When I watched it today, I immediately thought it would be the kind of film Criterion picked for its collection. What do you guys think?
I originally thought this too, but I have a feeling that due to the widespread acclaim it’s getting, fairly well-knownness, and likely good awards season it will have, Criterion will pass on this one. Not that it wouldn’t be worthy.
It’s not so much an issue of Criterion passing on it (ahem Curious Case of Benjamin Button ) but more an issue of whether they can afford the rights if it proves to be such a critical and financial success that other distribution companies will compete for the rights to it. If Criterion ‘passes’ it will be due to the fact that it doesn’t live up to their, ha, criteria.
I guess ya’ll have not read what a despicable film this is because Zeitlin is not poor.
That came off as a “this film is getting too much praise, i’m going to knock it down” review
because Zeitlin is not poor.
I don’t think the Notebook’s criticism of BOTSW is simply about “Zeitlin being poor” as much as it is about how Zeitlin’s appropriation of the film’s people/culture is simplified for rhetorical effect.
For example, take Levi’s “Go Work” ads. As beautiful as those ads were, they were somewhat disingenuous.
What made them disingenuous was the fact that a corporation had the nerve to implore Americans to go out and find work (during one of the most disastrous economic collapses in recent history), while not realizing that they themselves (Levi’s) may have had a part in said economic collapse i.e. outsourcing your manufacturing to other countries, doesn’t necessarily help create jobs here.
Levi’s simplifies the context of the unemployment/ economic collapse by simply thinking that showing imagery of Americana stuff, working class people building churches, and little poor kids running around in their town’s squalor somehow fixes the issues of the unemployment crisis.
This is essentially what Ignatiy is implicating that Zeitlin is doing. Zeitlin simplifies the struggles of the Bathtub community in his film, in order to inject his own perspective of what these people should do (i.e. self-sufficiency).
Now your thoughts on whether Ignatiy’s criticism (or even what I’ve written for that matter) is a warranted and valid critique is another discussion all together. I know that I have some criticisms for his argument. But to reduce Ignatiy’s criticism to simply “Zeitlin is not poor.” I think misses the point of what Ignatiy was trying to explain.
Sorry about the rant.
I think misses the point of what Ignatiy was trying to explain.
Right, so why mention Zeitlin’s personal financial status in a film review?
Zeitlin’s ……film’s people/culture is simplified for rhetorical effect.
Can we substitute essentialize for simplified? Because then it is only doing what most films do.
They might add it. They added TIny Furniture. In fact, they should add Like Crazy, too. I totally see it happening, but about four years ago, they never would’ve added this thing. It adds nothing to the world of cinema, it’s going to be forgotten about as fast as every movie that wins the top prize at Sundance. It’s a set designer’s movie with a few good performances and nothing groundbreaking, even though everyone’s initial reaction to this thing was that it was the most original thing they’d ever seen.
And about simplification, it might be what a lot of films do, but if they’re going to be on the criterion, i’d expect them to have done the opposite.
But they will add it, even though they already have George Washington on here.