Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

News on Criterion and Janus Films.
Locked
Message
Author
Calvin
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2376 Post by Calvin » Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:43 am

Criterion may have wanted Scorsese's Who's That Knocking at My Door? to include in their long-gestating release of his shorts. Claudia Weill's Girlfriends is another film that would 'fit'.
Last edited by Calvin on Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Cinephrenic
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: Paris, Texas

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2377 Post by Cinephrenic » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:30 am

Perhaps they are rabbits.

User avatar
med
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:58 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2378 Post by med » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:06 am

HistoryProf wrote:
The Narrator Returns wrote:Even if it is a pretty lame pun, shouldn't we all be ecstatic that Badlands is finally coming?
i don't buy it...if it is Badlands it's the absolutely worst clue they've ever given. they're clearly both male greaser sheep. I don't get how that equates to Badlands....so i'm not ecstatic because I think it's something else.
As has been mentioned by numerous other people prior to your post, the file name reads "wacky lambs," not sheep. The one on the right does indeed dress like Martin Sheen in Badlands. As for the one on the left, I don't recall anyone wearing leather jackets in the film, but it fits the timeframe of the movie. Also, a second lamb is needed for the pun to work.

All this isn't to say it's indeed Badlands, but, if it is, it's not the "worst clue they've ever given."

mteller
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:23 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2379 Post by mteller » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:55 am

Clearly this is an upgrade of Bob le Flambeur

User avatar
pzadvance
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:24 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2380 Post by pzadvance » Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:43 pm

med wrote:
HistoryProf wrote:
The Narrator Returns wrote:Even if it is a pretty lame pun, shouldn't we all be ecstatic that Badlands is finally coming?
i don't buy it...if it is Badlands it's the absolutely worst clue they've ever given. they're clearly both male greaser sheep. I don't get how that equates to Badlands....so i'm not ecstatic because I think it's something else.
As has been mentioned by numerous other people prior to your post, the file name reads "wacky lambs," not sheep. The one on the right does indeed dress like Martin Sheen in Badlands. As for the one on the left, I don't recall anyone wearing leather jackets in the film, but it fits the timeframe of the movie. Also, a second lamb is needed for the pun to work.

All this isn't to say it's indeed Badlands, but, if it is, it's not the "worst clue they've ever given."
Exactly. People seem to be forgetting that oftentimes, the newsletter pic doesn't depict something that's relevant to the film so much as something that can lead you to a pun which reveals the film's title. Last month's "caught C's" didn't pictorially have any relevance to the Qatsi trilogy, it just functioned like a Mad Gab in leading us to a title.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2381 Post by captveg » Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:25 pm

med wrote:
HistoryProf wrote:As for the one on the left, I don't recall anyone wearing leather jackets in the film, but it fits the timeframe of the movie. Also, a second lamb is needed for the pun to work.
Sheen wears a jean jacket similar to the clue:

Image

This photo, which someone posted at blu-ray.com, seals it for me.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2382 Post by swo17 » Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:34 pm

Does he ever have a pack of cigarettes tucked into his shirt sleeve in the film?

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2383 Post by captveg » Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:37 pm

swo17 wrote:Does he ever have a pack of cigarettes tucked into his shirt sleeve in the film?
Been too long since I've seen it to recall.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2384 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:45 pm

swo17 wrote:Does he ever have a pack of cigarettes tucked into his shirt sleeve in the film?
Probably, it's par for the course for James Dean wannabees.

Mathew2468
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2385 Post by Mathew2468 » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:34 pm

Jeeez. The leather jacket, denim jacket, and white T-shirt with cigarettes under sleeve are clichés. Not exclusive to Badlands.

Aaaand Kit is Charles Starkweather (sp?) who was a denim jacket wearing, cigarette smoking, duck's ass sportin' James Dean wannabe.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2386 Post by Drucker » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:53 pm

I haven't seen the movie, but reading the plot of Badlands, it seems like you could say that Spacek and Sheen are "on the lamb" during the film...

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2387 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:08 pm

It's spelled "lam" but good point nonetheless.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2388 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:33 pm

I just can't believe that there are people who haven't yet seen Badlands! It's the best film to pull out to disprove the old adage that films should never use narration (although like any device, if used poorly or as a pure substitute for action, narration can be excrutiating. Although whether it is used appropriately or not should really be more a reflection on the filmmaker's skills than of the device of narration in itself) as it has perhaps the best example of narration in film. Or at least it is up there along with The Magnificent Ambersons and La Jetee!

While I really like Malick's other films, I still think that Badlands is his best. It has all those elements that would crop up in later works - the lyricism and the use of nature with both acting as a backdrop to and being corrupted by human actions - but feels much more grounded than even Days of Heaven. There is something that just keeps the characters rooted to a mundane reality even when Spacek's character is having flights of fantasy and there are violent murders occurring, while most of the other films feel as if they transcend earthly problems at some point. There is poetic transcendence in Badlands, particularly in the Antonioni-esque 'beyond the clouds' final sequence, but it is always tempered with a more down to earth point of view that never lets the character escape from the present, as much as they may want to.

It is sort of the ur-film from which all of Malick's arguably greater (certainly larger canvassed) works feel like they come. And we shouldn't forget how influential it has been on other works - for example the scene of burning the house gets very obviously homaged in Dust Devil (even with the radio playing, contrasting with the record player in the Malick film), and the first section of the film detailing the relationship and the murder of the father feels as if it got reworked in a far more grotesque manner for Natural Born Killers (Oliver Stone's film feels like the funhouse mirror version of Badlands, with all the sympathy for the characters scrubbed clean to allow for the media satire, and which seems appropriate for celebrity murderers of the 1990s as opposed to the charming crime spree killers of the 70s!)

scoundrel
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:04 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2389 Post by scoundrel » Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:59 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:It's spelled "lam" but good point nonetheless.
Baaaaaaaaaad spelling. \:D/

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2390 Post by Gregory » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:23 am

pun /pən/ n. A joke exploiting the different possible meanings of a word or the fact that there are words that sound alike but have different meanings.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2391 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:39 pm

Maybe but it was worth scoundrel's quip.

bamwc2
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2392 Post by bamwc2 » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:06 pm

Image

In which film did Chaplin wear a beard? I feel as though I should know this off the top of my head.

User avatar
antnield
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:59 pm
Location: Cheltenham, England

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2393 Post by antnield » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:07 pm

Bluebeard = Monsieur Verdoux

User avatar
jedgeco
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:28 am

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2394 Post by jedgeco » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:10 pm

Monsieur Verdoux. antnied beat me to it.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2395 Post by Jeff » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:11 pm

That was a pretty easy, straightforward clue after several months of clever (and not-so-clever -- oof, Bad Lambs) puns. Verdoux is my second favorite Chaplin. Didn't think it would happen so soon and couldn't be more pleased!

bamwc2
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2396 Post by bamwc2 » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:13 pm

antnield wrote:Bluebeard = Monsieur Verdoux
Yes, exactly right and what a wonderful film! I made the mistake of thinking that it was a reference to a Blu-Ray edition of the film, but they haven't done that since they began releasing all new releases in HD.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2397 Post by matrixschmatrix » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:14 pm

Ehhh, I'd rather have City Lights. Or The Circus. Or The Kid. Might skip this one, I was powerfully unimpressed- though a commentary as good as the other three were would probably sway me.

Counting Modern Times as a silent, as Criterion does, it looks as though they're alternating sound and silent, right? Modern Times, The Great Dictator, The Gold Rush, Monsieur Verdoux?

User avatar
triodelover
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: The hills of East Tennessee

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2398 Post by triodelover » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:17 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:Ehhh, I'd rather have City Lights. Or The Circus. Or The Kid. Might skip this one, I was powerfully unimpressed- though a commentary as good as the other three were would probably sway me.

Counting Modern Times as a silent, as Criterion does, it looks as though they're alternating sound and silent, right? Modern Times, The Great Dictator, The Gold Rush, Monsieur Verdoux?
Could it be two? After all, he's not dressed as the Tramp in Verdoux.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2399 Post by swo17 » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:20 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:Ehhh, I'd rather have City Lights. Or The Circus. Or The Kid.
I'd rather have those very three films as well (in the exact same order), though I do still like Verdoux quite a bit, aside from the preachy ending.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Criterion Newsletter (Part 2)

#2400 Post by knives » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:25 pm

triodelover wrote:Could it be two? After all, he's not dressed as the Tramp in Verdoux.
He's not really iconic looking as Verdoux.

Locked