criterionforum.org

Not saying anything other than I know for a fact Harold and Maude is the Ashby film in the works. When I thought of Paramount titles I would kill for in the Criterion Collection after they started licensing, this was always the first one.

No clue on a release date or features though.

Well I guess that solves the identity of what the Hal Ashby title is! Harold and Maude is one of my favorite films of all time. It really did need a new release. The Paramount dvd besides being barebones, was sourced from a print that had lots of noticeable damage.

There's been reason to think that a second wave of Paramount titles is forthcoming. I asked Haskell Wexler last year about Medium Cool and he said that there had been discussions but nothing was certain yet. Criterion also mentioned awhile back that they had a Preston Sturges title in the works which is suspected to be Miracle of Morgan's Creek.

Ryan - just curious if your suggestion of Umbrellas of Cherbourg from a few months back is still possible in your view, or if the things that led you to believe that was a possibility ended up being meant for Belle de jour.

ianungstad wrote:There's been reason to think that a second wave of Paramount titles is forthcoming. I asked Haskell Wexler last year about Medium Cool and he said that there had been discussions but nothing was certain yet. Criterion also mentioned awhile back that they had a Preston Sturges title in the works which is suspected to be Miracle of Morgan's Creek.

And in April of this year, they responded to inquiries about The Conformist with "keep your fingers crossed." Harold and Maude was definitely not among the original set of titles that they licensed from Paramount, so it looks like there will indeed be a second wave.

Hiroshima Mon Amour. Please.

RyanGallagher wrote:

ianungstad wrote:Ryan- does your post imply that you've heard that Criterion licensed The King and I from Fox? That's some pretty minor Rogers and Hammerstein and isn't the FOX dvd pretty loaded? Why would Criterion even bother?

Why bother? Couldn't you say the same thing about Easy Rider? I guess I don't have a good answer. Maybe nothing will come of it.

Let's hope. The first traditional Hollywood musical that Criterion puts out should in no way be this awful R+H garbage. Also I have a hard time believing Fox wouldn't just put it out themselves

The king and I is my favorite R+H musical, and features superb performances from the two leads, so I wouldn't say it's a minor film. But I always imagined Fox would release it themselves.

By the way, has Criterion ever released a musical in the main line?

Le million, Tales of Hoffmann, A Woman Is a Woman, The Mikado, Black Orpheus

But traditional Hollywood musical? No

Please let there be a Film Comment ad to the effect of "Frampton Comes Alive on Criterion this Winter!"

*CG* wrote:Apu Trilogy, Anatomy of a Murder, Frampton set and a Hal Ashby film confirmed for future Criterion releases at the Wexner Center for the Arts.

For the ignorant, who is Frampton?

dwk wrote:Not 100% that this is Criterion related, but a few hours ago Sam Smith tweeted the following:
"Getting paid to look at Charlotte Rampling."

Upgrade of The Night Porter? Swimming Pool joining the collection?

Probably related to this.

swo17 wrote:Probably related to this.

Yeah, that seems to be what he was working on. Sorry for getting everyone's hopes up.

domino harvey wrote:But traditional Hollywood musical? No

I thought The Mikado was traditional?

It's British though.

There's a difference (and I could have sworn this adaptation was Hollywood considering the director)?

While I'd be the first to point out the cinematic limitations of the film versions of Rodgers and Hammerstein's stage musicals, it's painful to hear THE KING AND I referred to as garbage (unless one is referring to the political content inherent in the original source/s... as political or social history THE KING AND I *is* garbage -- but it was written to be an emotionally involving musical play and as such it succeeds as few in that genre have). THE KING AND I is not great film making, but it is a great capture of a great musical with enough "adaptation" to make it cinematically viable for an audience.

Do I think it falls within the purview (as I understand it) of Criterion's mission? God no! But neither is it garbage. I'm always amazed at how little understanding for film my theater friends have, and how little understanding for theater (especially musical theater) my film friends have.

I know I don't post much here -- but this is my favorite forum to read for film, and I felt I had to mount some kind of defense for the worthy film version of THE KING AND I.

Even on the stage though The King and I is sort of a lame duck (I've unfortunately have had that experience and will likely never repeat it for the film). The adaptation may be worthy of the play, but the play wasn't worth much to begin with.

mckeldinb wrote:Do I think it falls within the purview (as I understand it) of Criterion's mission? God no! But neither is it garbage. I'm always amazed at how little understanding for film my theater friends have, and how little understanding for theater (especially musical theater) my film friends have.

Oh, please don't go there. I think you could certainly make a case for it being a Criterion release (ie it's important-- nominated for Best Picture, won Best Actor, very popular and well-remembered by many), but that doesn't change my personal opinions towards it. Saying I don't like it because I don't understand it is silly, especially considering my long post history on this board with regards to musicals

If you'd like to stage a longer defense for the film, though, please do so here

Jeff wrote:

Bonus feature?

Lol Jeff.

knives wrote:Even on the stage though The King and I is sort of a lame duck (I've unfortunately have had that experience and will likely never repeat it for the film). The adaptation may be worthy of the play, but the play wasn't worth much to begin with.

Sometimes an opinion is just uninformed. The King and I is as well written a libretto for a musical play as you're likely to find (save perhaps Gypsy). There are a couple of awkward scene transitions (likely due to the limitations of mid-twentieth century staging techniques), and Lun-Tha, the male half of the tragic sub-plot, is underwritten (but is fleshed out by both the music and lyrics of his two duets). If one doesn't appreciate the musical vocabulary of Richard Rodgers (or post-war American theater composers in general), it's unlikely that the play will work for you.

domino probably has the most informed opinion about musicals on this entire board.