I’m annoyed that Criterion has no John Sayles’ films in the collection, though I’ve been hounding them for years to snatch the rights for at least one of his films. Is Sayles like David Lynch when it comes to this “KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF MY FILMS” mentality, or is it just that Criterion can’t get the rights, whether it’s to Matewan, Lone Star, Eight Men Out, etc.? Just curious if anyone out there knows or cares or wonders . . .
Probably a rights issue.
Incidentally, CC owns the streaming rights to Eraserhead. But streaming rights and DVD/BD rights are not the same.
Whether it’s CC or someone else, it would be really cool to see a good edition of Matewan and Lone Star.
I’d like to see CC treatment of City of Hope, too.
Indeedm Nathan. What I love most about Sayles’ films is that they are what I call “magnificently America-centric.” A fabulous storyteller as well.
I suppose this is probably the 12,767th thread on this very topic. Sigh! Can we please stop complaining and questioning why some things are in the Collection and some aren’t? Jesus Freakin Jehosephat! DVD releasing is not an Olympic Sport. John Sayles would certainly not approve of this fodder!
I bought Chasing Amy a few years ago. Are they still putting stuff out?
Heh! Roscoe is still trolling away on Mubi as well, I see. Love this guy! Speaking of guy, Guy Madden rules!
So, which is better? MATEWAN or RETURN OF THE SECAUCUS SEVEN?
U serious, bro?
“What a lonely, sad and pathetic life you live. What a waste of carbon!”
What a vibrant, happy and exciting life you live, Lester, to resort to petty personal attacks like this over my pointing out that you started a thread about Why No (Insert Name/Film Here) In The Collection" soon after you went to the trouble of complaining that others had the nerve to be discussing which film by a specific director they preferred and why.
“Actually, I prefer Duck Amuck over “Matewan” and “Return.””
Actually, I do too.
“A true gem for the gay and pre-pubescent community.”
It’s gettin’ cold in here real fast.
“Roscoe’s a butt-ream "
More name-calling. Way to elevate the discussion, man.
I hear ya Matt.
Criterion has heard of John Sayles but they probably made the right decision that his schematic didactic films aren’t worth distributing.
@Zvelf – Oh, shit. Now I’ve heard it all.
@ ZVELF: So I take it you’re not a fan of Sayles? OK. To each their own. I see we do have similar tastes, though, especailly Charlie Kaufman, whom I finally started developing an almost obsessive appreciation for recently after watching “Synecdoche, New York.” And “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is one of those films that gets better and better after every viewing. You get something new from it with each viewing. I love these kind of films!
As far as not being a fan of “didactic” films, that tends to be a favorite word used in this forum. All I can say to that is that there are a lot of people out there who do love films meant to teach or hammer a message home. Not everyone knows everything. Don’t know why there is such disdain for “didactic” films. I can only interpret this as a sort of film snobbery.
I’ve heard of him. I’ve might of seen MATEWAN (1987) when I was in high school (gosh, don’t remember).
One of America’s finest auteurs, Scorpio, imo. If you don’t mind subtitles, try “Men with Guns.” “Lone Star” is also one of his best. I also hear he was doing an HBO biopic on Anthony Keidis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Don’t know if that is going anywhere, though.
Sure, I’ll give MEN WITH GUNS, pal. (I like to watch my foreign-language films with subtitles.)
A biopic on Anthony Keidis should be pretty interesting. :)
A friend of mind once pointed out that after 20 films Sayles still hadn’t mastered even the basics of filmmaking.
I don’t refer to “didactic” as simply meaning “to teach” but “preachy.” Sayles’ pictures can be photographed well occasionally, but they are so stultifyingly directed and everything is so on point and self-serious, there’s no room to breathe in any of his films. Kaufman is the complete opposite, where you can get a sense of joy and wonder and serendipity.
Your friend is only slightly exaggerating, Elvis.
Sayles contributed to the extras on Harlan Country, so Criterion has probably heard of him.
(He also appears, briefly, in Demme’s Something Wild)
I do see your point, Zvelf. I can see how some would consider Sayles’ films quite stiff. His films are serious in tone, so much so that I could see why some would consider them “overly serious.” Understood. I enjoy the stories Sayles chooses to tackle, some of which are based on actual historic events (I’m an American history nerd) and how the conflicts play out. But I know he’s not for everyone. And I totally agree with what you said about Kaufman. At the risk of sounding cliche and like a fanboy, this guy is just a quantum genuis!
I’ve never been a particular fan of Sayles’ work, but I’ve mostly enjoyed what I’ve seen. MATEWAN always seemed rather too solidly solemnly serious to me, I’d have given a lot for some life on that screen. That said, RETURN OF THE SECAUCUS SEVEN, despite some pretty amateurish production and performances, still works for the most part — the characters live onscreen. I know I saw BROTHER FROM ANOTHER PLANET when it first came out, but I don’t remember it clearly, and alas I’ve yet to see LONE STAR.