific gaze, when that isn't always true.

Also thinking about this, maybe too much so, is Top Gun a movie for "the male gaze"?

I've definitely seen stuff from female directors described as using "the male gaze" - it's more of an academic concept than something that necessarily describes the sex of the director or person enjoying the scene. Like, sometimes they're described as subverting it by sort of including those sorts of genre tropes and then upending things later (ex Slumber Party Massacre), other times I've seen it described as the director just had seen a thousand movies that would just casually pan up a woman's body to make them look hot so they did it too, cause that's just how they've always seen it done (ex, Lost in Translation).

You could describe analyzing this as taking away the agency of female directors, but it's not really any more than talking about it with male directors can take away the agency of male directors! Not all of them were showing it cause they liked it, plenty were doing it cause that's "just what movies are like" or that's what was mandated by the producers or whatever.

Generally when I see it referred to with modern female directors it's used in articles that are highlighting the very different ways that male/female directors will approach similar subject material. And usually with mainstream movies, unfortunately, just cause that's what get clicks. Ex the aforementioned Wonder Woman portrayals with men vs women directing. Or another good example is Birds of Prey (female director) and Suicide Squad (the first, awful one - male director) and the radically different way that Margot Robbie, playing the same character, is treated even when wearing similarly revealing clothing.

I think it's all just sort of an academic exercise. It's interesting to think about sometimes, occasionally something will stick out as particularly disgusting (ex Transformers 3 leering over the body of a character described as being sub-18) and it's occasionally helpful to recognize this, but you don't need to police yourself or anything. I mean, I watch hundreds of trashy exploitation movies and have plenty of fun with them. I don't personally find it to be a problem unless there's something really grossly misogynistic about that director's approach (ex, Michael Winner in some of the 80s movies I've seen of his). Probably 3/4 of the stuff I watch it never crosses my mind.

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by ihaveblink

Lol. I don't even remember Laura Dern being nude in WAH.

But I'm assuming it did mean something to LD and I would say that she probably wouldn't say "Because Lynch wanted to give the boys something to look at". So I just find that very ... myopic I guess. It also assumes quite a lot about sexuality that I just think is so outdated. But I thank you for clarifying.

Well, you forget that often actors (who aren't A-list) fear losing work or saying no to producers/directors/higher-ups. Or they only get the role if they agree to certain perimeters... You're assuming LD just thought, "hey! Sure I'll show my chest to everyone for the sake of it!" It's myopic to assume everyone who agrees to do something truly on the inside wants to do it. It's not unlike your boss asking you to work late and you saying sure, despite having reservations about it and wanting to go home.

I guess I would like to hear how the nudity in Lynch's or Hopper's film improves the storytelling and how it would be an inferior work without it.

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I’m guessing the same artist was also responsible for Nightmare Alley.

According to Criterion's documentation for "Nightmare Alley", that new cover was by Ricardo Diseño.

[KurtLazyhammer]

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

Well, you forget that often actors (who aren't A-list) fear losing work or saying no to producers/directors/higher-ups. Or they only get the role if they agree to certain perimeters... You're assuming LD just thought, "hey! Sure I'll show my chest to everyone for the sake of it!" It's myopic to assume everyone who agrees to do something truly on the inside wants to do it. It's not unlike your boss asking you to work late and you saying sure, despite having reservations about it and wanting to go home.

I guess I would like to hear how the nudity in Lynch's or Hopper's film improves the storytelling and how it would be an inferior work without it.

Film is a visual medium and Lynch makes women more visually appealing than they are in any other work they'll ever be in. That's why so many actresses work with Lynch and multiple times at that.
It's the opposite of them fearing work by saying no, many actresses seek that and you can tell which ones really thrive from it. The nudity is a part of the picture and draws the eye. The difference between Twin Peaks, FWWM, and the Return comes from the restrictions Lynch gets with the different mediums and creates very unique moods for example. You can like the original show more, that's fine, but there is a very clear artistic contract when you compare it to a film or a premium channel.

[CRASHLANDING]

From Wikipedia: "In feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women and the world in the visual arts and in literature from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer."

"The existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre introduced the concept of le regard, the gaze, in Being and Nothingness (1943), wherein the act of gazing at another human being creates a subjective power difference, which is felt by the gazer and by the gazed because the person being gazed at is perceived as an object, not as a human being. The cinematic concept of the male gaze is presented, explained, and developed in the essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema"(1975), in which Laura Mulvey proposes that sexual inequality — the asymmetry of social and political power between men and women — is a controlling social force in the cinematic representations of women and men. The male gaze (the aesthetic pleasure of the male viewer) is a social construct derived from the ideologies and discourses of patriarchy."

The above quotes, especially the highlighted portion, emphasize that the male gaze isn't just about sexualization, but rather the impact of that sexualization to reduce the humanity of the person being gazed at. In cinema, the "gaze" might be the perspective of the filmmaker, of characters in the film itself, or audience members viewing the film. But in all cases, the result is objectification, which is about social power more than sexuality. So the fact that some women might also find the images arousing (or some men don't) doesn't change the criticisms.

Interesting sidebar, but now back to discussing the Collection!

[hoytereden]

All this discussion of female nudity in film has prompted me to do more research on Mr. Skin….I mean Wikipedia! Yes, Yes, I meant Wikipedia. Of course, it may take some time but rest assured I’ll be thorough in my studies.

[Oldman Gerald]

Originally Posted by Templeton580

I don’t understand this question at all, whether nudity is “necessary” or “improves” the movie. What does that even mean?

People are nude all the time. It’s necessary. If seeing it is a problem, it’s yours. Grow up.

Originally Posted by hoytereden

All this discussion of female nudity in film has prompted me to do more research on Mr. Skin….I mean Wikipedia! Yes, Yes, I meant Wikipedia. Of course, it may take some time but rest assured I’ll be thorough in my studies.

Duality of man.

[Professor Echo]

Another tangent discussion in the Criterion thread that threatens to derail into all sorts of meaningless blather disguised as significant points and conclusions.

Here's where I cut to the chase: You don't like nudity in a movie? Don't watch that movie. You don't like what someone connected to certain films did or didn't do? Don't watch those films. As long as we still have a free country, use the freedom and let others use theirs, even if you believe without any doubts that your freedom is superior.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Another tangent discussion in the Criterion thread that threatens to derail into all sorts of meaningless blather disguised as significant points and conclusions.

Here's where I cut to the chase: You don't like nudity in a movie? Don't watch that movie. You don't like what someone connected to certain films did or didn't do? Don't watch those films. As long as we still have a free country, use the freedom and let others use theirs, even if you believe without any doubts that your freedom is superior.

Don’t like peoples post? Don’t read them it’s a free board just keep scrolling.

[ajabrams]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

I’d argue for Ward Bond. He finally got the stardom he craved on Wagon Train but the great majority of his career was spent in character roles. In films, he’s probably best known for his association with friend John Wayne and director John Ford. Here’s a couple of his Ford films from the Collection:

I have a hard time having any appreciation for Ward Bond. The man was a horrible bigot. I know that shouldn't affect my appreciation for his acting but it does.

[NeoNical]

Just rewatched Divorce Italian Style, which is one of my favorite Italian comedies. Did a little bit of research to see if a restoration exists and it seems like the American Film Institute (AFI) did a screening of a 4K restoration for this film. A really fun movie and a nice partner piece of Marriage Italian Style, which shares no connections besides Marcello Mastroianni starring in both films.

I'm fairly certain there are a lot of classic European comedies that were recently restored yet have no presence or interest in the home video markets. When I'm discussing about European comedies, I'm thinking of actors like Alberto Sordi, an actor that I have heard so much about and seems to be a icon of Italian cinema. One of my local theaters was showing a 4K restoration of Una vita difficile (A Difficult Life) with Sordi and Massari, which I unfortunately had to miss out on. Although it was lucky enough to get screenings in certain arthouse theaters in the US, I doubt a home video release is happening to be honest. Perhaps the biggest Sordi title I've heard so much about and waiting for is Il Boom, which was also distributed by Rialto Pictures. With Alberto Sordi's filmography, he has a legendary status in European cinema yet I haven't seen a single classic comedy from him (Excluding his Fellini collabs) because of the lack of availability in the US home video.

Another actor that came to mind was Bourvil, which his last film, Le Cercle Rouge, is the only film I can recall being in print in the US. I have heard a lot of great things about La Grande Vadrouille so it makes me sad that I'm missing out on it. While many of these classic comedies may not translate perfectly well for the foreign viewers (As well as some outdated jokes that may seem offensive), I think this is a huge area that Criterion is missing out on.

Really hoping there will be more European comedy titles being put in serious consideration. With the exception of that beautiful Pasolini set, the last Italian title we had was Miracle in Milan back in April 2022. I know they're behind on releasing films from many countries like Japan but I do hope to see some good Italian films getting releases and restorations.

Leaving my rant off on that note. I have probably said some things in this post that aren't the strongest points of argument or can be easy to counter but I don't like seeing some of these films being restored and shown to a limited crowd only to be shelved indefinitely. This rant is really just the same as any other fan's wishlist for Criterion treatment though. Anyways, thanks for reading the rant

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Don’t like peoples post? Don’t read them it’s a free board just keep scrolling.

I read some of the posts to see what the discussion is and often there are interesting perspectives from both sides. But they rarely if ever add up to much so I tried to summarize by offering with what I myself thought was a common sense compromise. Everyone should write and read what they like here, I’m just saying everybody is right, except for everybody who is wrong.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by ajabrams

I have a hard time having any appreciation for Ward Bond. The man was a horrible bigot. I know that shouldn't affect my appreciation for his acting but it does.

Same here, but I try my best with situations like this to separate the person from the performances, as hard as it is do sometimes. From what I read he definitely had what I personally feel are very bad perspectives about people and the world, but then again you can't always believe what you read. Unless it's on the internet.

[javy]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Don’t like peoples post? Don’t read them it’s a free board just keep scrolling.

How am I supposed to know I don't like them if I do not read them?