I have had to restrain myself from purchasing the DVD hoping for this on blu despite the relatively recent CC DVD. I’m glad I did. Several eagerly awaited CC blus these early months 2010.
I cannot pretend that Kurosawa is among my favorite directors—although one of his films is among my favorites—but having seen about 2/3 of his directed films, I must admit that he is very consistent and that even if I don’t enjoy a movie of his, it will contain scenes making it ultimately worthwhile.
When the KA boxset was released, I was tempted for the films I didn’t already own, but there were too few to justify the purchase. This Eclipse release is exactly what I was hoping for (individual releases would have been nice, too, but Eclipse is at least affordable—and it always feels nice to pick up multiple anticipated movies simultaneously) and I am very excited to finally get a chance at these in August. Now we need a series for films he wrote before his debut with Sanshiro Sugata.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Lost in Translation
(I have not rewatched either of these to confirm my initial distaste, so whether I would still dislike them if I saw them again, I don’t know, however . . . )
Garden State
( . . . I have rewatched, and my opinion remained just as low, if not lower given that I had given it a second chance.
Of several movies mentioned thus far, my initial reactions were less than I’d expected when mentally preparing for my first viewing, but they have since become some of my favorites; among them are Synecdoche, New York, A Scanner Darkly, and several Wes Anderson movies, especially The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou which, though I don’t think it is his best, is my favorite.)
My only disappointment was the reveal of why her character did what she did, as, to me, this was unnecessary. Up to that point, I figured the film would be about the person as a person, acknowledging that actions can rarely be simplified to singular motivations. The acting and interactions, I felt, gave the characters enough emotional importance to render the explanation insignificant. I can see, however, how without considering the strength of the cast there might have been concern about this being unfulfilling without the explanation to justify her actions in the minds of viewers.
Way behind on this one, but nice. It will probably be mediocre, but I, too, am hopeful—even in bad Carpenter movies, there is something worthwhile, and sometimes that something elevates the entire piece.
I recently watched Brooklyn’s Finest and was constantly distracted by the unnecessarily and perpetually shallow depth of field. While the focus pullers were clearly talented, event he/she/they were not always able to keep the image in focus at that dof. Additionally, this movie also suffered from over lens flaring.
I am going to disagree to an extent with the inclusion of Doubt; while the Dutch angles were noticeable, I think that is more due to the notoriety they have received thanks to their careless inclusion in worse movies. Yes, they were used often, but I felt they were used with care in the same way that some directors use a constantly moving frame—that, too, can be distracting at worse, and noticeable even at its best, but it, regardless, adds to the scene composition and emotion in a way that an otherwise-aligned frame might not.
Maybe I enjoy this one too much to be totally objective, but I feel they worked with the rest of the cinematography—though, maybe that was just Deakins making the most of a lesser situation.
Yes. I’m sure most people don’t care one way or another, but he does seem to attract very vocal supporters and detractors to the extent that supporters can feel that they are alone in admiring his movies and detractors can complain of how overrated he is.
Personally, I relate to what I see as his major theme, and I appreciate the melancholy in his playfully and artfully contrived worlds. Also, with the exception of The Royal Tenenbaums, which I very much enjoyed the first time I watched it, I have found myself liking his offerings much more after repeated viewings.
I was pretty impressed with the characterizations, particularly of Steiger as Marty, who I never really associated with this type of character or quality of acting. In his commentary for the television episode, Mann notes that he had to direct Steiger to be less emotional for the sake of allowing the audience to feel rather than see—Steiger would just break down during the Waverly tomatoes talk with his mother, and then in the little kiss talk with Marchand’s character.
What I especially liked was the way Chayefsky did not rely on overly simplistic character portraits; while Marty’s plight and his reactions are worthy of compassion, Marty, himself, is not without basic human ignorance and flaws. He, many times, refers to Marchand’s character as a dog—alluding to what others have said, but he continues even when not referencing those others—without awareness of what his words may mean to her; he also goes on about himself, seemingly uninterested in her point of view, underlying the basic selfishness of his desire. It was also impressive to see how he not only focused on the state of his protagonist, but gave distinct emotional arcs to several minor characters (primarily Marty’s mother—although, to be honest, her plight was less compelling given that her situation, while, still relevant fundamentally, is less powerful given that women are no longer expected to be nothing but housewives and mothers (in general).
My real question, which I admittedly did not pose well, was how the two compare emotionally and in terms of acting.
I know some changes were made to the script—certain sequences fleshed out, such as the duration that his friends convince Marty to let her go, that she would be bad for his rep (and while I can see some reason for this change, the look on Steiger’s face during that short bit after his friends have convinced him not to call, the conflict between listening to his friends and doing what he wants to do, the slow victory of his desire over peer pressure, is fantastic, and I’m not sure how it could have been replaced better by more). Basically, I was thoroughly impressed with the acting, and find it difficult to visualize how the character of Marty might have been improved for the big screen. Supposedly there is less of a “woe is me” attitude, and I am curious, if that is true, how that changes things given that a major component of the character was that he had given up, for the most part. At the beginning he is mopey because that depression must be overcome.
To be embarrassingly honest, I was unaware of Chayefsky up until he was referenced in “Studio 60” several years back. I have still not seen most of what he wrote, but after watching this, I am eager to, particularly this film adaptation.
First thank you again to Frank for the information.
Apparently I am showing a bit of a lack in taste in my appreciation for what was on display in the show. “I thought Rod Steiger played Marty as a real sad sack, a depressed guy who wouldn’t appeal to anybody.”
I can’t disagree with the first part of this, but I must with the second part. Yes, he did play a real sad sack, and yes, there were moments with his posturing, his tone of voice, his facial expressions, etc. during which he became a bit caricaturish—the stage play influence as described by Frank is unavoidable—but I think he was an appealing character, depending on what you mean.
In the possibility of not appealing to the audience, I believe I can see your perspective: angst is generally a turn-off, and if the character were a recurring character in a serial of some kind, I can see him becoming a grating presence. But I think it is his display of what many feel and experience that does make him an appealing character. And, I will insist that it is good to have these people portrayed at times; Marty may not be someone you’d like to know personally, but if you did know someone like him, while he would not be an exciting friend, he would most likely be a loyal friend and one you would always know you could depend on. These, too, in my mind make him of potential attraction to the audience, Maybe you don’t want to see these types of everyday people in fiction, people who are lost in despair, who have been stripped of youthful optimism, or maybe you prefer that they be presented differently (and if the latter, how, may I ask?) but I tend to think that these types of characters and stories can be useful.
In the possibility of not appealing to the other characters, I think this was an integral part of the character. That he is someone who is not attractive to women—not only because of his physical presence and potential, but also because of his emotional presence and potential—is not a weakness on the part of the story, but is an integral piece of it. That Ms. Marchand’s character, during and after the dance, emotes simultaneous disappointment at what she has attracted and joy that she has attracted is made believable from both perspectives because of what Marty represents to her. He, if they move beyond courtship, will be a settlement for her; and she probably realizes that it is the same for her to him—she will never be his first choice, but she will be his choice. Yet, he will also be a victory of sorts, a compromised victory, but a victory over a sort of loneliness she believes she does not want (the same applies to Marty). In my mind, this makes the story optimistic and encouraging at the same time as it is pessimistic and discouraging.
Such a presentation may be frustrating, both because, in a way, these attributes can cancel each other out, and because—as this tends to be the way of life—one can feel that if they wanted such an experience they might as well go out and experience it themselves, but I maintain that it is worthwhile: it reminds us that even though the result may not be the superlative we hope for, it remains worthwhile to strive for it. It reminds us of this because, unlike a live event, which is composed of so many elements over such a long period of time, this is allowed to be focused and brief. Like the endings of Boogie Nights, Scenes From a Marriage, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and many other movies, we know the future for the characters will not be happy, will be filled with a lot of pain, but we also know that there will be joys, and that some of those joys will have been impossible without the unpleasantness that we have witnessed (and the unpleasantness we will not).
While, as mentioned, I have not seen the film version of this story, in my mind Borgnine’s persona might hurt the role for the reasons listed as positives: if he is too optimistic, too positive, if any melancholy is too tied to the situation rather than being an inherent part of his personality, then the resolution, I suspect, could ring a little false or weak. Rather than overcoming his despair, partly out of decisive action, partly out of happenstance, we might have a character who is reduced to a force; someone whose optimism and desire act, in a way, outside of his person to bring about the resolution. His character would be without any true active role in the change, in the accomplishment, and would be made nothing but a tunnel through which the story was able to be moved. Now, I doubt this is the case, but I can imagine it turning out that way.
Back to Steiger’s acting, as I mentioned, I don’t typically associate the man with the quality (as I saw it) presented in this particular episode. Perhaps this was a confusing, on my part, of the general quality of the material, which, while not perfect, did (obviously) appeal to me, with what I saw from him. But, I still think his actions—whether they were actually proof of quality acting or accidentally in line with the character—were in line with the character, and totally appropriate. Especially given his speech during the dance and afterward, I get the impression that he was the type of depressive who would, at times, announce his depression, and that he would do so verbally, as he did in the show: blustery and selfishly, trying to attract the attention he could not generally attain
Regardless, I do appreciate the comments above, and I find myself more interested in seeing the adaptation, if only to see how the changes were achieved, and because it seems they were made successfully, what worked.
My experience was similar to KNDY’s, though I received Steamboat Bill, but I was waiting for others, though I, today, received confirmation that they were shipping (Pandora . . . and Ajami).
I also have noticed that, on the Kino site, several Chabrol DVDs are selling for 4.99 (not including shipping and tax).
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – Wellington, New Zealand Nora inu – Tokyo, Japan Yi Yi – Shanghai, China Ravenous – London, UK Crumb – Philadelphia, US
The set has been sold new for as low as ~$70, which, considering it contains seven films and includes supplementary features for each, is pretty unbelievable, especially relative to other Criterion box sets (and Eclipse prices).
Regarding The Hidden Fortress, it is an older Criterion release, pretty close to 100, I think, released when the special features were not as consistent as they tend to be now (though, even still, there are some lesser releases), when merely getting some out there in a decent copy was more important than the supplements. But, yeah, an “It Is Wonderful to Create” (Which was also not included in the earlier Seven Samurai releases, or any of the early Kurosawa releases) for an eventual rerelease of The Hidden Fortress would be cool.
“when do you guys/girls think the genre kind of lost its commercial appeal?” by Joks
I would suggest the Western began to lose its commercial appeal in the 60s by which time a) the saturation level had reached the point that even casual viewers could identify common images, symbols, themes, characters, etc. and b) the idealism expressed in many early Westerns, characterized largely by a combination of US Nationalism, optimism for progress, and a related feeling that Western expansion had been inevitable (and ultimately for the best) and, thus, even considering the tragedies, acceptable if not always laudable, began to be questioned on a large enough scale that it entered popular culture.
Rather than being the downfall of the Western, revisionist takes were the result of both of these. Pictures from outside the US resulted from the first cause, that is the ubiquity of Western imagery such that even those not necessarily familiar with the actual history as a long, personal history (not that that was even a prerequisite for the earlier filmmakers, many of whom were first generation, e.g., Mann, Ford) nonetheless could replicate and recreate the imagery while playing with conventions.
The shifting political/philosophical ideas furthered revisionism through the subversion of classic tropes built upon the Nationalistic/optimistic ideals. No longer were the good guys good, or even sincere in their folly (believing that they were acting for the best of the West by spreading their European/JudeoChristian wisdom/progress/values), rather, they were acting in their own best interest; when they were good, it was coincidental. Now, sometimes, it was the bad guys who were sincere in their belief of personal righteousness. The questioning of the ultimate good brought about by the Western expansion and the existence of absolute good in general (both of which were often essential for identifying good guys from bad guys, and keeping the audience on the good guys’ sides) undermined the core values, and you were often left with only the absurdities of the genre.
I agree that the increasing urbanization that Joks mentioned helped to keep it unpopular, as did the cyclical nature of unpopularity—as fewer and fewer Westerns were made, proportionally more and more of the good ones were old ones, and as fewer and fewer of the good ones were contemporary, the genre appeared more and more old fashioned. Both create a distance from many younger viewers, and I know that when I was younger, it was difficult for me to relate for both of these reasons, in addition to the different (pre-civil rights) political/philosophical values they tended to espouse (or seemed to). I knew that I enjoyed certain Westerns, but I almost couldn’t admit it because they seemed so quaint. Besides, modern action films, by and large, had supplanted the Western by celebrating many of the same comfortable values and archetypes (adjusted for ethical inflation) with the settings, visuals and paces more comfortable for contemporary audiences, so that thirst was being met elsewhere.
I still can’t consider myself a fan of the genre in the same way that I consider myself a fan of other genres, but I am much more open to the Western, and several of my favorite movies would fall under that banner (and, like Ari , I consider Ravenous a Western, and am also a fan; I can’t stand Blazing Saddles, I find it neither interesting nor funny, possibly due to my lack of exposure to Westerns so that the specific references seem like general references, and obvious, and the political references seem likewise obvious, or perhaps it is just a difference in humor). That said, all this has gotten me in the mood to watch a Western I have not before watched, so I’m going to go and do that.
Days of Heaven on Blu-Ray over 3 years ago
I have had to restrain myself from purchasing the DVD hoping for this on blu despite the relatively recent CC DVD. I’m glad I did. Several eagerly awaited CC blus these early months 2010.
Go to Comment
Criterion Collection For Sale about 3 years ago
Ooh.
Go to Comment
Very excited about 3 years ago
I cannot pretend that Kurosawa is among my favorite directors—although one of his films is among my favorites—but having seen about 2/3 of his directed films, I must admit that he is very consistent and that even if I don’t enjoy a movie of his, it will contain scenes making it ultimately worthwhile.
When the KA boxset was released, I was tempted for the films I didn’t already own, but there were too few to justify the purchase. This Eclipse release is exactly what I was hoping for (individual releases would have been nice, too, but Eclipse is at least affordable—and it always feels nice to pick up multiple anticipated movies simultaneously) and I am very excited to finally get a chance at these in August. Now we need a series for films he wrote before his debut with Sanshiro Sugata.
Go to Comment
Films you had very high expectations for that dissapointed you. almost 3 years ago
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Lost in Translation
(I have not rewatched either of these to confirm my initial distaste, so whether I would still dislike them if I saw them again, I don’t know, however . . . )
Garden State
( . . . I have rewatched, and my opinion remained just as low, if not lower given that I had given it a second chance.
Of several movies mentioned thus far, my initial reactions were less than I’d expected when mentally preparing for my first viewing, but they have since become some of my favorites; among them are Synecdoche, New York, A Scanner Darkly, and several Wes Anderson movies, especially The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou which, though I don’t think it is his best, is my favorite.)
Go to Comment
I've Loved You So Long (2008) almost 3 years ago
My only disappointment was the reveal of why her character did what she did, as, to me, this was unnecessary. Up to that point, I figured the film would be about the person as a person, acknowledging that actions can rarely be simplified to singular motivations. The acting and interactions, I felt, gave the characters enough emotional importance to render the explanation insignificant. I can see, however, how without considering the strength of the cast there might have been concern about this being unfulfilling without the explanation to justify her actions in the minds of viewers.
Go to Comment
New John Carpenter directorial effort almost 3 years ago
Way behind on this one, but nice. It will probably be mediocre, but I, too, am hopeful—even in bad Carpenter movies, there is something worthwhile, and sometimes that something elevates the entire piece.
Go to Comment
Films with Distracting Cinematography over 2 years ago
I recently watched Brooklyn’s Finest and was constantly distracted by the unnecessarily and perpetually shallow depth of field. While the focus pullers were clearly talented, event he/she/they were not always able to keep the image in focus at that dof. Additionally, this movie also suffered from over lens flaring.
I am going to disagree to an extent with the inclusion of Doubt; while the Dutch angles were noticeable, I think that is more due to the notoriety they have received thanks to their careless inclusion in worse movies. Yes, they were used often, but I felt they were used with care in the same way that some directors use a constantly moving frame—that, too, can be distracting at worse, and noticeable even at its best, but it, regardless, adds to the scene composition and emotion in a way that an otherwise-aligned frame might not.
Maybe I enjoy this one too much to be totally objective, but I feel they worked with the rest of the cinematography—though, maybe that was just Deakins making the most of a lesser situation.
Go to Comment
Do You Like Wes Anderson? over 2 years ago
Yes. I’m sure most people don’t care one way or another, but he does seem to attract very vocal supporters and detractors to the extent that supporters can feel that they are alone in admiring his movies and detractors can complain of how overrated he is.
Personally, I relate to what I see as his major theme, and I appreciate the melancholy in his playfully and artfully contrived worlds. Also, with the exception of The Royal Tenenbaums, which I very much enjoyed the first time I watched it, I have found myself liking his offerings much more after repeated viewings.
Go to Comment
The official KINO International/KINO Video Thread over 2 years ago
I just found out that I missed out on a KINO sale from Best Buy in June ( http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-ray-bargains/105613-kino-sale-best-buy-com.html ). If only I had known, if only I had known.
Go to Comment
The official KINO International/KINO Video Thread over 2 years ago
I think in July, Fallen Angels was $13-14 on Amazon, but I didn’t grab that in time, either. And yes, hopefully.
Go to Comment
What are you watching now? over 2 years ago
I just finished watching the Ashes of Time Redux BD. I had seen a version of the movie before, but a while back. I enjoyed it much more this time.
Go to Comment
What are you watching now? over 2 years ago
Last thing I watched was To Live and Die in LA. Interesting, though.
Go to Comment
The official KINO International/KINO Video Thread over 2 years ago
Thanks. I wish Metropolis were already released, and that Pandora and the Flying Dutchman was included, but I am definitely picking some up.
Go to Comment
The official KINO International/KINO Video Thread over 2 years ago
Nice price, too.
Go to Comment
Magnolia superior to Short Cuts? over 2 years ago
I agree with virtually everyone here.
Go to Comment
Maury Chaykin - Dead at 61 over 2 years ago
I’m late to this, but it is sad to learn.
Go to Comment
How does this compare to the show over 2 years ago
I just watched the television program, thought it was very insightful, and thought to ask about the comparison.
Go to Comment
How does this compare to the show over 2 years ago
Yes, thanks for the replies.
I was pretty impressed with the characterizations, particularly of Steiger as Marty, who I never really associated with this type of character or quality of acting. In his commentary for the television episode, Mann notes that he had to direct Steiger to be less emotional for the sake of allowing the audience to feel rather than see—Steiger would just break down during the Waverly tomatoes talk with his mother, and then in the little kiss talk with Marchand’s character.What I especially liked was the way Chayefsky did not rely on overly simplistic character portraits; while Marty’s plight and his reactions are worthy of compassion, Marty, himself, is not without basic human ignorance and flaws. He, many times, refers to Marchand’s character as a dog—alluding to what others have said, but he continues even when not referencing those others—without awareness of what his words may mean to her; he also goes on about himself, seemingly uninterested in her point of view, underlying the basic selfishness of his desire. It was also impressive to see how he not only focused on the state of his protagonist, but gave distinct emotional arcs to several minor characters (primarily Marty’s mother—although, to be honest, her plight was less compelling given that her situation, while, still relevant fundamentally, is less powerful given that women are no longer expected to be nothing but housewives and mothers (in general).
My real question, which I admittedly did not pose well, was how the two compare emotionally and in terms of acting.
I know some changes were made to the script—certain sequences fleshed out, such as the duration that his friends convince Marty to let her go, that she would be bad for his rep (and while I can see some reason for this change, the look on Steiger’s face during that short bit after his friends have convinced him not to call, the conflict between listening to his friends and doing what he wants to do, the slow victory of his desire over peer pressure, is fantastic, and I’m not sure how it could have been replaced better by more). Basically, I was thoroughly impressed with the acting, and find it difficult to visualize how the character of Marty might have been improved for the big screen. Supposedly there is less of a “woe is me” attitude, and I am curious, if that is true, how that changes things given that a major component of the character was that he had given up, for the most part. At the beginning he is mopey because that depression must be overcome.
To be embarrassingly honest, I was unaware of Chayefsky up until he was referenced in “Studio 60” several years back. I have still not seen most of what he wrote, but after watching this, I am eager to, particularly this film adaptation.
Go to Comment
How does this compare to the show over 2 years ago
First thank you again to Frank for the information.
Apparently I am showing a bit of a lack in taste in my appreciation for what was on display in the show.
“I thought Rod Steiger played Marty as a real sad sack, a depressed guy who wouldn’t appeal to anybody.”
I can’t disagree with the first part of this, but I must with the second part. Yes, he did play a real sad sack, and yes, there were moments with his posturing, his tone of voice, his facial expressions, etc. during which he became a bit caricaturish—the stage play influence as described by Frank is unavoidable—but I think he was an appealing character, depending on what you mean.
In the possibility of not appealing to the audience, I believe I can see your perspective: angst is generally a turn-off, and if the character were a recurring character in a serial of some kind, I can see him becoming a grating presence. But I think it is his display of what many feel and experience that does make him an appealing character. And, I will insist that it is good to have these people portrayed at times; Marty may not be someone you’d like to know personally, but if you did know someone like him, while he would not be an exciting friend, he would most likely be a loyal friend and one you would always know you could depend on. These, too, in my mind make him of potential attraction to the audience, Maybe you don’t want to see these types of everyday people in fiction, people who are lost in despair, who have been stripped of youthful optimism, or maybe you prefer that they be presented differently (and if the latter, how, may I ask?) but I tend to think that these types of characters and stories can be useful.
In the possibility of not appealing to the other characters, I think this was an integral part of the character. That he is someone who is not attractive to women—not only because of his physical presence and potential, but also because of his emotional presence and potential—is not a weakness on the part of the story, but is an integral piece of it. That Ms. Marchand’s character, during and after the dance, emotes simultaneous disappointment at what she has attracted and joy that she has attracted is made believable from both perspectives because of what Marty represents to her. He, if they move beyond courtship, will be a settlement for her; and she probably realizes that it is the same for her to him—she will never be his first choice, but she will be his choice. Yet, he will also be a victory of sorts, a compromised victory, but a victory over a sort of loneliness she believes she does not want (the same applies to Marty). In my mind, this makes the story optimistic and encouraging at the same time as it is pessimistic and discouraging.
Such a presentation may be frustrating, both because, in a way, these attributes can cancel each other out, and because—as this tends to be the way of life—one can feel that if they wanted such an experience they might as well go out and experience it themselves, but I maintain that it is worthwhile: it reminds us that even though the result may not be the superlative we hope for, it remains worthwhile to strive for it. It reminds us of this because, unlike a live event, which is composed of so many elements over such a long period of time, this is allowed to be focused and brief. Like the endings of Boogie Nights, Scenes From a Marriage, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and many other movies, we know the future for the characters will not be happy, will be filled with a lot of pain, but we also know that there will be joys, and that some of those joys will have been impossible without the unpleasantness that we have witnessed (and the unpleasantness we will not).
While, as mentioned, I have not seen the film version of this story, in my mind Borgnine’s persona might hurt the role for the reasons listed as positives: if he is too optimistic, too positive, if any melancholy is too tied to the situation rather than being an inherent part of his personality, then the resolution, I suspect, could ring a little false or weak. Rather than overcoming his despair, partly out of decisive action, partly out of happenstance, we might have a character who is reduced to a force; someone whose optimism and desire act, in a way, outside of his person to bring about the resolution. His character would be without any true active role in the change, in the accomplishment, and would be made nothing but a tunnel through which the story was able to be moved. Now, I doubt this is the case, but I can imagine it turning out that way.
Back to Steiger’s acting, as I mentioned, I don’t typically associate the man with the quality (as I saw it) presented in this particular episode. Perhaps this was a confusing, on my part, of the general quality of the material, which, while not perfect, did (obviously) appeal to me, with what I saw from him. But, I still think his actions—whether they were actually proof of quality acting or accidentally in line with the character—were in line with the character, and totally appropriate. Especially given his speech during the dance and afterward, I get the impression that he was the type of depressive who would, at times, announce his depression, and that he would do so verbally, as he did in the show: blustery and selfishly, trying to attract the attention he could not generally attain
Regardless, I do appreciate the comments above, and I find myself more interested in seeing the adaptation, if only to see how the changes were achieved, and because it seems they were made successfully, what worked.
Go to Comment
The official KINO International/KINO Video Thread over 2 years ago
My experience was similar to KNDY’s, though I received Steamboat Bill, but I was waiting for others, though I, today, received confirmation that they were shipping (Pandora . . . and Ajami).
I also have noticed that, on the Kino site, several Chabrol DVDs are selling for 4.99 (not including shipping and tax).
Go to Comment
First Movie You Watched in 2011 (Theater or at Home) over 2 years ago
Jump Tomorrow
Go to Comment
Your Most Recent Criterion Purchase over 2 years ago
The Double Life of Veronique
Go to Comment
One of Mubi's own to co-host Roger Ebert's new TV show. over 2 years ago
Double post
Go to Comment
One of Mubi's own to co-host Roger Ebert's new TV show. over 2 years ago
Grats
Go to Comment
Given the constraints listed below, what are your five favorite films? over 2 years ago
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – Wellington, New Zealand
Nora inu – Tokyo, Japan
Yi Yi – Shanghai, China
Ravenous – London, UK
Crumb – Philadelphia, US
Go to Comment
Given the constraints listed below, what are your five favorite films? over 2 years ago
It was one of those that left me dreaming about it for days until I broke down and purchased it.
Go to Comment
Criterion box set over 2 years ago
The set has been sold new for as low as ~$70, which, considering it contains seven films and includes supplementary features for each, is pretty unbelievable, especially relative to other Criterion box sets (and Eclipse prices).
Go to Comment
Your Most Recent Criterion Purchase over 2 years ago
Topsy Turvy
Regarding The Hidden Fortress, it is an older Criterion release, pretty close to 100, I think, released when the special features were not as consistent as they tend to be now (though, even still, there are some lesser releases), when merely getting some out there in a decent copy was more important than the supplements. But, yeah, an “It Is Wonderful to Create” (Which was also not included in the earlier Seven Samurai releases, or any of the early Kurosawa releases) for an eventual rerelease of The Hidden Fortress would be cool.
Go to Comment
Prejudice against the Western genre over 2 years ago
“when do you guys/girls think the genre kind of lost its commercial appeal?” by Joks
I would suggest the Western began to lose its commercial appeal in the 60s by which time a) the saturation level had reached the point that even casual viewers could identify common images, symbols, themes, characters, etc. and b) the idealism expressed in many early Westerns, characterized largely by a combination of US Nationalism, optimism for progress, and a related feeling that Western expansion had been inevitable (and ultimately for the best) and, thus, even considering the tragedies, acceptable if not always laudable, began to be questioned on a large enough scale that it entered popular culture.
Rather than being the downfall of the Western, revisionist takes were the result of both of these. Pictures from outside the US resulted from the first cause, that is the ubiquity of Western imagery such that even those not necessarily familiar with the actual history as a long, personal history (not that that was even a prerequisite for the earlier filmmakers, many of whom were first generation, e.g., Mann, Ford) nonetheless could replicate and recreate the imagery while playing with conventions.
The shifting political/philosophical ideas furthered revisionism through the subversion of classic tropes built upon the Nationalistic/optimistic ideals. No longer were the good guys good, or even sincere in their folly (believing that they were acting for the best of the West by spreading their European/JudeoChristian wisdom/progress/values), rather, they were acting in their own best interest; when they were good, it was coincidental. Now, sometimes, it was the bad guys who were sincere in their belief of personal righteousness. The questioning of the ultimate good brought about by the Western expansion and the existence of absolute good in general (both of which were often essential for identifying good guys from bad guys, and keeping the audience on the good guys’ sides) undermined the core values, and you were often left with only the absurdities of the genre.
I agree that the increasing urbanization that Joks mentioned helped to keep it unpopular, as did the cyclical nature of unpopularity—as fewer and fewer Westerns were made, proportionally more and more of the good ones were old ones, and as fewer and fewer of the good ones were contemporary, the genre appeared more and more old fashioned. Both create a distance from many younger viewers, and I know that when I was younger, it was difficult for me to relate for both of these reasons, in addition to the different (pre-civil rights) political/philosophical values they tended to espouse (or seemed to). I knew that I enjoyed certain Westerns, but I almost couldn’t admit it because they seemed so quaint. Besides, modern action films, by and large, had supplanted the Western by celebrating many of the same comfortable values and archetypes (adjusted for ethical inflation) with the settings, visuals and paces more comfortable for contemporary audiences, so that thirst was being met elsewhere.
I still can’t consider myself a fan of the genre in the same way that I consider myself a fan of other genres, but I am much more open to the Western, and several of my favorite movies would fall under that banner (and, like Ari , I consider Ravenous a Western, and am also a fan; I can’t stand Blazing Saddles, I find it neither interesting nor funny, possibly due to my lack of exposure to Westerns so that the specific references seem like general references, and obvious, and the political references seem likewise obvious, or perhaps it is just a difference in humor). That said, all this has gotten me in the mood to watch a Western I have not before watched, so I’m going to go and do that.
Go to Comment
LA Film Screening/Get-Together over 2 years ago
I’m curious.
Go to Comment