criterionforum.org

Is this any good?

It's as funny as a sick cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

Lino wrote:Is this any good?

I like it quite a bit. It's not as good as Morris' WHO'S MINDING THE MINT, but it would make a perfect double bill with SKIDOO.

Woody says he only made the TV "Don't Drink The Water" because he hated that film version so much. I haven't seen it, so I don't know.

For something a little different, here is a great New York Times Magazine article from approx1987 detailing Woody as a director (including some great stills from the article, one being of Woody directing on the set of Radio Days). Enjoy.

Awesome, thanks for the link to the article!

Woody Allen sues American Apparel.

Woody Allen to visit Israel for the first time as special guest at the 6th Annual Red Sea International Film Festival, May 13th - May 17th.

Its been mentioned a few places online that Vilmos Zisgmond is lensing the (as yet untitled) Woody Allen film that's currently filming in New York. Santo Loquasto is also back as production designer (he designed every Woody Allen film from Radio Days to Melinda and Melinda and was earlier the costume designer from Stardust Memories to A Midsummer Nights Sex Comedy).

Well, according to IMDB the cinematographer for Woody's latest is now Harris Savides. An interesting choice if that's true (Zodiac looked great), but does anybody know for sure?

Dylan wrote:Well, according to IMDB the cinematographer for Woody's latest is now Harris Savides. An interesting choice if that's true (Zodiac looked great), but does anybody know for sure?

Appropriate since Savides is the heir to Gordon Willis' throne. I hope this is true.

chaddoli wrote:

Dylan wrote:Well, according to IMDB the cinematographer for Woody's latest is now Harris Savides. An interesting choice if that's true (Zodiac looked great), but does anybody know for sure?

Appropriate since Savides is the heir to Gordon Willis' throne. I hope this is true.

You know, it hadn't occured to me before, but now that you mention it both Zodiac and Birth have a kind of "Gordon Willis look" to them. Interesting. If anybody knows for sure I'd love to know if Savides is indeed the DP this time.

Dylan wrote:You know, it hadn't occured to me before, but now that you mention it both Zodiac and Birth have a kind of "Gordon Willis look" to them. Interesting. If anybody knows for sure I'd love to know if Savides is indeed the DP this time.

Exactly. Watch a double feature of Interiors and Birth (or Margot at the Wedding).

chaddoli wrote:

Dylan wrote:You know, it hadn't occured to me before, but now that you mention it both Zodiac and Birth have a kind of "Gordon Willis look" to them. Interesting. If anybody knows for sure I'd love to know if Savides is indeed the DP this time.

Exactly. Watch a double feature of Interiors and Birth (or Margot at the Wedding).

Yep, you called it, Savides is strongly informed by Gordon Willis.

Speaking of which, I re-watched some of Interiors recently. I seriously love that film (one of Woody's five best) and it looks absolutely gorgeous.

Willis at his best:

Five best? Really? That baffles me. I hate this film, and I'm as crazy about Allen as you are. Let me ask you, have you ever seen it theatrically? The DVD transfer sucks hard, and I always felt I would enjoy this so much more if I saw a clean print.

chaddoli wrote:

Dylan wrote:You know, it hadn't occured to me before, but now that you mention it both Zodiac and Birth have a kind of "Gordon Willis look" to them. Interesting. If anybody knows for sure I'd love to know if Savides is indeed the DP this time.

Exactly. Watch a double feature of Interiors and Birth (or Margot at the Wedding).

Or the one you probably haven't seen, Rafael Eisenman's Lake Consequence.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen it theatrically? The DVD transfer sucks hard, and I always felt I would enjoy this so much more if I saw a clean print.

I haven't. While I disagree that the DVD "sucks hard" (look at the screen capture, it's gorgeous!) I do believe that the film can look significantly better (I've read that at the time of its release, in between select screenings Woody had prints of the film sent to the lab for cleaning so the prints would be completely devoid of dirt or other artifacts). I still think the DVD quality is pretty aces, but I'm sure the picture quality will be breathtaking once MGM/UA restores it for HD.

Or the one you probably haven't seen, Rafael Eisenman's Lake Consequence.

You really did love Red Shoe Diaries, didn't you?

Funny, I actually just watched Interiors again last night witha couple of friends who had never seen it. They were surprised but liked it quite a bit. It is underrated and still gets a bad wrap, but it is pretty great. I don't think Woody would have been able to pull that off though without Gordon Willis' cinematography helping him out immensely on that picture. This film is the best work Willis did with Allen in colour (the best overall is a coin toss between Manhattan and Stardust Memories for me).

The dolly shot of Diane Keaton and the third sister walking along the beach with the bent and twisted fence in the foreground is my absolute favorite shot in any film, anywhere. Amazing. I'll never forget the first time I saw that.

I think Interiors is an interesting exercise, and much of it works, but it's simply overly mannered and doesn't breathe the way Allen's later, and better, dramatic works do.

Dylan wrote:I haven't. While I disagree that the DVD "sucks hard" (look at the screen capture, it's gorgeous!) I do believe that the film can look significantly better (I've read that at the time of its release, in between select screenings Woody had prints of the film sent to the lab for cleaning so the prints would be completely devoid of dirt or other artifacts). I still think the DVD quality is pretty aces, but I'm sure the picture quality will be breathtaking once MGM/UA restores it for HD.

I remember the film looking very spotty with more dirt and scratches than the other MGM Allen discs, but it's been a long time since I watched it, so you're definitely the better judge. Incidentally, I used to think the MGM Allen discs were fine since it appears the transfers weren't heavily tinkered with, but after seeing Annie Hall theatrically, with hugely different colors than the DVD, I've become more suspect, making the HD releases all the more appealing.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I think Interiors is an interesting exercise, and much of it works, but it's simply overly mannered and doesn't breathe the way Allen's later, and better, dramatic works do.

co-sign

HD DVD releases? Are you guys dreaming or do you have some info that I don't?

Interiors is the worst of the MGM DVDs by a country mile in terms of preservation. The 90's stuff on Miramax though is 10x worse than Interiors.

I do know that a friend in retail tells me that Annie Hall has been listed as discontinued to make way for a new release of it. If so, they missed the anniversary boat last year... unless that UA box set has a newer version of it?

I re-watched Interiors recently and thought the picture quality looked perfectly fine. A few specks and scratches don't really bother me, I guess. The main outrage among the MGM titles is that Annie Hall hasn't been reissued with an anamorphic transfer, especially as it's surely among the best-selling of all their Allen releases.

While I'm at it, maybe this is a stupid question but why is there a Criterion logo around Scarlett Johansson's head in the first post of this thread?

Gregory wrote:While I'm at it, maybe this is a stupid question but why is there a Criterion logo around Scarlett Johansson's head in the first post of this thread?

More to the point, why is she there at all?

tavernier wrote:

Gregory wrote:While I'm at it, maybe this is a stupid question but why is there a Criterion logo around Scarlett Johansson's head in the first post of this thread?

More to the point, why is she there at all?

Aesthetic balance?

Gregory wrote:I re-watched Interiors recently and thought the picture quality looked perfectly fine. A few specks and scratches don't really bother me, I guess.

Supposedly the colour on the DVD is nothing at all like the tones it is intended to have.