criterionforum.org

So is anyone else envisioning the next documentary film Brianruns10 make be about him and his obsession and rage against Lena Dunham? Anyone seen The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On? He has to beat her co-stars on screen and headlock them while explaining his disdain and love for Lena Dunham. Plus his fiery outrage over her success against his financial problems and lack of notoriety serve as a backdrop and motivator. I'm sure more people would like that than Tiny Furniture.

Look, if I didn't say it outright before, I am sorry for being so harsh on LD for her film. She's a better person than me, I'll be honest. She sure has accomplished more than I have.

I have dealt with suicidal thoughts in the past. My films are what gives my life meaning, so I've got a lot invested in making something that filmgoers will love.

So for those that mock, shame on you.

Come on guy, nobody thinks your dreams are stupid or not worth pursuing but this isn't really the platform for talking about them

Buddy, you gotta buck up. If it's any help, my anecdote is that I've been in a touring DIY punk band. Over a year we toured 4 times. And nobody, and I mean nobody (except...3 or 4? friends...) gave a shit. I threw house shows in my house that could get a band $100, and we'd have no shows/cancellations all the time. After the last tour we did, we decided it wasn't financially justifiable anymore. Though we still write music, it's really just for us at this point. Now, I think the last album we recorded is absolutely awesome, though I have yet to release it in any real form.

My point is that, if you're doing this for accolades, then as has been noted, you're doing it for the wrong reasons and may never be happy. If you're making films cus you love film, then if you are loving what you are doing, that should be good enough. I'm sure there are many people on this board who have financially-failed artistic endeavors we've done that we look back upon with great fondness cus it's what we wanted to do.

Brian, you making films at all is a big deal, so congratulations. Recognition and acknowledgement always have been and always will be a crap shoot (my goodness, just look at the last umpteen years of documentary Oscar nominations), so there's no point fixing your happiness to something that's so random and beyond your control. Try to get your satisfaction from your work, and if it's not there in the finished article, get it from engagement with the filmmaking process, and if you can't get it there, get it from the learning curve you're on. And if all else fails, get it elsewhere - from watching and appreciating the films other people make. Everybody's work has its frustrations; nobody's always happy. You just have to get your enjoyment where you can find it and chalk the rest up to experience.

Brian's got absolutely nothing to apologize for. I mock Dunham and her movie too, and I haven't created any kind of art myself (unless handprint turkeys on my mom's fridge count). Dunham doesn't need any knights in shining armor defending her honor any more than Michael Bay did when Armageddon got flack for being a silly movie that didn't seem like it belonged in the collection.

If that's including me as a "knight," I would clarify that my intent was never to defend Dunham or her work but to try to get those who want to say that the film is no good to explain, by getting into the specific qualities of the film, rather than just taking brief pot-shots at it or making ad hominem attacks, spreading apparently baseless rumors, or going into all-too-familiar tirades about "Criterion-worthiness." It's a long-standing forum policy that mods have often stated (see, for example, here). I'm definitely not saying there should be no jokes that put down Tiny Furniture, but the lack of actual reasons or examples to back up the many "serious" claims that it's a POS smacks of laziness at best.

Leave Lena Dunham aloooone!

Again, I apologize for hijacking the thread with my silly personal problems. Her film isn't for me, but LD should be proud she's accomplished something. It's sure more than what I've managed to do my whole worthless life...

If Dunham has accomplished anything at all, it hinges on the worth of her projects alone. Induction into the Collection might signify that a film is of worth, or it might not. All it really says is that one to several people at Criterion consider Tiny Furniture to be of some worth (not even necessarily enduring worth), but their opinions are no more valid than your own. And if you personally feel that Dunham has accomplished nothing that interests you in the slightest, then I'm sure you have plenty going on that's subjectively of more worth than anything that she has done.

Gregory wrote:If that's including me as a "knight," I would clarify that my intent was never to defend Dunham or her work but to try to get those who want to say that the film is no good to explain, by getting into the specific qualities of the film, rather than just taking brief pot-shots at it or making ad hominem attacks, spreading apparently baseless rumors, or going into all-too-familiar tirades about "Criterion-worthiness." It's a long-standing forum policy that mods have often stated (see, for example, here). I'm definitely not saying there should be no jokes that put down Tiny Furniture, but the lack of actual reasons or examples to back up the many "serious" claims that it's a POS smacks of laziness at best.

Not just you, Gregory, and I like and respect you very much. It was your previous gauntlet throwing that led me to believe you might have strapped on the armor though.

The thing is, when we had a litany of complaints about films like Benjamin Button and Armageddon and their place in the collection, it seemed okay to simply point out that they were pretty lousy films, and as Criterion acquisitions, they seemed bizarre at best. Are there no films that are beneath contempt?

My take on Tiny Furniture is that it is a self-indulgent pity party that was made by a naive and sheltered kid who somehow came to the conclusion that her postgrad malaise, ennui, and aimlessness were somehow unique to her and would be of interest to others. The main character in the film is spoiled, whiny, shallow, and completely uninteresting. The fact that the film is about a young person (Dunham's "Aura") who graduates from film school, has no idea what to do with that degree, and comes back home to her expensive Tribeca loft to live with her artist mother and neurotic sister (played by Dunham's artist mother and neurotic sister) makes it seem extremely autobiographical. I don't know when I've found a character that was supposedly a protagonist more contemptible, and it's hard not to transfer some of that contempt to Dunham herself. The film stars her, playing a character who seems to pretty much be her, co-stars her family and friends, and is shot in her house. The shots at Dunham aren't just random ad hominems, they're indirect critiques of the film itself.

Believe me, I'm the first call out people who come in to threads for films that are widely acclaimed and just show up to say that they think it sucks. The post you linked was about a guy who said he thought that Natalie Portman sucked in everything. I think most of us, when we see a film that is truly awful, don't comment on it at all. There is a reason why we don't have threads for New Year's Eve or Jack and Jill. If Tiny Furniture hadn't been selected by Criterion, I don't think you'd find any discussion of it on the forum at all. I saw it at a festival over a year ago, and I know other members saw it during that time frame or during its theatrical run. None of us felt the need to start a thread or comment on it at all, until Criterion's selection injected it in to the conversation. There's simply not much to say about it. Even most of its defenders in this thread seem to say that it wasn't very good, but not as bad as they expected, or that they liked the cinematography.

I don't generally like to engage in the "Criterion-worthy" discussions either. With Tiny Furniture, however, its status as a Criterion release is the only thing that makes it a topic for discussion at all.

I don't think its been brought up, but there is actually a scene where her character (obviously based on herself) talks about how she doesn't like movies (maybe it was foreign films specifically?) Anyway, I find it pretty clear that the film is a bid for recognition as an "entertainer", rather than a filmmaker, and that is why it is so patently offensive to people who like Criterion's other offerings. Kevin Smith worked a similar angle, but in my mind it is far less offensive, as none of his films bothered to masquerade as art house fare or to aspire to anything more than a John Hughes comedy. Clerks was B&W because that's what he could afford, and not an effort to look like a Jim Jarmusch movie.

Zot! wrote:I don't think its been brought up, but there is actually a scene where her character (obviously based on herself) talks about how she doesn't like movies (maybe it was foreign films specifically?) Anyway, I find it pretty clear that the film is a bid for recognition as an "entertainer", rather than a filmmaker, and that is why it is so patently offensive to people who like Criterion's other offerings. Kevin Smith worked a similar angle, but in my mind it is far less offensive, as none of his films bothered to masquerade as art house fare or to aspire to anything more than a John Hughes comedy. Clerks was B&W because that's what he could afford, and not an effort to look like a Jim Jarmusch movie.

She says she hates foreign films.

I'm 30-minutes in and it's not looking promising. I still don't want to say anything about it but it's so far a terribly dull film and I'm really trying to understand the Woody Allen comparisons, but again I'll still have to get through it.

Since he was mentioned here I will say that so far at least, i'll take Kevin Smith over this any day. He at least knows his limitations, knows he has room to grow, and he's a hell of a lot funnier. Plus I don't get the same sense of smugness from him.

I believe the first wave of Lena Dunham hatred on this board came from a story she told about being incredibly bored by Bigger than Life and scoffing that anyone could take it seriously- so her character in the movie is definitely not too far from the source.

I believe Lena said that she pretended to like Bigger Than Life to try and impress some guy but that she secretly thought it sucked. Which is fine I guess if she offered any kind of reason as to why she didn't like the film but the quote made it seem like it was nothing more than "Old movies are dumb!".

Links to her thoughts on cinema can be found on the very first page of this thread, in case anyone was looking for a way to stretch out this thread another few worthless pages.

Keep in mind the "foreign film" she hates is a Frederick Wiseman documentary.

cdnchris wrote: but it's so far a terribly dull film

I think that is the film's greatest problem. I have seen far more offensive films. This movie doesn't really even merit the attention it is getting, but as someone (Matt?) said above, it has been thrust into the spotlight b/c it now has a spine.

1) To be fair, although it goes against the ethos of this board, one does not have to be steeped in classic cinema in order to make a good, interesting movie.

2) Maybe a special Criterion-forum-poster grievance/gripe thread for all petty resentments & frustrations? Rivette-lessness, Border Radio, the likelihood of a Bay/Anders/Smith/Dunham omnibus film, etc.

onedimension wrote:1) To be fair, although it goes against the ethos of this board, one does not have to be steeped in classic cinema in order to make a good, interesting movie.

Irreverance is good, but ignorance is not, and her movie is neither good nor interesting.

This is sitting with about three times as many comments as World on a Wire. Think about that for a second.

In other shocking and appalling news, most acclaimed young musicians don't have any real appreciation for Wagner or Beethoven, and they don't even know who Charles Ives is!

Seriously, though, I thought the line about "foreign films" was written intentionally to show the character's lack of worldliness.
Most young people, including those who make films, probably have a hard time getting into something like Bigger than Life, or not finding it somewhat dated and ridiculous (I'm basing this partly on having taught classes to college-aged people who say they love film but will laugh out loud at almost anything made before they were born or describe it as "cheesy," "totally boring," etc. I think Dunham's take on Bigger than Life is hardly unique; what's unusual is that she's willing to be candid about it despite what anyone else thinks. I'm not trying to go out of my way to praise or defend her, though: I'll admit that the way she speaks (or was quoted) about something like Bigger than Life really does leave her sounding a bit shallow.

onedimension wrote:2) Maybe a special Criterion-forum-poster grievance/gripe thread for all petty resentments & frustrations? Rivette-lessness, Border Radio, the likelihood of a Bay/Anders/Smith/Dunham omnibus film, etc.

You mean this one?

Gregory wrote:In other shocking and appalling news, most acclaimed young musicians don't have any real appreciation for Wagner or Beethoven, and they don't even know who Charles Ives is!

Seriously, though, I thought the line about "foreign films" was written intentionally to show the character's lack of worldliness.
Most young people, including those who make films, probably have a hard time getting into something like Bigger than Life, or not finding it somewhat dated and ridiculous (I'm basing this partly on having taught classes to college-aged people who say they love film but will laugh out loud at almost anything made before they were born or describe it as "cheesy," "totally boring," etc. I think Dunham's take on Bigger than Life is hardly unique; what's unusual is that she's willing to be candid about it despite what anyone else thinks. I'm not trying to go out of my way to praise or defend her, though: I'll admit that the way she speaks (or was quoted) about something like Bigger than Life really does leave her sounding a bit shallow.

If this came out on any other label, nobody would care. They don't file pop music together with classical music on the shelves either, but this is being marketed as and entry in "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films". Her medium is youtube videos, but she used a film as a launching pad into public conciousness, in an effort to be taken seriously. I don't think it captures the zeitgeist or anything else, and if young people have ADHD or are plain dumb, that is unfortunate, but not inevitable.

Zot! wrote:

Gregory wrote:In other shocking and appalling news, most acclaimed young musicians don't have any real appreciation for Wagner or Beethoven, and they don't even know who Charles Ives is!

Seriously, though, I thought the line about "foreign films" was written intentionally to show the character's lack of worldliness.
Most young people, including those who make films, probably have a hard time getting into something like Bigger than Life, or not finding it somewhat dated and ridiculous (I'm basing this partly on having taught classes to college-aged people who say they love film but will laugh out loud at almost anything made before they were born or describe it as "cheesy," "totally boring," etc. I think Dunham's take on Bigger than Life is hardly unique; what's unusual is that she's willing to be candid about it despite what anyone else thinks. I'm not trying to go out of my way to praise or defend her, though: I'll admit that the way she speaks (or was quoted) about something like Bigger than Life really does leave her sounding a bit shallow.

If this came out on any other label, nobody would care. They don't file pop music together with classical music on the shelves either, but this is being marketed as and entry in "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films". Her medium is youtube videos, but she used a film as a launching pad into public conciousness, in an effort to be taken seriously. I don't think it captures the zeitgeist or anything else, and if young people have ADHD or are plain dumb, that is unfortunate, but not inevitable.

Her medium was videos on YouTube, then a feature film, and then a cable series, and no one knows what after that (perhaps another film). I don't understand what you mean when you say "Her medium is youtube videos, but she used a film as a launching pad into public conciousness, in an effort to be taken seriously." It sounds vaguely underhanded.
I agree, as has been said repeatedly, that all this scrutiny is due to the spine number. That probably says more about fans of Criterion being protective of the label and what it supposedly represents than anything else.
Of course most young-ish people don't have ADHD nor are they dumb. It's just that generally the older a work of art gets, the harder it is for most people to relate to it. It's difficult for most of us to see this, because this board is a tiny enclave of people who are unusual even among film fandom at large. It attracts lots of people who are under 30 and yet love a lot of films from the 1950s back to the silents, but that's very far from the norm.