The Criterion Collection

[jw007]

Originally Posted by deepbreathsanddeath

If one won't watch any movie directed by Roman Polanski due to what he did, what's your stance on those who happily act in Polanski's movies? I understand why you wouldn't want to support him but I imagine that moral stance also means you can't watch any movie starring someone who DOES support him by acting in his movies.

Kind of means you also shouldn't see any movie that features a cinematographer, editor etc who has worked with him since the controversy and still supports him. That's got to really limit which movies you can actually see. They didn't sexually abuse anyone (to our knowledge) but by the sounds of it, you would feel disgusted if you knowingly supported someone like him.

I'd be interested to hear what people think about the people who happily work with him despite what he apparently did. I'm not trying to stir s*** up but if someone's moral stance is that they can't support a statutory rapist how do they justify supporting people who are okay with it?

Just curious.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I enjoy Roman Polanski's movies, and see nothing wrong with continuing to purchase and enjoy his releases that appeal to my tastes.

I'm appalled by the particulars of this story, of course, but I leave it at that. I've never been one to express indignation at the outcome of a famous court case or investigation, since I only know of everything secondhand through the media and since I was not on an actual jury or investigative committee. I also take for granted that there are probably a great many directors, actors, and artists whose work I enjoy watching that have committed horrible deeds that I know little or nothing about.

I dunno. When I go into a restaurant to order a hamburger, I do not scrutinize the cook's criminal background. Likewise, when I want to see a film that looks cool, I see a film that looks cool.

In the case of Roman Polanski, I'll leave the judgment up to God, because that responsibility is way above my own pay grade. Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, and The Tenant are still awesome flicks no matter what.

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Well sure, but if a restaurant opens in your neighbourhood and you know it's run by a rapist of minors who fled his country to avoid going to jail, you start eating there?

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Exactly. That's all part of tabloid culture, which I am not a part of, not cinephilia. To employ a well-worn saying--let the art speak for itself.

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I actually have no problem with people watching and enjoying his work. If you can separate the art from the artist, more power to you.

I find the defence of him disgusting, which is why I entered the conversation at all. (Not saying you were defending him, btw, that specific response was to that one line that didn't really make sense to me)

On the whole, I haven't seen much of his work, as it so often contains rape, which ruins my enjoyment of films/tv etc...

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

There can't be more than a few films with rape in his filmography.

And rape shouldn't ever be enjoyable. You're not alone in that respect. If a film deals with the issue respectfully, I have no problem with it.

Yes, exactly. "Let the art speak for itself" and "Separate the art from the artist". I tend to say "Judge the movie, not the man".

Sometimes there are instances of crime that are never reported and these are committed by many actors, actresses and filmmakers. How do we know that one of our favorite movie stars never assaulted a woman at one time? Where does it end when it comes to the chain of command? If a criminal is associated with a film team then they are associated with a film company that is associated with a film industry. This sounds like an existential witch hunt, trying to find all of those involved who might make immoral decisions.

I remember catching a brief TV miniseries of Gordon Ramsay (the famous celebrity chef) who went to England and worked with a dozen prisoners to help them create a prison bakery company. They were difficult to control and discipline but somehow Mr. Ramsay was able to focus the prisoners into baking lemon tarts and selling them to citizens in a pop up bakery in south London. The people buying the bakery items might not have realized that hardened criminals, rapists, thieves and murderers baked these treats, but somehow they accepted the product and consumed them. This is a perfect example of judging the product, not the individual. The people who created the art or the food might have been the scum of the earth, but if the product is good and attractive, then why not accept it? It's amazing how humans can sometimes separate the bad from the good. I see Roman Polanski in the same way. His films are very entertaining and interesting despite the fact that he made some terrible ethical decisions in his life.

Edward J. Grug III: You are somewhat accurate on the amount of rape scenes in Polanski's films. I think the ultimate film of his that had allusions to rape was Death and the Maiden. It's almost his own "therapy movie" to what he committed himself in 1977.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Certainly. Back when Criterion released Robocop they transferred it at 1.66:1, because that's the way Verhoeven originally framed it. When MGM/UA released their own version, they transferred it at 1.85:1, because that's the way it was seen in US theaters. I'd go with the director's intent.

On the other hand, sometimes the director makes a stupid-ass decision. When Criterion originally released Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville on laserdisc in 1995, they letterboxed it at its OAR (2.35:1). When they put it out on (non-anamorphic) DVD three years later, it was 1.33:1 pan-&-scan, because Godard requested it. I don't know why he did; I can only assume that he felt that the loss of resolution through letterboxing at the OAR was more detrimental than the loss of image.

I never knew about that decision from Godard. How odd.

Originally Posted by lordmorpheus72

Agreed. There was big hoopla for a certain vampire slaying blonde's tv show a while back because it was 4:3 on dvd and the spin off was 16:9. The show creator released a statement saying that was how ths shows were shot an intended, so that's how he wanted them release.

Indeed.

[EPlay]

Originally Posted by jw007

Yes, exactly. "Let the art speak for itself" and "Separate the art from the artist". I tend to say "Judge the movie, not the man".
. . .
I remember catching a brief TV miniseries of Gordon Ramsay (the famous celebrity chef) who went to England and worked with a dozen prisoners to help them create a prison bakery company. They were difficult to control and discipline but somehow Mr. Ramsay was able to focus the prisoners into baking lemon tarts and selling them to citizens in a pop up bakery in south London. The people buying the bakery items might not have realized that hardened criminals, rapists, thieves and murderers baked these treats, but somehow they accepted the product and consumed them. This is a perfect example of judging the product, not the individual. The people who created the art or the food might have been the scum of the earth, but if the product is good and attractive, then why not accept it? It's amazing how humans can sometimes separate the bad from the good. I see Roman Polanski in the same way. His films are very entertaining and interesting despite the fact that he made some terrible ethical decisions in his life.

I feel the same way and enjoyed your incorporation of Gordon Ramsay into the comment. (Love him!)

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

And rape shouldn't ever be enjoyable. You're not alone in that respect. If a film deals with the issue respectfully, I have no problem with it.

Agreed. The original 1971 Straw Dogs is probably the most unsettling movie in my collection. It's supposed to be unsettling.

The recent live-action movie adaptations of Transformers, G.I. Joe, The Smurfs, and Alvin and the Chipmunks have raped my childhood nostalgia. That's not entirely the same thing, but it's unsettling nonetheless.

[Herry Dunston]

I've been watching De Palma's Blow Out. Love the film, probably my favorite of his. Watching his 1-hour interview also helped cement my adoration for the movie, even if it's moderated by friggin' Noam Baumbach (I can't stand Baumbach).

How's De Palma's certain works, Body Double and Dressed to Kill? Are they as good as Blow Out?

[Mansinthe]

blow out:

i liked the interview about the steadicam the most. that person was just awesome cool.

[Herry Dunston]

Originally Posted by Mansinthe

blow out:

i liked the interview about the steadicam the most. that person was just awesome cool.

I really like that one as well. It's very informative, and actually, I kinda watch that stedicam accessory for iPhones. Is there a way I can get it?

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by jw007

Yes, exactly. "Let the art speak for itself" and "Separate the art from the artist". I tend to say "Judge the movie, not the man".

Obviously it's everyone's prerogative, but I agree also. It's nothing near as serious, obviously, but I didn't suddenly condemn Tom Cruise like some people did just because he jumped on a couch. But I found it odd and fascinating that there were people who used to like him and his movies suddenly stopped liking him, as if the movies themselves changed. With social media, TMZ, paparazzi, and all that, some people have gotten to a point where they can't separate the celebrity from the character. Or, they choose what to separate and what not to. I've seen more people condemn Cruise than someone like Chris Brown, who did something far worse and actually caused physical harm. But his CDs sure keep selling.

Which has nothing to do with Criterion, so back to that.

[brandon_260]

Went out and bought myself a new TV so I could watch my blu-rays while up North. I decided to used The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp to christen it. I was skeptical about the film, since Black Narcissus is one of my least favorite films I've watched in the collection. The first hour or so tested my patience a little, but after that I was completely captivated. The vibrancy of the colors just wowed me all the way through. Scorsese's introduction is expectedly great. The film has got me considering giving The Red Shoes a second shot after only making it through half an hour the first time (mostly due to how exhausted I was.)

[joie]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

So?

I thought someone mentioned that Polanski copped a plea. Perhaps he should have refused the "bargain," considering that a plea offer (from the D.A.) may be evidence that the D.A. has doubts that a stiffer charge can be proven.

Some people may try to insinuate that Polanski got off easy by accepting a plea deal.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Obviously it's everyone's prerogative, but I agree also. It's nothing near as serious, obviously, but I didn't suddenly condemn Tom Cruise like some people did just because he jumped on a couch. But I found it odd and fascinating that there were people who used to like him and his movies suddenly stopped liking him, as if the movies themselves changed. With social media, TMZ, paparazzi, and all that, some people have gotten to a point where they can't separate the celebrity from the character. Or, they choose what to separate and what not to. I've seen more people condemn Cruise than someone like Chris Brown, who did something far worse and actually caused physical harm. But his CDs sure keep selling.

Which has nothing to do with Criterion, so back to that.

Well, I'm glad Criterion isn't controlled by a Fascist dictator/CEO who excludes certain filmmakers and genres from making the collection. The beauty of Criterion is that they will release highly controversial films (Salo or The Last Temptation of Christ) and also highly controversial directors (Roman Polanski or Sam Peckinpah) along with a wide array of foreign, obscure, experimental, LGBT, indie, documentary, music, Hollywood and "arthouse" films.

[goette]

Since we came to the subject of "rape movies", would "Irreversible" be a good title to CC?

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I love how you say they often have rape, and then follow it up by saying you bet they do. Talk about talking out of your ass. Sounds like you're just looking for a reason to dislike his work based on his issues in real life.

I can't for the life of me think what you are so mad at?

I KNOW that it is present in a lot of his movies because in the past I have investigated films of his to watch as I was curious why he was great enough that people might become apologists of this a-hole. (I have seen Rosemary's Baby, which I liked and Chinatown, which I actually didn't.)

Anyway, here's a quick list of his movies that contain rape either explicitly or as part of the story:

Repulsion
Cul-De-Sac
Tess
Chinatown
What?
Macbeth
Rosemary's Baby
Death and the Maiden

More than a few, I win my bet. Sorry I didn't provide a list originally, I was literally in bed and that was the last thing I typed for the night.

[The Narrator]

Finally, Radiohead enters the Collection!

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by The Narrator

Finally, Radiohead enters the Collection!

Persona! (Person A)

Not that much of a surprise, given that it went up on Hulu, but good to have relative confirmation.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Persona! (Person A)

Not that much of a surprise, given that it went up on Hulu, but good to have relative confirmation.

It sounds very good and I heard it's one of Bergman's best, so I can't wait!

[xanderville]

Hmmmm....All this Polanski talk. If you dont want to support him by choosing to avoid watching some amazing movies, then fine, your choice. But I do know some famous masterpieces of art you should not look at either if that is your though process.....

Speaking of Polanski I just watched Carnage the other day. Very intriguing.

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by iScottie

It sounds very good and I heard it's one of Bergman's best, so I can't wait!

You haven't seen Persona??

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

You haven't seen Persona??

I haven't seen many things haha. I'm compiling a list of everything I've seen and films I should probably see and it's embarrassing.

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I haven't seen many things haha. I'm compiling a list of everything I've seen and films I should probably see and it's embarrassing.

Definitely one of his top 4 or 5 films, along with Fanny & Alexander, Through A Glass Darkly, The Silence, and The Seventh Seal.