criterionforum.org

cdnchris wrote:Worst. Clue. Ever.

To be fair though, the clue itself was obscure enough that no one would get it who didn't know the film well. At least it wasn't a crude drawing of an obese woman wearing a T-shirt that said "Babette" chowing down on a leg of ham.

The food stylist on Babette is an old friend and I wonder if they contacted her.

Is everyone pretty convinced that the woman in the New Year's clue was Babette? And not Helen Mirren or something else entirely.

johnnysnatchclub7 wrote:Is everyone pretty convinced that the woman in the New Year's clue was Babette? And not Helen Mirren or something else entirely.

I'm pretty sure that it was not Babette. I think that it was pretty clearly a Naked Lunch clue since she was dining in the nude.

Donald Brown wrote:Weil's list is the best one in a while. Very thoughtful comments.

At the risk of sounding like a complete troll, I thought that the list wasn't very impressive, and not just because I find the man and his writing repugnant. I suppose that limiting yourself to three short sentences will prevent you from fully expressing a film's greatness, but it you can still make some headway into it. In his case we get this:

Crazy Man Who's Medical Advice Will Kill You wrote:My favorite David Mamet film, with endless and unexpected twists of plot that leave you stunned and entertained. Has a deliciously perverse ending.

The lack of complete sentences reminds me of the worst of Harry Knowles's weekly DVD column. I also found his endorsement of Rashomon a tad bit predictable. The man who denies reality would of course enjoy it for questioning whether truth exists.

I think if I were only given three sentences to describe ten of my favourite films, there would be a lot more blather than insight. That kind of thing is just hard to do.

bamwc2 wrote:At the risk of sounding like a complete troll...

I've just written a post and deleted it because the validity of what Weil does seems off-topic here, and yes, some of the statements in these two posts from bamwc2 seem a little like trolling, starting with putting his MD from Harvard in scare quotes and increasing the condemnation from there, with nothing offered to support statements that he is the enemy of science and reason and that he denies reality.
And those are complete sentences, IMO. "My favorite David Mamet film" implies "This is my favorite David Mamet film." It's a style of writing suited for very brief write-ups like these.

Gregory wrote:I've just written a post and deleted it because the validity of what Weil does seems off-topic here, and yes, some of the statements in these two posts from bamwc2 seem a little like trolling, starting with putting his MD from Harvard in scare quotes and increasing the condemnation from there with nothing to support statements that he is the enemy of science and reason and that he denies reality.
And those are complete sentences, IMO. "My favorite David Mamet film" implies "This is my favorite David Mamet film." It's a style of writing suited for very brief write-ups like these.

Yes, I'm being nitpicky with the sentences. I am quite strict with grammar when grading, and perhaps that is a fault. And yes I did say that a three sentence limitation would be difficult for anyone, including myself. Perhaps I am letting me feelings get in the way of my judgment, but I do find Weil and his like reprehensible.

As for Weil himself, yes, he is a Harvard MD, but long ago abandoned anything close to practicing Western medicine. Instead he's a practitioner of homeopathy and new age medical alternatives. He's on record against the scientific method, wanting to replace it with feeling and belief instead of observation and evidence. As I've mentioned in the forums before, I'm currently writing an applied critical thinking text for OUP. I'm just finishing up a chapter on Biblical inerrancy, and about to begin one on Holocaust denial. As a non-medical Dr. (though bioethics is one of my AOS), I can honestly say that the stuff that I've read from folks like Weil or Chopra is some of the craziest material out there. What's more, it's also dangerous. Forgoing chemotherapy and instead aligning your chakras or drinking some homeopathic solution will kill you.

"Western" medicine is now a meaningless, antiquated term, in my view. (Is there a distinct category of "eastern medicine"? Where are these boundaries exactly? Acupuncture is clearly not "western" for example, but there is so much overlap otherwise to make it a highly problematic distinction.) Approaches to health formerly ghettoized as "alternative" that Weil espouses, such as emphasis on nutrition, preventative medicine, supplementing with things like Omega-3 etc. (so irrational!) have been largely incorporated into the health regimens of westerners. What he advocates goes far beyond the boundaries of what can be dismissed as "homeopathy," which is much more specific than the widespread use of it as a term of abuse would imply. I have no tolerance for the New Age at all but find what I've read of Weil to be far more rational and empirical than anything coming from a New Age standpoint. Lumping him into the same category with Chopra seems arbitrary—very broad strokes there. Those who go flying off into a rant at the slightest mention of things like using herbs whose effectiveness has been scientifically proven seem like the irrational ones to me in discussions like this. I would ask you for an example of where Weil advised someone with a life-threatening illness to concentrate on chakra-alignment, but this is still off-topic.
EDIT: I've said this is off-topic so I probably shouldn't have commented. I'll just let the matter drop here.

bamwc2 wrote:

johnnysnatchclub7 wrote:Is everyone pretty convinced that the woman in the New Year's clue was Babette? And not Helen Mirren or something else entirely.

I'm pretty sure that it was not Babette. I think that it was pretty clearly a Naked Lunch clue since she was dining in the nude.

Double clue, dudes

onedimension wrote:Double clue, dudes

I get that. Though it seems more like a happy accident with Naked Lunch. I feel like the only true double clue we've ever had was the Ruth Gordon one. I'm simply asking if someone can steer me towards proof of Babette.

Normally this great board has picture proof for everything. I feel like when the New Year's clue came out this year someone immediately said Babette (which we all knew WAS coming) and people just accepted it and moved on. I'm not saying it's not the truth. It's just that the woman drawn doesn't really look like Stéphane Audran where as Jane Horrocks and Michael Ironside are dead ringers (pardon the slight pun). Her hair is much different.

Also, I figured someone would have cracked the supposed Oshima's Boy by now too. As well as the man standing with Jackie Coogan. I get that La cage aux folles and Le Samouraï are probables but why is Jef/Zatôichi drawn like Barton Fink (whom I'm not convinced it is either no matter how much I want it to be).

Any help?

johnnysnatchclub7 wrote:Also, I figured someone would have cracked the supposed Oshima's Boy by now too.

I suggested at the time and still remain convinced that the "Boy" is actually Jane Wyman in All That Heaven Allows. The position of the face, the snow, and the curtians (no other window in the drawing has curtains) all point to that film.

Feego wrote:

johnnysnatchclub7 wrote:Also, I figured someone would have cracked the supposed Oshima's Boy by now too.

I suggested at the time and still remain convinced that the "Boy" is actually Jane Wyman in All That Heaven Allows. The position of the face, the snow, and the curtians (no other window in the drawing has curtains) all point to that film.

Right! Sorry, I had completely forgot about that. That must be correct.

Gregory wrote:"Western" medicine is now a meaningless, antiquated term, in my view. (Is there a distinct category of "eastern medicine"? Where are these boundaries exactly? Acupuncture is clearly not "western" for example, but there is so much overlap otherwise to make it a highly problematic distinction.) Approaches to health formerly ghettoized as "alternative" that Weil espouses, such as emphasis on nutrition, preventative medicine, supplementing with things like Omega-3 etc. (so irrational!) have been largely incorporated into the health regimens of westerners. What he advocates goes far beyond the boundaries of what can be dismissed as "homeopathy," which is much more specific than the widespread use of it as a term of abuse would imply. I have no tolerance for the New Age at all but find what I've read of Weil to be far more rational and empirical than anything coming from a New Age standpoint. Lumping him into the same category with Chopra seems arbitrary—very broad strokes there. Those who go flying off into a rant at the slightest mention of things like using herbs whose effectiveness has been scientifically proven seem like the irrational ones to me in discussions like this. I would ask you for an example of where Weil advised someone with a life-threatening illness to concentrate on chakra-alignment, but this is still off-topic.

I agree. I'm trained in public health, and I think Weil's advice on nutrition and general preventative medicine is as good as any. I've read his stuff on homeopathy - I have some skepticism about the treatment, but I don't know or care whether he uses it or not, as long as he is helping his patients in a variety of ways. For me, his arguments about being open to how mind influences health were quite valuable.

His main notoriety for me is that he blew the whistle on Timothy Leary at Harvard when things were getting a bit out of hand. That alone makes him a worthy entrant in the Criterion top 10 list...

Could it be To Be or Not to Be? [-o<

France is Ha (Frances Ha)

Yeah, that's probably it.

Oh man, now they're giving clues to movies that haven't even had their theatrical run yet.

Yeah, that's crazy. It doesn't even open in New York until the middle of May. Obviously it's going to have a pretty short window before going to video.

Before I came here and read the now-obvious answer, I was thinking that maybe the snicker coming from Italy was "bitter laughter," which translates as Riso Amaro, the Italian title of Bitter Rice.

Jeff wrote:Before I came here and read the now-obvious answer, I was thinking that maybe the snicker coming from Italy was "bitter laughter," which translates as Riso Amaro, the Italian title of Bitter Rice.

It's an ultra-rare hexadecimal clue, with every laugh indicating a different release from that country. Britain's is, of course, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover.

Jeff wrote:Before I came here and read the now-obvious answer, I was thinking that maybe the snicker coming from Italy was "bitter laughter," which translates as Riso Amaro, the Italian title of Bitter Rice.

I thought the same too.

zedz wrote:

Jeff wrote:Before I came here and read the now-obvious answer, I was thinking that maybe the snicker coming from Italy was "bitter laughter," which translates as Riso Amaro, the Italian title of Bitter Rice.

It's an ultra-rare hexadecimal clue, with every laugh indicating a different release from that country. Britain's is, of course, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover.

it is kind of weird how after the northern tier of countries only Italy, Austria, the Ukraine, and Romania got a laugh. maybe they just ran out of terms. or maybe it's all a diabolical plan to force us into debating when they are going to release from Iceland.

Jeff wrote:Yeah, that's crazy. It doesn't even open in New York until the middle of May. Obviously it's going to have a pretty short window before going to video.

I doubt that it's Frances Ha for this very reason, though I can certainly see why someone would guess that. We know that Criterion will handle the World Cinema Foundation films. I'm not sure what they have the rights to since I just saw the clue and haven't had the time to Google it, but might it be a clue for a WCF set of European comedies?

Edit: Looking here, it seems doubtful.

This is surprising because Criterion typically has a gap of 12+ months between theatrical and dvd/blu on the IFC stuff. I've always been surprised that IFC let Criterion get away with such lengthy gaps. Maybe IFC is putting pressure on Criterion for something approaching a typical release window on the more commercial stuff. If they have a similar arrangement with A24 (which I wouldn't say is out of the question) maybe we'll get Spring Breakers as a summer release.

Jeff wrote:Yeah, that's crazy. It doesn't even open in New York until the middle of May. Obviously it's going to have a pretty short window before going to video.

I'm with bamwc2 - I don't buy it. That's almost "direct to video" status. Plus it ignores the rest of the map and focuses on the one blatant obvious (throw-off clue). The Baumbach is probably coming to Criterion eventually, but probably not the month after IFC finishes its tour (or even while still touring). Hasn't the quickest turn-around for an IFC title been over a year (I'd say two years, but there's probably been a quicker one)?

Jeff wrote:Before I came here and read the now-obvious answer, I was thinking that maybe the snicker coming from Italy was "bitter laughter," which translates as Riso Amaro, the Italian title of Bitter Rice.

That seems more likely - or better yet - Swo's (making WWII fun - although to be annoying about it, its a modern map of Europe, though Germany seems to have swallowed BENELUX and Denmark).