Lena Dunham

[Zot!]

The problem with this thread is that it made me watch the movie. For those still curious it is like a remake of The Graduate made for public-access television starring Seth Rogan in drag. I'm not a Criterion purist, but it has to rank as one of their more "interesting" choices.

[Brianruns10]

If anything, resentment of Dunham seems more class than gender fueled. She's connected, her success is clearly indebted to those connections, and Dunham's/her character's plight is to come home after four years in college with an impractical major to a large, stylish New York City apartment, attend parties, take and quit a lame job, and mope around for a few weeks.

You nailed it bud. I have no problem that she's a woman. I think it's great when women find success in cinema.

My problem is that this film is utterly mediocre, derivative, unoriginal, and leapt ahead of a lot of far better films because this filmmaker was connected. I highly doubt it would've gotten a CC release without IFC strongarming them.

And I guess even the connections aren't so bad, if she took advantage of them to REALLY try and SAY SOMETHING.

Because as someone who struggled to make ends meet for two years before finding solid work, who has labored over five features that've gone nowhere fast, I really could give a fuck about the plight of some upper class, NY Loft dwelling post-grad self-absorbed with their own petty problems.

It is similarly why I disapprove of Sofia Coppola or Jason Reitman. They too come from privileged, connected backgrounds, and parlayed that into making utterly conventional films--Coppola about the plight of the wealthy and famous, Reitman making utterly bland, safe Leo McCarey ripoffs.

I too come from a fairly privilidged background..in that both parents were present in my life, they had good jobs and provided a stable, happy household. And because of that upbringing, I live daily by the maxim that, "To whom much is given, much is asked." I believe because I had a fortunate, fairly comfortable upbringing, I am now bound to really sacrifice for the sake of giving back to the world. I believe a comfortable life is something that belongs to those who did not have my upbringing...they deserve it more than I.

And that is what is sad about the Lena Dunhams of the world. They are content to make films that simply follow the trends, explore topics that don't require much reaching beyond the autobiographical, never strive to break out of their little insular worlds, and then when they achieve some success, they sell out to the highest bidder. Pathetic.

[Numero Trois]

So is Dunham now the youngest ever director to get a CC release at this particular stage of a career? I mean, outside of Bertolucci whenever "Before the Revolution" does get released.

I highly doubt it would've gotten a CC release without IFC strongarming them.

Just because "such_and_such film" is inferior doesn't mean that Criterion was strong-armed into releasing it. What JLG said earlier in the thread sounds pretty spot on. Who knows, maybe CC will get some better deals down the line because of this.

If going by the box office numbers it is kind of puzzling to see this get a release. But then again, it did better than most of the foreign films that have made it over here, so in that sense it may do quite well on DVD.

As for the film haven't see it as of yet. Maybe next month. Leaning Tower of Kevyip, ya know.

[colinr0380]

So is Dunham now the youngest ever director to get a CC release at this particular stage of a career? I mean, outside of Bertolucci whenever "Before the Revolution" does get released.

I guess Bertolucci still holds the title at 22 - don't forget La commare secca

[Zumpano]

It is similarly why I disapprove of Sofia Coppola or Jason Reitman. They too come from privileged, connected backgrounds, and parlayed that into making utterly conventional films--Coppola about the plight of the wealthy and famous, Reitman making utterly bland, safe Leo McCarey ripoffs.

Yeah. Fuck that Renoir kid, too.

[knives]

Or that schmuck Chabrol. It wasn't even his wealth.

[domino harvey]

No one minds entitled creators when their creation is good. I would have loved for this to have been a great film with all of the winning qualities its defenders have found, but it's just not there for me and a vocal majority on this forum. No further conclusions of bias necessary.

[Lars Von Truffaut]

Just finished seeing this OnDemand. After reading much of the backlash from other members of the forum, I was very excited to see this. I figured if I came in with low expectations I could be pleasantly surprised and champion the film. Fail.

I enjoyed the characters of Charlotte and to a lesser extent the Mom. Charlotte - while a bit of a caricature - was the only character who made me laugh out loud from her entrance (her unexpected and hilarious slap of Dunham) on. Otherwise, I thought much of the film was quite forgettable. I don't understand an earlier comparison to Coppola and Reitman, whose films tend to be at least consistently comical or entertaining, and well composed.

The film wasn't bad, but I'd agree that it doesn't appear to fit the "continuing series of important classic and contemporary films" mold. Criterion already has at least one great film in Baumbach's Kicking & Screaming which deals with the ennui of post-grads. If they wanted to add another - one which deals with the female protagonist's bizarre male friendship(s) and failure to follow through with her plans to move in with her best friend - they should have waited on Ghost World.

P.S. This was my entry into "mumblecore". Dare I go on, and if so, what would be a few recommendations?

[domino harvey]

This was my entry into "mumblecore". Dare I go on, and if so, what would be a few recommendations?

Mutual Appreciation for sure, but it's actually a good film so that's a little like recommending Blue Corpse or You Walk Alone when someone wants a Jandek rec

[Lee Roy Tree]

I guess I do have more to say on this film. As to the accusations of misogyny, hopefully I am not one of the accused. I did not mention once, in my mini-rant/review, anything to do with her gender, or even comment on her body type (I let her speak for herself about that). I tend to view men and women as being the same and the only difference being that one can bear children and the other can't. I do think our culture, and many others, has tended to want to separate the two by using superficial examples and by forcing gender based roles upon us. I think that both are equally able to make brilliant films (and other art), though I admit that it is much harder for a woman to do so because of the many biases and expectations that they are under (and that hinder them) in the film world.

I also want to comment on the little short in the movie that Mr. Pixies was enamored with. I had a few different opinions or insights on it while watching the film. One, that it was something that Lena was using as a reflection on how much her film-making skills have grown. It obviously looks like it took very little inspiration, and effort, to create. She mentions a couple times, I think, that she wants to take it down from the internet, due to it being a slightly embarrasing effort. I have been in both her and the people commenting on its position many times in my life, where a friend asks what you think of their new artistic effort (or the other way around) and you want to be polite, and you end up telling them little white lies about what you really think about it in order to not hurt their feelings. Also you got the feeling that she was not confident in it at all during the showing near the end of the film.

Two, it could just be that she is using it to get commentary on her body type, both from her and others. When she reads the comments on her page, she is pointing out that the world at large is un-approving and downright mean towards her physical appearance. She is commenting about how she is confident and secure with her body while at the same time pointing out that she is also not immune from getting her feelings hurt when people single it out to try and ridicule her.

Three, which is the most unflattering opinion about this you-tube short. I think it sucks without the context of the rest of the movie, i.e. on it's own. When I was 19, I was at a Denny's with a group of friends, and I was perusing a High Times magazine, which was one of my favorite mags at the time. I was also about elbow deep into a heavy trip on LSD. I got around 20 or 30 pages through it thinking that it was a special parody/satire issue on itself and the counterculture, when it crept up on me (through the lysergic haze) that it was just as serious about itself as all the other issues. Since this experience, I have had the uncanny ability to spot bullshit when I witness it. My definition of bullshit might be different than most, but it has served me well over the last decade. This you-tube short is many, many times more uninspired and lazy than her feature length film is. I think that if someone hated pretentious and unimaginative performance art, that they couldn't create a better short in order to lambast this type of art. It is just laughably horrible. And, now, I think that I truly am done talking about this movie, though I do tend to put more effort in to talking about things I dislike than things I do like (which I know is probably a character flaw, and I am trying to work on it).

[Lars Von Truffaut]

Thanks for the rec all the same, Dom. I'll definitely check that out.

[The Narrator Returns]

DVDBeaver

[CSM126]

This Blu-ray probably looks exactly like the film Tiny Furniture and provides an excellent 1080P presentation.

Aw shoot, I was hoping it would look like the film Porky's 2.

Seriously, what is that sentence supposed to mean?

[The Narrator Returns]

It's a warning.

[domino harvey]

It's a warning.

Every once in a while a post on this forum needs a "like" button

[Ishmael]

This Blu-ray probably looks exactly like the film Tiny Furniture and provides an excellent 1080P presentation.

Aw shoot, I was hoping it would look like the film Porky's 2.

Seriously, what is that sentence supposed to mean?

I thought that sentence was drop-dead fucking hilarious, too, but I'm pretty sure he's just trying to say that if he'd seen the film in a theater, it would've looked exactly the same as the blu-ray does. Of course, one could ask what basis he has to assume this, but then we'd be robbing him of his ridiculous hyperbole (and a sentence so bad that it should win some kind of prize).

[swo17]

Gary's probably referring to the fact that since the movie was shot digitally (in 1080p?) what's being presented here digitally hasn't had to go through any of the intermediary processes that are usually necessary when something is shot on film. Though admittedly that isn't a very funny answer.

[John Edmond]

In 1080p, so his way of saying there has been no intermediary processes, and no reduction in resolution.

[Jeff]

the movie was shot digitally (in 1080p?)

Yeah, 1080p. It was shot with this. Not joking.

[Kirkinson]

It was shot with this. Not joking.

Is this still a new thing for most people? I'm asking this seriously, since I've been using a Canon T2i for almost two years, and the Canon 7D and 5D have been around even longer than my camera. Although I realize this is still a relatively short amount of time, the number of productions using DSLRs for film and video, especially in advertising, independent film, and lower-budget television, has grown astronomically in that short amount of time. But working and participating with lots and lots of people online and in person who are using these cameras and talking about them constantly can easily give one a skewed view of what is and is not common knowledge.

[Jeff]

Is this still a new thing for most people?

I don't think so. In fact, I think it's been mentioned in this thread before. I felt the need to clarify that I wasn't joking because when I read any post in this thread I insert a mental rimshot at the end. Thought people might assume I was just making a dig at Denham. Even though prosumer cameras are getting more and more common in the sectors you describe, it's a relative novelty for theatrical features, especially those in the Criterion Collection.

[Kirkinson]

Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks.

[CSM126]

This Blu-ray probably looks exactly like the film Tiny Furniture and provides an excellent 1080P presentation.

Aw shoot, I was hoping it would look like the film Porky's 2.

Seriously, what is that sentence supposed to mean?

I thought that sentence was drop-dead fucking hilarious, too, but I'm pretty sure he's just trying to say that if he'd seen the film in a theater, it would've looked exactly the same as the blu-ray does. Of course, one could ask what basis he has to assume this, but then we'd be robbing him of his ridiculous hyperbole (and a sentence so bad that it should win some kind of prize).

I can just imagine the voice of Mr. Plinkett in my head saying "What the fuck does that mean? If you know what it means, send an email to my webzone. I'll send you a pizza roll if you can tell me what it means."

[evillights]

Seriously, re: the uproar about this film: good. For all of the snippy comments, I'd say... "Hey. Just... calm down."

It's a lovely film, Dunham is a talented filmmaker, and — horror of horrors — she's extremely funny, and amusing. It's refreshing to see a micro-budget film enter The Criterion Collection, as it's one entry among the many that constitute what's exciting about American independent cinema for the first time in a long time.

And yes, the Canon 7D is the camera it was shot on. The 550D/T2i is the plastic-body model, which produces the same picture. It's a revolutionary "piece of tech."

[John Edmond]

Agreed. Dunham is just the film equivalent of Arcade Fire, Pomplamoose or Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. We live in an indie world, it's too exhausting to get het up about it.