criterionforum.org

Well -- it seemed intrusive and unnecessary (to all viewers in our family, not just the son who initially commented). I agree it is all too common -- but I tend to prefer movies that _don't_ do things of this sort.

Just bought this the other day. You're welcome, everyone.

Professor Wagstaff wrote:Just bought this the other day. You're welcome, everyone.

Please buy some Béla Tarr.

Enjoy the Criterion release of Belle Starr

domino harvey wrote:Enjoy the Criterion release of Belle Starr

I read the description of it. It seems... problematic.

It's worse than that!

Passion of Martin is a nice little film so I'm glad they could get it as an extra though too bad Carmen seems MIA. I'm still morbidly curious about that porno he did though.

knives wrote:Passion of Martin is a nice little film so I'm glad they could get it as an extra though too bad Carmen seems MIA. I'm still morbidly curious about that porno he did though.

Carmen is however on the Cinema16: American Short Films DVD, so not entirely unavailable for those interested (I have a copy of it in a box somewhere).

First with Rushmore and now this, it's very cool that Criterion now has both of the films which sort of encapsulated my teenage experience, or at the very least the films that I gravitated to most at that time as something more reflective of my experiences than the glut of mainstream Hollywood teen movies being put out at the time.

swo17 wrote:

Highway 61 wrote:I definitely felt Payne's contempt come through in About Schmidt, which is one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen. I felt hopeless and lethargic after watching it.

I had just started working as an actuary (and was not loving it) when I saw About Schmidt for the first time. And you thought you were depressed...

I've since come around to it though, and I think it's probably Payne's best film, though Election comes close.

Are you still working in insurance? From your tone, I'd guess you've moved on.

I'm asking because I was an actuary for 10 years and I left the field. I can sympathize with you 100%. It's brutal.

Regarding Election, does anyone think the cover is silly and childish?

We have a cover art thread where that question would be right at home.

cpetrizzi wrote:Are you still working in insurance? From your tone, I'd guess you've moved on.

That was more just me feeling overwhelmed at my first big boy job. I've been there now for 15 years and would like to think I'm pretty good at it. Big difference: Schmidt was a company actuary. I am a consulting actuary.

Half those shots look like Election directed by David Fincher

His bone to pick with the film's rating at the end is interesting to consider.

One final observation about the rating, which is "R" "for strong sexuality, sex-related dialogue and language, and a scene of drug use." I don't get it. Never did. The rating seems politically and religiously motivated more than anything else. I'd give it PG-13 at most.

It's been a long time since I've seen this and I don't remember it that well, but just looking through an .srt caption file there's over a dozen uses of the word "fuck," which is way more than the MPAA allows at the PG-13 level. There's a good argument to be made that the ratings board is too strict about profanity (among many other things), but the R rating is consistent with their established practice.

Not to mention the described/imagined sex between teachers and students

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:It's been a long time since I've seen this and I don't remember it that well, but just looking through an .srt caption file there's over a dozen uses of the word "fuck," which is way more than the MPAA allows at the PG-13 level. There's a good argument to be made that the ratings board is too strict about profanity (among many other things), but the R rating is consistent with their established practice.

One use of "cunt" as well.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:It's been a long time since I've seen this and I don't remember it that well, but just looking through an .srt caption file there's over a dozen uses of the word "fuck," which is way more than the MPAA allows at the PG-13 level. There's a good argument to be made that the ratings board is too strict about profanity (among many other things), but the R rating is consistent with their established practice.

PG-13 movies are allowed one uncensored use of "fuck". Two or more is an instant R rating, regardless of the film's actual content.
It was a point of contention several years ago when the documentary "Bully" received an R rating for repeated use of the word.

Yaanu wrote:PG-13 movies are allowed one uncensored use of "fuck".

There were negotiations to increase this threshold slightly, but the MPAA did not give two fucks.

While not a myth per se the commonly accepted statement that "fuck" can only be used a few times isn't true. It all depends on how the board feels that day. Gunner Palace has forty two uses of fuck, two of which are used sexually. Because the MPAA doesn't have more specific rules out in the open like the BBFC we can only ascertain from what we can see which often leads to misinformation being spread. Because of this you can have wildy different reactions to films from the board.

The MPAA in my opinion either needs a complete reworking or needs to be replaced with something akin to the BBFC. Obviously they couldn't censor like the BBFC because of US laws but I don't think it would be difficult to add rules that allow for context rather than blind association. For example language spoken in anger is different than language used crudely. And non sexualized nudity is obviously different than sexualized nudity.

In the case of Election it's quite likely it's a victim of the MPAA being the MPAA. Need I remind you of Bully, another victim of the MPAA showing it's outdated policies.

Another push toward R was David Novotny's, er, observation concerning Tracy Flick. Admittedly, it's one of the funniest dialogue segues/transitions in the film and probably ever =].