It’s all good and for the benefit of Criterion and such companies in a way… Even if someone has a non official copy of a movie produced by Criterion, with the Criterion logo everywhere on it and the problem finding good versions of old movies, even a ‘pirate’ would consider it best to buy a criterion dvd than get more illegal copies… Criterion, besides, caters for the minority of movie goers and dvd shoppers (the ones who care for old cinema, which aren’t as many as those who care for latest Hollywood) and therefore ANY sort of projection of ‘old’ classics would help the public know about them and become Criterion’s clients… Hence, even if it is illegal, Criterion still benefits and it would have been actually a shame for Film Annex to show them online without Criterion’s logo (they give credit).
#Watch the message movie online free
Similarly Film Annex or online sites with films serve like libraries with FREE access where one can explore cinema. Perhaps the only thing that can help on a free basis is a videotape library (that’s I found about about Tarkovsky like I said). The far east cultures are the only ones producing now any fresh looks on cinematic art.Ī Bank account and a house cannot help with appreciating/discovering directors like Tarkovsky and what they thought of cinema. But today you see directors making movies without knowing their subject well, only technical abilities and no intellectual input (talking about contemporary newer German cinema, to give an example). Tarkovsky’s best movies are about issues he himself understood well (the dying director, the immigrant life, the search for something ‘else’, the reunification with loved ones, so many themes he knew from his own bio). His advice to young directors was ”do not differentiate your work from the kind of life you have”. I know nobody alive director who is that down to earth and honest about his own work and cinema in general (Tarkovsky said it is very expensive art). And he seemed relaxed about the possibility of not being ‘perfect’ (he didnt like his Solaris film). To me he seems to deliberately urging the craft against any ‘logical’ sequence of storytelling but not cause he wants to appear cool like some todays directors, it was his own genuine way of thinking and practicing art. He died young but he left us with so much to discuss and think and he did have a voice of his own that I see other directors sort of copy now, dare I say (especially the cinematic poetic device of one scene in slow motion, I think Tarkovsky was one of the first to use it). I have watched documentaries about him cause I was curious. Sabaka!! (the jealous monk to the dog before he kills it…).Not to mention how many scenes are stuck in my mind from that movies (the fire, the young bell maker yelling, the poor jester in the rain, the finale with the orthodox icon montage.). I appreciate this director so much especially cause I discovered him by chance (in my uni’s library) and I spent so many hours in the library watching again and again Rublev I even remember quotes (in Russian too).