Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7

[therewillbeblus]

I think being forced/coerced is different from responding. Even if they were already planning to go in that direction, the article only prompted that commitment to become a higher priority as it was a public observation. We’re all responding to light stressors in our life prompting us to change our behavior, all the time, and it’s a wonderful thing. These external motivators are integral to growth

[olmo]

I gave neither a negative or positive slant on how I feel personally on an obvious rethink of the monthly slate. I agree that it has broadened an already expansive area of film, and releases of black cinema and the work of female directors was vastly disproportionate to say, white European, American & Asian cinema, that is simply a legacy of a lack of opportunity given - thereby a smaller pool from which to dip. However I feel Criterion are now tripping over themselves in redressing the balance and whilst I am not intimating a dilution of quality there has been a notable shift in curation, specifically cultural. I used the word 'subjugated' to convey that the NYT article has obviously enacted a form of control as Criterion immediately addressed what they obviously felt was an oversight or rather afraid of the fallout of said article.

Personally, I think the article was unfair and failed to recognise the amount of work Criterion have done over the years in recognising hitherto unheard voices in film.

[FrauBlucher]

I think being forced/coerced is different from responding. Even if they were already planning to go in that direction, the article only prompted that commitment to become a higher priority as it was a public observation. We’re all responding to light stressors in our life prompting us to change our behavior, all the time, and it’s a wonderful thing. These external motivators are integral to growth

I wasn’t making any kind of judgement at all. In fact I was making an observation about how folks viewed this direction. And what better way for Becker to get PR than have the Times do it.

[domino harvey]

Criterion can be guilted into doing something (I’m being purposely uncharitable here to make my point, I don’t think it’s that extreme) and still sincerely undertake it. They’ve gone far beyond lip service to the issue raised by NYT, regardless of the merits of the inciting article or its arguments, which reflects a credible investment by the company in the pivot

[Ribs]

I also am personally of the opinion these releases are by far the most interesting and exciting things Criterion has been doing, but I also don't choose to view one specific section of their output (and this is true for "too many newer movies") as having cut off some hypothetical other section ("the major auteurs" or "why haven't you released all the Ozu films" argument) that we have no real reason to expect would be happening otherwise. The company can have multiple priorities and none necessarily have to be cutting off the other.

[therewillbeblus]

Of course not, in the sense that the argument of "If they weren't prioritizing X, they would definitely be prioritizing Y!" is ridiculous, but I also think it's just objectively true that Criterion has a finite amount of resources and only releases 4-6 titles a month, so I do comprehend and have personally voiced frustrations in the past when it appeared the priorities were heading in a direction that, by the nature of the business (especially now with all these studios ostensibly changing partnerships so rapidly and unpredictably), would cloud focus from a subset of titles where the opportunity may expire. That doesn't mean, as you say, that a different priority wouldn't take the place and do the same, but sometimes that counterargument to a pie chart translates as Criterion Can Just Make More Pie and that's just not how it is

Personally, while I've been hot and cold on their recent releases and have been buying less of them as a whole, overall I'd say the surprise titles I had no prior exposure to have been of far greater quality than the random unknown titles interspersed among the Favorites in years past pre-NYT article. It's been a welcome, incredibly rich season of discovery, and I only wish more people would contribute to the discussion threads here for stuff like The Learning Tree, Buck and the Preacher, Boat People, love jones, Deep Cover, Eve's Bayou etc. instead of solely defending the ethos of the business shift in macro terms in these various threads. It's a bit ironic that most of the films being championed and defended have such little discussion on their merits within their own threads

[soundchaser]

To Sleep With Anger was far more in need of a champion than WALL-E. The latter move is far more concerning to me. (Although if it means a continuing ability to license Fox titles, so be it.)

[FrauBlucher]

Of course not, in the sense that the argument of "If they weren't prioritizing X, they would definitely be prioritizing Y!" is ridiculous, but I also think it's just objectively true that Criterion has a finite amount of resources and only releases 4-6 titles a month, so I do comprehend and have personally voiced frustrations in the past when it appeared the priorities were heading in a direction that, by the nature of the business (especially now with all these studios ostensibly changing partnerships so rapidly and unpredictably), would cloud focus from a subset of titles where the opportunity may expire.

This is really the point. Criterion's calendar is limited. Titles will no doubt be pushed back when something else becomes available to them that fits into their release strategy. Look at all the titles under the Disney umbrella being speculated here and on the other forums. A fraction of them will end up in the Collection based on their limitations

[domino harvey]

The worst thing about WALL-E is the countless years of BV/Disney wishlist posting it will foist on this forum in its wake

[What A Disgrace]

I will definitely prepare a list of my top ten most wanted Donald Duck films on The Criterion Collection.

[beamish14]

I will definitely prepare a list of my top ten most wanted Donald Duck films on The Criterion Collection.

Donald in Mathmagic Land is in the top 5 or you will be asked to leave the boards

Still, there are actually are a significant number of shorts that never made it to those Disney Archive releases, like Fun with Mr. Future (1982) and Runaway Brain (1995)

[Ribs]

The worst thing about WALL-E is the countless years of BV/Disney wishlist posting it will foist on this forum in its wake

This is essentially how I feel - my belief is this title is truly a one-off produced by Stanton and/or Pixar, and my particular conjecture is he feels that while Wall-E at the time was universally agreed as a tremendous achievement and one of the very best Pixar movies it has fallen in its standings in recent years (as Ratatouille has become ascendant), and this is a valiant effort to attempt to position the film as a serious, truly great film (which it is!)

That does not mean there will be more but there's no particular reason to assume there wouldn't be - if this title works out for everyone involved, I don't see any real reason why there shouldn't be attempts from any of the involved parties to try it again down the road. But I wouldn't take it as floodgates being opened any more than usual - though, once again, I am the one person who remains insistent Criterion continues to have access to the Fox library of titles, and one takeaway I don't think is too much of a leap this is actually a fairly good sign they will probably be able to produce 4K releases from that library as well.

[swo17]

The world has changed since then, but it's worth noting that Ashley Clark contributed to BFI's 2015 release of Birth of a Nation, and there are prominent Black voices asking for these kinds of films to be not silenced but discussed honestly and openly. There's a right way to release any film

[FrauBlucher]

TCM does a terrific job of explaining historical significance and they don't seem to get any pushback

[DeprongMori]

I don’t know about everyone else, but the one thing I’m hoping for with the opening of the Disney vaults is a 4K restoration of David Lynch’s A Goofy Movie.

[vsski]

Of course not, in the sense that the argument of "If they weren't prioritizing X, they would definitely be prioritizing Y!" is ridiculous, but I also think it's just objectively true that Criterion has a finite amount of resources and only releases 4-6 titles a month, so I do comprehend and have personally voiced frustrations in the past when it appeared the priorities were heading in a direction that, by the nature of the business (especially now with all these studios ostensibly changing partnerships so rapidly and unpredictably), would cloud focus from a subset of titles where the opportunity may expire. That doesn't mean, as you say, that a different priority wouldn't take the place and do the same, but sometimes that counterargument to a pie chart translates as Criterion Can Just Make More Pie and that's just not how it is

Personally, while I've been hot and cold on their recent releases and have been buying less of them as a whole, overall I'd say the surprise titles I had no prior exposure to have been of far greater quality than the random unknown titles interspersed among the Favorites in years past pre-NYT article. It's been a welcome, incredibly rich season of discovery, and I only wish more people would contribute to the discussion threads here for stuff like The Learning Tree, Buck and the Preacher, Boat People, love jones, Deep Cover, Eve's Bayou etc. instead of solely defending the ethos of the business shift in macro terms in these various threads. It's a bit ironic that most of the films being championed and defended have such little discussion on their merits within their own threads

Isn’t it possible that one reason for less discussion on the titles mentioned above is that simply less people have bought or seen them?

I’m actually happy to hear more people in this thread are clearly voicing what I have been saying for some time now, namely that there is a clear shift in direction for Criterion. Given the timing related to the NYT article it seems too much of a coincidence not to be related.
Depending on your view one can see it as enriching the landscape or publishing less interesting fare, but the shift is unmistakable.

Personally I have been buying far less titles, which I don’t see as a bad thing as it allowed me to dip deeper into other labels and genres I otherwise would not have had the money or time for.
But the part I regret with Criterion is the fact that they have the licenses (or at least that’s what people here and elsewhere assume) for many movies that now are released even less or at a slower pace than the already slow pace we have seen previously.

So one thing for Criterion to do would be to let go of these licenses so other labels can publish these titles instead, not every movie has to have the wacky C on its box.
This, however, provides two challenges, is there another label willing to publish Ozu, Kurosawa, Gosha, Buñuel, Pasolini, Rossellini, Chabrol, Rivette, etc. (pick your favorite director, that we know Criterion has licenses for) and is it going to be a label that will do justice to the titles and publish them in nicely curated editions as Criterion would have done, since I doubt that many people are clamoring for VCI to publish the entire Mexican Buñuel movies, to name one example?

I believe the answer for number 1 at least is yes.

So while I have no issue for Criterion to shift direction, let’s not have it be at the expense of the many titles they are sitting on. Given the 4-6 monthly titles they can publish, there was already previously no chance of getting many of their titles out and simply sitting on their licenses will mean most of these titles will only be available on a streaming website.
And while this is the way the business is going anyhow, I hate to see it hastened because one label is hogging licenses.

[domino harvey]

I have barely bought any Criterions for the last several years, but honestly, when they turned into Shout Factory (reissuing titles already on Blu) many years before this, the decline away from rescuing titles was already apparent. It’s fine. There’s a world beyond Criterion and most films I love are unlikely to find commercial release from anyone in a physical media market that seemingly prioritizes Jess Franco over anyone else. Until Criterion takes that plunge, though, I guess there’s still hope?

[Feego]

Realistically, if there’s any reason why Criterion is unlikely to release Song of the South, I think that reason is Disney themselves. The film is to Disney what The Devils is to Warner Bros. It’s a film they just don’t want out there.

Same with the original Star Wars trilogy. As auteur-driven as Criterion is, I doubt they will give us versions of the films that George Lucas clearly hates.

[domino harvey]

It’s also not a particularly interesting movie. If it hadn’t been so studiously withheld, barely anyone would even remember it (and fewer still now that Brer Rabbit et all are being removed from Splash Mountain)

[soundchaser]

The best word to describe Song of the South is “stultifying.” It is, bluntly, just not a very good film.

(And in any case: saving on Criterion’s just means more to spend on Indicator releases, which is fine by me.)

[cdnchris]

It’s also not a particularly interesting movie. If it hadn’t been so studiously withheld, barely anyone would even remember it (and fewer still now that Brer Rabbit et all are being removed from Splash Mountain)

That's what kills me about the obsession with it: even ignoring its obvious issues it's dreadfully dull. I get the idea of wanting it available for the sake of it, and i agree, but there's really nothing special about it other than the fact Disney has no interest in it seeing the light of day again. From what i remember of it it's structurally comparable to something like Fun and Fancy Free and I can't stand that one. The shorts were all most remember about them anyways.

[swo17]

For whatever reason I remember spending a lot of time with this book and tape at an impressionable age. My attachment to the film entirely stems from that

[Saturnome]

Song of the South without the allure of an unreleased film is So Dear To My Heart, a live-action-with-animated-sequence Disney film nobody bothers with.

[captveg]

Still, there are actually are a significant number of shorts that never made it to those Disney Archive releases, like Fun with Mr. Future (1982) and Runaway Brain (1995)

Runaway Brain is on the Treasures Mickey Mouse in Living Color Vol. 2 release.

As per the larger conversation of Criterion's shifting release strategies, it's worth noting that their Japanese library access has been somewhat curbed by Toho's policies, and their access to Russian cinema has obviously been impacted greatly lately, so some of these changes in library output has helped them open things up when other doors have closed.

[dustybooks]

one of the main draws of Song of the South for me is seeing Gregg Toland shoot in color. For those who’ve seen it, is there anything memorable about the cinematography?