The Depth and Quality of Criterion Essays

[Gregory]

I haven't yet received the new Grey Gardens set but some of the observations about the Musto essay in that thread really seem to fit a lot of the disappointments I have had about the kinds of essays Criterion include in their releases on a regular basis. They do a good job with special features most of the time, and the larger booklets almost always contain some use supplements. However, the new essays they commission consistently show a paucity of real film criticism, and instead seem be part of the genre of film appreciation by reviewers and journalists. They often amount to little more than expressions of, "Get a load of this wild, crazy film," or "Aren't you just in awe of the profound beauty of this masterpiece?" with some factual tidbits sprinkled in. To me, the most annoying thing about many of these essays is their reliance on puns or clever turns of phrase for their appeal. Frequently they seem intended to flatter readers who recognize the fairly superficial observations about the film's plot and characters and who catch the cultural references deployed by the writer.

Much of Criterion's customer base would appreciate more insightful critical interpretation of these films, provided the essays didn't contain too much of the kind of all-too-common jargon that renders a lot of contemporary criticism impenetrable to the layperson. My purpose here isn't to whine but to try to understand why Criterion seems to avoid commissioning essays (or audio commentaries for that matter) by the likes of Richard Dyer or Victor F. Perkins, or even lesser knowns who are capable of saying something insightful about a film's subtext without needing 20 pages to do it. Film Quarterly has been publishing a lot of excellent, concise, accesible reviews, and I can't figure out what has kept Criterion from providing more of that kind of work.

[Andre Jurieu]

I completely agree with you Gregory, but the problem probably also stems from the fact that a great deal of Criterion's customers enjoy the genre of film appreciation rather than film criticism or analysis. I doubt many consumers want to purchase a product and then find it includes an essay that points out flaws in the film they just bought. Also, many people don't enjoy having to read through an essay that "interprets the movie for me." Even within the forum, there are a great many members who appreciate "expressions of, 'Get a load of this wild, crazy film,' or 'Aren't you just in awe of the profound beauty of this masterpiece?' with some factual tidbits sprinkled in" more than they would care to read through a thorough analysis of the film. It's part of the ongoing problem with the practice of film criticism being blurred with the process of film marketing.

[Gregory]

I don't think criticism necessarily interprets film for the reader. It's one person's ideas of what a film means, and someone can completely disagree with an interpretation but still benefit greatly from reading it.
This is probably the point when someone customarily points out the obvious: "Criterion is a business, not a _____." But it seems they've been quite successful in a niche that appeals to many film consumers' desire for substance.
As for essays that would risk pointing out flaws: Part of the concept of the Criterion Collection seems to be that the films they select are considered by the company (and often critical consensus) to be "important." But they're by no means perfect, or merely "great" (many far from it), and I think a good number of people buying these DVDs realize this. Part of what makes these DVDs worthwhile is assessing and re-assessing the films and figuring out what is really going on in them, what "worked," and what might not have worked so well. The latter part could be, but wouldn't necessarily have to be part of the kind of writing I'm talking about. There are plenty of critical essays that end up heaping glowing praise on a film -- but it has to be earned.
Anyone who's like me is far less disillusioned by this process of (re)assessment than by being told endlessly in these essays how great or influential a film is without really getting into it. That kind of thing is commonly done and appreciated on a forum like this, as you say, but I think we should expect more when something makes it into print, especially when it's commissioned for a special DVD release.

[toiletduck!]

As a Criterion consumer who more often than not is going into a viewing blind, I don't really mind Criterion's fluff essays. I always read the essay before watching the film (I'm not particularly adverse to spoilers), and it usually does a fair-to-well job of putting me in a good mindset for the film. There are a few stinkers in the bunch -- it sounds like the Beales essay is one of them -- but for what they are, the essays generally serve their purpose quite well for me.

That said, I, too, would accept the inclusion of more film criticism with open arms.

-Toilet Dcuk

[a.khan]

An interesting topic, Gregory. I remember being left cold by Joshua Clover's labyrinthine essay on "Straws Dogs." To give credit, it breaks the middleground of criticism/analysis and appreciation. But I can't say I enjoyed or really understood its desired impact even upon a second reading. Here.

By the way, I don't remember a major release other than "Fight Club" having both negative and positive reviews (ok, blurbs) printed for our pleasure...

[Andre Jurieu]

I don't think criticism necessarily interprets film for the reader. It's one person's ideas of what a film means, and someone can completely disagree with an interpretation but still benefit greatly from reading it.

Again I agree with your comments and that is generally how I feel about reading criticism. I was just pointing out that that is a perception of criticism that exists and which could hinder someone from appreciating a good critical essay of a film being included within a DVD package (hence the quotes). I think some people just don't enjoy comprehensive or meticulous opinions and comments being included in the DVD, whether in print or on the commentary, because it might feel as if Criterion is endorsing these opinions and presenting them as the standard or consensus, simply because they are supposedly making the "definitive edition" of the film's DVD. I don't really know why this type of feeling exists, but it does seem to pop up every so often.

This is probably the point when someone customarily points out the obvious: "Criterion is a business, not a _____." But it seems they've been quite successful in a niche that appeals to many film consumers' desire for substance.

Yeah, that's usually me. I agree they are successful in appealing to the niche market of consumers who desire substance, but sometimes I'm not so sure this is the majority within their niche market. I think a lot of their targeted niche is just collectors or just enthusiasts who ignore a great deal of the academic study that surrounds art films. The consumers who desire substance might be a significant portion, but there are also many other factions, viewpoints, and desires within that niche, including those who don't really value the opinions of others and choose to believe that their opinion and interpretation is the only correct one.

As for essays that would risk pointing out flaws: Part of the concept of the Criterion Collection seems to be that the films they select are considered by the company (and often critical consensus) to be "important." But they're by no means perfect, or merely "great" (many far from it), and I think a good number of people buying these DVDs realize this.

Very true, but I also think there are quite a few people who don't realize this.

Part of what makes these DVDs worthwhile is assessing and re-assessing the films and figuring out what is really going on in them, what "worked," and what might not have worked so well. The latter part could be, but wouldn't necessarily have to be part of the kind of writing I'm talking about. There are plenty of critical essays that end up heaping glowing praise on a film -- but it has to be earned.

Again, I'm totally in agreement.

Anyone who's like me is far less disillusioned by this process of (re)assessment than by being told endlessly in these essays how great or influential a film is without really getting into it.

Yeah, that gets annoying incredibly quickly, but I have to admit that I sometimes put the blinders on to this type of glowing appreciation when it's a film I really love, since it is slightly reassuring. Thankfully, I usually wise up after time passes and I'm allowed to evaluate a film with a more critical eye. However, again, some people just want that feeling of being continually captivated and enchanted by a film.

That kind of thing is commonly done and appreciated on a forum like this, as you say, but I think we should expect more when something makes it into print, especially when it's commissioned for a special DVD release.

I guess I've just begun to lower my expectations with DVD packages. I've come to terms with the idea that DVD packages are inevitably going to disappoint me as the market matures and companies have to expand the appeal of their product. A good example was with the Dazed and Confused DVD, which I believe you and I discussed earlier in the year. Considering the film's popularity, I kind of expected less analysis and depth in the package. I would have appreciated more thorough criticism of the film being included in the package, but I also prepared myself for a package that was more geared towards appreciation.

I do think the forum's toilet cleaner makes a good point though (surprise, surprise). The essays seems to be created in order to put the reader/viewer in the right frame-of-mind before viewing the film and they are usually quite successful in doing so.

[Gregory]

I've come to terms with the idea that DVD packages are inevitably going to disappoint me as the market matures and companies have to expand the appeal of their product. A good example was with the Dazed and Confused DVD, which I believe you and I discussed earlier in the year. Considering the film's popularity, I kind of expected less analysis and depth in the package. I would have appreciated more thorough criticism of the film being included in the package, but I also prepared myself for a package that was more geared towards appreciation.

I forgot about that, but yes the Dazed and Confused booklet was a good example. (And I do plan to make this the last time I bring up this subject, lest I become a broken record.) I would guess that they are more willing to indulge in more frivolous writing when they think the film and/or its audience warrants it. Another example of this was the Youth of the Beast essay with its almost nauseating cleverness, comparisons to Ozu on acid and the like. However, I think the best films of Linklater or Suzuki are worth taking as seriously as the work of any number of dead, French directors (but that's an observation that's almost sure to drive the thread onto a tangent).
I understand your points, but nevertheless hope that Criterion could have higher standards in this one area, even if it meant thicker booklets and a slightly higher proportion of $40 MSRP titles.

The essays seems to be created in order to put the reader/viewer in the right frame-of-mind before viewing the film and they are usually quite successful in doing so.

I wonder about that. I've read many people on the forum, for what it's worth say that they would only ever read the essay after the film. I'm the same way. Aside from spoilers, I'm so wary of prejudicing my interpretation of a film that I rarely read anything about a film until I've seen it and have formed at least tentative ideas about it. I may be an extreme case, but this may still hold true in general. We'd probably need a poll to have real idea.

[vogler]

I think I would agree that Criterion essays are generally lacking in any real critical evaluation although I'm not sure I have seen truly in-depth critical analysis included in any dvd packages. I certainly find that MOC booklets are far superior to Criterion in this respect. Historical information can also be just as valuable as critical analysis, contextualising the artist and film and leading to a greater understanding of how and why a film was made and what the motivations of the creator were. I would like to see more thoughtful and analytical writing included in dvd literature but I have always relied on books for greater in-depth reading and I doubt dvds will ever even begin to approach them for the level of information they can provide.

I personally have a strong aversion to commentaries and when I watch a film I don't want it to be an academic excercise. I want to experience the film as a work of art and to me that is something which is appreciated intellectually but instinctively, emotionally or perhaps subconsciously. I do however often read in great depth about films after watching but I never like the academic exercise to impinge on the actual viewing experience.

I think a lot of their targeted niche is just collectors or just enthusiasts who ignore a great deal of the academic study that surrounds art films.

I think it would also be fair to say that a lot of film-makers and artists also ignore a great deal of the academic study that surrounds art films. I think this can be applied to art in a more general sense. There are a great many artists who create intuitively without any formal academic thought. Ideas can come from anywhere - life, dreams, nature, outside artistic stimuli, the subconscious. I think this academic thought is often nothing to do with the art itself but is the product of the academics who enjoy debating such issues. In some cases I think a film can be appreciated more as the work of art as created by the artist by ignoring the academic criticism. This can, in my opinion, often take you closer to the inspiration and mind of the creator. This all does of course totally depend on the film and artist in question. I think I am primarily talking about the romantic ideal of art and the artist, but I think this is where my true views lie, both in experiencing and creating art.

I wonder about that. I've read many people on the forum, for what it's worth say that they would only ever read the essay after the film. I'm the same way. Aside from spoilers, I'm so wary of prejudicing my interpretation of a film that I rarely read anything about a film until I've seen it and have formed at least tentative ideas about it. I may be an extreme case, but this may still hold true in general. We'd probably need a poll to have real idea.

I absolutely agree with that. I never read an essay beforehand unless I know it is an essay that does not explicitly concern the film for example a biography or other historical essay. With regards to spoilers there is nothing worse than that moment when you realise you have just read a major one and there is nothing you can do about it.

[GringoTex]

Putting a true piece of cutting edge criticism as "the essay" is risky because there's a good chance it won't have lasting relevance., which is not good for a "definitve edition" of a film. So instead, we get safe pieces that summarize the general critical consensus on the film. I understand this.

And interesting exception is Gary Indiana's essay in Pickpocket. Personally, I don't like that his hermetic interpretation might become the standard bearer, but it did cause more discussion than any other Criterion essay ever.

[vogler]

Sometimes Criterion might do particularly interesting textual material -I'm thinking particularly of the Jack Smith essay on Scarlet Empress which helps to give a tonally refined lead-in to the movie from a great Avant gardist.

THE Jack Smith? as in Flaming Creatures and Normal Love? I didn't know about that. I don't have this dvd but I think I'm going to have to put it on my essential dvds to buy list immediately. It's a great film as well.

[Matt]

I don't have this dvd but I think I'm going to have to put it on my essential dvds to buy list immediately. It's a great film as well.

No! Buy the French disc and read the Smith essay for free online.

[vogler]

No! Buy the French disc and read the Smith essay for free online.

Yes, that's a very good idea. It's only 9.35 EUR from Amazon marketplace at the moment as well. Thanks for the links. I'm off to read the Smith essay now.

[Gregory]

The Criterion Scarlet Empress may have been trumped in the transfer department, but it remains a good example of what can be done with a very small insert. It not only contains the Jack Smith piece but also an excellent short essay from Robin Wood.

Putting a true piece of cutting edge criticism as "the essay" is risky because there's a good chance it won't have lasting relevance., which is not good for a "definitve edition" of a film. So instead, we get safe pieces that summarize the general critical consensus on the film. I understand this.

I remember a number of commentaries (although I don't often listen to them the whole way through, for the very same reasons vogler explained above) in which the commentator offers some critical interpretation of the film. It seems the same could be done in print, arguably more effectively. I think many of the fluff essays will not age well (such as the kind I linked to above); it's just that they may become dated in different ways than a piece of criticism: the style of writing rather than what is said. The best criticism seems timeless, but I know this is relatively rare.

[bunuelian]

Volger, you raise excellent points.

Criterion faces a very difficult challenge with its essay selections. Speculation about who buys Criterion dvds, and what they want, is hard to do after a certain point. Andre suggests that some viewers don't want to hear another person's opinion on a film, preferring to take their interpretation as the only correct one. I think that's certainly true, but for those people, the essays don't matter at all - they'll never read them. That strikes me as one of several extremes, others being those who want the reasons behind every cut analyzed in mathematical detail, and those who only want to know who the actors and directors were fucking.

Being an outsider to serious film study, the thing that always strikes me about film writing is that scholarship and opinion rarely exist independently. That's largely because the nature of the business demands it: the writers are usually employed by papers and expected to entertain. It's rare for a writer on film to have actually done an extensive study of the people, places, and events that shaped any indivdual film. For many of the films Criterion releases, that's because the films aren't appreciated until many years after the fact and a detailed study is impossible, even if the principals (director, DP, actors) are still alive. Memory fades, and so much of what goes into a film simply gets lost. A film critic approached by criterion to write an essay probably can't afford to turn down the opportunity, but what more can he or she bring to the table than opinion and some general remarks about broadly known historical fact?

At the risk of raising the Criterion is a business, not a ____ point, Criterion can only go so far in funding people to doing the kind of work that a serious, in-depth study of a fim would require, especially when the film was made in a non-English speaking country.

On the other hand, I think Criterion hamstrings itself by sticking to big name writers for its essays. The big personalities in film chatter aren't necessarily in the best position to comment on any individual film beyond its "importance." Importance matters for the relative newcomer, who probably is representative of most casual hobbyists, and has its place. But the deeper analysis might better be provided by experts who lack the New York Art Scene dick size necessary to find their way into Criterion packages.

Criterion should hold open submissions for essays on forthcoming titles, to see what the world might produce. It's another way to give incentive to creative analysis.

I enjoy reading essays about the film's place in film history, the circumstances of its making, and the personalities involved. That probably puts me more at the factual end of things. In general I find most writing that tries to interpret (or worse, so-called "re-interpret") a film's "meaning" to be written in a style that's too abrasively argumentative to be worth reading. That's because most people sharing with extreme prejudice their opinions about a film tend toward rhetoric that blows the importance of the debate entirely out of proportion. But a well reasoned and well informed critique is always worth reading.

Extremes of criticism are inherently valuable, and the academic pursuit of such extremes should never be abandoned. As Gringo pointed out, Gary Indiana's essay in Pickpocket (and David's response) generated a magnificent, enlightening dialogue on this forum. But asking Criterion to always explore these extremes may be beyond their capacity. I think it's less a matter of perceived sponsorship than one of the semi-common denomenator that Criterion must navigate, between the well-informed and the semi-informed. A publishable, highly controversial essay might occasionally cross the Criterion editor's desk, but more likely the firebrand pieces will be few and far between.

The stark reality is that many, many people who take a serious interest in film are alone in that interest. To that extent, having an essay that says nothing more than, "You're cool because you like this," is actually a good thing. I have many intelligent friends, but only 4 of them have watched Andrei Rublev and liked it, and they all think they're strange because of it. Most would leave the room if I so much as suggested watching it. For this reason alone, some superlative essays are probably ok. I'd not be bunuelian if I'd not been barraged with reasons to further understand Bunuel.

[Jason]

I'm always more excited when they reprint interviews from the time of the film's release than anything else.

[Tommaso]

I think I would agree that Criterion essays are generally lacking in any real critical evaluation although I'm not sure I have seen truly in-depth critical analysis included in any dvd packages. I certainly find that MOC booklets are far superior to Criterion in this respect. Historical information can also be just as valuable as critical analysis, contextualising the artist and film and leading to a greater understanding of how and why a film was made and what the motivations of the creator were.

I'm very much with Vogler in these respects, and in addition I'd like to state that I've always seen the booklets (Criterion or not) only as an additional 'extra' among many others. I'm generally content if they give me information about the actors and the technical staff on a film, some easy reference when I want to have a quick look at who plays which character etc. If I want in-depth analysis, I usually go for the other extras mostly provided on the disc by Criterion. And in this respect, much as I love MoC, I'm generally disappointed that they give us the background solely in their admittedly glorious booklets, but in most cases no audio commentary.

I personally have a strong aversion to commentaries and when I watch a film I don't want it to be an academic excercise. I want to experience the film as a work of art and to me that is something which is appreciated intellectually but instinctively, emotionally or perhaps subconsciously.

I don't think that this is mutually exclusive. When I see a film for the first time, I of course also want to appreciate it instinctively, emotionally etc. But it very often happens that - if the film is not too long - I then re-watch it, often the same evening, with the audio commentary (in whole or in part) to find out more, to support or flesh out the foregoing first experience with a different angle. That needn't be an academic exercise, it's rather like entering a mental discussion with the guy who does the commentary and who may or may not confirm some thoughts I gathered for myself when watching the film first. It all depends on the quality of the commentary, of course. I find it horrible when a commentator basically only points out what I can see for myself easily . The most blatant example I can think of are those almost ridiculous commentaries on the MGM Bergman set; but I also don't find much pleasure in a mumbling Michael Powell who also doesn't tell very substantial things together with a Martin Scorsese hardly able to calm his unmitigated admiration for the guy (okay, who would be able in this case...?). But when we get some Ian Christie on the same subject, count me in.

Commentaries might also be very helpful for absolute newcomers to the subject of film-making and analysis, like me a few years ago. I think I learned more about film by simply listening to Peter Jackson's commentaries on the "Lord of the Rings"-discs than I would have from several books or a seminar in the same time.

[HerrSchreck]

What I enjoy seeing most are monographs from a historical standpoint regarding the construction of the film: the source material, the events & difficulties leading up to it's creation, in depth details regarding the production process, to the reception of the masterwork upon it's premeire and immediately following.

In other words, an analogy: a couple weeks ago I took my girlfriend and my mother to the recently reopened JP Morgan Library on 5th Avenue here in NYC. After feeling the tantalizingly faint traces of the man himself lingering behind all of the aesthetics which moved and stunned me there in those great halls... I went forthwith into the museum book/giftshop to secure:

a piece of nonfiction which entertainingly and compellingly related all that Morgan was, including, of course, the library he built. A little bit of the times he lived in, the people he knew, his troubles, his triumphs, firsthand recollections of participants and others in the know... with perhaps a very small amount of after-the-fact asessment of the man's posthumous meaning to those alive today who didn't know him. These are essentially collections equivalent of a Primary Source.

The story of the movie itself in historical terms is always most important to me. And interesting. I like to learn about times gone by. To me the absolute least valuable form of writing to include in a film-package is the recounting, by a man completely unconnected to the film, and the filmmaker who created it, of the effect that film had on him. A perfect example is the piece written by whosis (the guy who wrote MYSTIC RIVER)for the WAGES OF FEAR reissue. Telling us in his best knock-down whiskified Boston barroom tinged writerly language how he as a writer learns white knuckle suspense at the feet of Clouzot. As if we all love or at least know his writing and have been dying (or at least are innarested)to learn the source of his liteary testosterone.

That's just crap-- it's pure celebrity indulgence, and assumes one man's art-processsing is more interesting than another's; it's openly and admittedly not even film writing... it's just "wow do I love this very cool film so much, please allow me to publicly associate myself with it!"

CC must understand that they operate as a cinematic museum of sorts.. and while not expected to be dry or sterile-- i e encyclopedic-- pop cultural "hanging out with big names" is a bit beneath them. Assuming that people already know the story behind the creation of a masterwork is just ludicrous. It's the one great advantage CC provides that I think most people look forward to besides the great transfers: knowledge about the film, from those involved. I've seen for example the works of Jean Epstein(the available ones) a zillion times.. I've researched him, etc. But the man himself, the on set process of making LA GLACE or USHER or the amazing TEMPSTAIRE, stories from the cameramen, actors, etc, remain a mystery to me. Therefore, if CC released one of these films, and wasted precious printed-space on personal, modern raptures by, say, the kid who wrote EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED I'd conk my head way too many dangerous times against the toilet seat my chin rested on while puking.

[colinr0380]

I've not much to add to the discussion - I just thought I'd say that Phillip Lopate's essay on the Contempt disc was one of the best of the Criterion essays I've read.

I'd also agree with Jason and HerrSchreck about being very interested to hear criticism of a film from the time of it's release or interviews with the directors and other members of the crew at the time, although I think Criterion set the bar very high in the case of Vilgot Sjoman's Ingmar Bergman Makes A Movie documentary that did alomst exactly the same thing HerrSchreck describes: "the source material, the events & difficulties leading up to it's creation, in depth details regarding the production process, to the reception of the masterwork upon it's premeire and immediately following." The essays would have to be very extensive to even try to match something like that.

I'm greedy however and rather than an either/or between film criticism at the time and a modern piece of writing I'd be fascinated to have both so we get a picture of how attitudes to the film are changing over time, for better or worse. I think Criterion are doing that quite well with their director interviews, for example combining old interviews with new ones created for the DVD. You can see how attitudes of people change round what is in the end images fixed onto film that haven't changed in content.

Some of the 'modern' essays do include discussion of previous criticism however, so I don't know whether including older essays separately or asking the person you get to write the essay to mention how the film was received is the better way to go. For example, I haven't got the disc, but I can't imagine an essay not being able to talk about Peeping Tom's hostile reception when it was released, and maybe including the famous quote about there "not being a sewer deep enough into which to drop the film, and even then the stink would remain"(!)

I think the essay included with DVDs, whether Masters of Cinema or Criterion, should be approached from two perspectives: one is what is talked about above, a introduction to a film that you might not be familiar with before you put the DVD in your player. However, I also agree with what was said earlier that despite that I often leave the essays (and always the booklets) until I've watched the film without outside interpretation (I also try not to read the spiel on the back of the cases too closely before I watch a film in case it spoils too much of the plot). The essays and booklets can still work as an 'introduction' after the film though - being introduced to how the film has been received and what others think of it, commenting on a few details I might have missed on the first viewing, giving a couple of interpretations etc.

The second thing that the essay does is expand on issues that go beyond the film, such as the pieces in the Monterey Pop booklet that examine the music festival without much reference to the documentary film itself; or the interview with Sam Peckinpah in the Straw Dogs booklet that barely mentions Straw Dogs but gives us a glimpse of Peckinpah being obtuse and antagonistic in his responses to the questions. They may not be particularly relevant to the film or filmmaking itself but they expand on the issues the films raise, or even issues that are only raised in the extra features on the disc, such as Peckinpah's wildness.

An essay also adds extra voices and extra viewpoints to a film and that, even if it might only be a shallow appreciation of a how great they think the film is, surely can only be a good thing! (Although I understand that it can be annoying if you wonder whether it has taken space away from someone who might have had something more enlightening to say about the film)

The final reason why I really like booklets, and the most selfish one, is that it gives me something to read on the train to and from work, or if I have to travel a way. I'd panic about missing my stop if I was listening to a personal stereo or watching a DVD on a portable player (not to mention being an irritation to other passengers or having the equipment stolen!), so a good booklet is perfect to get me considering a film, even if the quality of the essay isn't academic level! Also it is easier to get into booklets if a journey is particularly short (say less than twenty minutes), than to start reading a book. Much better to save reading a book for a dark winter's night, relaxed and warm on a sofa, maybe with a cat curled up asleep next to you!

[tryavna]

I'm a little late to this conversation, but I wonder what Gregory, Andre, Schreck, Vogler, et al thought of the booklet for The Fallen Idol. I have to say that I got far more out of it than most of the other CC booklets I've read over the past few months (including those for Seven Samurai, Canterbury Tale, etc.). It's relatively short but incredibly well-balanced, with a sharp critical interpretation of the film by Geoffrey O'Brien, an analysis of the film's changes to the original story by David Lodge (who's always an enjoyable read), and biographical piece of Carol Reed by Nicholas Wapshott. Thankfully, none of them tried too hard for clever wordplay. My only complaint about any of them is that Wapshott got a couple of minor points wrong: the original story does not take place in an embassy and Reed probably would not have over-awed Hitchcock (who was surely the most successful British director of the 1930s).

In my opinion, this would be a model booklet if only it also contained the original short story, which isn't really that long (but probably would have cost too much to reprint).

[Gregory]

Sorry, tryana, I had hoped to respond about the Fallen Idol essays but I can't. I have The Fallen Idol and was about to watch it when the lamp on my projector finally gave out. (It lasted many years, so I can't complain.) It's a film I actually have never seen before, so I don't want to read the essays about it yet. Flipping through it, though, it does look promising.

[HerrSchreck]

Will report when I grab it. I just grabbed LE CORBEAU (my last Clouzot needed) plus couldn't resist the SE of SUNSET BOULEVARD, after watching EVS in LA GRANDE ILLUSION (for the zillionth time, then saw the SB SE in a budget bin for almost nothing).