I guess this helps explain why we've seen so many Criterion re-releases of already released films in recent years.AV Club on the Apu Restoration wrote:L’Immagine Ritrovata did the analog remastering and we did the digital remaster. So from our end, since we have an in-house lab, we can dedicate all our resources to the project.
Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?
- jindianajonz
- Jindiana Jonz Abrams
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm
Re: Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?
- vsski
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:47 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
For the first time in many many months, I feel this is the Criterion I used to love and that got me into collecting movies in the first place, as all 4 releases are for me part of the canon of cinema.
Just to preface this post for the mods, if it's the wrong place and should be posted somewhere else, please feel free to move (somehow I felt it didn't fit into the "why don't they only release what I want threat", as the issue at hand is a different one).
I started collecting movies back in the Laserdisc days thanks to Criterion, was one of the early DVD adopters and of course leapt up everything that Criterion put out. I grew up in Europe watching what in the US are the so called art house movies on late night TV and while my high school friends were hanging out at parties, I would rush home for the 11pm showing of a Bunuel movie (make of that what you want ). So when I moved to the US in the mid nineties I had already discovered Criterion, but the Laserdiscs were mostly unaffordable to me at the time, so I only bought select ones. Needless to say that proliferation of DVDs and the significant drop in price was a gift. Of course many other labels have popped up over the years with noteworthy releases, but few with the consistent output of the movies I grew up with and that I had read hundreds of books about than the ones Criterion put out. And if you match this with my tendency to collect, the spine numbers made it a must for me to buy every release and until somewhere in the 900s I own every single disc and reissue that Criterion has put out. And while I understand that due to resource limitations and rights issues, one single company will not be able to get their hands on every movie I want, Criterion came pretty close most of the time.
I had never been a huge fan of some of their newer titles (Michael Bay anyone or the on this forum much beloved Border Radio ), but these were outliers usually.
However, since what I now call the infamous attack on Criterion not representing minorities sufficiently enough, I have to admit that many of the titles published leave me rather uninterested and cold. And not because I don't want minorities to be able to have their films seen or I'm not interested in watching some of these movies, but for me they don't hold the same position than the Kurosawas, Godards, Truffauts, Fellinis, Bergmans, Welles, Bunuels, Chabrols, Ozus, Naruses, Angelopolous', and many others that I consider dear and of which many are still not on the market in a "Criterion-worthy" edition.
I realize of course that labels are commercial enterprises that need to make money, but Criterion always seemed to have been on a different playing field and had less of a need to put out the latest Marvel comic book adaptation or cult horror movie to get by, and I never felt that it was Criterion's mission to include minorities just because they are minorities. They always did have filmmakers from minority groups, countries less represented and female filmmakers as well, but these movies were in the collection because they represented something unique in terms of the movie and not just to appease some vocal advocacy group.
All of this is not to say that I don't want any label to publish these movies (and not to be misunderstood, a release like the Melvin van Peebles does for me belong into the Criterion canon and is essential from a film history perspective), on the contrary, but for me, the recent pattern of releases has at least to some extent destroyed what Criterion stood for and why I have been collecting their discs for over 25 years now. It is not what I associated and loved about the label and it is one of the reasons, why I have discontinued picking up every spine, as by now there are simply too many I no longer cherish and it's not so easy to overlook the occasional Border Radio digression just to keep the collection complete.
I'm sure many here will attack my post as having a narrow view of cinema , of not that many old masters left to be released for Criterion, of not giving enough credit to newer filmmakers, of not giving minorities the forum they need, and for every release there will be a strong supporter, but for me the magic that was Criterion is lost. And for the record I own over 7000 discs from every walk of cinema life and period in history and country.
At the same time I was incredibly happy when I saw this month's announcements, as at least it has 4 titles I know I will be picking up and looking forward to seeing. So I'm hoping this will not be a one off month but a return to the Criterion I love.
Just to preface this post for the mods, if it's the wrong place and should be posted somewhere else, please feel free to move (somehow I felt it didn't fit into the "why don't they only release what I want threat", as the issue at hand is a different one).
I started collecting movies back in the Laserdisc days thanks to Criterion, was one of the early DVD adopters and of course leapt up everything that Criterion put out. I grew up in Europe watching what in the US are the so called art house movies on late night TV and while my high school friends were hanging out at parties, I would rush home for the 11pm showing of a Bunuel movie (make of that what you want ). So when I moved to the US in the mid nineties I had already discovered Criterion, but the Laserdiscs were mostly unaffordable to me at the time, so I only bought select ones. Needless to say that proliferation of DVDs and the significant drop in price was a gift. Of course many other labels have popped up over the years with noteworthy releases, but few with the consistent output of the movies I grew up with and that I had read hundreds of books about than the ones Criterion put out. And if you match this with my tendency to collect, the spine numbers made it a must for me to buy every release and until somewhere in the 900s I own every single disc and reissue that Criterion has put out. And while I understand that due to resource limitations and rights issues, one single company will not be able to get their hands on every movie I want, Criterion came pretty close most of the time.
I had never been a huge fan of some of their newer titles (Michael Bay anyone or the on this forum much beloved Border Radio ), but these were outliers usually.
However, since what I now call the infamous attack on Criterion not representing minorities sufficiently enough, I have to admit that many of the titles published leave me rather uninterested and cold. And not because I don't want minorities to be able to have their films seen or I'm not interested in watching some of these movies, but for me they don't hold the same position than the Kurosawas, Godards, Truffauts, Fellinis, Bergmans, Welles, Bunuels, Chabrols, Ozus, Naruses, Angelopolous', and many others that I consider dear and of which many are still not on the market in a "Criterion-worthy" edition.
I realize of course that labels are commercial enterprises that need to make money, but Criterion always seemed to have been on a different playing field and had less of a need to put out the latest Marvel comic book adaptation or cult horror movie to get by, and I never felt that it was Criterion's mission to include minorities just because they are minorities. They always did have filmmakers from minority groups, countries less represented and female filmmakers as well, but these movies were in the collection because they represented something unique in terms of the movie and not just to appease some vocal advocacy group.
All of this is not to say that I don't want any label to publish these movies (and not to be misunderstood, a release like the Melvin van Peebles does for me belong into the Criterion canon and is essential from a film history perspective), on the contrary, but for me, the recent pattern of releases has at least to some extent destroyed what Criterion stood for and why I have been collecting their discs for over 25 years now. It is not what I associated and loved about the label and it is one of the reasons, why I have discontinued picking up every spine, as by now there are simply too many I no longer cherish and it's not so easy to overlook the occasional Border Radio digression just to keep the collection complete.
I'm sure many here will attack my post as having a narrow view of cinema , of not that many old masters left to be released for Criterion, of not giving enough credit to newer filmmakers, of not giving minorities the forum they need, and for every release there will be a strong supporter, but for me the magic that was Criterion is lost. And for the record I own over 7000 discs from every walk of cinema life and period in history and country.
At the same time I was incredibly happy when I saw this month's announcements, as at least it has 4 titles I know I will be picking up and looking forward to seeing. So I'm hoping this will not be a one off month but a return to the Criterion I love.
- dustybooks
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
- Location: Wilmington, NC
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
I'll go along with the notion that some aspects of the infamous NYT article were wrongheaded, and I think were rightly called out as such on this forum when it was printed, namely the sense I get that Criterion is seen as a sort of international film registry of important works -- which, to be fair, is a misconception they tend to court in their marketing materials and even the sheer fact of numbering their releases -- and not merely a boutique label that releases what it can when it can. There's also the matter of sales being a hindrance to the idea of educating the public on the absolute entirety of world cinema without building on existing canons. And as someone at this forum pointed out very recently, Criterion gets an unfair amount of scrutiny on these matters when compared to other labels, which I'd say is the Faustian bargain they've made by being "the" king of the boutiques.
All that said, I have to ask, when was this mythical period when Criterion was exclusively devoted to the peddling of the works of infallible cinematic masters? As far as I can tell, all the way back to the laserdisc era and certainly in the halcyon days of the DVD format's booming popularity, Fellini and Bergman and Mizoguchi have always shared space with now-questionable contemporary Hollywood pictures and such stunt selections as Fishing with John. Among the first 100 spine numbers are of course RoboCop, Armageddon and Chasing Amy -- not here to debate the merits of these films but just to say that I'd say Love & Basketball can scarcely be cited as more of a stretch from any mission statement. Incidentally, if you could see the complete archives of this forum at its old pre-2004 home (and maybe even in some of the older posts that are still on this server) you'd read plenty of grumbling and sniping about the label's dedication to Wes Anderson who's now a fairly secure darling of auteurists everywhere. And looking at the stuff Criterion has announced and released in the last year, I see evidence of them being a little more mindful of the criticisms, but mostly I see them doing more or less what they've always done, across four formats now, for better or worse.
All that said, I have to ask, when was this mythical period when Criterion was exclusively devoted to the peddling of the works of infallible cinematic masters? As far as I can tell, all the way back to the laserdisc era and certainly in the halcyon days of the DVD format's booming popularity, Fellini and Bergman and Mizoguchi have always shared space with now-questionable contemporary Hollywood pictures and such stunt selections as Fishing with John. Among the first 100 spine numbers are of course RoboCop, Armageddon and Chasing Amy -- not here to debate the merits of these films but just to say that I'd say Love & Basketball can scarcely be cited as more of a stretch from any mission statement. Incidentally, if you could see the complete archives of this forum at its old pre-2004 home (and maybe even in some of the older posts that are still on this server) you'd read plenty of grumbling and sniping about the label's dedication to Wes Anderson who's now a fairly secure darling of auteurists everywhere. And looking at the stuff Criterion has announced and released in the last year, I see evidence of them being a little more mindful of the criticisms, but mostly I see them doing more or less what they've always done, across four formats now, for better or worse.
-
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:17 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
"I've decided what counts as important, and if it doesn't fit my definition and it was made by a minority or a woman, it's only because Criterion is caving to the woke mob." Like, you get a definitive Bergman box, a beautiful Fellini box, Blu rays of Bunuel's last films, three Godard releases in the last two years, a stunning Magnificent Ambersons release, and you get mad because they also release a couple of films from Amazon/Netflix made by black people and women (which seems to have way more to do with their relationship with those companies than any idea of wokeness).vsski wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:51 pmHowever, since what I now call the infamous attack on Criterion not representing minorities sufficiently enough, I have to admit that many of the titles published leave me rather uninterested and cold. And not because I don't want minorities to be able to have their films seen or I'm not interested in watching some of these movies, but for me they don't hold the same position than the Kurosawas, Godards, Truffauts, Fellinis, Bergmans, Welles, Bunuels, Chabrols, Ozus, Naruses, Angelopolous', and many others that I consider dear and of which many are still not on the market in a "Criterion-worthy" edition.
I realize of course that labels are commercial enterprises that need to make money, but Criterion always seemed to have been on a different playing field and had less of a need to put out the latest Marvel comic book adaptation or cult horror movie to get by, and I never felt that it was Criterion's mission to include minorities just because they are minorities. They always did have filmmakers from minority groups, countries less represented and female filmmakers as well, but these movies were in the collection because they represented something unique in terms of the movie and not just to appease some vocal advocacy group.
I wonder if there hadn't been that NYT article, but all the releases had been exactly the same if people would still complain about this.
- Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
Since 1984, the Criterion Collection has been dedicated to publishing important classic and contemporary films fromaround the world in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations with special features designed to encourage repeated watching and deepen the viewer’s appreciation of the art of film.
-
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:27 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
See this is where they've really begun to falter. They still do some nice editions but they've pretty much been surpassed in every department (I understand part of this is owing to the fact that they don't do limited editions which has it's upside too).Drucker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:30 pmSince 1984, the Criterion Collection has been dedicated to publishing important classic and contemporary films from around the world in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations with special features designed to encourage repeated watching and deepen the viewer’s appreciation of the art of film.
- cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
While the article may have pushed things, it's not like they could literally just pull some of these titles out of their ass so quickly, and I'm sure a number of them were on the schedule in one form or another. It's doubtful they just went to Warner and said give us Love & Basketball and Deep Cover NOW with 4K restorations, or pull together the Van Peebles or the Riggs films suddenly. There had to be some base planning or initial work already in place in a lot of cases.mikeyzjames wrote: I wonder if there hadn't been that NYT article, but all the releases had been exactly the same if people would still complain about this.
That article only came out last year didn't it?
-
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:49 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
The Times article was August 20, 2020.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
I agree with dustybooks overall, that hindsight and time accumulating newfound collective darlings allow us to view the slate of past announcements with rosy-colored glasses, but we'll see how much diversity and amplification the "unnecessary release" category accrues during the annual forum awards as the relationship with these streaming services continues, which is my real concern. Whatever consequences from the NYT article only stack up with studio/streaming deals and format upgrading as amassing priorities to manage that of course will consume attention otherwise directed elsewhere, but it's also led to some great changes and releases. I think the "Why don't they only release what I want" thread, or whatever it's called, is probably where most of our personal gripes and cheers belong, as for me personally I think I'm bitter about what I perceive being neglected as more vital and temporally-binding in favor of some other unnecessary films- though none of the films centered around people of color in wake of the NYT article fit that subjective grievance, that I can think of. Whether or not they do for some is fine if because of the individualized feelings on the quality of the films themselves rather than anything racist or misogynistic etc., but as others have stated, this has always been the case and always will be, and we can find appropriate places to observe and air said issues unfiltered on other known areas of the internet. Criterion is prioritizing certain directions that may result in some friction of output with our personal tastes, but it's not a reflection on the company doing something "wrong" even if their ethos inherently is so expansive with dedication to exposing the depths of the art form that it does not leave enough room to attend to all the films in 'need' of proper release and give us all what we want.
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
I often wondered if the article was instigated by Peter Becker as a form of PR.cdnchris wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:58 pmWhile the article may have pushed things, it's not like they could literally just pull some of these titles out of their ass so quickly, and I'm sure a number of them were on the schedule in one form or another. It's doubtful they just went to Warner and said give us Love & Basketball and Deep Cover NOW with 4K restorations, or pull together the Van Peebles or the Riggs films suddenly. There had to be some base planning or initial work already in place in a lot of cases.mikeyzjames wrote: I wonder if there hadn't been that NYT article, but all the releases had been exactly the same if people would still complain about this.
That article only came out last year didn't it?
- CSM126
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: The Room
- Contact:
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
We already have a “why won’t they release what I want?” thread. Do we need a “why are they releasing things I don’t want?” thread too? Like, no offense but who could possibly f-ing care. It’s a privately held business doing what it wants to and turning a profit. How does that affect you, the protagonist of reality?
If they release something you don’t want, ignore it. Criterion isn’t ruining its prestige or whatever because that exists solely in the eye of the beholder to begin with. Some people think Scream Factory is prestigious, or Twilight Time, or probably even Facets (there’s always that one weirdo). Some people think Criterion is shit. Most of us think it’s just the be more label putting out movies.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Criterion. Otherwise why am I here? I appreciate the work they do, and lord knows they’ve released quite a few films that otherwise might have languished. And some of my favorite movies have gotten lovely treatment under the wacky c. But for god’s sake I don’t need every disc they release to be either something I approve of or an established monolith of the cinema. If the people who own the company like a movie and get to release it, that’s nice. I could gripe about some obscurity like Love Jones getting attention instead of some other obscurity that I know and love, or I can move on. Or I can be heartened to know that obscurities are still getting attention at all, cuz maybe that means there’s a chance for my darlings someday.
If they release something you don’t want, ignore it. Criterion isn’t ruining its prestige or whatever because that exists solely in the eye of the beholder to begin with. Some people think Scream Factory is prestigious, or Twilight Time, or probably even Facets (there’s always that one weirdo). Some people think Criterion is shit. Most of us think it’s just the be more label putting out movies.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Criterion. Otherwise why am I here? I appreciate the work they do, and lord knows they’ve released quite a few films that otherwise might have languished. And some of my favorite movies have gotten lovely treatment under the wacky c. But for god’s sake I don’t need every disc they release to be either something I approve of or an established monolith of the cinema. If the people who own the company like a movie and get to release it, that’s nice. I could gripe about some obscurity like Love Jones getting attention instead of some other obscurity that I know and love, or I can move on. Or I can be heartened to know that obscurities are still getting attention at all, cuz maybe that means there’s a chance for my darlings someday.
- Ribs
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
I don’t necessarily agree with the pile-on, but I would just say if you are willing to make an exception for Melvin van Peebles due to it meeting some threshold of classic enough I have a hard time seeing how you wouldn’t also include Gordon Parks or Marlon Riggs in that same group (all three of whom are people whose works I was introduced to in film school). So you’re ultimately seeming disappointed about like four or five releases when so many have been proclaiming several of the titles as welcome breaths of fresh air and thinking outside the box for what gets an edition. The canon is not fixed, it grows; there literally are no more ground to cover for some of the very same filmmakers you asked, at least two of whom are basically 100% series wrap on Criterion, see you in the 4K era because no more Blus are possibly coming after comprehensive boxes came already.
- Boosmahn
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:08 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
As long as Criterion does this, in my book, they will always surpass* labels like Arrow and Indicator. They're all amazing companies, but it's frustrating to have great essays and interviews out of reach because I wasn't quick or rich enough to buy the first pressing.Glowingwabbit wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:55 pmThey still do some nice editions but they've pretty much been surpassed in every department (I understand part of this is owing to the fact that they don't do limited editions which has it's upside too).
* Not on the individual edition level, of course.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
You just said no offense and then a subsequent comment I can't help but read as intending to offend. You could take your own advice and lead by example by ignoring what you don't want to see here. No we don't need such a thread, I was merely saying it would be a more appropriate place in an abstract sense rather than make it into an objective point about what should and shouldn't happen- so definitely in agreement with some of what you said. Though I think that people who are concerned about patterns in priorities from a release model of a company they follow and care about, rather than specific films/slates on a month-to-month basis, should be able to discuss it without hostility. What affects us is different, so assuming that to be uniform and objectively meaningless is invalidating, and communicating that through extrapolating your own perspective onto the value of others' makes your comment about solipsism ironic. Try unsubscribing from a thread if you don't like it.CSM126 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:30 pmWe already have a “why won’t they release what I want?” thread. Do we need a “why are they releasing things I don’t want?” thread too? Like, no offense but who could possibly f-ing care. It’s a privately held business doing what it wants to and turning a profit. How does that affect you, the protagonist of reality?
If they release something you don’t want, ignore it.
- CSM126
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: The Room
- Contact:
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
I can’t fathom being subscribed to a thread in the first place.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
Rats then you'll just have to cope with triggers I guess
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
I understand the desire for more canonical works being released. We know Criterion is sitting on many works from many conventionally or traditionally “important” filmmakers that are just sitting on a shelf somewhere. But as many others have pointed out: One, this is always how it’s been; Two, Criterion, like every label eventually, releases a mix of films that meet its perceived marketing image and films that are just favorites of someone at the label; Three, the biggest complaint for years around here has been that Criterion is too safe and frankly, them shining a spotlight on a lot of these titles that might not ever find such a treatment is a good thing for us consumers, because by casting a wider net you are likely to eventually be on the receiving end of a great discovery or rescue for a beloved outlying film.
Criterion is not the only label out there, and I feel like everyone here learns to stop lionizing them pretty early. They exist to make money but I believe that lately they feel some kind of responsibility to lift up filmmakers beyond the traditional white male auteurs in addition to still releasing films by white males. So fundamentally these criticisms are always a bit weird, because this way everyone wins
Criterion is not the only label out there, and I feel like everyone here learns to stop lionizing them pretty early. They exist to make money but I believe that lately they feel some kind of responsibility to lift up filmmakers beyond the traditional white male auteurs in addition to still releasing films by white males. So fundamentally these criticisms are always a bit weird, because this way everyone wins
- brundlefly
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
But there are gaps in his spine numbers, please let's consider what's important.
I find it more exciting to see a company acknowledge and excitedly explore its blind spots than to watch it stand guard at rusty country club gates. More voices, more voices.
I find it more exciting to see a company acknowledge and excitedly explore its blind spots than to watch it stand guard at rusty country club gates. More voices, more voices.
- vsski
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:47 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
My my, I didn't think the discussion would take a turn like this, I expected more comments along the lines, "well that's your opinion and I don't disagree with you" rather than people reading racist or misogynistic tendencies into my article.
I also never said that Criterion was wrong with their release strategy. I clearly stated they are a commercial label and therefore can release what they want.
But let's face it Criterion for the longest time has been known as the most significant label putting out what many people would consider the canonical titles of directors that had gazillions of books written about them and being shown in cinema classes to this day - and Criterion built its brand on that. Yes from the beginning they have always published titles like Fishing with John or personal favorites of staff and dustybooks may have a more accurate view than I do, as to how many of them there have been in the past, maybe I conveniently forgot a few of them.
When I look at the DVD / BD/ UHD market today, I see few companies that seem to put out movies with interesting supplements that I treasure and why I buy a disc in the first place (if all it is, is the movie, I might as well stream it). So I buy lots of movies from Indicator, Arrow, BFI, MOC, Second Run and of course Criterion - unfortunately I don't know any other US label that consistently puts out the quality and extras the UK labels do except Criterion (Olive had a few editions once in while and do did Kino, but I wouldn't call that consistently).
However, when I look at all these companies, the one company that is most likely to publish more canonical titles is Criterion and as Domino said, we know they are sitting on lots of titles, but are not releasing them.
And whether the NYT article was a turning point that shifted their release schedule (Chris is right some of these titles materialized too quickly to not have been in the pipeline in some form at least), whether Criterion simply feels its time to diversify and move away from the canonical titles, whether its the agreements with the streaming sites as TWBB has said, or whether it's something different altogether, I perceive a change in direction and I look at it with mixed feelings given my long history with the company. I won't lose sleepless nights over it, but I don't see any other label to consistently release some of these canonical titles any time soon.
So I was happy with the latest release slate as it provided a trip down memory lane, so to speak.
And for those of you who believe I only want to watch movies by white male directors or harbor any other ill sentiments against minorities, I invite you to look at the 6000 non-Criterion discs I'm owning, whose majority, by far, are all by filmmakers that no one would dream of putting into the white male category. I was buying discs from African American filmmakers the moment the first ones came on the market back in the nineties, so I suggest not to invent things without knowing anything about me.
I also never said that Criterion was wrong with their release strategy. I clearly stated they are a commercial label and therefore can release what they want.
But let's face it Criterion for the longest time has been known as the most significant label putting out what many people would consider the canonical titles of directors that had gazillions of books written about them and being shown in cinema classes to this day - and Criterion built its brand on that. Yes from the beginning they have always published titles like Fishing with John or personal favorites of staff and dustybooks may have a more accurate view than I do, as to how many of them there have been in the past, maybe I conveniently forgot a few of them.
When I look at the DVD / BD/ UHD market today, I see few companies that seem to put out movies with interesting supplements that I treasure and why I buy a disc in the first place (if all it is, is the movie, I might as well stream it). So I buy lots of movies from Indicator, Arrow, BFI, MOC, Second Run and of course Criterion - unfortunately I don't know any other US label that consistently puts out the quality and extras the UK labels do except Criterion (Olive had a few editions once in while and do did Kino, but I wouldn't call that consistently).
However, when I look at all these companies, the one company that is most likely to publish more canonical titles is Criterion and as Domino said, we know they are sitting on lots of titles, but are not releasing them.
And whether the NYT article was a turning point that shifted their release schedule (Chris is right some of these titles materialized too quickly to not have been in the pipeline in some form at least), whether Criterion simply feels its time to diversify and move away from the canonical titles, whether its the agreements with the streaming sites as TWBB has said, or whether it's something different altogether, I perceive a change in direction and I look at it with mixed feelings given my long history with the company. I won't lose sleepless nights over it, but I don't see any other label to consistently release some of these canonical titles any time soon.
So I was happy with the latest release slate as it provided a trip down memory lane, so to speak.
And for those of you who believe I only want to watch movies by white male directors or harbor any other ill sentiments against minorities, I invite you to look at the 6000 non-Criterion discs I'm owning, whose majority, by far, are all by filmmakers that no one would dream of putting into the white male category. I was buying discs from African American filmmakers the moment the first ones came on the market back in the nineties, so I suggest not to invent things without knowing anything about me.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
I think the problem of canon is also whose. To run with the example someone gave above while Love and Basketball hasn’t necessarily entered into the Bordwell-esque canon it certainly has been canon in lower income and African American circles for awhile not to forget it’s director has been Oscar nominated. Considering what different groups have loved over the years seems like a reasonable change in step that isn’t a big change.
It reminds me a bit about the discussion of national lists and how they can often be dramatically different from foreign perceptions of national film worth.
Also, frankly, I’m not sure how what most of what Criterion has released in the last year isn’t at worst a lateral move both qualitatively and in terms of basic interest. How, for example, is Claudine not at the very least an interesting and enjoyable building on several key moments in Hollywood history.
It reminds me a bit about the discussion of national lists and how they can often be dramatically different from foreign perceptions of national film worth.
Also, frankly, I’m not sure how what most of what Criterion has released in the last year isn’t at worst a lateral move both qualitatively and in terms of basic interest. How, for example, is Claudine not at the very least an interesting and enjoyable building on several key moments in Hollywood history.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
It seems to me that the Criterion Channel provides a valuable relief valve. While I prefer (the best possible) physical releases of movies I prize, having a wide array of material beyond their physical releases makes up for the fact that Criterion does not release things I might wish they released. Right now I am less bothered by what movies they release (or don't) than that they don't begin fighting back against the mis-coloration/restoration trend.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
...to those who live in the right country. Which I don't.Michael Kerpan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:07 amIt seems to me that the Criterion Channel provides a valuable relief valve.
- Roscoe
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
- Location: NYC
Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
Just posting to change the thread title back. And it turns out it didn't work. Can someone please remove that inane WHY WON'T THEY RELEASE ONLY WHAT I WANT header, and put back CRITERION DISCUSSION AND RANDOM SPECULATION VOLUME 7?
- soundchaser
- Leave Her to Beaver
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am
Re: Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7
This conversation has been moved from the latter thread to the preexisting former.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?
No. This is the thread we have for these kinds of discussions