criterionforum.org

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:51 am**

i totally agree with narshty - Dazed will probably cost nothing compared to what Le Notti Bianche did, but because it isn't as popular it's accepted as an ok addition. i wouldn't describe myself as a huge Linklater fan, but i think he's every bit as solid as Visconti is, just in a different era and culture. now he doesn't have a real knockout punch to his name yet, but he's still a solid, consistent film maker. Criterion adding more of his titles is simply an acknowledgement of his talent combined with the availability of his work to them. of course, i would much rather see Last Year at Marienbad, some Greenaway, and countless other things, but i also understand that these are all possibilities that are made MORE possible by the addition of surefire hit titles like the Wes Anderson and Linklater titles. that said, Armageddon? too far with that one.

if this is spine 420 i won't quick smoking for a week. not that i will anyway, but you know... that would be cool. dude.

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:01 am**

Don't forget that it was probably Linklater who approached Criterion to release this title after disappointing Flashback Edition fiasco from Universal. Criterion is always ready to work with directors who approach them and having Slacker already in the collection didn't hurt...

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:01 pm**

pzman84 wrote:BTW, am I really dead to you Andre Jurieu

I thought anyone with a Colbert avatar would figure out that reference. You're as dangerous to this nation as bears.

Also, I'm slightly puzzled as to why pzman84 has to defend Dazed & Confused in order to get a meaningful summary of Kicking and Screaming's artistic merits?

I'll say that, on its most simple level, Dazed and Confused perfectly captures the last days of high school and the connection shared by adolescents that they don't fully appreciate until much later in life, whether they be positive or negative rights-of-passage passed down between the grades. I know I always enjoyed the cohesion and unity displayed between the various characters and the overall tranquility of the film, even when something awful is happening. It's a very comfortable vibe that Linklater creates that's very different from other contemporary filmmakers working in America. I would have to see the film again in order to get into more detail, but as for the films more mature subtexts, I believe Langlois (or was it Gregory?) has much more to say on the subject of youth battling authority figures. I know the notion of high school attempting to force conformity is explored within the film, and that was always something I detested about the school-system that I grew up in. Of course, Linklater isn't heavy-handed about this point either - he just allows it to be briefly highlighted, but then moves onwards.

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:15 pm**

Good to see you too, Andre Jurieu, have a love of Colbert.

As for Dazed and Confused, I never stood up for its artistic merits. In fact, I criticized Critertion for putting it in the collection. However, I do realize D&C has a cult following and could bring in money for Criterion. If that is the case, I like to think Michael Bay's films helped Criterion release some hard to find titles. So I would accept that if this was the case.

As for you toiletduck!, I think you of all people should know whoever posts on this forum is not all together serious (or, for that matter, all together sane

). However, what do you watch movies for? If not visual stylization, new and interesting stories, or "sensory arousal" (ie. sex and violence), what then? Why would you pay $40 for a movie with neither one of the previously mentioned items? Your money could be spent better, like giving it to people who need money (like me)

.

Posted: **Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:49 am**

I'd like to defend dazed and confused. because even though I have never smoked pot, what most people would say is the main focus of the film, I connected with many characters in the film. I've been The Bully, the victim, the rebellious student, the rebellious son, the cool kid, and the loser. and most of all, I was, and still am, a teenager trying to accept the fact that those days are gone, and new experiences await me, even though, some days, I want nothing more than to have to wake up at 7:15 every weekday, and go back to those hallways I cherish.

Posted: **Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:40 am**

I think the offkilter, hiccuping release schedule spangled with less "settled" or "universally agreed-upon" "masterworks" has got people impatient & cranky. Plus the windowboxing issue, which doesn't bug me as much as it does others. Nice that MoC is picking up some of the slack though.

Something's definitely up & I agree w zedz (or Godardslave maybe?) that it's got something to do with the Image deal.

Posted: **Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:45 pm**

Criterion wrote:About the Transfer

Dazed and Confused is presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1. Black bars at the top and bottom of the screen are normal for this format. Director Richard Linklater and director of photography Lee Daniel supervised this new high-definition digital transfer, which was created on a high-definition Spirit 4K Datacine from a 35mm interpositive. Thousands of instances of dirt, debris, and scratches were removed using the MTI Digital Restoration System. To maintain optimal image quality through the compression process, the picture on this dual-layer DVD-9 was encoded at the highest-possible bit rate for the quantity of material included. The soundtrack was mastered at 24-bit from the original stems, and audio restoration tools were used to reduce clicks, pops, hiss, and crackle. Plus, Melba Toast is packin' 411 Positrac outback, 750 double pumper Edelbrock intakes, bored over 30, 11 to 1 pop-up pistons, turbo-jet 390 horsepower. We're talkin' some fuckin' muscle.

=D>

-Toilet Dcuk

Posted: **Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:00 pm**

is Criterion officially off their collective rocker? I'd be surprised if that f-bomb didn't get excised from the website PDQ.

Posted: **Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:47 pm**

I was really hoping for a cast commentary or least Wiggins and McCounghaney (I know I spelled that wrong) but the deleted scenes, on-set/behind the scenes and audition footage will be blast. They also got some great people for the essays (though Klosterman makes me want to stick a pen through my eye socket).

Posted: **Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:44 pm**

richast2 wrote:is Criterion officially off their collective rocker? I'd be surprised if that f-bomb didn't get excised from the website PDQ.

I don't see why. Plenty of the essays they post feature similar language. This isn't exactly yahooligans.com we're talking about.

Posted: **Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:14 pm**

Am I the only one excited for the Chuck Klosterman essay? Anyone who's read Fargo Rock City or Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs has to be at least a wee bit fired up.

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:06 am**

pzman84 wrote:As for Dazed and Confused, I never stood up for its artistic merits. In fact, I criticized Critertion for putting it in the collection. However, I do realize D&C has a cult following and could bring in money for Criterion. If that is the case, I like to think Michael Bay's films helped Criterion release some hard to find titles. So I would accept that if this was the case.

As for you toiletduck!, I think you of all people should know whoever posts on this forum is not all together serious (or, for that matter, all together sane). However, what do you watch movies for? If not visual stylization, new and interesting stories, or "sensory arousal" (ie. sex and violence), what then?

Your views aren't without precedence: the Universal Corporate Execs thought the exact same thing when Linklater turned the film into them, and they told him so. I know because I was there. They, too, wondered where the money shots were. They also wanted either an anti-establishment hero to become a cult figure for Film Comment, or a wink-wink oh-so-sly endorsement of the coolness of highschool for Premiere. Linklater gave them neither. What he did give them--through a careful selection of shots, framing, camera movement, and editing--was a canvas of American adolescence focused on authenticity. There are no easy portals of identification in the film because Linklater doesn't want you to have them - his generosity his for the whole of the highschool experience, not for the easy out of allowing you to take to take a side. So don't mistake your disapointment in a lack of personal identification with an absence of "artistic merit" on Linklater's part. Linklater's artistry is obvious throughout, and the inability to discern it mystifies me.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:18 am**

I thought 2006 was shaping up to be a bad year for Criterion, but this film has overwhelmIngly confirmed my fears that the quality and calibre of Criterion's selection is quickly deteriorating.

Whatever Criteriophiles say to defend this obscure film, I still believe it is a bad choice. I wonder if the Image deal has played a role.

I forgave Criterion for including bullshit like ARMAGEDDON, THE ROCK and HOPSCOTCH, but this shit is inexcusable.

Au revoir Criterion, it is hard to see how this horrible mistake can be rectified.

A CONTINUING SERIES OF "IMPORTANT" AND CONTEMPORARY FILMS - I don't think so. IDIOTS.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:36 am**

Is that you Mulvaney?

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:24 am**

alandau wrote:I thought 2006 was shaping up to be a bad year for Criterion, but this film has overwhelmIngly confirmed my fears that the quality and calibre of Criterion's selection is quickly deteriorating.

Whatever Criteriophiles say to defend this obscure film, I still believe it is a bad choice. I wonder if the Image deal has played a role.

I forgave Criterion for including bullshit like ARMAGEDDON, THE ROCK and HOPSCOTCH, but this shit is inexcusable.

Au revoir Criterion, it is hard to see how this horrible mistake can be rectified.

A CONTINUING SERIES OF "IMPORTANT" AND CONTEMPORARY FILMS - I don't think so. IDIOTS.

I remember when I worked retail while going to school and customers would threaten not to continue shopping with us because of some retarded thing nobody normal would really care about, and they were so self-righteous and self-involved that they actually thought it mattered. Something tells me Criterion gives even less of a rat's ass you're giving up on them than we did with those customers. Idiot.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:45 am**

alandau wrote:I thought 2006 was shaping up to be a bad year for Criterion, but this film has overwhelmIngly confirmed my fears that the quality and calibre of Criterion's selection is quickly deteriorating.

Whatever Criteriophiles say to defend this obscure film, I still believe it is a bad choice. I wonder if the Image deal has played a role.

I forgave Criterion for including bullshit like ARMAGEDDON, THE ROCK and HOPSCOTCH, but this shit is inexcusable.

Au revoir Criterion, it is hard to see how this horrible mistake can be rectified.

A CONTINUING SERIES OF "IMPORTANT" AND CONTEMPORARY FILMS - I don't think so. IDIOTS.

You're right: 300+ magnificent titles, but the 4-5 borderline (money earning) titles you mention totally nullify their importance in providing topnotch cinema to a current audience.

Hail to the nitpicking jackasses! Now go back to sleep. Dream up more windmills.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:48 am**

He'll tiptoe in quietly for VIRIDIANA & LATE SPRING. Don't doubt it.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:02 am**

Welcome to Criterion's future release schedule (probably June)

A 3-disc edition of all the POLICE ACADEMY movies
- superb new HD transfer
- amazing audio commentaries by three renowned UCLA film scholars
- enlightening documentary, US comedy during the Reagan years
- and much much more....

A special director's cut of the 80's cult classic CLASS (1983)
- stunning HD transfer
- audio commentary by the all-star cast
- documentary, the US in the early 80's - transition years

--------- watch this space for more surprises

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:20 am**

Haven't seen Class; but yeah, Police Acadamy--really the same thing as Linklater's films as far as integrity. By the way, Criterion would never compromise transfer quality by packing all the Police Acadamy films and "much much more" onto three discs. You really are new the CC, aren't you? Let me guess, you discovered Criterion when you bought The Rock and now are embarrassed to look back? Elitist.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:29 pm**

alandau wrote:A 3-disc edition of all the POLICE ACADEMY movies

Dream On! POLICE ACADEMY movies are from Warner! And CLASS is from MGM/Sony.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:56 pm**

Titus wrote:I personally am very fond of Linklater's work, and think he's one of the best "young" American filmmakers around, but I'm finding the budding debate over the general consensus on where he places in the pantheon of contemporary American cinema to be amusing. He's not a huge name in the same manner that Paul Thomas Anderson or Quentin Tarentino is, and it's always seemed to me that he doesn't have any interest to be. He makes relatively small, personal pictures aimed at a somewhat small demographic, with the occasional foray into more mainstream fare (which, I assume, without any intimate knowledge on the matter, is to help fund his more artistically oriented work).

The fact that his pictures don't have the same immediately gratifying pizazz of some of his colleagues leads to him flying under the radar amongst a lot of moviegoers. This, in turn, leads to a slight (and I'd like to emphasize the slight--like I said, I'm pretty big on Linklater myself) inflation, possibly as a point of compensation, of his ability amongst many people and critics. Probably the most prominent one that comes to mind is Jonathon Rosenbaum (though David Walsh and Robin Wood seemed to be the first major champions of his work), whose absolutely smitten with the guy.

Linklater is a patient and generous filmmaker. He shows utter compassion for his characters, yet almost always retains his (and thus the audiences') objectivity. His visual style differs from picture to picture, but I've never felt it to be a weak point. He obviously doesn't create his pictures as visual spectacles, which is commensurate with his adversion to the showmanship that permeates throughout so many other American filmmakers (some of whom I love--I'm not against a flashy aesthetic style). I personally think his imagery almost always has a certain elegance to it, where Linklater compliments his wordy stories with naturalistic beauty, as opposed to the deliberate ugliness of many European art films (again, many of which I love). Ogygia, Linklater is, by your own admission, a good filmmaker--so why the hangup over the modest respect afforded to him by the critical community and an occasional entry into the Criterion Collection?

Very astute observations, thanks.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:25 am**

First, I prefer Linklater over Wes Anderson.

Second, Criterion said fuck on their D & C page.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:26 am**

Am I the only one thinking that this HAS to be a two disc set! To put all the features on one disc would certainly effect the quality of the film and that what Criterion's about.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:34 pm**

justeleblanc wrote:Second, Criterion said fuck on their D & C page.

To quell the controversy, the number of times 'fuck', or derivative thereof, can be found on Criterion's site currently stands at a whopping 22 (including Dazed and Confused). What's more, there's a 'cunt' in there as well.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:07 pm**

Nevermind - that joke was too crude even for me.

criterionforum.org

336 Dazed and Confused