800 The Graduate

[flyonthewall2983]

[Dylan]

And out goes my R2.

Great news!

[malcolm1980]

You can say that again.

[flyonthewall2983]

I just discovered that the Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? SE also has commentary with Nichols and Soderbergh. I really haven't seen either one of these films, but I'll definitely Netflix them and give em a shot.

[Jeff]

I just discovered that the Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? SE also has commentary with Nichols and Soderbergh.

So does Catch-22.

[Lino]

Artwork

[patrick]

The art seems a little odd and overly minimalist, but at least it's not yet another shot of Dustin Hoffman through Anne Bancroft's legs.

[Person]

I just discovered that the Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? SE also has commentary with Nichols and Soderbergh.

So does Catch-22.

Note to all: Even if you hate the film, you should listen to that commentary - it's one of the very best I have ever heard. It was an audacious, epic production and Nichols and Soderbergh talk about all the madness with great humour. I personally love the film, as it has many of my movie fetishes: no music score, natural sunlight cinematography, use of diopter lenses, no extras in the backgrounds, Alan Arkin, Tony Perkins, masterful physical and in-camera special effects, editing by Sam O'Steen and so on. It doesn't do justice to the mammath novel, but on its own terms, I think that its a great movie, with perfecting, once-in-a-lifetime casting.

I was actually expecting really lame, overly-clever artwork for the new SE of The Graduate, so I am pleased by the minimalism.

[solent]

The commentary on WOOLF is also far from boring; having two discussing the film with one asking questions and feeding off the other makes a good listen.

I picked up a bare-bones CARNAL KNOWLEDGE cheaply of the rack the other day I had no idea it was also a Mike Nichols film [from this same era] until I checked the credits on the back cover. He certainly made some interesting films back then. I somehow overlooked this gem over the years, despite being a Jack Nicholson fan. This film turned out to be very amusing with an excellent performance from Jack (maybe even his best?) It also boasts the first use of a certain ''c'' word in a feature film, something only possible in that great decade under the influence.

[LeeB.Sims]

I like to think that Woolf, Carnal, and Closer form an informal trilogy of sorts. They all confront very frankly the sexual tensions and complications that will eternally exist between men and women, and they were all somewhat shocking for their respective time periods.

[devlinnn]

The art seems a little odd and overly minimalist, but at least it's not yet another shot of Dustin Hoffman through Anne Bancroft's legs.

The cover's a friggin' horror. Take a closer look - those ain't Bancroft's legs. She also wore stockings, not suspenders. Brown. Not Black. Bancroft's legs oozed sensuality. These legs can only raise ire.

[Person]

Actually, the original poster did not feature Bancroft's legs - they belonged to the actress who played Sue-Ellen in Dallas or whoever/whatever she was in.

[souvenir]

I've always liked this poster:

[Barmy]

That cover art is airbrushy, sterile and lame.

[Person]

DVD Beaver review of the 40th Anniversary edition. Massive cropping is now evident on the old R1 and the R2, also. The color timing is far more accurate, especially in the dimly-lit hotel room scenes. I love the 5.1 mix, also.

I recieved my copy last week and I found the commentaries to be fascinating and amusing. The new making-of is a bit light, though.

This was a restoration by Sony Pictures a couple of years ago. Sony has the TV rights, MGM has home video rights, and it is owned by Canal Plus. But, all agreed Sony would restore it. Mike Nichols attended an early screening of the film to get the color and densities correct and it is indeed a 'dark' film as some of the comments have noted. In a first meeting with Nichols, he asked if Sony knew how dark it should look, that it was a very dark film, and he meant literally as well as figuratively. It is an exceptionally well-photographed film that needed no embellishing from Sony. It is my understanding that Nichols was very gracious about the quality of the final work when Sony had the premiere at the Academy a year or so ago. Once completed, Sony then oversaw the new HD transfer of the film following the same guidelines from the director on the look once again. Sony also compared framing on the earlier transfers of the film to make sure they were getting the most out of the image, not cutting off as much as on the previous transfers.

[life_boy]

Is there some way to find or download a copy of the Suber commentary? I've looked all over to no avail. I don't own a laserdisc player.

[manicsounds]

The artwork of the DVD i got seems slightly different from the online art. Did they change it at the last minute?

[exte]

Is there some way to find or download a copy of the Suber commentary? I've looked all over to no avail. I don't own a laserdisc player.

That would be the key, though if you paypal me...

[Matt]

Blu-ray coming June 2.

[pzadvance]

Coo coo ca-choo.

Preview of today's announcements?

[Randall Maysin]

Hey, that's...that's...The Graduate! Hey everyone, maybe Criterion will be releasing The Graduate some time in the near future!

[ptatler]

Hey, that's...that's...The Graduate

No. That's a still from THE ILL, SORE POSSUM.

[Ribs]

What if it is from a bonus feature on Midnight Cowboy? No?

[swo17]

Stop

[Randall Maysin]

At least, I'm fairly certain that's The Graduate. I should have tempered my original statement, as I was just "spitballing" and to have so conclusively concluded that that's The Graduate was "borderline offensive".