The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
"membrillo"
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: San Diego, California / Tijuana, Baja California Norte

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#26 Post by "membrillo" » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:03 pm

knives wrote:San Diego, at the Kensington, will be having all three from March 12-18, with the last day and the 14th doing a threesome.
In those (worlds most uncomfortable) seats??? I can barely make it through one film at a time.

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

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#27 Post by knives » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:21 pm

I like the seats since they changed them a few years ago.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#28 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:58 pm

Phil wrote:
bearcuborg wrote:Red Riding in the end is richer than Zodiac because of its mythic qualities. It calls for repeated viewings because it has mysteries to be revealed, Zodiac-a fine piece of craftsmanship, has no such mystery to reveal.
Honest question: what exactly do you find the mysteries to be revealed here to be?

Zodiac, on the other hand, is a work of terror-mystery (though its mysteries don't have answers to be found - it's about the process) on par with The Crying of Lot 49 or 2666 (this isn't to say it's not cinematic, the two best comparisons from a thematic standpoint just happen to come from literature); it's endlessly more dynamic in its handling of the world than Red Riding, which just totally lost me about halfway into the 2nd with its total aversion to anything resembling restraint or subtlety and only got worse from there.
The mystic to Red Riding is that it does not comfort you the way Zodiac does, in that film it's all about the procedure, and nothing more. That's a fine quality for a film, but the detail of procedure has no meaning other than the craftsmanship of the filmmaker-however fine that is, yet in the hands of a filmmaker with a idea of capturing more than just detail it takes on extra meaning (see Corneliu Porumboiu's Police, Adjective).

Also, in Fincher's Se7en, the visual technique, while flashy, does not immerse one like the gloom of Red Riding. David Thomson: "Red Riding is not to be grasped, followed, or understood—that’s why you need to see it. This is not a veiled charge against Tony Grisoni and the others involved for not telling the story plainly. There are many internal elements subverting “organization” or authorship: three films; the adherence to muttered Yorkshire dialects that leave a good deal unheard; and an absolute refusal to let the story be tidy or finished. Whereas the first two parts of The Godfather conclude with set-piece executions that make bows of loose ends and settle the family’s authority, the dedicated viewer of Red Riding will find no such comfort. Throw in a pattern of flashbacks that feel like extensions of the present, and you may see how Red Riding is not just hard to follow—it believes in a culture and a narrative where things no longer click together. You never know the whole story or the larger purposes because the world is no longer run on those pious timetables."

Phil
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: NYC

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#29 Post by Phil » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:51 pm

I still don't see where you're finding "comfort" in Zodiac; it ends with the conclusion that no amount of dedication/obsession guarantees us an "answer", that we spend our lives trying to fit pieces - in a world that's throwing us an endless stream of information - together into something that makes sense and wind up with an self-perpetuating cycle of frustration. Maybe there's some comfort there in embracing that search, but it's hardly traditional closure or Fincher holding the audiences' hands to a warm, fuzzy ending. From where I'm sitting, it's also about way more than "process" in the pejorative-diminutive spin you're trying to play it; it's "just" about process insofar as so is our entire existence.

Red Riding on the other hand climaxes with the most cheesily cathartic shot of anything I've seen in a long time. It makes things complicated for no purpose other than being complicated and then answers all of the questions it raises in the most boring ways possible.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#30 Post by bearcuborg » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:59 am

Have you read Thomson's essay? There is nothing compelling me to revisit Zodiac again, but Red Riding calls for repeated viewings. Also, the ending of Red Riding does not end on that shot (which I did not care for to be honest) and more to the fact, it neither answers or resolves anything. Again, I think Fincher's Zodiac is a fine piece of craftsmanship - I always find procedural more fascinating than traditional police style drama, however in the hands of a real filmmaker it can mean so much more - again, see Police, Adjective.

Haggai
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:31 am
Location: San Diego

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#31 Post by Haggai » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:07 am

Has anyone else watched these from on-demand? I just watched the first movie in HD On Demand, but I noticed from looking them up on IMDB (and confirming via reviews of the UK DVDs) that the second and third films are 2.35:1 aspect ratio, as opposed to the 1.85:1 first film. I'd like to watch the other two on demand as well, but I just want to be sure that they won't have the aspect ratios messed up or modified.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#32 Post by Brian C » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:09 am

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to see all three films in one sitting, but I did get back from 1983 tonight, having seen the first two last week. I have to say, I felt 1983 came close to ruining the whole trilogy for me, as it deals almost exclusively with events already covered in the first film but didn't have anything to add in thematic terms. We're given more background on the corruption at hand, and we get explanations for a few things, but I never felt like the ball was being moved forward. At the same time, its two narrative threads tread familiar ground, with a) the guy who has a crisis of conscience and reluctantly acts on it (which was telegraphed in the second film anyway), and b) the unsuccessful attorney who makes something of himself.

I also think that the ending was really bad, and worked at cross-purposes with itself. On the one hand, the filmmakers apparently wanted a happy ending, and thus we get the shot that bothered Phil so much. At the same time, though, they needed to satisfy the fatalistic tone of the rest of the trilogy, so the audience are denied more of a resolution because ... well, just for the sake of it really, since the "happy" part of the ending is too much of a pander to the audience for the lack of a fuller resolution to have much artistic merit.

Still, I enjoyed the first two installments. 1974 was extremely difficult for me; I had so much of a struggle with the Yorkshire accents that I was thoroughly disoriented during most of it, although I realized by the end that I actually was supposed to feel that way to a large extent. Even if I had understood every word, I obviously still wouldn't have known what the hell was going on for most of it, by design.

I think I liked 1980 the best, although that may be because I had an easier time with it, already having some idea of what to expect. But it was the strongest in terms of story, while also being the most oppressive in its depiction of the rot in the police force. In the first film you might feel that there are a few "bad apples" behind the scenes but in the second the corruption really feels all-consuming. I also think Considine gives the strongest performance in the trilogy, at least among the main characters. His character's determination is so obviously futile that I really felt for him.

So, I'd recommend the trilogy as a whole, but it really is too bad about the third film. It could have been something special but as it is the impact, while still substantial, isn't what the first two installments promise.

User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#33 Post by perkizitore » Wed May 26, 2010 11:19 am

US blu-ray up for pre-order on Amazon

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#34 Post by aox » Wed May 26, 2010 11:36 am

perkizitore wrote:US blu-ray up for pre-order on Amazon
Thanks, but...

$24.49 :shock:

That's got to be a mistake.

User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#35 Post by perkizitore » Wed May 26, 2010 11:44 am

Better lock in this price then...

User avatar
Tom Hagen
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#36 Post by Tom Hagen » Wed May 26, 2010 11:47 am

aox wrote: Thanks, but...

$24.49 :shock:

That's got to be a mistake.
Also, note the 130 min listed run time.

User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#37 Post by perkizitore » Wed May 26, 2010 12:00 pm

Maybe is an edited version, hence the price?

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#38 Post by Brian C » Wed May 26, 2010 12:51 pm

I wonder what a 130-minute version could possibly even look like, given three directors. However, none of the three individual movies run much more over 100 minutes, so it's not that either.

It's got to be an error. I don't trust these pre-order listings before an official announcement is made anyway.

User avatar
rossen
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#39 Post by rossen » Wed May 26, 2010 12:57 pm

Non Blu-ray edition is listed with 308 minutes running time and is priced 30% off for preorder $ 20.99.

rollotomassi
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:23 pm
Location: Kendal

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#40 Post by rollotomassi » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:50 pm

concerned that amazon quotes ratio as 1.66.1 not 1.85 and 2.35 as they should be. Such an act of butchery is worthy of setting the Yorkshire constabulary on the perpetrators.

heredity4me
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:47 pm

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#41 Post by heredity4me » Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:27 pm

Blu-ray now has a run time of 368 minutes.

User avatar
Jean-Luc Garbo
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Contact:

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#42 Post by Jean-Luc Garbo » Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:03 am

Amazon is selling the first three novels (1974, 1977, 1980) for $8.25 apiece. They're excellent reads if anyone hasn't picked them up yet.

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#43 Post by manicsounds » Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:23 am

I watched "1980" last night on the MPI Blu-ray. Anyone else have a problem with the 5.1 track? When I turned it on, all the music and dialogue seemed to come out of the L and R speakers only, while the 2.0 surround track seemed to have it balanced out better, with dialogue going to the center speaker.

"1974" and "1983" had no problems. Unless somehow, the 5.1 and 2.0 tracks were switched around by mistake...

User avatar
Boosmahn
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:08 pm

Re: The Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold/Marsh/Tucker, 2009)

#44 Post by Boosmahn » Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:17 am

Nothing on this since 2012? I viewed the series over a three-week period (I watched it with my family), and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I found its portrayal of a cruel, corrupt world ("Welcome to the North, where we do what we want.") harrowing. I'm planning to show it soon to someone who would like it — all in one sitting.

The first film was excellent. Andrew Garfield was perfect for the part of Eddie; his character's stubbornness and naiveté were played very well, and his relationship with Paula was believable. (But I'll admit the romantic scenes between Eddie and Paula seemed gratuitous after the third time.) I really liked some of the shots in here, especially the opening pan of the third victim and a breathtaking wide shot of Paula walking towards the hill behind her flat.

The second, 1980, was unexpected. I was thinking its series of murders was going to wrap around to the child abductions from 1974 and 1983. Only after finishing the series have I realized its main purpose was to shed light on the police corruption within Yorkshire.

The final film was good, but I'm still processing it. The subplot about the relationship between Maurice and the medium (???) felt out-of-place, but it does further the theme of sex being used to cope with bleak, violent situations. Also, I disagree with Phil on that "cheesy shot" bit on the previous page.

Post Reply