Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

«‹›4 »

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Og Oggilby posted:

Criterion Newsletter: "Eight million stories. And we've got one of 'em."
Searching for quotes on IMDB, it'll be Jules Dassin's The Naked City.

That's cool; the Image DVD is...well, an Image DVD.

Did you actually had to look up the `eight million stories' line? I thought it was one of the more recognisable quotes from cinema (well, I imagine many folks know it from the television series of the same name, but the point is the same).

# ¿ Nov 7, 2006 21:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:56

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

cryme posted:

Might've been SubG.
Or possibly the elitists on criterionforum.

To the best of my recollection, I have never pimped for Naruse in CineD. But I'm glad to be thought of in the same breath (thought of in breath? what the hell am I talking about?) as the elitists on criterionforum.

Anyway, it's nice to see some Naruse hitting DVD...although I await with trepidation something equivalent to the Ozu effect. Someone on these here forums has an avatar of a guy chatting up a bit of it at a party, with a title something like, `Yeah, I'm into some pretty wild stuff, like Chuck Palahniuk and Vanilla Sky'. Every time Criterion goes on another DVD-releasing tear with a new `foreign' director, all the middlebrow film snoblings start sounding like that to me, (`Yeah, I'm really into obscure Japanese cinema, like Kurosawa and Ozu').

# ¿ Nov 17, 2006 22:58

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

vertov posted:

I guess in the case of Naruse, where his films have only been shown in the country twice (once in the early eighties and again last year at a touring retrospective), there's a certain amount of smugness that goes with "oh, it's too bad you haven't seen Floating Cloads, but I assure you it's sublime."

Really? Have prints been available for university/film festival showings? I would've sworn that I saw it in a theatre, but it would've been mid to late '80s, not early '80s. It's the one with the dutiful but addlepated woman chasing the unsympathetic rear end in a top hat for six or seven reels of unrequited love, yes? I also seem to remember a sequence on a boat.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2006 06:14

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

vertov posted:

It could have been the mid/late eighties. I'm pretty bad with dates, so I might just be mixing things up. I'm pretty sure his films have only been exhibited once or twice in the states though, barring a film like Woman which is generally well known.

But does that mean that there aren't any prints floating around anywhere? Back in the '80s and early '90s you used to be able to find a lot of films via university inter-library loan if they weren't in commercial release. That's how I first saw Chimes at Midnight (1965) and Suna No Onna (1964) (Woman in the Dunes), and Cassavetes' Faces (1968) for example.

IMDB says that the US release of Ukigumo (1955) was in 1980, and I'm pretty sure that was before I would've been hanging out in arthouse theatres.

cryme posted:

Heh, I didn't mean you were an elitist like some people over on cf, you were just the only other CineD'r that may have possibly seen a Naruse film, to my knowledge.

No problem; I just feel like I spend more time in CineD talking about kung fu films and schlock horror films than I do about quote serious unquote cinema---so I was sorta surprised that I'd be thought of as one of the CineD cognoscenti.

I mean, I just got double-dipped by the Dark Sky release of The Beast Must Die (1974), which has to really hurt your film snob credentials.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2006 02:32

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

vertov posted:

It's not another Criterion, it's from Dragon Dynasty. I made a post about it in the "Upcoming DVDs" thread.

Any idea if the Dragon Dynasty release will have new subtitles, or if they're going to use the same translation of the English dub that the old R1 discs (Criterion and Fox) used? The remastered Mei Ah disc is currently my favourite transfer of Lashou Shentan (1992), and is only edition I know of with English subtitles of the original dialogue. Even if we do lose the classic, `Give him one gun, he's Superman. Give him two, he's God!'

And, for whatever it's worth, both the Hong Kong Legends and the Fortune Star Dip Hyut Shueng Hung (1989) (a.k.a. The Killer) are in the worth-owning group of Woo transfers.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2007 00:44

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Criminal Minded posted:

Apparently this is a reference to Monte Hellman's Two-Lane Blacktop.

This is cool, but was there a sudden revival of interest in this film that I missed? This used to be one of those films that I'd mention and get blank stares.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2007 07:16

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

LaptopGun posted:

That maybe one of the ugliest non-Anchor Bay produced DVD's I've ever seen.

Without defending the Artisan DVD: Man, I wish I could say the same. Check out any disc pressed by Tai Seng or Mei Ah before around 2003 if you want to see a really bad DVD sometime. I'm talking worse than old Kino discs. I'm talking worse than those `1.7 billion public domain films from 1939 on a single disc' or '50 lovely kick flicks transfered from third-generation VHS tape' compilations put out by places like Mill Creek or Brentwood.

That all being said, Mei Ah was born again hard around 2003, and they've been putting out some really high-quality discs since then. Pretty much like Anchor Bay, who over the last couple years has released a lot of better-than-the-film-deserves transfers (like about 90% of the stuff in their `Six Pack' boxes).

# ¿ Nov 16, 2007 20:16

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

LaptopGun posted:

Now that I think of it, I wish Criterion would do a Night of the Living Dead or Evil Dead release. Those would be pretty cool.

Why? It isn't as if it's hard to find excellent releases of either of those already. I mean, if I was thinking of films that I would add to my, `Would you guys please stop pressing new editions of these films already ferchrissakes?' list, those two would be right at the top. Seriously, what would you want in a Criterion Night of the Living Dead (1968) that's not in Elite's `Millennium Edition'?

I love Criterion as much as the next filmsnobbler, but I'd rather they stick to things like they've been doing with their Eclipse label---making available in watchable form films that are currently unavailable any other way. I'd love to see them follow their early Bergman, Fuller, and Kurosawa and late Ozu with maybe some silent Mizoguchi. Or how about a box of Oshima? Or make available some one-offs that aren't available elsewhere (Penn's Mickey One (1965), say, or Wenders' Im Lauf Der Zeit (1976))? And if all of that is too highbrow, howzabout a box of less arthouse stuff that's available here and there, but could profit from a serious treatment...say, a box of Russ Meyer, Jack Starrett, or Hal Needham? Or how about a blacksploitation set from Criterion (I'd pay a lot for a Criterion Coonskin (1975) or Boss friend of the family (1975))?

I mean, if Criterion is going to start poaching material from Anchor Bay, I'd way rather they pick up the Django films than the Evil Dead films.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2007 22:56

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Green Vulture posted:

Mishima is incredibly beautiful, and has an equally lovely score to match it, but I remember it leaving me cold.

For whatever it's worth this is more or less exactly my impression as well.

Come to think of it, I think this is a pretty good summary of my feelings for about three quarters of all anthology films.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2008 01:48

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Digital Osmosis posted:

Some of the jokes or little joys in it are incredibly obtuse, but I wouldn't put it past Truffaut to put them in there just for a film scholar. For example, that scene where the kids are jogging though Paris in gym class and run away one by one is an homage to a movie called "Z�ro de conduite."

I wouldn't call a reference to a Jean Vigo film obtuse, particularly in a French film in the late '50s. Z�ro de conduite and L'Atalante are pretty solidly in the canon of French cinema. They're not currently particularly well known to English-speaking audiences largely, I suspect, due to the lack of a R1 DVD of either. If Criterion released them, though, I'm sure you would suddenly find yourself unable to swing a dead cat around your head in an internet film discussion forum without hitting a half dozen people talking about all the obvious influences Vigo had on Truffaut and, now and for the same reasons, Lindsay Anderson.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2008 07:03

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

I'd definitely buy WoD, especially if it's Blu-Ray. Not a fan of Paris. Alice I've never seen.

So Falsche Bewegung (1975) (Wrong Move, Wrong Movement, or whatever we're supposed to call it these days in English) has been out on DVD for a couple years, now Alice in den St�dten (1974) is finally getting a release. What the gently caress do studios have against Im Lauf der Zeit (1976) (Kings of the Road)?

# ¿ Oct 31, 2008 20:19

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Starscream posted:

I wonder if they'll package it with Insect Woman and Intentions of Murder in some sort of Eclipse: Japanese New Wave set. They did confirm an upcoming Imamura set for Eclipse...

So does Criterion have some sort of standing agreement with Nikkatsu? I'm all for more Imamura, and a Criterion Buta to Gunkan (1961) is great news, but I'd love to see Criterion do some Shochiku Oshimas or Yoshidas.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2008 05:41

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

STEVIE B 4EVA posted:

really dude? if you're not going to write 豚と軍艦 why even bother?

You're right.

Any word on when there's going to be a Criterion Blu-Ray of Kurosawa's Chaos (1985)?

# ¿ Dec 11, 2008 12:25

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

There are films that are commonly known by the titles in their original language, and those that are known by their Americanized titles.

And films that are known by multiple titles, and multiple films known by the same title, and films that are commonly known by different titles at different times.

FitFortDanga posted:

You're not impressing anyone by running to iMDB to look up the Japanese title and the year of release.

There are at least two incorrect assumptions in there.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2008 22:32

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

#469 - In the Realm of the Senses (also Blu-Ray)

So is this the first Criterion title to feature full-on penetration?

And while it's cool to see Criterion releasing some Oshima, I'd really rather see them do something like an Eclipse box of a couple of his earlier films than the `mainstream' (and comparatively easy to find) titles like this.

FitFortDanga posted:

* Deleted footage

Oh god.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2009 02:06

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Sheldrake posted:

If there isn't immediately a Blu-Ray, I'll... well, I'll just be really sad.

What I'd really like to see is Criterion releasing Wenders' road trilogy, or some of his other harder-to-find films. A Criterion of a film that's already had...what, three?...different DVD releases...meh.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2009 04:15

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

RaydaArab posted:

I would think that Criterion would want to put heavy encryption on their discs (being such a small company catering to a niche market). So why doesn't Criterion protect their discs?

There's really no such thing as `heavy encryption' for DVDs. The primary intent of encryption on DVDs isn't to prevent access to the content. This is trivially true---any cheapass player in the disc's region has to be able to play it. The encryption is there so somebody in one region can't pop a disc into another region's player and play it.

In slightly different terms: the purpose of encryption on DVDs isn't to prevent copying, it's to establish economic zones. These zones in turn allow content providers the ability to control release dates and establish price discrimination.

The fact that Criterion doesn't region encode their DVDs just means that they aren't concerned about where (geographically) their customers play the disc.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2009 20:32

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

STEVIE B 4EVA posted:

To the extent that it's never been entirely successful, you're right, but to the extent that no one has tried, you're entirely wrong. Ask Disney about there being no such thing as 'heavy encryption' for DVDs.

The copy protections on newer Disney disc have nothing to do with encryption. Unless you're talking about their policy of only shipping screeners on specially encrypted discs...which has nothing to do with what we're talking about, because these discs require special players.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2009 21:36

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

STEVIE B 4EVA posted:

Now you're just being willfully obtuse. If you want to call out RaydaArab for writing "encryption" when he clearly meant "copy protection" (or me for using the word he did) then just loving do it. But we are talking about copy protection. Re-read RaydaArab's post.

RaydaArab asked why Criterion doesn't `protect' their discs, and specifically asked about encryption. I explained that the encryption isn't `protection' and Criterion doesn't use it because they're presumably unconcerned about what it actually accomplishes (i.e., enforcement of economic zones).

And what Disney does isn't what the industry on the whole does. Most of the industry just uses standard region encoding without any particular additional copy protection. I took RaydaArab's question to be, in effect, `Why doesn't Criterion do what most of the rest of the industry does?' not `Why doesn't Criterion do specifically what Disney does?'

I wasn't calling anybody out or being willfully obtuse. I was answering the question without attempting to open the whole DRM is good/DRM is bad can of worms or turning this into a discussion of all the minutia of DVD encryption or copy protection.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2009 22:28

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Padriag posted:

So, in order to avoid a discussion of all the minutia of DVD encryption/copy protection, you decided to point out that even though Disney DVD's have copy protection no problems come from the encryption, even though the post to which you responded was obviously using "encryption" to mean "copy protection"?

I didn't bring up Disney. As near as I can tell RaydaArab was asking why Criterion discs aren't protected like most of the other discs he's seen. Most other discs use only region encoding.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2009 00:00

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

STEVIE B 4EVA posted:

There is no indication that his experience with Criterion DVDs is different from his experience with other DVDs. The discrepancy is between his experience and his expectation.

He says `Anyway, I've noticed that Criterion DVDs have no encryption. They just rip.' This sounds like, to me, that he's noticing that Criterions aren't region encoded like most other discs.

At any rate: I don't really care. I answered the question I thought he was asking. You seem to think he was asking something else. I'm sure he'll speak up if he was.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2009 00:29

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

Next topic: why doesn't SubG use regular quotation marks?

Perverted by TeX at an impressionable age.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2009 03:07

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

A Shohei Imamura box set, probably containing the already confirmed �Pigs and Battleships,� is due (in May?).

This is cool. Maybe it's just me, but I generally care gently caress all about most of the extras and just wish Criterion would just publish more titles. It also feels like they spend an awful lot of their time retreading very familiar ground as opposed to bringing out previously-unavailable films. It seems like more and more I'm more likely to be interested in a new Eclipse announcement than a Criterion announcement.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2009 20:37

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Cacator posted:

I don't want to resurrect this pointless argument but Criterions are all region 1.

I don't want to participate further in this pointless argument but you're incorrect. Some of their discs are R1, but many aren't region encoded. I think most of the discs they released prior to around 2005 were R0 and most of them since then have been R1. The Suzuki films they released in 2005, for example, are R0.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2009 18:12

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

penismightier posted:

I love that technicolor 50's stock. Everything looks like it's made out of candy.

Which is funny, as the 1958 original of The Blob isn't a Technicolor film (the 1988 remake is, however). I don't know what Technicolor was charging to process a film in 1958, but it was probably way more than the producers could afford.

Anyway, the Criterion DVD does look (and sound) great.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2009 10:32

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Who owns the rights to Campanadas A Medianoche (1965)/Chimes at Midnight/Falstaff?

# ¿ Sep 4, 2009 00:05

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

I think Criterion should just have a couple Polish movie poster artists on staff to do all their cover art. And I'm only half joking.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2009 22:34

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

On the topic of releasing separate editions of the unreleased films in the AK100 box, Criterion is typically non-commital:

I'm all for Criterion releasing more Kurosawa and all, but drat that AK100 box should've been called the `Double-dip me please: Kurosawa' box. Besides already owning all of the Criterion Kurosawas, some more than once already, I'm already expecting to re-buy most of them shortly on Blu Ray. You'd think folks like me would be right in the middle of the target audience for a big Criterion release like this, but it's like they're carefully constructing it to be as unattractive as possible to the core audience.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2009 22:25

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Jack Does Jihad posted:

This is kind of a dumb question, but I'm probably gunna blind buy some Ozu, as I tried to watch Tokyo Story via netflix but the disc was too hosed up and I only got 20 mins in. I found it to be pretty interesting as I've never really delved into his filmography at all.
That said, what are good places to start?

Ukigusa/Floating Weeds (1959) is probably my favourite Ozu. I can't give you any particularly firm reasons for this; most of Ozu's films are pretty similar in terms of theme, narrative structure, and visual style. Floating Weeds may have been the first of his colour films that I saw; one of the things that I remember about it is the unostentatious but striking use of colour. Maybe that was enough to make it stand out for me.

In any case, I guess if I was teaching Ozu I'd start with some of his silents, hit on a couple of major postwar films, and then sum up with a couple of this late-career colour films. The major thing you'd notice is that he starts out being really spare with the camera movement---zoom, pans, dollying, and so forth---and ends up giving them up altogether. The other thing you'd notice is how similar his films are, by and large, apart from this.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2009 02:16

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Macrame_God posted:

I wouldn't call it a bad movie. I thought it was a very interesting picture to study and pick apart. I don't know if I could ever bring myself to watch it again (maybe with the commentary on) but I think it's worth watching at least once and with an open mind.

I don't think much of it, and I generally like Oshima. I'd absolutely love it if Criterion released some of his earlier ATG films.

As for `overlooked' Criterions, one of the first that comes to mind is Jeux Interdits/Forbidden Games (1952). Or at least I don't see it mentioned or discussed much these days; it sometimes shows up on `best film' lists (just about anything on Criterion will).

Is Bresson `overlooked'? I know there was a bit of buzz around when Criterion released Au Hasard Balthazar (1966), but how about Journal d'un Cur� de Campagne/Diary of a Country Priest (1951)?

# ¿ Nov 10, 2009 23:04

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Criminal Minded posted:

Yaaaay more Ophuls.

Yeah, I'm actually surprised there hasn't been more Oph�ls buzz since Criterion started releasing his films. You know, like how Jean-Pierre Melville suddenly started making a bunch of `top whatever' lists when a year earlier you could bring up Le Samoura� in a film-snobbling forum and get nothing but the sound of crickets.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2009 21:27

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

vertov posted:

I do feel that Criterion is treated as "taste makers" though, and I think they contribute to the continued emphasis on prestigious, auteur-driven cinema that haunts internet film culture.

I strongly agree. It's interesting how much the tone and content of the conversation among film snobblers now tracks the publishing practises of houses like Criterion and Masters of Cinema in the same way it used to track critics like Kael or the opinions of individual directors like Godard or Scorsese.

It also seems like this distortion is broader than it used to be. Perhaps this is just biased personal perception or perhaps it's due to changes in the industry at large, but it also feels like the trends in what Criterion is doing influences what's likely to be playing on your average arthouse screen as well. Once upon a time it felt like you could drive in a hundred mile radius and hit a dozen arthouses with a dozen different biases/editorial positions/whatever you want to call it. Nowadays it feels like arthouses are nearly as homogenous amongst themselves as your average shoebox gigaplexes are.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2009 21:43

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

Ozu is considered old hat now, but how many people were really familiar with him 10 years ago?

Egbert Souse posted:

I think it's self reflexive, as Criterion has become the Janus Films (and sort of 1970s New Line Cinema) of home video. Theatrical re-release and revival runs aren't common anymore, so home presentation is the next best thing. While taking film classes, a big percentage of screenings were via Criterion discs. They're not influencing outside of presentation quality, but rather acting as a quality distributor of important films.

This sort of thing seems to be cyclical. Back in the '70s and '80s Ozu was considered part of the canon that you needed to know in order to be a proper film snob. Pretty much like it is today: Kurosawa and Bergman and directors like that were part of the film snob canon, but they were so mainstream they were basically the free square. You didn't get any film cred for being into them. Ozu and like Truffaut or Godard and maybe Eisenstein were the entry-level film snob directors.

But this was back when if you were into film that meant that you went to a lot of arthouse and revival house cinemas, and if you had access to one you might spend a lot of time watching films in library projection rooms. There was a bit of an echo-chamber effect here, but it was mostly because you'd hear that there was this bitchin' film you ought to see---like Tokyo Monogatari (1953) or whatever---but you'd only see it if you actively made the effort to look around for it. Might have to drive a ways to get to a showing. Probably have to wait awhile, months or maybe years for something comparatively obscure.

Occasionally you'd catch something interesting on broadcast television, but that was more likely to be the sort of mainstream-arthouse film, film snob 101 stuff---Seven Samurai (1954) and Seventh Seal (1957) and so on. When video rental started becoming a way your average joe moviegoer watched films, your chances of picking up anything in the film snob's canon was still pretty low. By the time VHS was reaching the end of its life (the mid '90s) more and more stuff was becoming available on VHS, but you pretty much had to live near a video rental store that had a large collection to have any hope of being able to find anything obscure. Most video rental stores carried your typical selection of mainstream Hollywood stuff with just a sliver of quote foreign unquote films and other stuff. So if you were a film snob living in the era of the VHS, you were almost certainly watching a lot of films in formats other than VHS.

For many reasons, that appears to have changed sometime after the introduction of the DVD. Between the advent of middle class home theatre systems, internet retailing, lower film prices (anyone remember when a film on VHS was like US$80?), and places like Netflix we've ended up in a world where home video is one of the primary mechanisms by which film aficionados watch off-mainstream films. I mean a lot of the folks in CineD have seen a lot of what is in, for example, the Criterion Collection---but how many have seen these films any way other than on home video?

I don't really have a formal thesis here, but my observation is that canon used to be this broad slew of films that you'd see by hook or by crook in a wide variety of formats and venues, typically over a long period of time. Even if you were really into a director, chances are there were some films that you just expected not being able to see due to availability. Nowadays it seems like the Criterion catalogue more or less is the canon---or, more than that, it isn't just merely the canon, it's the entire non-Hollywood universe of art film. If a film isn't in the Criterion Collection you can just about expect a mention of the film to be met with blank stares from self-identified students of film. And as soon as it is picked up by Criterion (or Masters of Cinema, or whatever) for a DVD/Blu-Ray release you can expect to hear ecstatic nattering about it in internet film discussions in no time.

I mean bring up Orson Wells in a film forum and you'll hear all kinds of praise for F for Fake (1973), but you'll be lucky to hear any mention of Chimes at Midnight (1965). I defy you to come up with an explanation for this other than the `Criterion Effect'.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2009 04:46

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

It sounds like you're bemoaning the fact that it's too easy for the common man to be into film now. Everyone's into Ozu and Truffaut because of that damned "Criterion Effect", it's not special like the old days when we had to go to a theater.

No, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm all for films being easier to see. I'm not making a value judgement here, I'm just making an observation about how the changes in how film aficionados (as a mass) watch films has changed discourse about film.

You made this point about how 10 years ago (before the Criterion DVDs) few people would have heard about Ozu. My point is that this didn't used to be the case---Ozu had been absolutely part of the body of work nearly all fans of film were aware of for years. Ozu fell off the radar, and I was suggesting that that probably had a lot to do with the fact that his films weren't available on DVD. Then when they became available on DVD, presto, suddenly he was part of the canon---or common body of knowledge or whatever you want to call it---again. This is also a response to Egbert Souse's comment that Criterion wasn't really influential outside of making high-quality prints available.

Again, I don't really have a formal thesis here, but it seems like the widespread availability of many films (on DVD) seems to have had this effect where films that aren't available disappear from the common discourse. This didn't appear to be the case back when there was less homogeneity in how hardcore film fans watched films. I'm not saying things were better when films were harder to see, I'm just observing this apparent change in discourse.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2009 07:22

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

This may seem like semantics, but the old discourse hasn't been lost, it is simply overshadowed by the larger discourse of more available films since more people are able to discuss those films.

I dunno. It isn't just that discussion on film forums is different (in scope and context) than the discussions that used to happen after screenings at university film series (and so forth). It's that it feels like this broad mainstream of film snobbery (or whatever you want to call it) dominates the thinking about film in a way no single factor (body of commentary or criticism or taste or however you want to characterise it) in a way that didn't used to exist. The relevance of voices from other quarters---popular critics, academic critics, filmmakers, and so forth---seems to have faded to rounding error.

Like I've said a couple times already I can't really enunciate this as a formal thesis. But it seems like there used to be different schools of film making, film interpretation, and so forth. If you looked at a Hollywood studio film, an Italian neorealist film, something from the French New Wave, a film from the East Coast film schools, and an independent film these felt like radically different things. Not just in terms of budget, kind of story, and so forth. But rather as different takes on film as a narrative medium, what it can accomplish, what it is for, and how it relates to its audience and so on. How you (generic `you') would approach these films as a matter of personal criticism would likewise be wildly different. The new consensus view appears to be broader in terms of the kinds of film it admits---the average film snob is probably more film-literate today than previously---but the actual critical apparatus seems to have been flattened.

I'm just sorta thinking out loud here, but it's sorta like the development of the institutional mode in narrative film, or the use of colour in early colour films. You can see in some films the fact that these things---which are so familiar to viewers now that they're effectively transparent---are things that are being actively hammered out. It feels like something similar has happened with criticism and thinking about film. Once upon a time it was something that was still up in the air, still something to be argued about, something to be fretted over. Now it seems to be such a settled matter that it's difficult to even explain how anything could be different.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2009 03:18

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

I'm sure that AK 100 box is sweet as all holy everyloving gently caress but it ought to be subtitled the Criterion doubledippers fanclub edition. Releasing something like that only on DVD while simultaneously announcing the future availability of some of the films on Blu Ray is just goddamn baffling.

Am I missing something about the typical Criterion boxset buyer demographic here? It seems like they'd be disproportionately early adopters of Blu Ray.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2009 00:31

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Yeah, but the special features on the new edition of Film �tranger Pr�tentieux (1959) make it totally worth it.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2009 09:56

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

vertov posted:

I really like Oshima's work but I'd also prefer to see some Ray available with decent image quality.

Edit: I apparently need some more caffeine.

Yeah, some Ray would be great but I'd also love to see some of Oshima's ATG films made available.

SubG fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jan 14, 2010

# ¿ Jan 13, 2010 23:57

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

melvinthemopboy3 posted:

Days of Heaven- What an absolutely beautiful film. I had heard mixed things about it going in, and I hadn't seen any Mallick before this one. Now I'm convinced that I have to see all of his other films. Are they all this beautiful?

I can't think many films, period, that beautiful. I think all of Malick's films are striking, but Days of Heaven (1978) is the most visually spectacular.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2010 22:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:56

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

melvinthemopboy3 posted:

The one I really want to see is Badlands, which is supposedly rumored to be getting a Criterion release.

Badlands (1973) is a great film. It and Days of Heaven are the real `keepers' from Malick as far as I'm concerned. The Thin Red Line (1998), which I think is a favourite among internet reviewers, is merely okay and I can barely even remember The New World (2005).

# ¿ Jul 22, 2010 22:43

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

«‹›4 »