criterionforum.org

Great news. It's one of the key films of the 60's and David Bowie ripped his entire act off of it.

Universal actually did a new transfer of this film a few years ago.

The rumor is that originally Criterion wanted the Eclipse Series to be of cult films, and Privilege was on the short list. The idea lost money, and much of the films were released through Criterion's main label (the Karloffs for example) though Privilege was never licensed. Still, Universal did do a restoration of this film at some point, so who knows.

justeleblanc wrote:Still, Universal did do a restoration of this film at some point, so who knows.

The news from Watkins himself suggests that a release is fairly imminent. Six months is a pretty short turn-around time for a small label like Project X (as anyone who's followed the schedule of the one-man operation Flicker Alley knows). So perhaps it's just a matter of working with Universal's own transfer and getting Watkins to put together another one of his self-interviews.

At any rate, more Watkins can only be a good thing.

Just got the flier from New Yorker. Pre-Book: July 2, Street Date: July 29.

DVD FEATURES:
New High Definition video transfer
26-minute short film "Lonely Boy" (1962) featuring Paul Anka in his prime
Optional English and French subtitles
Original PRIVILEGE trailer
Stills and poster gallery
Peter Watkins filmography
Collector's booklet
DVD: Catalog # NYD 113908 UPS Code: 8-81751-20078-5 ISBN #: 1-56730-479-6 Suggested Retail Price: $29.95
16/9 compatible 4/3 letterboxed - original 1.85:1 aspect ratio

Paul Anka had a prime?

Great news. Could this have also been one of peerpee's possible titles for MoC?

justeleblanc wrote:Great news. Could this have also been one of peerpee's possible titles for MoC?

No "W" in the awful teaser, is there?

Barmy wrote:Paul Anka had a prime?

I would have thought it was when he appeared on the Simpsons

I take it that, as per the other Watkins DVDs, this was a Project X joint and New Dorker are just distributing? One would imagine so. I saw Privilege via You Tube a few months ago. Odd fucking film. Aggressive, farcical and disquieting, would be the words I'd use. A real curio!

Yes, this is Project X. Hopefully this will be the big money maker that Munch and Freethinker weren't.

The Anka film is actually quite awesome. I believe this was the source of inspiration for Watkins, in effect the butt of the jokes in Privilege.

Side topic, but does anyone know if other New Yorker films were included int he announcement?

Barmy wrote:Paul Anka had a prime?

At the time, Anka was "the most important artist since Shakespeare," so show some respect!

justeleblanc wrote:Side topic, but does anyone know if other New Yorker films were included int he announcement?

Nope, just PRIVILEGE and a list of the other Watkins titles from Project X.

Good to know it will be made available at last in some form. Amazing film.

Awesome news! I absolutely love this film. July is going to be great month -- with Trafic and Vampyr -- and now Privilege!

Too bad there isn't some kind of involvement by cinematographer Peter Suschitzky. I've always nursed a ridiculous notion that there is some kind of connection between that brilliant red costume Paul Jones wears and those brilliant red medical costumes in Cronenberg's Dead Ringers...

BrianInAtlanta wrote:

justeleblanc wrote:Side topic, but does anyone know if other New Yorker films were included int he announcement?

Nope, just PRIVILEGE and a list of the other Watkins titles from Project X.

Do you mean that the announcement included other Watkins DVDs to be released in the near future by New Yorker or simply that it listed their previous Watkins releases?

Previous Watkins/Project X releases.

Got Privilege yesterday and watched half of it. Lovely transfer but, gee. so far it's quite a disappointment after waiting so long to see it and watching several other Watkins before it.

The tone wavers all over the place from serious to almost Pythonesque farce. The serious just isn't that believable and the farce isn't that funny. The target (British establishment figures manipulate a pop star to control young people) seems rather small potatoes compared to other Watkins movies. The Monkees' Head the next year did all this far better and with far more sting.

Then there's the performances. Jean Shrimpton gives the most affectless performance I've ever seen. If they had built a robot or moved her body with wires it would have shown more expression. Paul Jones plays his role with one constant look, as if he's suffering the worst case of constipation known to man. It takes more suspension of disbelief than I can muster to think this guy's able to sell any records, much less be at least as popular as The Beatles. I don't know if Watkins meant the performances to have this quality but it's not working.

Well, on to the movie's second half. Perhaps it will get better.

I quite enjoyed Privilege when I saw it on TV a few weeks ago. Perhaps it's best approached as a black comedy -- and thus less "serious-minded" than Watkins' other films. That may help you negotiate the slightly off-kilter tone of the movie.

That being said, there is certainly a great deal about the film that is problematic or simply wrong-headed. For instance, I'm not sure if you've reached this point yet, Brian, but in the second half the record label (along with Jones' handlers) make an unholy alliance with the Church of England in order to brainwash Jones' young fans into returning to the Church. I kept thinking of real-life pop musicians who underwent "conversion experiences" (Dylan, Pat Boone, etc.) and just how few of their fans went along with them. What I think Watkins is totally blind to is the importance of the consumer him- or herself and the uses to which consumers put the music they buy. But I think that Watkins is largely on the money when it comes to the process of manufacturing pop stars by corporate-committee. In other words, I think the movie has a lot to say about the production side of pop music (even if it exaggerates the process to a somewhat absurd level) but is rather naive about consumption.

tryavna wrote:What I think Watkins is totally blind to is the importance of the consumer him- or herself and the uses to which consumers put the music they buy. But I think that Watkins is largely on the money when it comes to the process of manufacturing pop stars by corporate-committee. In other words, I think the movie has a lot to say about the production side of pop music (even if it exaggerates the process to a somewhat absurd level) but is rather naive about consumption.

I guess this was part of political thought about opinion that was common at the time: feed opinion into "opinion leaders" here and it comes out in the public there completely unchanged. It doesn't quite work that way.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to read an e-mail someone sent me about Obama being a secret Muslim terrorist...

Project X has really out done themselves on this brilliant release. After having only seen Privilege on shitty full-screen VHS nth generation bootlegs for years now – watching this brand new wide-screen high def transfer off a seemingly fresh print is mind blowing! God I would love to see a theatrical screening of it some day. Maybe I'm weird or something, but I think the performances by Paul Jones and Jean Shrimpton (and everyone else in the cast) are mesmerizing. I guess one man's "worst case of constipation" is another man's existential disgust, pain & horror! Privilege has this surreal quality of being a perfect reflection of the time in which it was made -- and at the same time -- being so far ahead of its time that it's scary. There's something about the film's title card shot (that cribs from Triumph of the Will) that just feels like pure genius. I've enjoyed every film of Peter Watkins released by Project X to date, but this one is by far my personal favorite. Love that red costume more than ever!

Well, I watched the rest last night and, yes, I did rush to judgment a bit. The movie and the performances did improve by the end of the film.

One thing that threw me is that Privilege is more a typical fictional film with some Watkins pseudo-doc touches than the other Watkins films. I still think it has none of the gut punch of The War Game or Punishment Park or the complexity of Culloden or Munch. But for a work of its time, it's still interesting.

Speaking of the times, as I suspected, Pete Townshend has some 'splainin' to do about the conclusion of Tommy as does Ken Russell whose movie version of that work seems to quote Privilege directly at points. Then there's the similarities between the Reverend's address during the rally and the President's speeches in McGoohan's last episode of The Prisoner. For a flop movie, it seems to have been quite influential.

Also, speaking of later British TV references, listen closely to the clashing marching bands during the rally. One of them is playing "The Liberty Bell March"!

Not entirely proud that I saw this, but Pootie Tang is pretty much a remake of Privilege.

BrianInAtlanta wrote:Speaking of the times, as I suspected, Pete Townshend has some 'splainin' to do about the conclusion of Tommy as does Ken Russell whose movie version of that work seems to quote Privilege directly at points. Then there's the similarities between the Reverend's address during the rally and the President's speeches in McGoohan's last episode of The Prisoner. For a flop movie, it seems to have been quite influential.

Well, I've always considered Privilege a "cult" movie, and like many cult movies, its influence far outreaches its original theatrical success. (It's been a staple entry in academic studies of sci-fi films, though its status as sci-fi strikes me as somewhat tenuous.) Anyway, I suspect that the parallels between this film and Russell's are direct. After all, Watkins and Russell knew each other, emerged out of the same television background, and have frequently expressed admiration for each other's work.

I'm glad that you ended up enjoying the film more than you expected. It is definitely the bastard child in Watkins' filmography, and it's certainly not a masterpiece along the lines of Punishment Park or Edvard Munch. But its atypical qualities make it an extremely interesting part of his filmography.