That's a shame, but it's nice to know that Criterion looked into releasing it.

What might make more sense is for Criterion to release an Eclipse set of the many Omnibus films produced in the 1960s and which featured short films not only by Godard by Demy, Polanski, Vadim, etc.

Unrelated, but if I'm not mistaken, the Momma Roma DVD contains Pasolini's short from RoGoPaG, so Criterion could always release Godard's sci-fi entry to that at some point.

Yeah, I'd love to see an omnibus set at some point, even if most of them are fairly disappointing as a whole: there are some gems scattered around in them.

Godard's short for RoGoPaG is called The New World, and it's a neat little film, another of Godard's examinations of love and human feeling in a dystopian future. It'd make a good extra for an Alphaville reissue, I suppose, although one of the R2 Pasolini boxes I have contains the complete RoGoPaG.

Why not license the whole film? I don't like the practice of separating one segment of a portmanteau film anyways, they could've thrown the whole thing on a second disc or included the short and used the whole film for a future Eclipse set. Oh Criterion, you so crazy

My curiosity is provoked as to how they managed to secure the rights to "Antoine and Collette" for the Doniel box edition of The 400 Blows. Is Love at 20 a Janus/Criterion property to begin with, was it licensed for the Truffaut segment alone (and Criterion has just ignored the omnibus title and/or the other four shorts since 2003), or was the segment itself licensed on its own somehow?

I hope this development does not speak negatively as to the possibility of an anamorphic, widescreen version of Scorsese’s “Life Lessons” for the promised Criterion shorts anthology.

Given that it had been licensed separately before (for I think Fox Lorber?) in a double feature with Les Mistons, it seems likely that whoever owned the rights was very used to licensing the Truffaut segment

I remember that now. And, according to Yahoo!, Love at 20 was a Janus release at one point.

Has anyone ever come across a subtitled copy of the Greatest Swindles? It's the only portmanteau film of Godard's I haven't seen. I must admit that unlike sevenarts, I don't hold Godard's shorts in much esteem-- he was a vocal opponent of short films and every short he made in his first period is markedly lifeless and uninspired. I'm still waging my ever-increasingly Quixotic defense of Brody's book, but the amount of time spent fawning over Godard's segment in Six in Paris, which is surely his worst film, is an embarrassment I can co-sign against.

I have not been able to find The Greatest Swindlers either, despite much searching. I don't think Godard's shorts are his peak work or anything, but at the very least I'd say that Anticipation and L'amore (his dense, essayistic contribution to Love & Anger) are great, and deserve to be considered as important elements in his 60s oeuvre, while The New World is an interesting trial run for Alphaville.

I agree with you about Six in Paris, though; Godard's segment is an uncharacteristic trifle, mildly amusing at best but mostly just boring. What case does Brody make for that film?

I saw that Swindle movie. It was unsubbed but a very good copy. I really enjoyed Polanski's. Chabrol's was typical. I believe Godard's was cut from the original film and kind of tacked on at the end. It was pretty good from what I could get from my rudimentary French. It was another example of his "interview" style; the film basically consists of Seberg interviewing some Morrocan swindler, a Robin Hood type. I remember one wide shot of a jeep getting swarmed with people from the village; the shot was quite beautiful. If I recall, it was shot by Coutard, who normally didn't work on Godard's shorts.

Is there any reason why the Brody and MacCabe extra is on one movie and not the other considering it pertains to both? I haven't seen either movie yet, but I was just wondering.

I think the Godard segment is pretty great, and pretty radical in its execution — many of its aspects are first-of-a-kind, and the film (and its subtitle: "Un action-film") testify to the fact. Where other filmmakers would end up taking this approach to ape the misperceived qualities of the New Wave and just "lend a jazzy feel" to their output, Godard (with Maysles) is actually finding a way to carve out 360-degrees of scenic space in a way that hadn't been done before (and in two very interesting and unconventional locations, at that) — and most importantly (and anything but "uninspiredly") is trying to find a hypothetical 'new way forward' for the film-frame. The film is extremely formal — the story (recycled from Une femme est une femme) is a perfect throwaway (but I think charming, and hilarious, and terrifying) for carrying out this investigation. Note it's a '64 film (made right after Une femme mariée and before Alphaville, I think), though it wasn't released till '65...

And what case does Brody (who alerts us in his liner-notes bio-blurb for the new Garrel x 2 release that he holds a B.A. in comp-lit from Princeton) make for the film? Why, that it's "a love-letter to Anna Karina," of course, and that its free-framings are an evocation of the zone of 'uncertainty' into which JLG's then-recent crisis with Karina had plunged him. I would imagine it's also a willful attempt to put Sartrean principles into artistic practice.

Also, not to stray too far off-topic (although Godard's film is a precursor to 2 or 3 Things — which premiered in 1966, not 1967, as currently listed at the Criterion site), but speaking of Paris vu par / Six in Paris, it should be stated that in addition to the Godard, the Rouch and the Rohmer films are excellent, and the Chabrol film (La Muette, which closes the picture) is SUPERB.

Rouch's entry is probably the greatest portmanteau film segment of all time and you do it a superb disservice by ranking it below Chabrol's tired and somewhat annoying entry.

Something strange seems to be going one with these titles.

Amazon.com still does not list Made in the USA.

Amazon.ca lists it, but with the cancelled Blu-Ray Ran description. On DVDPLanet, a search for this title brings up another garbled listing, with elements from Kurosawa's movie. (Perhaps Criterion decided to reuse the UPC or ASIN numbers.)

As for 2 ou 3 Choses, Amazon.ca still does not list it, whereas other Criterion titles announced at the same time are listed. Perhaps an issue of distribution rights in Canada?

Does anybody know for sure what the explanation is?

Thanks.

I've been wondering the same thing. Amazon.com US doesn't have it listed, although all others for that month are. I've been checking daily so that I can pre-order (as I have already ordered all others for that month), but by the looks of it, the titles just announced on the 15th will be up for pre-order before this title is.

I wonder what is going on.....?

Try taking a look at the previous page of this thread.

Only a partial explanation and other aspects raised remain unexplained.

I have asked Amazon.ca about it. But since I requested a specific and precise explanation instead of a pre-scripted generic one, my question has been transferred to another department and will thus take a littke longer to get a reply.

Amy Taubin's now writing the essay instead of that other guy.

It is finally up at amazon (and I've not a clue how to make it magically read Made In The USA so can you lend me a hand Matt?)

With 211 reviews for Ran no less!

I've got to be honest: I was expecting more excitement and discussion over the release of 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her, and Amy Taubin's essay makes the DVD even more of a must-buy for me, even if I have yet to see the movie. Is it just a matter of not enough people have seen it yet?

Much has allready been said about 60s JLG - he is not on vogue with most of the high quantity posters on this forum as well plus who the hell wants to talk about a cup of coffe?

This is a contradiction in terms.

Kidding. I can't wait for this. Talk coffee if you must.

Godard comes up so much that I'm not sure that a lack of discussion on these two films means that people arent incredibly excited about them. We've also known they've been coming for quite some time now. So, you don't have the surprise conversation, nor do you really have the "who is Godard" conversation or "I've never heard of these films" conversations.

How about the "where does this stand in relation to rest of his 60's output for someone who hasn't seen either" conversation? Or maybe a straight-up rent or buy recommendation? Or an honest "these films are kinda weak so beware" convo?