criterionforum.org

Let's not blame John Doe for that Anders movie.

I figured he was just talking about the cover art. In which case so many of those early collage covers still has it beat, and also The Red Shoes.

What, the rerelease of The Red Shoes? That's a great cover.

Brian C wrote:I figured he was just talking about the cover art. In which case so many of those early collage covers still has it beat, and also The Red Shoes.

I am talking about the whole release, not just the cover art.

Also tiny furniture is worse than border radio.

While I agree Tiny Furniture's a much worse movie than Border Radio (actually, there are several Criterion releases that I hold in lower esteem than BR), the words "Border Radio" are a better punchline. I dunno why, they just are.

Cause of the song I bet.

tiny furniture = worst criterion release ever ?

So now that Chasing Amy (blu ray) is out on Miramax/Lionsgate with the same cover art, does that mean that it has been officially expunged from the Criterion catalog....or do people on this list have a short memory?

The DVD edition is still a Criterion release, but it's far from the worst film in the collection with the Bays and now the Dunham around, among others.

The Rock gives Bay a lifetime pass.

SamLowry wrote:

tiny furniture = worst criterion release ever ?

So now that Chasing Amy (blu ray) is out on Miramax/Lionsgate with the same cover art, does that mean that it has been officially expunged from the Criterion catalog....or do people on this list have a short memory?

Ah, that explains why I saw the standard-def edition in the $5 bin @ Wal-Mart last week. Never thought I'd find a CC title in one of those.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled Dunham-bashing...

godardslave wrote:tiny furniture = worst criterion release ever ?

The cover art is most appropriate, so much so I get the sense it was the graphic designers way of letting slip that he/she thinks it's a shitty release too. The look on her face...it just cries out:

"My film is completely outclassed by EVERYTHING else in this collection."

Tiny Furniture is the Criterion equivalent of the year Cate Blanchett got Oscar nominated for that Elizabeth sequel-- Shaded, darting eyes, an embarrassed smile, and the constantly revolving thought process of "What the fuck am I doing here? Why is everyone mad at me? Please stop blaming me for getting invited here."

domino harvey wrote:Tiny Furniture is the Criterion equivalent of the year Cate Blanchett got Oscar nominated for that Elizabeth sequel-- Shaded, darting eyes, an embarrassed smile, and the constantly revolving thought process of "What the fuck am I doing here? Why is everyone mad at me? Please stop blaming me for getting invited here."

I'd tell her, "Yeah, for some reason people don't like people who exploit their parents wealth and connections to leap ahead of the rest." We Americans have a great many faults, but one of them isn't our desire to see people succeed on merit.

Yeah, that's darn right! (Now, who was that last president again?)

Tiny Furniture isn't a bad film- it's even a promising first movie. And no reason for the director to hide her head in shame. It's just clearly not THAT good, not Criterion "worthy," and a little bit inflated by the good cinematography and the impression that it's letting viewers in on the periphery of an otherwise unseen NY art world milieu.

I think why a lot of people were put off, was she hasn't put in her time yet. Films the join the collection have usually had a number of years to percolate in the cultural conciousness, because it's extremely difficult to gauge a film's merit out of the gate. It needs time for thoughtful study, for people to champion its merits. Or, the film is part of an established, growing body of work, so it is part of that group...it already has a context.

Dunham's film might be Criterion material, but now is not that time. Not for a debut film, barely a year after it's release. It needs three or four years. We need to see where Dunham goes with this, to see if this film is the start of something genuinely important, or a one off (I suspect the latter, since she has quickly sold out for a TV show).

And speaking as a filmmaker, one of many who adore the Collection, adding this film was something of a slap in the face. We all aspire to make movies that will be loved, and a title selected for the Collection would for many (myself included) be a career achievement. We work our who lives struggling to make our films, and get them out there, and it's an insult to our labors when someone gets a fairly average, derivative film into the collection (her first) and does it not because it's an excellent film, but because she has connected parents and a contract with IFC.

She didn't earn her place, to her misfortune. She's achieved a lot, very quickly, but at the expense of legitimacy. Her film will, I think, always stand out, and will join with Michael Bay among titles of dubious quality that someone got into the Collection.

Brianruns10 wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Tiny Furniture is the Criterion equivalent of the year Cate Blanchett got Oscar nominated for that Elizabeth sequel-- Shaded, darting eyes, an embarrassed smile, and the constantly revolving thought process of "What the fuck am I doing here? Why is everyone mad at me? Please stop blaming me for getting invited here."

I'd tell her, "Yeah, for some reason people don't like people who exploit their parents wealth and connections to leap ahead of the rest." We Americans have a great many faults, but one of them isn't our desire to see people succeed on merit.

You might hate that the opportunity presented itself, but I don't know that it's at all realistic or fair to fault her for taking advantage of it. Given the choice between a great leg up in getting to do what you (presumably) love and toiling in obscurity for years to get there, I'm not sure how many would see the latter as the same mark of integrity that you seem to.

I also think that part of the reason there has been such a negative reaction to Tiny Furniture is that mumblecore is generally not held in a very high regard on the forum. People had just as strong of a reaction awhile back when the idea of Joe Swanberg entering the collection was brought up as a possibility.

tarpilot wrote:

Brianruns10 wrote:I'd tell her, "Yeah, for some reason people don't like people who exploit their parents wealth and connections to leap ahead of the rest." We Americans have a great many faults, but one of them isn't our desire to see people succeed on merit.

You might hate that the opportunity presented itself, but I don't know that it's at all realistic or fair to fault her for taking advantage of it. Given the choice between a great leg up in getting to do what you (presumably) love and toiling in obscurity for years to get there, I'm not sure how many would see the latter as the same mark of integrity that you seem to.

At the end of the day it's about self worth. When I make it as a filmmaker, it'll be because I made damn good films, and i worked hard to do it, not because I used connections to get a mediocre work in the door ahead of so many others. I want to succeed on my merits and my merits alone.

You can already she the price she has paid for her ascendancy. She's something of a hot commodity in the hollywood circles that see a quick profit can be made, but I see little love or respect for her among REAL film artisans. She she may be master of her own destiny for the moment, but that fades quickly, and connections are only good for so long, especially if you lack the talent and the mastery of craft to back up the promise. I don't think she has much of either.

ianungstad wrote:I also think that part of the reason there has been such a negative reaction to Tiny Furniture is that mumblecore is generally not held in a very high regard on the forum. People had just as strong of a reaction awhile back when the idea of Joe Swanberg entering the collection was brought up as a possibility.

Actually I would be open to Swanberg, because he's much more of a pioneer of the subgenre, as opposed to Dunham who merely appropriated the style without adding anything to it. She rode their cottails to the bank.

That said, Swanberg and his contemporaries in the genre do have some problems. For one, I am not so sure whether they willfully reject cinema craft, or if they actually don't have it. That's very important. As they say, you must walk before you can crawl. Picasso mastered realism before he created a new vision. And if you aren't consciously making choices, and just doing things randomly, you're little more than a monkey banging away at a typewriter.

Secondly, the mumblecore crowd needs to quit navel gazing and make films that are true to them but have a broader purpose. Because I find stories about upper-middle class white kids who are generally well off living in their lofts to be fucking insufferable. I was out of work 2 years, had to support myself as a freelancer before I found full time work. So I couldn't really give a fuck about the stories they tell. They need to break out of their little, insular worlds and try to reach. Afterall what is the famous saying, "Great art makes the personal seem universal?" Damn straight.

I'm not one to defend this movie, but you do come off as just whiny. If she wants to become a film maker and has the means to do so on a larger level than just let her. If you kept your complaints to just her cinema I might agree, but the personal touch is rather sad on your part.

Edit: given the post that follows, I don't think there's a need for what I'd written earlier to remain, which pushed back, maybe a little too forcefully, against some of the repeated charges against Tiny Furniture, which have seemed counterproductive to me and at times personal and unfair.

(sigh)

You guys are right.

Look, I'm no critic. I'm a documentary filmmaker, and not much of one. 28 years old, three features under my belt, and not one worth a damn. Can't even crack into the festivals. 28 year old failure wondering if I'm past my prime...or if I even had a prime. Maybe I'm just a no-talent hack. I've tried to learn my craft best I can, but technical mastery is worthless without the talent to do something with those skills.

I've no illusions I'll ever make a doc that succeeds on the level of an Errol Morris or a Steve James or a Ken Burns or Michael Moore. I imagine I'll spend my whole life making films that don't matter to anyone and no one watches, which is about the worst fate for a film.

All I can really hope for is that maybe, just maybe one film I make might be championed, might make it into the collection. I could die knowing my life was worth something if I accomplish that.

So yeah, I'm envious. I'm petty and jealous. I'm biased. I admit it. Because Lena on her first feature, has done more, at a younger age, than in all my career. I just didn't see what made her film so special, why hers took off, and mine fail totally. Maybe I'm blind to it. Maybe she's a great talent, and I AM just a hack no talent like Salieri was to Amadeus.

It just reminds me of how utterly worthless my life's work has been up to now, and it terrifies me that I'll never be worth a damn.

Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such self-help videos as "Get Confident, Stupid."

Brianruns10 wrote:(sigh)

You guys are right.

Look, I'm no critic. I'm a documentary filmmaker, and not much of one. 28 years old, three features under my belt, and not one worth a damn. Can't even crack into the festivals. 28 year old failure wondering if I'm past my prime...or if I even had a prime. Maybe I'm just a no-talent hack. I've tried to learn my craft best I can, but technical mastery is worthless without the talent to do something with those skills.

I've no illusions I'll ever make a doc that succeeds on the level of an Errol Morris or a Steve James or a Ken Burns or Michael Moore. I imagine I'll spend my whole life making films that don't matter to anyone and no one watches, which is about the worst fate for a film.

All I can really hope for is that maybe, just maybe one film I make might be championed, might make it into the collection. I could die knowing my life was worth something if I accomplish that.

So yeah, I'm envious. I'm petty and jealous. I'm biased. I admit it. Because Lena on her first feature, has done more, at a younger age, than in all my career. I just didn't see what made her film so special, why hers took off, and mine fail totally. Maybe I'm blind to it. Maybe she's a great talent, and I AM just a hack no talent like Salieri was to Amadeus.

It just reminds me of how utterly worthless my life's work has been up to now, and it terrifies me that I'll never be worth a damn.

Maybe you should find more interesting documentary subjects than The History of the Necco Wafer...

But seriously - all joking aside, you might want to consider getting some help.

"Brianruns10" - As someone who has worked in video and film production for nearly 30 years, I will tell you that you can only do the best job that you can do at any given time. But, more importantly, you can't let others' approval or disapproval be the basis for how you view your own work or how much you enjoy that work. Your personal satisfaction should come from how much you enjoy the process of creating a film or video project. However, be aware that the satisfaction you find will be impermanent; you will always look back on most of your work and think it wasn't good enough. But that's not going to matter as much as the excitement of working on that next project. People who succeed in the production business are those who enjoy the process, not the ones who are striving for accolades, awards or fame.

I wouldn't be surprised if Lena Dunham holds TINY FURNITURE in lower regard than those who saw fit to release the film under the Criterion banner.