What to Watch on Criterion Channel Oct. 1 to 15, 2022

So much crap on streaming, what’s a film nerd/nut, cineaste to do?

Ignore the splash screens, read this list!

Leave behind AI-generated suggestions of "more like this" that contain 90% stuff you don’t want to watch.

Definitions:

Film Nerd: You’ll watch Andrei Rublev willingly

Film Nut: No Andrei Rublev.

(I will do a separate post for each streaming service that has anything worthy)

What to Watch on Criterion Channel Oct. 1 to 15, 2022

Film Nerd

France (2021, Bruno Dumont) Really captivating film, such focus on the performances, far more range from Lea Seydoux than you see in a Bond film. Even if you don’t find this an artistic success (def. some debate out there on this film!),

watching mainstream star-focused French cinema (if you haven’t before) is a fascinating comparison to American films. They have a significant star system, with great flare. The general stylistic qualities of French mainstream films is unique and a breath of fresh air. Again, that's only if you don't notice Bruno Dumont's different contribution via his own very personal mise-en-scène. There's more to enjoy if your into the subtleties of presentation and framing of the story.

Cure (1997, Kiyoshi Kurosawa) The mise-en-scène of this one really draws you in. It’s a comfortable blanket, yes, a comfortable creepy horror-ish movie blanket. It's plot is dark and unnerving. There isn’t anything quite like it, with the antagonist’s slacker-murderous vibe unique in cinema, it makes it that much more unnerving. And something underneath that unseats us, as if that which we are not watching is percolating a truly terrifying evil in our lives that we'll never be able to spot. And will they spot it and stop in this film? They might not...

Eyes of Orson Welles (2018, Mark Cousins) Once I got over why this Irish guy is doing a personal 1st person narration (and "Who is this guy?") talking directly to the deceased Orson Welles, I found he actually DOES have good reason to be narrating this and the details learned about Orson were too good to be missed. It definitely starts out a bit weird, it's such an unusual approach, I strongly want to urge you to stick with it, as I learned more details and tidbits about Orson than I had before, and learned more about what makes him tick. If you thought that wasn't possible, this film really does that. (And Mark Cousins is the director of The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011), I learned. So he's not nobody!)

Dead Man (1995, Jim Jarmusch) You’ll end up spouting poetry or wanting to read a poem (remember those?). If a film can do that, it's hands down the most important film in history! (But see if it does make you do that. Otherwise then it's not.) This is an incredible "poetic cinema" film. Very roughly drawing from the reality of the time its set, but grounded enough in it to spark a solid takeoff point for its poetry. It's really unique in cinema with is mood, pace and tone. Of absolutely all the masterpieces on Criterion Channel, this might be my favorite film on the entire service.

Until the End of the World (1991, Wim Wenders) 4-plus-hour version. Is this music good? Yeah, not bad.
Watch it as a substitute to binging dumb series on other platforms. Is it the greatest film in the world? No. Why is it so long? No idea.

Does it sometimes end a dramatic tension and get boring? Yep, but another one comes up, so it’s pretty good. And it's a huge all-star cast, you got William Hurt, Max von Sydow, Sam Neill, some German actors who's great, it's a great streaming show option, watch a little bit at a time on your lunch breaks.

 

 

  

 

Film Nut

Touch of Evil (1958, Orson Welles) (Film Nerds too for this one.) Watch it before it leaves 10/31/22. Yes, sure, it will pop up somewhere else, of course, but this is one of the meatiest delicacies of Orson Welles you can delve into.

His dedication to this role, while also directing it, indicates a real quest for art inside the studio system, a herculean task. Tangential note, I came away loving Mercedes McCambridge and wanting to know more. And he does that with actors. This is part of his art, the scenes mean something, the actors are given the time and support to truly embody these people and what they mean, and I think that's why the resonate so strongly with the viewer. The mise-en-scène and editing he uses is different from all his others and it intensely involves you in the plot.

You probably already know this? But the studio cut it, and this is the restored version: The restoration team used a mutli-page letter of his complaints Orson wrote to the studio to cut it exactly as he wanted, and you end up with this.

Desert Hearts (1985, Donna Deitch)– I’m personally watching this, I can’t swear how good it is. But I'm enjoying it, I think it's a unique little gem here on Criteiron. It’s not particularly artsy in mise-en-scène or editing style, but it is a very moving drama of both melancholy and romance that really resonate through understated and caring representation. It seems a unique tale for the time period it was released in. (Probably why I didn't hear about it at the time? I really never did.) It may be a true under-the-radar indie that was ahead of its time in subject matter/story respects (probably played successfully in New York, for example). If cinematically it's very straightforward, it makes up for that with the time it takes and the sensitively with which it's told.

Criterion is packed, so I’ll post more for 2^nd half of the month, stay tuned!