Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

melvinthemopboy3 posted:

This is what really caught me off guard watching Days last night. Even though he doesn't have much in the way of dialogue, Richard Gere has some intensity in the film, which is something I've never noticed in him.
Richard Gere is a pretty good actor that sorta got stuck doing a lot of stupid leading man poo poo and then got old.

I just watched the Criterion Blu Ray of Days of Heaven recently, and before I that I hadn't seen the film in probably 20 years. Before the re-watch I probably would have said that the Richard Gere role was played by Warren Beatty. It's been a couple weeks since I watched it and I still see Warren Beatty in the film instead of Richard Gere. I think this means I can't distinguish between late '60s/early '70s prettyboy actors with occasional real acting chops.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Egbert Souse posted:

On that note, what's a good starting point for Ozu? Tokyo Story?
The 1959 Ukigusa/Floating Weeds is one of the most understated, beautiful films I've ever seen. I think it's my favourite Ozu as well, although I'm not particularly a fan of domestic drama in general, so this might just be me being swayed by all the pretty colours.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Green Vulture posted:

Why not? Soderbergh's version is superior in...well, every way. I realize I'm in the minority when I say that, but I always thought Tarkovsky's Solaris was mind-numbingly dull; no matter how much I tried, I just could not get into it.
I think the `why not' is because you're in the minority when you say that.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:


I got nothing off the top of my head. For some reason the only soccer-related movie I can think of is Victory and that seems highly unlikely.
Also, the newsletter says there are "nearly fifteen minutes" of outtakes on TTRL.
EDIT: oh poo poo it's gotta be Kes! AWESOME!
Yeah, Kes (1969) would be my guess. The only other soccer-related film that Criterion might be interested in that I can think of off the top of my head would be Wim Wenders' Die Angst des Tormanns Beim Elfmeter/The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick (1972), which doesn't have a bird that I can think of (although perhaps a bird of prey thing going on if you want to stretch things a bit). But that could just be because I'd like to see Criterion release more of Wenders' early films.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

IFC has acquired the adorable family comedy Shoah, which may indicate a future Criterion release.
Eh. It's easily one of the best films ever made, but I've never really felt like what it really needed was a really pristine transfer or a shitload of extras.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

I bet there's an awesome gag reel.
The unreleased work print of The Day the Clown Cried.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

The Lucas posted:

It's out of print in the US so some people would like a chance to watch it >: (
Yeah, it's cool that it will be in print. I'm just saying that the fact that it's a Criterion it's exactly making my nipples hard the way it would if a Criterion of, say, Campanadas a Medianoche/Chimes at Midnight (1965) was announced---a film that's just dying for a proper clean up and release. Or if they announced an Eclipse set of Oshima's ATG films or something like that, which nobody else is likely to do. With a film like Shoah I don't feel like Criterion's the only ones that would ever do it (they didn't do any of the DVD, LD, or VHS releases) and I don't feel like it's something another house would gently caress up (all the previous editions of Shoah I've seen have been fine).

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

zenintrude posted:

Anyone think we'll ever see any Sofia Coppola on Criterion?
Maybe if she starts making better or more important films.

As for Godard, I think he's one of those directors where people who really like film as a subject in and of itself get more out of his films than general audiences, particularly if you're talking about his early films (up until the late '60s/early '70s), which are the ones that tend to get talked about the most in general film discussion. A lot of the films mentioned here---like Pierrot le Fou and Alphaville (both from 1965) are a bit difficult to digest if you're trying to approach them as straightforward narratives the way you'd approach your typical Hollywood film.

Definitely not for everyone, but you can see why he's one of those filmmakers that other filmmakers seem to like so much.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

Gates of Heaven - yes
Vernon, Florida - yes
The Thin Blue Line - yes
So Criterion has released films from Allan King, Maysles, and now Morris. How long before we see Criterion/Eclipse releases of some Wiseman?

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

The people speculating Cat People are talking about Schrader's Cat People, not the original. There's already a two pack with the original Cat People and Curse of The Cat People from Warner, though not in Blu.
It's also in Warner's Val Letwon boxed set, which is definitely worth it for those two films along with I Walked With A Zombie (1943) and The Leopard Man (1943), which are all great films even if you're not into Lewton, Tourneur, Wise, and so on.

Skwirl posted:

I'm not sure who said it first, but "All sufficiently graphic war films are anti-war." Of course I think Saving Private Ryan is anti-war, so what the gently caress do I know.
I don't think Saving Private Ryan (1998) is an anti-war film in the `traditional' sense of the word. Not like, say, All Quiet On The Western Front (1930), La Grande Illusion (1937), Paths of Glory (1957), or Johnny Got His Gun (1971) are anti-war films.

I think there was a shift in how `anti-war' films were constructed more or less in the period after Vietnam, but most specifically following the slew of Vietnam war films made in the '80s (e.g. Platoon (1986) and around then). The shift was from a sort of bare `war is hell' message (like in the war films I mention above) to a sort of `love the warrior, hate the war' message that you see in films like Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down (2001). In these films a great deal of time is spent depicting the filmmaker's notion of the gritty realities of war and how they're terrible, but at the same time enormous importance is placed on the valour and honour of individual soldiers.

So while the overt message is theoretically anti-war, they still engage in the sort of grand mythologising of the warrior that you see in what most people would consider `pro-war' war films (e.g., the big Holllywood war epics from the studio era). This seems to have crept in and become more or less part of the default mode of representation in mainstream American cinema.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Archyduke posted:

Don't you suppose that 'La Grande Illusion' is still guilty of some of that mythologizing? Pierre Fresnay and von Stroheim's characters both have sort of a martial solemnity and dignity that, if it clashes with the abstraction of modern warfare, still feels kind of elegiac for an older generation of soldiers.
Yes and no. I can certainly see what you're talking about, but at the same time I think the film is arguing that they're outdated, to the point of being almost ridiculous. When one of them goes stoically to his death I think we're suppose to take it to be pathos rather than tragedy, if you understand the distinction I'm trying to make.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

penismightier posted:

Mythologizing seems inevitable. Even Paths of Glory, as deeply bitter it is about the whole experience of war, ends with a grand gesture of their comradeship and solidarity as soldiers. And Come and See, which is often called the greatest anti-war film, basically ends with "JOIN THE FIGHT" - it's got the same goddamn ending as Starship Troopers, practically.
I dunno. Apart from populating a narrative with nothing but Dickensian comically wicked villains it would be difficult to make a film in which some of the characters aren't admirable in some way or another. So I think that expecting a film to be absolutely unrelentingly down on everything about war and everyone engaged in prosecuting it in order to be called an `anti-war' film is a pretty Procrustean standard.

In a film like La Grande Illusion I think we're supposed to conclude that the old school military men were admirable only until they actually had to fight a war, at which point their otherwise admirable code of conduct became manifestly inappropriate and out of place. Contrast this with, say, Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan, who we're more or less expressly told was an average nobody until transmogrified into a hero by warfare. On the one hand we see war destroying what we might otherwise consider virtue, and on the other hand we see war making manifest what would otherwise be hidden (or absent) virtue. I think there's a meaningful difference in there.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

penismightier posted:

Honestly, you can't go wrong with any of those. Rules of the Game is, I think, the least impressive of them, whereas Nikkatsu Noir is very underrated, but you could basically just pick one at random and be thrilled.
I'm not going to weigh in on purchasing choices, but I really think La Règle Du Jeu (1939) is one of the few truly great films. I can imagine a time in the future when it is still being watched and discussed long after even the Bergman and Ozu films (which I do not intend to disparage) have faded from the canon. Its one of those films (like, say, Stagecoach (1939) or Raging Bull (1980) that you could just about use as a text to teach someone everything there is to know about filmmaking.

I can definitely see how Renoir's film may or may not `click' with a given audience, but it's absolutely one of the towering monuments in cinema.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

penismightier posted:

I don't disagree with a word of this. But it's still the riskiest blind buy of them all.
Fair enough. I was just spazzing the gently caress out over that `least impressive' comment.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Egbert Souse posted:

The Furies, Short Cuts (OOP), The Man Who Fell to Earth (DVD only), Vampyr, Mr. Arkadin, and Burden of Dreams all have books included.
Criterion's Two-Lane Blacktop (1971) includes a printed copy of Rudy Wurlitzer's screenplay.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

As usual, my take...

Fanny and Alexander - Duh. Just look at my avatar.

Rules - Not wild about it, but I like it a lot. But since Netflix is no longer an option for Criterion Blu-Rays, I'll probably just skip it.

Three Colors - Well, I'm definitely buying it, that's a no-brainer. The question is whether or not to hold on to the old Miramax DVDs. These are missing the wonderful Insdorf commentaries and some of the shorts, maybe some other stuff too.

Rushmore - No brainer.

12 Angry Men - Mmmmmmmaybe. I don't go crazy for it like a lot of people do, but it is really good.

Sabu! - Looks like it might be fun, rental
My reactions are almost exactly the opposite. La Règle Du Jeu (1939) isn't just one of the great films, it's one that I feel like I get something out of each viewing, so getting a higher definition version is really welcome. Sabu is cool, and unlike the rest of these films, I don't get the `been there, done that' feel from the films in the Sabu box. Has there even been a R1 release of Elephant Boy (1937) post-VHS?

Criterion putting out more Bergman is always good, but it's like more Criterion Kurosawa. It's nice to get them, but I find it difficult to get that excited about films which are so drat familiar and which are already available. Not to say that Criterion should only release obscure films or anything like that. I'm just saying it's easier for me to look forward to a release of something that I don't already have a copy of on my shelf and/or haven't seen in the past couple years.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Bown posted:

It's not like there are non-Criterion versions of the 5-hour F&A, though. Although I couldn't not be excited for it because I consider it basically the best film I've ever seen
Yes, and when the Criterion DVDs containing the television cut were released---what, six years ago?---that was something I looked forward to, as I had never seen that cut. Now I feel like I've watched the film about as many times as I need to. It's undeniably a beautiful film; it's just not one that I feel like I can keep returning to, unlike say Viskningar Och Rop/Cries and Whispers (1972), despite the fact it might be considered a lesser film.

Like I said, this isn't an argument against the films themselves; I don't have anything in particular to say against any of the films just announced. I'm more or less just thinking out loud about my (apparently increasing) ambivalence to a lot of the Criterion catalogue.

Which I think might have a lot to do with the increasing availability of just about everything. Back in the bad old days of VHS and broadcast television it was much more difficult to see much outside of mainstream Hollywood releases and the occasional old chestnuts. Even in the early years of DVD things were likely to come into and then back out of print and then become nearly impossible to obtain/view in any format. These days there are just a lot more options---things like Netflix and Hulu and so on, easy availability of releases from all over the world, and so forth. And while there's still variability between different releases of a given film, it's been a long time since I found myself having to worry whether I could locate a copy of Seven Samurai (or whatever) that isn't pan-and-scan and dubbed.

So while I'm definitely in favour of Criterion doing a blu of the Kieslowski trilogy, it's not like the fact that a Criterion blu of it doesn't already exist had exactly been praying on my mind. If the films had been unavailable or were out there only in unwatchably terrible transfers or something I'd be more enthusiastic.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Sheldrake posted:

... welcome to the Godzilla franchise?
Nah, I definitely agree with penismightier. It's like one of those minimalist posters where you think that the artist completely missed the point of the film in a rush to act all cool. I really don't think it matches the tone of the film at all. One of the first things I think of when I imagine the destruction in the original film, it's always the dark. I think the same basic art would work a gently caress of a lot better if there was just more negative space:



Same basic cues, but a very different feel.

SubG fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Oct 15, 2011

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

codyclarke posted:

Just switching to grayscale, and not even adjusting brightness/contrast, it already looks 10x better:


Converting the cover to greyscale calls out one of the weaknesses of doing it in colour in the first place---losing the stark contrast of the original visuals.

I'm not trying to argue that the original film is a monument to cinematography or whatever---although I do think it's a really good film---but one of the things it definitely has going for it, and something that seems to get obscured by Godzilla the pop culture icon, is a very distinctive look and feel. It's too bad to see Criterion contributing to that.

I really don't think it's a big deal. I'm not one of the folks who gets all het up over Criterion cover art. It's more just weird to see them get poo poo like this wrong.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Robert Denby posted:

File name is wacky_skinnycows.jpg. No idea.


Top Secret! (1984), obviously. Finally some Val Kilmer in the Criterion Collection.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

GrandpaPants posted:

Can someone sell me on Fanny and Alexander? I heard a lot of praise for it back when it was announced, but nobody ever explained why exactly.
Eh. I think it's one of the great films, but at the same time it isn't one that I feel like I have to keep going back to.

Different people have different ideas of what constitutes a purchase versus a rental, much less what constitutes a blind buy. I find myself more and more likely to buy something only if it's a film I keep going back to, or if it's a film that I don't expect to stay in print or available. I really couldn't justify Fanny and Alexander (1982) on either count, but your mileage &c.

I also think Fanny and Alexander is a bit of a odd film for Bergman. I think Bergman at his best is a very economical filmmaker. I want to say `concise', but that's not quite the correct word. He tends to be evocative rather than descriptive; a scene is more likely to be punctuated by a pause or image rather than an action or a line. But despite this, his films tend to be very dense, with a lot packed into ever one of those pauses or images. Fanny and Alexander really doesn't feel like that, it's a lot looser, more open, and as a result it doesn't really feel like most of his other films.

As I said, I think it's one of the great films. But I don't know that I'd generally try to sell Bergman as a blind buy, and even if I was I don't think Fanny and Alexander is one that I'd do it with.

kaujot posted:

I would recommend blind buying Three Colors over Veronique. You get a range of Kieslowski that way, as well as still getting your Irene Jacob fix.
What I said above is also how I feel about Kieslowski. I saw the Trois Couleurs films when they were released theatrically, but haven't really felt compelled to give them a re-watch since then. I wasn't even that taken with them at the time; I liked Blue, didn't think much of White, and thought Red was good. I don't think that I'd include any of them on a `best films of the '90s' list (if I was inclined to construct such things), for example.

I think the only Kieslowski that I've gone back to is Dekalog.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

Three Outlaw Samurai - rental, I predict I'll like-but-not-love it
It'll be nice to see it in a good transfer, but it's difficult to get that excited over another minor jidaigeki film on Criterion. If they wanted to release more Gosha, I think it'd be much more interesting to see them do an Eclipse box covering more of his career; the films with Nakadai from the middle of his career are his best, and are one of the highpoints of the nihilistic chanbara samurai subgenre.

FitFortDanga posted:

Vanya - I like Malle. Not as much as Criterion seems to like him, but I'll give it a look. Rental.
It's really good, but it isn't one of those films that I could ever see feeling the need to return to over and over. The conceit is clever, but I think it makes the whole thing feel a little more like an exercise than a regular, stand-up great film. If that distinction makes sense. Hickcock's Rope (1948), for example, would probably be a better, if forgotten, film if it wasn't for the conceit that defines it. Malle's film is a great statement about narrative economy which is hampered by the fact it is so obviously making a statement.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

zandert33 posted:

I think the movie is one of Gosha's better movies, and Criterion has had the rights to this one a long time, so it's good they are finally releasing it. I wonder if they own the rights to Tenchu as well, which is my favorite Gosha film.
I had to look it up; I've never heard it called Tenchu before, only Hitokiri (1969). And I agree it's probably Gosha's best film. If nothing else, it's worth seeing for the cast, including Tatsuya Nakadai, Yukio Mishima (the writer), and Shintaro Katsu (probably best known as the lead in the Zatoichi films).

I think Gosha's early films (like the ones Criterion has done/is doing) are better than his end-of-career films, but he really hit his stride around the time of Tenchu/Hitokiri. I think at least some of this is due to his preference for playing at the darker end of the swordplay genre, and having directors like Kobayashi, Okamoto, and so on all making it a more mainstream approach let him move more in his own direction.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Macrame_God posted:

I'm must be somewhere near 150. I think I have a problem. :ohdear:
Counting only DVDs and blu rays, and including Essential Art House, Eclipse, and all the double dipping I have around 200. Makes my shelf of fifty-odd of the Celestial Shaws look relatively small.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.
Ernest Pintoff's immortal Dynamite Chicken (1971), marking the first collaboration between Criterion and the staff of Screw magazine.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

i am not so sure posted:

FFD, I've heard of that film a lot but don't really know much of it. Please tell me about it, if you're this excited it must be good.
Visually stunning melodrama with a lot of impressive outdoor location shooting. If you've seen The Cranes Are Flying (Kalatozov's best-known film) you have a pretty good idea what to expect. If you're not already familiar with Kalatozov, about the closest comparison I could think of is maybe Malick's Days of Heaven (1978)---another film that's so heavily invested in its visuals (and in particular landscapes) that what the characters are doing almost becomes forgettable.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

TrixRabbi posted:

I'm intrigued by everyone who thought it was Badlands. I just finished watching it and there's not a shot anywhere similar to that in the movie. At least nothing in the Purple/Orange sky area.






Eh. Having not seen the film in years, it's the first thing I thought of when I saw that screenshot too.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Dangerous Person posted:

Say what you will about how much it represents the movie, but Godzilla has some nice packaging:

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2132-godzilla-packaging
Hahaha. Is this the first time Criterion has packaged a film in a pop-up book?

If so, they totally missed the boat on not doing it with In the Realm of the Senses (1976) first.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

The_Rob posted:

I am looking into a couple of new Criterion films, and I was wondering what you guys thought of Bigger Than Life, and Branded to Kill. Bigger than Life looks really interesting because of the subject matter in the time period that they made it in, and Branded to Kill looks right up my alley. A Hitman in a cool japanese 1960's aesthetic with some interesting looking set pieces? yes please.
Have you seen any other Suzuki? His films are a bit difficult to recommend as blind buys, and your thumbnail description isn't really how I'd summarise Branded to Kill (1967). It's really a deconstruction of mainstream film/pop sensibilities and in particular Japanese consumption of them.

I'm not trying to talk you out of it; it's absolutely one of my favourite films. But it's an aggressively difficult to digest film; I think this is one of the major conceits of the film---hyper-accentuating all the elements which define pop cinema of the era until their `natural' meaning and context is obliterated (which is a way of recontextualising them as critical, rather than purely diegetic, elements). If you're familiar with Japanese New Wave film in general, think of something like Oshima's In The Realm of the Senses (1976), except instead of (just) explicit sexuality, doing the same thing with all of the trappings and conventions of Bond films (which were huge in Japan at the time) or conventional Yakuza films. I'm not trying to draw a narrow comparison here---Oshima's film isn't very good and Suzuki's is loving incredible---but I'm just talking about the schtick of taking something and just loving running it into the ground stylistically.

Really if you want a Suzuki film that's slick and cool you'd probably prefer Tokyo Drifter (1966) which is an inferior film but which is way the gently caress more stylistically accessible.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Erdnase posted:

Maybe this has been answered before but this thread is huge.

Is there a good place to buy Criterion releases in the UK? I just realised they won't ship internationally (what the hell, Criterion?) and I want to spend lots of money on their goddamn blu-rays.
Amazon? I've never tried to buy Criterions off amazon's US site from the UK, but I've bought a lot of Masters of Cinema titles off amazon.co.uk from the US.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Magic Hate Ball posted:

If you like Altman you'll probably enjoy Tanner '88 (though have you seen Secret Honor?), and it's hard to nix Vampyr. Someone around here recently described it as being surprisingly David Lynch-y, which is accurate. It has that same off-kilter feel and I sincerely regret selling it a couple years ago.
I really don't get a Lynch vibe off Vampyr, except insofar as Vampyr this wildly evocative, atmospheric film that really doesn't feel like it exists in quite the same space as most films employing the institutional mode. Dreyer's film is way more visual than Lynch's films tend to be: Lynch likes building place by narrative construction (e.g., revealing to the audience how the narrative world works by having his characters---who are usually as in the dark as the audience---trying to navigate through it) and deep, elaborate sound design; Dreyer's film is amost entirely visual---it's difficult to imagine how it could be more visually driven without turning into an experimental piece (like, I dunno, Oshima's Band of Ninja (1967) or something).

If anything, I see Dreyer influencing say the experimental films of Maya Deren, and Lynch being influenced by them. I'm not saying it's necessarily one or the other, mind you. I just see the lingering stillness of the striking compositions in Vampyr being influential on later experimental filmmakers, who added their new ideas about narrative (rather than just visual) composition, and that this is the `stuff' that is most striking about how Lynch constructs films.

Unrelated to all that, has there ever been an R1 DVD or bluray release of Vadim's Blood and Roses, which is based on the same source material? With the release of Twins of Evil (1971) coming up making the all of the films in the Hammer Karnstein Trilogy available, the recent Image release of Crypt of the Vampire (1964), and the Blue Underground release of The Blood Spattered Bride (1972) from a couple years ago you've got a whole lesbian vampire film festival consisting entirely of films based (however loosely) on Le Fanu's Carmilla. With the caveat that Dreyer's film isn't very lesbiany.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Shawn posted:

So it looks like Hard Boiled and The Killer are long out of print on DVD. Does that mean Criterion lost the licensing, and there's no chance of a blu-ray other than this Dragon Dynasty Bullshit? Has anyone seen the transfers on these non-criterion blu-rays? Am I better off on the look out for the OOP DVDs?
Yeah, Criterion hasn't had the rights to the Woo films for years.

I haven't seen the Dragon Dynasty blu rays, but I understand they're pretty weak. None of the DVD releases are that great either. The Criterion DVDs are definitely not worth it unless you're after them for the collector value---and then you'd still have to worry about 90% of the copies out there being bootlegs. I could run through the pluses and minuses of the versions I own---which is a lot of them---but none of them are that great. My recommendation would be to rent them if you just want to watch them, and if you want to buy a copy either wait a few more years and hope for a better edition or just buy whatever version you can get on the cheap.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

SneakySneaks posted:

Speaking of Japanese actions films who has the American rights for Violent Cop? That movie needs a good stateside release and it seems like something Criterion should at least look into to doing.
I can't tell if that's supposed to be a joke, but John Woo is Chinese. The films we've been discussing were made in Hong Kong.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Origami Dali posted:

So, there's no extras on Heaven's Gate about how it largely helped tank the New Hollywood? Or how it bankrupted United Artists?
I hope not, as neither of those things happened. Heaven's Gate put UA in the red for the year, but it didn't bankrupt them; Transamerica (the parent company of UA) lost confidence in UA as a source of revenue, but the box office loss of around US$40 million was a couple billion shy of driving it into bankruptcy.

And while any statement about the death of the New Hollywood movement is necessarily speculative, I think the emergence of the modern blockbuster with Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977) is the single most important proximate cause. Saying Heaven's Gate killed New Hollywood is like saying Touch of Evil (1958) killed classic noir; they're both fencepost films, but anybody (with the possible exception of a few producers with their heads so far up their asses their noses were in a different time zone) could have told you that the movement they were a part of was at an end while they were still in production.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Origami Dali posted:

I wasn't aware we were being so literal and comprehensive. So UA became a distribution label for Transamerica and later MGM instead of disappearing completely, who cares? As a renowned production company, they were toast. But to say that the failure of Heaven's Gate (along with One From The Heart) didn't play a role in putting the decline of a movement into warp speed... right. We all know effects-laden blockbusters were a safe and profitable out for the studios, but that ain't the whole picture.
It ain't the whole picture indeed, and that's why it's so hard to pin the demise of the movement on Heaven's Gate (or any other film that is actually part of the movement). Heaven's Gate was a major box office failure, but for example Raging Bull (also released in 1980) did poorly enough that Scorsese was concerned about being able to get financing in the future (particularly following his most spectacular commercial failure, New York, New York (1977)). It was critically well-received at the time and of course is now generally regarded as one of the great films. The point being that regardless of everything else, the market had moved on. That wasn't because films like Heaven's Gate tanked at the box office, films like Heaven's Gate tanked at the box office because of it. Put in slightly different terms, Heaven's Gate's commercial failure wasn't a cause of the end of the New Hollywood movement, it was an effect of it.

To put this further into perspective, if you look at fencepost film at the other end of the era, Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) was initially nearly universally panned and didn't make a dime in the limited release Warner first gave it (in August of 1967). After some critical support (most notably by Pauline Kael) it was re-released in February of 1968, where it went on to be a commercial success. And of course it is now generally considered one of the most important American films of the second half of the 20th Century.

My point here is that Bonnie and Clyde came out on the ragged edge of when there was an audience to discover and support it. From there we find an increasing mainstream acceptance of the then-alternative sensibilities Penn's film represented, from counter-cultural anthems like Easy Rider (1969) to the domesticated subversion of films like Kell's Heroes (1970). And this isn't something that you only see in the confines of New Hollywood---the rise of the blaxploitation film and (major) mainstream success of films like Shaft (1971) reflect the same general trends in what kind of material resonated with audiences.

I don't plan on charting out all of the cultural currents of this historical moment, but it's easy to see that by the time Heaven's Gate was released in 1980 this was changing. This is the same year that The Empire Strikes Back was released, the highest grossing film of the year. Smokey and the Bandit II was a major mover at the box office, as was the original Friday the 13th (the first of the `big' franchises which arose to ride on the coattails of Carpenter's Halloween (1978)).

And that's just highlighting the business' general shift from film-as-film to film-as-franchise. There's all the other cultural shifts in terms of acceptance of violence-as-spectacle, the changes in our conception of female sexuality on screen, the huge adjustments to the image of masculinity, and on and on. My point is that all of this was going on completely independently of the production of films like Heaven's Gate, and by 1980 the end of New Hollywood was already a fait accompli.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Origami Dali posted:

To keep this from veering too far off topic, I'll offer this. Regardless of the cultural and financial shifts at play in the entire life cycle of the New Hollywood (of which, once again, I'm well aware), I'm confident Heaven's Gate would have been as much of a disaster in 1973 as it was in 1980, or any other time for that matter, because it's simply a bloated mess of a film. The critics knew it, the audiences knew it, and it took a beating. To think that it was just a victim of circumstance is to render it, and all films, qualitatively blank. But that last bit is definitely for another thread.
I'm not saying it's a victim of circumstance. I'm saying it wasn't the author of the destruction of the New Hollywood movement, as you suggested in your earlier comments.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Origami Dali posted:

I said it largely helped. Just forget it dude.
I disagree that it `largely helped' to end New Hollywood. It's something that gets kicked around a lot as conventional wisdom, along with the idea that it `bankrupted' UA, but both points rely on an model of events that is not only an oversimplification, it is simply inaccurate. If you don't want to discuss it and instead just want to make more jokes in which Heaven's Gate is the punchline, more power to ya. I'm not particularly in love with the film or anything, and I really don't care whether or not anyone likes it. But---and this isn't just directed at you---it's weird seeing these comments about how Criterion isn't mentioning the whole thing about how Heaven's Gate was a blight upon the industry or why they're `downplaying' its presumptive villainy without, you know, considering the possibility that it might be because there are other ways of looking at it, or that maybe unreflective acceptance of popular opinion about a film might not constitute good critical or source analysis.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Origami Dali posted:

I can't believe I've spent this much time talking about Heaven's Gate, of all loving movies.
Why `of all loving movies'? Are we supposed to accept that it's somehow or other not worth discussing because it wasn't commercially successful? I get the feeling that you feel like you've got your back up against the wall because you said something that I disagreed with, and I'm not really pushing on that. I just don't get, or object to, or however you want to say it, the idea of rejecting out of hand any film, even Heaven's Gate of all loving movies, because of the popular opinion of the film, particularly if it's a popular opinion based primarily on fantasy. I'd say it's like the people who dismiss Battleship (2012) because it's based on a board game, but at least saying Battleship is based on a board game has the advantage of being more or less true.

I mean this isn't directed at you specifically, but there seems to be some kind of incredulity that Criterion is releasing the film, along with a bunch of very predictable jokes that are of roughly the same vintage as the film itself. I think this is kinda silly in its own right, but it's particularly silly given that it doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the film itself, rather than popular opinion (and misconceptions) about it.

I'm not raging against the negative opinions of the film---you are of course free to dislike any film you want to---and I'm not trying to champion it as a landmark of filmmaking or anything like that. The whole easy dismissal of the film as a punchline just feels really weak and lazy to me.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

Zogo posted:

I've found this Heaven's Gate discussion interesting and realized that in my head I've been conflating Days of Heaven, Gates of Heaven and Heaven's Gate all into one movie. I really should watch all three of them to remedy this.
Although Heaven's Gate gets more poo poo than it really deserves, it's by no means a great film. The other two absolutely are.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

ZackHoagie posted:

Who the gently caress are you reading, Bonnie and Clyde gets lavish praise even to this day.
Yeah, it's a loving landmark of cinema. I mean not only is a great film looked at entirely for its own merits, but it was ahead of its time and is one of the dozen or so most influential films to come out of Hollywood. Who the gently caress is it `out of favor' with and what other crazy kinds of things do they say?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply