The Criterion Collection

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

Just watched Sansho the Bailiff. One of my favorites to date.

Originally Posted by Snicket

Care to expand on that?

I second that.

Originally Posted by tenia

With BD sales increasing in the US, it isn't surprising at all to see even titles released quite late on DVD being upgraded, and it will certainly happens more and more (also simply because if they can put every single DVD release into a BD thanks to material up to this, they will certainly try and do it for as many titles than possible).

Hoping for a Bluray upgrade of the Josef von Sternberg Boxset and Vampyr

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Care to expand on that?

Just a fantastic story. The wide arrange of the human spirit is seen throughout the film. I won't give too much away, but if you've not seen it, please do. Simple story, great emotion, and timeless themes.

[Mansinthe]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

Just a fantastic story. The wide arrange of the human spirit is seen throughout the film. I won't give too much away, but if you've not seen it, please do. Simple story, great emotion, and timeless themes.

but get the masters of cinema release instead of the criterion. since the MoC release has another movie on the disk

[Abdrewes]

Just finished Lilliana Cavani's The Night Porter and it is indeed a film that begs to be considered in many ways. It's such a difficult film to pin down not because it's hard to understand (it operates like a very simple melodrama), but because it dances around all borders of decency. Images that are at once seductive and dangerous, maybe even distasteful captivated me throughout, I applaud films that are not scared to refract history like a funhouse mirror.

Many have deemed the plot ridiculous. Is it? Yes, but I wouldn't have it any other way. What's the point of making a historical film that doesn't challenge the audience's sympathies and preconceptions? I don't want a dry history lesson, I want images that present the past in new, bold ways. A Stockholm syndrome-type relationship between an ex-Nazi officer and one of the sole survivors of a certain concentration camp certainly qualifies.

The cinematography is resplendent throughout. There are plenty of long takes with subtle camera movement. It's not quite on par with, say, Max Ophuls, but is definitely worth experiencing just for the framing and lighting: I hope Criterion releases it soon on BluRay just for this reason.

I have a feeling I'll be thinking about this film for weeks because I just don't know what to make of it.

[Snicket]

Perhaps some of you can help me on this...

I have been looking to expand my palette of female directors, are their any in the collection (or outside) you would recommend?

Some I really like are Kelly Reichardt, Sofia Coppola, Bigelow, who are your favorites?

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Perhaps some of you can help me on this...

I have been looking to expand my palette of female directors, are their any in the collection (or outside) you would recommend?

Some I really like are Kelly Reichardt, Sofia Coppola, Bigelow, who are your favorites?

Off the top of my head, Adrienne Shelly (known for the Hal Hartley films, plus she directed Waitress), Andrea Arnold (directed Criterion's Fish Tank, as well as the new film Wuthering Heights), and Isabelle Huppert (directed Criterion's White Material).

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Off the top of my head, Adrienne Shelly (known for the Hal Hartley films, plus she directed Waitress), Andrea Arnold (directed Criterion's Fish Tank, as well as the new film Wuthering Heights), and Isabelle Huppert (directed Criterion's White Material).

Actually Claire Denis directed White Material.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Just finished Lilliana Cavani's The Night Porter and it is indeed a film that begs to be considered in many ways. It's such a difficult film to pin down not because it's hard to understand (it operates like a very simple melodrama), but because it dances around all borders of decency. Images that are at once seductive and dangerous, maybe even distasteful captivated me throughout, I applaud films that are not scared to refract history like a funhouse mirror.

Many have deemed the plot ridiculous. Is it? Yes, but I wouldn't have it any other way. What's the point of making a historical film that doesn't challenge the audience's sympathies and preconceptions? I don't want a dry history lesson, I want images that present the past in new, bold ways. A Stockholm syndrome-type relationship between an ex-Nazi officer and one of the sole survivors of a certain concentration camp certainly qualifies.

The cinematography is resplendent throughout. There are plenty of long takes with subtle camera movement. It's not quite on par with, say, Max Ophuls, but is definitely worth experiencing just for the framing and lighting: I hope Criterion releases it soon on BluRay just for this reason.

I have a feeling I'll be thinking about this film for weeks because I just don't know what to make of it.

This sounds like quite the trip. A question though, was the film misogynistic in any way? The plot sounds like it could be ripe for it, maybe even a little exploitative?

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Mr. Thompson, it's been a while since I've last seen Seconds, so all I have to draw from is a very rusty memory of it (basically just the gist of the plot). But, have you seen John Frankenheimer's Seven Days in May? Worth checking out? It's the film he made in between Manchurian Candidate and Seconds and I've read it touches on similar themes, specifically paranoia.

Sorry, no, I don't think I ever got around to check that one out.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Off the top of my head, Adrienne Shelly (known for the Hal Hartley films, plus she directed Waitress), Andrea Arnold (directed Criterion's Fish Tank, as well as the new film Wuthering Heights), and Isabelle Huppert (directed Criterion's White Material).

I just did an Adrienne Shelly double feature last night! I'll Take You There followed by Waitress. Still havent seen her directorial debut Sudden Manhattan.

[Scottie]

I wonder if "Psycho" had anything to do with Hitchcock making "The Birds". I remember the numerous amount of bird props in Psycho and then his next movie was The Birds. Seems like an odd coincidence.

Also, is it just me or does anyone else enjoy playing "Where's Waldo?: Hitchcock Edition" in all of his movies? I love finding him making a minor cameo!

Originally Posted by jrsl76

Actually Claire Denis directed White Material.

I knew I was messing that up. I knew a woman directed it, but I mixed up the lead actress with the director. Silly me.

Originally Posted by spanky87

I just did an Adrienne Shelly double feature last night! I'll Take You There followed by Waitress. Still havent seen her directorial debut Sudden Manhattan.

I have Trust on order, The Unbelievable Truth arrived yesterday, and Waitress is still a part of my DVD collection. I love Waitress, it may be one of my favorite movies. Such a shame that she died so young.

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I have Trust on order, The Unbelievable Truth arrived yesterday, and Waitress is still a part of my DVD collection. I love Waitress, it may be one of my favorite movies. Such a shame that she died so young.

I know you're a fan of Waitress, but I wasn't that crazy about it. It was ok. I do like Hal Hartley though and Trust is my favorite that I've seen. I need to get it soon. With all the Hartley's coming out, I'll be loading up in the near future.

[Seymour]

Anyone think Criterion might upgrade some these Paramount titles that were already released on DVD? They've put out a fair number of Paramount acquisitions in the last year or so (Rosemary's Baby, Harold and Maude, Medium Cool, Seconds), but I'm hoping they'll get around to some of these, as well:

Ace in the Hole (1951)
Downhill Racer (1969)
Friends of Eddie Coyle, The (1973)
Naked Prey, The (1966)
Spy Who Came in from the Cold, The (1965)
White Dog (1982)

I'm also wondering, why didn't Criterion release some of these on blu-ray at the same time as the DVD? For instance, Downhill Racer and Friends of Eddie Coyle both got Criterion releases in 2009, but they were DVD only...

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

A simple search should actually turn up an Alfred Hitchcock: The Masterpiece Collection thread where this convo can move to.

Hitchcock is a director in the Criterion Collection, so all of his films are fair game for discussion here.

I am not a moderator here, and I've never read specific thread guidelines, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Off the top of my head, Adrienne Shelly (known for the Hal Hartley films, plus she directed Waitress), Andrea Arnold (directed Criterion's Fish Tank, as well as the new film Wuthering Heights), and Isabelle Huppert (directed Criterion's White Material).

Thanks for the recommendations, I did like Fish Tank, I really need to revisit this one I think. I remember Coop once said it was a more real to life version of An Education, I agree but still prefer An Education over it, not to say the film is any slouch though. So Wuthering Heights looks gorgeous if nothing else (Has anyone seen it?), White Material looked like it got a lot of praise so I will watch out for that one.

[dsman71]

Thank you Great Owl ! Dontcha just love it when one member tries to sound so much better than another member ?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Snicket

This sounds like quite the trip. A question though, was the film misogynistic in any way? The plot sounds like it could be ripe for it, maybe even a little exploitative?

Without a doubt it is a bit exploitative: a bunch of the historical context is kind of thin and even silly (ballet dancing Nazis). Furthermore, the Past relationship they had at the concentration camp borders on preposterous. Also, it must be said that she's completely complacent in her role, at times the light in her eye resembles that of a love smitten woman in a 1940's melodrama (that's why I made sure to reference Max Ophuls).

I promise you'll have a fairly strong reaction to it: whether it be disgust or adoration.

Now, I've got to trace down Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS just for comparison.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Thanks for the recommendations, I did like Fish Tank, I really need to revisit this one I think. I remember Coop once said it was a more real to life version of An Education, I agree but still prefer An Education over it, not to say the film is any slouch though. So Wuthering Heights looks gorgeous if nothing else (Has anyone seen it?), White Material looked like it got a lot of praise so I will watch out for that one.

I received Wuthering Heights in yesterday. It's packaged nicely, similar to the We Need To Talk About Kevin package.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Snicket

White Material looked like it got a lot of praise so I will watch out for that one.

White Material may be difficult for some to get into. Yes, it's gorgeously shot, but its quite nonlinear. I really liked it though.

I'm no Claire Denis expert, but I think the best place to start is Beau Travail.

Which reminds me, I need to finally watch my copy of The Intruder ASAP.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

Sorry, but that's not true. 1.75:1 is indeed a "real" aspect ratio. In the US it was used for a period by MGM and Disney, and also the major part of British non-anamorphic (="flat") widescreen movies were shot for 1.75:1 (and not 1.66:1 as is often presumed).

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/wide.../evolution.htm

In fact, if you want to nitpick, one could argue that it's 1.78:1 that's not a "real aspect ratio" - at least when it comes to movies, because the 16:9/ 1.78:1 aspect ratio was invented solely for television as an ideal compromise between 4:3/ 1.33:1 and 2.35:1. I do believe, though, that some movies shot digital in the later years have indeed been framed for that ratio.

Cropping a 1.37 film to 1.75 still doesn't make it a real AR, because the films were not framed for that size. Not to mention, that article lists MGM and Disney only... Seconds was a Paramount film, and shot in 1.85:1. Always has been.

1.78 is definitely a real ratio, as evidenced by HDTV specs. All digital cameras shoot in that ratio, therefore it is indeed real, no matter when it was "created."