277 My Own Private Idaho

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
ben d banana
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#76 Post by ben d banana » Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:39 am

It's just a Canadian bare bones (or relatively so) release. The same has been done recently w/ Fat Girl and Naked Lunch.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

#77 Post by oldsheperd » Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:33 pm

Is the shot of Reeves holding Phoenix infront of the "Coming of the White Man" statue Van Sant trying to model off of that famous painting of Mary holding Jesus? That's what I think of every time I watch this.

User avatar
neuro
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

#78 Post by neuro » Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:45 pm

Is the shot of Reeves holding Phoenix infront of the "Coming of the White Man" statue Van Sant trying to model off of that famous painting of Mary holding Jesus? That's what I think of every time I watch this.
Yes...well, sort of. It's a definite reference to a sculpture - Michelangelo's Pieta:

Image

The more you look, the more movies you'll find with visual references to this sculpture; it's almost become a cliche. Off the top of my head, check out Cries and Whispers or the ending of The Roaring Twenties...
Last edited by neuro on Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

#79 Post by oldsheperd » Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:47 pm

That's the one. So is Phoenix the architypal christ figure.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#80 Post by zedz » Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:14 pm

Yes...well, sort of. It's a definite reference to a sculpture - Michelangelo's Pieta
The Pieta image is a generic one (like Christ Crucified of the Madonna and Child) that you'll find referenced throughout art history, including cinema. Michelangelo was one of the contributors to that tradition.

Stig Helmer
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:54 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

#81 Post by Stig Helmer » Sat May 07, 2005 3:40 pm

So i finally got around to see this one. And oh boy was that film a disappointment! Never have i seen such a boring film! Yes, the images are beautiful, but beautiful images and Shakespeare-references can't save a bad film. And this is truly a bad film...It is truly a mystery to me why Criterion would release this film...

The only thing that's good in this movie is Udo Kier...

analoguezombie

#82 Post by analoguezombie » Sat May 07, 2005 3:44 pm

So i finally got around to see this one. And oh boy was that film a surprise! Never have i seen such a excellent film! Yes, the images are beautiful, but beautiful images and Shakespeare-references alone, can't make a great film. And this is truly a great film...It is truly a mystery to me why Criterion wouldn't release this film earlier...

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#83 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:38 am

There is an easter egg on disc 2. Go to The Making Of My Own Private Idaho and then to the Index. Highlight the Back button and press left to bring up an arrow.

You get a video clip of Trey Shannon, the co-owner of Voodoo Dougnut (their slogan: the magic is in the hole (!)) telling his story about snooping around Van Sant's house! From the story I think John Waters is going to be enlightened about all those phone calls!

I was very impressed by the Paul Arthur discussion of the film - it certainly made me appreciate the film more and I think this might be worth considering as Criterion's take on the road movie as much as Stuart Kaminsky's piece on The Killers could be seen as a comment on the themes of film noir in general before focusing in on a discussion of the specific films and how they fit into this grouping. It was great to see Powow Highway mentioned as part of the early 90's road movie cycle. One film that I would have also suggested for inclusion would have been Richard Stanley's 1992 film Dust Devil.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#84 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:25 am

colinr0380 wrote:It was great to see Powow Highway mentioned as part of the early 90's road movie cycle. One film that I would have also suggested for inclusion would have been Richard Stanley's 1992 film Dust Devil.
And Bruce McDonald's rock 'n' roll road movie trilogy: Roadkill, Highway 61 and Hard Core Logo.

User avatar
Galen Young
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:46 pm

#85 Post by Galen Young » Sun Jun 26, 2005 7:59 pm

Recently picked up a cheap DVD of John Schlesinger's Midnight Cowboy, hadn't seen it in years. I was surprised to see how many parallels it has with My Own Private Idaho.
Some random pattern recognition:

Whoopie-Ti-Yi-Yo, Get Along Little Dogies (Woody Guthrie) as sung by Joe Buck at the beginning of Cowboy has a somewhat similar feel to Cattle Call (Eddy Arnold) played over the opening credits of Idaho.

flashback: a young Joe Buck rubbing him grandmother's shoulders, she says "that's nice" and kisses the boy.
Mike Waters having his hair stroked by his mother "don't worry, everything's going to be all right".

another flashback: Grandmother telling a young Joe Buck "bye honey..." while the bus drives past a house with person out front waving.
The house falling out the sky smashing to pieces on the road, has a similar melancholy feeling.

The middle aged women as "customers": Sylvia Miles and Grace Zabriskie

Mickey Cottrell as "Daddy Carroll" performing an over the top bit similar to the outburst by John McGiver's "Mr. O'Daniel".

Todd Haynes makes a quick mention of Midnight Cowboy in his chat with Van Sant on the extras disc, but they don't really discuss it. I wonder if Van Sant was influenced by it at all.

User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#86 Post by blindside8zao » Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:02 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: However, the film really belongs to River Phoenix's incredible performance... Phoenix suggested emotion from simple movements and gestures.

dreamy, romanticism
Glad to see someone so emphatically agree with Phoenix's performance. It's a shame he's not around anymore. I think he'd really be giving Depp competition for the spot of talented Hollywood heart-throb. So ironic that he died outside Depp's club (not implying a conspiracy theory.)

I just let a friend borrow this film and he has watched it at least 2 times in the past few days.

BTW, also thanks for that description of the film as "Dreamy." There definetly is an overall feel to the film that seems to coat everything and unify it, no matter how different the aspects are. The wackily dressed singing man that picks up River, the funeral riot, the Shakespeare, even Kier's routine, all seem to fit together perfectly. I also think that Reeve's style of acting, often described as "bad" seemed to fit into this somehow. "Dreamy" is the only sort of adjective to use.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#87 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:56 am

blindside8zao wrote:Glad to see someone so emphatically agree with Phoenix's performance. It's a shame he's not around anymore. I think he'd really be giving Depp competition for the spot of talented Hollywood heart-throb.
Oh, I know. He showed such fantastic potential with Idaho (and he was also very, very good in Running on Empty) and it's a shame that he died so young. It would've been interesting to see he and Depp compete for roles.
BTW, also thanks for that description of the film as "Dreamy." There definetly is an overall feel to the film that seems to coat everything and unify it, no matter how different the aspects are. The wackily dressed singing man that picks up River, the funeral riot, the Shakespeare, even Kier's routine, all seem to fit together perfectly. I also think that Reeve's style of acting, often described as "bad" seemed to fit into this somehow. "Dreamy" is the only sort of adjective to use.
The more I watch the movie, the less Reeves bothers me. His strength lies in reacting and that's what his character is suppposed to do -- react to what Phoenix's character does.

And yeah, I just love the dreamy vibe of this movie -- Drugstore Cowboy has that to a certain degree too (esp. the drugged out scenes where Matt Dillon's character imagines all sorts of things floating by) -- Idaho, at times, has the feel of a Kerouac novel and I'd love to see Van Sant tackle one of his books -- Maggie Cassidy or Dharma Bums maybe.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#88 Post by zedz » Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:08 pm

davidhare wrote:Right about Reeves.

Even though River's performance is the core of the movie (his death such a waste!) where I once used to feel some irritation with Keanu, particularly in the Shakepearian recitation scenes, ten years later I really enjoy him doing these. After watching more and more Gus it's apparent that part of the pleasure is the clear delight he takes in showcasing beautiful young men, and often maximises their performances. (I also like, having played the commentary, the fact that Gus incporated what was initially meant to be an entirely separate movie of the Henry material into Idaho when it became clear he couldn't make the Henry/Falstaff movie.)

Other pleasures from young preformers, despite protests from some other posters, I like Michael Pitt in Last Days, and even more, Scott Green whom I find absolutely understands what Gus is doing with the movie and is extremely powerful.
I'm with you on Last Days - the performances of the actors and the performance of the director / camera really mesh well - but Reeves still sinks Idaho for me. Phoenix does extraordinary work, and seems completely in tune with what the film is trying to achieve, but Reeves, though visibly trying so hard (the effort is almost painful to watch at times), seems to me baffled, particularly in the Shakespearean scenes. I adore those plays, and watching those scenes make my teeth ache!

User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#89 Post by blindside8zao » Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:51 pm

his bad acting for me seems to fit in very well somehow, with the intense quirkiness of the entire film.

User avatar
zut
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:42 pm
Location: Davis, California

#90 Post by zut » Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:01 pm

The fact that the character Reeves plays is as false and shallow and his delivery has always made Keanu a perfect casting choice, in my opinion. Painful to watch, yes, but perfect. I often wonder if Keanu is aware of exactly how his style works so well with the character of Scott Favor.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#91 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:20 am

blindside8zao wrote:his bad acting for me seems to fit in very well somehow, with the intense quirkiness of the entire film.
Exactly. Along with Flea's awkward line deliveries that make me crack up everytime. Also, the use of real street kids gives the film an authenticity as well.

User avatar
Galen Young
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:46 pm

#92 Post by Galen Young » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:45 am

davidhare wrote:nice parallels with Midnight Cowboy...But it's totally Gus' own movie.

Oh, I'm aware that he was more influenced by John Rechy's City of Night than probably Midnight Cowboy.

Every time I watch Idaho it makes me laugh out loud, while Cowboy is a real punch in the gut. The first time I saw Midnight Cowboy I thought it was old, boring, dated garbage. Then, many years later, it's suddenly become this amazing, emotionally devastating experience. Just that scene alone of Voight's character watching the poodle on TV being dressed in women's lingerie -- as a metaphor for the "American experience" -- fucking hardcore! The expression in his eyes, combined with that music, kills me every time... As poetic as Idaho strives to be, it has none of the gravitas of Cowboy.

User avatar
Zumpano
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:43 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

#93 Post by Zumpano » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:55 pm

I apologise if this has been discussed already. DK Holm's column at moviepoopshoot.com pointed towards this Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02422.html and a New York magazine article that posits that JT LeRoy might actually be a fictional persona constructed by a housewife from Brooklyn.

I am not overly familiar with LeRoy, and have not read/watched the special feautres he/she participates in on the Idaho disc. What gives? Is this a modern literary hoax?

User avatar
toiletduck!
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Contact:

#94 Post by toiletduck! » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:12 pm

Just plowed my way through this, and it's gotta be one of the biggest cases of Criterion overkill I've seen.

The Paul Arthur piece is fantastic, but the official River Phoenix dick-licking that is the conversation between Rain Phoenix and Laurie Parker and Jonathan Caouette and (moreso) JT LeRoy's meandering storytelling jam session are a real struggle to get through.

It could also be because MoPI did very little for me. Lack of personal connection, perhaps? I'm not quite sure why, but I couldn't seem to latch on to this story from any angle. Oddly enough, the only part that did work for me was the Henriad storyline -- the juxtaposition was abrupt enough that this kingdom under the rule of Bob, with its fantastical language, costumes (esp. Bob), and sets (esp. the hotel) never seemed to even attempt to gel with the rest of the film, which was quite alright by me.

And I'm sorry, I wasn't familiar with JT LeRoy until after the outing, so maybe I'm missing a few key elements, but did people really buy into this? I'm finishing the JT/Jonathan convo as I write this and she hasn't provided a single insightful thought in the last 45 minutes. I almost feel sorry for Gus for having to field her questions. "Is that really River peein' right there?" Jesus, a fanboy interview would be more entertaining.

-Toilet Dcuk

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#95 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:11 pm

Zumpano wrote:I apologise if this has been discussed already. DK Holm's column at moviepoopshoot.com pointed towards this Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02422.html and a New York magazine article that posits that JT LeRoy might actually be a fictional persona constructed by a housewife from Brooklyn.

I am not overly familiar with LeRoy, and have not read/watched the special feautres he/she participates in on the Idaho disc. What gives? Is this a modern literary hoax?
Interesting. Filmbrain has a piece on JT LeRoy (along with some links).

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#96 Post by hearthesilence » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:21 pm

I actually like Reeves in this movie. Granted, Phoenix's performance really dominates this film, but Reeves does a fine job. The Henry IV material (I think it's IV and only IV...I'm a little hazy about my Shakespeare) doesn't work, at least, not in this context. Not enough to derail the picture, it's occasionally fun to watch, but it feels more like a distraction or an unwanted detour.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#97 Post by zedz » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:58 pm

It's been years since I watched it, but is there not also a version of the "and all was as cold as any stone" funeral scene from Henry V? I can't think who would have played Mistress Quickly, though.

User avatar
The Elegant Dandy Fop
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:25 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

#98 Post by The Elegant Dandy Fop » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:46 am

Being a typical modern heterosexual male (19 in Los Angeles), I stayed away from this film mostly because the combination of Keanu Reeves and male prostitution didn't sit well with me. I still remember when this was a new release, and my reaction was "Why this from Criterion?" without ever seeing a film by Gus Van Sant. I now regret all previous thoughts I've had of this film.

Absolutely amazing movie. Phoenix's performance displays a certain tenderness that so many male actors seem to be missing, and the entire theme of the movie was so sad, but the presentation didn't make it sappy or contrived. With scenes as diffrent as Udo Kier singing and all the Henry IV parts, it made the movie stand out as much more than the sappy melodrama I'm sure any other director would've made it into. The music is spot on too, from the odd guitar versions of America the Beautiful to Rudy Vallee, everything was spot on. Let me not forget the color scheme, which was magnificent. For a movie with a theme like it had, it was very rich in it's use of colors, and didn't go the cliched route with dull colors, and lots of browns. Just thinking about the Dutch boy scene, I can see all the soft, pastel like colors.

I'm glad I only paid 20 dollars for this, and it's now one of my favorite Criterions. Now I'm waiting until the end of the month. They're showing this as a double feature with Mala Noche. I can't wait till I start digging more into Gus Van Sant.

LeeB.Sims

#99 Post by LeeB.Sims » Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:03 pm

Not to mention the packaging… This is, esthetically speaking, probably my favorite Criterion package I own. The attention to detail is humbling. Note the inside of the digipak slipcase. The extras are extravagant as well and full of valuable insights and trivial tidbits about the film and about Van Sant the artist. For instance, I was very interested to learn from the Todd Haynes audio interview that he originally wanted to cast my personal hero Tom Waits as the lead in Drugstore Cowboy. Well worth $20 (you got a steal). As for the film, like David said, I hope this opens you up to an entirely new, uninhibited world of cinema, as it did for me. Growing up in a conservative religious household, I too was inclined to shy away from the subject matter for some time, finally watching the film at the tender age of nineteen like you. The film became quite a catalyst of sorts for me to grow beyond my predisposed prejudice, not just toward sexuality, or Keanu Reeves for that matter, but toward a whole world of experimental, “artâ€

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#100 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:13 pm

Shawn Levy has written a nice article about the film and the city of Portland.

Post Reply