Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7

[movielocke]

I've been loving Criterion's releases lately (as well as the channel programming), honestly it's a significant upgrade from an overloaded European Ennui slate--and we still get something like La Piscine and its ilk once or twice or year, which is probably still a little too much volume-wise, but a welcome change from past doldrums.

And if I'm raising hackles with my flippancy, sorry, I feel it's comicly obvious how wrong such a sweeping generalization would be. we get 50-60 new spine numbers a year, and another 10-20 upgrades per year, the annual slate of releases is self-evidently varied and nuanced--and it has always been so.

To me it feels likes complainants haven't been watching what's being released and it shows. the 2021 and 2022 slates have been stellar and the only pattern seems to be that they're mostly releasing films I have really enjoyed (other than Pink Flamingos, but I don't think I'm supposed to enjoy that, I think I'm supposed to enjoy the not-enjoying it...).

As to TWBB's comment about not posting in the dedicated threads, nobody posts in there, so why would one go there? it's like the Woody Allen joke, 'such small portions'.

[domino harvey]

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?

Nothing at all that I can recall. But, like, the live action parts are so uninteresting that it’s not even that the animated parts are all that great, they’re just Pinocchio when presented right next to the kids hanging out on tree stumps with Uncle Remus

[knives]

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.

Historically it’s slightly more than that. For example Zippity Doo Da used to be Disney’s signature tune being as synonymous with the company as the mouse.

[colinr0380]

My favourite recent thing that reminded me of Song of the South is that the CInemas Underbelly guy, who has a collection dedicated to some of the most disturbing material ever produced, had to adopt a particularly serious tone when he reached the film in his collection tour video (very NSFW for all the material around it)! Honestly, I think even Dumbo might be a stretch now due to its rather broad crow characters.

It has been so long since I last saw it there may be something particularly heinous in there too but if (and that's a big if) this leads to more Disney releases I would love it if Criterion focused on some of the more overlooked titles like The Black Cauldron or Make Mine Music. Though of course I think Fantasia (maybe paired with Fantasia 2000) would be a perfect fit too.

[domino harvey]

Song of the South isn’t even as offensive as its persona non grata reputation may lead you to believe. The paternalistic apologia for slavery is obviously not a good look, but it’s more clueless than hateful. Any single minute of Stepin Fetchit in countless films commercially available right now is far more objectionable (to name just one example of far more crudely expressed racial animus of the period). Again, its unavailability has given it an aura of mystique that it doesn’t deserve— even from an offense standpoint!

[Feego]

I've never seen Song of the South, but I would argue that even if it is deadly dull, that still wouldn't nor shouldn't preclude a Criterion release due to its historical significance (whether that significance is due to its inherent qualities or its legacy as a long-banned movie). There is potentially a lot of really fascinating supplemental material that could be created for it, exploring not just this film, but the racial elements in other Disney films and even of the American film scene as a whole from that era. Criterion has certainly released other uninteresting films before that have some enduring historical relevance or followings (e.g. ...And God Created Woman, The Blob). But as I said, the ball is in Disney's court, and I doubt they will budge.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

It’s very telling how little folk here have seen Song of the South and still want it out. A few minutes online can easily have you find an HD version of the film already out there. And I have to completely agree with Domino that it is a boring movie. The songs are fantastic as are the character designs, but the films focus on a Little Lord Fauntleroy from a rich plantation owning family who is obsessed with his Uncle Remus is so clumsily racist. Remus’s entire existence seems to just bring one white child joy and not sure how much more context can be added outside of what’s already out there. I’m not one for film censorship or erasing histories (and God knows I love and seek out some extreme films), but I can’t imagine it’s in the interests of companies like Disney and Criterion to release this film. I saw it a decade ago at a private 35mm screening and thought it was clumsy then, but rewatching this only a year ago confirmed it’s worse than I remember.

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?

Color sequence interiors are gorgeous, but seem completely in line with the storybook visuals of Disney films rather than Toland’s style of deep focus. He obviously shoots those scenes to match the cartoon style, but the majority of the film feels like it takes place outdoors in the day drenched in light.

[therewillbeblus]

As to TWBB's comment about not posting in the dedicated threads, nobody posts in there, so why would one go there? it's like the Woody Allen joke, 'such small portions'.

Well I see that way of thinking -but also the state of things you describe- as problematic. Just speaking for myself, I've relied quite heavily upon this forum's dedicated threads, and the users here posting within them, to help motivate me to check out or re-evaluate films I had never heard of or looked at that way before. Those threads have been and continue to be vital for my continuing cinephilic education, and without the members here championing lesser-known works, I would still be blind to many great films. There have been plenty of passionate voices here advocating for and celebrating Criterion widening the net, which is wonderful, but discussion has been primarily quarantined to a broadly theoretical defense, when the films' individual threads largely remain disproportionately vacant, with little discourse on their utility isolated from overarching progressive principles of the company's focus. Lending one's vocal support of Criterion's recent output through contributions to discussion seems like the most tangible and helpful way to get others to change their minds and expand cinematic interests. At least that's been my experience.

[domino harvey]

You might want to read the comments in the Manchester by the Sea thread made by the poster you are responding to before imploring them to share their thoughts more…

[therewillbeblus]

I'm not asking any poster in particular to share their thoughts more, just expressing an ethos that I believe gets people more excited and motivated to see films. There are plenty of other people who are publicly passionate about Criterion's current direction and I think it would be cool to see more of that passion exercised into constructive discussion on the actual films, in part because it would be more selfishly satisfying. Some members have certainly offered praise and thoughts on a few of these lesser known titles, which has directly enticed me to move them up on my queue or seek them out at all, and I've been very grateful for their vocal plugs. But aside from all that, a mindset that argues "nobody posts in there, so why go there?" perpetuates a cycle of inactivity and disengagement from the analytical part of the forum, which is the side I love most about this place and was advocating for more engagement with in my initial post the other day that this poster is responding to, so I felt personally obligated to object to it

[Finch]

I don't mind the direction Criterion have taken over the last year or so but I agree with others that they really ought to be looking at finding ways of releasing titles they've licensed and sat on for ages more efficiently and quicker. Revive Eclipse for the Blu-Ray format and do a Gosha set, for example. That way, those films and others are finally released and at the lower price point, it also stings less if what they release are by-this-point-dated masters.

[dwk]

They are never going to go Kino and release 30 films a month, but I don't think doing 3 or 4 Eclipse style Blu-ray sets a year is too much to ask. Although I wonder how much demand is there for barebones sets of titles that are readily available to stream on the channel.

[colinr0380]

(other than Pink Flamingos, but I don't think I'm supposed to enjoy that, I think I'm supposed to enjoy the not-enjoying it...).

That makes Pink Flamingos seem less like a comedy and more of a manifesto! (or modus operandi!)

[movielocke]

You might want to read the comments in the Manchester by the Sea thread made by the poster you are responding to before imploring them to share their thoughts more…

Zing! The funny thing is I thought it was fine walking out of the theatre, a solid 8, maybe a 9. But since I was the only person at work or in my groups of family or friends that saw it, I was asked about it a half dozen times, and each time I had to describe it I liked it less until it started making me mad, my spiel at the time was

Spoiler

“it’s good. It’s about a white guy who gets high and drunk and inadvertently burns his house down and his kids to death and he experiences no consequences other than feeling epicly sad all the time. And as comic relief his nephew wants to get laid but can’t. So it’s a two and half hour meditation on grief, you’re into that sort of thing”

The more I talked about it, the less I liked it, that’s not really the movies fault that’s just my reaction to the movie developing as the contexts changed for me.

I was probably a lot more mean whatever I wrote that you’re remembering, sorry, it wasn’t warranted, the movie is fine, I overreacted.

[Drucker]

You might want to read the comments in the Manchester by the Sea thread made by the poster you are responding to before imploring them to share their thoughts more…

Zing! The funny thing is I thought it was fine walking out of the theatre, a solid 8, maybe a 9. But since I was the only person at work or in my groups of family or friends that saw it, I was asked about it a half dozen times, and each time I had to describe it I liked it less until it started making me mad, my spiel at the time was

Spoiler

“it’s good. It’s about a white guy who gets high and drunk and inadvertently burns his house down and his kids to death and he experiences no consequences other than feeling epicly sad all the time. And as comic relief his nephew wants to get laid but can’t. So it’s a two and half hour meditation on grief, you’re into that sort of thing”

The more I talked about it, the less I liked it, that’s not really the movies fault that’s just my reaction to the movie developing as the contexts changed for me.

I was probably a lot more mean whatever I wrote that you’re remembering, sorry, it wasn’t warranted, the movie is fine, I overreacted.

Another consequence in that film you may have missed is

Spoiler

that his children are dead

but I know that may have been easy to miss.

[therewillbeblus]

That's like saying Citizen Kane is about a white rich guy who experiences no consequences, ignoring that he's lonely and feels empty and pushes everyone away to become self and outwardly destructive because of this pain. In that case, the sled means nothing. And that's an example of a movie that deliberately doesn't let anyone into an intimate space with its central principal in the way this one does. Sometimes I wonder why people watch movies - or as Ebert once called them, empathy-machines - if they can't empathize beyond the surface

[tenia]

Although I wonder how much demand is there for barebones sets of titles that are readily available to stream on the channel.

I suppose that even so, some people are attached to the physical format, but also : their channel isn't available everywhere, so anyone from a country where it's not will have to rely on a physical release (providing no one is releasing it domestically, of course).
As for Manchester, I've read this reading of the movie, and sure enough, from a judiciary point of view, the story might have unfolded differently if the main character hadn't been white. But I'm not really sure that's really what the movie is about, but rather something like, yeah, being epicly depressed after such a traumatic event. Which, on itself, looks like something worthy of exploring on screen.

[dwk]

I suppose that even so, some people are attached to the physical format, but also : their channel isn't available everywhere, so anyone from a country where it's not will have to rely on a physical release (providing no one is releasing it domestically, of course).

True, there would be some demand, but enough to justify the costs? I guess they could adopt the FOMO limited edition model that is all the rage these days.

[DeprongMori]

So, we going to open up the quarantine ward for guesses about tomorrow’s releases?

[Hogfather]

Looks like Criterion heard y'all pining for European art cinema and answered your prayers. I'm a bit surprised they're releasing two box sets in December.

[Glowingwabbit]

Even though I probably won't grab the Haneke films, this is probably my favorite month of announcements for what's been a "meh" year for them (in my opinion).

[Finch]

The Haneke set is a typical "how long have we been sitting on this? let's get this out and over with" release of what looks like dated masters and dire artwork to boot. I'm not a fan of the man anyway but I'm hard pressed to think of a more unappealing way of selling these films. Don't care about the music documentary. I want to see Cooley High and the Zetterlings first before committing myself to a purchase. The lack of 4k titles is disappointing.

[criterionsnob]

The Haneke set is a typical "how long have we been sitting on this? let's get this out and over with"

Or it's a matter of balancing the slate. "We just announced a Disney/Pixar film. Quick! Get those Haneke films out!"

[black&huge]

December dump month/real fart out the door to end the year.

[therewillbeblus]

I mean, December isn't usually a very fruitful month, but we got two box/three-film sets and no random upgrade, so eight new titles added. I didn't really care for any of them too much outside of the Zetterling box, but that might be the release of the year. They're all at least 'interesting' releases, whether for being risky/novel kinds of films themselves or for the neat and promising extras. It's hard to look at this slate and think 'effortless'