criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:Myra Breckinridge

I don't have a copy to hand, but isn't the word spoken by a woman there, namely Raquel Welch? (Okay, she is playing a transgendered white male.)

The only other Oedipal noun I can think of pre-Blacktop is in End of the Road (1970), but it's not uttered by a white man in that film either - James Earl Jones says it.

I just realised I hadn't posted about what a wonderful set this is. I like the film well enough (though less than other Hellmans), and it has impressively matured with repeated viewings, but it wasn't a great priority for me to buy. The previous release had one of the most woefully inadequate director commentaries I'd ever heard, and I was expecting the supporting material here to fall into a similar trap.

Part of the problem is probably Hellman's understandable reticence about explaining the inner workings of the film, but in his earlier commentary he wasn't even especially revealing about its outer workings. So I was delighted to find out that this was a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Teaming him with Anders worked a treat, and he gave plenty of insight about the filmmaking process and its challenges without 'giving away' any of the film's secrets. The Wurlitzer commentary was nearly as good, and the other extras, with their heavy Hellman involvement, give this set the same intimate, personalised quality of the glorious Varda box. A really lovely, definitive package that effectively quashes niggles about 'double dipping' on this particular film.

great movie. i haven't picked up the Criterion version yet. Does it come with the same 48 page full color booklet as the Anchor Bay version?

burningwheel wrote:i haven't picked up the Criterion version yet. Does it come with the same 48 page full color booklet as the Anchor Bay version?

Read the specs on the first page of this thread. But it's not the same booklet.

I have been working my way through this packed set over the last few nights and have been quite impressed, both with the film itself and with Criterion's lush treatment of the film. As far as out-and-out canonization projects go, this is one of Criterion's best attempts (although I am personally not yet convinced that Two-Lane Blacktop deserves a place in the upper echelon of 1967 to 1982 Hollywood films). Needless to say, this is a truly great release.

I was disappointed, however, with the "Slow Ride" essay about the film written by the usually impeccable Kent Jones. Did anyone else get the sense that way too much ink is spilt by Jones in service of tarnishing the reputations of The Graduate and Easy Rider, films that have already undergone a significant critical re-evaluation (de-evaluation?) over the last few decades? More importantly, reading a critic talk (again) about those films really doesn't do much to clarify the relative importance or artistic merit of Two-Lane Blacktop. I understand that it is important to distinguish Two-Lane Blacktop from its counter-cultural Hollywood forbears. But can't that be done in a few sentences? Easy Rider doesn't deserve another critical drubbing in service of that point.

What bothered me the most is the essay's inconsistent logic on the above comparison. In discussing The Graduate and Easy Rider, Jones accuses Nichols and Hopper of merely aping the best of 1960s European cinema and appropriating its techniques to create otherwise pedestrian American fare, memorable to us now only for its place in cultural history. Jones writes:

Kent Jones wrote:The Graduate marked the beginning of countercultural consciousness in American movies. In the fading memory of that moment, now layered with so many ironic reversals, retrenchments, and disappointments, it is less the film that is recalled than the potent effect it produced, an effect largely unavailable to artists more nuanced and less fixed on the public eye than Mike Nichols. Shorn of its contemporary context, Nichols's film is a nicely executed comedy of romantic embarrassment tarted up with Felliniesque close-ups, Antonioniesque spatial configurations, and Bergmanesque silences. If nothing else, The Graduate is a profoundly "esque" experience.

Similarly, the essay continues to note that:

Kent Jones wrote: Hopper's chosen cinematic forebears were, if anything, even headier than Nichols's (Bruce Conner, Kenneth Anger, Jean-Luc Godard), but, ultimately, both films rested their thematic affectations, stylistic embellishments, and musical accoutrements on the shoulders of less noticeable items: that bravura comic timing in the former and the beautifully crafted characterization in the latter.

Even putting aside for a moment the absurd conclusions that are drawn out of the last half of the second quotation (Hellman's film is a superior work because it doesn't stoop to the level of its audience by either being truly funny or by having well-written characters in the way that the other two films deign to do), the essay becomes genuinely problematic when Jones finally gets around to praising Two-Lane Blacktop, instead of, you know, wasting time discussing the film within its cultural context and comparing it with its cinematic influences and forebears, like all those morons who enjoy The Graduate have done for the last forty years.

In discussing Hellman, Jones writes:

Kent Jones wrote:His European influences dovetailed with those of Nichols, but they appear to have been more fully absorbed -- in many ways, the westerns were exemplary hybrids of old Hollywood and new Europe, beautifully recombined offspring of Beckett (a Hellman hero), Rio Bravo, and L'avventura, with powerful genetic instructions from Rivette's Paris Belongs to Us . . .

What the fuck ever. Nichols and Hopper get trashed for wearing the European art house on their sleeves, but Hellman gets praised for doing the same thing in "a more fully absorbed" manner? How, exactly, is Two-Lane Blacktop a more fully absorbed version of the European cinema and the avant garde than the earlier films? Jones conveniently never explains this. As the essay continues on to note, Hellman himself admits that the famed last shot is lifted wholesale from Persona, appropriated for the same cinematic purpose that Bergman used it for. Jones also fawns over Hellman's "Bressonian" use of non-actors Taylor, Bird, and Wilson, again setting up Hellman as an auteurist hero. This is such nonsense. How does Hellman's Persona rip-off show that he has more fully absorbed Bergman than Nichols's use of silences and faces? Why does Hellman's debt to Bresson demonstrate a profound autuerism where Hopper's debt to Godard demonstrates a profound creative weakness?

Armond White does this kind of thing all the time: object to films that you don't enjoy because they reference the techniques and spirit of earlier classics (evidence that the film cannot rest on its own merits), while praising films that you do enjoy because they reference the techniques and spirit of earlier films (evidence that the film is meritorious). Its a bullshit critical move, and I am disappointed that Jones makes it in his attempt to elevate Two-Lane Blacktop into the canon.

TLB is a horribly pretentious piece of crap and one of Criterion’s only misfires.

I cannot believe this thread starts with the statement that this is “possibly the greatest road movie ever made”. Who writes that stuff? Because, really, IMHO should have been added to the end of that sentence.

The only Criterion I have ever returned to the store. Two hours I will never get back.

You returned a movie to a store because you didn't like it?

You returned a really great movie to a store because you didn't like it?

That would be hilarious though if Criterion actually started putting IMHO after every bold claim made in their film synopses...

L'avventura: Criterion is proud to present this milestone of film grammar IMHO in a double-disc special edition.

Rules of the Game: Widely regarded as one of the greatest films ever made IMHO, Jean Renoir’s masterpiece The Rules of the Game (La Règle du jeu) is a scathing critique of corrupt French society cloaked in a comedy of manners.

Beauty and the Beast: Once upon a time, in a world of magic and wonder, the true love of a beautiful girl may finally dispel the torment of a feral but gentle-hearted beast IMHO.

And so on...

I stuck a retailer with an open DVD that they can't resell and have to take a loss on, IMHO

Why am I not surprised that posters in this forum have, once again, missed the point?

Ahem...IMHO

Vampyr wrote:Why am I not surprised that posters in this forum have, once again, missed the point?

Oh, was there a point beyond you bought something without watching it first, disliked it, and retaliated by somehow returning the DVD and sticking it to the retailer, whose only misstep was selling you what you wanted to buy?

If you retuning the movie to the store wasn't the point, you shouldn't have mentioned it. And the expression "two hours I'll never get back" is a pretty stupid one, because you wouldn't get that time back, no matter how good or bad the movie is.

But I think you're not getting the response you're looking for because you just made a blanket, unsustantiated statement of dislike, not much more than "This movie sucked". Maybe you should outline the reasons why you think so.

Also, to get back to earlier discussion, you shouldn't have returned the movie. Films are a gamble. See enough of them, and I believe you'll be rewarded most of the time. Some will suck. That's life. There are no guarantees, and you gotta pay to play. If we're not willing to, then at the very least, stop blind-buying things.

The retailer (a DVD specialty store), because I am such a great customer, has an open policy that I can return something if I don't like it. So everyone can calm down, no one is getting ripped off. Well, except the people who keep the movie.

I've only excersised that option once, with this "masterpiece" that no one has found anything of interest to talk about on this forum for two years.

Glad to help spark some interest again. No, really.

Vampyr wrote:Why am I not surprised that posters in this forum have, once again, missed the point?

Ahem...IMHO

And what is the point, exactly? That you didn't like the movie? Hippity fucking ray, why not expound on that and give a substantive argument rather than just saying, for all intents and purposes, "it was stupid and I gave it back". Even Border Radio got some discussion with real content, I think a movie like TLB - you know, one that people actually like - warrants the same.

Such a great customer!

Sometimes I rent movies before buying them. I use this online specialty service that lets me rent DVDs and, because I am such a great customer, I can return them whenever I want!

Yep, that service is there, for people like you.

Yeah, I like where this is going

Vampyr's climbing his way to the top of R. Cranium nominees with speed and grace.

This conversation is on the road to nowhere! Perhaps the greatest conversation about road movies ever made! IMHO!

And Two-Lane Blacktop in particular

Vampyr wrote:I've only excersised that option once, with this "masterpiece" that no one has found anything of interest to talk about on this forum for two years.

I'm pretty sure there are some awesome movies here that has not been talked about for at least 5 years.
Still.
Another point I probably miss. #-o

domino harvey wrote:Yeah, I like where this is going

It's becoming legen - wait for it - dary.

Anyway.
I buy a lot of stuff. Sometimes, I don't even know exactly what it is, except that it's expensive.
I've put 80€ in the Carlotta Douglas Sirk Vol 1 boxset, only on recommendations.
Well, it was marvelous, and I don't regret this spending at all, and even consider it one of the best discoveries from this past few years.

But sometimes, I buy movies I'm interested in only to find out that it's not memorable at all.
Guess what ?

I don't care.
I deal with it.
I don't go to the store and say "Hey man ! You know this movie I bought ? I think it sucks, and I want to have a refund."
I deal with it. I sell them in second-hand shops, mostly. And sometimes, I even give them another shot ! Can you imagine that ? !

But I just find sad that you come here, trash the movie in a single elusive sentence, ands then, basically, use as an argument that the movie hasn't even been discussed for the past 2 years.

It's not becoming legendary, in fact, but closer to non-sense.

The best part is I blind bought the TLB CC, when I went for an internship in the US.
It's now one of my favorite buying.

Even if it's sometimes a bit boring, I find the movie just cool.
And the characters, with all their baggages, their frustated sadness inside, their willing of freedom which ends up only into headhaches and bad fast food restaurant lost somewhere.
And of course, the cinematography, the sound mixing, all these little things added together.


The movie resonated in me when I watched it, and I still like to watch it once in a while. Even more : I sometimes feel like I have to watch it (most of the time, along with Dazed & Confused, even if there is no link between them).

I'm no great talker in English about movies, but like it is said in TLB : "Those satisfactions are permanent."

It's sad that you feel this way.
But even sadder that you don't even take the time to explain yourself instead of coming here, bashing like this, more like a provocation than anything else.

You say "That service is there, for people like you", but obviously, there's some service there for people like you too.

How great would a road movie be starring domino and Vampyr, in which domino learns to become a better customer, and Vampyr learns to accept "people like him" for what they are? Hell, I'd pay to see it unless I didn't like it.