Criterion Discussion and Random Speculation Volume 7

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

You're right, and if counting Hollywood in, you can add Kubrick and to a lesser extent Hitchcock to that list. Maybe I just have to accept that times are changing, and that some of these great directors will be almost forgotten, many of them because their films don't fit into contemporary agendas or political climate which I think is a shame. That's not what cinema is to me. It's also a bit of paradox since we've never had better direct access to all of cinema history than now. But maybe that's indeed the issue: There's too much to choose from for new cinephiles, so only the Top 5 or 10 directors that you mentioned most of end up rising above the mold? Couldn't dream up a more yawntastic box set than a Kurosawa one.

Also, they managed to do the Fellini set. But, of course, he's much more popular than Antonioni, but I'd argue that the younger generation would find his gender politics and portrayal just as problematic - or archaic - as Hitchcock's (my prediction is that the latter's reputation will slowly wane exactly because of this). I couldn't see Criterion release a Fellini set today, 10 years later.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Where is this proof of what younger audiences want or desire? In the last few years, I attended several sold-out shows of Fellini, Hitchcock, and Antonioni films where the median age is people in their mid-twenties. What people post on Reddit (never an indicator knowledge or curiousity) rarely translates to a recognizable reality I experience.

[RPG]

The arthouse cinema I frequent is in the Main Line outside Philly, a more affluent area that generally draws an older audience. In my personal experience, Hitchcock is one of the directors who consistently brings out a younger crowd.

[dwk]

Regarding a Lynch box set, for what it is worth, one of the Lynch fan accounts claims they've heard it isn't a Criterion set. Doesn't explain why Lynch's daughter posted the info under a post by Criterion.

[PfR73]

I don't see how that could make any sense. The rights to Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Twin Peaks: FWWM, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, & Inland Empire are with Criterion/Janus. Why would they license these films out to someone else to release?

[Mr.DarjeelingLimited]

The arthouse cinema I frequent is in the Main Line outside Philly, a more affluent area that generally draws an older audience. In my personal experience, Hitchcock is one of the directors who consistently brings out a younger crowd.

That’s a great theater.

[James Stock]

I don't see how that could make any sense. The rights to Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Twin Peaks: FWWM, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, & Inland Empire are with Criterion/Janus. Why would they license these films out to someone else to release?

I took the comment as meaning it won't be a movie set but who knows with how vague all the information is and that wouldn't make sense either.

[dwk]

I don't see how that could make any sense. The rights to Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Twin Peaks: FWWM, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, & Inland Empire are with Criterion/Janus. Why would they license these films out to someone else to release?

Could be a StudioCanal set for Europe or something other than a set of his films. There is not really enough info to know for sure.

[Mr.DarjeelingLimited]

I’m 23, the majority of people I know who collect Criterion are around my age. There is definitely love for the arthouse guys in there. As for haul posts, the majority of them are made by people just getting into collecting via their favorite films or people who have the older arthouse films and are just grabbing new releases.

My shelf is filled with Ray, Berman, Antonioni, Truffaut, Fellini, Varda, Kurosawa, Demy, Cocteau, Kobayashi, Akerman, and Ozu. There is huge love and admiration for the old school arthouse among my generation.

[knives]

They just changed things which makes assessing votes hard, but on Letterboxd Antonioni’s most popular film, Blow-Up, has 2.7k fans versus Fellini with 8 1/2 at 13k fans. That certainly suggests a popularity gap.

[Lowry_Sam]

I think Criterion's agenda has always been to provide as broad a coverage of the world's cinema as they can and have always used better selling high profile releases to pay the bills while also releasing lower profile titles that deserve a wider audience. I don't think anyone was under the impression that the Olympic set would do anywhere near the sales of the Godzilla set when they planned them and yet both came into fruition. The Bergman set unexpectedly sold out its first pressing quickly because it wasn't region-coded & ended up getting many orders from Sweden (an advantage that a UHD set would share, though I don't think Italians would be as likely to buy up a complete Fellini, Antonioni, Rossellini or Visconti).

There are certain directors in Criterion's catalog that would lend themselves to putting together a comprehensive retrospective that go beyond just the market for such a box: the size of the director's catalog, the number of titles already in the collection, the (# of) licensors to work with, whether the director is still alive or has a foundation for his legacy, the availabilty of the materials needed...

I (and many others) don't begrudge a set I don't want (ie. Anderson or Lynch) if it's going to help fund releases I do want (Pasolini, Fellini, Bergman). I think some of my disappointment though is that we haven't seen any of the smaller sets (outside of a few recent Eclipse upgrades) that we used to see from Criterion (trilogies or multiple disc sets of a non-living director on a particular theme) in a while. Radiance seems to be stepping in to fill the gap, but there's a limit to what they can do to fill that gap. At the same time, Criterion has stepped up its output of individual titles, so I guess it's a trade-off.

Both Lynch & Antonioni have a sizable representation in the collection already, so it wouldn't be a stretch to see a box from either, though the work needed for each would be different. I don't see a Lynch set or an Antonioni set as either/or, but would welcome both even though I'd only buy the Antonioni.

[Hogfather]

I think a big part of it is what Criterion is pushing more and less heavily. I went to a B&N recently and more than half of the Criterions on sale were 4Ks or films that had 4K editions. The selection heavily favored recent releases and upgrades from the last year. This meant that Farewell My Concubine and Demon Pond were both there, but I didn't see any Pasolinis or Antonionis because they don't have 4Ks.

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

There are certain directors in Criterion's catalog that would lend themselves to putting together a comprehensive retrospective that go beyond just the market for such a box: the size of the director's catalog, the number of titles already in the collection, the (# of) licensors to work with, whether the director is still alive or has a foundation for his legacy, the availabilty of the materials needed...

I (and many others) don't begrudge a set I don't want (ie. Anderson or Lynch) if it's going to help fund releases I do want (Pasolini, Fellini, Bergman). I think some of my disappointment though is that we haven't seen any of the smaller sets (outside of a few recent Eclipse upgrades) that we used to see from Criterion (trilogies or multiple disc sets of a non-living director on a particular theme) in a while. Radiance seems to be stepping in to fill the gap, but there's a limit to what they can do to fill that gap. At the same time, Criterion has stepped up its output of individual titles, so I guess it's a trade-off.

Well put! And I was going to add the upcoming Kubrick box as a fundraiser for lesser selling directors, but that prestige project is probably more about branding Criterion while licensing and selling on behalf of the estate?

I agree with you regarding Lynch. There's no real need for a box outside of having the films collected in a box with supplements, since they are all already available on stand alone UHDs. Completely contrary to the example of Antonioni who has 1 film out on UHD even though 4K masters of many of his films (including the one of Blow-Up that Criterion released on BD) exist. As much as I respect Lynch, I find it much more important to get Antonioni (and others!) out there in the best possible quality, especially if the only difference a Lynch box would make is packaging and possibly some new supplements.

I get that Bergman, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock would sell much more than Antonioni, but I can think of few other directors of that era whose striking imagery would be better served by 4K than Antonioni. That why I think Criterion should be up for the task. If they can do Pasolini, they can do Antonioni as well. The size of his filmography is also very manageable compared to many of his peers.

[James Stock]

I agree with you regarding Lynch. There's no real need for a box outside of having the films collected in a box with supplements, since they are all already available on stand alone UHDs.

Wild at Heart and Inland Empire don't have 4ks, though the latter would be pointless and Wild at Heart should be released by the end of the year. The Straight Story and Eraserhead don't have U.S. 4ks but I wouldn't be surprised if they are both released next year.

[Mark L.]

I think the upside of a Lynch box is the shorts. Seems like that’s the only way we’re going to get stuff like Dumbland, Rabbits and a lot of the other website larks. Maybe even some of his music videos and ads. I think Criterion knows that people already bought most of his features, so I can’t imagine they phone it in regarding extras.