My name’s John E. and I’ve been living in San Jose, CA for 4 years now. My collection of poems, THE DATE FRUIT ELEGIES, was just release today, so I guess I’m a poet by trade. I do teach writing and literature at a small private U. while I anonymously enroll in film classes at one of the local junior colleges. I’m a Criterion collector who pretty much buys Criterion films exclusively. I just bought a Blu-Ray this week, so I’m going to have to start a fresh collection. Looking forward to EL NORTE.
I was just gifted a Blu-Ray Disc player. I’ve been wanting one for a while mainly because of the high quality video and audio, which really is outstanding. I had been wanting a Blu-Ray Disc for a while but I knew I couldn’t afford one any time soon. Even then I stopped buying DVDs partly because I planned to eventually buy a BD player, but mostly because I found myself paying good money for DVDs I never watched. Many of them are sealed.
I just bought my first BD yesterday, The 40-Year Old Virgin, because it was super cheap—fifteen bucks. Unless I find sales like that with other films I can watch over and over again, I’m pretty much sticking to buying Criterion BD. Overall, I think I’m only going to buy films that I really love because buying discs 1) gets too expensive 2) cause an issue of storage. Renting movies, I think, is really the most economic and smart option. Why buy a disc that may only get one or two viewings over the years or that takes up space, when you could just Netflix it when you have the itch to watch? I’m definitely going to start renting the movie first before I decide to buy it. I’ve bought many a Criterion discs on pure hype and found them not living up to that hype.
As a consumer, as a Blu-Ray owner having to “start a collection all over,” I can see myself buying less discs, which might be bad for business. But what Criterion has going for them is the extraordinary special features and the supplemental reading material you just can’t get on Netflix or online.
1) Visconti’s Ossessione
2) The adaptation of Camus’ The Stranger
3) The only production of Pedro Paramo
4) The documentaries of Humphrey Jennings
5) The rest of the Lindsay Anderson’s industrial documentaries
American independent films defined the first half of the ’90s, which was then killed by the coming digital/CG era, which defined the latter part of the 1990s.
In the late ’90s DVDs arrived on the commercial market. Aside from the revolution in how we watched a movie (never did we have to rewind again!) they were half as slim as a VHS tape thus taking less space. But after ten years of buying them up and as DVDs got more and more cheap (as low as $5!) we found ourselves with hundreds of discs.
There’s something bragadocious about displaying your movies. Like books, they display your tastes and cultural capital. First you buy a 20 DVD rack; then you need a small shelf, followed by a bookcase. Showing off you movies requires another piece of furniture in your already small and cramped apartment to do so. What to do?
What are some things you’ve done to solve the storage problem?
I hear people are storing them in sleeves and folders. Do they throw away the jewel cases? Is it not worth keeping the jewel cases in order to minimize space? They are, after all, boring in their design. But it’s hard for me to part with them. What to do?
Perhaps the only discs worth keeping in their entirety are Criterion. The only ones worth leaving on the shelf. Any thoughts?
I concede that perhaps with our current economic crisis Blu-Ray is at some risk of being phased out, but don’t see it happening that quickly. They have no competitor for starters. Second, BD players are coming down in price. For example, a Phillips player at Target cost $300.00USD about six months ago, then it dropped down to $250.00, and most recently $220.00. Because of are current economic crises we are seeing deflation in electronic goods. Once BD players drop slightly below the $200.00 mark, a lot more folks are going to snatch them up. Once they go Blu-Ray they will remain in the market, especially as more and more titles become available.
I don’t quite buy that hi-def streaming over the Internet will kill any physical discs. Granted we are moving in the direction of streaming movies (just look at this site). People have shown loyalty to physical discs; it’s a representation of how much they love the film. People show off their films by displaying them on a shelf. Plus movies make for great gifts to anyone.
Netflix has made a move to streaming both online and through Roko. That’s a good move on their part. But for the consumer who uses it, it’s all about instant gratification; it’s about wanting to watch a movie when you want to, and not waiting for it in the mail. My reality is that I don’t know many people who use the Watch Instantly feature on Netflix. Generally people want to watch their movies on a comfy sofa not in their desk chair. Yes, you can hook up the computer to the TV, but the average person doesn’t know how to do that.
I do think streaming is going to be a threat to physical discs, but in the long long run, therefore those companies need to stay on top of things. They need to continue loading their discs with special features, commentary tracks, and other goodies you can’t get from streaming. You already see them answering this call by including digital copies with the discs. Criterion has it together with the way they market their home videos. You might be able to Netflix a Criterion, but you can’t get the essays.
To say DVDs are of a lesser quality is a misnomer. They are still of a higher quality and like someone said, as long as you have a HDMI connection, you’re good. I agree with that that’s why I won’t jump to replace my DVDs. But if you haven’t played around with Blu-Ray yet, the discs offer picture-and-picture and never-leave-the-movie-to-get-to-the-menu option. It’s these sorts of conveniences that make making the switch worthwhile.
I agree with Michael about Netflix being like a spouse. Great analogy! But isn’t Thursday the last day to ship out a movie? It may be because I live close to a shipping facility (coincidently where I had Thanksgiving dinner was in the same location as their headquarters.)
What irks me about Nefflix is their “availability unknown” status. Why even have the movies on there then? The movie I’ve been dying to watch is L-Shaped Room.
For many years I’ve been an advocate of the auteur theory, but in the past few months, not so much. A film is a collaborative effort and I see the director as the center of it, but without certain talent, the movie might or will fall apart, despite the direction. That’s why directors will have stinkers every once in a while.
But to answer the original question, who are non-director auteurs in their own right?
Roger Deakins, Charlie Kaufman—yes!
But we can’t forget Greg Toland.
As much as I like Orson Welles, I don’t think Citizen Kane would be what it was if it weren’t for Toland.
Diary of the Dead
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
You Don’t Mess with the Zohan
Tropic Thunder
The Secret Life of Bees
The Happening
Indiana Jones IV
Another Gay Movie
The Ruins
Made of Honor
Untraceable
Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
27 Dresses
Vantage Point
Get Smart
This is just a list of bad movies that I actually watched. Somehow I was conscious of avoiding the rest of the schlock that was released in ‘08. If Ithink about it, 99% of Hollywood releases were bad. It’s just a matter of what degree of sucky they were.
I know this is going to sound obvious, but what’s the difference between a film critic and film historian? Sometimes DVD commentary tracks will be done by a film critic, or a film historian, and sometimes by a “film critic and historian.” I’m wondering why historian and critic are mutually exclusive? I would think if you’re one, you’re the other.
Thank you for your contributions. I knew asking this question might have me looking ditz, but for a while now I’ve been poundering the historian v. critic category. It’s like asking what’s the difference between a granny smith apple and a washington apple, or perhaps, asking what besides the color of their peel, is the difference between a green and red apple? According to the content of the replies, it seems like most agree that historians and critics overlap (and that a historian is also interchangable with “scholar.”). Yet, it also seems that there is no definitive defintion for either—yet we know a critic/historian when we see one!
I agree with Matt Parks when he says that a critic deals with evaluation. And I agree with Justin Biberkopf when he says that critics deal with theory—Freud, Lacan, Derrida, etc. That clarifies a lot for me. I also agree with Biberkopf when he says that historians deal with “the arrangement of anectodal information,” although those choice of words sound a bit perjorative to me, but the point is taken.
A critic then evaluates a film and scrutinizes it for its value. Critics of the past and present then determine what films become part of the canon. Once a film becomes, bear with me, part of the canon, the film historians role is then to preserve its place in film history by documenting and preserving and passing on from one generation to the next the importance of the film, including its anecdotal information. This include the film’s cultural and historical relevance, to why the director decided to make the film, to even on-set difficulties, etc.
Would anyone like to add or dispute anything to this?
I think you’re right in pointing out that the extras are your standard studio type, but partly due to Button’s recent release; there hasn’t been enough distance in time to add any other retrospective features.
Whether cineastes liked the film or not, or Eric Roth’s Forrest Gump-rehash script (which I saw as the main problem of the film), it’s hard to deny that in a CG saturated industry, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a technical accomplishment complemented by Brad Pitt’s astounding performance of a man who ages backwards. Put this in the hands of any director and they would have failed. Imagine this in the hands of Zemeckis or Spielberg? The gripes would have mutliplied.
Even if film history dismisses the content of the film, it will always cite Button for its technical achievement. Think The Jazz Singer. As a film it’s mediocre, but it’s recognized for its achievement in sound. That’s why I think Benjamin Button is a suitable for The Criterion Collection: it recognizes films that have made contributions, in one aspect or another, to film. Even if they’re not perfect.
I went blu-ray and I love it! If I can get the disc on Blu-ray, I will. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of great DVDs out there that won’t come out on blu-ray for a while, especially Criterion ones. It’s not a bad idea to snatch them because who knows if how fast DVDs may go into obsolescence, taking their director commentaries with them.
I am wondering if the name “Harry Caine” had any significance? While Harry and Lena were at the beach, the name started sounding a lot like “Hurricane.” But alas, there was no hurricane, and just like much of the film, there was no follow through. Then I started wondering if Harry Caine was nod to DePalma’s “Raising Cain,” a film about a man with multiple personalities, given that the film gave many nods to other films and that Mateo Blanco had two identities. I concluded that the Harry Caine/Raising Cain tie-in is not likely, probably just a coincidence.
CRUMB has finally been inaugurated into the Criterion Collection. If there is a contemporary film out there readily available on home video to which an injustice has been, it’ll be this film. Fans of Terry Zwigoff’s documentary know that there are currently two available versions of this picture. One is a “standard” release preserved in its original aspect ratio; the other is a “special edition” with an audio commentary featuring Zwigoff and Roger Ebert, except that this “special” edition is presented in full screen. This was an idiotic decision if there ever was one. Thankfully, we now can listen to not only the original Zwigoff-Ebert commentary, but a new commentary by Zwigoff, in its intended aspect ratio—and in Blu-Ray nonetheless!
Ah, crap, you are so very right, Joks, the Criterion release is still presented in 1:33 full screen. What…the…heck…is…going…on? I guess in my hopeful excitement I overlooked that detail. This of course null and voids the praise of my previous post. I’m at a loss here. Again, apparently you can get CRUMB in a 1:66 aspect ratio, so then why would Criterion, sticklers as they are for presentation, still present the film in 1:33 if there is a 1:66 available?
I don’t know. Maybe there never was a 1:66 to begin with? Maybe it was a studio error on the packaging? All I know is that coincidently I bought the special edition a few weeks ago and now I’m going to return it. Perhaps I should buy the standard edition/widescreen just to have and check if there’s a difference.
Well, for what it’s worth, LOUIE BLUIE is also presented in 1:33.
L West, I think that’s good reasoning. Zwigoff did approve the transfer after all. I should have put that under consideration. I wonder if he gave his input on the Sony Entertainment Special Edition, too, explaining why CRUMB shifted from 1:66 to 1:33. Anyway, I’ll accept that as the answer.
Joks, if you had asked me that question out of the context of this CRUMB discussion I would have have said Yes, most pre-2000 docs were shot in 1:33. The mystery here is that CRUMB has three different aspect ratios attributed to it: 1:33, 1:37, and 1:66. So the question is which is the true one?
Prior to Criterion’s announcement a consumer could have chosen between a widescreen 1:66 aspect ratio disc or a full screen 1:33 (which often indicates that it may not be in its original format) with a commentary track, both released by Sony Entertainment. In other words, one version has one thing but not the other. What is a consumer who cares about these things to do? That’s why I held off for many years until recently to buy any of these discs.
As a movie afficionado I want to buy the movie in which its original format has been preserved, but with three different aspect ratios going around it makes it difficult to determine which is the true one. In this case Criterion shold have the last word because of their credibility, and the fact that Zwigoff himself supervised the transer. At the end, it just gets me that someone somewhere may have made an error or didn’t get their information straight causing perhaps a meaningless discussion on some movie forum ; )
I really like what David Blakeslee wrote about the market for OOP Criterion titles. I just purchased six OOP titles through the Barnes and Noble 50% sale and now I’m reconsidering my motives. One of my motives for acquring OOPs is so I won’t have to pay 2X-3X its retail value should I ever want the disc in the future, not to mention the hassle of hunting it down. My second motive, to be honest, is that if I can flip a disc that I don’t really care about for 2X-3x than what I paid for it, why not? But really, I don’t see a ludicris market for the 2010 Criterion OOP wave because there are too widely available—Nextflix, bootleg, secondary sellers, and collectors who have caught on to the “value” of OOP and snatch them up before they “go up” in value. There still might be a demand for the early wave of OOPs, but even for those discs I don’t see anyone (or at least myself) paying in the hundreds of dollars for them and especially if they don’t come in the original wrapping.
By the way, I was duped in buy bootleg copies of Silence of the Lambs, The Killer, Hard Boiled, and Dead Ringers for about $40 a piece. Live and learn.
So I’m wondering what your motives are for picking up Criterion OOPs, especially if they are films you don’t particularly care for? And do you think these second wave of OOPs will go up in value?
Ryan and Dave,
Yes, good perspectives. When I buy OOPs I mostly think of it as a way to save money and time in terms of the future, and even if they don’t go up in value, I take comfort that they are still “collectible.” The good thing about Criterion discs is that they retain their value or have a higher resale value than do standard market dvds. I must say, one of the reasons I buy up these OOPs while they’re still available, and half off, is that there is no worse feeling than not snatching up a disc at X price, then later seeing it at a higher Y price. Something that I recently experienced with The Third Man. And, who knows, even if 99% of the OOPs I own don’t go up in value, all it takes is one disc to shoot up in value to make all worth it ;) But that’s all capitalist and fantasy talk. In the end, collecting Criterion discs is my hobby, not my investment portfolio. And after this thread I’ve decided not to chase OOPs that don’t interest me but rather acquire films that do and will definitely watch.
And Dave, you’re dead on with the baseball card analogy. I thought about that too!
Hi Dave,
In this depressed market, I think you’re better off keeping your duplicate DVD sets. Having the DVD in hand when there’s no blu-ray player around is worth more than the $20 you might get selling your used disc (and I might be pricing that kinda high).
The only reason I’d see in getting rid of your old DVDs is if you needed to make room for other discs or if you were on a budget and selling your old discs would help cover the cost of upgrading to blu-ray.
I haven’t seen both the standard AND high-def versions of any of the films you mentioned, so I can’t say much about the plusses/minuses; however, I’m one for compact-ness and space-saving. I’d buy the blu-ray editions of those films specifically for their compact packaging to save on shelf space.
Here’s my 50% off Criterion round-up. I spent about $400.00, some of which I’ll be paying off next month ; ) Even with such a modest budget, it was so difficult to choose. It doesn’t surprise that folks spent up to $3,000.00 on the sale!
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeosie (OOP)
The Obscure Object of Desire (OOP)
Bob Le Flambeur (OOP)
A Woman is a Woman x2 (OOP)
The Man Who Fell to Earth (DVD, OOP)
Z
Short Cuts
Wise Blood
Walkabout (blu-ray)
Kagemusha (blu-ray)
Red Desert (blu-ray)
The Last Year at Marienbad (blu-ray)
Oshima’s Outlaw Sixties (Eclipse)
Kapo (Essential Art House)
I noticed that two of my local BN’s are out of The Thin Red Line and Crumb on Blu-ray, and I’m also noticing that some ppl here on the forum are saying that some of their online orders won’t ship out until Nov 29. In addition, www.criterioncast.com hinted that folks should get a hold of TRL on bluray asap.
So what’s going on? In BN out of TRL and Crumb? What are the films that are being back ordered?
Can anyone here tell me what’s the lowdown with the Studio+Canal blu-ray collection? Their website hasn’t been updated since late last year and the films they are claiming to release haven’t been released, at least here in the U.S.. If I were to go to a Barnes and Noble I could probably find Ran, Contempt, The Lady Killers, The Third Man, and Delicatessen and these are films I can get through Amazon also. But when it it comes to films like Mulholland Drive, The Elephant Man and the rest of the catalog, I can’t find them, not even on Amazon. What gives?
Someone please explain this one to me. A user on this forum has completed a set—or rather, a collection—of important classic and contemporary films of something called The Criterion COLLECTION, because that’s his hobby, yet a self-proclaimed “Custodian of Cinema” is beating him up because that’s not considered appreciating films? If he didn’t appreciate films, then why would he spend a lot of money and sacrifice a lot of space in his home for them?
Art in our modern era has always been a commodity because it takes money to create art. Oil paints cost a lot of money. It cost a lot of money to rent a studio so a painter can create their art and store it. And what other art form is more costly than the motion picture? If anything, too many people undervalue artists and art, literally. An oil painter who spends 36 hours and $500 in materials (plus the cost of rent for a studio) for a painting will be offered by the truly ignorant a $100 for their work of art, or worse, ask for it for free. That’s insulting. There’s a reason why paintings by a moderately talented artist go for the high 3-digits or low 4-digits. Because that’s what it takes to support the artist. It’s his or her livelihood. I’m sure that painter would appreciate having their work bought regardless of the motivation.
Now I understand if someone has a quip about someone else who might do a blind buy yet never take the time to watch the film. Could that be considered not appreciating the art? Maybe. But for every disc we buy—whether we watch it or not—supports the artist/filmmaker in one way or another, an artist who might not be able to bring us her next masterpiece otherwise. And if consumer compulsion is what makes that happen, I don’t see how is that a bad thing.
If I had the resources and space to own the entire collection, I’d do it. I’m sure there are plenty of rich filmmakers and film lovers who own the entire Criterion Collection. Kevin Smith has stated that his DVD collection is in the upwards of 10,000. Do you think he sits down to watch them all? Quentin Tarantino is known to have a large collection of 35MM prints. Do you think he’s nick picky about what he buys (not saying he’d buy a print of Hudson Hawk)? He probably snatches up what he can, regardless if it’s his all-time fave or not. But would you say that he doesn’t appreciate film as an art form because he might have picked up a print of a bad grindhouse film that’s sitting on his shelf somewhere, going unwatched?
Sure I find it annoying that my phone dings every five minutes to notify me that someone has posted their list of 50% off buys. But I read the message anyway because it makes me happy that people are buying up discs like crazy, despite the rough economic weather, keeping physical media alive and artists at work.
New to The Auteurs? You Belong Here over 3 years ago
My name’s John E. and I’ve been living in San Jose, CA for 4 years now. My collection of poems, THE DATE FRUIT ELEGIES, was just release today, so I guess I’m a poet by trade. I do teach writing and literature at a small private U. while I anonymously enroll in film classes at one of the local junior colleges. I’m a Criterion collector who pretty much buys Criterion films exclusively. I just bought a Blu-Ray this week, so I’m going to have to start a fresh collection. Looking forward to EL NORTE.
Go to Comment
Age / Level of education? (An informal poll) over 3 years ago
30, MFA in creative writing emphasis in poetry. I have B.A.s in creative writing and sociology.
Go to Comment
ANYONE ELSE STARTING TO ABANDON DVD FOR BLU-RAY? over 3 years ago
I was just gifted a Blu-Ray Disc player. I’ve been wanting one for a while mainly because of the high quality video and audio, which really is outstanding. I had been wanting a Blu-Ray Disc for a while but I knew I couldn’t afford one any time soon. Even then I stopped buying DVDs partly because I planned to eventually buy a BD player, but mostly because I found myself paying good money for DVDs I never watched. Many of them are sealed.
I just bought my first BD yesterday, The 40-Year Old Virgin, because it was super cheap—fifteen bucks. Unless I find sales like that with other films I can watch over and over again, I’m pretty much sticking to buying Criterion BD. Overall, I think I’m only going to buy films that I really love because buying discs 1) gets too expensive 2) cause an issue of storage. Renting movies, I think, is really the most economic and smart option. Why buy a disc that may only get one or two viewings over the years or that takes up space, when you could just Netflix it when you have the itch to watch? I’m definitely going to start renting the movie first before I decide to buy it. I’ve bought many a Criterion discs on pure hype and found them not living up to that hype.
As a consumer, as a Blu-Ray owner having to “start a collection all over,” I can see myself buying less discs, which might be bad for business. But what Criterion has going for them is the extraordinary special features and the supplemental reading material you just can’t get on Netflix or online.
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 3 years ago
1) Visconti’s Ossessione
2) The adaptation of Camus’ The Stranger
3) The only production of Pedro Paramo
4) The documentaries of Humphrey Jennings
5) The rest of the Lindsay Anderson’s industrial documentaries
Go to Comment
Back in the 1990's over 3 years ago
American independent films defined the first half of the ’90s, which was then killed by the coming digital/CG era, which defined the latter part of the 1990s.
Go to Comment
Solutions to the DVD storage dilema over 3 years ago
In the late ’90s DVDs arrived on the commercial market. Aside from the revolution in how we watched a movie (never did we have to rewind again!) they were half as slim as a VHS tape thus taking less space. But after ten years of buying them up and as DVDs got more and more cheap (as low as $5!) we found ourselves with hundreds of discs.
There’s something bragadocious about displaying your movies. Like books, they display your tastes and cultural capital. First you buy a 20 DVD rack; then you need a small shelf, followed by a bookcase. Showing off you movies requires another piece of furniture in your already small and cramped apartment to do so. What to do?
What are some things you’ve done to solve the storage problem?
I hear people are storing them in sleeves and folders. Do they throw away the jewel cases? Is it not worth keeping the jewel cases in order to minimize space? They are, after all, boring in their design. But it’s hard for me to part with them. What to do?
Perhaps the only discs worth keeping in their entirety are Criterion. The only ones worth leaving on the shelf. Any thoughts?
Go to Comment
ANYONE ELSE STARTING TO ABANDON DVD FOR BLU-RAY? over 3 years ago
I concede that perhaps with our current economic crisis Blu-Ray is at some risk of being phased out, but don’t see it happening that quickly. They have no competitor for starters. Second, BD players are coming down in price. For example, a Phillips player at Target cost $300.00USD about six months ago, then it dropped down to $250.00, and most recently $220.00. Because of are current economic crises we are seeing deflation in electronic goods. Once BD players drop slightly below the $200.00 mark, a lot more folks are going to snatch them up. Once they go Blu-Ray they will remain in the market, especially as more and more titles become available.
I don’t quite buy that hi-def streaming over the Internet will kill any physical discs. Granted we are moving in the direction of streaming movies (just look at this site). People have shown loyalty to physical discs; it’s a representation of how much they love the film. People show off their films by displaying them on a shelf. Plus movies make for great gifts to anyone.
Netflix has made a move to streaming both online and through Roko. That’s a good move on their part. But for the consumer who uses it, it’s all about instant gratification; it’s about wanting to watch a movie when you want to, and not waiting for it in the mail. My reality is that I don’t know many people who use the Watch Instantly feature on Netflix. Generally people want to watch their movies on a comfy sofa not in their desk chair. Yes, you can hook up the computer to the TV, but the average person doesn’t know how to do that.
I do think streaming is going to be a threat to physical discs, but in the long long run, therefore those companies need to stay on top of things. They need to continue loading their discs with special features, commentary tracks, and other goodies you can’t get from streaming. You already see them answering this call by including digital copies with the discs. Criterion has it together with the way they market their home videos. You might be able to Netflix a Criterion, but you can’t get the essays.
To say DVDs are of a lesser quality is a misnomer. They are still of a higher quality and like someone said, as long as you have a HDMI connection, you’re good. I agree with that that’s why I won’t jump to replace my DVDs. But if you haven’t played around with Blu-Ray yet, the discs offer picture-and-picture and never-leave-the-movie-to-get-to-the-menu option. It’s these sorts of conveniences that make making the switch worthwhile.
Go to Comment
Netflix; frustrations with over 3 years ago
I agree with Michael about Netflix being like a spouse. Great analogy! But isn’t Thursday the last day to ship out a movie? It may be because I live close to a shipping facility (coincidently where I had Thanksgiving dinner was in the same location as their headquarters.)
What irks me about Nefflix is their “availability unknown” status. Why even have the movies on there then? The movie I’ve been dying to watch is L-Shaped Room.
Go to Comment
What non-directors could be thought of as "auteurs" in their own right? over 3 years ago
For many years I’ve been an advocate of the auteur theory, but in the past few months, not so much. A film is a collaborative effort and I see the director as the center of it, but without certain talent, the movie might or will fall apart, despite the direction. That’s why directors will have stinkers every once in a while.
But to answer the original question, who are non-director auteurs in their own right?
Roger Deakins, Charlie Kaufman—yes!
But we can’t forget Greg Toland.
As much as I like Orson Welles, I don’t think Citizen Kane would be what it was if it weren’t for Toland.
Go to Comment
Best British Film over 3 years ago
Not that this is necessarily the best British film(s) but I’m fond of
Saturday Night, Sunday Morning
Look Back in Anger
This Sporting Life
If…
Go to Comment
The Worst Films of 2008 over 3 years ago
Diary of the Dead
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
You Don’t Mess with the Zohan
Tropic Thunder
The Secret Life of Bees
The Happening
Indiana Jones IV
Another Gay Movie
The Ruins
Made of Honor
Untraceable
Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
27 Dresses
Vantage Point
Get Smart
This is just a list of bad movies that I actually watched. Somehow I was conscious of avoiding the rest of the schlock that was released in ‘08. If Ithink about it, 99% of Hollywood releases were bad. It’s just a matter of what degree of sucky they were.
Go to Comment
Film Critic vs. Film Historian about 3 years ago
I know this is going to sound obvious, but what’s the difference between a film critic and film historian? Sometimes DVD commentary tracks will be done by a film critic, or a film historian, and sometimes by a “film critic and historian.” I’m wondering why historian and critic are mutually exclusive? I would think if you’re one, you’re the other.
Go to Comment
Film Critic vs. Film Historian about 3 years ago
Thank you for your contributions. I knew asking this question might have me looking ditz, but for a while now I’ve been poundering the historian v. critic category. It’s like asking what’s the difference between a granny smith apple and a washington apple, or perhaps, asking what besides the color of their peel, is the difference between a green and red apple? According to the content of the replies, it seems like most agree that historians and critics overlap (and that a historian is also interchangable with “scholar.”). Yet, it also seems that there is no definitive defintion for either—yet we know a critic/historian when we see one!
I agree with Matt Parks when he says that a critic deals with evaluation. And I agree with Justin Biberkopf when he says that critics deal with theory—Freud, Lacan, Derrida, etc. That clarifies a lot for me. I also agree with Biberkopf when he says that historians deal with “the arrangement of anectodal information,” although those choice of words sound a bit perjorative to me, but the point is taken.
A critic then evaluates a film and scrutinizes it for its value. Critics of the past and present then determine what films become part of the canon. Once a film becomes, bear with me, part of the canon, the film historians role is then to preserve its place in film history by documenting and preserving and passing on from one generation to the next the importance of the film, including its anecdotal information. This include the film’s cultural and historical relevance, to why the director decided to make the film, to even on-set difficulties, etc.
Would anyone like to add or dispute anything to this?
Go to Comment
Film Critic vs. Film Historian about 3 years ago
Bobby Wise, that’s a very good point. Thank you.
Go to Comment
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Why? about 3 years ago
Tom, I think you mean Fitzgerald.
I think you’re right in pointing out that the extras are your standard studio type, but partly due to Button’s recent release; there hasn’t been enough distance in time to add any other retrospective features.
Whether cineastes liked the film or not, or Eric Roth’s Forrest Gump-rehash script (which I saw as the main problem of the film), it’s hard to deny that in a CG saturated industry, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a technical accomplishment complemented by Brad Pitt’s astounding performance of a man who ages backwards. Put this in the hands of any director and they would have failed. Imagine this in the hands of Zemeckis or Spielberg? The gripes would have mutliplied.
Even if film history dismisses the content of the film, it will always cite Button for its technical achievement. Think The Jazz Singer. As a film it’s mediocre, but it’s recognized for its achievement in sound. That’s why I think Benjamin Button is a suitable for The Criterion Collection: it recognizes films that have made contributions, in one aspect or another, to film. Even if they’re not perfect.
Go to Comment
ANYONE ELSE STARTING TO ABANDON DVD FOR BLU-RAY? over 2 years ago
I went blu-ray and I love it! If I can get the disc on Blu-ray, I will. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of great DVDs out there that won’t come out on blu-ray for a while, especially Criterion ones. It’s not a bad idea to snatch them because who knows if how fast DVDs may go into obsolescence, taking their director commentaries with them.
Go to Comment
Reaction to Broken Embraces over 2 years ago
I am wondering if the name “Harry Caine” had any significance? While Harry and Lena were at the beach, the name started sounding a lot like “Hurricane.” But alas, there was no hurricane, and just like much of the film, there was no follow through. Then I started wondering if Harry Caine was nod to DePalma’s “Raising Cain,” a film about a man with multiple personalities, given that the film gave many nods to other films and that Mateo Blanco had two identities. I concluded that the Harry Caine/Raising Cain tie-in is not likely, probably just a coincidence.
Go to Comment
Reaction to Broken Embraces over 2 years ago
Ari, yes, I buy that amalgamation: Harry Lime + Charles Foster Kane = Harry Caine. It’s so obvious now that I feel like a dork for not having seen it.
Go to Comment
Due Justice for CRUMB about 2 years ago
CRUMB has finally been inaugurated into the Criterion Collection. If there is a contemporary film out there readily available on home video to which an injustice has been, it’ll be this film. Fans of Terry Zwigoff’s documentary know that there are currently two available versions of this picture. One is a “standard” release preserved in its original aspect ratio; the other is a “special edition” with an audio commentary featuring Zwigoff and Roger Ebert, except that this “special” edition is presented in full screen. This was an idiotic decision if there ever was one. Thankfully, we now can listen to not only the original Zwigoff-Ebert commentary, but a new commentary by Zwigoff, in its intended aspect ratio—and in Blu-Ray nonetheless!
Go to Comment
Due Justice for CRUMB about 2 years ago
Ah, crap, you are so very right, Joks, the Criterion release is still presented in 1:33 full screen. What…the…heck…is…going…on? I guess in my hopeful excitement I overlooked that detail. This of course null and voids the praise of my previous post. I’m at a loss here. Again, apparently you can get CRUMB in a 1:66 aspect ratio, so then why would Criterion, sticklers as they are for presentation, still present the film in 1:33 if there is a 1:66 available?
I don’t know. Maybe there never was a 1:66 to begin with? Maybe it was a studio error on the packaging? All I know is that coincidently I bought the special edition a few weeks ago and now I’m going to return it. Perhaps I should buy the standard edition/widescreen just to have and check if there’s a difference.
Well, for what it’s worth, LOUIE BLUIE is also presented in 1:33.
Go to Comment
Due Justice for CRUMB about 2 years ago
L West, I think that’s good reasoning. Zwigoff did approve the transfer after all. I should have put that under consideration. I wonder if he gave his input on the Sony Entertainment Special Edition, too, explaining why CRUMB shifted from 1:66 to 1:33. Anyway, I’ll accept that as the answer.
Go to Comment
Due Justice for CRUMB about 2 years ago
Joks, if you had asked me that question out of the context of this CRUMB discussion I would have have said Yes, most pre-2000 docs were shot in 1:33. The mystery here is that CRUMB has three different aspect ratios attributed to it: 1:33, 1:37, and 1:66. So the question is which is the true one?
Prior to Criterion’s announcement a consumer could have chosen between a widescreen 1:66 aspect ratio disc or a full screen 1:33 (which often indicates that it may not be in its original format) with a commentary track, both released by Sony Entertainment. In other words, one version has one thing but not the other. What is a consumer who cares about these things to do? That’s why I held off for many years until recently to buy any of these discs.
As a movie afficionado I want to buy the movie in which its original format has been preserved, but with three different aspect ratios going around it makes it difficult to determine which is the true one. In this case Criterion shold have the last word because of their credibility, and the fact that Zwigoff himself supervised the transer. At the end, it just gets me that someone somewhere may have made an error or didn’t get their information straight causing perhaps a meaningless discussion on some movie forum ; )
Go to Comment
More Criterion OOP almost 2 years ago
I really like what David Blakeslee wrote about the market for OOP Criterion titles. I just purchased six OOP titles through the Barnes and Noble 50% sale and now I’m reconsidering my motives. One of my motives for acquring OOPs is so I won’t have to pay 2X-3X its retail value should I ever want the disc in the future, not to mention the hassle of hunting it down. My second motive, to be honest, is that if I can flip a disc that I don’t really care about for 2X-3x than what I paid for it, why not? But really, I don’t see a ludicris market for the 2010 Criterion OOP wave because there are too widely available—Nextflix, bootleg, secondary sellers, and collectors who have caught on to the “value” of OOP and snatch them up before they “go up” in value. There still might be a demand for the early wave of OOPs, but even for those discs I don’t see anyone (or at least myself) paying in the hundreds of dollars for them and especially if they don’t come in the original wrapping.
By the way, I was duped in buy bootleg copies of Silence of the Lambs, The Killer, Hard Boiled, and Dead Ringers for about $40 a piece. Live and learn.
So I’m wondering what your motives are for picking up Criterion OOPs, especially if they are films you don’t particularly care for? And do you think these second wave of OOPs will go up in value?
Go to Comment
More Criterion OOP almost 2 years ago
Ryan and Dave,
Yes, good perspectives. When I buy OOPs I mostly think of it as a way to save money and time in terms of the future, and even if they don’t go up in value, I take comfort that they are still “collectible.” The good thing about Criterion discs is that they retain their value or have a higher resale value than do standard market dvds. I must say, one of the reasons I buy up these OOPs while they’re still available, and half off, is that there is no worse feeling than not snatching up a disc at X price, then later seeing it at a higher Y price. Something that I recently experienced with The Third Man. And, who knows, even if 99% of the OOPs I own don’t go up in value, all it takes is one disc to shoot up in value to make all worth it ;) But that’s all capitalist and fantasy talk. In the end, collecting Criterion discs is my hobby, not my investment portfolio. And after this thread I’ve decided not to chase OOPs that don’t interest me but rather acquire films that do and will definitely watch.
And Dave, you’re dead on with the baseball card analogy. I thought about that too!
Go to Comment
As it must to all DVD, Double Dip came to Criterion... almost 2 years ago
Hi Dave,
In this depressed market, I think you’re better off keeping your duplicate DVD sets. Having the DVD in hand when there’s no blu-ray player around is worth more than the $20 you might get selling your used disc (and I might be pricing that kinda high).
The only reason I’d see in getting rid of your old DVDs is if you needed to make room for other discs or if you were on a budget and selling your old discs would help cover the cost of upgrading to blu-ray.
I haven’t seen both the standard AND high-def versions of any of the films you mentioned, so I can’t say much about the plusses/minuses; however, I’m one for compact-ness and space-saving. I’d buy the blu-ray editions of those films specifically for their compact packaging to save on shelf space.
Just my $.02 ;)
Go to Comment
Heads up!!!! 50% off Criterions almost 2 years ago
Here’s my 50% off Criterion round-up. I spent about $400.00, some of which I’ll be paying off next month ; ) Even with such a modest budget, it was so difficult to choose. It doesn’t surprise that folks spent up to $3,000.00 on the sale!
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeosie (OOP)
The Obscure Object of Desire (OOP)
Bob Le Flambeur (OOP)
A Woman is a Woman x2 (OOP)
The Man Who Fell to Earth (DVD, OOP)
Z
Short Cuts
Wise Blood
Walkabout (blu-ray)
Kagemusha (blu-ray)
Red Desert (blu-ray)
The Last Year at Marienbad (blu-ray)
Oshima’s Outlaw Sixties (Eclipse)
Kapo (Essential Art House)
Go to Comment
Heads up!!!! 50% off Criterions almost 2 years ago
Whoops! I forgot to add the Yojimbo/Sanjuro blu-ray box set! ; )
Go to Comment
Heads up!!!! 50% off Criterions over 1 year ago
I noticed that two of my local BN’s are out of The Thin Red Line and Crumb on Blu-ray, and I’m also noticing that some ppl here on the forum are saying that some of their online orders won’t ship out until Nov 29. In addition, www.criterioncast.com hinted that folks should get a hold of TRL on bluray asap.
So what’s going on? In BN out of TRL and Crumb? What are the films that are being back ordered?
Go to Comment
Studio Canal Collection blu-rays about 1 year ago
Can anyone here tell me what’s the lowdown with the Studio+Canal blu-ray collection? Their website hasn’t been updated since late last year and the films they are claiming to release haven’t been released, at least here in the U.S.. If I were to go to a Barnes and Noble I could probably find Ran, Contempt, The Lady Killers, The Third Man, and Delicatessen and these are films I can get through Amazon also. But when it it comes to films like Mulholland Drive, The Elephant Man and the rest of the catalog, I can’t find them, not even on Amazon. What gives?
Go to Comment
Heads up!!!! 50% off Criterions 11 months ago
Someone please explain this one to me. A user on this forum has completed a set—or rather, a collection—of important classic and contemporary films of something called The Criterion COLLECTION, because that’s his hobby, yet a self-proclaimed “Custodian of Cinema” is beating him up because that’s not considered appreciating films? If he didn’t appreciate films, then why would he spend a lot of money and sacrifice a lot of space in his home for them?
Art in our modern era has always been a commodity because it takes money to create art. Oil paints cost a lot of money. It cost a lot of money to rent a studio so a painter can create their art and store it. And what other art form is more costly than the motion picture? If anything, too many people undervalue artists and art, literally. An oil painter who spends 36 hours and $500 in materials (plus the cost of rent for a studio) for a painting will be offered by the truly ignorant a $100 for their work of art, or worse, ask for it for free. That’s insulting. There’s a reason why paintings by a moderately talented artist go for the high 3-digits or low 4-digits. Because that’s what it takes to support the artist. It’s his or her livelihood. I’m sure that painter would appreciate having their work bought regardless of the motivation.
Now I understand if someone has a quip about someone else who might do a blind buy yet never take the time to watch the film. Could that be considered not appreciating the art? Maybe. But for every disc we buy—whether we watch it or not—supports the artist/filmmaker in one way or another, an artist who might not be able to bring us her next masterpiece otherwise. And if consumer compulsion is what makes that happen, I don’t see how is that a bad thing.
If I had the resources and space to own the entire collection, I’d do it. I’m sure there are plenty of rich filmmakers and film lovers who own the entire Criterion Collection. Kevin Smith has stated that his DVD collection is in the upwards of 10,000. Do you think he sits down to watch them all? Quentin Tarantino is known to have a large collection of 35MM prints. Do you think he’s nick picky about what he buys (not saying he’d buy a print of Hudson Hawk)? He probably snatches up what he can, regardless if it’s his all-time fave or not. But would you say that he doesn’t appreciate film as an art form because he might have picked up a print of a bad grindhouse film that’s sitting on his shelf somewhere, going unwatched?
Sure I find it annoying that my phone dings every five minutes to notify me that someone has posted their list of 50% off buys. But I read the message anyway because it makes me happy that people are buying up discs like crazy, despite the rough economic weather, keeping physical media alive and artists at work.
Go to Comment