criterionforum.org

Posted: **Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:28 pm**

Thanks again. I really really really can't wait to see it.

Posted: **Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:01 pm**

wow! the sight and sound review by Peter Matthews tears into this film

yikes! that's a spicy meatball.

Posted: **Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:21 pm**

scalesojustice wrote:wow! the sight and sound review by Peter Matthews tears into this film

Typical Sight & Sound - lifting up to knock back down. It's only been three months since they put Penelope Cruz on the cover and devoted a feature article to the film. Look for one of their reviewers to knock Miami Vice as "mediocre hackwork" in December.

Posted: **Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:30 pm**

Accusing Almodóvar for returning to his own roots and themes seems silly given the significance of the title, or at least one of its meanings. And throughout the article, Matthews rips into Almodóvar for his treatment of women, practically accusing him of misogyny, or perhaps Matthews is a misogynist!

I thought Cruz was terrific as Italia (!) in Non ti muovere, a patently Sophia Loren inspired role if there ever was one, and hence, found the following particularly irritating:

Peter Matthews wrote:Capering around the village in skin-tight floral print dresses, Cruz is done up to evoke Sophia Loren in such rambunctious peasant comedies as The Gold of Naples. But the result isn't even 'pink' neorealism. It's closer to puce, which the dictionary defines as the colour of a squashed flea.

Sour stuff, to say the least. Furthermore, even if Almodóvar borrowed from Mildred Pierce, to compare Penelope Cruz to Joan Crawford seems a bit unfair, and a little far fetched. Ditto to Magnani in Bellissima.

That Matthews doesn't understand or appreciate champagne seems obvious.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:57 pm**

[quote="tavernier"][quote="tavernier"]From SPC press release:

Sony Pictures Classics will release Pedro Almodóvar's â€œVolverâ€

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:21 pm**

The Hollywood Reporter wrote:Aug. 15, 2006

'Labyrinth,' 'Volver' in NYFF sked

By Gregg Goldstein

NEW YORK -- Two Spanish-language features, Guillermo del Toro's horror fable "Pan's Labyrinth" and Pedro Almodovar's comic drama "Volver," have landed prestigious slots in the fall's New York Film Festival.

Programmers at the Film Society of Lincoln Center selected "Labyrinth" as the 44th annual fest's closing-night film and "Volver" as the Centerpiece film. They also chose a restored print of Warren Beatty's "Reds" as the retrospective film, commemorating the drama's 25th anniversary.

"Labyrinth" takes a fantastical look at the horrors of war as seen through the eyes of a young girl. "Volver" revolves around a family of women, incorporating themes of death, abuse and the supernatural.

Five Centerpiece films and four closing-night films have gone on to garner top Oscar noms in the past decade. "Labyrinth" and "Volver" were official selections at May's Festival de Cannes, where "Volver" took home awards for Almodovar's screenplay and the female ensemble cast led by Penelope Cruz. It's Almodovar's sixth appearance in one of the fest's top slots and del Toro's first.

"This is a great tribute to Guillermo's cinematic vision and positions the film as one of the most important films of the year. It's his masterpiece," said Bob Berney, president of "Labyrinth" distributor Picturehouse. "Between Cannes, the New York Film Festival and the great reaction at Comic-Con, it sets up the film beautifully for the review-driven and genre audiences we're going for."

" 'Volver' represents yet another high point for a director whose artistry seems to know no limits," said Richard Pena, chairman of the New York Film Festival selection committee and program director of the Film Society, which described the film as a meeting of "Mildred Pierce" and "Arsenic and Old Lace."

"The NYFF has always been a good luck charm for Pedro Almodovar," said Michael Barker, co-president of Sony Pictures Classics. "It will be a great reunion of the festival with Almodovar, Penelope Cruz and Carmen Maura. The NYFF Centerpiece will be the perfect launch for 'Volver' theatrically."

Pena added that "with 'Pan's Labyrinth,' Guillermo del Toro has created a haunting tale that deftly combines the director's penchant for the fantastic with a rich historical vision."

The three features round out the recent selection of Stephen Frears' "The Queen" as the fest's opening-night film. The fest runs Sept. 29-Oct. 15 at Lincoln Center.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:42 pm**

Here's a link to press photos and a 22 page PDF about the film: http://www.mongrelmedia.com/press/Volver/index.html

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:29 pm**

The NYFF has become a waste of time. And I agree that the Pedro asskissing has become particularly tiresome. But weren't they pretty late to the Pedro party?

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:52 pm**

Barmy wrote:The NYFF has become a waste of time. And I agree that the Pedro asskissing has become particularly tiresome. But weren't they pretty late to the Pedro party?

Not really...Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown was the Opening Night film in '88, so Pena started plugging Pedro immediately upon his arrival as head of the festival.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:06 pm**

To those that may have been worried:

Almodovar Rules Out Move to Hollywood

Director Pedro Almodovar has crushed speculation he plans to quit his native Spain for Hollywood. The maverick moviemaker, responsible for films such as Volver and Bad Education, feels he is too old now to change his ways and that the Hollywood method of working would not suit him. He says, "I'm an artist. I'm part of every decision in a movie. This is not how they work in Hollywood. There the director is part of the crew, not the main creator. I'm too old to change now. I wouldn't know how to do it." The director also laments the worsening standard of Hollywood screenwriting, adding, "They forget the most important thing is the script, and the scripts get weaker and weaker. Technical effects advance, but the literary quality is worse."

Posted: **Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:46 am**

Matt wrote:
scalesojustice wrote:wow! the sight and sound review by Peter Matthews tears into this film
Typical Sight & Sound - lifting up to knock back down. It's only been three months since they put Penelope Cruz on the cover and devoted a feature article to the film. Look for one of their reviewers to knock Miami Vice as "mediocre hackwork" in December.

I 'm confused. Is the objection to the review on the grounds that:
a) Sight and Sound should have a 'party line' about every film, from which no reviewer is permitted to deviate; or
b) that nobody is allowed to criticise an Almodovar (or Mann) film?

From what I gather from the above posts, nobody here's actually seen the film yet, and so the defences of Volver against Matthews' criticisms are on the shaky grounds of brand loyalty.

Posted: **Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:25 am**

zedz wrote:
Matt wrote:
scalesojustice wrote:wow! the sight and sound review by Peter Matthews tears into this film
Typical Sight & Sound - lifting up to knock back down. It's only been three months since they put Penelope Cruz on the cover and devoted a feature article to the film. Look for one of their reviewers to knock Miami Vice as "mediocre hackwork" in December.
I 'm confused. Is the objection to the review on the grounds that:
a) Sight and Sound should have a 'party line' about every film, from which no reviewer is permitted to deviate; or
b) that nobody is allowed to criticise an Almodovar (or Mann) film?

From what I gather from the above posts, nobody here's actually seen the film yet, and so the defences of Volver against Matthews' criticisms are on the shaky grounds of brand loyalty.

If you read closely what I wrote, you'll see that I'm only criticizing Sight & Sound for caressing a movie with its right hand, while smacking it around with its left. My comment about Miami Vice is drenched in sarcasm. If you click on the link, you'll notice that the film is featured on the cover of the current issue.

I'm quite clearly taking no position on Volver or the review (or Miami Vice for that matter) at all because--as most attentive, long-time members know--one of my biggest peeves is judging an unseen film. I can't speak for others, though.

Posted: **Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:25 am**

I haven't seen Volver either, but frankly, I think that piece is more a personal attack on Alamodovar than his film.

Posted: **Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:18 pm**

kinjitsu wrote:I haven't seen Volver either, but frankly, I think that piece is more a personal attack on Alamodovar than his film.

Not to mention an insult to his fans.

Posted: **Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:40 pm**

Matt wrote:Not to mention an insult to his fans.

Not to mention insulting Almodóvar by misspelling his name! #-o

Posted: **Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:16 pm**

Matt wrote:
zedz wrote: Is the objection to the review on the grounds that:
a) Sight and Sound should have a 'party line' about every film, from which no reviewer is permitted to deviate
If you read closely what I wrote, you'll see that I'm only criticizing Sight & Sound for caressing a movie with its right hand, while smacking it around with its left.

I'm afraid I don't see the difference. Why shouldn't S&S have different writers with different opinions of a film (a fawning right hand and a slapping left, if you will)? The criticism would be valid if it was a single writer flip-flopping in a mercenary fashion, but I don't see how this is any different from previous articles in which two diametrically opposed views of a film are aired alongside one another (as I think was the case with a Dumont).

Posted: **Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:53 pm**

zedz wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the difference. Why shouldn't S&S have different writers with different opinions of a film (a fawning right hand and a slapping left, if you will)? The criticism would be valid if it was a single writer flip-flopping in a mercenary fashion, but I don't see how this is any different from previous articles in which two diametrically opposed views of a film are aired alongside one another (as I think was the case with a Dumont).

i believe matt was refering to the practice of how they sell magazines. they give favorable attention to the biggest movies and the brightest stars of the month. call it an editorial favor or the magazine business, but they have no problem holding back any reviewer's opinion.

which makes for the good/bad dilema. it's good that they don't muscle their writers to opinions they wouldn't necessarily support, but it's bad because it completely contradicts what was said the month before. they don't give nearly as much feature press to films they give good or excellent reviews for, but rather who they can put on the cover to sell the issue. if they put their highest praised film of the month on the cover the majority of the public would pass it by, or pull a "wtf?" but who doesn't know colin farrell or jamie foxx in vice mode?

Posted: **Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:50 pm**

Thank you, scales, for saying what I was apparently having difficulty getting across.

Posted: **Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:32 pm**

scalesojustice wrote: which makes for the good/bad dilema. it's good that they don't muscle their writers to opinions they wouldn't necessarily support, but it's bad because it completely contradicts what was said the month before.

This is obviously not going anywhere, but I'm afraid I don't see how this supposed "contradiction" counts as "bad". One writer likes a film; another writer doesn't. Why should one or other opinion not be expressed for the sake of editorial consistency? Why shouldn't a publication's writers "contradict" one another?

they don't give nearly as much feature press to films they give good or excellent reviews for, but rather who they can put on the cover to sell the issue. if they put their highest praised film of the month on the cover the majority of the public would pass it by, or pull a "wtf?"

Well, duh. Of course the drivers for what constitutes a cover feature are completely different from what's the best film of any given month. And the biggest story of the month may even be a film that has exclusively negative treatment within the magazine. And why not? This explains why Volver was on the cover of the Cannes issue, but I don't see what bearing it has on the subsequent "contradiction" (i.e. divergent opinion of the film) that has people criticising the magazine's editorial policy.

To sum up: I see the willingness of a magazine to present two conflicting assessments of a film as a strength, not a weakness, and until we've all actually had a chance to see the film, we're not going to be able to intelligently discuss which of those two assessments had the most merit.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:59 pm**

Ok, finally saw it yesterday night at the theatre! I went with a friend and we both had a fantastic time watching it. In fact, midway through it, she turned to me and said how much she was enjoying it and I happily nodded.

Yes, it's a trip down memory lane for old Almodovar devotees (Carmen Maura and Chuz Lampreave together again!) and yes, there are plenty of Almodovarian humour and situations throughout (you fans know what I mean!) but the biggest surprise for me was that amidst all this, he was able to touch on themes that he hasn't yet touched before which made it a totally different and new Almodovar film -- albeit with the same lovable characters we've come to expect from him. So yes, it's definitely a step forward from anything he's done before.

Almodovar has been doing some of the best work of his career with his last 4 or 5 films. Fortunately for us, he's on a roll here and may he continue for many years to come. Definitely one of the best films I've seen this year and I can't wait to see it again.

Note to Michael: bring along a box of tissues! I dare you not to cry in this one!

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:35 pm**

Hmm.. that's new. I don't think an Almodovar film ever made me cry. Except a few tears fell for that poignant moment in All About My Mother when Manuela confronts Lola on the cemetery stairs. Talk to Her and Bad Education stirred up a lot of emotions in me..that's for sure. It's been a long while since I sobbed on my way out of a cinema.. the last time was Far From Heaven I believe.

Lino, what's Volver's cinematography like? How's Iglesias' score? I really love his Bad Education score and I couldn't even imagine him topping this score. Does his style remain "baroque" like the last two films? What's the clipping of Bellissima doing in Volver (from what I read in several sources)?

Damn, damn. I can't wait to see Volver.. as you can tell!

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:50 pm**

Michael wrote:Lino, what's Volver's cinematography like? How's Iglesias' score? I really love his Bad Education score and I couldn't even imagine him topping this score. Does his style remain "baroque" like the last two films? What's the clipping of Bellissima doing in Volver (from what I read in several sources)?

The cinematography is more subdued in this one and never flashy like in some previous movies (Women on the verge... for instance). The overall feel is more naturalistic but never dull. The compositions are perfectly realized throughout and he even gets the chance to experiment a bit here and there.

Iglesias' score is not one of his best although that's not to say it is bad. Maybe the intention was to not make it stand out as much like in previous ones because frankly, I cannot remember a single melodic line from it. But as it is, it works on a very organic level with the images and sounds of the movie because it never feels pompous or in the way.

As for the Bellissima clip, I really cannot tell you more than you already know for if I did, I would be ruining the movie for you!

edit: I think if you could summarize the movie in a few words, you could say that this is a very unusual story told in a very straightforward way!

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:48 pm**

How's Iglesias' score? I really love his Bad Education score and I couldn't even imagine him topping this score. Does his style remain "baroque" like the last two films?

I posted about this on page one...but...

I imported it a few months ago.

Like much of his work, "Volver" features the Herrmannesque driving strings along side his typically bright orchestral sound (light winds, guitar, full orchestra), at times suggesting a Spanish Hitchcockian thriller. Much of the score is played against chamber writing or interesting motivic fragments that float in and around his more thematic material. I personally think it's one of his best. If you love his music, you should get the CD.

I haven't seen the film yet, not sure at all when I'll have the chance.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:49 am**

Saw Volver tonight at a screening. I loved this film. I love everything Almodovar does. What struck me tonight is that his films don't seem like individual pieces any more. They feel like parts of a whole.

Pedro and Penelope Cruz were there for a Q&A. (One of the few benefits of living in L.A.) Someone asked the requisite question about his ability to write such strong female characters. He got a huge response when he stated that women aren't that complicated, and just because people in Hollywood don't choose to write about them, doesn't mean it's hard to do.

Posted: **Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:54 pm**

For Chicago-land people, this will be showing on the 17th at 9pm at the University of Chicago's Max Palevsky Cinema. If you have a copy of the Doc Films schedule, it's the "Sony Pictures Classics Screening" listed after 'Last House on Dead End Street'.

I believe it will be free (at least for us CMS students), and passes will be available starting at 8pm.

There will also be a discussion with Michael Barker (co-pres of Sony Pictures Classics) from 4 to 5:30 in the film studies lounge (Cobb 310). That part might only be for students though.

criterionforum.org

Volver (Pedro Almodovar, 2006)