Criterion Research Project

[Lemmy Caution]

Since you are the first post at the top of a new page, you might want to edit into your post your most recent questions. Easier than searching back for them.

Why have you elected to become a member of this forum?
I found that there are knowledgeable posters on many areas of film which I am interested in. (But I stay for the infighting thread titles).

Also do you consider yourself a cinephile, and if so what does being a cinephile mean to you?

Seems like a sort of dry, formal designation.
I'd probably say No.
But I am interested in film as art, and as a peek into other cultures.

I've never gone to the cinema much at all, hardly ever rented movies.
Mostly had a peak period of film viewing during my college years, and then again, more intensively, during the past decade in China, the Middle Kingdom of Dvd's.

I'm much more knowledgeable and dedicated to early/mid 20th C American music.
But who goes around calling themselves an audiophile?
And with my extensive kevyip, I'll definitely be watching films for the next decade or so.

[matrixschmatrix]

Why have you elected to become a member of this forum?

I started reading this forum because it's a fantastic resource for any number of things, in particular upcoming Criterions, and just dug deeper and deeper- although I actually signed up because I wanted to see some of the hidden forums, and wasn't planning on posting. But once you're signed up and have something to say, it's hard to resist

Also do you consider yourself a cinephile, and if so what does being a cinephile mean to you?

As with a lot of people on here, I'm uncomfortable with that word- it seems unnecessarily pretentious and implies (to me) that only people who like certain kinds of movies get to be part of the Official Film Club. If it's just meant to mean 'a person who loves movies' or even 'a person for whom movies have primacy over other media' then yeah, I'm certainly that, but I don't even like saying 'film' or 'cinema' so 'cinephile' is right out.

[Tommaso]

Why have you elected to become a member of this forum?

I stumbled upon the forum via a link on the old Masters of Cinema page, looked around for awhile, and then indeed found that this is probably the best place to discuss films that are beside the mainstream. Four years later, I'm still amazed about the knowledge many members have here, even about rather obscure films or directors, and it's thanks to this forum that I was able to broaden my tastes quite considerably. I also like the general 'tone' here: you can have serious discussions without having to prove your academic credentials, but it's also possible to simply joke around if you 'know' the people a little. It's also good that people share news about forthcoming releases from all over the world here. Many great discs would have flown under my radar if I hadn't read about them here.

Also do you consider yourself a cinephile, and if so what does being a cinephile mean to you?

Again, the forum has made me even more passionate about film, so perhaps that might make me a cinephile now. But then I'm also a literature-phile and music-phile, so what's in a word....

But I am interested in film as art, and as a peek into other cultures.

Yes, and I would add that film can also be a peek into the past of your own culture. That might be one explanation for my passion for silent films or early European sound films (apart from their aesthetic qualities, of course).

[Tribe]

I became a member of this forum probably three incarnations ago...I'm thinking the late 1990s or very early 2000s, because that is when I discovered the Criterion Collection. While I've always been a movie fan it seems to me that it was around that time that DVDs became much more affordable and available as the medium of choice to watch many, many movies I had only read of up to that time. What attracted me to the Criterion Collection was the (at the time) ready opportunity to actually own classic movies in a more convenient format (I had, and still have collecting dust in the basement, quite a number of VHS releases).

Anyway, this forum seemed to be a place where the discussion about movies was lively and knowledgeable and I've learned quite a bit since joining initially, particularly things that relate to the technical side of the presentation of movies on DVD...things that I had no knowledge about at the time.

Whether or not I'm a cinephile...I'm not sure how the term is used. If it means a movie fan, then yes...if it connotes some knowledge of movies over and above the average bear, sure. But I'd certainly not consider myself an expert on movies or the technical particulars that go into making movies (my posts more than show how little I know about anything).

EDIT: I think it's pertinent to add that it's been through this forum that I've discovered (and continue to discover) film makers who I didn't know existed, but I've come to appreciate (for better or worse): Jean Rollin, Jess Franco, Seijun Suzuki, Derek Jarman, Michael Haneke, Bruno Dumont...and many more. So, it's with the expectation of more discoveries to come that I keep returning here day after day for the past ten years (?).

[swo17]

The long version...

I grew up in a household with a fairly strict Disney/Star Trek only rule, and didn't really start watching films seriously until the latter half of the '90s, kickstarted by stuff like Fargo and Taxi Driver, which I watched in my room in secret, with the volume way down and one foot resting against the door. I resisted DVDs initially. I had a pretty meager VHS collection, consisting of maybe 10-20 SNL alum comedies that my friends in high school all told me to like, but somehow I knew if I started buying DVDs it would eventually get out of hand.

I did it anyway. The first film I felt like I absolutely had to own (and often commented that I would like to have it soldered into my DVD player to keep it on permanent rotation) was (no judging) Requiem for a Dream. I watched the crap out of that DVD but eventually it felt kind of silly to have a collection of only one. So I went out to find my DVD some friends.

I'm sure it was around this time that I discovered the Criterion Collection, though it didn't really register at first. I noticed that films like Rushmore, Brazil, George Washington, and The Last Temptation of Christ had DVDs out that were more expensive than most, which was kind of annoying, though I also noticed that they seemed to keep their value if I ever tried to sell any of them. I kept on buying DVDs.

At some point, I had pretty much bought all of the mainstream stuff a guy in the early 2000s could ever need. I decided to branch out a little. I bought the Three Colors trilogy. My roommate declared that I now officially had a problem. I kept buying DVDs. Not soon after, I met my future wife because of a movie. This whole obsession was starting to pay off.

Fast forward several years. Were it not for a rigorous start in the workforce that demanded much of my time, this next step might have happened much sooner. But as it happened, it was early in 2008 that I started really delving into important cinema of the past. Theyshootpictures.com was an invaluable resource in helping me fill in gaps in the canon, and in doing so, I noticed that a whole lot of the films I was watching were put out by some company called Criterion. I found their website and would drool daily at all of the delicious DVDs on display. One of those days I found a link on Criterion's website to this forum. The end.

P.S. At no point since I started watching movies has the word "cinephile" ever crossed my mind.

[matrixschmatrix]

I did it anyway. The first film I felt like I absolutely had to own (and often commented that I would like to have it soldered into my DVD player to keep it on permanent rotation) was (no judging) Requiem for a Dream. I watched the crap out of that DVD but eventually it felt kind of silly to have a collection of only one. So I went out to find my DVD some friends.

I had a really similar experience with American Beauty- that kind of thing seems to be a good gateway into more self-consciously artsy movies, even if you go back and watch it later and sort of wonder what you were thinking.

[knives]

At least your gateway film has some semblance of artistry, mine was The Dentist.

[Tommaso]

If we talk about how we came to appreciate film in general: in my case it was through music.

Sometime in the 80s, I heard the record of Michael Nyman's soundtrack for "The Draughtsmans Contract", and it sounded so unusual at the time that I simply HAD to see the film it was made for when it was shown on German TV. Since that time I'm a Greenaway fan. Another artist of the 80s I really liked (and still do) was Bill Nelson, who had his own record label called Cocteau records, and as another of my favourites, David Sylvian, was also referencing Cocteau quite often, I thought I'd better find out about that French guy. I started with some of his books, but as soon as I managed to see "The Blood of a poet", well: another fandom thing was created. Much, much later, I primarily bought "The Red Shoes" as a sort of 'try-out' when I could get the CC disc really cheap on ebay, simply because of Kate Bush's album of the same title. Okay, everyone knows what a P&P fanboy I am...

I guess liking these particular films and directors needs no defense, but I think that some of the special place they occupy for me has to do with these youthful associations. In the 90s, I primarily sought out films via the cinema, new stuff but also the classics as far as they were shown (and I liked these much better, discovering Tarkovsky and Rivette that way). My passion for silents came somewhat later, but I don't quite recall how.

Switching to dvd wasn't a priority at all, but I really liked "The Lord of the Rings" at the time, so when the first extended version was released with all of the extra materials, I thought I had to see it. So I bought a dvd player, thankfully heeding the advice of the guy who was in charge of the video collection at our university to go codefree from the beginning. That same guy was also the first to tell me about the Criterion Collection, and especially about how great their "Solaris" disc was. From then on, I checked the label's website regularly and also slowly learned about the international dvd market in general, mainly via the Beaver.

My deeper appreciation for film in general can curiously still be traced back to a degree to that LOTR edition. It was the first time I listened to an audiocommentary or even knew that something like that was possible; and Jackson's comments opened my eye and sparked my interest in the making of film and all its intracacies. So it is perhaps only since 2002 that I've become a real...arm..cinephile, i.e. through dvd, which also finally enabled me to watch films in their original language, which made all the difference to me.

[Lemmy Caution]

.

But I am interested in film as art, and as a peek into other cultures.

Yes, and I would add that film can also be a peek into the past of your own culture. That might be one explanation for my passion for silent films or early European sound films (apart from their aesthetic qualities, of course).

I'm glad you added that. I was thinking along the same lines, and was going to write something about history/sociology, but couldn't think of a good way to phrase it and was posting in a hurry.

It is interesting to see a record of an earlier era. All sorts of artifacts of history crop up, from dialogue, thematic concerns, styles of dress, relationships, decor, etc. Old films provide a fascinating record of the past.

I was just watching Steamboat Bill, Jr. the other night, and I became totally fascinated with Marion Byron's wonderful portrayal of a flapper. I got so caught up in what she was doing and how, that I found myself wishing she was the main character.

Sometimes when I watch old American films, I find myself thinking about how old my grandfather would have been at that time, and using him as a gauge. Works fairly well since he was born in 1900.

[fiddlesticks]

But I am interested in film as art, and as a peek into other cultures.

True for me as well. I haven't the least interest in mainstream Hollywood films being produced today, and yet I'll gladly watch the shallowest, stupidest Korean melodrama or rom-com just to satisfy my curiosity about that culture.

I've been a member here for almost 4 years, and I don't recall how I discovered the site--probably through DVD Beaver in some fashion. I lurked for a good long while, and finally signed up so I could use the Buy/Sell/Trade board (IIRC). My introduction to (shall we say) "serious" film was through Carol Reed's The Third Man. I had a summer session in Vienna in college, and the building housing the the school was used in some of the film's exteriors. Finding this tidbit fascinating, I sought out the film (sometime in the 1980s, probably on TV) and loved it. I later came to learn that it was considered one of the very greatest films on some list or other, to my surprise, and decided I should check out other titles from that same list. It this way a "cinephile" was born, although like many others here I eschew that label. After all, how could a "film lover" drive by the multiplex, read a dozen titles, and react with "how could anyone want to see any of those movies?"

Now, if they'd only show The Unbearable Lightness of Dating or Do You Like Spring Bear?, why, that'd be a different story!

[Matt]

Those interested in sharing personal histories about becoming cinephiles might want to check out (and take discussion) to this thread so as not to make charliekohller's information gathering process more difficult.

[essrog]

I came across this forum (or the previous iteration of it) in 2003, I think, because that was when I started teaching a high school film class. I won't bore readers with the details, but suffice it to say that, as a former sports writer who had never seen a silent film before, I wasn't the most likely candidate to end up introducing young minds to Eisensteinian montage. Anyway, when I got the assignment I needed to become an autodidact in a hurry. Along with going through Bordwell's Film Art and other books, I obviously watched a lot of movies. I think I was vaguely familiar with Criterion because of Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, but sometime during that summer I became a lot more familiar with other parts of the Criterion catalog, and somewhere along the way found this forum. I remember in 2004 someone posting a link to a USA Today article that I think listed Peter Becker's Top 10 essential Criterions or something like that. I bookmarked the list, and pretty soon had bought every DVD on the list. Yes, the Multi-Hued Lady is one of the main reasons I own The Rules of the Game.

So to answer the question more directly, I joined the group because I needed (and wanted) to learn more about film to teach my class. I've stayed because I've never stopped learning and, frankly, because I don't know anyone in the "real" world I can talk to about film the way people here do (except for my students, but they're a captive audience). What started as a teaching assignment I was kind of excited about has become a big part of my identity. As my post count indicates, I don't contribute too often because I don't feel like I have much to add to most of the conversations. That, and I'm kind of lazy when it comes to writing on the Internet. I'm writing now, though, because it gives me a chance to thank everyone for helping shape me into the movie-watcher, and teacher, that I am. I've posted several questions through the years fishing for ideas for films, units, etc., related to my class and the forum has always responded generously.

As for the second question, the connotation of cinephile to me is much more extreme than the dictionary definition: "someone who is fond of motion pictures." So according to the dictionary, yes, I'm a cinephile, but I don't identify myself as one. It sounds a little too high-falutin'.

[charliekohller]

A. Why have you elected to join this group?

B. Do you consider yourself a cinephile? If so what does being a cinephile mean to you?


C. Out of a total number of films that you watch over a given month, what percentage of those are watched in the home?

1. No more than 0-25%
2. No more than 25-50%
3. No more than 75 - 90%
4. 90% or more.

Some film scholars argue that watching a film at home is not the same thing as watching it in the cinema. For them to watch a film at home means you are not experiencing the real film. Do you feel that watching a film on a home viewing platform (DVD, Blu-Ray, VOD) is in some ways a lesser experience than seeing it in the cinema? If you have only watched a film in the home environment, can you really say that you have SEEN the film?

[Lemmy Caution]

I watch 110% of films at home.
I really put my all into it.

[willoneill]

I think I've alreday answered A & B, so for C:

It definitely varies, but I guess on average I watch between 75 - 90% of my films at home. It depends on how much good stuff is playing that month in the various theatres around town. For instance, last month, all I saw in theatres was Inception, but this month I've seen House, and I plan on catching the 4 Kurosawa films (starting with The Hidden Fortress tomorrow after work), Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence, Winter's Bone, Mesrine part 1, plus The Other Guys and Scott Pilgrimm. So definitely some variation.

I do think there is a difference between home viewing and the theatre, due to two factors. The screen is bigger, much bigger (I avoid the smaller theatre screens), and the movie is your sole focus. No phones, no talking, and you can't pause it. If I ever get to a point in wealth where I can come close to replicating the size and sound at home, and have enough discipline to hide the remote on myself, then maybe the experiences will become closer, but odds are that's not happening.

[rf1960]

First set of Qs:
Berlin Alexanderplatz - A
Rules of the Game - A
Red Desert - A
Viridiana - A
Under the Volcano - A

[zedz]

C. Out of a total number of films that you watch over a given month, what percentage of those are watched in the home?

4. 90% or more. - But this is more a comment on the unholy number of films I watch at home and the available local cinema options. If I lived in Paris or New York, it might be the opposite way around!

Some film scholars argue that watching a film at home is not the same thing as watching it in the cinema. For them to watch a film at home means you are not experiencing the real film. Do you feel that watching a film on a home viewing platform (DVD, Blu-Ray, VOD) is in some ways a lesser experience than seeing it in the cinema?

Of course. And watching a recording of a play or concert isn't the same thing as seeing it live.

If you have only watched a film in the home environment, can you really say that you have SEEN the film?

Of course you can.

[fiddlesticks]

C: 90% or more. Much more. And I agree with zedz' succinct replies to the ancillary questions.

[hangman]

I've answered the first two so...
C. Out of a total number of films that you watch over a given month, what percentage of those are watched in the home?
I would say 90% since the cinemas here don't really show anything past Hollywood movies, and some pretty badly made local studio movies, but there are occasions of organized screenings of interesting or good movies that I attend. Of course the key word is occasional...

As for watching at home VS the cinema: Well as Zedz has put nicely there is indeed a difference one that favors to cinema being more ideal. Other than having better system set ups, especially the screen, I do enjoy watching films with other people (even if the audience around me isn't particularly behaved). Though note that it is quite rare for me to watch in the cinema as well since its very rare, mostly through organized screenings as I've said, that there are films I'd like to watch being screened. Another thing I'd like to add (as I've been reading) is that there are obvious aesthetic differences between a film and video (of course we're starting to have films shot on video rather than film which do begin to add to this discussion) which will always make a difference with the viewing experience (even with a high quality transfer of a film to Blu).

Though as for watching the film in a home environment: Of course it counts as having SEEN the film. Perhaps it would be more correct to consider the difference in experience, not only in the communal but in the aesthetic difference as I've noted earlier. However, in seeing the film, i.e. watching the film and absorbing what you can, I do think home experience does count. The impact of a film experience may be weaker in certain instances, as other members have mentioned with their preference of home viewing, but one is capable of absorbing the film nonetheless in whatever home format available. What is more important in seeing a film IMO is the attention one gives to the viewing experience.

[matrixschmatrix]

Even at my highest movie-going rate, I only go out to the movies once or twice a week, and I watch a movie once or twice a day, so I watch probably 85-90% of the movies I do watch at home.

I do really prize being able to see a classic movie at the theater, though- it tends to be the first thing I look for when going to a city, and I have pretty great local theaters so I've been able to watch e.g. a Hitchcock movie every week for the past couple of months. It's special, but it would be madness to think that was the only way to watch a movie- I could see a case being made that if you watch a cut down, pan and scan, commercials added version of a movie on TV you haven't really seen it, but absolutely a DVD or Blu counts.

[Lemdog]

A. Why have you elected to join this group?

Before this version of the criterion forum existed I belonged to previous incarnations. The amount of knowledge contained within this forum is staggering which is sometimes difficult to completely take in, but is a excellent use of my time when studying films. Another great part of this forum is the varying opinions which have made me look at films from different perspectives giving greater richness to the experience of watching films.

B. Do you consider yourself a cinephile? If so what does being a cinephile mean to you?

No

C. Out of a total number of films that you watch over a given month, what percentage of those are watched in the home?

1. No more than 0-25%
2. No more than 25-50%
3. No more than 75 - 90%
4. 90% or more.

Some film scholars argue that watching a film at home is not the same thing as watching it in the cinema. For them to watch a film at home means you are not experiencing the real film. Do you feel that watching a film on a home viewing platform (DVD, Blu-Ray, VOD) is in some ways a lesser experience than seeing it in the cinema? If you have only watched a film in the home environment, can you really say that you have SEEN the film?

90% or more. I would argue that some home entertainment centers are just as good or better than some cinemas. I've seen some pretty crappy cinemas. The biggest problem I face is the inability of finding cinemas in my area that would play Last Year at Marienbad in my area. When I lived in Norfolk Virginia we had the Naro (http://www.narocinema.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) but even that was quite limited compared to the wide variety of films I wished to watch. The size of the screen, the sitting in the theatre chairs, or the popcorn does not determine if you have "SEEN" the film. In my opinion it's what you take away from watching it, which determines if you seen the film or not.