Russ Meyer
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:23 am
(Filmmaker forum stuff coming)
(Filmmaker forum stuff coming)
Page 1 of 5
(Filmmaker forum stuff coming)
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:23 am
devlinnn wrote:Whispering trees inform the complete works of Russ Meyer (minus the Fox holdings) will be released as a boxset in the UK in October. Extra content is currently being worked on, including the episode from the Jonathan Ross series "The Incredibly Strange Film Show", which from memory was never shown originally due to one problem or another.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:40 pm
Wasn't this upcoming Boxset to have come out last October? Or am I confused?
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:51 pm
It's on Arrow via Fremantle. Pretty sure they're coming out singly between now and October. The boxset may be in October when they're all out... coz today I received a calendar dedicated to this series of releases, which has the titles circled in red on the day that they'll be released.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:00 pm
Here it is and the extras are tasty! Audio Commentaries by the man himself!!
http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/index.php
This lot is out on March, 7th.
http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/index.php
This lot is out on March, 7th.
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:37 pm
Specs and artwork at DVD Times
Even at £15.99 MSRP each, they're still cheaper than the R1 versions and they'll have commentaries and other extras. And they probably won't be recycled laserdisc transfers, either.
Even at £15.99 MSRP each, they're still cheaper than the R1 versions and they'll have commentaries and other extras. And they probably won't be recycled laserdisc transfers, either.
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:17 am
If those double-packs don't have disc artwork resembling a pair of tits, I will never smile again.
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:55 pm
Just to confirm, although they've had UK censorship troubles in the past, every single one of these will now be entirely uncut.
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:05 pm
From what I've been told, rights issues on the Meyer films in the US will be in the hands of the courts for a long while yet. As if you need another reason for a multizone player....
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:34 pm
I didn't think or know that there would be a rights problem with his films since he owned the films outright. The only ones that he didn't own were Beyond and Seven Minutes. Looks like another reason to start to save up for an R0 player since the dvds of his films right now that are out don't have any extras at all and these do.From what I've been told, rights issues on the Meyer films in the US will be in the hands of the courts for a long while yet. As if you need another reason for a multizone player....
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:08 am
Just before the preface or table of contents in Ebert's new "The Great Movies II," a page lists his other books as well as commentaries he has recorded. At the bottom is Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Not new news, but this perpetuates my hope...Fitzcarraldo wrote:Ebert already confirmed that he recorded a commentary track for the Beyond the Valley of the Dolls Criterion.Sai wrote:Does this make a Criterion of one of his films (with the rumoured Ebert commentary) less likely?
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:42 am
questions:
if these films didn't contain large breasted women who frequently appear naked and/or in sexual situations, would anyone care about them? or pay attention to them?
Put another way, isn't the work of Meyer simply the classic example of pornography masquerading under the respectable heading of "art"?
if these films didn't contain large breasted women who frequently appear naked and/or in sexual situations, would anyone care about them? or pay attention to them?
Put another way, isn't the work of Meyer simply the classic example of pornography masquerading under the respectable heading of "art"?
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:22 am
Ebert also mentioned having recorded a Beyond the Valley of the Dolls commentary for the release of "a Criterion DVD later this year" in an interview on KQED-FM here in San Francisco this morning. More hopeful...rumz wrote: Just before the preface or table of contents in Ebert's new "The Great Movies II," a page lists his other books as well as commentaries he has recorded. At the bottom is Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Not new news, but this perpetuates my hope...
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:25 am
Put another way, the work of Meyer isn't a simple example of classic "art" masquerading under the respectable heading of pornography.godardslave wrote:questions:
Put another way, isn't the work of Meyer simply the classic example of pornography masquerading under the respectable heading of "art"?
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:32 am
I never said it was.Mestes wrote:Put another way, the work of Meyer isn't a simple example of classic "art" masquerading under the respectable heading of pornography.godardslave wrote:questions:
Put another way, isn't the work of Meyer simply the classic example of pornography masquerading under the respectable heading of "art"?
Your statment doesnt make much sense either. unless you replace the word "isnt" with "is", but even then it still doesnt make much sense.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:40 am
I'm not sure if you're here to troll, but, yes--no shit--Meyer's work would obviously be cared about if it happened to be sans breasts. Somewhat of a bandwagon statement, but what's considered to be Meyer's masterpiece, "Faster Pussycat," is almost notorious for not containing naked breasts. And I assure you "Vixen" can also be reputed for its dialogue.godardslave wrote:questions:
if these films didn't contain large breasted women who frequently appear naked and/or in sexual situations, would anyone care about them? or pay attention to them?
Put another way, isn't the work of Meyer simply the classic example of pornography masquerading under the respectable heading of "art"?
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:47 am
You mean like Tokyo Story? (one of my all-time-favourite no-naked-breasts films. . .)rumz wrote:what's considered to be Meyer's masterpiece, "Faster Pussycat," is almost notorious for not containing naked breasts.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:57 am
You mean like the work of Godard? (i.e., would anyone care about his films if he didn't have Anna Karina or Brigitte Bardot frequently appearing naked and/or in sexual situations?)godardslave wrote:
Put another way, isn't the work of Meyer simply the classic example of pornography masquerading under the respectable heading of "art"?
Seriously, doesn't your question belong more in the "On Film" section of this board? Where's an admin when you need one...
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:27 am
I knew someone would need that odious "smiley." I suspected it would be you.godardslave wrote:I never said it was.Mestes wrote:Put another way, the work of Meyer isn't a simple example of classic "art" masquerading under the respectable heading of pornography.godardslave wrote:questions:
Put another way, isn't the work of Meyer simply the classic example of pornography masquerading under the respectable heading of "art"?
Your statment doesnt make much sense either. unless you replace the word "isnt" with "is", but even then it still doesnt make much sense.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:23 am
I know it's asking a lot, but can we please at least try to be civil? It's ok for people to have different opinions from you, you know. It helps to make those opinions understandable, however, if you present evidence and arguments to support them. Maybe we can give that a shot here, rather than just yelling about grammar?
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:52 pm
Furthermore, this is clearly a thread for those interested in the work of Russ Meyer. If you are not one of those people, don't read it and don't waste your time and ours by--in the vulgar yet appropriate term coined by DVD Talk--threadcrapping.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:45 pm
So no Russ Meyer fan is going to defend Meyer's films? That kinda sucks! I thought that might have been a pretty decent discussion. Rumz, Matt, Bueller, anyone, anyone...
Personally, I always thought pornography was created for the direct purpose of causing arousal through a distancing of the viewer from the depiction of sexual intercourse displayed. As well, the females depicted in these films are often subservient to the male figures in these films.
I don't necessarily feel the Russ Meyer films I've seen fit this definition (though of course my definition could be wrong). Meyer's films seem to have a certain degree of respect for the female form and the women he films, or at least his female characters. Also, it doesn't seem as if the viewer has to distance themselves from the actual actions on-screen in a Meyer film to the same degree as in pornography. If pornography is about power, than I'd argue a few Russ Meyer films reverse the traditional polarity of what is often thought as pornography. I always thought Mondo Topless was an interesting Russ Meyer film because of it's pure celebration of the female form. It's just women dancing for 80 minutes, while they are allowed to narrate their own thoughts about their chosen occupation, and they don't just come off as just air-head, bimbo, whores, fulfilling male fantasies, but rather thoughtful, aware women who have made a conscious, almost artistic decision to do so.
Of course if your definition of pornography is just big-breasted women who are naked on-screen, so that any teenage boy can get turned on, then I assume Meyer's films are plain ol' smut peddling. Of course, this kind of logic is about as daft as capitalism = bad, socialism = good (or vice versa).
Personally, I always thought pornography was created for the direct purpose of causing arousal through a distancing of the viewer from the depiction of sexual intercourse displayed. As well, the females depicted in these films are often subservient to the male figures in these films.
I don't necessarily feel the Russ Meyer films I've seen fit this definition (though of course my definition could be wrong). Meyer's films seem to have a certain degree of respect for the female form and the women he films, or at least his female characters. Also, it doesn't seem as if the viewer has to distance themselves from the actual actions on-screen in a Meyer film to the same degree as in pornography. If pornography is about power, than I'd argue a few Russ Meyer films reverse the traditional polarity of what is often thought as pornography. I always thought Mondo Topless was an interesting Russ Meyer film because of it's pure celebration of the female form. It's just women dancing for 80 minutes, while they are allowed to narrate their own thoughts about their chosen occupation, and they don't just come off as just air-head, bimbo, whores, fulfilling male fantasies, but rather thoughtful, aware women who have made a conscious, almost artistic decision to do so.
Of course if your definition of pornography is just big-breasted women who are naked on-screen, so that any teenage boy can get turned on, then I assume Meyer's films are plain ol' smut peddling. Of course, this kind of logic is about as daft as capitalism = bad, socialism = good (or vice versa).
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:47 pm
I just don't think Meyer's films need defending.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:24 pm
Firstly, thankyou Andre, for actually providing a reasoned, polite answer to my question without insulting me or accusing me, you make a number of interesting points that i shall consider.
Secondly,
To answer your second post, ANY piece of art can of course be attacked or defended! Do you wish us to live in a brave new world of 1984, where everyone posts threads at criterionforum.org in gushing praise of each and every film, all agreeing with each other in bland harmony?
why are you guys so paranoid recently? its just a discussion about some films at an internet forum, there are more important things in life.
Secondly,
matt wrote:Furthermore, this is clearly a thread for those interested in the work of Russ Meyer. If you are not one of those people, don't read it and don't waste your time and ours by--in the vulgar yet appropriate term coined by DVD Talk--threadcrapping.
Matt, i am surprised. To answer your first post, I am interested in Meyer's work, which is obviously why i posed my hypothesis in the first place. You seem to be having trouble here differientating between the word "interested" and "praising".matt wrote:I just don't think Meyer's films need defending.
To answer your second post, ANY piece of art can of course be attacked or defended! Do you wish us to live in a brave new world of 1984, where everyone posts threads at criterionforum.org in gushing praise of each and every film, all agreeing with each other in bland harmony?
why are you guys so paranoid recently? its just a discussion about some films at an internet forum, there are more important things in life.
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:44 pm
Godardslave, i believe it is the way you asked the question that led to the pre-Andre responses. My first thought was certainly "ugh" and then thank you Rumz.