criterionforum.org

tenia wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:51 pm So, reading from this, it couldn't have been a "group" of grapes ?

https://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1958/8/11

Tenia, literally everyone I've ever known in my entire life has called a bunch of grapes a bunch of grapes. Give this one up, you're demonstrably wrong

domino harvey wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:37 pm Tenia, literally everyone I've ever known in my entire life has called a bunch of grapes a bunch of grapes. Give this one up, you're demonstrably wrong

Swo's Peanuts example probably is the said demonstration !
It's not that I want to argue it, it's just that I couldn't relate as to why the "bunch" word came so quickly in the discussion. I now much better understand where it's coming from.

Maybe the Wild Bunch is not for what is trying to be interpreted but for the interpreters themselves.

There is not a single post here discussing how good this movie is, but rather an entire debate about whether a clue is bad or simply mediocre. What a crying shame.

Including yours

Maybe because there's not much to say about the film? It's a competent adaptation of an okay play that for me is most notable for racist Piglet.

And this release hasn't even come out yet?

I have yet to see the film in its entirety––I've seen clips from various documentaries as well as a piece of it on TV once––but the play is more than merely okay, it's one of the most dramatically potent and structurally sound pieces of traditional American drama of the 20th century (which means ever, really). An oversentimentalization of the subject matter, parodied most notably in George C. Wolfe's The Colored Museum, obscures its value as a distanced examination of midcentury racial, economic, and gender politics. Hansberry, who in my estimation is one of the most unvalued of playwrights, never gets the credit she deserves as an extremely left, radical political thinker. If we think of Raisin as simply another standard family drama, we miss the critical thought that goes into it, and we lose the aesthetic power that the writing contains. Few scenes come off the page as powerfully as Benetha and Lena's "In my mother's house there is still God" something which perhaps is ignored due to its religious tenor. But my god, the maturity of Hansberry's text is nearly unparalleled in 20th century dramatic literature, and few other plays match its perfect balance of optimism and pessimism. If the film fails to match it, it's little fault of the play.

In his introduction to the published screenplay, Spike Lee speaks highly of Hansberry's unproduced screenplay, which he notes does not simply replicate the single-set play but attempts to expand it and with it examine larger swaths of black life in the US. I'm curious to see how the actual film measures up to Hansberry's original intentions.

a couple new extras have been added. The disc now has an "Interview from 2002 with director Daniel Petrie" and the insert/booklet has "James Baldwin’s 1969 tribute to Hansberry, “Sweet Lorraine”"

Criterion - Spine #945 - Region A / B

If that's correct, it's very interesting.

Filmed theatre, but solid enough on those terms, and it’s good to see a less constrained Sidney Poitier demonstrating his range beyond saintly tokenism. The MVP is Ruby Dee, who has the least flashy role but manages to imbue her every scene with the sense of a fully conceived character.

The weakest aspect of the film is how stagebound it remains in this adaptation, so it’s very disappointing to learn from the (fine) extras that Lorraine Hansberry’s initial screenplay opened up the film in a radical way, making of it more a portrait of the wider black community, but this screenplay was vetoed by a gutless studio.

swo17 wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:44 pm I'll change the thread title as soon as Graphist admits it was a bad clue

Would you consider changing it now that he's passed away?

Wait, what?

That user logged in as recently as yesterday. My offer still stands

I imagine he meant the illustrator.

Oh fine

Ribs wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 7:10 pm I imagine he meant the illustrator.

Yeah, sorry. That was a very unclear post. (Pronoun trouble, as Daffy Duck would say).