Armageddon and The Rock on Criterion? What the heck is going on? (1 Viewer)

[Jon Robertson]

Why?
This is the thing I was talking about earlier in the thread - you always have to justify your opinion, good or bad. A simple statement does nothing to explain what you disliked or enjoyed.
What was sick, and how was it worthless? And isn't "piece of shit" a rather unfortunate phrase in this instance?
And I was not intending to go to town on you - rather, because I really enjoying defending things I think are worth defending.
[Edited last by Jon Robertson on August 29, 2001 at 06:50 PM]

 

[Jon Robertson]

The following are my thoughts on Salo. I don't think anyone will be particular offended or shocked, but I have no intention of upsetting anyone, merely offering my point of view to StevenW and anyone else willing to listen:
Spoiler:I personally think Salo is one of the most brilliantly directed films I have ever seen. This was no hack job. Pasolini knows EXACTLY what he's doing the whole way through.
This is a list of directing tricks he used that I noticed, mainly with the camera:
- The vast majority of the film is shot from an eye-view level. This dangerously brings the viewer much closer into the mayhem.
- The film starts off filmed like a documentary. Beautifully composed shots are then filmed hand-held, giving an edge between meticulous and improvised.
- As the tortures and tales get more stylised and extreme as the film goes on, so too does the camerawork. The unforgettable shot of one of the fascists with binoculars with his head right at the bottom right of the frame is truly extraordinary. The unusual whirling-twirling of the camera as one of the storytellers/madames and fascists dance during one of the coprophagia stories, to try and induce motion sickness on top of the illness that we feel from the woman's revolting, supposedly "erotic" tales.
- The stunningly restrained way the tortures are presented at the end. Pasolini continually cuts back to the fascists watching just as each act reaches its 'climax'. We really don't see anything much. Also, if we had HEARD the screams (all we hear at when we watch is the radio with poetry and music) and wails, it would have been truly unbearable. As it is, it it watchable. Just.
The other interesting aspect about the film is that each of the fascists - a banker, a judge, a duke and a bishop - appear to represent the four pillars of society that delivered Italy into the hands of the Nazis, and who are now fascists themselves - the merchants, the law, the aristocracy and the church.
And, contrary to the belief of many, this film should definitely have been made, if only to stand as a fictional film that shocks, appals and shakes us to our cores, especially in the age of the Hollywood action blockbuster and the past age of the Spaghetti Western, with dozens killed in the sake of entertainment with no real morals, judgments or consequences behind the actions.
This is, in a way, true of Salo, except it is the characters, and not the audience, who are the ones being entertained.
Besides, much of the torture is a statement by Pasolini.
For example:
Tongue-removing: preventing communication
The Banquet: commentary on junk food
But what about the one aspect that no-one likes to admit - the wild streak of completely intentional black humour running throughout the film?
For those of who who are aghast at this idea, what about the darkly comic shot of the two young boys' genitals during the selection process, panning up to their non-plussed reactions during the selection process; the immortal line (and delivery) "You even had the impudence to wipe it" when inspecting one boy's behind after he has defecated without permission; the running joke of the fascist who keeps buggering everything in sight; the horrified recoil of the four fascists when the soldier raises his left arm in Marxist salute when he rises from the bed; the debate on who has the "most beautiful ass" out of all the children; the absurd line-dancing in the final courtyard scene, or the strange short ginger fascist who tells two of the most inane jokes about the number eight imaginable.
Like it or not, however uncomfortable the idea of laughing during this film might make you feel, Pasolini is injecting tar-black humour into the preceedings.
Why?
In my opinion, he is trying to make the preceedings slightly more bearable for his audience (even though most of the above jokes will be lost by most on the first viewing), and by contrast, shocking them all the more when the comedy stops and the horror begins. The humour is almost a paradox - instinctively, it is bizarrely funny, but our morals and conscience try to prevent us from laughing.
It's one of the most objective films I've ever seen, and also one of the most irrational, allowing us to have our own, entirely personal, emotional reaction to it, totally unguided by the filmmakers. The depravity among elegant settings, the beautiful youths with the deadest faces you've ever seen, the black humour among horrific circumstances makes for an eternally conflicting, utterly compelling and repelling film that will not ever shrink away.
In any case, Salo is not going anywhere for the time being. It is as relevant, shocking and extraordinary as ever, and the sooner MGM re-releases it onto DVD to reach the widest possible audience so more can join in the debate, the better.
[Edited last by Jon Robertson on August 29, 2001 at 07:16 PM]

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

MGM would never release Salo. Anyways, I understand that the reason Salo was pulled was not a rights issue, but rather that Pasolini's estate had it pulled, because they didn't want Pasolini to be remembered for that film (It is the only high-profile release of any of his films).

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I remember the dustup on alt.video.laserdisc when the Criterion LD of The Rock first appeared.
The Rock is an excellent example of its genre: the Hollywood Action Blockbuster. I would suggest that High Noon was a Criterion LD because it was an excellent example of its genre (the Western) and that Halloween was a Criterion LD because it was an excellent example of its genre (Horror/Slasher).
If the Hollywood Action Blockbuster is a popcorn genre and therefore not worthy of the Criterion treatment, what about the Western, or Horror?
There are lots of movies that I don't like in the Criterion Collection. So? I don't like lots of movies. Big deal.
Criterion rock. My first Criterion LD was Blade Runner. It's sci-fi, fer cryin' out loud!
The justification I read when the Criterion Armageddon LD came out was that with every Armageddon, Criterion can finance two or three 400 Blows. Good math, if you ask me.
Now, if Criterion Collection had put out a disc of On Deadly Ground...

 

[Derek J]

They are three of the greatest directors of all time. Here's just some of the movies they are known for:
Akira Kurosawa
The Seven Samurai
Roshomon
The Hidden Fortress
Yojimbo
Ran
Dreams
Ingmar Bergman
The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries
Through A Glass Darkly
Fanny And Alexander
David Lean
Lawrence Of Arabia
The Bridge On River Kwai
Dr. Zhivago
Oliver Twist
Great Expectations
Brief Encounter

 

[Jon Robertson]

Jun-Dai - why do you think MGM won't release it? A pretty substantial rumour has just been posted a week ago that they've taken the trouble of tracking down the 91-minute cut of one of the most reviled cult films of all time, Last House on the Left, which even the filmmakers felt was too extreme (an 83-minute version is the longest cut ever seen so far). I'd have thought Salo wouldn't be too troublesome, and they've had no problems licensing it to the BFI to release in this country (MGM's logo is on the back, and the film was made by United Artists), in an unfortunately lacklustre disc.
According to Criterion's website FAQ, all OOP discs have been because of rights expiry, but, then again, they may not want to give the real reason, and your explanation for the disc's incredibly sudden disappearance does sound the most plausible reason I've ever heard.
Derek - you didn't include Cries and Whispers, which, IMO, is by far Bergman's best, and a criminally underrated film. But I know you're list isn't definitive - but I think Cries and Whispers is one of the 10 greatest films ever made by anyone.

 

[Gord Lacey]

I think it's funny that people bitch and complain about two Michael Bay movies being released by Criterion. They always go on and on about how Criterion is only supposed to release great movies that don't get the treatment they deserve anywhere else.
I'd ask those people why Criterion released "Fishing with John", a TV show. Now how does that relate to anything Criterion is supposed to stand for? It's not even a movie, yet no one ever questions this title being in their catalog.
Something to think about, huh?

 

[Ken Situ]

I don't care what Criterion is releasing - for all I care, they could release garbages, so long as they continue to release great films by Akira Kurosawa, and many other diretors, then I am happy.
------------------

 

[Elbert Lee]

There's nothing wrong with Criterion issues of recent summer blockbusters. It may make the average movie collector more aware of other Criterion releases and cultivate younger generations of film buffs. Of course, Criterion should definitely keep up its core projects.
As far as Michael Bay, I can appreciate his style of storytelling and, in my opinion, there's a certain artistry in the way he "paints portraits" of his characters. However, on whole, his films don't amount to anything "great" by any standards. I think he still needs to mature as a film maker
In terms of writing and storytelling, he's not as creative as James Cameron was 20 years ago, but there are similarities. Nobody would have suspected that Cameron was going to get an acedemy award for best director. IMO, Bay is a more artistic director than Cameron was and is still finding is niche. He needs to work with someone other than Bruckheimer and expand his horizons a bit..
Elbert

 

[Mike_Ped]

Hey, The Rock is one of my favorite movies! buts that's just me...

 

[Iain Lambert]

I stongly suspect that the sole reason that 'Fishing With John' is in the Criterion Collection is because at least one of the people who make the selections for such things finds it absolutely hilarious. It just gets some people like that, and I can't see anyone else releasing it.

 

[Eric Bass]

In that case I hope someone at Criterion is a MST3K fan.

 

[David Lambert]

In all the discussion about Criterion's supposed "mission", I'm surprised noone else brought up that they released the Beastie Boys videos.
In another thread, there is discussion as to whether Criterion can survive in today's market. I think that they are finding ways to do just that.
Bottom line is that they should keep putting out whatever THEY feel is appropriate. We can buy it or not buy it. If you're concerned about it, then you're probably someone more concerned about collectability than enjoying a particualr title. I don't get anything just because it's a Criterion Collection item and I want the complete set. I just want discs I can spin and enjoy.
I have Rock and Armageddon from them. I've also got Blob and Dead Ringers, among others. Next up are Seven Samurai, Hidden Fortress, Hamlet, Pygmalion...and Time Bandits.
I've got 800-ish discs so far, and there's another 500 already released or announced that are on my wish list. And more unannounced. So what Criterion does that I won't buy anyway is of little interest, actually.
------------------
DAVE/Memphis
Widescreen is Family Fun!