Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 215

Thread: Aaron Watches Criterions

  1. #76
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    SHOAH, CLAUDE LANZMANN, 1985



    Roger Ebert famously refused to rank or categorize Shoah with other films, whether they were narrative or documentary, because it simply could not be compared with other films. It stands on its own. As a history buff, I hold similar feelings. This is as much an historical document as it is a documentary about the holocaust. That said, it also turned out to be a groundbreaking documentary with a distinct style that influenced other films. The documentaries of Ken Burns and Werner Herzog owe a debt to Shoah, as do many others. It turned out to be a certain benchmark of documentary filmmaking, and it still stands near the top.

    The right time to create an all-encompassing, reflective, history of the holocaust was exactly when Lanzmann set forth on his lengthy project, in the early-70s, which we spent an exhaustive 12-years working on until it was finally finished and released in 1985. The timing was ideal for two reasons.

    The first is obvious, because many of the major players were still alive. The second is because there had been a time to reflect. Many of the stories that were told during Shoah could not have told 20 years prior. It was simply too close to the tragedy of the actual events. People could not have delved so deep into a painful past without having time to process and reflect on it, time to move on. This is the case with the barber, talking about how he had to participate in the ruse to lure unsuspecting Hebrews to the gas chambers, when he encounters people he knew. These are excruciating memories, and he can almost not tell the story. The same is the case with a lot of these people. These are wounds that cannot be re-opened when they are fresh.

    Additionally, people were able to come to terms with the impact of the holocaust. Even after the war, people didn’t really know what to make of it. The fact that a nation would nearly successfully exterminate an entire race is simply unfathomable. Some that were closer to the actual events had to deal with their own guilt of being caught up in the wave of anti-semitism, even if they didn’t participate in the holocaust nor would have wished it to happen. Lanzmann captures this sentiment when he interviews Polish towns near the extermination camps. They were aware that the Jews were going away and had feelings about it, but in many respects the full impact was kept at arms length. One witness, when asked about her feelings towards the Jews during that time, boldly points out that she does not feel pain when someone else cuts their finger. Ouch!

    And then there’s Lanzmann. Without his obsession in getting the countless hours and hours of interviews, or deciding to finally travel to Poland to see and film the camps themselves, to painstakingly and patiently search for financing what must have been a tough sell. His obsession was the key in making this film what it is, and his presence is felt in nearly every frame, as his curiosity and interviewing technique is how the layers are peeled that reveal the process of how the Jews were exterminated.

    Shoah is not an easy film to watch. Not by a long shot. There’s the 9+ hour length, making it impossible to watch in a single sitting, and the unwieldy translated subtitles, which make you wait for the translation from Polish/Hebrew/Yiddish to French before you see the subtitle. It is a film that has to be split up and requires patience. And then there’s the actual content. Lanzmann asks the penetrating questions about how the Jew-killing machine actually worked, and the answers arrive in graphic detail. Hearing stories about the death panic, the screaming, the cruel teasing by the German soldiers, and many others, are among the darkest you’ll ever hear. Some of the most difficult portions are the clandestine interviews with German Nazi’s who proudly unveil the killing ritual step-by-step. This is a film that will leave you shuddering many times, in disbelief that such acts could have actually happened.

    However difficult and sobering, it is a worthwhile tribute to the events and to the departed. The visual film language complements the troubling stories. They are not manipulative, but respectful. The cinematography is muted, with a lot of blues and greens, with slow moving cameras that tour the camp sites, or the slow-moving trains as they approach the camps that we know mean the end for thousands, but the people who actually traveled to their ends were completely unaware. Even though it is unimaginable what these people endured during their last days, weeks and months, we can almost put ourselves in their shoes, if only for a second, thanks to Lanzmann putting us there with his many tracking shots shown as the stories are told.

    Shoah may be one of the most heart-wrenching and difficult movies to watch, but it is also one of the most important and one of the deepest. It requires some investment to dedicate the time to view, and the patience with the dialogue, but it is a film that almost has to be seen. However dark, disturbing and at times grotesque, by the end, it is a thing of beauty to capture such a tragic era of world history.

    With all due respect to Ebert, Shoah is a film that can be ranked against others. It ranks as one of the greatest documentaries ever made and is a monumental historical achievement.

    Movie Rating: 9.5/10

    Special Features:

    The Criterion boxset has three discs, two for the film and one of the supplements, the latter of which could comprise about half of the actual film.

    There are three more documentaries, all from Shoah outtakes:

    A Visitor from the Living – This documentary is about a Swiss Red Cross official who toured what turned out to be a façade of a camp. The Germans had anticipated his visit and put together a show of better conditions, but that’s all it was, a show. He made his report and they later exterminated all who he encountered. The interview is compelling because the interviewee now knows about the horrors of the holocaust, and talks about sensing how things were out of order, but his report was glowing. They dance around how he looked the other way until the very end, when Lanzmann uncharacteristically calls him out for either not being honest in the interview, or not being honest in the report.

    Sobibór, October 14, 1943, 4 p.m. – This is one of the rare uplifting tales on the entire disc. It is the story of a young man who had previously escaped concentration camps eight times only to eventually be recaptured. He eventually ends up in Sobidor, which was an extermination camp where hundreds of thousands were processed. He took part in an uprising and describes it in detail, as it began at 4pm exactly, and would not have happened if Germans were not so punctual. Even though this is a sit down interview and there is a language barrier that requires two translations, this is an adventure of freedom that is told to Lanzmann.

    The Karski Report – I realize that Jan Karski is an influential figure that reported on the travesties going on in the ghetto, but I had trouble getting through this one. He also was one of the weaker parts of Shoah, partly because his story was a digression from the majority of the film (the ghettos versus the extermination camps), and also because of his manner of speaking in English that makes him hard to understand. I did not complete this documentary.

    Two Interviews:

    Both of these are fascinating. The shorter one is Lanzmann talking about A Visitor from the Living and Sobibór, October 14, 1943, 4 p.m., which is brief and interesting to hear why these stories were omitted from Shoah and why he made certain decisions in bringing them to their own films. The cream of the supplements was an hour long discussion between Lanzmann and Serge Toubiana, which gives a lot of background information on the making of the film and what Lanzmann was trying to accomplish. It was random that he was given this project, and if he had known what it would eventually entail, he might not have gone through with it. We’re lucky that he did.

    There is also a segment with Caroline Champetier, who was an assistant camera person, and filmmaker Arnaud Desplechin, who has written about Shoah and has a respectable body of work of his own.

    Criterion Rating: 10/10

  2. #77
    Body Double Briare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    132
    Keep in mind that I've yet to watch Shoah -it has been sitting on my shelf at home since Christmas- and thus some or most of this may be unfounded but I've had some concerns with things I've read so here goes:

    I have read more than my share about the film in preparation and something I keep coming back to with it is Lanzmann's politics and how that actually prevents it from becoming a pure act of witness, or whatever Ebert said about it. Basically what I'm getting at is many an academic has attacked Shoah for the way it portrays the Poles as completely complicit in the destruction of their Jewish neighbors, Lanzmann himself has stated that the French peasantry would never have tolerated an Auschwitz on the outskirts of Paris, presumably his reasoning being that Majdanek (for example) is visible from the houses of Lublin. I'm more or less just wondering how much or if at all these political cannotations permeate what is probably otherwise an extremely powerful document.

    I more or less want to be prepared for any such subtext when I do watch it, I've always been scared off first by the 9 hour running time and then by some essays I read on it and its supposedly questionable angle. I've never much cared for the French attitude toward the holocaust, I don't doubt the French probably had a bit more guts when it came to their Nazi occupiers compared to some other occupied peoples but the attitude some of their films seem to take (see: aur revoir les enfants, where literally, an illiterate cripple is the informer), it comes down to having no stomach for more buck passing on this subject.

    Maybe I'll watch it tomorrow, its my birthday and the wife has to work.

    *edit* Also, what would be the best to watch it without destroying the experience would you figure? I know its broken into four sections (gas vans at Chelmno, Auschwitz, Treblinka and the Warsaw Ghetto) so would you think that would be an appropriate way of going about it?

  3. #78
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    I had read about the reaction and criticisms. Since I'm not Polish or French, I don't feel qualified to persecute or defend Lanzmann's politics or agenda, but at the same time, it did not seem like a political statement. I can understand how Poland might be offended by the way they were portrayed, but he did visit their country and interview the people. Some said nasty things while others said very respectful things about the Jews. There's an early scene in front of a church with a holocaust survivor surrounded by Polish Catholics, all of whom gushed about the Jews. Others didn't, or at least you could sense some anti-semitism that they were trying to keep below the surface. That said, having studied the French resistance in college, I think the comment that the extermination camps couldn't happen in France is probably true. We know how the French peasantry reacted towards being occupied, and they constantly undermined German authority and ultimately paved the way for the Allied invasion. The Poles were completely subjugated by the Germans, in part because of the brutal tactics and the high number of civilians killed. They managed to keep the camps relatively quiet, at least for awhile, which would have never happened in France.

    Viewing from my perspective, nearly 30 years after the release, it seemed to be on the level. It did not seem overtly political.

    If you are to watch it, I would start from the beginning. The middle sections are the most impactful, but it is cut in a way that builds up towards them. And I would make sure to split it up in bite-size pieces rather than trying to tackle the entire thing in 2 or 3 sittings. The Criterion organizes them in 2 or 2.5 hour sections that make it more palatable.

  4. #79
    Body Double Briare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    132
    Interesting. Just something that I saw kept coming up and wanted to see how prevalent it was, if at all and two hours episodes sounds about right.
    Last Viewed:
    Au bonheurs des dames (1930, Duvivier) - ***1/2
    Cabaret (1972, Fosse) - ***
    The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964, Demy) - ***1/2
    The Forgiveness of Blood (2011, Marston) - ***
    A Woman Under the Influence (1974, Cassavettes) - ***1/2

  5. #80
    Guttenbergian Pop Trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Yay Area
    Posts
    5,243
    Quote Quoting Irish (view post)
    Dazed and Confused is a good example. Maybe Slacker too or something like Boyhood or Zach Braff's Garden State.
    Maybe Dazed and Confused but even that is a stretch. Slacker is way too weird with its crazy structure. Something like Reality Bites is probably more apt.

    I actually got Gen-X Big Chill vibes from The World's End but that is at least more critical of the main character's inability (or lack of desire) to grow up.

    EDIT: oops DSNT already brought that up. I guess it would help if I read these reviews first : )
    Ratings on a 1-10 scale for your pleasure:

    Top Gun: Maverick - 8
    Top Gun - 7
    McCabe & Mrs. Miller - 8
    Crimes of the Future - 8
    Videodrome - 9
    Valley Girl - 8
    Summer of '42 - 7
    In the Line of Fire - 8
    Passenger 57 - 7
    Everything Everywhere All at Once - 6



  6. #81
    Guttenbergian Pop Trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Yay Area
    Posts
    5,243
    Come to think of it, Young Adult is a rather salty version of this kind of thing. I'm a pretty big fan of Young Adult though.
    Ratings on a 1-10 scale for your pleasure:

    Top Gun: Maverick - 8
    Top Gun - 7
    McCabe & Mrs. Miller - 8
    Crimes of the Future - 8
    Videodrome - 9
    Valley Girl - 8
    Summer of '42 - 7
    In the Line of Fire - 8
    Passenger 57 - 7
    Everything Everywhere All at Once - 6



  7. #82
    - - - - -
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11,530
    Quote Quoting Pop Trash (view post)
    Something like Reality Bites is probably more apt.
    Oooh. Reality Bites is a good one.

  8. #83
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    Yeah, Reality Bites is a good example. One that came to mind afterward was Diner, which was from the same era as TBC.

    I guess the point is ensemble movies don't have to suck.

  9. #84
    Guttenbergian Pop Trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Yay Area
    Posts
    5,243
    I'll probably catch shit for this but American Reunion wasn't that bad. At least it's not nearly as self satisfied as The Big Chill. Not that I'm expecting a Criterion edition of American Reunion anytime soon.
    Ratings on a 1-10 scale for your pleasure:

    Top Gun: Maverick - 8
    Top Gun - 7
    McCabe & Mrs. Miller - 8
    Crimes of the Future - 8
    Videodrome - 9
    Valley Girl - 8
    Summer of '42 - 7
    In the Line of Fire - 8
    Passenger 57 - 7
    Everything Everywhere All at Once - 6



  10. #85
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    TIE ME UP! TIE ME DOWN, PEDRO ALMODOVAR, 1989



    Welcome to the Collection, Pedro.

    Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (or the better Spanish title, Átame!) would not have been my first choice for an Almodovar film, nor probably my 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but I’ll take what I can get. I had seen it previously twice already. The first time was back around the time it came out, before Almodovar was on my radar as a filmmaker, and I was mostly curious because of the census X/NC-17 rating controversy. I remember feeling underwhelmed back then, and revisited it some time after Talk to Her. By that time I had revisited some of Almodovar’s other works and become an enthusiast if not quite a fan. That second viewing changed my opinion a little bit. I appreciated the Almodovar touch, but thought the story was bland, and frankly, ludicrous.

    So here goes the third try. By this time, Almodovar has been established as a legendary filmmaker. I’m not as rabid as others about him, but I certainly appreciate him as an artist. That made me eager to approach what was arguably his breakthrough film, just to see if there was another reading of the film that I may have missed. Having an idea of some of his pet themes, I know a little better what to look for.

    Speaking of pet themes, Almodovar is a master at handling sexuality, and this was again apparent in Tie Me Up. From the intro, with the director ogling and obsessing over his lead, to the nautical voyage in the bathtub, and climaxing (no pun intended) with an intense sex scene that, surprisingly, shows very little nudity. In the extras, Almodovar proudly states that Elia Kazan said it was the best sex scene ever. I’m not about to put together a top 10 or anything, but it was tastefully done and carried an intensity that helped sell what was still a ludicrous plot. The pyramid shot from above was a creative way of punctuating the scene with an artistic flair.

    In retrospect, Tie Me Up! seems artistically constrained. The story was pretty banal, like an upbeat version of William Wyler’s The Collector, albeit with quite a different ending (of which I won’t spoil for either movie). While this was clearly an attempt to make a more consumable film that the prototypical Almodovar, there is more than meets the high. As an example, by taking the bondage approach, I think he is poking fun of the romantic boy-meets-girl formula that had been rinsed and repeated for the entire decade in American cinema. The plot was completely ludicrous, albeit I think somewhat intentionally, and he showed the rough layers of romance by touching on abuse, drug addiction, and mental instability. Yet this falls short of being a satire, as he treats his characters with a depth and seriousness that could never be seen when Andrew McCarthy falls in love with a Mannequin. Even if he is poking fun at the cycle of romantic comedies, we are continually reminded that these characters are highly flawed and seeking redemption.

    I found some new appreciation for the film during this re-visitation. A lot of that had to do with the keen direction and vibrant, bright colors schemes with vivid color, which would become a staple in Almodovar’s later films. It’s as if we are seeing the painter stumble onto his signature style. While this is still a far cry from his better works, it is a good, accessible starting point.

    Movie Rating: 7/10

    Special Features:

    Documentary: This is a run of the mill, 30-minute feature about the film, mostly with talking head interviews. Some of the discussion was about the impact of the film and the ratings controversy. This is the only part of the disc where Victoria Abril was involved. I cannot find the details, but it appears she had a falling out with Almodovar. She talks about the difficulty of working with him.

    Michael Barker Interview: This was an odd inclusion, as I believe Barker is an executive for Sony Picture Classics. I’m sure he has worked closely with Almodovar, but he’s not the type of figure to usually get a Criterion supplement. He gushes about the director and how much fun it has been to be involved in his career. It’s more of a fluff, retrospective piece. Not too impressive.

    Banderas and Almodovar: I really enjoyed this one. It’s basically a short conversation between the two actors filmed in 2003. By that time they were both highly successful, with Banderas an established Hollywood star and Almodovar fresh off his surprise Oscar win. The two talked about all sorts of things, especially how it impacted their lives. At the end, they vow to work together again, which happened almost a decade later for The Skin I Live In.

    Criterion Rating: 7.5

  11. #86
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, JOHN CASSAVETES, 1974



    What I love about Criterion is that they tend to canonize the most important films. When something is added to the collection, it’s for a good reason (even if I disagree on occasion, and let’s not get into Armaggedon). That’s why when I revisit a Criterion film that I thought was poor or mediocre, I will often re-evaluate. Sometimes the supplements or commentaries will help guide my opinion by pointing out things that I missed, or sometimes it is simply giving the film another chance and watching it a second time. The latter is what happened here.

    The first time I saw the film, I was blown away by the performances, but felt that Cassavetes got a little carried away with himself. He let scenes go on too long, far past when the point was made. He seemed so proud of the performances, and rightfully so, that he did not want to interfere.

    After a second viewing, I still have that feeling, yet I’ve come around to Cassavetes’ way of thinking. Part of this is because I’ve also fallen even more for Gena and Peter’s performances, and I found that I almost didn’t want the scenes to end. The fact that they sustained their characters for such lengthy and powerful scenes speaks volumes about their dedication and what they brought to the characters. The spaghetti and doctor scenes were where this was more apparent. They go on a long time, but the acting is magical, even if what happens is awkward and unsettling. At 2.5 hours, Cassavetes could have still trimmed a couple scenes or tightened a couple others up, but I am a little more forgiving of that now.

    Another reason why I am more enamored of the movie now is because I’ve looked at it in proper context. Shadows was concurrent with the French New Wave and Faces was inspired by it, while this version was on the heels and owes a slight debt to the American New Wave. However, like his other films, it is wholly original and distinctively a Cassavetes. He is imitating nobody, although plenty of people who try (and mostly fail) to imitate him later. For the time period, this type of independent character exploration was revolutionary, and is probably one of the key origins for the indie movement that would follow in the 80s and 90s.

    Film Rating: 8/10

    Supplements:

    Commentary: Unlike the usual commentaries with directors, actors, or historians, this was unique because it had the sound recordist and the composer. That worked well given the Cassavetes method. They described a lot of the inexpensive techniques with a lot of fascinating stories about the cast and crew. The most interesting part was hearing them describe seeing Gena and Peter give their performances, how they were when not in character, and simply seeing such amazing performances as they happened.

    Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk conversation: Even though they had both aged, especially Falk (RIP), you could see they had a rapport and fond memories of their experience with this movie. They shared some neat anecdotes, like how Cassavetes would call theaters in big cities that were showing films he liked. Some would turn them down, but they would all take his call.

    1975 Audio Interview with Cassavetes: I’m not crazy about it when Criterion places audio recordings on the disc. It’s not that the content is not interesting. Usually it is the opposite. The problem is that DVD is not the best method for audio only. I listened to only a little bit of this recording.

    Criterion Rating: 8.5/10

  12. #87
    i am the great went ledfloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,230
    I didn't realize there were three other Lanzmann docs in that Shoah box. Maybe I need to pick that up.

  13. #88
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN, ALFONSO CUARÓN, 2001



    I thoroughly enjoyed Y tu mamá también on the first viewing back in the early 2000s. However sexually charged, it was a breath of fresh air compared to the formulaic Hollywood versions of adolescence, like the raunchy 80s comedies like Porky’s, or the more recent American Pie, both of which would spawn multiple sequels in pure Hollywood fashion. This was in the same vein, at least it explored similar themes, but it couldn’t be further apart in style and execution.

    Also back then, I barely knew of Alfonso Cuarón. Over 10 years later, he has made what I consider to be the highlight of the Harry Potter series, and made what two technically impressive films with breathtaking and groundbreaking cinematography -- Children of Men and Gravity. The former is among my favorite American movies of the 00s, and the latter was a wild ride. It fell short of my expectations probably due to the deafening hype, but I was still pleased to see the auteur pick up his Oscar. He deserved it for the last three films.

    One aspect that escaped me upon first viewing was how gorgeously framed and shot it was. This was the origin of Cuarón’s creative partnership with Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki (although they had been friends for years). Lubezki also has an Oscar, for the same movie as Cuarón, but arguably deserves four – one for Children of Men, and two for his work with Malick in Tree of Life and The New World.

    Visually, Y tu mamá también is similar to Children of Men in that it is not afraid to show the seedier sides of the world. He shows the rural, impoverished Mexico country, which is contrasted with the upper class background of the bratty young main characters. Children of Men does the same, but with a dystopian society where ugliness is expected. In both films, they manage to make the ‘warts and all’ viewpoint aesthetically pleasing, while they both show the best and worst of humanity and how that does not correlate with being rich and poor.

    Y tu mamá también is first and foremost a coming of age film. The characters are deviants that happen to not get intro trouble. Their worst exploits are self-exploration on swimming pools or purposely spilling beverage on a nice suit at a presidential wedding. They are naïve when it comes to life, women, and as we’ll discover later, most notably themselves.

    While the two leads grow during their journey across rural Mexico, the audience finds the nature of the country, at least as the characters encounter it, is in a form of decline. The tangential voice-overs talk about the people they encounter, some living, some not, and how their lives turn for the worse. The main characters barely notice the plight, and why would they since they are on their own course of discovery, yet as they blossom, others shrivel. The same could be said for Mexico, which makes Y tu mamá también a deeper film than it first appears.

    Just like Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, this film is known for its sex, and I doubt that releasing both titles on the same day were coincidental. I recall discussing Y tu mamá también with a friend ages ago, and he called it basically a pornographic movie and that the sex was gratuitous. I could not disagree more. Sure, there are plenty of films, artistic or mainstream, where sex is used to fill seats.

    In this film, the sex fits with the character development. Sex was a constant topic of the two lead character’s, which was realistic for two young kids at that age. All kids go through that phase where they explore themselves, although maybe not to quite the same extreme. The sex itself said more about the character’s inexperience and immaturity. Whether they were nervously and apprehensively standing there with a towel, or sitting in the backseat of the car, they were far from sexual champions. They were children that were following the lead of a dominant female. They were so stricken by the fact that she would consider them, that their fantasies could become reality, that their confidence and bravado faded in an instant. And they failed to perform adequately, something that Luisa frankly reminded them during a later pivotal scene.

    The sex was part of their coming of age. Through Luisa, they got it out of their system and left the club of the Charalastras. When we last see them, they have barely aged physically, but mentally and emotionally, they are years older. They have come to terms with their sexuality, just like Mexico had (or has) to come to terms with its poverty and the class division.

    Film Rating: 8.5/10


    Supplements:

    Then and Now: There are two documentaries reflecting on the movie. The first was roughly 10 minutes and was filmed shortly after the film was released. Another documentary was filmed recently and is over 40 minutes in length. Of course the second documentary gave a lot more information, and the most valuable parts were hearing Cuarón reflect on how he wanted to leave the Hollywood system and create something original. This was a decision that has paid off for him.

    The Making of the Film: This is more like a traditional behind-the-scenes short documentary like the ones found as extras on mainstream discs. Compared to the other serious and analytical features, it is a lot more fun. It show that there were tough times, like dealing with angry drivers when they close a street, and fun times, like when they throw the producer in the pool as a way of baptizing him. You can tell that the work was work, but it was also fun, and I think that contributes to the quality of the final product on the screen.

    You Owe Me One, Carlos Cuarón. This is a short film by Alfonso’s brother, Carlos, who wrote Y tu mamá también. This is similarly themed, with lots of sex and playfulness, only this time it is a family of three that all have their own illicit sexual experiences under the same roof in a span of 12-minutes. The short is a good companion to también because of the comedy and focus on sex, but it is by comparison a lot more shallow and more of a romp.

    Criterion Rating: 9/10

  14. #89
    Bark! Go away Russ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,157
    Quote Quoting dissent
    Visually, Y tu mamá también is similar to Children of Men in that it is not afraid to show the seedier sides of the world. He shows the rural, impoverished Mexico country, which is contrasted with the upper class background of the bratty young main characters.
    It's been awhile since my last viewing, but I do remember one standout scene that perfectly illustrates your observation. It's stuck with me moreso than any other scene in the film -- it's the one where the main characters stop on their way to the beach for a couple of beers. They enter and, after they order their drinks, the camera tracks away to give us an extended glimpse into the local culture that is a permanent part of the bar. I was mesmerized at the juxtaposition of classes, and I'm sure that was the desired effect. An absolutely brilliant scene, imho.
    "We eventually managed to find them near Biskupin, where demonstrations of prehistoric farming are organized. These oxen couldn't be transported to anywhere else, so we had to built the entire studio around them. A scene that lasted twenty-something seconds took us a year and a half to prepare."

  15. #90
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Quoting Russ (view post)
    It's been awhile since my last viewing, but I do remember one standout scene that perfectly illustrates your observation. It's stuck with me moreso than any other scene in the film -- it's the one where the main characters stop on their way to the beach for a couple of beers. They enter and, after they order their drinks, the camera tracks away to give us an extended glimpse into the local culture that is a permanent part of the bar. I was mesmerized at the juxtaposition of classes, and I'm sure that was the desired effect. An absolutely brilliant scene, imho.
    At first viewing it is easy to get distracted by the sex comedy. I surely was. But I noticed this Mexican class contrast was all over the place the second time around. At times it was overt, like with the Godardian voice-over digressions, and others subtle. One that struck me was near the end when they are at the beach bar. The trio are loudly talking about blowjobs or all other sexual activities, at times yelling towards the peasants sitting at the table across from them, but getting just blank stares in return.

    I think he was basically that the upper class doesn't give a shit about the poor, which if you know anything about Mexico, is a valid criticism.

  16. #91
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    Online sales are evil.

    NEW ONES


  17. #92
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE, JOHN CASSAVETES, 1976



    Criterion often packages multiple versions of a film. Often the theatrical release is cut to shreds and the longer release is the director’s cut, which is usually the better version. As a habit, I’ve usually chosen the longer cut for the first viewing, and sometimes (usually never) will revisit the film by watching the shorter version. That’s how I approached this Cassavetes film, but I forgot one important difference between his work and all the others. He didn’t have to worry about studios, editors, or final cut. He wrote, directed, produced and usually financed his own films, so he had the ability to cut the film however he liked. So in this unusual case, the longer version is the inferior version.

    Chinese Bookie has a lot going for it, especially the performance of Ben Gazzara as Cosmo Vitelli, a down on his luck New York cabaret club owner who finds himself in a difficult situation. He plays it with subtlety, but also with charm. He’s a likeable guy. He acts as a sort of caretaker for his performing girls, and feels very close to them. One of them is his girlfriend. He takes pride in his club, and puts all the money he makes back into it. Cosmo is a well-drawn character, like most in the Cassavetes world, and Gazzara plays him exceptionally well. He keeps himself calm and composed for the most part, and only loses control for a brief moment later in the film, a moment that is powerful because of how the character has been played.

    As much as I liked the character and the actor, everything else was a slog. During the first 40-minutes or so, the film seems like it is going to be up to par with other Cassavetes films, mostly because of the strength of the performance and the character. He carries the momentum through his interaction with Seymour Cassell’s character. After that, the film just hits a brick wall. It should have been exciting when the titled act is carried out, but not really. It is hard to tell whether Cassavetes was going for artistic photography, pacing and editing, such as he had with Faces, but it simply didn’t work.

    From there it gets worse. We go further inside the club. Most of the ensemble actors were amateurs and it shows. They show full musical numbers with a made up character named Mr. Sophistication doing the narration and provocatively dressed women playing out the parts. The catcalls from the audience suggest what the show is really about, as they bellow “Take it off!” and erupt in applause when one of the women momentarily pulls down her top. The problem is that we see too many of these numbers; they go on far too long; and they are not interesting. It is hard to imagine this show being popular. Early in the movie when Cassell visits on a Sunday, it seems that it isn’t, but during the performance sequences, the place seems packed. On screen, these performance sequences were overlong, awkward, and unnecessary. They took away from the character moments that bookended them.

    After completing the film, being disappointed and navigating the supplements, I discovered that the longer version was, in fact, not the preferred version. Cassavetes felt that he was rushed to edit the film and did a poor job. The second version, released in 1978, is about 30-minutes shorter, but it isn’t simply fat being cut out of the film. Scenes are re-arranged. Many are cut, like the performance sequences that I loathed so much, and other scenes are included that weren’t in the longer version. The shorter version is supposed to be the definitive and preferred version. After watching the monstrosity of the longer version, I was not ready and willing to give it another try. Take this rating with a grain of salt because someday I will revisit this, and will probably prefer the 1978 version.

    Film Rating: 3.5/10*

    Supplements

    Interview with Gazzara and Ruban. This is where I learned much about the controversy with the versions. When the 1976 version was released, it landed with a thud. People hated it, just like I did, and the actor and producer talk about how difficult that was to deal with.

    Cassavetes interview: I always enjoy hearing Cassavetes talk about his style and his films. He conveys his passion, which can also be seen on screen.

    Aside from the two versions, this disc is relatively thin on extras. It is the weakest thus far from the Cassavetes box.

    Criterion Rating: 3/10*

    * Could change when I see the 1978 version.

  18. #93
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    And that is the 20th entry in the thread, and I've almost finished off two box sets.



    P.S. Suck it, Watashi!



    (credit for images and humor: Hugh Grant aka Wifey aka Sugar Momma)

  19. #94
    Zeeba Neighba Hugh_Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    955
    Ultimately, credit should go to the great Allie Brosh.

  20. #95
    i am the great went ledfloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,230
    The first time I watched Killing of a Chinese Bookie it was the longer version and I adored it.

    The second time I watched Killing of a Chinese Bookie it was the shorter version and I didn't care for it.

    I still don't know what I think of Killing of a Chinese Bookie.

  21. #96
    Guttenbergian Pop Trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Yay Area
    Posts
    5,243
    Quote Quoting DSNT (view post)
    Online sales are evil.

    NEW ONES

    If you give Slacker less than an '8' I won't be your BFF anymore.
    Ratings on a 1-10 scale for your pleasure:

    Top Gun: Maverick - 8
    Top Gun - 7
    McCabe & Mrs. Miller - 8
    Crimes of the Future - 8
    Videodrome - 9
    Valley Girl - 8
    Summer of '42 - 7
    In the Line of Fire - 8
    Passenger 57 - 7
    Everything Everywhere All at Once - 6



  22. #97
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Quoting Pop Trash (view post)
    If you give Slacker less than an '8' I won't be your BFF anymore.
    You're in luck. Slacker is one of my favorite Linklaters. I've still yet to see Boyhood, but with this, Dazed and Confused, Waking Life, and the Before ... series, he's really become one of our great modern auteurs.

  23. #98
    Super Moderator dreamdead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,843
    I'm fairly confident I only watched the 1978 cut of Killing... it's been seven or eight years since I viewed it, but I remember the pace being a pleasurably languid experience, without much emphasis (comparatively) on the female dancers. Essentially, I remember valuing it for the way it extended the mood and atmosphere inherent to many of these pictures even as it provided a way to do genre within Cassavetes's style.

    Meanwhile, this far into your experience:

    The Boat People - 9
    The Power of the Dog - 7.5
    The King of Pigs - 7

  24. #99
    I'll Have a Criterion. DSNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    That's awesome. Had never heard that before. Misogynist? Genius? Alcoholic? Messiah? Probably all true except for the last ..

    The 1978 version is probably what you've seen. Cassavetes hated the longer version and did his best to rid the world of it. Criterion probably only included it since they tend to be completists. For example, they included all the releases of Mr. Arkadin/Confidential Report, when the longest is considered the definitive and the shorter ones were consider butchered.

    One day I'll give the shorter version a try, but after I finish this box and Love Streams.

  25. #100
    Guttenbergian Pop Trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Yay Area
    Posts
    5,243
    Quote Quoting DSNT (view post)
    You're in luck. Slacker is one of my favorite Linklaters. I've still yet to see Boyhood, but with this, Dazed and Confused, Waking Life, and the Before ... series, he's really become one of our great modern auteurs.
    ritch:
    Ratings on a 1-10 scale for your pleasure:

    Top Gun: Maverick - 8
    Top Gun - 7
    McCabe & Mrs. Miller - 8
    Crimes of the Future - 8
    Videodrome - 9
    Valley Girl - 8
    Summer of '42 - 7
    In the Line of Fire - 8
    Passenger 57 - 7
    Everything Everywhere All at Once - 6



Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
An forum