DVD Release?
Anyone know if MGM has any future plans of releasing this?
I think that silent films got a lot more things right than talkies. --Stanley Kubrick
Not as far as I know, unfortunately. I got the VHS tape for $1.99 through half.com.
share
MovieChat Forums > Track 29 (1988) Discussion > DVD Release?
I hate to say this, but I think this is the sort of film that will only be released in a £200 collector's box set when the director dies. It's an odd little duck and the critics hated it at the time. (I mean, it took FOREVER for Don't Look Now to come out on DVD, and that's regarded as a classic...)
I loved this film, as infuriating as it was. It's refreshing to have a film NOT give you all the answers. It's so completely open to interpretation, even if it is flawed (Theresa Russell's heavy breathing and hair-tossing really got on my nerves by the end).
I have nothing to say, I just love this hat.
I LOVE mulling over stuff like this - I thought about that film for DAYS after I watched it. I'd love to discuss with people what they think it all means. I've only seen it once, and would have to see it many times to catch all the "clues" supposedly hidden in it.
I seldom pay attention to what critics say because all too often I don't agree.
I DO agree with you about Theresa Russell's hair tossing; not to mention her cringe-worthy "Southern" accent and general whininess. (At least her character got over that in the end, IMO.)
I wish I could discuss it properly, Moll (hi! Fancy seeing you here! ), but it's been a few years since I saw it so the details would elude me... I can't even remember: did Christopher Lloyd's character actually die at the end, or was he seen alive after the toy train naked attack scene? I.E. was it another manifestation of Linda's fantasy that he died?
But the notion that a film doesn't necessarily have to be honest with the viewer - that all is not what it seems, that what you're seeing may be due to the characters' own perception, seems to very unusual these days (except as a stylistic device, where the film makes it obvious that "This is a flashback!" or "This is only X's version of events; the truth will be revealed later"). This film - and Don't Look Now - are powerful and fascinating because they don't bother to warn you, "This might not be real. Don't take this for granted". No "true" version of events, or explanatory coda, is ever forthcoming.
Some people don't seem to able to understand that: they watch films like this and say, "But WHAT's going on? It doesn't make sense! Is he real or isn't he? It doesn't explain anything!" It's as if, culturally, we're just so hardwired to expect a straightforward, honest narrative - where the audience is an objective observer and can trust what she sees - that anything else is almost offensive. How dare you prod my sleeping imagination and wake it and ask it to join in! Bad! Bad director! I paid for YOU to entertain ME!
Here's hoping for a Nic Roeg season on TV. I've hardly seen any of his films and they seem to be so hard to get hold of. In fact... [heads off to Amazon to make it her mission to find every last one]
I have nothing to say, I just love this hat.
For the record, I don't think Christopher Lloyd's character died, though we don't see him again. In the end, she's dressed up and getting into her car; and you can hear him yelling her name, even though the blood stain on the ceiling is spreading. What it amounts to, IMO, is she finally said, "I'm outta here" and left the toxic situation that was making her crazy. He was already dead to her, and had been for a long time. (I agree with her girlfriend's assessment that he was crazier than his wife!) He can choose to keep stagnating with his stupid trains; she was choosing to start living life because she was free from her past. The choice of music for the end credits was "Young at Heart" by Rosemary Clooney (someone my parents used to listen to a lot when I was a little tyke.) The idea of the song is that you can start over again. And that's just the ending! I shared some of my thoughts on this film elsewhere, but most didn't care about the story, just seeing Gary naked and in many highly erotic scenes (which I enjoyed too, but I still want to know the story.) It's hard to believe he was about 30 at the time of filming; he looked barely out of his teens!
I agree that audiences have to be spoon-fed these days. It recalled that classic Japanese film Rashomon - it gave four people's version of an event and never said which was "true." I've seen Nic Roeg's Witches with Angelica Huston; it was cute; I'll have to check out more of his stuff.
Thanks so much for that description - I was going to write "clarification" but somehow it didn't seem right!
I love Rosemary Clooney, even though I've only seen her in White Christmas, but she was wonderful in that. If I remember rightly she was only about 23 when she made it but she is just SO classy... strange that, back then, women aspired to seem older and more mature, and yet these days you get every actress from her twenties onward trying to seem like a twelve-year-old...
Gary Oldman does look incredibly baby-faced in this, but then, as has been said elsewhere , he seems to have to ability to completely alter his appearance in each film at a far more fundamental level than just a haircuit and a funny hat. It actually makes the film more ambiguous that way; a lot of reviews I've read said that he turned up claiming to be her son, but actually was Linda's own age, which never seemed that concrete to me; watching it, I couldn't quite figure out how old Martin was supposed to be - he could have been a teenager or a grown man.
They showed us The Witches as an end-of-term treat at school when I was about ten. It scared the living crap out of me and made me physically ill.
I have nothing to say, I just love this hat.
I looked it up, and Theresa Russell is exactly one day short of a year older than Gary. He was able to completely alter his appearance within this film - as Martin and as Martin's "father."
This is my guess, but Martin was real up until he, Linda and Arlanda parted ways at the restaurant; the trucker (who was obviously her baby's father), the waiter and Arlanda saw him and spoke to him. I think he was really looking for his mother (a lot of people who were adopted do), but whether or not Linda was his mother is not clear. I doubt it; otherwise, he'd have stuck around longer (for real.) Linda only fantasized about him long after he'd moved on.
[deleted]
I just got this movie not long ago, so it's brand new to me, and it's great! I saw where you wrote about your guinea pig; do you still have "Martin"?
I haven't figured out why Martin just appears on that bridge in the very beginning. You could be right about his being in Linda's imagination all that time. But then, I could be right, too! That's the beauty of it; everybody can come away with their own interpretation.
I think Linda just superimposed Martin's face on the bumper-car guy, and that it was actually the trucker years ago. I've read in so many synopses of this movie that she was raped, but I don't think she was. It was her first time and she was nervous, but got into it once they got started. She told Arlanda years later how "electric" he was, so it sounded like a fond memory. It said a lot about sexual repression in that place and time. She had sex, she enjoyed sex, (which may have been the greater "sin") and got pregnant. She talked about how her father punished her; and we see her husband being whipped by his nurse. There's so much talk of "bad" boys and girls. Very repressed atmosphere - yuck!
And the M.O.T.H.E.R. song was wonderful! I loved his voice! (And we got to hear it twice!) I've seen and enjoyed many of Gary's movies, but I've got a soft spot for Martin!
"Some people don't seem to able to understand that: they watch films like this and say, "But WHAT's going on? It doesn't make sense! Is he real or isn't he? It doesn't explain anything!" It's as if, culturally, we're just so hardwired to expect a straightforward, honest narrative - where the audience is an objective observer and can trust what she sees - that anything else is almost offensive. How dare you prod my sleeping imagination and wake it and ask it to join in! Bad! Bad director! I paid for YOU to entertain ME! "
People don't want to feel stupid. Thats why a movie like this can never get a large audiance. Like you say everything must be upfront and clear or they'll hate it.
Long live Nic Roeg!!
I think even Gary said he didn't know what it all meant. I'm sure he had ideas, but you can't fit things like that into a sound byte.
shareI was able to get a Region 2 DVD version of it from some guy in the Netherlands (I was even able to turn off the Dutch subtitles.) I can play any region on my computer, though some day I'll own an all-region DVD player, so it'll be a moot point. But, yes, Track 29 IS available on DVD, just only for Region 2.
(Yeah, I know the original post is old, but I put this here just in case anybody's still looking for it on DVD. I have the guy's email if you want to PM me.)
Anyone know if MGM has any future plans of releasing this?share
I live in The Netherlands and bought a copy today for 3 Euro ($3,50). Bit IT is Pan & Scan, which is a pity.
shareHi everyone,
I noticed that it has been almost 3 years since the original post in this thread and still no DVD release available here in Canada as far as I know!!
This is one of my favourite Gary Oldman performances and I would love to finally have it on DVD. Anyone heard anything yet about a release date?
Thanks :o)