Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?

[Gregory]

To suggest that Criterion were "forced" by lack of access to mainstream Hollywood films to release a huge array of other types of films shows a real lack of knowledge of the company's well-established role as a distributor of a wide variety of films (many pretty obscure, which they don't have to release at all), the interests of Criterion's producers, and the longstanding role of Janus as a distributor of world cinema. I wonder if there is necessarily some bias when a completist buys loads of films that he didn't sincerely want to own before Criterion announced them, and then only to complete a sequence of numbers, likely accompanied by serious misgivings about a lot of the films Criterion has released. I can only imagine how much I'd resent a lot of Criterion's choices if I were making myself buy and watch them all.

[SpiderBaby]

I just want more mainstream Hollywood releases.

Check Walmart or something.

I'm a Criterion fan because of their work in Extra features and quality presentation, not the obscure cinema they were forced into when major studios stopped licensing titles during the DVD boom. Glad to see things returning to the good old days of King Kong and Citizen Kane type titles

Question, what do you find "obscure", because I can go the other way and say they don't really release "obscure" films that much. I can guess what you will say (you mean "obscure" as in "not mainstream Hollywood"), but I'll let you explain.

[Moe Dickstein]

Walmart is a store not a content provider

I'd say look around the 400s for the most obscure period IMO.

I'm not suggesting all Hollywood but since that's the sort of films I enjoy I'd like to see them well represented by the premiere home video content company. Criterion is not Janus, it started out totally separate and later merged. I've been a criterion fan for over 20 years and the mix of titles in the laserdisc days was pretty wide and wonderful. Glad to also have some more obscure films on my shelf too but I'm most excited by things like Mad World, Tootsie and Foreign Correspondent getting Criterions special touch

[Gregory]

Janus and Criterion have been associated for so long in the work a small number of people (mainly the Turells and Beckers) that making any kind of distinction between the missions of the companies seems pretty specious.
The mix of titles today is wider and better than in the laserdisc days.

[SpiderBaby]

Walmart is a store not a content provider

I'd say look around the 400s for the most obscure period IMO.

I'm not suggesting all Hollywood but since that's the sort of films I enjoy I'd like to see them well represented by the premiere home video content company. Criterion is not Janus, it started out totally separate and later merged. I've been a criterion fan for over 20 years and the mix of titles in the laserdisc days was pretty wide and wonderful. Glad to also have some more obscure films on my shelf too but I'm most excited by things like Mad World, Tootsie and Foreign Correspondent getting Criterions special touch

Well you have your wishes and I have mine (as do everyone else, since film taste is subjective). Since Criterion is only 1 in a handful (or even less really) that would put out something one day like Glauber Rocha's films or Rivette's films in R1 for some examples, you can surely understand frustration when a Mad World-like release is the norm for the year so far (announced and rumored). I believe that is why you have received so many responses to your post ending with smilies about how you pretty much don't care for Criterion releasing hard to find films and instead want more already available films to be given "super" editions.

[FrauBlucher]

Don't you think that the early days of Criterion releasing mainstream movies during the LD days was to grow the company<?> Especially since LD's were much more of a specialty. And that helped them expand to world cinema once they were able to grow the company and pay for overseas license fees. Which was probably their intentions all along.

Peter Becker's father, William and his partner took over Janus in the 60's. So the connection between CC and Janus is long standing.

[Moe Dickstein]

Spider, I don't expect many or most here to agree with me and that's fine, but I love Criterion too for my own reasons, and I think I have a right to want exactly that - "super" editions of films from Criterion. Again, I don't wish them to stop doing the sorts of films I'm not personally interested in, and I'll still buy them, but we all have our wishes and desires. I thank you for an intelligent and non-judgy exchange on the topic.

[Moe Dickstein]

Don't you think that the early days of Criterion releasing mainstream movies during the LD days was to grow the company<?> Especially since LD's were much more of a specialty. And that helped them expand to world cinema once they were able to grow the company and pay for overseas license fees. Which was probably their intentions all along.

Peter Becker's father, William and his partner took over Janus in the 60's. So the connection between CC and Janus is long standing.

Sure the connection is long-standing but Criterion was founded apart from Janus and that shouldn't be forgotten either. I don't think that they were just trying to grow the company so they can ditch these icky big movies. If it makes someone feel better to think that I have no evidence to the contrary. I just think they've always released films that were important in one way or another (for whatever reason) that they like, and THAT THEY COULD GET.

The biggest factor is the third one. If you did a chart following DVD releases and the popularity of DVD sales for Criterion, most definitely they went more towards the foreign and independent releases from the mid 2000s until a couple years ago because they simply weren't able to license because studios did the titles themselves. In the Laserdisc days, it was major important titles - 2001, The Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, King Kong, Some Like it Hot, I can go on and on. They also released things like Lola Montes and Black Narcissus in the early days which would not be well known to a non cineaste American consumer, I would imagine.

I also doubt that overseas license fees for films that had a small market here were CHEAPER than licensing something like 2001...

[jindianajonz]

I wonder if there is necessarily some bias when a completist buys loads of films that he didn't sincerely want to own before Criterion announced them, and then only to complete a sequence of numbers, likely accompanied by serious misgivings about a lot of the films Criterion has released. I can only imagine how much I'd resent a lot of Criterion's choices if I were making myself buy and watch them all.

I know this was aimed more at people collecting Criterion when they only like one small subset of their releases, but the reason I collect Criterion is because they generally put out things that I like, and even more importantly, things that I'd never be exposed to otherwise. Without even touching on the many wonderful discoveries I've made through researching the titles in the collection and buying things that sounded interesting, there have also been quite a few instances where I really didn't have much of an interest in a film (Pina, Taste of Cherry, and The Music Room, for example) and bought them for reasons like completing a sequence of spine numbers, and ended up being blown away by them. Looking back, I don't regret collecting Criterion at all- there are very few films that I felt were a waste of money (I Am Curious and Night Porter are the only two that come to mind) and I certainly encountered a hell of a lot more cinema than I would have if I only bought things inside my comfort zone. And considering I wait for the B&N sale for most of my purchases, I don't see much difference financially between taking a risk on a DVD and taking my girlfriend out to see something in theaters that I know will be bad but she is dead set on seeing.

So yeah, yay collecting.

[Gregory]

I'm in favor of all that. I try to be selective about what I buy, but I still make an effort to see a lot of what Criterion releases sooner or later (it helps that I'm already familiar with much of it) and this has certainly made me aware of some films that I wouldn't have sought out otherwise. I like the idea that the Criterion brand could expose people to a film like The Kid with a Bike who probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

[FrauBlucher]

Don't you think that the early days of Criterion releasing mainstream movies during the LD days was to grow the company<?> Especially since LD's were much more of a specialty. And that helped them expand to world cinema once they were able to grow the company and pay for overseas license fees. Which was probably their intentions all along.

Peter Becker's father, William and his partner took over Janus in the 60's. So the connection between CC and Janus is long standing.

Sure the connection is long-standing but Criterion was founded apart from Janus and that shouldn't be forgotten either. I don't think that they were just trying to grow the company so they can ditch these icky big movies. If it makes someone feel better to think that I have no evidence to the contrary. I just think they've always released films that were important in one way or another (for whatever reason) that they like, and THAT THEY COULD GET.

The biggest factor is the third one. If you did a chart following DVD releases and the popularity of DVD sales for Criterion, most definitely they went more towards the foreign and independent releases from the mid 2000s until a couple years ago because they simply weren't able to license because studios did the titles themselves. In the Laserdisc days, it was major important titles - 2001, The Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, King Kong, Some Like it Hot, I can go on and on. They also released things like Lola Montes and Black Narcissus in the early days which would not be well known to a non cineaste American consumer, I would imagine.

I also doubt that overseas license fees for films that had a small market here were CHEAPER than licensing something like 2001...

I wasn't suggesting that they were going to dump "icky big movies" once the company was established. I am sure they would have continued to release hollywood films if the studios allowed them too. It was just a way for them to establish themselves early on. Especially with a new format that no one knew whether it would last. Also, I was suggesting that foreign license fees were more expensive for them at that time.

BTW... I have many classic hollywood titles in my collection. Once the age of the blockbusters began in the late 70's and early 80's, hollywood had become much less interesting to me.

[Moe Dickstein]

I'm with you there Jin - Pina was amazing, and I'd have never gotten it otherwise, even though I love 3D. I love the idea that I have literally hundreds of things to explore on my shelf when the mood strikes, and that when I'm working on a project with collaborators, and we wanted to examine Truffaut or Tarkovsky or whoever's work we have a ready supply right there. I'm in my 30s and I look at this as a collection for the rest of my life to digest, not something I may watch all of in the next couple years.

[Moe Dickstein]

Right Frau, sometimes one makes generalizations to shift a point into stark relief. Nevertheless, I believe my point holds that through the first few years of DVD when they still had access to "bigger" films they took them. Titles like Robocop, Pulp Fiction, Evita, Silence of the Lambs around that era. I think the interesting thing is where people throw the line between mainstream and niche. Some people feel that Kurosawa and Truffaut are 100% mainstream and others would throw them "obviously" into niche. But thats why we can all find some sort of corner here because the Criterion umbrella is so wide.

[FrauBlucher]

I'm in favor of all that. I try to be selective about what I buy, but I still make an effort to see a lot of what Criterion releases sooner or later (it helps that I'm already familiar with much of it) and this has certainly made me aware of some films that I wouldn't have sought out otherwise. I like the idea that the Criterion brand could expose people to a film like The Kid with a Bike who probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

I am with you on this. CC has introduced me to new films and filmmakers that have become favorites of mine.... Also, you make an interesting point on your previous post about completists becoming resentful after buying titles they really didn't want but felt compelled to buy.

[jindianajonz]

even though I love 3D.

You just don't know when to shut up, do you Moe?

[Moe Dickstein]

Someday I'll change hearts and minds with my intimate 3D drama.

[captveg]

Because no artist like Hitchcock, Scorsese, Wenders or Herzog would be caught dead enjoying 3D filmmaking, amirite?

[Arrow]

There are so many companies releasing high quality films I don't know how I could be majorly disappointed. Between MOC, Criterion, Second Run, Arrow, Cohen, etc., I have more movies than I have time to watch. I do wish State of Siege would get the release Criterion promised me like five years ago...

[Perkins Cobb]

Criterion makes up such a small wedge of my viewing these days that I'm always like, "Oh, hey, what's this booklet thingy I have here?!"

[Black Hat]

What I'm curious about is how much does a Mad World or a Tootsie sell? I'd imagine it would be in pretty big numbers and if that's the case, as much as the titles feel out of place in the collection is it really a bad thing? The profits from those titles surely means that a blu upgrade of say Andrei Rublev can't be that far away.

[colinr0380]

I'm with you there Jin - Pina was amazing, and I'd have never gotten it otherwise, even though I love 3D. I love the idea that I have literally hundreds of things to explore on my shelf when the mood strikes, and that when I'm working on a project with collaborators, and we wanted to examine Truffaut or Tarkovsky or whoever's work we have a ready supply right there. I'm in my 30s and I look at this as a collection for the rest of my life to digest, not something I may watch all of in the next couple years.

I absolutely agree. It is a collection rather than a conveyor belt to be moving constantly. While I don't use my collection for projects, I know what Moe means about being able to pick from a wide variety of films according to need or whims (or just in response to threads on the forum which in turn guide me towards lots of other films! And that library at your fingertips is in addition to fun and enjoyment from picking something at random off the shelf (or from the to watch pile) to view!

Right Frau, sometimes one makes generalizations to shift a point into stark relief. Nevertheless, I believe my point holds that through the first few years of DVD when they still had access to "bigger" films they took them. Titles like Robocop, Pulp Fiction, Evita, Silence of the Lambs around that era. I think the interesting thing is where people throw the line between mainstream and niche. Some people feel that Kurosawa and Truffaut are 100% mainstream and others would throw them "obviously" into niche. But thats why we can all find some sort of corner here because the Criterion umbrella is so wide.

One of the aspects that I most loved about Criterion when I first was collecting the discs was that, in comparison to the studio DVDs at the time that were loaded with extras but often appeared to have a habit of not acknowledging any other film not owned by their studio, the Criterion discs were refreshingly willing to mention any other film - from around the world; from different Hollywood studios; relating films to others from different eras, or genres; and so on. I really liked to be in the world where the extras on a disc for a particular film wasn't afraid to acknowledge peers and influences in order to relate the specific to the wider world of film in all its forms. And as you say, a lot of that has to do with the wideness of the Criterion umbrella.

[swo17]

Your collection can still be a "library at your fingertips" even if you don't buy the handful/truckload of films that Criterion puts out that, as a completist, you resent having to buy.

[Moe Dickstein]

Personally I wouldn't say I resent anything I've bought - with the possible exception of Beastie Boys. I still enjoy what I consider to be more obscure/art house films even though I may personally enjoy mainstream fare more. For example (and maybe this is mainstream?) I'd love to see Juzo Itami's Tampopo in the collection, that's perhaps my favorite Japanese film I've seen so far.

[adavis53]

Oh man I'd love Tampopo to be put in the collection as well. I had never heard of it in my life until we screened it in one of my Japanese cinema classes and excluding like the obvious masterpieces Seven Samurai and Harakiri it was easily the best film we watched that semester. We watched a few other of Itami's too and I think he's completely underrated, or maybe just forgotten? Either way I'd be a big fan of any releases of his to come to Criterion

[Perkins Cobb]

I like Tampopo too but the problem with Itami is that they're all the same movie. Watch something like Supermarket Woman and you'll see how he'd basically take Eclipse straight to the self-parody stage.