criterionforum.org

I can't wait to order this!

zombeaner wrote:I can't wait to order this!

The Tom Cruise films packaged in shit or Taxi Driver?

Person wrote:

zombeaner wrote:I can't wait to order this!

The Tom Cruise films packaged in shit or Taxi Driver?

At least I could use the shit as fertilizer, lending a use to otherwise completely useless films. I have only one Tom Cruise film in my collection, and it is my wife's copy of Interview With The Vampire. Thats less that 0.02% though, pretty good.

Extras are cool, the Kolker commentary might be cool (I fondly remember devouring his book way back when in school), but, uh... I thought this was supposed to be a new transfer?

TedW wrote:Extras are cool, the Kolker commentary might be cool (I fondly remember devouring his book way back when in school), but, uh... I thought this was supposed to be a new transfer?

I enjoyed the commentary, but feel we need to return to the more critical issue of Tom Cruise, feces, and the yet to be mentioned connection which brings it all together - namely, the movie COLLATERAL in which Cruise spends most of his time in the back of a taxi.
Now, there's some scum Travis Bickle can scrape off the back seat!

Or the fact that Collateral actually is crap. There, ties it all together.

Why do you think that it isn't a new transfer, Ted? Some of the scenes look the same, but if you look at the colorful lights in the night scenes, you'll find that they look far more vibrant than the previous transfer. I was disappointed with the screenshot comparisons, but seeing the new CE on the old plasma was a different story - I think that it looks stunning.

I guess I was expecting a "wow" factor when I popped it in... something that screamed at me New Cleaned-up Transfer. It looks fine, but I was reasonably happy with the previous release. The extras care cool, though, so it was worth it for that... I wonder why Sony didn't just put it out on Blu-Ray, though.

The film historian repeats a lot of the stuff Scorsese says in the Criterion commentary but it just isn't the same.

As for Tom Cruise and feces.. Sure he's a huge douche bag but he's been in a few good movies such as Eyes Wide Shut, The Color of Money and I personally enjoyed Collateral when I saw it.

Didn't like Eyes Wide Shut at all. Color of Money I like, though admittedly it is second- or third-tier Scorsese. I like him in it, however, because it's one of the few times he's actually done any real character work successfully. Notice he's not the star of picture, though. Once he became a star in his own right he has basically played minor variations on the globally-approved "Tom Cruise" persona loved by millions. The problem with Collateral, for me, is that though he is committed to his performance (he's actually better in the rehearsal footage on the DVD than in the finished movie), I think he's miscast: I just didn't believe Tom Fucking Cruise as the anonymous, stealthy contract assassin. His entrance into the movie, wearing sunglasses indoors as he scopes out the building where Jada Pinkett works, was laughable. This guy, who possesses all of the star quality that can fit into one human, is not supposed to be noticed?

Is there any logic/interconnectedness to Scorsese cameoing twice in the film? Their seeming mismatch is bothering me for some reason.

Cronenfly wrote:Is there any logic/interconnectedness to Scorsese cameoing twice in the film? Their seeming mismatch is bothering me for some reason.

As far as I know his apperance in the cab was done purely out of budgetary reasons. If I recall, it was something like: they were going to have somebody else play that part and he never showed up or couldn't do it. Since they were shooting on a rather tight schedule Scorsese just said he would fill in. And his apperance on Shepherd's entrance seems like some sort of "meta thing" about voyeurism...or I've just been spending too much time in film classes. Perhaps Marty just felt like trying to perfect his "cool pose" for the camera.

I believe you are correct. The cab part was a last minute necessity filmed after the "meta" appearance. I don't think he could've removed the voyeur shot because it ties into Shepherd's arrival.

Those were more or less the explanations I'd heard, and I guess those kind of mismatchings you just have to live with. I'd also heard some kind of Hitchcock-reference explanation on the Shepherd-watching cameo, which made some sense given how inundated with Hitchcock the film is. I only really felt the Hitchcock on a recent viewing, where the film indeed felt like a twisted Vertigo remake at times.

Cronenfly wrote:Those were more or less the explanations I'd heard, though the two appearances still feel inconsistent to me when noted together (perhaps that inconsistency, however slight, is their desired effect, like with the Keitel-Foster dancing scene not truly being from De Niro's POV).

It's a flaw. An unavoidable flaw (unlike the Foster-Keitel scene, which is a mistake), but not so significant that it damages the movie.

TedW wrote:It's a flaw. An unavoidable flaw (unlike the Foster-Keitel scene, which is a mistake), but not so significant that it damages the movie.

Fair enough: I'd agree with you that it's not damaging. Do you really think the Foster-Keitel scene was that bad an idea?

Well, I understand why Shrader (and probably Scorsese) thought it would be useful, but it does violate the all-from-Travis'-demented-POV structure of the movie. A friend of mine strongly argues that it weakens the movie overall, particularly coming so late in the film, and I'm inclined to agree. We both tend to think it downgrades Taxi Driver to the near-masterpiece category. Maybe it's no big deal to others... there certainly is a wealth of stuff in that movie to engage with.

TedW wrote: it does violate the all-from-Travis'-demented-POV structure of the movie.

This might be off the mark, but could it be Travis' imagining the encounter? Perhaps it's one of the final pushes over the edge for him, a discounting of his need to save Iris (or a validation of his hatred of Sport and his manipulations).

On the old laserdisc commentary, Scorsese went on to say that the whole dance scene was still meant to be shown through Robert De Niro's eyes. He suggested the idea that it may be Bickle imagining a situation between Keitel and Foster, which would still break the narrative structure of the film a bit.

But yes, this scene always felt unnecessary to me. I don't believe it brings down the whole film, but I wish it wasn't in the film.

Cronenfly wrote:

TedW wrote: it does violate the all-from-Travis'-demented-POV structure of the movie.

This might be off the mark, but could it be Travis' imagining the encounter?

No, I don't believe that's the intention of the scene (although not a bad idea).

It is too leading of a scene, like Schrader/Scorsese felt the need to explain Iris' attraction to Sport (regardless of whether it's in Travis' mind or not). It's the kind of exposition that they dodge so well in the rest of the film, not to mention doing so exclusively from Travis' POV (though some of the Albert Brooks/Shepherd stuff felt a little out of the movie for me too: is that not a cheat as well? Kolker chalks it up to letting the audience breath a bit, but I don't buy the execution 100%).

EDIT- Not that it really matters that much, as the Brooks-Sheperd exchanges are more or less necessary, I suppose.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:On the old laserdisc commentary, Scorsese went on to say that the whole dance scene was still meant to be shown through Robert De Niro's eyes. He suggested the idea that it may be Bickle imagining a situation between Keitel and Foster, which would still break the narrative structure of the film a bit.

But yes, this scene always felt unnecessary to me. I don't believe it brings down the whole film, but I wish it wasn't in the film.

I don't recall that. My recollection is that he tried to keep Travis' perspective by having him sitting in the cab outside and then that short little dissolve back to him at the scene's end (this is from memory). But I don't think Schrader intended the scene to be anything other than a "real" depiction of those two characters, what "really" happened in that apartment. I think he sacrificed the structure to further elaborate the idea that Sport functioned as Iris' father -- which pays off, to Schrader, in the symmetry of Travis failing to kill the father-figure of the woman he wants but can't have and thus killing the father-figure of the woman he can have but doesn't want.

Oh yes, that's the other thing. Schrader had no influence in this scene, it was all Scorsese's idea, apparently. I haven't read the script, but I'm also positive they say that in the commentary as well. Schrader does say though, that he thinks it's a good idea they put it in.

Now you're gonna ruin my Sunday by sending me back in front of the TV...

TedW wrote:My recollection is that he tried to keep Travis' perspective by having him sitting in the cab outside and then that short little dissolve back to him at the scene's end (this is from memory). But I don't think Schrader intended the scene to be anything other than a "real" depiction of those two characters, what "really" happened in that apartment. I think he sacrificed the structure to further elaborate the idea that Sport functioned as Iris' father -- which pays off, to Schrader, in the symmetry of Travis failing to kill the father-figure of the woman he wants but can't have and thus killing the father-figure of the woman he can have but doesn't want.

That's a good reading of it, and I think it exposes Schrader's values well in how he constructed the script.

EDIT: Well, Scorsese's control of that scene casts things in a different light... I suppose attributing contributions can be a sticky matter.