Lena Dunham

[Jeff]

You guys do realize that Tiny Furniture was a critical darling last year, right?

That might be overstating it a little bit, John. I know it had a few defenders (though not many ardent fans), but it came in at number 53 on the Indiewire critics poll.

[Highway 61]

Who the hell does Wes Anderson know except other self-consciously quirky hipsters?

Scott Rudin?

Exactly. I think this is the most obvious explanation. If Dunham's connection with Rudin got the film produced and released in the first place, I'm sure Rudin has something to do with the film securing Criterion's imprimatur.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Criterion is far more of a capricious business than we assume, and that if someone at the company wants a blu-ray of Fat Girl or has something against Kiarostami or Binoche, then their bias can sway the release schedule.

[nathansdad]

I don't get the vitriol being used to describe this film. I have seen it and thought it was interesting and that the characteristics of twenty year old anomie were a part of what was being revealed and not representative of an archetype being praised. The characters in her film are out there in our world, and I liked the way the film showed the casual merging of being a personality who carries their image of authenticity with a strong dose of willed fakeness. When I was in my twenties I did the same, I am now in my forties and still do the same albeit much more quietly and with less interest in imposing my struggle on anyone watching. This may be the trajectory that happens to some as they age going from hope in struggle to embarassment that the struggle has not ended. I enjoyed Tiny Furniture's presentation of a way of being that seemed real to me and also artificial. The dynamic of those two things seems at the heart of my life and my appreciation of film as a medium. I think her film is worthy of Criterion's stamp but I don't think that is much of a statement because I also don't think the Criterion stamp should be taken as a sign of profound validation. If it is then many of the comments and statements on this forum of casual derision without any explanations would surely tarnish that image - that is the irony here. Why resent a movie? What is the concern? Our culture? Criterion's standards? Yourself?

I find Lena Dunham's film criticism honest and with at least a little something to say about how she feels and thinks about what she has seen. Her comments on The Godfather seem to be similar to Jonathan Rosenbaum's statements on same.

[swo17]

Presumably Mr. Rosenbaum bothered to watch The Godfather before forming his opinion though.

[nathansdad]

True, but the error is all mine. The admission is nicely hers.

[matrixschmatrix]

Rosenbaum's critique is that the Godfather's presentation of decadent, corrupt power supports rather than undermines capitalistic power structures, as it makes them appear inevitable, and also that it allows violence to have a beauty and a grandeur to it (and also I think Rosenbaum likes disagreeing with Pauline Kael.) Dunham's critique is that, like the Wire, is about "a complex web of crime", and therefore she isn't interested.

As I've said, I don't think her views on what kind of movies interest her automatically damn her as a filmmaker, but it's silly to say that's the same critique.

[nathansdad]

It is true that my reading of her comment about complex crime narratives was read through my understanding of what Rosenbaum, and thousands of others, have argued. As such I have made a careless, even though generous, imposition on what I took her to mean. In this regard it is, as stated, silly. I should not have added the last two sentences as they are irrelevant to my main point and, on directed reflection, inaccurate. But in doing this, the deeper ignorance is all mine and perhaps because I am no longer in my twenties I am a bit embarassed.

[colinr0380]

Why does reading this thread always leave me wanting to post a link to this particular advert?

[HistoryProf]

If complaints over them releasing x and not releasing y aren't really linked (they could have had both) then it seems like complaints about their releasing x amount to "Why won't they release only what I want?" that was my only point. But then I've silently put up with constant complaints (usually in the guise of jokes) suggesting that "no one" wanted releases like Martha Graham, Koko, but again I'd wager Criterion knows what they're doing.

No, it amounts to "Why in god's name are they releasing this obnoxious piece of shit that has no redeeming value whatsoever?" The fact that the revelation of this release coincided with also finding out that they passed on a film many here would love to see get a spine # is irrelevant. Tiny Furniture is a disaster whether they release Certified Copy or not.

[Gregory]

No, it amounts to "Why in god's name are they releasing this obnoxious piece of shit that has no redeeming value whatsoever?"

Because not everyone shares your preferences and value judgments? Look, for anyone who may not remember, the "Why are they releasing this shit?" discussions go back to the origins of the forum with the Bay films, and they came up often back when we were getting only 3 - 5 a month, with no Eclipse sets. And there were lots of discussions in the bad old days of whether something was "worthy" of a Criterion release. Nowadays, with so many films coming out, many/most of which tend to make us quite happy, and over 600 released to date, it makes less sense to dwell on "bad" films they're releasing when there's so much good to be thankful for. If you can go through the "Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?" thread and explain to me how this differs from any of those sentiments, aside from personal preference, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I don't see what the complaining is in aid of. With 6 - 10 films coming out per month, I don't really see how this one film is keeping anyone's favorite films off the release schedule.

[zedz]

Look, for anyone who may not remember, the "Why are they releasing this shit?" discussions go back to the origins of the forum.

And it pays to remember that the "why are they releasing this shit?" hall of fame includes such figures as Yasujiro Ozu, Edward Yang, Jane Campion, Louis Malle and (probably the all-time champion even to this day) Seijun Suzuki.

It's interesting to get a little insight into the Criterion selection process and find out it can be capricious and personal and opinionated, but ultimately, so what? Couldn't we figure that out from looking at the catalogue to date? The upside / downside for me is that now I'm actually curious to see Tiny Furniture, something no discussion of the film I'd come across to date had succeeded in doing. So: mission accomplished, IFC / Criterion! It can't be more of a waste of my time than Solo con tu pareja or The Baxter, and I survived those.

[knives]

People pissed on Edward Yang and Suzuki? Malle and Ozu I can see from the abundance versus perceived neglect of others, but the two I mentioned I can't conceive of even a bad reason to whine over that (especially the Yang which should have gotten kudos at least for being the first Taiwanese film in the collection).

Also The Baxter is a great movie, harumph.

[Gregory]

Yang, really? Guess I'd forgotten that one. Because people were so satisfied by the earlier release of Yi Yi?
And Suzuki, absolutely, and it was all about "abundance versus perceived neglect of others." Too much Suzuki not enough Ozu, and then of course it was too much Ozu.

[zedz]

The Yang whines were, as I recall, along the lines of "why are they releasing this film that I've never heard of by some nobody? / why are they releasing contemporary films at all when there are films from the 30s they haven't touched?"

And Suzuki, as Gregory remembers well, used to be the forum's resident punchline, and probably enjoyed a longer run in that slot than Border Radio. The vibe was "how the fuck does this nonentity get to keep jumping the queue ahead of Ozu / Welles / Rivette / Lena Durham?"

[domino harvey]

I appreciate what you guys are doing here, but man, some films really are indefensible. Though in a way, I suppose arguments like these can perhaps only be made by people who haven't seen Tiny Furniture

[knives]

And Suzuki, as Gregory remembers well, used to be the forum's resident punchline, and probably enjoyed a longer run in that slot than Border Radio. The vibe was "how the fuck does this nonentity get to keep jumping the queue ahead of Ozu / Welles / Rivette / Lena Durham?"

That's a real surprise. You'd think that after Tokyo Drifter they wouldn't call him a non-entity. At least people learn.

[matrixschmatrix]

It's strange to me that people eventually got over Yang, Suzuki, and co, but it's still impossible to have one of these discussions without someone attacking Wes Anderson.

[John Cope]

Meanwhile, I'm eagerly anticipating Criterion's 3 disc Sucker Punch box set next year.

Snyder must enter the Collection.

[Doctor Sunshine]

I appreciate what you guys are doing here, but man, some films really are indefensible.

Did you not see the Gigli thread?

Gregory's dead on though. And unless Criterion, HBO and Apatow are into throwing money away there's a pretty good chance there's a market for this type of thing that's not composed entirely of us. I'll be keeping my expectations low but my interest has at least been piqued as well. The trailer's way better than Metropolitan's.

Out of curiosity, what did the 2 or 3 people who were dragged to see this's dates think of the film?

[knives]

Boredom, though to be fair she's not much of a rom-com or whatever the hell this is type. On second thought her being more choosy for this type of thing might be to the benefit of a non film person's veiw(then again she criticized Goodbye, Solo for having horror film editing and cinematography so I think she might just be insane).

[Jun-Dai]

I have to say, I'm definitely curious to see the film now. I've never seen so much vitriol about a release on the Criterion Forum, and that's saying a lot.

[cdnchris]

Yeah, I had only read about the film and had a very, very mild interest in seeing it, but now I have to see it. And of course I'll be incredibly disappointed if it's not as bad as everyone here suggests.

[HistoryProf]

Boredom, though to be fair she's not much of a rom-com or whatever the hell this is type. On second thought her being more choosy for this type of thing might be to the benefit of a non film person's veiw(then again she criticized Goodbye, Solo for having horror film editing and cinematography so I think she might just be insane).

mine was the one who said it looked "quirky and fun" - she was underwhelmed and commiserated a bit with my visible annoyance, though not sharing it. She was, I guess, disappointed by it and thought it was going to be "smarter." That's the one critique I can remember. But she's easy on movies and rarely voices criticisms beyond "I didn't care for it." She's a tough one to gauge though, as she's read every Jane Austen book 12 times, loves pre-code hollywood more than anything, and yet watches those awful "Housewives" shows.

I married an enigma. (the next Woody Allen movie?)

[zedz]

I appreciate what you guys are doing here, but man, some films really are indefensible. Though in a way, I suppose arguments like these can perhaps only be made by people who haven't seen Tiny Furniture

You definitely have the advantage over me there! And I'm fully prepared for it to be as terrible as people are saying (and I probably have an even lower tolerance for its particular brand of alleged aesthetic crimes than most). But I still won't see its inclusion in the collection as anything more than a shruggable agree-to-differ lapse.

[chaddoli]

I've seen the film. I must say it is certainly not bad, but it is very surprising to me that is has become THE BIGGEST OVERNIGHT MUMBLECORE SUCCESS EVER, with her winning SxSW, and almost immediately inking deals with Apatow/HBO and Scott Rudin. As someone who likes many of the films of that genre (ducks head), I've seen many mumblecore films that I thought were a lot more substantial and interesting than this.

I think it has a lot to do with Lena Dunham's onscreen persona/look. There simply aren't many (any) truthful coming-of-age stories about girls who look like that. And I do think there is something to be said for that. Most of the intelligent/cinema literate young women I know love the film. They identify with her and are emotionally compelled. Hard to argue with.