criterionforum.org

No, I totally agree that doing what you described is the smartest thing I could imagine anyone coming up with to do with Tom Cruise in their film. But you can deconstruct and turn inside-out Tom Cruise and his image all you want, he's still Tom Cruise, unfortunately. I'm not really even saying that his casting is a mistake, up to a point. I'm not sure what other actor I'd rather see in this role, other than someone who I think has at least a kernel, and maybe just a kernel, of human authenticity and maturity, instead of Tom Cruise. I guess I should see the film again before I comment further, but in a way that's almost a point I'm making--life cutting Tom Cruise down to size in this film, where that is indeed one of the film's main themes (and I'm not disputing what you said you see in this film), made zero impression on me emotionally, so that I don't remember it at all. I do think such a transformation should make more of an impression on my feelings and imagination than what I remember, but I shouldn't really commit to this as a criticism--as I should see the film again, I haven't in a while and lots of it is not clear in my memory. I'm not really arguing with any of your points. But I find his face itself, at any age, ridiculous and unacceptable in basically any filmic context, an impression that is never particularily well rescued by any allegedly brilliant acting, and he's just fundamentally not very interesting to me even at his best. (I also have zero, and I mean zero, understanding of what anyone sees in Tom Hanks.)

therewillbeblus wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2023 4:04 am
"Yes, even this guy who is literally The Perfect Movie Star to the public is just as meek and insignificant as anyone else."

I guess all I'm saying is, when the movie star in question is someone like Tom Cruise, or Shirley Temple, or Julie Andrews, someone who I find robotic and childish and inauthentic in everything they do, that even their artful deconstruction is likely to seem to me a bit of a fool's errand and not that interesting, to a degree, at least in a serious film.

The richest part of Eyes Wide Shut for me was the depiction of someone who's an outsider who believes they've worked and earned themselves a life of privilege. You rarely see a film take such a complex look at what it means to be a doctor in terms of its place in the social and class order.

I thought Kubrick's decision to cast Cruise (who, more than anyone else, had an "all-American boy" image for the general public in 1999) was a good one. It's interesting and counterintuitive because the central character in Schnitzler's book was Jewish, lived in early 20th century Vienna, and was a medical doctor (like Schnitzler himself). Despite what he's made of his life, that character is still excluded from Viennese society because he's Jewish. If one were to view Tom Cruise as a closeted homosexual - and it's possible Kubrick was playing with that idea when he included that scene of frat boys making homophobic remarks at Cruise - that does play into that idea of Cruise being even more the outsider who's aiming to earn respect and admiration from a conservative-looking upper class society. But I don't think that's the case because he doesn't indulge any homosexual impulses in the film. (The overall plot to me is about someone who acted how he thought was appropriate to attain this life of privilege, then discovers how prominent members of this society behave and act in ways he didn't think were acceptable, ways that tap into desires that are hidden or suppressed, and eventually there's a sense that he should be able to act in similar fashion too. It's dramatized in a great way because he finds he's not allowed to - if not by society then by life - but when he's finally willing to cross the line into complete infidelity by going back to a particular prostitute, he finds out he still can't.)

ryannichols7 wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2023 8:48 pm specs for Peeping Tom, which I don't see Criterion topping. think this is a pretty safe preorder..

THREE-DISC SET (ON 4K BLU-RAY/TWO BLU-RAY DISCS)
NEW 4K RESTORATION OF THE FILM
DOLBY VISION/HDR PRESENTATION OF THE FILM
Intro by Martin Scorsese (2007)
Take Me To Your Cinema: The Legacy of Peeping Tom
Restoring Peeping Tom
The Eye of the Beholder
Intro by Martin Scorsese (2007)
Interview with Thelma Schoonmaker (2007)
Audio Commentary by Professor Ian Christie
Original Theatrical Trailer
32-page booklet with new essays
AND MORE...

Ian Christie will be a much better commentator compared to what CC would likely port over. I enjoy all his contributions to P+P (or just Powell) discs

Trailer

The modern music SC used for this trailer is atrocious.

I had the same reaction to their Contempt trailer. The music they slapped on that one feels even more wrong-headed considering Georges Delarue's score is one of the most sublime of any film. The only reasonable explanation would be if they can't use these original scores in the trailers for some obscure rights-related reason (?)

Has anyone noticed this warning at the beginning of StudioCanal discs? It was on both of the new Muratova releases, which I found pretty odd (and there's definitely nothing in them that would warrant it).
https://imgur.com/a/XcCK79x

furbicide wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 12:46 am Has anyone noticed this warning at the beginning of StudioCanal discs? It was on both of the new Muratova releases, which I found pretty odd (and there's definitely nothing in them that would warrant it).
https://imgur.com/a/XcCK79x

I noticed this and was puzzled as well. Whoever decided to post those warnings has likely not seen the films.

I just assumed that they're now attaching it to all of their releases of "old" films ... you know, just in case.

Content warnings have been around for a while now (and film classification advice was arguably the original content warning, and an uncontroversial one at that), but this really does feel like something new and different: a suggestion that all works from previous generations are problematic until proven otherwise, and that all should be approached with caution. It's kind of wild to think about!

Or that it's easier to include everywhere than to research which movies might need it exactly.
(Always look for the laziness first)

Almost no movie that Studiocanal has ever released needs this kind of "warning". We just need more educated movie watchers.

I think so too, but if a generic introductory 15 sec text panel is what gets labels not worrying about whatever they release and just releasing them, as some kind of brainless blanket practice, I couldn't care less. Just add the text and get it going.
(I wonder, however, if your view of the Studiocanal catalogue is correct and if it actually contains that few questionable representations)

UK viewers are used to seeing these content warnings for television broadcasts of older material (television and film), certainly in recent years. It's basically shorthand for discriminatory attitudes and language, racism, sexism, homophobia and other politically incorrect material that just does not fly any more. I'm kind of surprised that it would be included on a disc since the BBFC content advice would probably cover that. I'm guessing it's a UK disc, right?

I mentioned this a few months back, but there’s a racism warning on Studio Canal’s disc of Coup de torchon. None of the other Tavernier films in the set had a warning

That's why I believe Criterion won't release it

The cynic in me thinks that studios will just start putting these bland, broad trigger warnings before every film they release, even the most innocuous, just in case someone somewhere is offended by anything at all in the film. They’ll say, “Well, we did warn you.”

I'm offended when new films don't include a disclaimer that they "reflect current attitudes, which will never become outdated or be found offensive"

This subject came up when they released Contempt. Most StudioCanal discs now have this
warning, doesn't matter what film.

Matt wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 3:50 pm The cynic in me thinks that studios will just start putting these bland, broad trigger warnings before every film they release, even the most innocuous, just in case someone somewhere is offended by anything at all in the film. They’ll say, “Well, we did warn you.”

I don’t think you’re being cynical at all – in fact, it seems like that’s exactly what’s happening here!

Interesting (and even slightly alarming) context about UK TV, jlnight. Again, nothing against content warnings of pretty much any kind for any reason, but there is something insulting to audiences in all of this – and perhaps to the filmmakers too, because how we approach a work is probably at least somewhat subconsciously shaped by stuff like this (I know I had this warning in the back of my mind throughout watching The Long Farewell and kind of wondering what this offensive/outdated material could possibly be).

Right, I've had a look at what the BBFC said about Brief Encounters and they claimed:

There are metaphorical references to 'savage' cannibal tribes, as well as use of the term 'gypsy'.

It was passed as a PG, as a screenshot of the cover in this thread confirms, but they could have bumped it up to a '12' if it was really a problem.

Not sure what the issue would be for The Long Farewell, although:

a teenage boy tries to repeatedly kiss a girl on the lips but she pushes him away laughing.

I have no idea how it plays out onscreen. The fall-out from the Women's Football World Cup final indicate that those type of actions might be deemed unacceptable nowadays.

In any case StudioCanal and other companies probably receive feedback from customers and respond with the content warnings. It might be better than dismissing the concerns out of hand.

JSC wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 6:49 pm This subject came up when they released Contempt. Most StudioCanal discs now have this
warning, doesn't matter what film.

While one did, the other seven films in the Tavernier box have no warnings, so I don’t think this is as widespread as that

furbicide wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 1:36 am

Matt wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 3:50 pm The cynic in me thinks that studios will just start putting these bland, broad trigger warnings before every film they release, even the most innocuous, just in case someone somewhere is offended by anything at all in the film. They’ll say, “Well, we did warn you.”

I don’t think you’re being cynical at all – in fact, it seems like that’s exactly what’s happening here!

Interesting (and even slightly alarming) context about UK TV, jlnight. Again, nothing against content warnings of pretty much any kind for any reason, but there is something insulting to audiences in all of this – and perhaps to the filmmakers too, because how we approach a work is probably at least somewhat subconsciously shaped by stuff like this (I know I had this warning in the back of my mind throughout watching The Long Farewell and kind of wondering what this offensive/outdated material could possibly be).

In a perfect world, illeterate-to-picture people wouldn't need such bland generic warnings, which is some kind of "a stupid answer to a stupid reaction", but personnally, I think that if it's what required for labels to be at ease within their work and for such viewers to be warned beforehand "we told you", it might not be such a bad situation after all.

domino harvey wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 2:37 pm I mentioned this a few months back, but there’s a racism warning on Studio Canal’s disc of Coup de torchon. None of the other Tavernier films in the set had a warning

Warner Archive’s new Blu-ray of Gentleman Jim has a similar warning. I haven’t watched any other of WAC most recent discs but this is the first time I’ve seen it on a non-cartoon release from them. Certainly something like Santa Fe Trail would have warranted one if the few seconds of an extra in blackface in Gentleman Jim did. I suppose if it is making them more comfortable releasing A Day at the Races or as Domino said in the WAC thread, the remaining Garland-Rooney-Berkeley musicals, I can’t complain, not that I would have any way.

JSC wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 6:49 pm This subject came up when they released Contempt. Most StudioCanal discs now have this
warning, doesn't matter what film.

Interestingly, at least on the UHD, there is no such warning when you watch the film via the French or German menus. So this is something being requested specifically by the UK office.

The Lavender Hill Mob Is the next Ealing comedy to get a 4K Blu-ray release, on the 22nd of April.

Also, a 4k of Kind Hearts and Coronets but without the tat.