Margaret

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby Mister Tee » Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:39 pm

Big Magilla wrote:Amazon's exclsusive deal is for a limited time. The Blu-ray of the theatrical cut plus the standard DVD of the extended version releases everywhere October 9th. The standard DVD of the theatrical cut does nt include the extended cut. Amazon is streaming only the theatrical cut, not the extended cut which is only available as part of the Blu-ray package.

The convolution of all that somehow put me in mind of the Tootsie-Frootsie Ice Cream scene in A Day at the Races.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14823
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Margaret

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:28 pm

Amazon's exclsusive deal is for a limited time. The Blu-ray of the theatrical cut plus the standard DVD of the extended version releases everywhere October 9th. The standard DVD of the theatrical cut does nt include the extended cut. Amazon is streaming only the theatrical cut, not the extended cut which is only available as part of the Blu-ray package.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby Mister Tee » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:06 pm

dws1982 wrote:From what I understand, Netflix isn't allowed to carry the 186 minute cut, as part of some stipulation Fox made when they gave Amazon exclusive rights to sell it.

Ah -- the genius of the free market system.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby dws1982 » Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:54 pm

From what I understand, Netflix isn't allowed to carry the 186 minute cut, as part of some stipulation Fox made when they gave Amazon exclusive rights to sell it.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby Mister Tee » Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:07 pm

So, color me disappointed -- not in the film (which I'll be watching over the weekend) but in Netflix. I was under the impression the DVD would offer me the option of watching the 186-minute version, which, from all commentary, was the way to go. I went through the disc looking for it...but all I see are options to set audio/video or watch scene-by-scene. Is the longer version on a second disc that Netflix didn't see fit to send me? If so, shame on them.

Life's petty annoyances are truly bringing me down.

Reza
Laureate
Posts: 7067
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Margaret

Postby Reza » Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:20 am

latimes.com




Once-troubled 'Margaret' grows longer




A version 37 minutes longer than the original
screens at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Anna Paquin stars.

By Mark Olsen, Special to the Los Angeles Times

7:05 PM PDT, July 18, 2012



The saga of writer-director Kenneth Lonergan's
nearly lost film "Margaret" had yet another
chapter written in Los Angeles this week. Shot in
2005, the movie starring Anna Paquin was beset by
post-production delays and legal disputes and
finally opened in near-empty movie houses last
fall. Following a year-end critical caucus around
the film, including much online championing of
its underdog status, it had a moderately more
successful second-go at theaters early this year.

Recently released on home video, "Margaret" was
shown Tuesday in a 3-hour, 6-minute extended
version to a full house at the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art. (That cut is available only as
part of a new 2-disc Blu-ray/DVD set along with
the 2-hour, 29-minute theatrical version.)

Among the crowd were filmmakers Michael Mann and
Jay Duplass, musician Michael Des Barres,
actresses Winona Ryder, Molly Shannon and Jane
Adams, and Paquin's husband and "True Blood" costar Stephen Moyer.

Before the screening, Lonergan explained why the
three-hour version was billed as an "extended
cut." "I don't say it's a director's cut. That
means the other one was something you didn't mean
and this is, and that's not true. So perhaps it's
simply a totemic symbol of my indecisiveness."

The inclusion of 37 more minutes of footage does
make the two versions of "Margaret" quite
distinct, though the core story is the same:
Paquin's character Lisa grapples with guilt over
her role in a bus accident that took the life of
a stranger. In supporting roles are Jeannie
Berlin, Mark Ruffalo, Matt Damon, Matthew
Broderick, Allison Janey, Jean Reno, Kieran
Culkin and Lonergan's wife, J. Smith-Cameron.

The theatrical version is more propulsive, a
ruminative freight train pushing Lisa through the
world as the film morphs into something akin to a
legal thriller. The extended cut heightens the
thematic idea that Lisa is awakening to the fact
that the world does not revolve around her, that
other people have problems of their own.

There are a number of scenes not in the
theatrical version including a visit to an
abortion clinic previously referenced but not
seen. The sound design in the extended cut turns
the volume up on what should be background
conversations, most spectacularly in a diner
scene in which Lisa spurns an aspiring male
suitor as banal chatter drowns them out.

"In life you do end up having really awkward
horrible conversations in places that are public
and you can hear someone at the next table having
a kind of random and trivial conversation.... And
it sort of makes it that much worse somehow,"
said Paquin during the post-screening Q&A.

Most people who see the film in its new
incarnation on home video will be meeting
"Margaret" for the first time. Asked which
version newcomers to "Margaret" should watch
first, Lonergan said he didn't think it mattered.

"I hope they're different enough that they're
both worth watching, as opposed to feeling like
you just saw the same thing," he said. "I think
the most accurate way to describe it is they are
two different approaches to the same story, and I think they are both valid."

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby dws1982 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:43 pm

I don't think it got "tighter" in the second half. I think that the editors probably wanted to make it "tighter", cutting scenes down to whatever they felt was their essence, but the result is that the scenes clang into each other without the narrative or thematic resonance that I saw in the first hour. Hope to get to the extended version (which, based on interviews he's given recently, Lonergan has indicated is his preferred version) this weekend.

bizarre
Temp
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Margaret

Postby bizarre » Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:07 pm

dws1982 wrote:The 150-minute theatrical cut of Margaret is a disaster. A very well-acted and well-written one, made someone who clearly knew what he wanted to do. And the first hour is pretty close to the masterpiece that Lonergan clearly envisioned, actually. But after that, the editors seemed to be interested mostly in cutting the runtime down, so lots of scenes/sequences feel truncated, and in many cases appear to have their beginnings and endings chopped off. (I'm thinking especially of Paquin's first meeting with Ruffalo, some of her arguments with her mom, or her scenes with Matt Damon.) Several very interesting scenes here, but they lose a lot of resonance the way they're presented--there's no breathing room. Anna Paquin's character becomes a lot more crazy and self-righteous as it goes along, whereas in the early scenes she was a genuinely confused teenager trying to atone for a mistake. One scene was especially galling--a meeting between a lawyer and a client, and yet they keep cutting back and forth to a floating down the Hudson. Makes you wonder if they even finished shooting (or post-production) on the scene. But then again, the final sequence is as good as anything I saw last year.

Definitely looking forward to watching the 186-minute cut this weekend, because that has potential to be one of the great films of 2011. The 150-minute cut has shades of greatness, but it's gutted too much to ever get there.


I actually thought the editing was more of an issue in the first hour - it seemed like a case of wanting to pack as many indispensable scenes in there without necessarily knowing how to assemble them. Lots of dissolves clearly meant to soften the jar but doing the opposite by making the seams show. I think it got more noticeably tighter and "on purpose" in the theatrical cut's second half - but, like I said, the jaggedness of the structure is part of its allure for me.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby dws1982 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:02 am

The 150-minute theatrical cut of Margaret is a disaster. A very well-acted and well-written one, made someone who clearly knew what he wanted to do. And the first hour is pretty close to the masterpiece that Lonergan clearly envisioned, actually. But after that, the editors seemed to be interested mostly in cutting the runtime down, so lots of scenes/sequences feel truncated, and in many cases appear to have their beginnings and endings chopped off. (I'm thinking especially of Paquin's first meeting with Ruffalo, some of her arguments with her mom, or her scenes with Matt Damon.) Several very interesting scenes here, but they lose a lot of resonance the way they're presented--there's no breathing room. Anna Paquin's character becomes a lot more crazy and self-righteous as it goes along, whereas in the early scenes she was a genuinely confused teenager trying to atone for a mistake. One scene was especially galling--a meeting between a lawyer and a client, and yet they keep cutting back and forth to a floating down the Hudson. Makes you wonder if they even finished shooting (or post-production) on the scene. But then again, the final sequence is as good as anything I saw last year.

Definitely looking forward to watching the 186-minute cut this weekend, because that has potential to be one of the great films of 2011. The 150-minute cut has shades of greatness, but it's gutted too much to ever get there.

bizarre
Temp
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Margaret

Postby bizarre » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:22 am

Saw the theatrical cut - very near to a masterpiece. Haven't seen a film so wholly reflective of its protagonist in a long time. A bizarre film but an incredibly rich one. Excited to see the extended cut.

Paquin is cannily cast. Not sure how much "good acting" she does but the flirtation with "bad acting" fits perfectly into this milieu - as a result, it's a great performance. Rest of the cast is great. J. Smith-Cameron is wholly empathetic and a great lens through which we can view Lisa, and Jeannie Berlin completes a wholly unique creation of character - one of the purest 'grown-ups' on screen.

ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1137
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby ksrymy » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:26 am

I watched it recently, but it didn't have quite the same effect on me as it did Sabin.

Paquin does a good job, but her mother played by J. Smith-Cameron was much better. Other than those two notes, I found nothing too great about it. I liked Allison Janney's bit though.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14823
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Margaret

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:07 pm

So, did anyone besides Sabin and me get to see this?

The new DVD release includes both the theatrical release and the even longer by 36 minute version. What it really needed was a shorter version.

The central story of a priviliged brat (Anna Paquin) who causes a horrific accident by flirting with a bus driver (Mark Ruffalo) who runs over a pedestrian (Allison Janney) is a compelling one. The girl's inter-actions with her mother (Lonergan's real-lfie wife J. Smith-Cameron), the victim's only real friend (a terrific Jeannie Berlin) and even her teachers (Matt Damon, Matthew Broderick) have resonance, but the long drawn-out telephone conversations with her L.A.. based father (an embarrassingly bad Lonergan) and her endless in-class discussions with her classmates should have dumped on the cutting room floor.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 6772
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby Sabin » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:07 pm

After this long in post-production hell and a series of lawsuits, Fox Searchlight isn't thinking about prestige at all or even recouping. Those thoughts have been banished! They simply want to escape legal point, get the damn thing out, and be done with it. That the film is any good has become a very secondary concern, and at this point they must be thinking "Oh, great. Let's put more money into it!" Printing free DVDs is like putting salt on a leg severed by a bus.
Philomena is one of the year's best Philomenas!

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2472
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Margaret

Postby Okri » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:28 pm

Though it would be awesomely embarassing for Fox Searchlight (who, it must be said, have had an exemplary and intriguingly daring year - I'd argue truly usurping Focus Features)

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 6772
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Margaret

Postby Sabin » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:13 pm

The Best Actress lineup was pretty weak in 2005, so weak that the Los Angeles Film Critic's Association had to dig as far as Vera Farmiga for Down to the Bone. With the added exposure from her supporting role in The Squid and the Whale, I think Anna Paquin could have won for Margaret and possibly gotten a nomination. I have not seen North Country or Mrs Henderson Presents nor had any real inclination.

It's possible I've underrated Jeannie Berlin in Margaret. I remember thinking that her role especially could have benefited from added breathing room, but she does struck a very indelible impression in the film. J. Smith-Cameron is even better as Anna Paquin's mother.

The film won't get a single nomination. Years ago, perhaps. Now, there's no way.
Philomena is one of the year's best Philomenas!


Return to “2011”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest