Criterion on Social Media

News on Criterion and Janus Films
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Napier
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: The Shire

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#626 Post by Napier »

HistoryProf wrote:i don't quite understand the calls for Cobra Woman...saw it on TCM once upon a time and thought it was hilariously cheesy.
I saw it in the Brattle with a packed house. And we had a "cheesy" great time. Criterion me. I actually think my viewing in Cambridge was one of the best experiences I've ever had in the cinema. It's up there with seeing Baby Snakes with a theater full of Zappa freaks.
ianungstad
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:20 am

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#627 Post by ianungstad »

It would be nice if Universal would let Criterion have the rights to The Bank Dick again.
User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#628 Post by HistoryProf »

Matt wrote:Criterion used to have a sense of humor and release campy/cheesy films like this with some regularity. Or does everyone take their po-faced justifications for Flesh for Frankenstein/Blood for Dracula, The Blob, Fiend Without a Face, The Honeymoon Killers, Sisters, the Monsters and Madmen films, and Equinox as important independent films at face value?
i think the last bit is kind of what I was saying...all those you list are more than just low budget cheese - Cobra is big budget camp - and hardly path breaking in any sense, or otherwise "important". Now i'm not one to take the mission statement as gospel, and welcome thinking outside the box, I was just curious about this particular title as one people seem to be fond of. It just wasn't one that would ever strike me as something Criterion would do, and I certainly don't see anything in the collection now that would fit as a precursor. That list is all genre stuff and one uber independent flick (Honeymoon Killers) - not post-war B schlock.

ETA, for something comparable, maybe Fanfan La Tulip? but isn't that pretty reviled here?
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#629 Post by domino harvey »

Siodmak is a Criterion-approved director and this is one of his more popular films. I don't see any mystery?
User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#630 Post by HistoryProf »

no mystery....just curiosity stemming from so many mentions on the FB page and here. no big whoop.
User avatar
starmanof51
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:28 am
Location: Seattleish
Contact:

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#631 Post by starmanof51 »

HistoryProf wrote:all those you list are more than just low budget cheese - Cobra is big budget camp - and hardly path breaking in any sense, or otherwise "important". Now i'm not one to take the mission statement as gospel, and welcome thinking outside the box, I was just curious about this particular title as one people seem to be fond of. It just wasn't one that would ever strike me as something Criterion would do, and I certainly don't see anything in the collection now that would fit as a precursor. That list is all genre stuff and one uber independent flick (Honeymoon Killers) - not post-war B schlock.

Let me take a stab at it. You say that the titles that Matt lists are more than just low budget cheese. I find that debateable, most strongly in the case of the Monsters and Madmen box. But let's go with that. You also seem to want to somehow differentiate between "genre stuff" and "post-war B schlock", if not qualitatively (do you?) then at least as precedent for that holy wacky C. I'd say it's also "genre stuff", just a few years earlier than those others. If you're going to insist on words like schlock and cheese, why make such a distinction between "post-war B schlock" and post-Korean war B schlock? If you see something a little grander in Matt's list, consider that there's also something a little grander here as well. I think you're of the feeling that Cobra Woman is routine and unremarkable, and that's the puzzling bit for you. I'd counter that it's damn near unique, I don't think there's anything within a decade either direction of it quite like it.

It starts by trading on established genre stuff, trying to make a buck on people that were fond of Thief of Bagdad, most specifically. That's not unique, but there's no getting around the first and foremost virtues - Siodmak knows what he's about, and I find the quality of the technicolor photography to frequently be a match for ToB, with some spectacular greens and blues. It's way up there just on the basis of a list of "Great 40s Eye Candy." But that's not what makes it special. What sends it to the stratosphere (at least for me, and I think some of the others voting for it) is the sense of hysteria and decadence emanating from Cobra Island in general, the kinky-dancehall Cobra Throne Room more specifically, and the Cobra Queen as hysteria (and decadence?...ooh, hopefully decadence!) personifed. That Throne Room sees some brazen shit - the casual violence, especially at the end, and those wiggy dances with the Cobra Maidens - this feels emotionally like precode stuff, stuff that just wasn't done in 1944, and stuff you don't start seeing much of again for another decade. It's an island unto itself. If you start looking for similar stuff, you'd naturally look at the other Universal/Montez Technicolor exercises in exotica. Universal has made a couple readily available - Arabian Nights, Ali Baba. These have their virtues, and are pretty enough, but they don't have that wild-eyed hysteria. I keep using that word, don't I? Not to go all auteury on you, but I think Siodmak must get a lot of credit for the uniqueness here. I think of Phantom Lady, from the very same year, and that great jazz drum scene with Elisha Cook and Ella Raines - again, hysteria - something really dangerous and unique (musical rape!) jumping up out of some dime a dozen "post-war B schlock".

And of course Criterion has already included a trailer for it in the Killers set.

Apologies if I sound more combative than I mean to, Prof, - this is definitely a case of Defending Your Darlings, as the Lists forum would have it.
User avatar
Max von Mayerling
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#632 Post by Max von Mayerling »

Isn't The Wedding March pre-1948 Paramount? Shouldn't we all be screaming for that?
ianungstad
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:20 am

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#633 Post by ianungstad »

They are asking for your picks of Universal and Universal-owned Paramount titles. (Maybe they're in the midst of licensing another batch of Universal titles?) Wedding March, Wings,Miracle of Morgan's Creek, etc are still owned by Paramount.
User avatar
Max von Mayerling
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#634 Post by Max von Mayerling »

I'm obviously completely baffled by who owns what Paramount-wise. Thanks for the clarification.
User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#635 Post by HistoryProf »

starmanof51 wrote:
HistoryProf wrote:all those you list are more than just low budget cheese - Cobra is big budget camp - and hardly path breaking in any sense, or otherwise "important". Now i'm not one to take the mission statement as gospel, and welcome thinking outside the box, I was just curious about this particular title as one people seem to be fond of. It just wasn't one that would ever strike me as something Criterion would do, and I certainly don't see anything in the collection now that would fit as a precursor. That list is all genre stuff and one uber independent flick (Honeymoon Killers) - not post-war B schlock.

Let me take a stab at it. You say that the titles that Matt lists are more than just low budget cheese. I find that debateable, most strongly in the case of the Monsters and Madmen box. But let's go with that. You also seem to want to somehow differentiate between "genre stuff" and "post-war B schlock", if not qualitatively (do you?) then at least as precedent for that holy wacky C. I'd say it's also "genre stuff", just a few years earlier than those others. If you're going to insist on words like schlock and cheese, why make such a distinction between "post-war B schlock" and post-Korean war B schlock? If you see something a little grander in Matt's list, consider that there's also something a little grander here as well. I think you're of the feeling that Cobra Woman is routine and unremarkable, and that's the puzzling bit for you. I'd counter that it's damn near unique, I don't think there's anything within a decade either direction of it quite like it.

It starts by trading on established genre stuff, trying to make a buck on people that were fond of Thief of Bagdad, most specifically. That's not unique, but there's no getting around the first and foremost virtues - Siodmak knows what he's about, and I find the quality of the technicolor photography to frequently be a match for ToB, with some spectacular greens and blues. It's way up there just on the basis of a list of "Great 40s Eye Candy." But that's not what makes it special. What sends it to the stratosphere (at least for me, and I think some of the others voting for it) is the sense of hysteria and decadence emanating from Cobra Island in general, the kinky-dancehall Cobra Throne Room more specifically, and the Cobra Queen as hysteria (and decadence?...ooh, hopefully decadence!) personifed. That Throne Room sees some brazen shit - the casual violence, especially at the end, and those wiggy dances with the Cobra Maidens - this feels emotionally like precode stuff, stuff that just wasn't done in 1944, and stuff you don't start seeing much of again for another decade. It's an island unto itself. If you start looking for similar stuff, you'd naturally look at the other Universal/Montez Technicolor exercises in exotica. Universal has made a couple readily available - Arabian Nights, Ali Baba. These have their virtues, and are pretty enough, but they don't have that wild-eyed hysteria. I keep using that word, don't I? Not to go all auteury on you, but I think Siodmak must get a lot of credit for the uniqueness here. I think of Phantom Lady, from the very same year, and that great jazz drum scene with Elisha Cook and Ella Raines - again, hysteria - something really dangerous and unique (musical rape!) jumping up out of some dime a dozen "post-war B schlock".

And of course Criterion has already included a trailer for it in the Killers set.

Apologies if I sound more combative than I mean to, Prof, - this is definitely a case of Defending Your Darlings, as the Lists forum would have it.
Not combative at all...and I hope I wasn't sounding disparaging....it was just simple curiosity - so I appreciate the explanation.

as for "genre-stuff" all I meant was that they were all in that low budget sci-fi/Horror category, which Cobra Woman is not...that's all. Thief of Baghdad is of course the obvious correlation that I failed to make. And as I said, I found it great fun - "hilariously cheesy" is by no means an insult! I was just curious as to why so many seemed to be hankering for it, assuming full well that while Maria Montez's boobs are indeed a sight to behold in all their technicolor glory, there had to be more to it than that! ;)
User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#636 Post by perkizitore »

Which Nicholas Ray films does Universal owns?
Flike
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:47 pm

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#637 Post by Flike »

No rights at the moment, but we saw Sembene's translator in the office not long ago, so maybe there's hope
onedimension
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:35 pm

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#638 Post by onedimension »

Is that 'The Sweet Smell of Success' Criterion just posted a shot of on their Facebook page?
User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#639 Post by Murdoch »

onedimension wrote:Is that 'The Sweet Smell of Success' Criterion just posted a shot of on their Facebook page?
FUCK YEAH IT IS \:D/
User avatar
Peacock
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:47 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#640 Post by Peacock »

Image
Yes

EDIT: This isn't the picture Criterion showed but it's from the same scene.
User avatar
stagefright50
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#641 Post by stagefright50 »

Excuse the pun... SWEET!
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#642 Post by domino harvey »

Thank you O Lord for the bounty we are about to receive
User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#643 Post by cdnchris »

This cheered me up after all the Paramount OOP nonsense.
User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#644 Post by Tribe »

Bill Melidoneas is unhappy:
But what is this necessary if there's a bare bones 2001 MGM dvd release In Stock. Why do we need an HD upgrade with (hopefully) great supplements from Criterion?
User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#645 Post by Murdoch »

Tribe wrote:Bill Melidoneas is unhappy:
But what is this necessary if there's a bare bones 2001 MGM dvd release In Stock. Why do we need an HD upgrade with (hopefully) great supplements from Criterion?
If there was ever a question that answered itself
User avatar
Cinephrenic
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:58 pm
Location: Paris, Texas

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#646 Post by Cinephrenic »

Now bring on the Kubricks!
User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:27 am

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#647 Post by MyNameCriterionForum »

WTF?
User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:58 pm
Location: Northwest US

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#648 Post by Brian C »

Tribe wrote:Bill Melidoneas is unhappy:
But what is this necessary if there's a bare bones 2001 MGM dvd release In Stock. Why do we need an HD upgrade with (hopefully) great supplements from Criterion?
I think that's sarcasm? Making fun of the people who are always griping about Criterion releasing films that are already on DVD?
Flike
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:47 pm

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#649 Post by Flike »

Do the American studios have absolutely no faith in the future of solid state home video? I'm glad Criterion is doing this, but jeez...
User avatar
CrazedCollector
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:31 am

Re: Criterion Facebook Page

#650 Post by CrazedCollector »

Cinephrenic wrote:Now bring on the Kubricks!
Barry Lyndon! He's our man! If he can't marry a woman and totally blow her money no-one can!

...love that movie. Would love to see a Criterion transfer.
Tribe wrote:Bill Melidoneas is unhappy:
But what is this necessary if there's a bare bones 2001 MGM dvd release In Stock. Why do we need an HD upgrade with (hopefully) great supplements from Criterion?
Makes me want to go #-o
Post Reply