what special editions and gift boxes are you lusting after for the holidays? I go to the criterion collection website and get quite dizzy. of course, if i get any of these items i will receive puzzled looks and questions from my family (what kind of movie is that? that looks dull…etc. etc.) but I want Criterion’s Le Samourai, The Wages of Fear, L’Eclisse, The Leopard and Fassbinder’s “BRD Trilogy” (Marriage of maria Braun, Lola and Veronika Voss). i also lust after the Val Lewton collection coming out. and though I am generally opposed to music box sets and question my need for another version of Blitzkrieg Bop, I am inexorably drawn to “Weird Tales of the Ramones” which includes a DVD and a comic booklet. some of the boxed sets fill me with anger–the laurel and hardy “collection” includes their most painful film Utopia which is only there because it is not under copyright protection while most of their classic silents are totally unavailable; the steve mcqueen collection includes a bore like The Thomas Crown Affair while totally neglecting Hell is for Heroes, the coen brothers collection includes Intolerable Cruelty but not Miller’s Crossing, etc. etc. and when i see the glittering collections for the simpsons, futurama, monty python, ren and stimpy, aqua teen hunger force, the prisoner, etc. i weep with despair at my financially marginal position–all that neatly packaged nostalgia and culture, all those commentaries, all those anecdotes lost to me!!! but who exactly is buying the boxed sets of Diagnosis Murder?
matlock! matloooock!
i’m behind on my “simpsons” and “kids in the hall” purchasing. a good thing i spent all those hours and dollars in grad school taping them all from teevee.
if anybody wants to make me happy on the cheap, i’m missing the last two dvd’s from my “monty python’s flying circus” set–they were burgled from sunhee’s old apartment in l.a.
i spent a fair amount of money in india buying dvd’s and vcd’s of both indian art cinema and random bollywood stuff, so i think i will be able to resist buying anything for a while.
King Kong. And I, too, think the Lewton set astounding.
Criterion: Unfaithfully Yours for certain, but… There’s this Criterion collection of Kurosawa’s samurai films that’s always out of my price range, but always intrigues me.
I’m sort of interested in the Harold Lloyd collection, and am (constantly) wondering like Michael why Laurel & Hardy get such a crap collection. (Why not some grandiose box of all their amazing shorts?)
I am still sitting on the first season of Strangers with Candy, but if I ever watch it then I probably would buy up the next seasons, too.
Indecision 2004. Dave Chappelle’s stuff, maybe.
I think the Film Noir sets–which I have bought–have been a fantastic bargain. And they are great, great films. I also thought the first Scorsese set was pretty damn good, particularly since it provided commentary on all the films; the second set is probably worth it, too, but I haven’t shelled out yet.
Michael, you should visit the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria. They’re doing a Laurel & Hardy festival now through January 2. Check it out:
http://www.movingimage.us/site/screenings/pages/2005/index_laurel_hardy.html
I don’t understand the Laurel and Hardy thing–some weird things have happened to the early comedians. a bunch of buster keaton films were unavailable because some guy had them in a vault and most of the films W.C. Fields made for Universal (like the great “Man on the Flying Trapeze”—“look, dear, walnuts…”) are unavailable for legal reasons (what the hell kind of legal reasons are still in play for a man dead for 60 years??). luckily enterprising people sell copies on ebay (dear reader—strictly LEGALLY of course).
mike–what is the film noir collection? what films?
john–Astoria’s a bit of a trek but their program looks great. but the Museum of the Moving Image turned down my application for “director of education”–damn their snooty hides! now they want me to come see their movies–ha!
The Noir collections–
One: Gun Crazy; Murder, My Sweet; Out of the Past; The Asphalt Jungle; The Set-Up.
Two: Dillinger; Crossfire; The Narrow Margin; Born to Kill; Clash By Night.
that is a good collection. Dillinger was the great Warren Oates’ only chance to be a leading man–unfortunately the film bombed…and how many times do I have to tell you to get “Drum” so you can see Oates in a civil war softcore costume drama saying “Poontang” over and over? I learned so much from the above movies–how to handle a pistol from Gun Crazy, how to make laconic one-liners from Out of the Past (as well as how to wear short ties and big pants), how NOT to handle a heist from The Asphalt Jungle and most importantly how to demonstrate weary but hopeful hardboiled cynicism by smoking a cigarette like Barbara Stanwyck.
Michael, didn’t you trek 250 miles to see Jerry Lewis? Is 90 miles such a trek for Laurel and Hardy? Isn’t Astoria near Queens? Do you take the train to Flushing? Do you pick your toes in Poughkeepsie?
well, Queens (and yes Astoria is in Queens) is not exactly Vegas so the trek is less appealing, but I may consider it—though I have almost everything they’re showing with sound, thanks to the old days of AMC when it was good. ah, those great new york names–who would like to live in a place called Flushing? is there a past tense town called Flushed, too? what about “Backing Up” and “Clogged, NY.” hey, screw you, this is A-list material!
I’d say go, Michael. Who knows who’ll you’ll meet there, who knows what will happen? Remember, a film is not just a text, it’s also an event.
I have a lot of Lenny Bruce material in my library, but I decided to check out a screening of his filmed performances at the Museum of Television and Radio in L.A. just to see who in the hell who show up. I was amply rewarded. The experience of watching Lenny Bruce with an audience was well worth the 2 mile trek up Beverly Dr.
Okay, so 90 miles to Queens is a big deal. So why not find out what else is going in Queens this month? You could find something that will make the trip worth your while. How does this grab you:
“New York Hall of Science puts the fun in fungus every weekend in November during Microbe Science Month. Activities include storytime (free), paramecium puppet making ($1 per person) and a microbe craft ($3 per person). New York Hall of Science, 47-01 111th Street, Queens.”
To me, the fun has always been in fungus. And so has Gus. But hats off to the Hall of Science!
john–did you see any celebrities at the lenny bruce thing? do you recall when we saw Dom DeLuise at a hallmark hall of fame thing? wow! i believe I will check out the fungus thing–even though I have enough on my own person to keep me amused for hours. and did you see the fungus on Dom??! I’ve always been looking for the ungu in fungus. For the craft event I’d like to make a nice macrame plant hanger out of amoebae. put your ficus in that, America!
“Flushing” only sounds funny in English; in the original Dutch, it means “Shithole.”
what’s so special about the criterion collection, mickey?
michael, for christmas i bought you for the deluxe edition of the sound of music, two discs with lots of extra features including an interview with charmian carr (liesl) and previously unreleased outtakes of julie andrews putting on her own make up. i wanted it to be a surprise but i can’t resist any longer!
are you making fun of the criterion collection, gio? shameful! you know i am a sucker for extra features and interviews and pointless backstage info. what i’d really like is the special edition with the “making of” documentary that is twice as long as the actual film.
no, i’m making fun of you.
gio…i am sending you an italian gesture of contempt–let’s say the arm held so that the palm is face up, then the hand clenched into a fist and finally a short sharp upward motion. and then maybe the flick off the chin with the tips of the fingers, hand held upright. so difficult to be visually insulting in a blog.
more “fanboy gushing” apparently the boxed set “Legendary Westerns by Sam Peckinpah” will be released in January including The Wild Bunch, Ride the High Country, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid and The Ballad of Cable Hogue. Now I quibble with the last–I would have included Junior Bonner as a modern western, plus I find it hard to take the “butterfly mornings” sequence of Ballad. The great things is that for The Wild Bunch and Pat Garrett, a wealth of extra materials will be added, including 3 documentaries, one of them a feature length film about Peckinpah’s life. Each includes complete commentaries too by a number of Peckinpah “experts.” it is to drool for. I believe the extra gimmick is a gatling gun with each set…put it on the tripod!!
um
Nice prices–much more along the lines of what they should be rather than Criterion’s rather steep prices. but a question comes to mind–of all the great Altman films that need to be available, why put out a special edition of 3 Women? I’m afraid that, though, I love criterion they are rather hung up on the idea of the “art” film, most particularly the foreign art film, and 3 Women is certainly “arty” and tries very hard to be “European”–if by arty we mean contemptuous of its characters and pointlessly obscure, and if we mean by “European” snide toward its own culture and reductive of subjectivity to types.
I got the Peckinpah box. It’s really very good–and I am delighted that I no longer have to flip the DVD midway through The Wild Bunch. The bonus features are great, though the commentary can be unbearable at times. Paul Seydor has a habit of overusing the phrase “a propos.” And when David Weddle starting using it, I had to shut off the commentary.
There’s a positive review of the box set in the New Yorker. The reviewer claims that Seydor’s version of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is better than the 1988 “restored” version. I tend to agree (though I watched it with Seydor’s commentary on so I could hear his rationale for his cuts. I have yet to watch it without his commentary). I am puzzled by the reviewer’s claim that Pat Garrett is a “disreputable cult film.”
It would have been a treat if the producers of this set had included “Noon Wine.”
In what ways is Seydor’s version different from the “restored” version? the restored version I saw had what seems to me an absolutely necessary scene–the ambush of Garrett at the film’s end, where he meets an end very similar to Billy’s–why in the world would that be cut in the first place?
due to the snow I had to postpone my trip to the New York Museum of TV and Radio—Noon Wine will have to wait a little bit.
Seydor cut the opening sequence significantly, though he preserved the basic flashback structure that’s in the 1988 version (which I guess is called the Turner version). He put back some of the stuff from the theatrical version, such as the scene with Garrett and his wife. He also restored Dylan’s lyrics to “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door” during Slim Pickens’s big death scene. He cut a little bit of unnecessary chit chat after the “the times maybe, not me” scene. It’s 7 minutes shorter than the Turner version. There’s a more detailed description of Seydor’s cut here, if you want to know more.
Also, keep in mind that the box set contains both Seydor’s cut and the 1988 Turner version.
To michael, and others: a Laurel & Hardy marathon is currently underway on TCM.
Thanks, John.
In about 15 minutes (8:45) they are showing the two best Laurel and Hardy features: Sons of the Desert and Way out West . I’d also recommend A Chump at Oxford and Saps at Sea starting at 2:25 AM Sunday. Nobody does angry frustration like cross-eyed James Finlayson!
thanks from me too, john. i’ve been tuning in and out. the only one i got to watch completely was county hospital, which was great. i must remember to bring you all hard-boiled eggs and nuts if i ever have cause to visit you in hospitals. also saw parts of the one before it (the one where they’re trying to find the adorable moppet’s family), and of way out west.
we should have a discussion sometime of changes in hollywood aesthetics which led to the disappearance of films like those of laurel and hardy (not just them, of course). not just that particular style of comedy, but those film-making rhythms. there are so many great scenes in these movies where for extended periods nothing happens. stan just sits or stands and makes vague faces and gestures, nothing extravagantly physical, just small things. why did all this go away? i realize that many other things also went away (musicals, for one); i’m not making an exceptional case, i’m just curious about the disappearance of aesthetics and rhythms specific to this genre. unless, of course, it is an exceptional case and i am smart to make it; in which case, i’m making it. but if not, not.
The first 15 minutes or so of County Hospital contains some of my favorite L&H. They do a great bit with a pitcher of water and a hard-boiled egg. Then, in one of those moments that Arnab points to, Laurel eats a hard boiled egg in a slow, ridiculous and hilarious manner. The look he gets from Hardy when he mentions the possibility of eating ANOTHER egg is a great moment.
I would also point out the brief sequence in Towed in a Hole where Laurel, banished to the interior of the small boat they’re working on, does a short bit with a drawing of Ollie, his hat and a handsaw that’s remarkable.
A quick and not very satisfactory response to arnab’s great question about the changes in Hollywood aesthetics. It makes me wonder if the aesthetic does indeed die as the Screwball Comedy becomes more and more popular. There are a few L&H moments in the early Screwballs–mostly unusual edits and askew glances that last longer than we as an audience today are comfortble with–but by and large the pace is faster, and the emphasis on dialogue stronger. I think the “sophisticated sex comedy” did in the whole Hal Roach office. But I don’t know enough about the era to make the case well.
I’ll take this opportunity to put in a word for Jerry Lewis, who revives the L&H aesthetic in his solo films. It’s funny thinking about it now, in light of arnab’s comment and knowing how indebted Jerry was to Stan Laurel, that maybe Lewis’s films experimented with that early Hal Roach aesthetic by giving it some weird, Vegas, polyurethane sheen.
And, by the way, Their First Mistake (1932) was absolutely great. It called to mind some of the recent “guy love” films of the Judd Apatow gang. Some pretty outrageous pre-production code gags.