criterionforum.org

med wrote:

Duncan Hopper wrote:

John Cope wrote: In other news, Wells and company pontificate briefly on the potential leanings of the Cannes jury (if Assayas does indeed wind up exerting a lot of influence here I wonder what that will likely mean).

Yikes, I made the mistake of reading the comments. Wells starts by calling Johnnie To a 'chopsocky' director and follows up with "Nothing puts me to sleep faster than Asian cinema." Classy.

Jeff Wells is a middlebrow rube who likes to pass himself off as a sophisticated film-lover. The guy's word should never be taken seriously.

Or to put it another way, Jeff Wells is a racist scumbag who once emailed a director to ask for nude pictures of an actress. He also has shitty taste in film.

dwk wrote:Or to put it another way, Jeff Wells is a racist scumbag who once emailed a director to ask for nude pictures of an actress. He also has shitty taste in film.

For real? Pathetic.

link

I'm no expert in these matters, but it seems like telling a director that you didn't really like his last film is not the best way to start off a delicate request like this.

Ugh.

I hate that guy, and this exchange today about Johnnie To only serves to make him look ignorant, which is probably very accurate.

Don't worry, he's not a sleazebag- he just wants to masturbate to the pictures, not share them with other people.

Did anyone else enjoy the fact that Wells' explanation/rebuttal made him look like even more of a sleazebag, and an idiot?

As has been pointed out, Jeff Wells is not to be taken seriously. "Middlebrow rube" is indeed the best descriptor for him, considering his taste in film and just about everything else. The hilarious part is that he has invented this hip, urban, sophisticate character that he plays on his blog, and I think he has genuinely come to believe in it. I guess the joke's on me, since I keep reading it. I certainly don't read it to learn anything about cinema though. It's his trainwreck, racist, confused old perv persona that keeps me reading. My favorites are the posts about his "Italian-style" red bicycle, and his yellow Urban Outfitters sneakers. The bits about the Dean & DeLuca pear cake and the "emotionally vivid cowboy hat" are the all time classics. He's sixtysomething, but guards that fact pretty carefully, and clearly wants everyone thinking he's 40. He has such goofy ideas about who this character he is portraying should be.

He's such a miserable misanthrope, I have a hard time believing that he has a "journalist friend" or a friend of any other variety that tipped him off on the dynamics of the jury.

^Yeah, he's like an L.A. stereotype come to life. It's hard to believe that he's acting in good faith half the time, and while I saw how touchy he got in comments when someone questioned the existence of his "friend", you can't blame anyone for being suspicious about anything he writes.

domino harvey wrote:Like Saint Joan, the master's open matte; like Saint Joan, it looks better open matte.

Jeffrey Wells leaps to domino's defense, trips and falls on face.

swo17 wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Like Saint Joan, the master's open matte; like Saint Joan, it looks better open matte.

And Jeffrey Wells leaps to domino's defense.

And he's not helping his case.

Hmm, I'm not quite convinced. Maybe if he'd thrown in a few more metaphors involving Pol Pot, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and a few choice images from the Book of Revelation...

I hate it when people like Wells try to champion a cause that I'm actually sympathetic to, throwing in all manner of foolishness like, rhetoric aside, those frame comparisons. This is completely about his own ego.

What an idiot. As if the film was originally shot to be seen on "your grandfather's television." And those screenshots he offers really speak for themselves: classic open matte protection, and I'm pretty sure Preminger was more concerned about focussing our attention on the faces of his lead actors than on the top of that pole and the corner of the ceiling.

Haha, his entire case is based on the fact that the R1 DVD claims 1.33 is the OAR? If the R2 DVD claims 1.85 is the OAR, will his head explode?

His hyperboles get even better if you read the comments- "They make me feel like Winston Smith with his head inside the rat cage, or like Big Brother is trying to strap me down so the goons in their white outfits can give me an injection in my arm." (I don't think he read 1984)

I never claimed it was the "intended" ratio, I just am used to it and prefer open-matte transfers in general. I certainly wouldn't go down any path of self-righteousness where the issue's concerned

matrixschmatrix wrote:His hyperboles get even better if you read the comments- "They make me feel like Winston Smith with his head inside the rat cage, or like Big Brother is trying to strap me down so the goons in their white outfits can give me an injection in my arm." (I don't think he read 1984)

I'm gonna go with he's Lennie and 1.33 is his rabbit farm

zedz wrote:What an idiot. As if the film was originally shot to be seen on "your grandfather's television." And those screenshots he offers really speak for themselves: classic open matte protection, and I'm pretty sure Preminger was more concerned about focussing our attention on the faces of his lead actors than on the top of that pole and the corner of the ceiling.

At least he's using actual caps here, as opposed to The Caine Mutiny where his evidence was a production still.

Actually, he's just using the still from the Criterion website, where they almost always crop the image to a standard size (for instance).

domino harvey wrote:I never claimed it was the "intended" ratio, I just am used to it and prefer open-matte transfers in general. I certainly wouldn't go down any path of self-righteousness where the issue's concerned

Thread's going to get boring then. Way to deflate.

Who is Wells?

dadaistnun wrote:Actually, he's just using the still from the Criterion website, where they almost always crop the image to a standard size (for instance).

The second comparison (Lee Remick with the dog) is taken from DVD Beaver caps.

swo17 wrote:masked to Academy ratio by the combination of an actual matte and having two chummy tall people sit in front of you.

Somebody send those two guys to Jeff Wells' house.

Jeffrey Wells should be slightly pleased, since it has more information than the R2 DVD.

domino harvey wrote:I never claimed it was the "intended" ratio, I just am used to it and prefer open-matte transfers in general. I certainly wouldn't go down any path of self-righteousness where the issue's concerned

In his followup after actually watching the disc, Wells defends the 1.33:1 aspect ratio of the earlier DVD release by saying:

Jeffrey Wells wrote:I'm sorry, but I feel I know as much if not more than Preminger about the best way to project and appreciate Anatomy of a Murder.

Anyone who disagrees with him is a "fascist". Preminger included, I guess.

I know it's just somebody being wrong on the Internet, but I would punch that idiot after all that nonsense. "I know better than the director!" " The spirit of film lives in me". "I'm always right!". Oh God. I feel like I should make a film and present it at 1.85 with a credit at the end reading "Don't worry Jeff, I didn't make a mistake" just to piss him off.

I also love his insistence that every 1.85 movie should manditorily be presented in both 1.85 and 1.37 on home video. Why stop there? Why not mandate that every damn movie ever should be presented in all possible aspect ratios. Come on, we all know that Welles really had Cinerama in mind when he made Touch of Evil. 2.95 that motherfucker.

I think Bosley Crowther just lost his Worst Film Critic Ever crown.