It's a legitimate question. What's the criterion used by Criterion? Obviously film quality and appeal are not criteria. I'm guessing it's a private joke on us. Art Films of the 50's and 60's were designed to break the Motion Picture Production Code. Harry Schein used the artistic director Ingmar Bergman to break down the code with "The Silence" in 1963. If a film had "artistic value" it could not be considered obscene.
It was not totally banned in the US; it was given an "X" rating (now the NC-17 label). It played art houses for weeks in N.C. when I was a kid to young to get in. Needless to day, it was all propelled along by the X rating and some promise of skin (any skin then was still controversial, except in Europe). The most subversive element was that a lot of drive in (it played X drive ins, too) country couples actually sat through two hours of politics reading subtitles to see some nudity, which may be the most interesting aspect of its US life.
Citizen Kane is part of the Criterion Collection, though only on LaserDisc. And no, Criterion isn't saying every movie is an A+ film. They are choosing films that have historical importance, often beyond just being hugely popular. These often include controversial movies that have either been influential or relevant to the greater film landscape. Even though you clearly aren't a fan of these particular films (and for understandable reasons), there's little doubt that they are historically relevant. They were films that left a big footprint, despite getting an X rating back when it came out. I don't love every choice Criterion makes, but there's usually a sound reason behind all of the movies in their collection.
Wait ... people don't like Picnic at Hanging Rock?? That's easily one of my favorite films in the collection. It even has a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes and is considered a classic. Legit shocked to hear it (along with Salo) as a measurement for bad movies. Yikes.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
It's a legitimate question. What's the criterion used by Criterion? Obviously film quality and appeal are not criteria. I'm guessing it's a private joke on us.
Art Films of the 50's and 60's were designed to break the Motion Picture Production Code. Harry Schein used the artistic director Ingmar Bergman to break down the code with "The Silence" in 1963. If a film had "artistic value" it could not be considered obscene.
It was not totally banned in the US; it was given an "X" rating (now the NC-17 label). It played art houses for weeks in N.C. when I was a kid to young to get in. Needless to day, it was all propelled along by the X rating and some promise of skin (any skin then was still controversial, except in Europe). The most subversive element was that a lot of drive in (it played X drive ins, too) country couples actually sat through two hours of politics reading subtitles to see some nudity, which may be the most interesting aspect of its US life.
Citizen Kane is part of the Criterion Collection, though only on LaserDisc. And no, Criterion isn't saying every movie is an A+ film. They are choosing films that have historical importance, often beyond just being hugely popular. These often include controversial movies that have either been influential or relevant to the greater film landscape. Even though you clearly aren't a fan of these particular films (and for understandable reasons), there's little doubt that they are historically relevant. They were films that left a big footprint, despite getting an X rating back when it came out. I don't love every choice Criterion makes, but there's usually a sound reason behind all of the movies in their collection.
Wait ... people don't like Picnic at Hanging Rock?? That's easily one of my favorite films in the collection. It even has a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes and is considered a classic. Legit shocked to hear it (along with Salo) as a measurement for bad movies. Yikes.
I am Curious can be a boring film for some people, but confusing? Not really. How was that confusing?
I thought it was a great film. What does your arrogant little opinion mean to anybody? It wasn't confusing to me at all.
you sir , are curiously all over the place ! same film, not same film, not bad, terrible, ok , etcetera