MichaelB wrote:Whatever my own personal feelings about this film, do I think that it's strong enough to justify a minimum five-figure investment (and probably more)? And, by logical extension, is it good enough to justify squeezing out other possible titles that might be equally worthy, but which won't be affordable if I pick this one up?
It would probably depend on how each company is run but would you also have to consider the choice of each film for the way it affects the distributor or video label that releases it? Perhaps in an arthouse market each release is probably more important in securing the future of the company than it would be in a major studio, which could probably afford to take some losses. If a company like Artificial Eye released a poor film it might impact more on their reputation because people have such high expectations of the quality of films they release or it might cause some people to not buy their other releases if they've had a bad experience with a poorer film.
I suppose this is why a film like Satantango has taken so long to get a release because, as you say, whatever your opinions on the quality of the particular film you have to weigh it up against the cost of releasing a seven hour subtitled Hungarian film in black and white and still get some return. Perhaps in some cases a company can take the hit if they feel if it important to get the film out there, or that the quality of the film is worth it not being financially successful? I suppose it is also much easier to release a more specialist film in the larger American market than in Britain?
It would be interesting to see whether Criterion bringing this film to people's attention might cause it to get a region 2 release in the next year or so(!)
colinr0380 wrote:It would probably depend on how each company is run but would you also have to consider the choice of each film for the way it affects the distributor or video label that releases it? Perhaps in an arthouse market each release is probably more important in securing the future of the company than it would be in a major studio, which could probably afford to take some losses.
It can be absolutely critical. I know of one company that was a fortnight away from a visit from the bailiffs after a series of high-profile flops (one of which opened at a cinema I was managing at the time, so I felt their pain) - and was literally saved by a surprise hit that just happened to be the best-reviewed film of an otherwise dire week. But had it opened at a busier time against something heavyweight, they might well have gone under.
If a company like Artificial Eye released a poor film it might impact more on their reputation because people have such high expectations of the quality of films they release or it might cause some people to not buy their other releases if they've had a bad experience with a poorer film.
I don't think this would be as big an issue as you're making out, because few people outside places like these forums really care about a distributor's image or brand identity (much to the chagrin of said distributors). And I certainly don't think too many people will boycott film Y because film X was a disappointment, if the only connection was its distributor.
I suppose this is why a film like Satantango has taken so long to get a release because, as you say, whatever your opinions on the quality of the particular film you have to weigh it up against the cost of releasing a seven hour subtitled Hungarian film in black and white and still get some return. Perhaps in some cases a company can take the hit if they feel if it important to get the film out there, or that the quality of the film is worth it not being financially successful?
Well, Satantango has a built-in problem in that unless the distributor actually owns a cinema, they're going to have to persuade someone else to put on just one show a day, and start it in the late afternoon. This is, to put it mildly, something of a challenge - which explains why the number of screenings in Britain can literally be counted on the fingers of one hand (I'm aware of two - have there been any more?).
I suppose it is also much easier to release a more specialist film in the larger American market than in Britain?
Yes, but the downside is that the US rights will probably cost a fair bit more, for precisely that reason.
I watched this and have to say I'm disappointed. The sequence where he's jumping between the two women was pretty bad, and not at all funny. But I was able to keep watching it, and in the end was mildly amused, but not too impressed. I have to say that I was also bothered by a few things, like, oh, someone who thinks he has AIDS willingly nailing the woman of his dreams (even though they both wanted to kill themselves, something still seemed off) Almodovar meets a (bad) Mexican sitcom meets a (bad) Mexican soap opera.
Still, it was way better than Dreamcatcher. Now that's a mess of a film. "I Duddits!!!!"
I can't believe I'm about to defend this film again, but I just can't believe the criticisms. Come on, you nearly lose faith in Criterion over this?
True, there's no deep meaning to this film beyond what it's saying about sex, and what's its aspiring to do with the craft of comedy, but it doesn't insult your intelligence, nor does it scrutinize the depths of bathroom humor in a desperate attempt to appease the lowest common denominator, which is where I'd file crap like "Jackass" and "South Park" and "The Hot Chick" under. Unfair comparisons.
I really hope this isn't generational
As much as it's looking like it, I doubt it. I'm sure, no, positive, that my fifty-six year-old father would enjoy "Solo con tu pareja." I'm sure other full grown adults I know would enjoy it as well.
For those who pass up this film based on the naysayers, you're cheating yourself out of a sexy, intelligently crafted entertainment.
Dylan, the main reason why I brought up Jackass and South Park is because those movies know what they are - "bathroom humor crap" and they are proud of achieving that completely. The difference is that Solo doesn't know what it is - an intelligently made sex comedy? I'm not buying it. What's so intelligent about it? The quotations, like that poem of e.e. cumming, being thrown at your face? The characters are incredibly undeveloped, even my toilet papers are more interesting than them. A guy's head stuck in the microwave - what kind of humor is that? A Jackass guy would do something like that.
To me, AIDS is not something to be taken lightly. It's not a joke. I came of age during the 80s when AIDS was seen as "gay cancer", when no one knew much about it - whether you could get it from a doorknob or not. As a teen struggling with sexuality during the Reagan era, I decided not to risk anything so I put off "my first kiss" till I was about 20 years old - mainly out of fear. I came out to my family when I was 17 because my family always questioned me about not dating girls. My aunts and uncles cut me off, in fear of me transmitting the virus to their children. My mom told me many times that I'd be lucky if I made it to 30. Anyway, my point is that AIDS is not something to be taken lightly. I can't celebrate the guy fucking a girl and wanting to kill himself after discovering that he has the virus. If that's what it takes for him to fuck that girl.. (cuz he's been wanting to do that for a while). I'm not saying that a comedy can't deal with AIDS. It's fine as long as it's done responsibly.
I can now see how the film offended you. I don't take AIDS lightly either, although I've never been through a personal experience involving it. But many good comedies ride high on taboos, controversial subjects, and tragedy. Personally,, I've never been offended by a comedy (other than offended by just how excremental many of the modern ones are), so it's never happened to me, but I can clearly see that these issues stem deep with you. I must say though that your personal hatred reminds me of people's reactions to comedian Sarah Silverman (read her IMDB message board, she's horribly pissed a lot of people off, and they too go into their background, etc like you just did...but I really like Sarah Silverman, she's great).
As with many an old American comedy, I haven't seen your recommendations, but I am aware of both. I'll keep an eye out.
What's so intelligent about it? The quotations, like that poem of e.e. cumming, being thrown at your face?
The quotations were actually my least-favorite part about the film, not that I minded them. Aside from the diversion of this being gorgeously lit and photographed (which I wasn't expecting), to me it seemed like the work of people who understand the actual craft of comedy, which is so difficult for any writer to achieve. For me, the protagonist is a ridiculous (and enjoyable, and utterly believable) go-getter, and this is a unique and interesting situation for a person like that to fall into that's literally a springboard for rich comedic possibilities, and I felt the film overwhelmingly fulfilled them, but the fact that it did this, and made me feel warm with what registered to me as a sweetness and sense of romantic longing and sexual fulfillment = homerun. Then again, I was also on the floor laughing during the scene everybody seems to hate.
I must say that unless I missed a thread somewhere this is thee Criterion title to cause the single-largest Smorgasbord of negative reactions. Too bad, because I really think it's excellent.
Last edited by Dylan on Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I wasn't really offended. More like disappointed. It could had been a fantastic comedy especially with its pretty cinematography, social issues, etc. The characters are terribly flat and just plain stupid.
Michael, if you watch South Park then you should know that AIDS is funny now. (joke)
I had my expectations pretty low going into this one but I liked it okay. It didn't make me laugh especially, which is rather titty for a comedy, but I was mildly amused. It did look incredible for a low-budget, independent, first feature though. A distinct look and plenty of smooth sweeping camera work. It was maybe a little slow, didn't quite achieve a screwball romp pace. The women juggling scene especially should have been sped up.
The criticisms of the characters I don't get. They're clearly making a screwball comedy here--a point they repeatedly drill in in the supplements--and screwball comedy's stock in trade is stereotypes. Exaggerated, goofy stereotypes. They're shallow but they're still likeable which is more than can be said for scores of their reallife counterparts.
And certainly AIDS--especially passing it onto someone else knowingly, even if you're planning a mutual suicide pact--is a touchy subject but both character's are planning to die within minutes, they're not thinking too clearly and any thoughts of blood splatter at the end of the fall or any real consequences are miles away. In addition the girl's also wanting to get back at her cheating fiance and the guys a hornball. Why not have one last huzzah? I think it's admirable that they, the filmmakers, are addressing AIDS and, frankly, you're going to reach a wider audience if you're not being so sombre and self-serious about it. I commend the movie for that.
Overall, I wasn't overly impressed but it's hardly a waste of time. I'm glad Criterion released it. I was dissapointed no one said Cuaron's name in the supplements as I still don't know how to pronounce it but i'm going to now guess it's Quar-Ohn...?
This is my first movie of 2007! And it was a great little movie. I liked Tomas, his quirks, running naked to get the paper, the paper cups, and it was all shown/filmed so well, the whole movie is a treat.
The only thing I didn't dig was the Poodle/microwave joke, it works and is necessary, I think I wanted it to be a different word, I didn't like hearing "french poodle" and "Gringa" so many times, but I liked the swipe at Americans the first time it comes up.
lord_clyde wrote:This is the last time I blind buy. My own fault, I know. But fuck!
Anyone who wants my copy PM me and I'll see if we can work something out, otherwise its going to ebay or the used video store.
I hate when that shit happens. I bought HEAVEN CAN WAIT and snapped the fuckin TV off wanting to throw lighter fluid and matches and chairs and rocks & dumbells and dead animals at the thing, let it all burn, then jump up & down on it all until the black powder was so fine that I could vaccuum it all up with a dustbuster... then repeat the whole process on the dustbuster-- becuase the dustbuster had the accursed powder from accursed HEAVEN CAN WAIT inside it.
lord_clyde wrote:This is the last time I blind buy. My own fault, I know. But fuck!
Anyone who wants my copy PM me and I'll see if we can work something out, otherwise its going to ebay or the used video store.
I hate when that shit happens. I bought HEAVEN CAN WAIT and snapped the fuckin TV off wanting to throw lighter fluid and matches and chairs and rocks & dumbells and dead animals at the thing, let it all burn, then jump up & down on it all until the black powder was so fine that I could vaccuum it all up with a dustbuster... then repeat the whole process on the dustbuster-- becuase the dustbuster had the accursed powder from accursed HEAVEN CAN WAIT inside it.
I hate when that shit happens. I bought HEAVEN CAN WAIT and snapped the fuckin TV off wanting to throw lighter fluid and matches and chairs and rocks & dumbells and dead animals at the thing, let it all burn, then jump up & down on it all until the black powder was so fine that I could vaccuum it all up with a dustbuster... then repeat the whole process on the dustbuster-- becuase the dustbuster had the accursed powder from accursed HEAVEN CAN WAIT inside it.
So thankful to have Netflix which is saving me chests and chests of money from buying an endless supply of DVDs blind, like I used to. The last time I bought a DVD blind was Celine and Julie Go Boating (from BFI) a film I was completely positive that I'd love. Following your intuition can be a great asset when it comes to buying DVDs blind.
Again because of Netflix, I'm glad I didn't spend 50 bucks on Solo and Heaven Can Wait.
Criterion DVDs can be very easily and quickly re-sold, at least by people in the U.S., for close to what one pays at DVD Planet or sometimes even more, so blind buys of these really shouldn't be considered much of a risk.
On topic, I was also disappointed by this one. It's not too bad as a debut feature, but it seemed derivative of Almodovar but not as intelligent or rich. The wacky humor that is often shoved in viewers' faces, such as the stereotypical Japanese tourists and the microwave trick, detracts from a dramatic storyline that never gets off the ground rather than providing real comic relief from it. I'll give it at least one more viewing at some point, and will probably keep the DVD for the short films included.
I did give this a fair chance, but from the beginning it wasn't anywhere near the top of my mental list of Mexican films I wanted to see get a decent release. With any luck, it won't be anywhere close to another 20 years before Criterion releases another Mexican title. I believe this film was both a risk for the company and a milestone, in terms of their stated plans to continually venture into new areas of the film world. If the backlash here is evidence of the general response, I hope the sales haven't been so abysmal that Criterion will back off from more Mexican films (beyond the obvious choices of the Buñuels).
lord_clyde wrote:This is the last time I blind buy. My own fault, I know. But fuck!
Anyone who wants my copy PM me and I'll see if we can work something out, otherwise its going to ebay or the used video store.
I hate when that shit happens. I bought HEAVEN CAN WAIT and snapped the fuckin TV off wanting to throw lighter fluid and matches and chairs and rocks & dumbells and dead animals at the thing, let it all burn, then jump up & down on it all until the black powder was so fine that I could vaccuum it all up with a dustbuster... then repeat the whole process on the dustbuster-- becuase the dustbuster had the accursed powder from accursed HEAVEN CAN WAIT inside it.
Been meaning to ask for awhile, which Heaven Can Wait do you hate so much?
Good question. I think his later cinema is more enjoyable than the earlier stuff. I guess the English-speaking world can only handle one Spanish director at a time, and for the foreseeable future that is the obscenely overrated Pedro A.
Perfect Crime did get released theatrically, at least in NYC.
Got "SCTP" on a B&N sale last year but didn't get around to watching it until this weekend. My second Cuarón flick ("A Little Princess" is the other one of his I've seen... where's the freaking Blu-ray for that one Warner?) and no, I haven't seen "Y Tu Mama Tambien." I liked "SCTP" but for very different reasons than most here. I grew up and was raised in El Salvador for the first 18 years of my life. Like most of Latin America, a sizable chunk of the Spanish-speaking TV shows, movies, celebrities and popular culture we got in E.S. where from Mexico and became the de-facto standards for pop-culture (second only to the American dubbed/subtitled English media). During the 70's and 80's though (a dark period in Mexican cinema, as "SCTP's" bonus features/booklet allude to) I grew up to actively hate Mexican culture as it was portrayed in their shows and movies. Too much endless, pointless patriotism and macho posturing with rarely a hint of subtlety or thought. As a youngster I gravitated toward American movies ("All The President's Men" was the first movie I can recall actually liking as thought-inspiring entertainment; it made me into the lifelong Watergate freak that I still am today) and worldwide literature as a reaction to the brain-dead Mexican shit that surrounded me in all directions. It's not like I didn't like Chespirito, Cantinflas or a really good Mexican telenovela every now and then, but to have only that type of entertainment endless recycled and repackaged over and over again? It really irked the hell out of me. It's like being a fan of all kinds of comedy but only being able to watch "The Benny Hill Show" regularly. I would have gone mad if good English-translated/dubbed-to-Spanish media wasn't around to pick-up the slack. It wasn't until I got to the States and exposed myself to all forms of entertainment (the thoughtful along with the mindless, the high brow stuff complementing the low brow, etc.) that I realized Mexico has its share of culturally relevant writers, artists, movies and even TV shows (don't laugh, "Mundo de Juguete" was awesome even if it was a ripoff from Argentina's "Papá Corazón"). And now, unlike back then, Mexico is exporting its best movies and letting its most talented directors spread their wings internationally.
Which is why Cuarón's "SCTP" came as somewhat of a revelation to me given the time it was made (early 90's). Here's a low-budget Mexican 'sexicomedia' (vulgar, badly-shot, erotic and laugh-free features in which ugly comedians get laid left and right with impossibly gorgeous women) that chooses to emphasize male insecurity over macho posturing (Tomás' arc is comedic but he's definitely not the same womanizer fellow after meeting Clarisa), color palette (compared to close-ups of fake boobs), Mozart music (instead of yet another 'ranchera' song), a middle class lifestyle, young people's follies (what young person dumped hasn't thought or felt like killing themselves after being betrayed by a lover?) and friendship (the wacky neighbors are not there just for cheap laughs, their involvement with Tomás sets the events in motion and ultimately save his and Clarisa's life) all wrapped in the neat and tidy bow of high brow cinematic aspiration. Claudia Ramírez' Clarisa (who looks like Jennifer Connelly) isn't just a saintly 'good girl' that the hero must conquest, she's a clearly-defined cinematic muse (tastefully shot in the nude after having sex, hence not a saintly or virtuous 'clean' person) that descends to the level of desperation that Tomás hits when they both have their comfty coccoon turned upside down. I too fell in love with Clarisa from the moment the DVD booted up. Nothing is realistic here, just like the latest Hollywood rom-com that opened last week (whetever the hell it was called). I caught the screwball Lubitsch vibes in "SCTP" early (never for a moment did I feel that anybody's life was in danger after the 'SIDA' notification plot kicks in) and believe me, for that time it's rare for any Mexican cinematic work to reference anything but pride in the flag, undying love for country and superiority of Mexican women over any other human specimen in the world. Basically Cuarón made both an un-Mexican comedy with characters that are universal archetypes everyone can relate to (most Mexican movies from that era didn't try to appeal to anyone but Mexican and/or uneducated masses) that, because they're young and speak in youth terms (and let's face it, the sex thing didn't hurt), young people (not just Mexican young people) could relate to because it dealt with subjects that weren't inherently nationalistic or chest-thumping pride tests. It was sexy but also thoughtful, a velvet-glove approach to screwball versus the no-holds-barred unfunny vulgarity coming 'en masse' from the few studios making Mexican films at the time.
Is it the funniest Mexican comedy ever made? Not even close, I laughed a few times (Takeshi stopping Tomás' 'harakiri' at the Garibaldi Plaza drunk party, Mateo/Teresa's van filled with all those drunk partygoers, the kid in the elevator, the out-of-breath attempts at screaming, etc.) but could tell early on it was an Almodavar-wannabe enhanced by the Lubitsch school of screwball manners and, yes, some pretentious artsy-fartsy music (but man, if you're going to go artsy you can't beat Mozart!) and 'look at me' lighting. At least "SCTP," unlike 99% of Mexican films at the time, aspired to be something other than another tits & ass or 'kill them all' piece of cinematic shit. When that little yellow car Tomás and Clarisa are driving to the tower passes by the Monumento a la Independencia it shocked me that, even though I've seen this place dozens of times (on Mexican soccer matches as establishing shots, TV commercials, other movies, etc.), it looked unlike all the previous shots of that Angel/plaza I've seen. It actually looked... you know, picturesque. That "SCTP" partially succeeded at standing out by embracing what worked elsewhere (Lubitsch, Almadovar, standout cinematography, etc.) instead of falling into the tired 'but it's not Mexican...' excuse is a small miracle of persistence from its creators' love of classic cinema. It's more riveting for me seeing this in 2010 realizing that, back in 1990, the Cuarón bros., Lubezki and fellow middle-class Mexican filmmakers were making movies about themselves that didn't involve poor people with hearts of gold (the Pedro Infante/Cantinflas gold era of Mexican cinema) or heartless rich people trying to supress the happiness of the peasants under their tyranical control (almost every telenovela ever made).
Basically I see myself in "SCTP," or a version of what I was like and the stuff I thought about at that age (not Tomás but more like his doctor friend and Clarisa, personalty wise), and that's nothing I've ever gotten from any Mexican movie I've seen before from that era or earlier. French movies? Check. American TV shows and movies? Of course, but never from Mexico because back then everyone on movies/TV were either ridiculously rich but hearless or a destitute with the pride of God to carry him/her forward. This movie is basically an amusing, slightly weird curio of what Mexican cinema/culture was NOT LIKE back in the early 90's. Which, ironically, makes it the perfect 'what were they thinking?' Criterion title. I was reading the Tomás Tomás biography on the subway ride home today in the Criterion booklet and I was laughing out loud; can't wait to read the other characters' bios in the online page for "SCTP." They may be shallow and cartoony concoctions from a yet-to-mature young director that would go on to prove his worth, but they're intelligently crafted Mexican archetypes inspired by middle-class knowledge of a cinematic world outside Mexican borders.
As Chekhov famously remarked, if a jar of stool is to be introduced in the first act, somebody had better unscrew the lid in the fourth. A curious omission, not to adumbrate the consequences of such a foul and mortifying mishap. The obvious punchline would be for the familiar strains of the Gran Partita adagio to sound again as the flight attendant Clarissa reaches into her bag of meringues, her eyes widening in wonderment as she lifts out the jar.
Not a good film, but there were a few things that made it worthwhile:
- the ludicrously sublime moment of that K361 adagio coming up on the soundtrack as Tomás spies on Clarissa rehearsing her flight safety demonstration. I just wish the movie supplied some completely different reason for Tomás to be scaling the ledge outside her apartment window.
- the wedding
- the nurse Sylvia's sadistic glee in taking Tomás's blood sample, and Tomás's heroic attempts to flirt while he unheroically nearly faints.
- the stained glass windows of the doctor's office, and the décor of the doctor's and Tomás's apartments.
- Clarissa's panties drifting down out of the sky
I'm not saying that a comedy can't deal with AIDS. It's fine as long as it's done responsibly.
