Peter Cowie’s commentary tracks for both the Seventh Seal and Hiroshima Mon Amour are unbelievably insightful. He almost makes it an art. Donald Richie offered some great comments on Tokyo Story and Early Summer. Michael Jeck on Seven Samurai is fucking priceless. I enjoyed the commentary track for Playtime, even though I thought that it didn’t flow well enough; more like a history lesson on Tati’s funding for the picture, which, while important, takes away from the mosaic-like detail of the images as they are moving. P.T. Anderson’s commentary tracks are very worthwhile to listen to, and at the same time, totally non-pretentious and enthusiastic.
We’re basically all slaves to memory. Marker fits in with the finest tradition of artists that have become obsessed with this cognitive concept; i.e. Woolf, Proust, Joyce, Resnais, etc. Sorry, a vague sentiment, I know, but I’m just warming up here.
It is strange that he wasn’t credited. LMAT, why and how would you say that the second person narration worked so well? I wonder, if Peter Falk had played the role of Frankie instead of Allen Baron, do you think the voice-over would’ve been necessary? At times I felt like the film was too noisy, in a non-diegetic way. Granted, it seems like sound in Blast of Silence was supposed to be a little fragmented, but for me, it distracted from what was going on visually.
I understand that this site is run by the Criterion Collection. Of course there are several films on here that Janus does not have the rights to. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Criterion Collection. I love the fact that I rent a majority of their catalogue from the library. And I love most of the discussions and reviews on this website, but sometimes when I communicate with some of the people on here, and I feel like they are either tools who merely pick out selections from the catalogue because they always need a certain company to suggest “great films” to them, or people who are clearly working for Criterion in some capacity, well, I become a little bored and irritated. In fact, it’s insulting at times. I mean, do you want to discuss time and space in Last Year at Marienbad, or do you want to discuss the fucking cover art for the new Criterion DVD. Yes, it is great that they’ve finally transferred that, and the cover looks great, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the film itself. Yes, the company has done some excellent work, and I’m behind them…well at least 90%, but loving cinema is all about exploration, and if Criterion just starts turning people into zombies who only watch Criterion releases, then that’s ridiculous. It also tends to cheapen the act of discussing films. I mean, yeah, Armageddon was awful, but if the only reason anyone has for criticizing such a film is because it was because there was a Criterion Collection edition of it, then that is absurd.
I don’t think that I’m really speaking out of line here either because films that Kino, Facets, Miramax, etc. have the rights to, are on here. I mean Chaplin? Not one Criterion edition. So, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ever discuss just how special the Criterion Collection is, but maybe we could try to avoid inserting it into every single conversation that we have about film?
My point had more to do with people just mentioning the film because of the studio or distributor. So if Miramax or Disney produced the film, people should not hesitate to mention both the film and the studio. I mean, from my own insular worldview, I could just as easily assume that everyone knows who Kino is, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
By the way, I would like to thank Nate here, for being slightly sympathetic to my superfluous complaint. That’s really all that I was getting at. I guess it read like a bit of a rant.
I seriously doubt that any director or cinematographer in their right mind would intend a film to look that dark. Who knows, maybe the ostensibly sloppy editing was intentional as well. For the most part, it’s just an ugly film, not to mention boisterously western for a Japanese picture.
WHO IS / WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FILM ACTRESS EVER? about 3 years ago
Monica Vitti, hands down.
Go to Comment
Which Criterion film has the best commentary ? about 3 years ago
Peter Cowie’s commentary tracks for both the Seventh Seal and Hiroshima Mon Amour are unbelievably insightful. He almost makes it an art. Donald Richie offered some great comments on Tokyo Story and Early Summer. Michael Jeck on Seven Samurai is fucking priceless. I enjoyed the commentary track for Playtime, even though I thought that it didn’t flow well enough; more like a history lesson on Tati’s funding for the picture, which, while important, takes away from the mosaic-like detail of the images as they are moving. P.T. Anderson’s commentary tracks are very worthwhile to listen to, and at the same time, totally non-pretentious and enthusiastic.
Go to Comment
WHO IS / WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FILM ACTRESS EVER? about 3 years ago
On second thought, maybe Emmauelle Riva.
Go to Comment
Memory almost 3 years ago
We’re basically all slaves to memory. Marker fits in with the finest tradition of artists that have become obsessed with this cognitive concept; i.e. Woolf, Proust, Joyce, Resnais, etc. Sorry, a vague sentiment, I know, but I’m just warming up here.
Go to Comment
Lionel Stander narration almost 3 years ago
It is strange that he wasn’t credited. LMAT, why and how would you say that the second person narration worked so well? I wonder, if Peter Falk had played the role of Frankie instead of Allen Baron, do you think the voice-over would’ve been necessary? At times I felt like the film was too noisy, in a non-diegetic way. Granted, it seems like sound in Blast of Silence was supposed to be a little fragmented, but for me, it distracted from what was going on visually.
Go to Comment
Just Criterion Collection? almost 3 years ago
I understand that this site is run by the Criterion Collection. Of course there are several films on here that Janus does not have the rights to. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Criterion Collection. I love the fact that I rent a majority of their catalogue from the library. And I love most of the discussions and reviews on this website, but sometimes when I communicate with some of the people on here, and I feel like they are either tools who merely pick out selections from the catalogue because they always need a certain company to suggest “great films” to them, or people who are clearly working for Criterion in some capacity, well, I become a little bored and irritated. In fact, it’s insulting at times. I mean, do you want to discuss time and space in Last Year at Marienbad, or do you want to discuss the fucking cover art for the new Criterion DVD. Yes, it is great that they’ve finally transferred that, and the cover looks great, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the film itself. Yes, the company has done some excellent work, and I’m behind them…well at least 90%, but loving cinema is all about exploration, and if Criterion just starts turning people into zombies who only watch Criterion releases, then that’s ridiculous. It also tends to cheapen the act of discussing films. I mean, yeah, Armageddon was awful, but if the only reason anyone has for criticizing such a film is because it was because there was a Criterion Collection edition of it, then that is absurd.
I don’t think that I’m really speaking out of line here either because films that Kino, Facets, Miramax, etc. have the rights to, are on here. I mean Chaplin? Not one Criterion edition. So, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ever discuss just how special the Criterion Collection is, but maybe we could try to avoid inserting it into every single conversation that we have about film?
Just a thought.
Go to Comment
Just Criterion Collection? almost 3 years ago
@FREDO
My point had more to do with people just mentioning the film because of the studio or distributor. So if Miramax or Disney produced the film, people should not hesitate to mention both the film and the studio. I mean, from my own insular worldview, I could just as easily assume that everyone knows who Kino is, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Go to Comment
Just Criterion Collection? almost 3 years ago
Alright, maybe I was reaching. Slightly irrelevant argument anyway…nevermind.
Go to Comment
Just Criterion Collection? almost 3 years ago
Shut up, Sam.
Go to Comment
Just Criterion Collection? almost 3 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFE2CCfAP1o
Go to Comment
Just Criterion Collection? almost 3 years ago
By the way, I would like to thank Nate here, for being slightly sympathetic to my superfluous complaint. That’s really all that I was getting at. I guess it read like a bit of a rant.
Go to Comment
Picture quality over 2 years ago
I seriously doubt that any director or cinematographer in their right mind would intend a film to look that dark. Who knows, maybe the ostensibly sloppy editing was intentional as well. For the most part, it’s just an ugly film, not to mention boisterously western for a Japanese picture.
Go to Comment