Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?

[Musashi219]

>>So your suggesting that Yang is in the same league with Bergman, Kurosawa, Antonioni, and Godard? <<

Are you suggesting that Antonioni and Godard are in the same league with Bergman and Kurosawa?

Let's face it, all this stuff is entirely subjective. I don't think anybody could be delighted by every single 2006 Criterion release, because the slate has been so diverse and unpredictable. I've been ecstatic about some of the titles and completely uninterested in others. But I have to give the CC credit for really mixing it up this year. I like the fact that they are challenging our expectations.

Besides, I'm sure we'll see more titles from the Great Masters in 2006. (Even if we don't all agree on who those Great Masters are.)

I just wish they would get those damned Tati discs out.

I agree with pretty much everything you just said, but let's not get into what essentially is a "who has bigger genitalia" match when it comes to directors. To try comparing Kurosawa, Bergman, Godard, and Antonioni is probably one of the dumbest things I could ever see attempted. Let's just avoid it entirely.

[atcolomb]

We should be grateful that a dvd company like Criterion is releasing the movies that the major studios would not even bother with and i hope Criterion does release Tati's 1971 "Traffic" and the "Playtime" redux....

[stroszeck]

Wow, where to start? First off, I'd like to say that during my SENIOR year in high school, in an honors biology class no less, I FIRST saw the KOKO documentary. When I went to Berkeley for undergraduate, where I continued on the biology track, ONCE AGAIN we were taught much much more about Koko and her unique abilities to learn and express herself through sign language. I did not care then, nor do I care now, and unless you are somehow conducting research or are obsessed with animal behavior in an unnatural way, you will not really be thrilled with any "scientific" related extras that accompany this documentary. It is a really slight piece of "cinema" (If you can call it that) and just because Schroeder (who I do somewhat revere) created it, does not make it some uber-masterpiece. It is therefore a REAL shock for me to learn that this particular documentary has made it onto Criterion - one of the last films I could have EVER expected to see.

I have seen YIYI and while I do admire its direction, and its acting in particular, I do consider it minor. Why? Because unlike Kar-wai and even Stillman, I do not believe this film to be very precious or proven as a masterpiece - yet. Kar-wai's film was of a rare breed of cinema which, once it arrived in theaters, was simply too exquisite to be denied the moniker of "master work." Yiyi on the other hand, has not had the same initial impact, NOR has it had enough time to gestate and be looked upon as a masterpiece. It is a very good film, no doubt about it, but from a company who seems to be the ONLY hope for the adequate release of masterworks such as films by Tati, Renoir, Resnais, Melville etc... who ARE being ignored by other R1 companies producing disks, then yes, I do get upset:

CASE IN POINT - Ju-dou and Raise the Red Lantern. Had Criterion stepped in to purchase these two films and restore them beautifully we would not be getting the current abysmal pieces of garbage released by Razor. Now, SURELY, these two titles are a bit more notable and important than KOKO......or even YIYI. Are they not?

[Musashi219]

We should be grateful that a dvd company like Criterion is releasing the movies that the major studios would not even bother with and i hope Criterion does release Tati's 1971 "Traffic" and the "Playtime" redux....

Exactly.

I have seen YIYI and while I do admire its direction, and its acting in particular, I do consider it minor. Why? Because unlike Kar-wai and even Stillman, I do not believe this film to be very precious or proven as a masterpiece - yet. Kar-wai's film was of a rare breed of cinema which, once it arrived in theaters, was simply too exquisite to be denied the moniker of "master work." Yiyi on the other hand, has not had the same initial impact, NOR has it had enough time to gestate and be looked upon as a masterpiece. It is a very good film, no doubt about it, but from a company who seems to be the ONLY hope for the adequate release of masterworks such as films by Tati, Renoir, Resnais, Melville etc... who ARE being ignored by other R1 companies producing disks, then yes, I do get upset:

CASE IN POINT - Ju-dou and Raise the Red Lantern. Had Criterion stepped in to purchase these two films and restore them beautifully we would not be getting the current abysmal pieces of garbage released by Razor. Now, SURELY, these two titles are a bit more notable and important than KOKO......or even YIYI. Are they not?

I'll be honest and say that I've never seen Koko or Yiyi. Once again though, you are yet another person who is sitting here name-dropping folks that you think should be in the Collection. Renoir and Melville are in my Top 20 directors of all time, but I also realize that around this time next year, I'll get my Criterion of Army of Shadows. Just like in due time we all know we'll be getting Last Year at Marienbad, Playtime, and Traffic.

Diversity is what matters in the Collection. If they spent all their time working on each individual director's filmography, wouldn't people see it as stale or boring? I know peoeple who HATE Melville, so how would they feel about Criterion were all they doing was releasing his films?

Yes those Zhang Yimou releases are horrific and I'd love to know why Raise the Red Lantern isn't on Criterion. At the same time though, you don't see me whining about it.

[backstreetsbackalright]

I have seen YIYI and while I do admire its direction, and its acting in particular, I do consider it minor. Why? Because unlike Kar-wai and even Stillman, I do not believe this film to be very precious or proven as a masterpiece - yet. Kar-wai's film was of a rare breed of cinema which, once it arrived in theaters, was simply too exquisite to be denied the moniker of "master work." Yiyi on the other hand, has not had the same initial impact, NOR has it had enough time to gestate and be looked upon as a masterpiece. It is a very good film, no doubt about it, but from a company who seems to be the ONLY hope for the adequate release of masterworks such as films by Tati, Renoir, Resnais, Melville etc... who ARE being ignored by other R1 companies producing disks, then yes, I do get upset:

CASE IN POINT - Ju-dou and Raise the Red Lantern. Had Criterion stepped in to purchase these two films and restore them beautifully we would not be getting the current abysmal pieces of garbage released by Razor. Now, SURELY, these two titles are a bit more notable and important than KOKO......or even YIYI. Are they not?

I'm sure you'll have many takers on that "more notable and important" provocation. And I could similarly complain that if Criterion stepped to the plate and nabbed Clueless, we might enjoy a Heckerling commentary, but it's beside the point. It strikes me as less useful to tally CC's omissions than to consider their inclusions.

Far as Yi Yi vs. ITMFL, your comparison seems to ignore the striking differences in distribution, marketing, and name-recognition between the two films. The instant hailing of a masterpiece is rarely very "instant" at all (and they often don't stick - just ask Teenage Fanclub). WKW had built quite a name for himself, and enjoyed a very devoted american audience after the success of Chungking (a modest success, sure, but enormous when compared to, say, Brighter Summer Day). ITMFL was as much awaited as a masterpiece as it was recognized as one. I know I'd been longing for it for months upon months before it finally came to Seattle. Yi Yi, on the other hand, I'd only read about a week or two before it came through, and I hadn't previously known of Yang at all. ITMFL also enjoyed a much lengthier stay in theaters, and its home video and DVD releases were greeted with far more fanfare. So I get what you're saying, but there can be no question that there are mitigating factors that differentiate the two film's initial reception. If for only that reason, I find it questionable to evaluate a work as a timeless masterpiece (or not) on the basis of the excitement with which it's first greeted.

[Musashi219]

NEW ANNOUNCEMENT FOR JULY

"Dubbed the greatest actor of the twentieth century, Sir Laurence Olivier, the classically trained and majestically handsome English theater veteran and one-time co-director of London's Old Vic, first transplanted his passion for Shakespeare to the big screen in the 1940s, and in so doing, allowed Elizabethan verse to break free of its stage-bound origins. Olivier directed only five films in his sixty-year career, yet his three Shakespeare adaptations, presented here together on DVD for the first time, are still widely considered the definitive film adaptations: his thrilling directorial debut, Henry V, stunned 1944 audiences with its vivid Technicolor and full-throttle battle scenes; Hamlet, which won the Academy Awards for Best Picture and Actor, in 1948, brought to stunning life literature's greatest protagonist; and his legendary Richard III, thought by many to feature Olivier's most magnetic performance. Faithful to the playwright's words yet open to the visual potentials of the cinema, these works transcend both screen and stage with timeless passion. Criterion is proud to present this unprecedented filmmaking legacy."

Yep, nothing new, but I can't wait to see who starts bitching.

[Noir of the Night]

Bitch!

[gubbelsj]

Hi, brand new here, although I've read and enjoyed this board's comments for quite some time....

backstreetsbackalright strikes the right chord for my ears, as I've always believed one of the strengths of Criterion is the refusal to subscribe to a lockstep, officially sanctioned canon, seeing how said canon always seems to be changing, depending on who's running the academy this year. Just as English departments run the risk of merely recycling platitudes of three or four giants of the page, so too can film departments turn into the Bergman, Kurosawa, Godard & Welles Club (add your own choices if you like). Such a hierarchy contains some definite truths - there are masters, and they do stand out from the rest - but ultimately dilutes the rich scope of an art form, which is created and built upon by countless individuals, some modest, some forgotten, some as yet unrecognized.

2006 has been an interesting year so far. While I won't be buying as many as I have in years past, I believe the collection is stronger thanks to the introduction of left-field choices, be they cult sci-fi cinema (a legitimate genre with a huge following and a rich history), contemporary American indie comedy (Stillman may or may not be a genius, but social satirists do have a way of accruing strength over time and who knows how history might judge him?), and/or basic documentary (Koko is certainly the most surprising release this year, but ever since Hearts and Minds and Tokyo Olympaid were released simultaneously, I've hoped this was a sign for a renewed focus on documentaries).

When only official masterpieces are allowed to define an art form, that art form is setting itself up for a fall. Il Posto, F For Fake, and the works of Stan Brakhage, to name three random non-canonical releases, have all become favorites of mine, thanks to Criterion and no thanks to any accepted list of masterworks.

[Donald Trampoline]

I'm sure this has perhaps been covered somewhere here, but I can't find it.

Aren't there now roughly only 3 releases per month? At least that's what it looks like in their "Coming Soon" area. Used to be four a month I thought.

Anyway, I'm sure they'll surprise us one month with a 100 at once to make up for all this piecemeal stuff.

And if it is three a month, then we have our three. Yi Yi, Koko and already-existing titles wrapped up in pretty Olivier Shakespeare box set.

[Grimfarrow]

So your suggesting that Yang is in the same league with Bergman, Kurosawa, Antonioni, and Godard?

That's what I meant.

Are you kidding?

OF COURSE. Heck, I dare say Yang is miles better than Kurosawa.
Just watch A BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY and then come back to say that Yang doesn't belong.

[FilmFanSea]

Well said, Grimfarrow. FWIW, in Jonathan Rosenbaum's list of his 1,000 Favorite Films (from his book Essential Cinema), only 2 of Kurosawa's 31 films (Ikiru and Rhapsody in August) make the cut. Of Edward Yang's 8 films, FOUR appear on his list (Taipei Story, Mahjong, Yi Yi, and A Brighter Summer Day---the last he has singled out for his Top 100 list, and as one of the ten greatest films of the 1990s).

I will concede that JR is no lover of Kurosawa, and that his list is highly personal. I think part of the blasé or uninformed response to Yang stems from the fact that--outside of Yi Yi--his films are nearly impossible to see (and that includes in film studies courses).

[Musashi219]

To say that the importance of cinema rests in the hands of one single person's opinion is probably the stupidest thing I have ever seen on this board. Rosenbaum's lack of interest in the work of Kurosawa only further shows my logic in prior posts that with so many releases that Criterion could put out, not every person would be happy with them.

Perhaps you should try forming your own opinion on film instead of listening to what another critic considers to be his favorite films.

[Grimfarrow]

I agree totally about forming your own opinions first. So please go watch A BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY and TAIPEI STORY before making your judgements about whether Kurosawa is unfairly neglected by Rosenbaum or not, as compared to Yang.

[backstreetsbackalright]

Perhaps you should try forming your own opinion on film instead of listening to what another critic considers to be his favorite films.

Um, I think that's where the "FWIW" comes in. I'm pretty confident FFS isn't swallowing opinions from Rosenbuam's book. I think the point here was just to suggest that a very high opinion of Yang isn't entirely out of the realm.

[FilmFanSea]

To say that the importance of cinema rests in the hands of one single person's opinion is probably the stupidest thing I have ever seen on this board. Rosenbaum's lack of interest in the work of Kurosawa only further shows my logic in prior posts that with so many releases that Criterion could put out, not every person would be happy with them.

Perhaps you should try forming your own opinion on film instead of listening to what another critic considers to be his favorite films.

I am rebutting the argument that Yang isn't fit to share elbow room with Kurosawa, et al. and that Academia has yet to pronounce him a great auteur. There is little doubt that Rosenbaum is one of the best film critics writing today in the US, and that his opinion carries some weight on this forum and others. Make no mistake: Rosenbaum's championing of such filmmakers as Jarmusch, Hou, Tarr, Yang, Stanley Kwan, Kiarostami, Makhmalbef, et al has had a profound effect on how they are perceived in critical and academic circles, as well as driving demand for screenings and DVD releases.

Do I think the opinions of Rosenbaum or Kael or Sarris or Bordwell or Bazin are infallible Dogma? Of course not. Great critics stimulate thought and discussion, and whet one's appetite for seeing films that might otherwise have escaped notice; they may also challenge a viewer to reassess a given film initially dismissed. And they may certainly be "wrong" in analyzing a given movie.

Would it persuade anyone sitting on the fence about the worth of Yang if I proffered my own opinion (based on seeing four of his films--three of those on truly awful VCDs with illegible subtitles) that he is a genius? This board has no shortage of personal opinions (usually stated with frothing of the mouth). Remember that 'opinions are like assholes ...' I see as many films as time and money allow, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with considering the opinions of adventurous and iconoclastic critics in helping to prioritize what one sees.

As for Rosenbaum, it's not that he has no interest in Kurosawa, but that--so far as I can tell from his writings--he has seen all of the master's films and doesn't find him to be a monumentally great director. There are people on this board who feel that Japanese cinema begins and ends with Kurosawa, and that the man never made a bad film. By citing Rosenbaum's writing I'm offering a well-informed, alternate view; one that says that Yang is every bit the director that Kurosawa was, and perhaps more.

Finally: are all opinions of equal merit? Should I value the opinion of someone who has spent his life on a strict diet of Hollywood blockbusters when it comes to evaluating Godard or Ozu or Buñuel? Does every person with a set of eyes and a brain have the critical faculties to appreciate great art? Before plunking down my money blindly, I would much rather rely on the opinion of someone whose standards of criticism are clearly articulated, whose viewing experience is wide-ranging, whose curiosity is boundless, and whose critical acumen has stood the test of time, than an ill-informed, poorly-read cretin, no matter how loudly he states his opinion.

[Musashi219]

To tackle all comments at once, where did I even bash Rosenbaum let alone Yang in the first place? Nowhere from what I'm looking at.

My point is that just because Rosenbaum praises the work of Yang over Kurosawa, his opinion in no way/shape/form justifies the validity of cinema because it is HIS opinion. Just as it goes to say that Stephen Prince's love for Kurosawa is HIS opinion. Nowhere do I even say Kurosawa is a perfect filmmaker because surely I have seen some clunkers from him.

What always annoys me is when people find a very critical source of cinema, find that they love/respect a certain film, and then feel they too must champion it to the point that even if they didn't actually enjoy the film, they must carry on the opinion of said source.

Have I ever seen an Edward Yang film? No and I won't lie to this forum and act like I have. However, taking a cue from Grimfarrow's remark, the most ignorant comment one can make from a cinephile to another is going off the assumption that one has never seen certain films, therefore belittling his opinion. As I said I have never seen a Yang film. I know of him, I know of his work, but as another poster mentioned, the work is not readily available to public eyes. I would not bother watching a shitty VCD which does not support the true vision of the director. Will I see Yi Yi when it comes out? Of course.

Ultimately, while I do value the opinion of respected critics, in the end it is my own personal opinion that plays the part in whether or not I truly enjoy a film. Had I listened to one such critic/former professor/friend long ago, then I would've never found the love that I have for Sergio Leone and Jean-Pierre Melville.

[criterionradiohead]

Hi, brand new here, although I've read and enjoyed this board's comments for quite some time....

backstreetsbackalright strikes the right chord for my ears, as I've always believed one of the strengths of Criterion is the refusal to subscribe to a lockstep, officially sanctioned canon, seeing how said canon always seems to be changing, depending on who's running the academy this year. Just as English departments run the risk of merely recycling platitudes of three or four giants of the page, so too can film departments turn into the Bergman, Kurosawa, Godard & Welles Club (add your own choices if you like). Such a hierarchy contains some definite truths - there are masters, and they do stand out from the rest - but ultimately dilutes the rich scope of an art form, which is created and built upon by countless individuals, some modest, some forgotten, some as yet unrecognized.

2006 has been an interesting year so far. While I won't be buying as many as I have in years past, I believe the collection is stronger thanks to the introduction of left-field choices, be they cult sci-fi cinema (a legitimate genre with a huge following and a rich history), contemporary American indie comedy (Stillman may or may not be a genius, but social satirists do have a way of accruing strength over time and who knows how history might judge him?), and/or basic documentary (Koko is certainly the most surprising release this year, but ever since Hearts and Minds and Tokyo Olympaid were released simultaneously, I've hoped this was a sign for a renewed focus on documentaries).

When only official masterpieces are allowed to define an art form, that art form is setting itself up for a fall. Il Posto, F For Fake, and the works of Stan Brakhage, to name three random non-canonical releases, have all become favorites of mine, thanks to Criterion and no thanks to any accepted list of masterworks.

I don't post much around here for the simple reason that if I did, many of my posts would resemble the overwhelming number of two liners in the vein of, "____ director is UBER 7331 ... ____ director suxorz and shouldn't be in the collection." These posts have no basis of argument and in my opinion are a complete waste of time and brain power.

Anywho... I just wanted to give praise to the new guy for not following the poor example set by far to many of this forums senior/frequently posting members (by no means all of the senior/frequently posting members... I think you can read through this thread alone to figure out the types I'm referring to).

Meh... this will most likely just become more fuel for the fire.

Criterionradiohead

[FilmFanSea]

Ahh, where to begin, Musashi219? Let's start here:

To say that the importance of cinema rests in the hands of one single person's opinion is probably the stupidest thing I have ever seen on this board.

Since you seem to be accusing me of placing words in your mouth, let's start with your original opening salvo. Where, exactly, did I say "the importance of cinema rests in the hands of one single person's opinion"??? Nowhere. That's your own histrionic interpretation of what I wrote, topped off with a nice dollop of hyperbole.

What always annoys me is when people find a very critical source of cinema, find that they love/respect a certain film, and then feel they too must champion it to the point that even if they didn't actually enjoy the film, they must carry on the opinion of said source.

Second, you seem to be accusing me of loving Yi Yi on the basis of Rosenbaum's opinion. Again, where's the rationale? At least I can say I've actually seen the film (three times more than you have!). So where do you get off judging me? And what, pray tell, is this "very critical source of cinema" that you refer to? A person? A film? A book?

I would not bother watching a shitty VCD which does not support the true vision of the director.

Now trashing my distasteful viewing habits. Such towering principles you have! Some of us are content to seek out great art under less-than-optimal viewing conditions when there is no other choice. Sorry you can't be bothered.

Last question: Did you even bother to read the previous postings before you barged into this thread with your tsk, tsk and your wagging finger? It might be advisable for the future.

[Musashi219]

Honestly, you have taken all my words to be a bit too venomous. What annoyed me to begin with is the mentioning of how Rosenbaum gives only two slots to Kurosawa yet four to Yang as if they was the deciding factor for the previous poster's lack of Kurosawa interest, let alone it serving as grounds for him clearly not being a director of value.

I did not intend for my own personal views to reflect that I felt your own interest in Yi Yi comes from that of Rosenbaum's, but moreso a common problem I have found when dealing with people who love film. The "very critical" source can be a person or book. Anything that sets forth this idea that because so-and-so says it is of important or great merit, clearly it must be, as if one was to be told that Citizen Kane was the greatest film ever made, yet they did not like it, but because a noted source says so, well then they are obligated to agree.

I also do not bash you for watching VCDs. From prior experience, most I have seen ARE indeed of poor quality. Poor subtitles, improper color levels, and numerous other errors. Why should my first experience with someone's film be a bad one or an unintended one? Yes you can say that the experience itself would be what matters most, but if a film is not translated properly, is it my fault for not appreciating said film or possibly missing information entirely?

Wow, you've SEEN the movie! Am I to be impressed? What does that accomplish by simply saying "Oh well I HAVE seen it!" Once again, I never bashed Yang anywhere. Never. In truth, it is all this fiery debate about Yang's film that makes me want to see it even more. Perhaps after this occurs I will even share my feedback with you personally.

Finally, because I'd like to just end this goddamn flame war that even I'll admit some of my comments were unclear and unjustified, the whole reason I was commenting on this thread in the FIRST PLACE was because of the annoyance that is people bitching about what Criterion is giving us.

I have no problems or qualms with you personally FilmFanSea and I hope you don't have any with me either.

[backstreetsbackalright]

I think, Musashi219, the reason your words are interpreted as so venomous has something to do with the venomous tone you've favored in this thread.

[Dear Catastrophe Totoro]

I have a secret list of my favorite films. This list differs from the list I'll give when asked about my favorite films. Since no one here knows me (or actually cares), I'll just go ahead and let you in on a secret: Yi Yi is in my top ten on this list (and my second favorite of the decade; try to guess what the first would be). I suppose I have a secret list because cinema is one of the only things I relate to completely, without the need to create personas or little lies. So why whore my favorite films for recognition?

I'm mentioning Yi Yi because I'm getting enraged at the slightest knock the film is receiving, so I thought, hey, instead of posting this page-and-a-half rant that I just typed up that will serve no purpose whatsoever (although it was sort of funny at times, gotta give it that), I might as well actually try to defend the film. So here I go.

Yi Yi is one of the most perfectly performed balancing acts I have ever seen. It creates over a dozen well-developed characters, featuring a family of three generations, with each character getting individual attention, each character being fully understood, and all of this packaged lovingly in the briefest three hour film I have ever seen. Every scene is viewed, with clarity, through that character's eyes. When the scene is about the youngest son, you're astonished that any adult can capture the innocence (and uninformed intelligence) of childhood so clearly. When we're viewing, say, a less moral character, we instantly feel the weight of the problems in their life, the shades of gray; we understand their decisions, personality, and thought process...and I don't have a clue how he does it. He simply understands people, and writes them clearly, with dialogue that is perfectly natural, actions that are easily read, and emotions that are powerfully felt. His presence as a director is almost invisible (only in one scene does he step forward to show himself). He is never sentimental, never melodramatic (although he does allow his characters to be). His camera style is patient, which again focuses the attention on the characters. His editing style resembles an Ozu level of disorientation between scenes (in other words, you have to pay attention to know where you are, what is happening, who is who, etc) while letting scenes play out in a more traditional visual style. And god, the visuals themselves...countless moments of gorgeous, dense imagery, letting the environment itself become a character, as it actually does change the lives of this family in countless different ways. In fact, that's the whole dynamic of the story: a new era with a specific city that influences the timeless story of life in its different stages.

I've never "officially" been a film student, so I'm not sure if this is what anyone is looking for, but this is my attempt to explain in some small (and brief) way why Yi Yi is quite possibly one of the best films to receive a spine number yet. I am still overwhelmed by this announcement, unbelievably so. I would recommend seeing it as a film lover, not as a critic that is hellbent on categorizing every film, labeling their worth by how much of an auteur the director is. I can't say how Yang ranks amongst the greatest based on this film alone, but as a film, Yi Yi is pure transcendence.

[pzman84]

As a person who spent last month bitching about the releases of Dazed and Confused and Equinox, I have to say Yi Yi and Koko are quite good. They are made by respectable international filmmakers. They are not stoner comedies or B-Movies. They look very interesting.

However, it does say in the white promotional pamphlet in all the disc cases: The foundation of the collection is the work of such masters of cinema as Renoir, Truffaut, Godard, Kurosawa, Cocteau, Fellini, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock, Fuller, Lean, Kubrick, Lang, Sturges, Dreyer, Eisenstein, Ozu, Sirk, Bunuel, and Powell and Pressburger. They did not return to their foundations in June or July. However, I hope by the end of the year they will go back to their foundations.

[Gregory]

Dazed and Confused is not a stoner comedy. This is a total canard and a marketing gimick that has gotten attached to the film. Anyone who has actually watched the film will know that only a few relatively minor characters are of the stoner type that has become the movie's pigeonhole. I also think it's pretty clear that it's not a comedy. It has a few funny moments but first and foremost it's a horror film masquerading as a normal coming-of-age story. I find it a bit like Zappa in this way (an astounding film I discovered recently which has gotten scarcely a mention on this forum).
Also, I'm not clear on what "respected" means, precisely. Many intelligent people respect Linklater's good stuff and/or think Schroeder is mediocre most of the time.
And one more thing: since when is being a "B movie" necessarily a bad thing? Have you seen Cat People or I Walk With a Zombie (and so on, and so on)? I haven't seen Equinox so I'm not making any claims about its specific merits, but dismissing a film just because it's a B picture (or because it's by a well-known director still working e.g. Linklater) seems really odd to me.

[Dear Catastrophe Totoro]

Jesus Christ.

OK. I'm annoyed out of my mind, so hopefully this is the last time I'll comment. Out of the 19 titles announced/released for the first 6 months of 2006, 5 releases are from directors on that goddamn pamphlet. Note that Welles isn't included in that list. Nevermind the fact that he is, of course, Whit Stillman's equal, he is also on anyone's shortlist of great directors. So we're up to 6. I can't help but notice that Ford and De Sica aren't on that pamphlet, either. Clearly an oversight, correct? Feel like downplaying Ford or De Sica's contributions to cinema? Great. So we're at 8, which means 42% of the releases this year are from these masters of cinema. Could you please tell me WHAT THE FUCKING PROBLEM IS? I hope they don't return to the "masters of cinema" for the rest of the year, and spend time expanding the collection with films by...jesus, don't make me list everything everyone is waiting for that hasn't been included yet.

By the way, since you haven't seen Yi Yi or KoKo the wonder-fucking-chimp yet, why do these seem legit and not Dazed and Confused? You haven't seen that either, correct? Just looking at the ones with "serious" content, eh? As Gregory pointed out, the genre of the film (or the plot) has nothing to do with the content of a film. May I interest you in the Sirk department (he's on the fucking pamphlet!)?

[ben d banana]

I think I love you. Those are four nipples on your avatar, right?