Well, then explain your lack of following my logic.Lemmy Caution wrote:I really don't follow that logic.Thomas J. wrote:It should mean option 2 because otherwise the category would have little to do with Criterion and mostly to do with the movie outside of Criterion's participation...and they are called the Criterion Awards after all.
A film you were previously unaware of, which CC releases, and it totally wows your socks off seems to be a nice surprise that has everything to do with Criterion's efforts.
But welcome aboard anyway TJ.
Besides, if the award were for a film you'd never heard of before but then you saw it via the Criterion DVD and were like, "hey, that was great!" -- How is that a surprise reaction? Do you go into each viewing of a heretofore unheard of film thinking, "This is going to be pretty bad because I've never heard of it." Post-viewing, you're reaction is, "Hey, now that was surprisingly good!"
If that's what you interpret the word "surprise" to mean in this context, then ok, that makes sense, but judging a film as being bad based on lack of seeing it, and then being pleasantly surprised about the film's quality after you finally do see it...well, that's not my style of filmgoing, but to each his own, I guess. I just don't automatically think of a film I've never heard of as being automatically "bad." I try not to pre-judge a film and to have an open mind about it.
Besides, as I already explained, if surprise were meant to take that connotation for this particular award, as in "surprised about the quality of the film rather than Criterion's presentation of such," then what does that have to do with Criterion, and why then is it a category in a Criterion Awards?
I guess there's an 800 pound gorilla in the room here...in point of fact, we should be ridiculing the ambiguity of the word and the lack of clarification until now.
Thanks for the welcome to the forum, btw.
