Have yet to see any mumblecore thats worthy of a second look. Sorry.
Todd Rohal’s The Guatemalan Handshake was excellent. I’ll admit, the only reason I saw it is because I’m a huge Will Oldham fan, but I was truly impressed by the film. I’ve also heard nothing but good things about Quiet City, but I’ve yet to see it.
maybe for historical purposes include one film but on it’s own terms, no way. I hear “Mutual Appreciation” is supposed to be good, much better than “Funny Haha”, Bujalski’s (sp?) first, the film that spearheaded the movement. One of those two films would be ok, but no more. “Quiet City” is a nice little film but not Criterion worthy; the cuteness of it I found to be grating. The Joe Swanberg films I’ve seen (“Kissing on the Mouth” + “LOL”) showed very little to me in terms of understanding cinema as an art. Never seen the other guy (Duplass Brothers, I think), and don’t intend to.
As much as I want to answer with HELL NO, they did include Michael Bay so…
The fact that Quatemalan Handshake is lumped into this group called Mumblecore only shows how ridiculous the “movement” was. Oh, Todd Rohal played a small role in a movie directed by Joe Swanberg… so clearly the film he directed years earlier MUST be mumblecore!
I’m not pointing you out, Corduroy, as the movie is shoved in with the rest of the Swanberg/Bujalski pact frequently by many people.
None of the films are worthy of Criterion now, though possibly in the future as some sort of retrospective looking back at independent cinema of the early 21st century (from a historical viewpoint, not necessarily artistic). Plus, Benten Films has done a wonderful job of releasing not only the non-mumblecore and 100% beautiful Quatemalan Handshake on dvd, but also Swanberg’s LOL and Aaron Katz’s Quiet City & Dance Party USA, three films that most certainly are part of this grouping.
stop saying “worthy of criterion”!!!
don’t look at me, i said “criterion worthy”.
if chasing amy can be in the collection(strictly on verbal merit, i’m sure) then why not mutual appreciation. at least bujalski’s film aspires to a visual aesthetic. let’s not turn the criterion collection into this holier than thou thing…they’ve got some shit in there that doesn’t pack half of the cinematic/emotional resonance that the duplass brothers and aaron katz do. quiet city is beautifully filmed, intimate storrytelling, like a daydream on celluloid, and most worthy of any collection.
I got through ten minutes of Funny Ha Ha before I decided I’d already done the highschool “I like her/him, but don’t really want to tell her/him” thing and didn’t need to watch it being reenacted by a bunch of twenty-somethings. So, no, Criterion probably needn’t bother.
I’m totally worthy of the criterion treatment.
Films that are “different” are not always different.
sacredchao – I agree with your sentiment but… twenty somethings these days really are that lame. There is a sense of “realism” that Bujalski gets out of his actors that I can admire. “Mutual Appreciation” is supposed to be a big improvement.
@Mikerswllg – I don’t know if I’d completely agree that twenty-somethings are lame, especially since I’m 24, but yeah, I get your point.
Well Mumblecore is a film movement so whether or not you like it I feel is almost irrelevant because the purpose of Criterion is to preserve important classic and contemporary films. And as much as many may dislike it, it is still important to film history. I’ve never actually seen a mumblecore film though so maybe if it is as bad as many say then I’m wrong all together. Just rented Mutual Appreciation so we’ll see.
I probably shoulda mentioned I’m 25. I don’t think lameness is limited to 20 somethings, but I sure do see a lot of it around people my age. I imagine we got it from our boomer parents, who are also quite lame. Perhaps if I spend more time around other generations (gen X and the so called “greatest”) I’d find plenty of lameness there as well. Really, humanity in general can be pretty lame when you get down to it. A great film will not run away from this fact. Mumblecore hasn’t produced anything great, but I would hardly write their films off because of the subject matter; I’d write them off cause they’re not interesting cinema. The lamest, most boring topics can make a great film in the hands of a capable artist.
No. The reason is because it is not an important contemporary movement. Besides that, there hasn’t been any real stand out mumblecore movies that has the quality to earn a Criterion release.
Yves, the thing is that Mumblecore isn’t really a movement.
It’s a media-created name to classify a group of filmmakers who are connected simply because they became friends after they had already made their first or second films, and now occasionally work together in small ways.
@Brandon –
That seems to me to be the definition of movement. Look at the French New Wave, or the Beatniks. Just a bunch of folks who knew each other and occasionally worked together.
That’s is true, sacredchao, but the Cahiers du cinema crowd, the Beats, the Italian Neo-Realists, the members of the New Polish Cinema… all of those were specific responses by a group of fellow artists to the world around them. They formed together, and they set the rules for the new game they were creating.
Mumblecore is something film critics/bloggers created to explain a certain type of movie that was pervasive within the SXSW film festival starting around 2005, and kind of petering out now.
Even Andrew Bujalski has said that he slightly regrets co-starring in Hannah Takes the Stairs, not because he disliked being in the film, but because it furthered the notion that this disparate group of filmmakers are part of some conscious movement.
@Ryan
I think there are plenty of stand out mumblecore films that deserve a criterion release:
Medicine for Melancholy
Hannah Takes the Stairs
Baghead
Nights and Weekends
My Effortless Brilliance
and Humpday was a sensation at Sundance this year.
Brandon
I see what your saying and the seems to make sense I just assumed that it was a movement because of what I’ve read about it but your definitely right about it being more of a label that bloggers have created then a movement like French New Wave.
Just watched Mutual Appreciation and loved it.
Mutual Appreciation no doubt in my mind deserves a Criterion edition.
Bujalski’s Beeswax and Bradley Rust’s The Exploding Girl are the only films I’ve seen that can be regarded as Mumblecore. Both are very good. The former mainly in its way to treat the characters and because it interestingly deals with language. The latter also because of its visual strength.
So, regarding the question on top of this thread, I’d say yes, worthy of criterion. Just like every good film is.
I can’t agree with you on “Hannah Takes the Stairs” and “Baghead” and I haven’t seen the other ones you mentioned so I won’t comment on them. They may be stand outs in their respective mumblecore genre but I think as a stand alone movie, when you put it on the shelf next to the other Criterion movies (or any other great movies for example) I just think there’s no comparison. And I’m not even talking about the super small budgets of the film or how they are made (look at “Requiem for a Dream”…that movie has no gimmicks and hardly any budget, completely runs off of it’s story and is an amazing film…and even THIS isn’t on Criterion), I just don’t think they are good enough to be released on Criterion.
not to throw this off topic but, “Requiem for a Dream” has no gimmicks?!?!?!? The whole thing is one big gimmick! “Requiem for Cool But Pointless Film School Effects” would be a better title, IMO. The film was basically saying “drugs are bad? mmkay? and so is addiction.” in the coolest, most stylish (and occasionally “shocking”) way they could think of. Go to the wikipedia page for “Gimmick” and you find the DVD cover for this film*.
*not really, but you should.
Lol come on man, it is not “one big gimmick”. Just because the film has a message doesn’t make it a gimmick. And I really love the way they shot everything and the different techniques they used, I honestly think it propelled the movie and fit perfectly with what was going on in the movie. Like when Ellen Burnstyn’s character took those speed pills and it cut to that slow dolly shot moving to the left yet she was moving at 1000 MPH in her home cleaning and running around. It perfectly fit what she was doing and how she was experiencing it.
To further explain what I meant by no gimmicks, it’s that it’s a story unfolding about 4 people and their addiction to drugs, and that’s it. It’s not like “Crank” (you’ve gotta keep your adrenaline going or you’ll die), “40 year old virgin” (the title explains the gimick), or “Knocked Up” (What if a really hot girl got pregnant by a stoner/slacker who’s completely the opposite). I like all 3 of those movies but it’s always refreshing to see a movie that only relies on the way they tell the story (including the overall style of the film) instead of relying on a story gimmick.
But again, this is all off-topic and of course, everyone has different opinions :)
“I like all 3 of those movies but it’s always refreshing to see a movie that only relies on the way they tell the story (including the overall style of the film) instead of relying on a story gimmick.”
that’s the thing though; over-reliance on style was the gimmick. That doesn’t automatically make the film “bad” per se (although I didn’t like it personally). Plenty of good films utilize gimmicks, so that’s not the issue. To bring it back on topic though, I don’t see how “Requiem” is comparable to mumblecore at all. It may have been low budget but it did have a small ensemble of b list Hollywood actors, which is hardly a “no budget” style filmmaking. Even if they all worked for free it gives a good marketing angle. I see mumblecore being more about a bunch of average people (likely without demanding jobs to hold them back) getting together and doing something interesting (though personally, I don’t find most mumblecore interesting). Requiem’s budget was 4.5 million; an average mumblecore flick is probably. 4,500, if that. Kind of a tiny, minuscule difference in those two figures, ya think?
Let me clarify more of what I meant. First off, let me say that I disagree with the statement that Requiem has an overreliance on style and that point is pretty much just a matter of opinion. But $4.5 million dollars is nothing compared to budgets of many big Hollywood films, and $4,500 isn’t either. So in that sense yes, they are within the same ballpark in the grand scheme of things. And that’s part of the point I’m trying to make: when you talk about stand-out mumblecore films on their own, that’s fine but when you start talking about bringing it into the Criterion Collection, you are now putting mumblecore up there with the “big boys” of film and I simply think there is no comparison. A particular band may be the best locally but when you compare that band to other national bands, it’s a whole different game.
That is how “Requiem for a Dream” is comparable to mumblecore movies to me in this discussion. Both types of film really have nothing to rely on except for the story/characters simply because neither have a big budget. Requiem had b-list actors who were proffessionals compared to most mumblecore films which has non-actors but it doesn’t matter: the acting in mumblecore has to be as good as regular films. Just because they’re non-actors and real people doesn’t give them a free pass to display horrible acting. And the same goes for all aspects of filmmaking: I don’t believe mumblecore-type movies get a free pass on direction, lighting, acting, screenwriting, etc. just because it’s low budget/was improvised. This is part of the reason why I do not like watching “Slacker”: it has some of the worst acting I’ve ever seen in a movie. I don’t care if you made your movie for $5 in one day and it was a glorious victory in your eyes: if it sucks, it sucks.
Why do I keep comparing mumblecore to other films? Because once you start talking about putting mumblecore in the Criterion Collection you’re talking about placing it alongside Fellini, Godard, Bergman, etc. along with all of the other films. And that’s the original question: Is Mumblecore worthy of Criterion? No, it is not.
4.5 million is actually a lot compared to 4500. if i had 4.5 million dollars, i would be rich. if i had 4500 dollars i would be able to pay for rent twice. Requiem for a Dream could not be made on a lesser budget because, as Mikersswllg said, it relies on gimmicky techniques and low-rent, but still professional, actors. Seriously, the movie had Jennifer Connelly in it, you can’t compare it to a bunch of friends fucking around in front of a 16mm camera.
As for Mumblecore going Criterion, who cares? the question should be, would you buy it if it were on Criterion? And no, I would not. I would order the 10 dollar version, because a) they’re mostly widely available b) there is no need for any special features whatsoever c) too recent to see if they’re going to have any lasting effect on cinema as a whole.
I’d say that 4.5 million is a lot closer to a bigger budget Hollywood pic than 4,500$, or whatever mumblecore’s budgets are (probably lower). I mean, how much does good lighting cost? How hard is it to find somebody who can act well and work for a reasonable price? 4,500 is a stretch no doubt, but if you can’t make a great film on 4.5 mill, maybe you’d better reconsider what you are doing with your life. Stop wasting others resources when millions are starving (I’m not opposed to spending mega millions on film, but only on those who have proven themselves say with, 100k, which is generous).
Just because something is slick, with high production values and technically “good” acting, doesn’t make it a good film. In my mind, film is an art more than a craft, though there are elements of both in it as a medium. Being competently put together helps, but it’s not enough. This was my issue with Requiem. A slick film? For sure. But at the end I found myself asking the question, “what’s the point?” But if others liked it, I suppose there isn’t much I can say; everyone is entitled to their opinion, (no matter how wrong ;p).
On the flip side, it’s funny that “Slacker” gets mentioned. I wouldn’t consider it great filmmaking, but I did find it enjoyable. I also believe it captured a certain milieu in history, and for that reason it is important. I think it’s great they included it in the Criterion Collection. No, the acting is not great, nor is the technical proficiency, but it doesn’t need to be. While a film can skimp on the craft side of things and still be good, it can NEVER skimp on the art. “Slacker” is a much more appropriate film to compare to mumblecore, as it has similar goals (whereas I’m not sure what the goal of Reqiuem was, other than to be “cool” and “shocking”). Of course, I don’t think the CC needs to be watered down by too many of these kinds of films, but one representative mumblecore wouldn’t be such a bad thing. So what if we are putting it next to Fellini, Bergman, Godard, etc, artistically which they pale. The films are still historically important, and besides, how can we really quantify greatness? Like you said, everybody’s got a different sort of opinion. I’ll take “Funny Haha” over “Requiem” any day of the week. Even though the former isn’t great, I did find it enjoyable. I suspect I’d like “Mutual Appreciation” is even better. Just my opinion. ;p
Anthony N
I think so.
Any thoughts?