No, it seems more like, "I don't like this, and no one on the forum has defended it, therefore no one wants it." But I'm pretty sure Criterion knows their business better (than anyone here at least) than to release something "no one" wants.

You did read the part of this that story that included "pass on that Certified Copy noise," right?

My favorite thing about this release is that it will be timed for an actual schedule announcement at about the same time that the firestorm will finally blow over and start to be forgotten, leading to a second round of smartassery.

Just wait until some more people on the board have actually seen it. Anders really is breathing a sigh of relief right now.

I'm sympathetic to what people are saying, but Criterion can bid on as many IFC films as they want, right? So I don't see how the decisions to release one or the other are mutually exclusive. If they had wanted to release Certified Copy and Tiny Furniture, wouldn't they have made arrangements to release both? It seems like people disappointed about one seem to be taking it out on the other, which is not necessarily directly connected to it. Really, I'm glad beyond words to see such an outpouring of support for Kiarostami, and I probably agree with many of the sentiments here in terms of the films in question, but the complaints of "Why is Criterion releasing x instead of what we wanted?" get tiresome year after year.

I think the issue isn't that Criterion had to choose one or the other. Rather, the complaint seems to be that they could've had both but decided that Certified Copy was somehow beneath them while Tiny Furniture was not. I haven't seen either film so I can't comment on the merits of that statement, but judging on Criterion's history and the reaction from this forum, I feel like it was not the best decision they've made.

All I can say is, I'm very happy I'm not in the IFC offices this week.

If complaints over them releasing x and not releasing y aren't really linked (they could have had both) then it seems like complaints about their releasing x amount to "Why won't they release only what I want?" that was my only point. But then I've silently put up with constant complaints (usually in the guise of jokes) suggesting that "no one" wanted releases like Martha Graham, Koko, but again I'd wager Criterion knows what they're doing.

It's an annual annoyance for me too, but I guess I can see more justification for the complaining this time.

If this had only been an announcement of Tiny Furniture, I don't think it would be as big of deal. I would certainly question their judgment, but ultimately just chalk it up to the brass at Criterion having a different take on the film than I did. I wasn't particularly crazy about Gomorrah, Che, or Hunger either, but I didn't really care that Criterion wanted to release them. Even though I think Tiny Furniture makes each of those look like a masterpiece, I imagine that I would have met its announcement with similar indifference.

The annoyance was compounded this time though, because of the way the news broke. For the first time, it really does seem like they are choosing one film over others (even though we know they could actually release all of them). It was, "Here are four films that Criterion has access too. They have chosen to pass on the three well-received films by established masters, but will be releasing the self-indulgent home video by the obnoxious kid." Even though that's probably not the way it really went down, that's the perception, and that's one reason why Tiny Furniture is getting more flack than normal.

Despite all this, I'm not particularly concerned, because I think that Becker-Turell Overdrive will eventually come to their senses regarding Certified Copy at least, and Tiny Furniture will ultimately just be a forum punchline a la Solo con tu pareja.

While I haven't seen Tiny Furniture, I'm intrigued enough to do so just to see what all the fuss is about. However, I am a little surprised at the apoplectic reaction it's generating. Even if it's as bad as everybody says, it's one film in what'll be close to 600 by early next year, and Criterion's established enough that they can probably afford a lemon of a release. They obviously see something of value in it. It's probably not even their worst decision of 2011, esp. since they're releasing Fat Girl on blu.

I'm sure an argument could be made for Fat Girl being one of the most popular representations of a certain sort of modern film(euro schlock), the same can't be said of Tiny Furniture.

Tiny Furniture gets spine # 600; Criterion Forum explodes.

I'm biased toward neutrality at this point since I haven't seen the film yet, but I can see on paper why someone might consider Tiny Furniture significant, if only by virtue of being shot on consumer-grade video equipment. At the Movies did a segment on this recently, about how "anyone can be a director now," that also mentioned the Chan-wook Park movie shot on an iPad. It kind of reminds me of the trend during the 2000s when everyone realized they could record music in their basements. Not that that alone makes the film Criterion-worthy, but assuming someone there obviously liked it enough to give it the green light, I can see their reasoning on technical grounds, and I'd expect some special features devoted to that aspect of it.

I must also add though, I suspect we're all reading a bit too much into the specific wording of Harmonov's post, and if this ends up in some kind of fallout a la Eraserhead where Certified Copy doesn't get released out of spite, or to teach us all a lesson or something, I'm going to be pissed.

FINAL WORD TO CRITERION: Go on and release Tiny Furniture, Human Centipede, Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son, I don't care. Just also please release Certified Copy. And Police, Adj. and The Time That Remains. That is all.

Probably. It's certainly making the rounds though. Forum post quoted in NY Observer.

Would they do that? Criterion is just a distributor anyways, no way they get too big-headed (sarcasm). It's up to people not to be brainwashed into thinking a film is only worth it's merit if Criterion releases it anyways. We are talking about a place that DID (even though years ago, and how old this gets when mentioned) release Michael Bay films. So if they even thought about "teaching us a lesson" they know where they can go then.

There are both far more popular and far more examples of that though. It's not so much that mumblecore crap is getting in as much as it's some of the worst work from the movement that's getting in and Criterion can't even hide behind it being a financially motivated decision since as has already been pointed out it made a very small amount of money. I don't like their films, but if the Duplass brothers had a film being announced instead I could excuse that under some basic excuse, but there is really no reason for Tiny Furniture to exist let alone get the recognition that it's peers haven't.

Great. We're going to be disapproving new posts all day now.

Michael Bay is legit and if you are going to compare much more legit that Lena Dunham will ever be. I'm not even trying to stir anything up.

You guys do realize that Tiny Furniture was a critical darling last year, right? It made a lot of top 10's that I saw. But I also saw the trailer and some clips and was completely put off. I'm sure I'll see it eventually. As for now, I'm just pointing out that the decision to include it in the collection was hardly some arbitrary bolt-from-the-blue.

As to the Kiarostami: It's a movie I thoroughly disliked and hate more with every excessive accolade it receives (in a way not dissimilar to my contempt for Todd Haynes and perhaps appropriately so). Having said that, the real issue here for me is that CC will get a fine DVD release somewhere, no matter what happens, that will please its fans. The fixation on its need to be released by Criterion irritates me because this much vocal enthusiasm and pressure needs to be behind a release of the Koker trilogy which we seem to have been waiting for forever. Those films sure as hell are not guaranteed any release outside of Criterion. And, yes, I know the ire here is motivated by the whole IFC either/or situation with TF. But, still...

I don't want to tell the NY Observer folks how to do their job, but this is terrible writing:

So, the forum is mixed (I'd say the reaction is pretty fucking negative, but whatever) and the example of this mixed reaction is a question about whether or not this will be the first film shot on a Canon 7d that Criterion releases? Awful work. Now, if they had included Domino's great reply to the question about the Canon 7d, then I'd understand the use of that quote.

Certified Copy has already received a fine dvd and blu-ray release. The joke is that when Criterion finally announce their release it will be an exact duplicate of the Artificial Eye release bar a bonus flimsy essay and a tripling of the price tag. Isn't waiting a couple of years for a US release wonderful?

Admittedly knowing very little about it, Tiny Furniture is a film I've wanted to see.
And I'm glad that Criterion announced it before it turned up in another edition.
For most of the recent releases, I already have them on dvd before any CC announcement.
(see how cleverly I worked my own personal CC peeve into this thread?)

Swo - this has been my concern ever since I posted the info. Since relationships are so tentative in the film world to begin with, the last thing I want(ed) to do is rock the boat. I truly hope that Criterion ends up releasing Certified Copy and I tried, albeit poorly, to stress in my original post that it is not off the docket for Criterion for sure. Mr. Sehring just mentioned that they hadn't picked it up as of Monday when he was answering my question and he seemed genuinely frustrated by it because he really loves the film and thinks it is Criterion-worthy. Should I ever luck into information like this again, I will be triply careful as to how it's worded should I decide to post it at all on this forum.

Having not seen it (I think I'll skip it now), my guess is that someone at Criterion loves the film. Either that, or IFC really wanted to promote it and pressured CC to put their stamp on it as part of their larger relationship.

I do think a lot of Criterion contemporary releases are probably more about maintaining relationships and egos than they are about the quality of the films themselves. Not that Soderbergh, Fincher, Breillat, Wes Anderson, et al, aren't quite a bit more interesting than your average Hollywood or Film Festival film, but they're not exactly master filmmakers either. These are of course subjective things to say, but my hunch is that those directors like Criterion a lot, and Criterion finds it in their interest to work with them and doesn't mind doing so, even if some of the films wouldn't always be their highest priority otherwise.

It's one thing for Criterion to pick and choose their films from a back catalogue, but it's going to be another thing altogether if a filmmaker and the staff at IFC approach Criterion and ask them to do a release of a particular film. In the latter case, not releasing the film requires making a judgment about it and rejecting it, and in many cases it's probably worthwhile to just swallow their pride and do the best they can with the film.

Aren't there better and more important filmmakers with whom to nurture a connection? Scorsese, for instance; while not everybody loves all of his films, he knows his film history and has important connections. Who the hell does Wes Anderson know except other self-consciously quirky hipsters?

Scott Rudin?

He evidently knows Martin Scorsese, since Scorsese wrote the liner essay for Bottle Rocket.