It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
He's also on Pilgrimage (R1 dvd) and The Hurricane (blu-ray). I've listened to them all and I think they're all great. Pilgrimage stuck in my mind especially for his love of this lesser-known film.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:50 pm 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:37 pm
John Shade wrote:
Been holding out for that recent Olive release of Quiet Man; still haven't listened to the commentary on Clementine, maybe I'll do so this week.


Don't wait too long on the Olive Signature release of The Quiet Man. Last year's Olive Signature releases, including The Quiet Man, will be going out of print in the near future.


Last edited by barnyard078 on Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
Beaver


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:52 am
That looks very soft and even blurry in some of the grabs. The Criterion dvd must have been edge enhanced. If not, then this is very disappointing...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
We'll remember two things, lenses were much softer in 1939.

And contrast increases perceptual sharpness, so slightly less contrast might make it seem less sharp if you looked at them side by side but does not indicate any change in sharpness. Also you will never look at them side by side on equally calibrated monitors in motion, so the point is moot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:35 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:41 am
John Shade wrote:
How are McBride's commentaries? Is he on any other disc?

Kind of sad not to see Tag Gallagher on this release, but you can still read the following essay as I did while imagining his voice:

http://sensesofcinema.com/2006/cinema-a ... r_lincoln/


Here's my vid, for those who want it:
https://1fichier.com/?o88ambmmwg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:15 pm
Blu-ray.com review


Quote:
...there are also some very good lessons -- especially in regard to how the provincial lawyer and his ability to understand and connect with ordinary people is either misjudged or intentionally dismissed by his competitors before he heads to the nation's capital in it that that can be quite useful to contemporary political pundits and ambitious figures.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
I'm wondering if Svet's totally obvious pro-Trump stance is still vastly hilariously misguided (especially in the context of where and how it's written) or if just misguided and already not funny at all anymore.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:06 am 

Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
tenia wrote:
I'm wondering if Svet's totally obvious pro-Trump stance is still vastly hilariously misguided (especially in the context of where and how it's written) or if just misguided and already not funny at all anymore.


Uh... if he was pro-Hilary would he be suddenly funny and well-guided? Good lord this political worship.....

Anyway, looking forward to this release as I saw it on TCM and loved the simple story telling. Even if Lincoln is a republican....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
TheRanchHand wrote:
tenia wrote:
I'm wondering if Svet's totally obvious pro-Trump stance is still vastly hilariously misguided (especially in the context of where and how it's written) or if just misguided and already not funny at all anymore.

Uh... if he was pro-Hilary would he be suddenly funny and well-guided? Good lord this political worship...

Svet's political stance certainly isn't one I share because I feel it's vastly out-of-touch with reality and often overly-simplistic, which as whole makes it look in my eyes as a Pro-Trump stance, which is why I summed it up this way.
However, I couldn't care less about whether it was Trump or somebody else. It just seems to me like an old sour man's reactionary over simplistic ramblings, on top of twisting movies to make them fit his views of the world (this last part being, for me, the most misguided part of it).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
TheRanchHand wrote:
tenia wrote:
I'm wondering if Svet's totally obvious pro-Trump stance is still vastly hilariously misguided (especially in the context of where and how it's written) or if just misguided and already not funny at all anymore.


Uh... if he was pro-Hilary would he be suddenly funny and well-guided? Good lord this political worship.....

Anyway, looking forward to this release as I saw it on TCM and loved the simple story telling. Even if Lincoln is a republican....

First off, I never found Trump's supporters funny, but what's made his administration so troubling and damaging goes beyond simple partisan politics - as different as the Clintons or Mitt Romney or John McCain, etc. may be, supporting any of them would be far more rational.

Second, it's probably not well-known outside of the U.S. but the current two major parties were never politically consistent during their entire existence. This is true going back just a handful of decades, but it's especially true in the 19th century. In Lincoln's time, the Republican party was pushing for policies that put far more control in the federal government, which logically made sense when they were also pushing to end slavery in a divided nation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc
TheRanchHand wrote:
tenia wrote:
I'm wondering if Svet's totally obvious pro-Trump stance is still vastly hilariously misguided (especially in the context of where and how it's written) or if just misguided and already not funny at all anymore.


Uh... if he was pro-Hilary would he be suddenly funny and well-guided? Good lord this political worship.....

Anyway, looking forward to this release as I saw it on TCM and loved the simple story telling. Even if Lincoln is a republican....


I would not.

Additionally, the GOP were a left wing American party before the realignment that happened between the 1932 and 1968 elections where the two parties swapped idology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Note that I don't care so much about Trump or Clinton. What looks to be either a tremendous running-joke or a very poor critical approach is, to me, how Svet seems now to feel totally free to use any movie containing social or political content and twist it to make it fit his own view of the world.
We've seen already with Dheepan, The other side of hope or (on another topic) Festival how misguided this approach can be in its hands, but its now recurring aspect gives it a whole different level (in my eyes).
Especially on a website who has a notorious "no politics here" policy.

This is what I wanted to point out with my remark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
aox wrote:
Additionally, the GOP were a left wing American party before the realignment that happened between the 1932 and 1968 elections where the two parties swapped idology.

The Republicans were NEVER a "left-wing party". While the "radical Republicans" of the 1860s were abolitionists (and then-pro-Reconstruction), they were never the mainstream of the party. Grant (in part) leaned toward this side of the party -- which made him increasingly unpopular with the party's pro-big-business mainstream (of the party's leadership, if not of its voters). The unfettered-capitalist-leaning mainstream dominated the party through Teddy Roosevelt (who was himself very ultra-capitalist -- albeit one who recognized utterly unbridled capitalism and wealth--worship was undermining both the country and a properly-functioning capitalist system). After TR, the party (as a whole -- despite some progressivist hold-outs here and there) reverted to its support of extreme laissez-faire capitalism. Wilson (alongside his ferocious racism) started moving the Democrats towards semi-populist "controlled capitalism" and FDR moved the party further in this direction. So, if one looks solely at economics, the Dems actually started following up on Teddy Roosevelt's direction almost as soon as the GOP repudiated it. What happened in the 60s was not any economic policy shift but rather the beginning switch of white racists (and later virtually all white evangelical Christians) from the Democrats to the Republican Party, in response to the Democratic Party's decision to begin supporting equal rights (social and political) for black Americans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc
Michael Kerpan wrote:
aox wrote:
Additionally, the GOP were a left wing American party before the realignment that happened between the 1932 and 1968 elections where the two parties swapped idology.

The Republicans were NEVER a "left-wing party". While the "radical Republicans" of the 1860s were abolitionists (and then-pro-Reconstruction), they were never the mainstream of the party. Grant (in part) leaned toward this side of the party -- which made him increasingly unpopular with the party's pro-big-business mainstream (of the party's leadership, if not of its voters). The unfettered-capitalist-leaning mainstream dominated the party through Teddy Roosevelt (who was himself very ultra-capitalist -- albeit one who recognized utterly unbridled capitalism and wealth--worship was undermining both the country and a properly-functioning capitalist system). After TR, the party (as a whole -- despite some progressivist hold-outs here and there) reverted to its support of extreme laissez-faire capitalism. Wilson (alongside his ferocious racism) started moving the Democrats towards semi-populist "controlled capitalism" and FDR moved the party further in this direction. So, if one looks solely at economics, the Dems actually started following up on Teddy Roosevelt's direction almost as soon as the GOP repudiated it. What happened in the 60s was not any economic policy shift but rather the beginning switch of white racists (and later virtually all white evangelical Christians) from the Democrats to the Republican Party, in response to the Democratic Party's decision to begin supporting equal rights (social and political) for black Americans.



There's a lot to unpack here. My comment was that compared to the Democratic party in the 1860-1864 elections, they were the left. If you'd like to talk economics, TR (R) began the idea of Third Way econ. (which had already taken hold in Europe) of using government to mitigate the disastrous effects of unrestrained capitalism with his Square Deal program. And, you accurately say that the GOP reverted to a laissez-faire capitalism approach after TR, best exemplified under the Coolidge Administration. TR was the last grasp of the GOP being the party of the left. If FDR had run as a Republican (which Brands points out was a huge betrayal in the Roosevelt family), we wouldn't have seen the shift and realignment of the two parties between '32-'68. Just a cleaning of house.

The American political system is incredibly complex as political parties have shown that they can be in flux and are unaffected by standard ideological and political science norms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Talk about derailing a thread. Excuse me while I go vomit . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:55 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm
Cagliostro wrote:
Talk about derailing a thread. Excuse me while I go vomit . . . .


This is still a great film and I hope the flash sale is soon so I can get it and watch it again for either this thread or the biopic list. I'll edit this post for something more substantial hopefully soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection