The Vanishing (1988)

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Watched The Vanishing recently, on the recently released Criterion Disk. Superb film - I had seen this once before many years ago, but this print is obviously far superior.

The most disturbing element to this film is the every day-ness to the villain; he definitely seems too ordinary/boring to be commiting such horrible crimes.

The only amusing part of the movie was when the villain tried to compel that

[Show spoiler]British woman at the rest-stop to come with him for the alleged reason of hooking something up to his car..then her husband came over, realized it was all a scam, and slapped the villain like a little b$%$# - Hilarious!

What's also very well-done about the film is how you can really identify with the boyfriend/husband of the missing woman...The scene when the villain compels him to go with him so that he can find out what happened to his girlfriend/wife is quite chilling....

[Show spoiler]And, the scene when he wakes up to find out he's been buried alive is horrific, and the first time I saw this, quite unexpected..

[Mr. Thomsen]

You edited your post before I could answer, but AFAIR the arm in a cast idea was inspired by Ted Bundy. He used a limp in a cast several times to get close to his victims and get them to let their guard down.

I have the book somewhere that Spoorloos was based on, but I can't recall whether it was also used there.

[Akijama]

To reiterate myself: Kubrick was a huge fan of this film. He thought Spoorloos was the most terrifying film he had seen. He even courted its lead actress, Johanna ter Steege, to play the lead in his Holocaust film, The Aryan Papers. But, alas, after a few years of delay, the movie was abandoned.

This video has been posted on Criterion's YouTube channel few days ago. You can see Sluzier talking about how much Kubrick was impressed with this movie.

George Sluizer on The Vanishing - YouTube

Really cool trivia.:

[The Great Owl]

I started to discuss this in my User Review for The Vanishing that I posted a few days back, but I ultimately decided that it was too spoiler-heavy to include in an actual review...

[Show spoiler]I love how Raymond Lemorne's family is unknowingly complicit in the kidnapping, because he uses their birthday gifts to him as props to lure Saskia into his car. The key ring from his daughter is what starts off his interaction with Saskia at the gas station, and the box of tiles from his wife is used as a prop to signify the box of key rings that he has for sale when he takes Saskia out to his car. Saskia also makes the decision to step into the car when she sees the family photo on the dashboard.
This particular story element of the unintentional family complicity is so gleefully sinister and demented that I just have to tip my hat.

The scene where Saskia sees the family photo on the dashboard, smiles, and decides to step into the car is chilling, just chilling.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

You edited your post before I could answer, but AFAIR the arm in a cast idea was inspired by Ted Bundy. He used a limp in a cast several times to get close to his victims and get them to let their guard down.

I have the book somewhere that Spoorloos was based on, but I can't recall whether it was also used there.

Good to know - Thanks. I figured this was based on a real-life incident. As I edited out of my earlier post, this ploy was also used by Buffalo Bill in the Silence of the Lambs novel (Thomas Harris, 1988), and I think the SOTL movie as well.

[Darth Marcus]

Blind bought this during the last B&N Criterion sale, and I must say it's a blind buy I'm proud to have made. I loved this film from top to bottom. Truly chilling and unsettling. And it makes you wonder if you've ever encountered a monster in your daily life but didn't even realize it. They're just out there among the crowds, disappearing into all of the faces that brush past your eyes as you make your way through your life. Oh, and the transfer was positively flawless. One of the best I've seen this year.

[Tuco_76]

Really liked this one, actually way more than Frantic. Haven't watched the CC treatment yet, but I thought it absolutely deserved..

@mods / Pro-b: Audio spec still says "French",
yeah I know, its all "old Europe", but anyway
Dutch: LPCM Mono
might be added to the track selection, I thought

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Tuco_76

Really liked this one, actually way more than Frantic. Haven't watched the CC treatment yet, but I thought it absolutely deserved..

@mods / Pro-b: Audio spec still says "French",
yeah I know, its all "old Europe", but anyway
Dutch: LPCM Mono
might be added to the track selection, I thought

Hi Tuco

In the audio section of the review we have French/Dutch, but currently the system does not allow two language listings at the same time on the main profile -- so we had to pick one.

It is great to hear that you enjoyed the film

Pro-B

[Tuco_76]

Hey pro-b ! thanks for providing that "background" insights.
I really wouldn't have remembered it was that much French spoken,
looked it up and in fact, like, 50/50.
Also I wasnt aware Spoorloos was rejected for that reason as the Dutch submission for Foreign Language Film, learned that @ wiki

Nevertheless (actually even more) I thought it might do the movie a little more justice picking "Dutch" as its language, as
- its a Dutch (1st) / French production, off. Dutch release
- George Sluizer and novel author/co-writer Tim Krabbé are Dutch
- also the loving couple (which could be seen as the protagonists, although the French villain Donnadieu has a lot of focus and screen time - which is a good thing imo)

But I appreciate there might be other arguments/points which I am unaware of, valid as well.

As for the contributing/ spec. system in general, appears to be quite the tricky thing at times





Not all that important though, anyways, I think you (/mods) doing a great job around, thanks for that btw

[Ray Jackson]

Considering this strongly for my final blind buy of the Criterion sale, but having second thoughts. Bought Insomnia as a blind buy and thought it was just...okay. Actually liked the Nolan version better.

I've already seen the American remake of Vanishing, so I'm familiar with the story.

Is the original dramatically better than the remake?

What makes it better?

What makes it different?

Thanks for any feedback.

[Tuco_76]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Considering this strongly for my final blind buy of the Criterion sale, but having second thoughts. Bought Insomnia as a blind buy and thought it was just...okay. Actually liked the Nolan version better.

I've already seen the American remake of Vanishing, so I'm familiar with the story.

Is the original dramatically better than the remake?

What makes it better?

What makes it different?

Thanks for any feedback.

I've just seen the original 2 times, 7-8 years ago. Thought it was a very good one, never bought it though.

As for comparison, somebody might help having seen both versions, I'm yet to watch the remake.

[schlock]

Argh! I've loved the original THE VANISHING since it first came out, and bought the original Image DVD in the late 90's and then later the Criterion DVD (which had substantially different subtitles to the Image disc). I just acquired Criterion's Blu version and it looks great, of course, but I did have an issue the moment I put in the disc and saw the main menu screen: (MAJOR SPOILER BELOW!!!)

[Show spoiler] It's not an obvious spoiler if you've never seen the film, so no big issue there, but Criterion's menu screen is basically Rex's last lighter-flame flickering in the darkness of his coffin. Which was a moment of so much power and haunting effect in the film's final moments. If you HAVE seen the film, it's still kind of irritating to now put in the disc to watch the film and the first thing you see is the final moment. Not POTA "statue" irritation, but still irritating. I know Criterion was probably trying to be artistic and subtle, but I think it was a complete misfire.

OK, not the end of the world and I still love Criterion's Blu regardless.

SO......... I then decided to try to rewatch the remake courtesy of Twilight Time's release which I bought a couple of months ago. I went to see this one in the theater in 1993 hoping it was going to be a decent remake and was seriously disappointed at the time, mostly in the tacked-on epilogue. But I thought maybe it would be better now, I could watch it through more objective eyes, etc. But man, the remake is beyond even my worst memories. Just the music score is so overblown and ridiculous, the acting by everyone is atrocious, there's no suspense or anything the least bit believable. Total Hollywood garbage, and I couldn't even make it to the halfway point, mush less the end, which is what I remember being the worst part of it all. I simply cannot believe the same director made both of these films. They are night and day. Vanishing 1993 will soon be vanishing from my collection.

[Ray Jackson]

I thought the original Norwegian version of Insomnia was disappointing.

I'm afraid to buy The Vanishing as a result of that.

[schlock]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Considering this strongly for my final blind buy of the Criterion sale, but having second thoughts. Bought Insomnia as a blind buy and thought it was just...okay. Actually liked the Nolan version better.

I've already seen the American remake of Vanishing, so I'm familiar with the story.

Is the original dramatically better than the remake?

What makes it better?

What makes it different?

Thanks for any feedback.

I like Nolan's Insomnia, but I also like the original.

As far as The Vanishing goes, just because you know the story, it's not all about the story, it's the execution of the story. One feels completely like an overblown generic Hollywood thriller, with big name stars overacting, and ridiculous overdone music and suspense action-scenes. The other is a very low-key drama, with believable actors, situations, and not filmed/edited to blast out your theater speakers. It's your preference, of course, as to which you prefer.

And Jeff Bridges, Kiefer Sutherland, Sandra Bullock, and Nancy Travis all look like inexperienced completely inept amateur actors compared to every actor in the original film.

[darkness2918]

Im also thinking of grabbing this as blind buy later this week but only cause (& I think im in a very small minority here) I actually like the 1993 remake & want to watch this one.

[cooney]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

Im also thinking of grabbing this as blind buy later this week but only cause (& I think im in a very small minority here) I actually like the 1993 remake & want to watch this one.

I'm actually with you. The remake really gets hated on which I've never fully understood. I agree the the remake isn't a great film. But it's a harmless movie in my eyes. I think it's mostly because the original is so well regarded that, if you're going to remake it, it had better be worth it. On its own terms, the remake is simple, clever little movie in the style of so many 90s thrillers which loved at the time. I was exposed to the remake first at a young age and really enjoyed it. I liked the way the story was told, I thought the cast was capable, and I love Goldsmith scores. Plus, I live in Seattle and see the gas station, the market, and that apartment complex on a somewhat regular basis which gives it a special place in my heart. One time on a hike outside the city I found that tunnel from the beginning of the movie too (I'm a sucker for filming locations). The only things that never sat well are Jeff Bridges' accent (ugh) and the closing scene. And maybe the "magically delicious" neighbor.

Having said that, the original is superior. It's so much more unnerving than the remake. Once I heard that the American version was a remake, I sought out the original when I was in high school and that ending left me feeling almost sick. It's fascinating that the same director did both because they're very different.

[Ray Jackson]

How would fans of this film describe the look of it?

What I mean is, does it look like a cheap, Indy-style production with mediocre photography?

...or does it look like a top-level production relative to the time period?

How's the acting in general?

Top notch thespians or substandard Dutch actors who you've never seen or heard from again?

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

How would fans of this film describe the look of it?

What I mean is, does it look like a cheap, Indy-style production with mediocre photography?

...or does it look like a top-level production relative to the time period?

Somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

How's the acting in general?

Top notch thespians or substandard Dutch actors who you've never seen or heard from again?

The villain's performance is excellent.

Why don't you just rent the film if you're so reluctant to make a blind buy? It's available on Netflix's mailing service.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

Somewhere in between.



The villain's performance is excellent.

Why don't you just rent the film if you're so reluctant to make a blind buy? It's available on Netflix's mailing service.

Two reasons:

1. Because I don't have Netflix and I think it's generally a waste of money

2. Because I'm insane and I don't operate like a normal, rational-thinking human being

[obscurelabel]

Originally Posted by schlock

Argh! I've loved the original THE VANISHING since it first came out, and bought the original Image DVD in the late 90's and then later the Criterion DVD (which had substantially different subtitles to the Image disc). I just acquired Criterion's Blu version and it looks great, of course, but I did have an issue the moment I put in the disc and saw the main menu screen: (MAJOR SPOILER BELOW!!!)

It's not exactly the same, and I've written about it before (either here or elsewhere) but Criterion's BD of Broadcast News has a substantial spoiler in the menu:

[Show spoiler]a brief shot of Jack Nicholson. I saw this movie when it came out in theaters, Nicholson was not billed in the opening credits nor publicized as being in the movie; the audience I was with had a collective gasp/laugh when he first appeared, it was so unexpected. I've remembered that all these years later. Nicholson is a star still but at that time to have him appear in a small, unpublicized role was a big surprise. This is now lost with the Criterion menu

.

If Criterion want to include scenes from the film in their menus, they need to limit them to scenes at the beginning of the film, or innocuous shots of the main leads that don't give away any plot points.