criterionforum.org

Anyone know the relevance of the title? The only meaning of 'kitbag' that I know is referring to the bag holding one's sports kit when going to play a game.

Swift wrote:Anyone know the relevance of the title? The only meaning of 'kitbag' that I know is referring to the bag holding one's sports kit when going to play a game.

That came from a soldier's canvas kitbag.

My dictionary says it's "a rectangular canvas bag, used especially for carrying a soldier's clothes and personal possessions", which sounds more relevant to the Napoleonic era.

Articles about the film say, “The film’s title is derived from the saying ‘There is a general’s staff hidden in every soldier’s kitbag.’” When you search on that saying, however, the results only lead back to…articles about the film.

The phrase appears in Haim Be'er's The Pure Element of Time, in the English translation at least (published 2003, five years after the Hebrew), attributed to the author's father.

Shame Ian Holm passed away, he could've played Napoleon once more!

When I first heard the title I thought this was going to be a World War I film because of the
song 'pack up your troubles in your old kitbag.'

But according to the updated article, Vanessa Kirby is in! I was afraid for a minute we were gonna get Gaga-ed again.

This is straight-up the worst movie title I've ever heard, regardless of the explanation for it. And the explanation above doesn't actually help make it less bad - it's pointlessly symbolic and faux-literary on top of just being terrible on its own.

I can't believe that it won't be changed at some point before it's actually released. And I hope it is, otherwise we'll just get a bunch of griping from Scott about how the movie failed because the audience stupidly wouldn't take a chance on a movie with a funny word for a title.

Makes me long for a bawdy, Blackadderesque satire called “Ballsack” or “Titsling.” Bob Hoskins as Napoleon, Emma Thompson as Josephine.

It got to be changed before release, right? Except Ridley Scott is probably one of the few filmmakers around to whom absolutely no one will have the guts to say, “Now, uh, what about the title?”

I mean, it sure looks like Comer got the boot for a bigger name and they're using scheduling as the reason so she saves face, so he may already be making accommodations for the funders

Is Kirby a bigger name? I’ve never heard of either so am genuinely clueless on this.

She was Oscar nominated for a Netflix film that was among their most streamed titles when it came out

Mind you, a nomination in last year's Oscars is not necessarily a reason to have heard of someone.

Perhaps, which is why I emphasized that it was a widely seen film as well. Certainly far more people have seen Kirby in Pieces of a Woman than saw the Last Duel

Brian C wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 1:52 am This is straight-up the worst movie title I've ever heard, regardless of the explanation for it

I dunno, "Blade Runner" was a film that could never live up to the coolness of its title. Perhaps with this film RS is taking the opposite approach?

domino harvey wrote:Perhaps, which is why I emphasized that it was a widely seen film as well. Certainly far more people have seen Kirby in Pieces of a Woman than saw the Last Duel

I was dunking on last year’s pitiful Oscars, not directed at you.

At any rate, I’m pretty sure I only know Kirby from whatever M:I movie(s?) she was in.

Now that you mention it though, Pieces of a Woman is also a terrible title. Unless it’s an Ed Gein biopic or something.

I don’t have Netflix if that makes my ignorance any more forgivable. I do like Missions: Impossible though.

Kirby is best-known for playing the younger version of Princess Margaret in the first two seasons of The Crown (which I'm fairly certain has been watched by many more people than Pieces of a Woman and The Last Duel combined), and she's deservedly begun to slowly blow up from that

domino harvey wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:15 am I mean, it sure looks like Comer got the boot for a bigger name and they're using scheduling as the reason so she saves face, so he may already be making accommodations for the funders

This seems unlikely (and maybe in breach of contract?) for a movie that starts shooting in a week, by which point the funding should be very much locked down. Plus the funders in this case are Apple, who I doubt are worried about getting a quick ROI on any of their movies (these are after all the people who are putting up $200 mil for Scorsese's next). Comer has long been set to start rehearsals for Prima Facie in March and she's indispensable to that—it's a one-woman play and tickets have been on sale for months—so it's totally plausible that the shooting schedule for Kitbag got lengthened or rearranged and they couldn't make it work for her.

And I also imagine that the project is entirely dependent on the availability of Joaquin Phoenix and that everyone else in the cast and crew is completely replaceable if they can’t work according to his schedule.

To the surprise of no one, this is now called Napoleon

Smart, Scott must have realized that millennials wouldn't know what a kitbag is and thus wouldn't have seen his movie