277 - My Own Private Idaho

[captainofbeef]

DIRECTOR APPROVED SPECIAL EDITION DOUBLE-DISC SET FEATURES:

Disc #1: The Film
- New, restored high-definition digital transfer
- Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack
- Original theatrical trailer
- English subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired

Disc #2: The Supplements
- Exclusive new audio interview with Gus Van San by filmmaker Todd Haynes
- The Making of My Own Private Idaho, a new documentary featuring "Idaho" crew members
- King Of The Road, a new video interview with film scholar Paul Arthur in which he discusses Van Sant's adaptation of Orson Welles and Shakespeare
- New video conversation between producer Laurie Parker and River Phoenix's sister Rain
- New audio conversation between writer JT LeRoy (The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things) and filmmaker Jonathan Caouette (Tarnations)
- Deleted Scenes
PLUS: A 64-page book featuring new essays by JT LeRoy and film critic Amy Taubin, a 1991 article by Lance Loud, and reprinted interviews with Van Sant, Phoenix, and Reeves

[criterionmaster]

This film is truly amazing. Reeves is even good in this. Van Sant's direction is perfect for the story. The film is def. worth a watch.

[criterionmaster]

agentknight said:

MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO - 3/10

I found this film boring. Perhaps it was the narrative - two man-hookers bouncing around from city to city doesn't really come across as a really appealing topic for films as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps it was how the two leads were entirely unlikable and the actors failed to make their performances even somewhat competent. The word "understated" wouldn't even work here. Perhaps it was that the film was really convinced that it's narrative was really quirky and unusual and freeform, when in actuality it was just aimless and lacking any sort of unifying theme (well, aside from a stock standard coming-of-age moral that comes across as really forced). Perhaps it was the stagey dialogue. Whatever it was, I just didn't enjoy this film, and it was a complete and utter letdown after being blown away by Gerry and Elephant.

I thought that its narrative was so “loose” because of Rivers' character's narcolepsy. When he would pass out, the film would wake up with him, whenever and wherever the character ended up, so there were many missing parts in the film. But that actually made me feel in some ways like the character. I didn't think the narrative tried to be quirky either; Van Sant went for the realism of the disease.

And as for the performances, I thought they were fantastic, and real. Reeves easily gives the best performance of his career, and Rivers is fantastic as well. Also the supporting characters felt real as well.

And how about the sex scene(s), I really thought that was a very original way to show sex. Sex as art, in still photograph form. Except instead of being photographs, having the characters remain still. And the ending was so strong, and just amazing. One of my all-time favorites.

I suppose it would be hard to like it if you weren't engaged by the story, but I for one was. Also I am surprised you like Elephant which, in many ways, is just like this film. It is just as aimless, and also has a fairly forced message. And the style was just as much trying to be different; trying to be very loose, freeform, and original. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Elephant just as much as My Own Private Idaho (lol), but I am just saying it does have the same approach to filmmaking.

Also great photography; that long street is a very striking image to me.

[agentknight]

I thought that its narrative was so “loose” because of Rivers' character's narcolepsy. When he would pass out, the film would wake up with him, whenever and wherever the character ended up, so there were many missing parts in the film. But that actually made me feel in some ways like the character. I didn't think the narrative tried to be quirky either; Van Sant went for the realism of the disease.

The narcolepsy, I think, was one of the redeeming features of the film, but I think the film really failed to actually use this in an interesting context. Honestly, the film would have been a lot better if the places he woke up in were a little more interesting, instead of just bouncing around from random place to random place.

And as for the performances, I thought they were fantastic, and real. Reeves easily gives the best performance of his career, and Rivers is fantastic as well. Also the supporting characters felt real as well.

I liked the character of Bob, but all the other characters felt really hollow to me. Reeves, as usual, was completely lifeless.

And how about the sex scene(s), I really thought that was a very original way to show sex. Sex as art, in still photograph form. Except instead of being photographs, having the characters remain still. And the ending was so strong, and just amazing. One of my all-time favorites.

It was really the sex scenes that bothered me, it's just that a movie about hookers (male or female) doesn't really appeal to me. There were a few nice bits of dialogue that hinted at how their profession was, in some way, dangerous, but this definitely could have been extrapolated upon.

I suppose it would be hard to like it if you weren't engaged by the story, but I for one was. Also I am surprised you like Elephant which, in many ways, is just like this film. It is just as aimless, and also has a fairly forced message. And the style was just as much trying to be different; trying to be very loose, freeform, and original. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Elephant just as much as My Own Private Idaho (lol), but I am just saying it does have the same approach to filmmaking.

I can't say I agree with you saying that Elephant and MOPI have similar filmmaking styles, because when it comes to narrative/mood, MOPI bounced around a bit, and sort of leaped from one idea to the next, while Elephant sort of repeated and revised the same situation over and over again, creating a sense of order that really contrasts well with the ending. But why do I love it so much? Elephant hit me hard because, even though I don't have a two dudes killing all of my freinds and teachers around me I could really relate to some of the characters. The music lessons, the videogames, the bulimia, all of it felt somehow familar. I suppose if I wasn't a teenager I wouldn't like it as much, but alas, I am. Also, Elephant and Gerry had these utterly gorgeous, epic pans, while My Own Private Idaho stuck with still shots, which ultimately makes a pretty huge difference in terms of mood.

Also great photography; that long street is a very striking image to me.

The image quality of the DVD I watched it on was shocking so I couldn't even comment.

I can't really pinpoint exactly what prevented me from enjoying the film, but it just didn't work for me. I felt it could have been so much more than it was. I think it could have really, really worked if the direction was more deft, and when comparing Van Sant's loose treatment of this film and his confident, powerful control over Elephant and Gerry the difference is pretty huge.

[criterionmaster]

agentknight said:

I thought that its narrative was so “loose” because of Rivers' character's narcolepsy. When he would pass out, the film would wake up with him, whenever and wherever the character ended up, so there were many missing parts in the film. But that actually made me feel in some ways like the character. I didn't think the narrative tried to be quirky either; Van Sant went for the realism of the disease.

The narcolepsy, I think, was one of the redeeming features of the film, but I think the film really failed to actually use this in an interesting context. Honestly, the film would have been a lot better if the places he woke up in were a little more interesting, instead of just bouncing around from random place to random place.



I liked the character of Bob, but all the other characters felt really hollow to me. Reeves, as usual, was completely lifeless.



It was really the sex scenes that bothered me, it's just that a movie about hookers (male or female) doesn't really appeal to me. There were a few nice bits of dialogue that hinted at how their profession was, in some way, dangerous, but this definitely could have been extrapolated upon.



I can't say I agree with you saying that Elephant and MOPI have similar filmmaking styles, because when it comes to narrative/mood, MOPI bounced around a bit, and sort of leaped from one idea to the next, while Elephant sort of repeated and revised the same situation over and over again, creating a sense of order that really contrasts well with the ending. But why do I love it so much? Elephant hit me hard because, even though I don't have a two dudes killing all of my freinds and teachers around me I could really relate to some of the characters. The music lessons, the videogames, the bulimia, all of it felt somehow familar. I suppose if I wasn't a teenager I wouldn't like it as much, but alas, I am. Also, Elephant and Gerry had these utterly gorgeous, epic pans, while My Own Private Idaho stuck with still shots, which ultimately makes a pretty huge difference in terms of mood.

Also great photography; that long street is a very striking image to me.

The image quality of the DVD I watched it on was shocking so I couldn't even comment.

I can't really pinpoint exactly what prevented me from enjoying the film, but it just didn't work for me. I felt it could have been so much more than it was. I think it could have really, really worked if the direction was more deft, and when comparing Van Sant's loose treatment of this film and his confident, powerful control over Elephant and Gerry the difference is pretty huge.

I think that if he woke up in interesting situations and places it would have seemed a little too forced to make the story more interesting. It would have been a little too coincidental. The randomness of where he ends up is one of my favorite things about it.

Yeah, like I said, when you don’t connect with the story it’s harder to get you connected with what happens.
The idea was very evident in both films I thought. MOPI did jump around, but I thought that was the idea, it just went from place to place, scene to scene, almost like a series of vignettes. Whereas Elephant was a series of the same scene(s), shown over and over, but from different perspective/angles. And yes, I feel the same way when it comes to films about teenagers. Films like Elephant and Kids are easier for me to connect with because they are kids.

I didn’t think it was a perfect film, I give it a 9, for some of the things you state I take off a point, I don’t think it is enough to knock too much off. There is so much I like about it.

I would like to hear some more thoughts from people on this film, this is a good discussion.

[agentknight]

I too would like to hear people's thoughts. Contribute!