Warner and Kazan

[Lino]

Here's hoping that Matt won't shut this thread down as it's time for The Annie Speculation Hour...

Warner owns these Kazan films:

- A Streetcar named Desire (1951) due this year on a 2xDVD set

- East of Eden (1955) already out on a 2xDVD set

- Baby Doll (1956) due this year

- A Face in the Crowd ( 1957) already out

- Splendor in the Grass (1961) already out but bare bones

- America, America (1963) not out yet but well overdue

- The Arrangement (1969) not out yet


An impressive lineout by anyone's standard and a logical step on the part of Warners if they decide to put them all together in a box and add a bonus disc for extras (his Black List years would make for some interesting documentaries).

I personally think he is one of the very greatest but I would love to hear what you guys have to say about him too. So, be my guest!

Edit: changed the name of the thread from "The Elia Kazan Film Collection?" to "Warner and Kazan".

[Gigi M.]

Here's hoping that Matt won't shut this thread down as it's time for The Annie Speculation Hour...

Warner owns these Kazan films:

- A Streetcar named Desire (1951) due this year on a 2xDVD set

- East of Eden (1955) already out on a 2xDVD set

- Baby Doll (1956) due this year

- A Face in the Crowd ( 1957) already out

- Splendor in the Grass (1961) already out but bare bones

- America, America (1963) not out yet but well overdue

- The Arrangement (1969) not out yet


An impressive lineout by anyone's standard and a logical step on the part of Warners if they decide to put them all together in a box and add a bonus disc for extras (his Black List years would make for some interesting documentaries).

I personally think he is one of the very greatest but I would love to hear what you guys have to say about him too. So, be my guest!

As much as I would like to see a Kazan Collection, now that I own/will own all those tittles with the exception of The Arrangement , I found it absolutely unnecessary. I mean all his great titles are distributed in great sets. A Face in the Crow in that marvelous Controversial Classics set, East of Eden on the Dean set, Street Car and Baby Doll on the up coming Tennessee Williams.

What more do you want? A Kazan set with the same titles?

[Lino]

I understand your point but I'm sure that Warner would disagree with you... It's called cashing-in and for my part, I would only be double-dipping on the 2 Tennessee Williams titles (I haven't got any of the rest and I bet there are plenty of people out there in the same situation).

Besides, Splendor in the Grass is well overdue for a Special Edition (the current one was one of the first DVDs out, has no extras whatsoever and comes in a...ghasp...snapper!). To top it all off and make it a definite buy, I'm pretty sure that they would certainly add that enticing extras disc I mentioned above which makes it a no-brainer for most of us.

But being Warner, I'm also pretty sure that you would be able to buy them all individually which would make it simpler for you to complete your Kazan collection.

...

I have a question: is Sea of Grass also a Warner title now? And can anyone tell me a little bit about it (haven't seen it)?

[Gigi M.]

I understand your point but I'm sure that Warner would disagree with you... It's called cashing-in and for my part, I would only be double-dipping on the Tennessee Williams titles (I haven't got any of the rest and I bet there are plenty of people out there in the same situation.

So Annie, you're telling me that you would double dip the Tennessee Williams titles just to have a Kazan Set?

Why?

[Lino]

I would do that for 3 reasons: first, boxsets come out cheaper than buying individual titles; second, I'm a sucker for them; and third, because I'm sure they'd include an extra bonus disc that would be exclusive to the boxset and I wouldn't want to miss out on that, would I?

...

Sea of Grass, anyone?

[Gigi M.]

[quote="Annie Mall"]I would do that for 3 reasons: first, boxsets come out cheaper than buying individual titles; second, I'm a sucker for them; and third, because I'm sure they'd include an extra bonus disc that would be exclusive to the boxset and I wouldn't want to miss out on that, would I?
quote]

Good point. You should pick up that Controversial Classics set dough.

[GringoTex]

I would do that for 3 reasons: first, boxsets come out cheaper than buying individual titles; second, I'm a sucker for them; and third, because I'm sure they'd include an extra bonus disc that would be exclusive to the boxset and I wouldn't want to miss out on that, would I?

...

Sea of Grass, anyone?

As far as I know, Warners has no history of double-dipping the same titles for different boxsets or including extra bonus discs in their box sets.

[htdm]

I think the Errol Flynn, Thin Man, and Garbo sets all had supplementary discs that were only available when you bought the box set. Some of the sets double dipped individual titles too -- Grand Hotel, Thin Man, and the upcoming 42nd Street are examples that come to mind.

[Lino]

The upcoming Tennessee Williams box has an exclusive disc also.

...

So, anyone care to indulge in some Kazan conversation? I remember being very young when I first saw some of his movies (Waterfront, Streetcar, America, Eden) and being struck by the raw performances on display. It was like I was being struck a punch in my stomach repeatedly and some specific moments never left my mind.

It's been awhile since I've seen some of them but I'm sure that the energy is all still there, as if tightly contained in those amazing frames (which reminds me, I got to rent Splendor in the Grass - it's been much too long since I've seen it).

At the time, I wasn't aware that Kazan was blacklisted and the whole story behind it but I'm glad that that didn't stop him from continuously producing great pieces of work.

[pzman84]

I hate Kazan. I think what he did during the blacklist era is appauling. He sold out his friends. He was already a big name in Hollywood and, if blacklisted, could have easily worked on Broadway. Many people's lives were destroyed by the blacklist, including people who had worked with Kazan like Zero Mostal and John Garfield. This I cannot forgive.

As for his films, they have great acting but are way to melodramatic. A Streetcar Named Desire is just a bunch of people screaming at each other. It and Splendor in the Grass are just unrelatable. I mean, I'm sure there are places in America where women are repressed sexually by hypocritical males. However, that does not lead to them going insane in the vast majority of cases. On the Waterfront I have a hard time watching. Brando is great in it but the movie is almost facist in its glorification of what Kazan did.

I did enjoy East of Eden because I am a big James Dean fan. However, as for directors, I would say Nicholas Ray is a much better director. He had far better camera movements and angles and, while he did dabble in melodrama, he was no where near as melodramatic as Kazan. Kazan admitted Ray was better.

In respose to this board about Kazan, I am starting my own board about a Nick Ray boxset here:
http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/vie ... php?t=3758

[Gregory]

I'm not sure Kazan's name could move a box set in big enough numbers for Warner. To the extent that most of the public remembers him it's because he was a noted stool pigeon. For the record, however, I'm not writing him off.

A Streetcar Named Desire is just a bunch of people screaming at each other.

There's obviously much more to it dramatically than that.

I mean, I'm sure there are places in America where women are repressed sexually by hypocritical males. However, that does not lead to them going insane in the vast majority of cases.

That was not the point.

On the Waterfront I have a hard time watching. Brando is great in it but the movie is almost fascist in its glorification of what Kazan did.

Here I agree with you. Brando and the supporting cast are working well together but, to me, the portrayal of labor and the blanket condemnation of it in this film is a joke.

[Lino]

I hate Kazan. I think what he did during the blacklist era is appauling. He sold out his friends. He was already a big name in Hollywood and, if blacklisted, could have easily worked on Broadway. Many people's lives were destroyed by the blacklist, including people who had worked with Kazan like Zero Mostal and John Garfield. This I cannot forgive.

This is a wrong and unjust way to appreciate anyone's work. It's almost like saying you don't like Woody Allen's work because he's screwing his stepdaughter.

At the end of the day, it's the results that count and when I started this thread it was also partly because I wanted to celebrate this man's amazing body of work through the years. I wouldn't want to be pointed out and accused of something that I did decades ago. Bygones should stay bygones and I'm sure many of us have done things in the past that we're not proud of.

And if you say that Streetcar is just a bunch of people screaming at each other, well besides that not being the point at all, you're also missing on the big picture. And maybe you're also showing that you're unconsciously rejecting something that is probably very close to your home than you know it.

I'm not here to say that your opinions aren't valid (and I'm glad that you opened the thread on the Ray Warner titles as just yesterday I was thinking about them) but you shouldn't write him off so harshly.

[tryavna]

Bygones should stay bygones and I'm sure many of us have done things in the past that we're not proud of.

But how many of us have ruined the careers and lives of other people?

This is not to say that I agree with Pzman's blanket condemnation of Kazan. I like quite a few of Kazan's movies; others leave me cold (like Splendour in the Grass). But I understand where Pzman is coming from on this particular issue. Kazan is one of those extreme cases where it's impossible not to be reminded of his actions -- largely because, as Gregory seems to agree, Kazan made at least one movie (On the Waterfront) that attempted not just to explain why he ratted on his friends, but actually tried to turn himself into a sort of saint viz. Brando's character. We may not remember de Mille or Robert Montgomery for their own red-baiting practices, but that's partly because they didn't try to mythologize it in their movies. Kazan did, unfortunately. And I think it's an inescapable -- and ugly -- part of his career.

[Gigi M.]

I hate Kazan. I think what he did during the blacklist era is appauling. He sold out his friends. He was already a big name in Hollywood and, if blacklisted, could have easily worked on Broadway. Many people's lives were destroyed by the blacklist, including people who had worked with Kazan like Zero Mostal and John Garfield. This I cannot forgive.

This is a wrong and unjust way to appreciate anyone's work. It's almost like saying you don't like Woody Allen's work because he's screwing his stepdaughter.

I have to agree with Annie here. You just can't ignore a complete body of work because as General Turgidson once said "Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sirâ€

[Lino]

[quote="gigimonagas"]I have to agree with Annie here. You just can't ignore a complete body of work because as General Turgidson once said "Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sirâ€

[Lino]

It's times like this when I wish I lived in America - the American Cinematheque are running from the 27th until the 29th of this January, 3 Kazan films: Baby Doll, America America and East of Eden.

http://www.americancinematheque.com/arc ... akazan.htm

[pzman84]

What I was trying to bring up was the fact he not only ruined people's lives by the blacklist but was unapologetic about it and even went so far as to make a movie glorifying it. Kazan's betrayal of his friends is a legitimate question when talking about his work. There is no doubt D.W. Griffith created cinema but should we not avoid talking about his racism when discussing what he created? Also, Leni Riefenstahl was one of the most talented film makers ever yet her support for Hitler cannot be ignored, even if it was not politically motivated. You cannot look at someone's film without detaching the themes and politics of it.

There were many who supported the blacklist who have been forgiven for their sins. What makes Kazan different was he was an Academy Award winning film maker who had a huge standing on Broadway so he was not coerced into naming names. Also, the level at which he defended what he did is just appalling, not just making a movie about it but taking an add out in the paper calling for people to name names. He never apologized for what he had done.

I do feel the "McCarthy" Era in American politics was when America became very close to becoming a fascist county. Communism, as it was practiced in the USSR and China, was one of the greatest evils this world has ever seen. However, the targets of this era were rarely Communist spies or people who helped the Eastern Bloc, but were people who at one time in their life held a belief the conservative establishment did not approve of. I feel we might go down a similar path in this country if we are not careful.

Also, I feel on a more practical level, his films are just too melodramatic or, as Kazan would say himself when comparing his work to that of Nick Ray's, "too Bourgeoisie."

[Gigi M.]

There is no doubt D.W. Griffith created cinema but should we not avoid talking about his racism when discussing what he created? Also, Leni Riefenstahl was one of the most talented film makers ever yet her support for Hitler cannot be ignored, even if it was not politically motivated. You cannot look at someone's film without detaching the themes and politics of it.

I'm glad that you brought this up. If you stop for a second and analyze your words, is clearly that your feelings about Kazan are very personal. As a man, I don't respect Kazan. He can be in hell for all I care. However, I enjoy his pictures very much, and that's the point of this discussion. Kazan work as a filmmaker.

At the end of the day, like Annie said, it's the results that count.

[Gregory]

The view that says "Just enjoy the end product and don't worry about what the social/political views of the people who created it" certainly makes things simpler for the viewer -- far too simple. Films with some social or political subtext or content (that is, most films) always have an ideological dimension. How can one read these films while ignoring the views of the people who directed them and wrote the screenplays? People in those crucial creative roles invest the films with much of their most important meanings. To ignore their views and attitudes -- which are manifested not only in their films but in their actions, alliances, and so forth -- is therefore to end up with a relatively meaningless appreciation of the film.
The purpose of this is not merely to evaluate the merits of films and directors (and in this case someone appears to be completely writing them off perhaps too hastily) but more importantly to understand them. I'm glad I have seen and understood On the Waterfront because it sheds light not just on the career of Kazan but on the whole history of the Post WWII era when the business establishment and its allies in the media to discredit organized labor and New Deal liberalism through propaganda campaigns that misrepresented union politics, touted the "right to work," and so on. But does understanding this particular film happen to impact my feelings toward it? Yes, and that's a good thing.

[Andre Jurieu]

However, I enjoy his pictures very much, and that's the point of this discussion. Kazan work as a filmmaker.

... and in the case of the results of On the Waterfront, Kazan work as a filmmaker is affected by his politics. I think it's wrong to dismiss Kazan work entirely based on his politics and past actions, but since it's such a intricate part of this film I think his politics as displayed through On the Waterfront are a worthy subject for discussion.

[Lino]

This being my Kazan/Welles themed month, I went and revisited East of Eden and just today, Splendor in the Grass, two films about the classic problems between parents and children and how difficult it sometimes is to get these two parts to communicate with each other. Reaching out is what these two are all about. And its inherent failures.

One thing that sets these two films apart from all the other Hollywood fare that was being regurgitated at the time, is their staying power. Besides being always pertinent (we're still light years away from complete understanding between a parent and a child, though there've always been exceptions to the rule) it's mainly how certain scenes and situations linger within you, going deeper and deeper after you've watched them. Maybe it's down to the acting, maybe it's down to the directing, maybe it's down to the universal themes in the story, maybe it's a bit of all this plus your own personal experiences that combine to make them films worth of revisiting time and again.

The Beaver recently reviewed one Kazan not yet available in R1 but one that I sure would like to lay my hands on: Wild River.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview ... review.htm

[Lino]

From the Warner chat:

Looking at more Kazan films such as America, America and The Arangement.

This is great news as I've rewatched America America and can now claim it one of the best american films to come out of the 20th century. The impact was this strong. See it at any cost!

[swimminghorses]

who owns "Wild River" w/ Montgomery Clift??? I love this movie.

[Ashirg]

Fox. It's already out on DVD in U.K. and France.

[souvenir]

The idea of an actual Elia Kazan boxed set sounds improbable though, considering the number of his films Warner Bros. have released already and taking into consideration this comment from last night's chat about a posssible Minnelli set:

...we don't want to duplicate titles that are already released in other boxed sets, which we did sometimes previously, but have gotten enough feedback to know it is not looked upon favorably.