692 It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

[domino harvey]

It's not hip enough for the kids at Criterion High

Will you give up on this somehow being a matter of people posturing for cool points? Perhaps given that there are now pages of discussion of the film, the vast majority of it negative, the easier explanation is most of us don't find it a good movie. Besides, a really cool person would offer a compelling defense of a film most people dislike or misunderstand. No one has ever been thought cool, on this board or elsewhere, for the equivalent of "Hey, you know that movie no one likes? I too dislike that movie! I'm pretty radical, huh?!"

[Lowry_Sam]

I guess I shouldn't surprised by all the vitriol expressed towards Stanley Kramer, particularly since that's how I feel about Otto Preminger, whom everyone seems to love. That being said, IAMMMMW would be towards the bottom of my list of Kramers I'd like to see on Criterion. On The Beach, Judgement at Nuremberg, Inherit The Wind or The Defiant Ones are all more worthy candidates. I'd even rather see a "produced by..." box (5,000 Fingers Of Dr. T, The Member Of The Wedding, Death Of A Salesman, The Wild One, The Sniper) before IAMMMMW.

If Criterion really wants to release a road show edition of a madcap, star-studded 60's comedy, The Loved One would be a far better choice & I'm sure Warner has as much interest in releasing it on blu-ray as they do The Devils.

[Jeff]

No one has ever been thought cool, on this board or elsewhere, for the equivalent of "Hey, you know that movie no one likes? I too dislike that movie! I'm pretty radical, huh?!"

1. I've never been thought of as cool for any reason.
2. I think I might be too old to be a hipster now.
3. I would watch the shit out of Criterion High. I hope the "very special episode" has dom freaking out to "I'm So Excited" like Jessie did on Saved by the Bell.

[domino harvey]

I guess I shouldn't surprised by all the vitriol expressed towards Stanley Kramer, particularly since that's how I feel about Otto Preminger, whom everyone seems to love.

If it's any consolation, everyone (read: the French) loved Preminger in the sixties and everyone (read: the Internet) loves him now, but in-between he was the object of mockery for many reviewers and movie entertainment writers, who considered his work as a filmmaker so terrible as to be self-explanatory. As someone who thinks he's up there with Hitchcock and Hawks, I don't get it, but maybe you do!

[domino harvey]

3. I would watch the shit out of Criterion High. I hope the "very special episode" has dom freaking out to "I'm So Excited" like Jessie did on Saved by the Bell.

Pretty sure MGM's pitch went something like this:

[Jeff]

I'm only a little bit ashamed that I read that in Screech's voice. I'm sure that one of the "good films" he is referring to is Preminger's Exodus!

[Moe Dickstein]

Glad I could finally contribute something fun

Still baffled by the hate but whatev. I'll just focus on enjoying the release.

[knives]

I've never seen It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, but I've been aware of it for the better part of the my life and I've never encountered such a resounding negative response to it.

It's not hip enough for the kids at Criterion High

Tonight, on a very special episode of Criterion High...

The forum gang learns the harsh truths of drug addiction, as Domino becomes addicted to diet pills.

And they learn the value of acceptance, after a blow-up about the cinematic merits of Stanley Kramer.

Tonight at 9/8 central, only on the CW.

Obviously we are more Clone High and less Pretty Little Liars.

[scotty2]

I'm with Jeff in that I remember Mad Mad World from television broadcasts when I was quite young. Lots of shouting, which isn't necessarily funny in itself, but the characters are so completely, so venally, unhinged that it eventually takes on a madcap momentum (there is a silent Buster Keaton sighting too). It was funny to see Buddy Hackett and Mickey Rooney flying upside down and through a billboard at that age. It really is a time capsule now. This was the mainstream entertainment meant to appeal to my greatest generation parents, to all those people who perhaps dreamed of maybe finally catching a floor show at the Sands but never quite got there, and it is fun to watch as a gallery of comedians from the time: Winters, Berle, Silvers, a nonplussed Don Knotts. It is of its time--the world Mad Men began commemorating, complete with the drinks (Jim Backus as a drunken playboy pilot), the misogyny (upending loudmouthed Ethel Merman so the keys fall out of her bosom), and the hint of wilder things to come (Dick Shawn's swinging bachelor pad, complete with blank-faced starlet). It is by no means a great work of cinema, but the fact that I haven't seen the flick in many a year and I can recall each of these scenes and many more shows that in its stunt casting and overreaching bad taste, it accomplished something perhaps both dubious and indelible. I'd watch it again, and I'm not troubled at all by the fact that Stanley Kramer was not a great director.

[John Morgan]

I really hope MAD WORLD is in Criterion's release schedule.

First off, I hope they would first, correct/add several little things for a new release. I really don't expect a full 192 minute restoration, but one can hope.

My Quibbles with the MGM Blu Ray:

**The OVERTURE is cut too closely, actually there is a bit of overlap, to the start of the MAIN TITLE. There should be a few seconds of silence between them.

**The MGM BluRay leaves off the Entr'acte Music at the Intermission. This had to be an oversight and would like to see it corrected.

**And I really would like to hear the original police calls audio back into the intermission. This has been restored to the 70mm prints being circulated currently.

As far as the longer version, I think this would only be wise through seemless branching or by choosing what version you want in the menu.

Personally, I would want (in the film) only scenes that make story sense, and are legit Roadshow footage and NOT workprint segments or trims made even before the Roadshow version or segments that may only have sound and no picture or visa versa. Films with stills and such (LOST HORIZON 1937, A STAR IS BORN 1954) take me out of the story and MAD WORLD being a comedy, certainly would require smooth transitions. Again, my opinion and preference.

I think the MGM transfer is almost perfect...maybe a bit of tweeking on contrast. The sound is also very good, but I think it could be a bit more dynamic. I don't mean a complete new sound mix from the 6 tracks, but maybe a little boost in the surrounds for the music, and perhaps some discreet sound in the surrounds. I know surround wasn't used back then like today, but I really miss hearing the bucket tumble down the hill in the surrounds when they have that reversed POV. And I think the music dynamics can be made a bit more immersive.

It is one of my favorite films...I saw it at the right age and was frustrated how close the new Blu-Ray was, but not quite there.

[Joe Lugoff]

In the ten-year period 1958-67, Stanley Kramer directed seven movies. Four of them were nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture, and the other three were almost certainly in the running.

Now, I'm kind of sorry I said that, because I have no respect for the Oscars and realize they're mostly about politics and campaigning. However, I don't think any truly lousy movies were ever nominated for Best Picture.

But that ten-year stretch is one of the greatest for any individual filmmaker in Hollywood history. What exactly is wrong with THE DEFIANT ONES, ON THE BEACH, INHERIT THE WIND, JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG, MAD WORLD, SHIP OF FOOLS and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER? If you had directed those, would you go into hiding out of great shame? Or is it just that they weren't the types of movies to be given the Seal of Approval by Cahiers du cinema?

Of all the smug snobbery, none is worse than when it involves movies. Even at their best, movies are an inferior art form. Any true intellectual would greatly prefer spending his time with literature or music. The "auteur theory" was a desperate attempt to qualify movies as a true art form, but the sad fact remains that way too many people are involved in moviemaking for it ever to be true art. Basically, because of their great cost, movies have to be commercial products, and I think Kramer did a good job of making commercial products with at least a little meaning to them.

Anyone who sits down to watch MAD WORLD and judges it by the standards of "art" gets what he deserves.

[justeleblanc]

The sound is also very good, but I think it could be a bit more dynamic. I don't mean a complete new sound mix from the 6 tracks, but maybe a little boost in the surrounds for the music, and perhaps some discreet sound in the surrounds. I know surround wasn't used back then like today, but I really miss hearing the bucket tumble down the hill in the surrounds when they have that reversed POV. And I think the music dynamics can be made a bit more immersive.

Be careful. While I understand this common complaint that the mix for pre-5.1 films leave much to be desired in terms of contemporary aesthetics and tastes, you do realize that like aspect ratios and original color timings, the original sound mix is an historical document and it should not be tampered with and revised for a DVD release... at least without offering the original soundtrack as an option on the disc.

Sorry to snap, but I've grown pretty intolerant toward the way that most studios remix a film's soundtrack, and how no one cares that this is akin to colorizing a black and white movie. It can obviously be problematic when the original mix consists of five front speakers (L, LC, C, RC, R) as was the case with the 70mm Cinerama/Panavision/TODD-AO releases, as I don't think there exists a home stereo set-up with more than three front speakers (though I've seen several DIY home-theaters with this type of 5-speaker set-up, so it would not be difficult for studios to release a 6.0 track). However, certainly studios should not be tampering with the original mix of the surround channels... both the splitting of a mono-surround into two channels and the adding or more sounds at higher volumes into the surrounds.

I wish more people actually cared about this. Also, my 2 cents... I'd love to see Mad Mad Mad Mad boxed with other single-strip Cinerama titles, much like the BBS set.

[cdnchris]

Now, I'm kind of sorry I said that, because I have no respect for the Oscars and realize they're mostly about politics and campaigning. However, I don't think any truly lousy movies were ever nominated for Best Picture.

It's in style to pick on it, I know, but The Greatest Show on Earth is genuinely lousy. And it won, too!

But that ten-year stretch is one of the greatest for any individual filmmaker in Hollywood history. What exactly is wrong with THE DEFIANT ONES, ON THE BEACH, INHERIT THE WIND, JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG, MAD WORLD, SHIP OF FOOLS and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER? If you had directed those, would you go into hiding out of great shame? Or is it just that they weren't the types of movies to be given the Seal of Approval by Cahiers du cinema?

I like The Defiant Ones. I guess I always found Guess Who's Coming to Dinner too melodramatic for my tastes. I'm not someone who hates Kramer. I'va only seen three of the films listed there, but of the three there's only one I found genuinely interesting.

Anyone who sits down to watch MAD WORLD and judges it by the standards of "art" gets what he deserves.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that and I find that statement fairly ridiculous in all honesty. I think most are simply complaining that it's a.) not funny and b.) boring. Maybe those aren't valid criticisms but Jesus, if the movie is supposed to be an entertainment at least make it entertaining. People bitch about Bay but at least The Rock is entertaining (to me at least.)

Having said that and generally being indifferent to the release, I do get why they're releasing it and good for them for getting their hands on it. It fits more than, say, Benjamin Button.

[warren oates]

Even at their best, movies are an inferior art form. Any true intellectual would greatly prefer spending his time with literature or music. The "auteur theory" was a desperate attempt to qualify movies as a true art form, but the sad fact remains that way too many people are involved in moviemaking for it ever to be true art. Basically, because of their great cost, movies have to be commercial products, and I think Kramer did a good job of making commercial products with at least a little meaning to them.

Welcome to the forum of inferior art. Where have you been all this time? No doubt discussing cheaper, more personal, intellectual, handcrafted, non-collaborative and quickly finished art like the Sagrada Familia on architecture forums.

[krnash]

Now, I'm kind of sorry I said that, because I have no respect for the Oscars and realize they're mostly about politics and campaigning. However, I don't think any truly lousy movies were ever nominated for Best Picture.

Seriously? I would consider CRASH, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE and GLADIATOR lousy films, and those were just of the films that won, and only in the last fifteen years. Then again, it's all subjective, I know...

[Jeff]

In the ten-year period 1958-67, Stanley Kramer directed seven movies. Four of them were nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture, and the other three were almost certainly in the running.

Now, I'm kind of sorry I said that, because I have no respect for the Oscars and realize they're mostly about politics and campaigning. However, I don't think any truly lousy movies were ever nominated for Best Picture.

No one has more fun following the Oscar race than I do, but as you seem to already understand, the Academy's selections generally bear no relation to actual quality. I find many of them to be "truly lousy."

But that ten-year stretch is one of the greatest for any individual filmmaker in Hollywood history. What exactly is wrong with THE DEFIANT ONES, ON THE BEACH, INHERIT THE WIND, JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG, MAD WORLD, SHIP OF FOOLS and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER? If you had directed those, would you go into hiding out of great shame? Or is it just that they weren't the types of movies to be given the Seal of Approval by Cahiers du cinema?

What I find more or less "wrong" with many of them is that they are trying way too hard to appeal to that august body which you just described as being "mostly about politics and campaigning," The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Most of Kramer's pictures struggle mightily to be about some social issue, and he generally goes about delivering his message in the most ham-fisted way possible, eschewing style and subtlety in favor of preachy grandstanding. Like Chris, I enjoy The Defiant Ones, and I have soft spots for the two courtroom dramas, having been shown them in high school.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is a completely different beast altogether. Even at the time it was made, people were telling Kramer, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union," so he decided to make something "fun." Unfortunately for many, Kramer's idea of fun involved hiring a huge and disparate group of comedians and placing them in what are supposedly madcap and zany situations over and over in the hopes that if it went on long enough, something funny might happen. It has its moments, and I've already mentioned some nostalgic fondness, but like Chris said, it's mostly unfunny and boring.

Of all the smug snobbery, none is worse than when it involves movies. Even at their best, movies are an inferior art form. Any true intellectual would greatly prefer spending his time with literature or music. The "auteur theory" was a desperate attempt to qualify movies as a true art form, but the sad fact remains that way too many people are involved in moviemaking for it ever to be true art. Basically, because of their great cost, movies have to be commercial products, and I think Kramer did a good job of making commercial products with at least a little meaning to them.

Anyone who sits down to watch MAD WORLD and judges it by the standards of "art" gets what he deserves.

Did you really register here just to tell us that? To explain how the world works and that movies aren't art? I think I'm like most members here in that I believe that movies can be art if they aspire to be. They don't have to be expensive or commercial, and they can say what one individual artist (or auteur, if you like) wants to convey with style and grace. Many of them deftly blend writing, and cinematography, and sound design and all of the other arts that go together to create what is, for me, the greatest art of all -- cinema. But please don't assume that because people here enjoy Dreyer, Pialat, Godard, and Bergman, they don't also appreciate well-crafted entertainments, which may be the toughest thing of all to create. You'll find plenty of appreciative discussion here of everything from Abbott and Costello and The Marx Brothers to Michael Ritchie comedies to Die Hard, and everything in between. Nobody here is disappointed that It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World isn't art, they're just disappointed that it's not particularly good.

[Moe Dickstein]

And the fundamental disconnect is that I would argue that it IS funny, not boring and that's been my experience and that of people I've viewed it with over the years who had no idea what it was going in or any particular love for comedy of this era.

[John Morgan]

Sorry to snap, but I've grown pretty intolerant toward the way that most studios remix a film's soundtrack, and how no one cares that this is akin to colorizing a black and white movie. It can obviously be problematic when the original mix consists of five front speakers (L, LC, C, RC, R) as was the case with the 70mm Cinerama/Panavision/TODD-AO releases, as I don't think there exists a home stereo set-up with more than three front speakers (though I've seen several DIY home-theaters with this type of 5-speaker set-up, so it would not be difficult for studios to release a 6.0 track). However, certainly studios should not be tampering with the original mix of the surround channels... both the splitting of a mono-surround into two channels and the adding or more sounds at higher volumes into the surrounds.

I wish more people actually cared about this. Also, my 2 cents... I'd love to see Mad Mad Mad Mad boxed with other single-strip Cinerama titles, much like the BBS set.

Since we can never replicate the original sound mix with today's sound systems for video, the sound in some way must be remixed and some channels combined. I saw MAD WORLD about 8 times in 70mm in San Diego where it ran for about a year. I don't have a detailed memory of everything of course, but I do seem to have been impressed on how deep, and immersive MAD WORLD seemed to me at the time. When I listen to the Blu-ray, it sounds like virtually nothing is coming from the surrounds except a low level music mono mix and the hum of a car engine in certain scenes. That may be how it was, but not how I remember it. I do remember the Main Title with the bass drum and world bouncing and how big and deep that sound was.

[jsteffe]

But that ten-year stretch is one of the greatest for any individual filmmaker in Hollywood history. What exactly is wrong with THE DEFIANT ONES, ON THE BEACH, INHERIT THE WIND, JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG, MAD WORLD, SHIP OF FOOLS and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER? If you had directed those, would you go into hiding out of great shame? Or is it just that they weren't the types of movies to be given the Seal of Approval by Cahiers du cinema?

Of all the smug snobbery, none is worse than when it involves movies. Even at their best, movies are an inferior art form. Any true intellectual would greatly prefer spending his time with literature or music. The "auteur theory" was a desperate attempt to qualify movies as a true art form, but the sad fact remains that way too many people are involved in moviemaking for it ever to be true art. Basically, because of their great cost, movies have to be commercial products, and I think Kramer did a good job of making commercial products with at least a little meaning to them.

Anyone who sits down to watch MAD WORLD and judges it by the standards of "art" gets what he deserves.

Kramer's dramas are uniformly well-acted (they have great casts!) and well-crafted, and they are about socially relevant issues. THE DEFIANT ONES in particular is quite a good film, probably my favorite of the lot. I think the reaction against them here (including mine) has to do with Kramer's films mostly laying all of their ideas out on the surface. They don't generally offer a lot of new or surprising things to discover in repeat viewings. You also rarely (never?) hear people talking about how a particular sequence in a Kramer film was brilliantly staged, photographed or edited.

It's true that Cahiers du cinéma has had a tremendous impact on how people judge films, including the Criterion Forum set. I maintain that it's a good thing on the balance. I can thank the French for reviving Howard Hawks, who made popular films but often managed to do so with a rich personal version. I love his films because they're wonderfully entertaining, but there are all sorts of great nuances in the dialogue and performances that make me keep coming back to them over the years.

Also, you misunderstand the crowd here if you assume that people are judging IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD here by some lofty standard of "art." Many of us love comedies simply because they're funny, and not because they're "arty." Personally, I'll take BRINGING UP BABY, HIS GIRL FRIDAY, or even DUMB AND DUMBER and TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE any day over the Kramer film because I find that they have a sharper comic touch. Still, MAD WORLD is an important piece of Hollywood history and if Criterion releases a definitive roadshow reconstruction I will certainly watch it again and give it another chance. Maybe it will finally click with me. It's more than a worthy inclusion to the Criterion Collection.

I am sorry to hear that you think that film cannot be a true art form because most films are inherently commercial. I actually switched from studying literature to film because I thought that film was a *more interesting* art form as a kind of synthesis of the arts. Ozu was a commercial studio filmmaker, and TOKYO STORY is as profound and subtly observed as any great novel. THE SEVEN SAMURAI is also a great work of epic storytelling by any standard. What about the complexity of characterization and stunning, painterly visual style in films like THE SEARCHERS or VERTIGO? They were all commercial studio films.

[Max von Mayerling]

Even at their best, movies are an inferior art form. Any true intellectual would greatly prefer spending his time with literature or music. The "auteur theory" was a desperate attempt to qualify movies as a true art form, but the sad fact remains that way too many people are involved in moviemaking for it ever to be true art.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to muster all due respect, but I think this is perhaps one of the most ridiculous seemingly non-glib statements that I have ever read on this forum. For example, if I accepted that this made any sense whatsoever, I might have to question whether opera could properly be considered "true art," given that it necessarily requires the involvement of a large number of people and their individual contributions (musicians, singers, costume designers, set designers, stage hands, composer, librettist, etc). For my two cents, it is pretty silly and pointless to bother tagging and bagging "true intellectuals" or "true art."

[jsteffe]

Did you really register here just to tell us that? To explain how the world works and that movies aren't art? I think I'm like most members here in that I believe that movies can be art if they aspire to be. They don't have to be expensive or commercial, and they can say what one individual artist (or auteur, if you like) wants to convey with style and grace. Many of them deftly blend writing, and cinematography, and sound design and all of the other arts that go together to create what is, for me, the greatest art of all -- cinema. But please don't assume that because people here enjoy Dreyer, Pialat, Godard, and Bergman, they don't also appreciate well-crafted entertainments, which may be the toughest thing of all to create. You'll find plenty of appreciative discussion here of everything from Abbott and Costello and The Marx Brothers to Michael Ritchie comedies to Die Hard, and everything in between.

Jeff, I see that you posted more or less what I was going to say while I was writing out my response! I'm glad that I am not alone in my thinking on this.

I suspect we are being trolled, but I don't mind defending cinema as an art form--it's not as if we haven't always had to do that anyway!

[zedz]

Oh wow, it looks like the Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World fanatics out-OCD the regular forum nerds. I am humbled and terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly confused.

[captveg]

I watched the MGM Blu-ray about a year ago and still enjoyed it overall, but its length keeps me away from frequent revisits. The film has a certain comic audacity (bucket kick, anyone?) that I can easily see many people not enjoying whatsoever, but I like it well enough.

I'll eventually upgrade to the Criterion Blu, but I won't be in a hurry to do so.

[Gregory]

My favorite part of the trailer is when it says "Everyone who has ever been funny is in it." Yesssss.

I'm also trying to get my head around the original cut being over five hours. Just how much hijinks did the filmmakers think they would end up needing?

[vsski]

Even at their best, movies are an inferior art form. Any true intellectual would greatly prefer spending his time with literature or music. The "auteur theory" was a desperate attempt to qualify movies as a true art form, but the sad fact remains that way too many people are involved in moviemaking for it ever to be true art.

Reading this I now face a true dilemma. Should I tonight read the latest novel by Dan Brown, which must be true art since it's literature, or watch my MOC BD of "The Passion of Joan of Arc", an artless black white silent movie with subtitles.

I don't know what to do. If only I already owned the CC BD of Mad World, at least I knew I would get a good night's sleep, since it never takes more than 5 minutes to doze off during that snooze fest.