criterionforum.org

I presume Waters approved the aspect ratio of 1.66:1? It's very likely the film would have been shown in 1.33:1 when it was distributed in 16mm. (Pink Flamingos, which I did see in 16mm, certainly was meant to be seen in 4:3,)

Neither of the two reviews mention this.

All the times I've seen Pink Flamingos (I've seen it theatrically a few times) it's always been shown in 1.85:1

At least since the 25th anniversary release. It'll most likely stay like that for the eventual blu-ray.

GaryC wrote:I presume Waters approved the aspect ratio of 1.66:1? It's very likely the film would have been shown in 1.33:1 when it was distributed in 16mm. (Pink Flamingos, which I did see in 16mm, certainly was meant to be seen in 4:3,)

Neither of the two reviews mention this.

Aspect Ratios of Waters' films have been changed in lieu of Waters stating that he was always framing his films to be projected in wide screen, but since they were originally distributed through such underground means & on 16mm, they were always displayed in full frame. So the new aspect ratios are "Director Approved" cuts. Personally I prefer the full frame as that's how I initially saw them & was a bit disappointed when he decided on this. If the Qatsi trilogy didn't get the On The Waterfront treatment, I doubt we'll see any of Waters' films in multiple aspect ratios.

On the commentary for this film, John Waters actually discusses the aspect ratio. He says he prefers the 1.66 frame as it gives him a type of connection to the European art house cinema that influenced him. The transfer notes in the booklet also states that this is John Waters' preferred aspect ratio.

kcota17 wrote:All the times I've seen Pink Flamingos (I've seen it theatrically a few times) it's always been shown in 1.85

That's also part of the process of blowing up a 16mm negative to 35mm. Most independent films shot on 16mm from the 90s also went through a similar process where a natively shot 1.33 movie was transfer to 35mm and forced into a 1.85 frame.

Quite the fascinating film - full marks to Criterion!

I don't remember the last time I so voraciously devoured a Criterion edition. I watched the movie on Easter Sunday (having no idea how appropriate that would be--I may have to add it to my rotation of Easter movies) and as soon as the film was finished, I immediately watched the whole thing over again with commentary, and then all the interviews and features, and when I couldn't squeeze anything else out of the disc (I even went on a hunt for Easter eggs--sadly there are none that I can find), I read the essay in the pamphlet. Granted this isn't the most stacked release but I don't remember the last time I just consumed every part of a Criterion presentation in one sitting. There was just something weirdly compelling about this film, which I didn't expect because I hated Pink Flamingos.

Curious, what made you appreciate this movie but hate Pink Flamingos?

Garbage tends to taste better on days when you are starving.

kcota17 wrote:Curious, what made you appreciate this movie but hate Pink Flamingos?

I don't really know how to answer that but I have a couple of theories. One is that I saw Pink Flamingos first without any real idea of what I was getting into and I felt more mentally prepared for Multiple Maniacs. Perhaps I would like Pink Flamingos more upon a second viewing. Maniacs also doesn't seem quite as gratuitous as Flamingos. Maybe I was just in the right mood for it.

Also, part of what made me enjoy it so much had nothing to do with the plot but I found it inspirational that John Waters just made this movie with his limited resources and just forced his dream into reality.

I don't mind all of Waters' films (and they are certainly unique works!) but I must admit that I'm not too big a fan of Pink Flamingos either (or Desperate Living aside from its absolutely fantastic first ten minutes that are worth watching the entire film for!). Although I found Female Trouble to be really good, and I think having the spine of a biopic style storyline in that film rather than just transgressive set pieces trying to out-gross the competition was the thing that caught my interest there!

And of course the gross out element eventually reached its pinnacle and became a big meta-gag existing almost entirely outside of the filmic world with the Smell-o-vision cards on Polyester, and the moments in the film which dare the audience to scratch and enjoy a nice smell only to have a pair of dirty socks thrust into the frame while the heroine (and more gullible members of the audience) gags!

I loved John Waters as a teenager due to the outrageous grotesqueries and vile imagery, but as an adult, I've appreciated this period more in the context of independent or experimental cinema. It's almost too trashy to even consider it teetering into art, but it seems to fit very nicely in a post-Jack Smith world dominated with drag queens and puke. It simultaneously loves the golden age of American cinema with glamorous women, chisled men, and pure spectacle while shitting all over it. Personally, I find this period of films quaint in compairson to today where the worst things imaginable have been caught on video and are up for streaming online. These films have a naive sense of danger, fun, and humor that always makes them a pleasure to watch.

I guess that idea of quaint danger, fun and humour is what makes John Waters's films feel like they're working in somewhat of the some territory as Kenneth Anger. Though Anger would be more interested in that aspect of transgression and brandish a knife at the audience rather than a cheeky pair of dirty socks! And of course Anger's films had their casts role playing and embodying the fantastasical figures and movements that they were obsessed with, but never really had a continuing regular star/muse figure of the likes of Divine in them!

For what it is worth Pink Flamingos & Desperate Living are both being re-released by Warners Archive (MOD DVD) on 13 June. I have a feeling this sinks any chance of Criterion releases in the foreseeable future for these two titles.

The same thing happened with Badlands and that didn't stop Criterion releasing it, so it's not necessarily a roadblock.

Like a lot of Waters' films (from all stages of his career), I found this by turns hilarious and dull, but with certainly enough of the former to keep me going through the more aimless stretches. Even if you're similarly agnostic, this is a great package from Criterion. The cast interview is detailed and fascinating, and - as is standard for Waters - his commentary is more entertaining than the film itself, and definitely in contention for the best commentary of the year.

I first saw this around 1992 on a borrowed bootleg VHS that broke when I rewound it. I'm pleased to learn that, from the rosary job scene forward, it's just as awful as I remembered. Everything before it, though, is vintage Waters. There is some historical revisionism here with the new framing, the extreme cleanup job, and the replacement of the needle-drop soundtrack with soundalike music (all of which Waters addresses in his commentary), but none of it really matters all that much.

The cast interview, as zedz says, was fascinating, perhaps all the moreso for me when I realized that these people are all my father's age now. It's too bad more of them didn't make it to that age (RIP Cookie Mueller, Divine, David Lochary, Van Smith, et al), but it's also a wonder so many of them did.