criterionforum.org

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: However, the film really belongs to River Phoenix's incredible performance... Phoenix suggested emotion from simple movements and gestures.

dreamy, romanticism

Glad to see someone so emphatically agree with Phoenix's performance. It's a shame he's not around anymore. I think he'd really be giving Depp competition for the spot of talented Hollywood heart-throb. So ironic that he died outside Depp's club (not implying a conspiracy theory.)

I just let a friend borrow this film and he has watched it at least 2 times in the past few days.

BTW, also thanks for that description of the film as "Dreamy." There definetly is an overall feel to the film that seems to coat everything and unify it, no matter how different the aspects are. The wackily dressed singing man that picks up River, the funeral riot, the Shakespeare, even Kier's routine, all seem to fit together perfectly. I also think that Reeve's style of acting, often described as "bad" seemed to fit into this somehow. "Dreamy" is the only sort of adjective to use.

blindside8zao wrote:Glad to see someone so emphatically agree with Phoenix's performance. It's a shame he's not around anymore. I think he'd really be giving Depp competition for the spot of talented Hollywood heart-throb.

Oh, I know. He showed such fantastic potential with Idaho (and he was also very, very good in Running on Empty) and it's a shame that he died so young. It would've been interesting to see he and Depp compete for roles.

BTW, also thanks for that description of the film as "Dreamy." There definetly is an overall feel to the film that seems to coat everything and unify it, no matter how different the aspects are. The wackily dressed singing man that picks up River, the funeral riot, the Shakespeare, even Kier's routine, all seem to fit together perfectly. I also think that Reeve's style of acting, often described as "bad" seemed to fit into this somehow. "Dreamy" is the only sort of adjective to use.

The more I watch the movie, the less Reeves bothers me. His strength lies in reacting and that's what his character is suppposed to do -- react to what Phoenix's character does.

And yeah, I just love the dreamy vibe of this movie -- Drugstore Cowboy has that to a certain degree too (esp. the drugged out scenes where Matt Dillon's character imagines all sorts of things floating by) -- Idaho, at times, has the feel of a Kerouac novel and I'd love to see Van Sant tackle one of his books -- Maggie Cassidy or Dharma Bums maybe.

davidhare wrote:Right about Reeves.

Even though River's performance is the core of the movie (his death such a waste!) where I once used to feel some irritation with Keanu, particularly in the Shakepearian recitation scenes, ten years later I really enjoy him doing these. After watching more and more Gus it's apparent that part of the pleasure is the clear delight he takes in showcasing beautiful young men, and often maximises their performances. (I also like, having played the commentary, the fact that Gus incporated what was initially meant to be an entirely separate movie of the Henry material into Idaho when it became clear he couldn't make the Henry/Falstaff movie.)

Other pleasures from young preformers, despite protests from some other posters, I like Michael Pitt in Last Days, and even more, Scott Green whom I find absolutely understands what Gus is doing with the movie and is extremely powerful.

I'm with you on Last Days - the performances of the actors and the performance of the director / camera really mesh well - but Reeves still sinks Idaho for me. Phoenix does extraordinary work, and seems completely in tune with what the film is trying to achieve, but Reeves, though visibly trying so hard (the effort is almost painful to watch at times), seems to me baffled, particularly in the Shakespearean scenes. I adore those plays, and watching those scenes make my teeth ache!

his bad acting for me seems to fit in very well somehow, with the intense quirkiness of the entire film.

The fact that the character Reeves plays is as false and shallow and his delivery has always made Keanu a perfect casting choice, in my opinion. Painful to watch, yes, but perfect. I often wonder if Keanu is aware of exactly how his style works so well with the character of Scott Favor.

blindside8zao wrote:his bad acting for me seems to fit in very well somehow, with the intense quirkiness of the entire film.

Exactly. Along with Flea's awkward line deliveries that make me crack up everytime. Also, the use of real street kids gives the film an authenticity as well.

davidhare wrote:nice parallels with Midnight Cowboy...But it's totally Gus' own movie.

Oh, I'm aware that he was more influenced by John Rechy's City of Night than probably Midnight Cowboy.

Every time I watch Idaho it makes me laugh out loud, while Cowboy is a real punch in the gut. The first time I saw Midnight Cowboy I thought it was old, boring, dated garbage. Then, many years later, it's suddenly become this amazing, emotionally devastating experience. Just that scene alone of Voight's character watching the poodle on TV being dressed in women's lingerie -- as a metaphor for the "American experience" -- fucking hardcore! The expression in his eyes, combined with that music, kills me every time... As poetic as Idaho strives to be, it has none of the gravitas of Cowboy.

I apologise if this has been discussed already. DK Holm's column at moviepoopshoot.com pointed towards this Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02422.html and a New York magazine article that posits that JT LeRoy might actually be a fictional persona constructed by a housewife from Brooklyn.

I am not overly familiar with LeRoy, and have not read/watched the special feautres he/she participates in on the Idaho disc. What gives? Is this a modern literary hoax?

Just plowed my way through this, and it's gotta be one of the biggest cases of Criterion overkill I've seen.

The Paul Arthur piece is fantastic, but the official River Phoenix dick-licking that is the conversation between Rain Phoenix and Laurie Parker and Jonathan Caouette and (moreso) JT LeRoy's meandering storytelling jam session are a real struggle to get through.

It could also be because MoPI did very little for me. Lack of personal connection, perhaps? I'm not quite sure why, but I couldn't seem to latch on to this story from any angle. Oddly enough, the only part that did work for me was the Henriad storyline -- the juxtaposition was abrupt enough that this kingdom under the rule of Bob, with its fantastical language, costumes (esp. Bob), and sets (esp. the hotel) never seemed to even attempt to gel with the rest of the film, which was quite alright by me.

And I'm sorry, I wasn't familiar with JT LeRoy until after the outing, so maybe I'm missing a few key elements, but did people really buy into this? I'm finishing the JT/Jonathan convo as I write this and she hasn't provided a single insightful thought in the last 45 minutes. I almost feel sorry for Gus for having to field her questions. "Is that really River peein' right there?" Jesus, a fanboy interview would be more entertaining.

-Toilet Dcuk

Zumpano wrote:I apologise if this has been discussed already. DK Holm's column at moviepoopshoot.com pointed towards this Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02422.html and a New York magazine article that posits that JT LeRoy might actually be a fictional persona constructed by a housewife from Brooklyn.

I am not overly familiar with LeRoy, and have not read/watched the special feautres he/she participates in on the Idaho disc. What gives? Is this a modern literary hoax?

Interesting. Filmbrain has a piece on JT LeRoy (along with some links).

I actually like Reeves in this movie. Granted, Phoenix's performance really dominates this film, but Reeves does a fine job. The Henry IV material (I think it's IV and only IV...I'm a little hazy about my Shakespeare) doesn't work, at least, not in this context. Not enough to derail the picture, it's occasionally fun to watch, but it feels more like a distraction or an unwanted detour.

It's been years since I watched it, but is there not also a version of the "and all was as cold as any stone" funeral scene from Henry V? I can't think who would have played Mistress Quickly, though.

Being a typical modern heterosexual male (19 in Los Angeles), I stayed away from this film mostly because the combination of Keanu Reeves and male prostitution didn't sit well with me. I still remember when this was a new release, and my reaction was "Why this from Criterion?" without ever seeing a film by Gus Van Sant. I now regret all previous thoughts I've had of this film.

Absolutely amazing movie. Phoenix's performance displays a certain tenderness that so many male actors seem to be missing, and the entire theme of the movie was so sad, but the presentation didn't make it sappy or contrived. With scenes as diffrent as Udo Kier singing and all the Henry IV parts, it made the movie stand out as much more than the sappy melodrama I'm sure any other director would've made it into. The music is spot on too, from the odd guitar versions of America the Beautiful to Rudy Vallee, everything was spot on. Let me not forget the color scheme, which was magnificent. For a movie with a theme like it had, it was very rich in it's use of colors, and didn't go the cliched route with dull colors, and lots of browns. Just thinking about the Dutch boy scene, I can see all the soft, pastel like colors.

I'm glad I only paid 20 dollars for this, and it's now one of my favorite Criterions. Now I'm waiting until the end of the month. They're showing this as a double feature with Mala Noche. I can't wait till I start digging more into Gus Van Sant.

Not to mention the packaging… This is, esthetically speaking, probably my favorite Criterion package I own. The attention to detail is humbling. Note the inside of the digipak slipcase. The extras are extravagant as well and full of valuable insights and trivial tidbits about the film and about Van Sant the artist. For instance, I was very interested to learn from the Todd Haynes audio interview that he originally wanted to cast my personal hero Tom Waits as the lead in Drugstore Cowboy. Well worth $20 (you got a steal). As for the film, like David said, I hope this opens you up to an entirely new, uninhibited world of cinema, as it did for me. Growing up in a conservative religious household, I too was inclined to shy away from the subject matter for some time, finally watching the film at the tender age of nineteen like you. The film became quite a catalyst of sorts for me to grow beyond my predisposed prejudice, not just toward sexuality, or Keanu Reeves for that matter, but toward a whole world of experimental, “artâ€

Shawn Levy has written a nice article about the film and the city of Portland.

Odd that the alternate audio track is in what I presume is lossy Dolby Digital 5.1, as opposed to DTS-HD Master Audio.

I'm sorta surprised they're keeping the LeRoy feature considering, you know, he was a figment of someone else's imagination.

Would definitely like to re-visit this one. Except for Elephant (which is possibly my favorite of Van Sant's films), I always thought his first three films constituted his peak years - Mala Noche, Drugstore Cowboy and this. There's a lot I like about My Own Private Idaho but I keep going back and forth on the awkward use of Henry IV. I like that he tries, but it feels too clumsy and it doesn't really work very well with the rest of the film. I almost want to say that 90% of the problem lies with the Falstaff character, who's written like a straight translation from the play. I don't think it's an idea that should've been dropped altogether, but I wish it was organically fused into the movie more.

I'm surprised all that behind-the-scenes footage James Franco was involved with showing some years back didn't make it's way for this new release.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I'm surprised all that behind-the-scenes footage James Franco was involved with showing some years back didn't make it's way for this new release.

Oh God, he's not holding it back to make another Interior. Leather Bar-style 'film about a film' is he?

EDIT: It looks as if he already did so the year before that, in 2012, as My Own Private River, which apparently re-cuts the film and adds in the extra footage to focus on Phoenix.

DVD Beaver on the bluray. Huge differences from the DVD in terms of color.

Why do so many older DVDs have that yellow hue to them?

The question now though is, how did the film look upon its initial release?

My memory isn't all it used to be, but the original dvd looks much closer to the way I remember seeing this in the theater.

My guess is this is probably another Do the Right Thing-type scenario. As I'm always against revisionism, this is disappointing.