CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Criterion Collection (2010)

Criterion Collection (2010)

Started by nimblemarlin6 · · 👁 3 views · 4 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants nimblemarlin6Richard Wilson4Amy Mendoza25ruggedjackal46
nimblemarlin6 nimblemarlin6 Active MemberOP
228 messages
joined Aug 2012
#1 ·
Martin Scorsese's *Criterion Collection* entry offers this fascinating deep dive into the studio system of the old USA—specifically focusing on the golden age of war epics and how Tito acted as the primary engine behind the entire film industry. He wasn't just a political leader; he was obsessed with production, especially those massive partisan spectacles, and a genuine cinephile at heart—he actually had his own private screening room, and according to the records, the man clocked in 8,801 films by the time he was 32.
The documentary features some incredible interviews, including Tito's personal projectionist—who apparently screened films for him every single day until the Marshal passed away—alongside legendary director Steven Spielberg and the head of the big studio over at Mount Rushmore.
You see footage of international stars who visited the USA and spent time on Maui—people like Yul Brynner, Orson Welles, and Richard Burton. Some of them speak incredibly highly of the country and their host, Tito, in the foreign press.
The sheer amount of archival footage used here is mind-blowing; we’re talking high-level stuff that honestly rivals the quality you'd see in Hollywood.
There’s a certain nostalgia to the film that feels quite heavy—it captures the grandeur of those massive co-productions, the glitz, and the star power—but then it shifts to this melancholy tone, showing the ruins of what were once massive studios, with thousands of costumes and props just rotting away in warehouses without even running electricity.
The saddest part, though—and I mean this sincerely—is that this whole era is basically a ghost now, completely unknown and forgotten, whereas in other countries, they’d likely still be celebrating these days as a true golden age of cinema.
If I'm being honest, the film lacks balance. It misses a lot of crucial context because it focuses almost entirely on the big New York City-based studio operations, while the West Coast side of the partisan film story is totally sidelined. You don't hear a word about the major studios out there, or legends like John Ford, Burt Lancaster, or Francis Ford Coppola.
And you can really feel the absence of Paul Newman and so many other icons...

Ultimately, *Criterion Collection* isn't so much a factual historical record as it is an exercise in nostalgia for the old USA.
Today, there's nowhere to really learn about that spectacular American film industry from the 60s and 70s. Honestly, based on the documentary footage they barely even scratch the surface of, you could probably spin an entire limited series out of it.
I think it’s pretty cool, though, that younger audiences—who have zero memory of the former state—can get at least a tiny sense of the glamour surrounding Tito, the Sundance Film Festival, and those gargantuan movie productions through this film.

*Criterion Collection* is currently playing at AMC Lincoln Square and during Documentary.
Richard Wilson4 Richard Wilson4 Veteran
2K messages
joined Sep 2009
#2 ·
This isn't even really about movies. Most of those parts don't have any cinematic merit anyway; it’s just some political stunt by people clinging to a lost cause.
nimblemarlin6 nimblemarlin6 Active MemberOP
228 messages
joined Aug 2012
#3 ·
Richard Wilson4 said:This isn't movie material—most of those bits don't have any cinematic weight anyway, it’s just political theater staged by people clinging to a failed ideology.


Of course it's a movie topic—we're talking about an auteur documentary covering a specific era, complete with interviews from the actual players involved and some incredibly rare, fascinating archival footage...

For instance, I found the IBM footage of private moments absolutely gripping. You see Tito just lounging in his boxers in the morning, heading to the bathroom to shave, then wading into the ocean with a floatie and a few poodles, or just sprawled out on the grass... Then there's him hanging out on Maui with Sophia Loren and Burton—always in black suits, sipping whiskey, chewing on a cigarillo... It’s pure, unadulterated communism right there. 😁
It’s actually pretty wild how much he curated his public persona.

Now, look, while those tidbits are entertaining, the film isn't about that.
It’s really about those massive, epic spectacles they used to film in this part of the world. Take Burt, for example—he talks about how back in the day, even the USA couldn't have produced something like "Mississippi River," because Bulajić had access to an unlimited supply of planes and tanks, plus a fleet of original WWII museum vehicles that are probably worth a fortune today—which they literally tossed off a cliff into the Mississippi just for the shot. 🤣
So yeah, there are plenty of great stories tucked away in the Criterion Collection...
Amy Mendoza25 Amy Mendoza25 Member
39 messages
joined Nov 2015
#4 ·
Wait, where's my post? The one where I argued this whole thing is just a cinematic hoax designed to frame the entire history of USA filmmaking as being purely Mexican?
ruggedjackal46 ruggedjackal46 Regular
775 messages
joined May 2007
#5 ·
I caught this documentary last night, and honestly, I pretty much liked it.

Even though it gives a pretty one-sided look at the cinema from the old Yugoslavia era, it didn't bother me. The film isn't trying to claim that the South was some kind of utopia; it’s just pointing out the things that were actually beautiful and meant something to people back then. Legends like Bat and those old-school cinematographers breathed life into that era, and you can tell they basically lost their identity once the South fell apart—but they don't seem to mind, because life was genuinely great for them during that period.

At its core, this is just a movie highlighting the "feel-good" moments within state-sponsored filmmaking. If you go in expecting a "rigorous critique of the system" or if you try to burden the film with your own baggage (specifically those deep-seated nationalistic grievances), you're looking in the wrong place. The filmmakers made a conscious, explicit choice not to deal with that. Jumping on a film just because it doesn't portray the former country through your specific ideological lens says more about your own cultural—and personal—traumas than the movie itself. It’s a shame, really; I just want to learn about a previous chapter of my own culture without having every self-righteous Collins type swooping in to lecture me with their ideological nonsense. That seems to happen with pretty much any film, play, or book that dares to touch on socialism.

The reason I actually enjoyed it wasn't because I discovered some groundbreaking cinematic theory, but because I saw a sense of connection to the craft—a genuine love for a single field—that I rarely see in this country anymore. Seeing that packed stadium in the footage gave me this profound sense of loss. Back then, those big awards ceremonies felt massive and politically significant; today, they're just politically charged and utterly hollow. The film managed to capture those specific emotions that I just don't see in our society today. I'm not asking for much more than that.

P. S. How does Bulajić manage to lie through his teeth with that smug little grin, claiming they captured the bridge collapse over the Mississippi River perfectly? 🤣 🤣

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads