criterionforum.org

Unless Dunham is secretly Peter Becker's illegitimate daughter, I think maybe Taketori Washizu means cronyism.

Isn't her father in the film played by the actual Jon Mulvaney?

Matt wrote:Unless Dunham is secretly Peter Becker's illegitimate daughter, I think maybe Taketori Washizu means cronyism.

Right, but I still wonder if there's any factual basis for this accusation, which seems to come up repeatedly, as people grasp for ways to put Dunham down without actually engaging with (or, in some cases, even seeing) her work. One of the more ridiculous examples of this is the first comment in this insufferable Playlist thread, which says that "her parents must have great connections, there's no other way to explain all the praise she is receiving." That doesn't even make sense. Are her parents somehow connected to all the main people involved in getting her projects greenlit and distributed, the key critics who have praised TF, and Peter Becker as well? As a conspiracy theory, that may surpass any of Nothing's diatribes on this forum.
But if there is damning evidence of Criterion releasing the film as some sort of favor when they otherwise would not have wanted to release it, then someone please fill me in.

She's not his daughter! Obviously, she had to sleep with Peter Becker for the spine! That's how the movie industry works, right?

I'm just going to see how long I can go without knowing who Lena Dunham's parents are. Not as long as I can go without caring, I'll bet!

zedz wrote:I'm just going to see how long I can go without knowing who Lena Dunham's parents are. Not as long as I can go without caring, I'll bet!

Aren't her parents in the movie? Or at least her mother?

No, I was referring to nepotism. She wouldn't have this film in the Criterion Collection, much less have made it at all, if her mother wasn't Laurie Simmons. How much did Simmons pay Becker to get this spine number 597? But I kid! If you like this movie, then great!

Guys you're all being ridiculous, I really don't think her mother has the kind of clout or financial resources to get her child into the collection! If that was the case every millionaire half wit with hollywood connections would get their crappy avantgarde film squeezed in. Relax.

Gregory wrote:Right, but I still wonder if there's any factual basis for this accusation, which seems to come up repeatedly, as people grasp for ways to put Dunham down without actually engaging with (or, in some cases, even seeing) her work. One of the more ridiculous examples of this is the first comment in this insufferable Playlist thread, which says that "her parents must have great connections, there's no other way to explain all the praise she is receiving." That doesn't even make sense. Are her parents somehow connected to all the main people involved in getting her projects greenlit and distributed, the key critics who have praised TF, and Peter Becker as well? As a conspiracy theory, that may surpass any of Nothing's diatribes on this forum.
But if there is damning evidence of Criterion releasing the film as some sort of favor when they otherwise would not have wanted to release it, then someone please fill me in.

Yeah, I'm not interested in the movie and I've joined in on making fun of it, but such accusations- or worse, accusations that the slot was gotten via sexual favors- strike me as being unpleasant, based on the assumption not that this isn't a good or an interesting movie (which I think a given person might reasonably reach without watching it) but that nobody could possibly think this was a good or an interesting movie, and that any accolades must be due to some other behind the scenes factor. That actually does seem like it carries a hint of the misogyny that's been mooted so much in this thread.

Haters gonna hate...

Taketori Washizu wrote:No, I was referring to nepotism. She wouldn't have this film in the Criterion Collection, much less have made it at all, if her mother wasn't Laurie Simmons. How much did Simmons pay Becker to get this spine number 597? But I kid! If you like this movie, then great!

You might be kidding (not sure) but I know others aren't and seem to really be pushing this idea. I guess Criterion is not completely past doing something for a buck (some of the Disney titles were contractual, or I guess licencing their brand to Paramount for Benjamin Button) but I seriously doubt they'd throw in some film because the filmmaker's parent(s) asked so and paid for it (even David Prior said it was difficult to get them to agree to allowing Benjamin Button in, and though ultimately they did cave, that was a huge studio picture with far more clout behind it.) I haven't seen the film yet, but considering it actually received quite a bit of buzz and some decent reviews it's possible some people actually liked it, even someone at Criterion.

(PS: Again, I'm going to be really disappointed when I find out this movie is not great, nor bad, but just very mediocre.)

After all, Chasing Amy and Border Radio are not in the collection because of any nepotism, cronyism, or contractual agreement. They're there because someone at Criterion really, really liked them.

And for the record, Border Radio is still a funnier punchline than Tiny Furniture.

I keep forgetting about Border Radio

cdnchris wrote:I keep forgetting about Border Radio

It's for the best.

cdnchris wrote:You might be kidding (not sure) but I know others aren't and seem to really be pushing this idea. I guess Criterion is not completely past doing something for a buck (some of the Disney titles were contractual, or I guess licencing their brand to Paramount for Benjamin Button) but I seriously doubt they'd throw in some film because the filmmaker's parent(s) asked so and paid for it (even David Prior said it was difficult to get them to agree to allowing Benjamin Button in, and though ultimately they did cave, that was a huge studio picture with far more clout behind it.) I haven't seen the film yet, but considering it actually received quite a bit of buzz and some decent reviews it's possible some people actually liked it, even someone at Criterion.

So how does any of this explain the Renoirs? Don't tell me he gets in the Collection without Pierre-Auguste cashing in some favors...

I'm sure that the film is in the collection because someone at Criterion likes it. I'm sure the same goes for IFC's reasons for picking it up. The cronyism bit (which, from my perspective at least, is tongue in cheek) has to do with Scott Rudin, who is good friends with Dunham's parents, has known her since she was a kid, and is famously feared by most people in the industry. He is producing her new series. The idea being that IFC, Criterion, et. al. jumped on the Lena Dunham bandwagon because they're terrified not to. Again, I don't think that anyone intends that intimation seriously. I know I don't.

As I've said before, Criterion has released lots of silly shit over the years. This is just another in a series of Criterion punchlines. (See also: Border Radio, Monsoon Wedding, Solo con tu pareja, Hopscotch, Armageddon, Dead Presidents, Supercop, etc.) The childish cries of "Sexism!" every time one of the mocked titles happens to be directed by a woman are ridiculous. You'd better believe that if Criterion elects to release Madea Goes to Jail or Batman & Robin, they'll get mocked too. Should I assume that it's not due to the quality of the films, but because our members are racist and homophobic?

Tiny Furniture is having a UK cinema release on 30 March.

I didn't hate this movie as much as you all did, apparently. I read through this entire thread before I saw it (on Netflix streaming) and I was expecting to LOATHE it. If anything, it was what it was. My wife and I enjoyed it mildly but at the end we both shrugged and felt pretty "meh" about it. I don't think I would ever need to see it again but once was enough.

If anything, I was inspired by it. I own the camera she used to shoot this film as well as most of the editing tools. I thought to myself -Why the hell am I not doing this?*

*Note: As in making a film, which is hopefully not crap.

Well, after all the invective hurled in this film's general direction, I expected to loathe it as well, but an ironically detached shrug was all I could muster. One of Criterion's "three reasons" for TF was Dunham's bravery in putting herself on unflattering display, but given that the artsy and/or hipster circles in which she was raised and that she depicts in the film are precisely those who are more inclined to understand life as a constant performance, there's nothing especially bold about showing her "average" body in various states of undress.

Spoiler

What I really disliked about TF is that it's oblivious to the word outside her privileged hipster circle. How nice for Aura that she can go home after college and disappear into a brightly-lit idyll. Aura thinks money is "vulgar," and doesn't even appear to need her job, but other than the chef (who's not exactly a sympathetic character himself), nobody has a job, or if they do, we don't see them working. Hell, IIRC the chef is only known by his occupation, so in this regard Aura's just fucking the help; I don't see why she should feel disappointed. Anyway, the fact that it's only her class privilege that allows her to avoid reality for such an extended period in the first place is something the film ignores. While the film ultimately criticizes her for not growing up and getting a job (the obvious point of Aura's hiding the clock at the end), at least she has that luxury. But Dunham seems uninterested in exploring this.

I watched this tonight only because of this thread. I didn't think it was terrible, but I thought it was incredibly dull and somewhat predictable considering the subject matter and people who made it in NYC. I was much more interested in observing the technical aspects of the film knowing that it was shot with a dSLR. I've seen much worse.

tiny furniture = worst criterion release ever ?

Of course. Isn't that the exact wording of the sticker affixed to the cover?

How we forget.