'Forthcoming' Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.1

[HelenLawson]

...and surprisingly they had no plans at this time to do Face to Face.

I hope this isn't true. Seems odd that Criterion would pass up the chance to release this film when it wasn't even issued on VHS. After all, it won a slew of awards for Ullmann and Bergman even nabbed a Best Director nomination. Perhaps Face to Face hasn't dated well, but at the time of it's release Bergman was at the peak of his popularity.

Monika and Summer Interlude would be ideal dual releases ala the recent Malle's. Plop them down in the dead of winter so we can all escape to the idyllic Swedish summer.

What's the deal with Brink of Life? Is this not held by Janus? Maybe John Waters owns the only print.

[mteller]

Bergman Comedies: All These Women, The Devil's Eye, A Lesson in Love, Secrets of Women

*shudder* As a Bergman completist, I'll buy any releases that come out, but that set would be really painful to pay for. The only movie worth a damn in that bunch is Secrets of Women.

A Lesson in Love is one of my favorite early Begman films. And I don't mind All These Women-- it's not funny at all but it is quite interesting. Actually, all the above films are pretty good-- all way better than anything in the Early Bergman Eclipse set or the overrated Summer With Monika

I disagree with just about every word here, but to each their own. I dread the day All These Women comes out, because I'll feel obligated to watch it again.

[domino harvey]

What's the deal with Brink of Life? Is this not held by Janus? Maybe John Waters owns the only print.

There was supposedly a Swedish release of the film with English subs, but I've never heard of anyone who was able to successfully obtain it.

[DignanSWE]

Nära Livet

[Andrian Film Revival]

I picked this up along with It Rains On Our Love and A Ship Bound For India. None of them are anything to write home about in terms of dvd quality - totally unrestored, terrible sound, poorly subtitled, etc... - but nice to have in absence of anything better.

NB. I got them from discshop.se and the delivery to the UK was extremely fast. Highly recommended.

[DignanSWE]

Discshop doesn't ship anything outside Sweden: Discshop FAQ

[Thomas J.]

Nothing for...Ophuls

Wow.

It's difficult to make a convincing argument when the example you put forth to refute my assertion of monthly "French Criterions" is itself a French Criterion. #-o

More importantly, WTF are you talking about? I'm just as excited about some of these releases as anybody else. That doesn't contradict the fact that Criterion is on auto-pilot (and has been for years). It's become formulaic:

1. License a Western European or Japanese talkie (or, if it comes to that, make sure not to release a silent on its own). North American would be best.
2. License an archival tv documentary on the work or filmmaker, add a commentary and essay by a Westerner -- call them special features
3. Have a contemporary artist design the cover and DVD case, respect paid to the original poster artwork is optional
4. Take an auteurist approach to the marketing of the work, regardless of whether the work was originally conceived and marketed as such

Yes, as Jeff said, that's a successful business formula. I'm not denying that. But it flies in the face of their reputation that they release the greatest films of world cinema and pay the utmost respect to the work.

This problem is magnified many times over with their Eclipse line, specifically with regard to the line's mission statement. You mean to tell me that these works by Kurosawa, Ozu and Mizoguchi have been overlooked, forgotten, eclipsed? In fact, it's quite the contrary. When you open up any Intro to Film History book, those are the three Japanese filmmakers that are mentioned. Since Seven Samurai, Tokyo Story and Ugetsu are held in such high esteem in these books and Intro to Film History classes, film audiences are compelled to seek out other works by these filmmakers, such as those being released through the Eclipse line. Therefore, these Eclipse films have experienced the exact opposite of an eclipse in the sense of being "forgotten." They certainly haven't been "lost" (how can Criterion release a "lost" film anyway?).

By and large, Eclipse has come to mean works "overshadowed" by the more heralded titles in an auteur's oeuvre -- with "auteur" meaning the filmmakers from the Criterion line's main stable. Bernard and Klein stayed true to the mission statement, but also adhered to #1 above, so it really didn't break formula. Besides, Army of Shadows SHOULD have been an Eclipse title, but I guess Criterion is allowed to play fast and loose with adherence to their mission statements.

Again, none of this means that I don't buy Criterion's product. If I didn't like their output, I wouldn't even visit this forum. That's just logic. But I also recognize the formulaic nature of Criterion's operation, how they homogenize cinema history vis-a-vis the fanbase's and media's adoration of them in the sense that if an "old" film hasn't been released by Criterion, it can't be that great. Moreover, I'm more troubled by the opposite pervasive attitude. Criterion has successfully built a brand where they can operate on auto-pilot and people will excuse it, or worse, deny outright that they themselves are complicit with the homogenization of film culture and history through a conspicuous hegemony. That's what troubles me about all of this. It's not about what I want Criterion to release -- It's beyond me how people can mistake my point above with that thread about "Why Won't Criterion Release What I Want?" Then again, that in itself is part of my point.

BTW, Domino: "How many times is this forum going to be posed essentially identical questions about Criterion's resistance to niche cultural film markets?"

"How many times are minorities going to complain about mainstream TV and Film's resistance to supposedly niche cultural audiences?"

[Jeff]

WTF are you talking about? I'm just as excited about some of these releases as anybody else. That doesn't contradict the fact that Criterion is on auto-pilot (and has been for years). It's become formulaic:

1. License a Western European or Japanese talkie (or, if it comes to that, make sure not to release a silent on its own). North American would be best.
2. License an archival tv documentary on the work or filmmaker, add a commentary and essay by a Westerner -- call them special features
3. Have a contemporary artist design the cover and DVD case, respect paid to the original poster artwork is optional
4. Take an auteurist approach to the marketing of the work, regardless of whether the work was originally conceived and marketed as such

Yes, as Jeff said, that's a successful business formula. I'm not denying that. But it flies in the face of their reputation that they release the greatest films of world cinema and pay the utmost respect to the work.

I have absolutely no idea what your complaint is. If you're not denying that the points you've outlined above constitute a "successful business formula," then why would you suggest they change that forumla?

Criterion is not a federally-funded arts program. They are a business. Criterion is two guys and their small staff trying to make a living doing something that they enjoy and care about, largely by exploring the library of classic films they inherited from their fathers. The company has always been in the business of releasing "important classic and contemporary films" in well-appointed editions. Any other mold that you have cast them in is completely of your own design. Where did you get the idea that they were in the business of releasing obscure world cinema?

Criterion has been in business for 24 years. Their first releases were Citizen Kane and King Kong -- hardly obscure. Since that time they have had periods of being more and less adventurous with the films they released as the success of their business allowed. They went from initially releasing Hollywood classics to foreign language cinema. In the mid-90s they licensed a lot of mainstream films from Hollywood studios to help supplement their income. I would argue that they are releasing more obscure films now than they have in their entire history. If the core of their business is still centered on the giants of European and Asian cinema, than so be it. That's what they do. Those also (not coincidentally) are the films that they happen to own the rights to. Are you proposing that they should pursue the rights to films that they know will not sell well?

This problem is magnified many times over with their Eclipse line, specifically with regard to the line's mission statement. You mean to tell me that these works by Kurosawa, Ozu and Mizoguchi have been overlooked, forgotten, eclipsed?...By and large, Eclipse has come to mean works "overshadowed" by the more heralded titles in an auteur's oeuvre -- with "auteur" meaning the filmmakers from the Criterion line's main stable.

What problem? The purpose of the Eclipse line is to give Criterion an outlet to release films that they own the rights to, and that, for whatever reason, they don't feel belong in the main line. They are films that may have poor quality elements, may not have available supplemental material, or may not be well-known enough to sell on their own. Criterion has always been very upfront about this. Peter Becker laid it all out before the line was launched. The Eclipse website states that, "these range from some of the most sought-after titles from the world's greatest filmmakers to eye-opening discoveries from around the world." The fact that the lesser-known films from Bergman, Ozu, Kurosawa, and Mizoguchi have been released really shouldn't come as a surprise to you. They are a large part of why the line exists.

Why would they have released Army of Shadows as an Eclipse title? Because it wasn't well-known in America before 2006? Titles are released on Eclipse for marketing reasons. Shadows had just been subject to a multi-million dollar restoration, had several supplements available that had just been produced, and had just finished an incredibly successful theatrical run accompanied by wide critical acclaim. Releasing a bare-bones version on the Eclipse label would have been profoundly stupid.

Again, none of this means that I don't buy Criterion's product. If I didn't like their output, I wouldn't even visit this forum. That's just logic. But I also recognize the formulaic nature of Criterion's operation, how they homogenize cinema history vis-a-vis the fanbase's and media's adoration of them in the sense that if an "old" film hasn't been released by Criterion, it can't be that great. Moreover, I'm more troubled by the opposite pervasive attitude. Criterion has successfully built a brand where they can operate on auto-pilot and people will excuse it, or worse, deny outright that they themselves are complicit with the homogenization of film culture and history through a conspicuous hegemony. That's what troubles me about all of this. It's not about what I want Criterion to release -- It's beyond me how people can mistake my point above with that thread about "Why Won't Criterion Release What I Want?" Then again, that in itself is part of my point.

Again, I don't think this "problem" exists anywhere but inside your head. If some jackass wants to decide that "if a film hasn't been released by Criterion it can't be that great," that's their problem. It's certainly not Criterion's problem. What do you propose they do, buy the rights to every good film ever released? The "homogenization of film culture," is clearly not an issue for members of this forum, and it's not a problem that Criterion can -- or needs to -- solve.

[cysiam]

But it flies in the face of their reputation that they release the greatest films of world cinema and pay the utmost respect to the work.

Have you read any of their blog posts? If so, I don't know how you can say they don't respect the films they work on.

[colinr0380]

A.O. Scott on The Human Condition's theatrical screening.

[GringoTex]

Since Seven Samurai, Tokyo Story and Ugetsu are held in such high esteem in these books and Intro to Film History classes, film audiences are compelled to seek out other works by these filmmakers, such as those being released through the Eclipse line.

And thanks to Eclipse, they can now actually seek out these films.

[HerrSchreck]

Nothing for...Ophuls

Wow.

It's difficult to make a convincing argument when the example you put forth to refute my assertion of monthly "French Criterions" is itself a French Criterion.

Actually I said

Nothing for Shepitko, Klein, Vampyr, Missing, Ophuls... notwithstanding the desert of Mizo in R1.

Thomas "The affirmative-action-dvd-troll" J, ladies and gentlemen.

Dude, you're colorlessly nuts. I can't even read your posts anymore. It's just too tiresome.

[Thomas J.]

WTF are you talking about? I'm just as excited about some of these releases as anybody else. That doesn't contradict the fact that Criterion is on auto-pilot (and has been for years). It's become formulaic:

1. License a Western European or Japanese talkie (or, if it comes to that, make sure not to release a silent on its own). North American would be best.
2. License an archival tv documentary on the work or filmmaker, add a commentary and essay by a Westerner -- call them special features
3. Have a contemporary artist design the cover and DVD case, respect paid to the original poster artwork is optional
4. Take an auteurist approach to the marketing of the work, regardless of whether the work was originally conceived and marketed as such

Yes, as Jeff said, that's a successful business formula. I'm not denying that. But it flies in the face of their reputation that they release the greatest films of world cinema and pay the utmost respect to the work.

I have absolutely no idea what your complaint is. If you're not denying that the points you've outlined above constitute a "successful business formula," then why would you suggest they change that forumla?

Criterion is not a federally-funded arts program. They are a business. Criterion is two guys and their small staff trying to make a living doing something that they enjoy and care about, largely by exploring the library of classic films they inherited from their fathers. The company has always been in the business of releasing "important classic and contemporary films" in well-appointed editions. Any other mold that you have cast them in is completely of your own design. Where did you get the idea that they were in the business of releasing obscure world cinema?

Criterion has been in business for 24 years. Their first releases were Citizen Kane and King Kong -- hardly obscure. Since that time they have had periods of being more and less adventurous with the films they released as the success of their business allowed. They went from initially releasing Hollywood classics to foreign language cinema. In the mid-90s they licensed a lot of mainstream films from Hollywood studios to help supplement their income. I would argue that they are releasing more obscure films now than they have in their entire history. If the core of their business is still centered on the giants of European and Asian cinema, than so be it. That's what they do. Those also (not coincidentally) are the films that they happen to own the rights to. Are you proposing that they should pursue the rights to films that they know will not sell well?

This problem is magnified many times over with their Eclipse line, specifically with regard to the line's mission statement. You mean to tell me that these works by Kurosawa, Ozu and Mizoguchi have been overlooked, forgotten, eclipsed?...By and large, Eclipse has come to mean works "overshadowed" by the more heralded titles in an auteur's oeuvre -- with "auteur" meaning the filmmakers from the Criterion line's main stable.

What problem? The purpose of the Eclipse line is to give Criterion an outlet to release films that they own the rights to, and that, for whatever reason, they don't feel belong in the main line. They are films that may have poor quality elements, may not have available supplemental material, or may not be well-known enough to sell on their own. Criterion has always been very upfront about this. Peter Becker laid it all out before the line was launched. The Eclipse website states that, "these range from some of the most sought-after titles from the world's greatest filmmakers to eye-opening discoveries from around the world." The fact that the lesser-known films from Bergman, Ozu, Kurosawa, and Mizoguchi have been released really shouldn't come as a surprise to you. They are a large part of why the line exists.

Why would they have released Army of Shadows as an Eclipse title? Because it wasn't well-known in America before 2006? Titles are released on Eclipse for marketing reasons. Shadows had just been subject to a multi-million dollar restoration, had several supplements available that had just been produced, and had just finished an incredibly successful theatrical run accompanied by wide critical acclaim. Releasing a bare-bones version on the Eclipse label would have been profoundly stupid.

Again, none of this means that I don't buy Criterion's product. If I didn't like their output, I wouldn't even visit this forum. That's just logic. But I also recognize the formulaic nature of Criterion's operation, how they homogenize cinema history vis-a-vis the fanbase's and media's adoration of them in the sense that if an "old" film hasn't been released by Criterion, it can't be that great. Moreover, I'm more troubled by the opposite pervasive attitude. Criterion has successfully built a brand where they can operate on auto-pilot and people will excuse it, or worse, deny outright that they themselves are complicit with the homogenization of film culture and history through a conspicuous hegemony. That's what troubles me about all of this. It's not about what I want Criterion to release -- It's beyond me how people can mistake my point above with that thread about "Why Won't Criterion Release What I Want?" Then again, that in itself is part of my point.

Again, I don't think this "problem" exists anywhere but inside your head. If some jackass wants to decide that "if a film hasn't been released by Criterion it can't be that great," that's their problem. It's certainly not Criterion's problem. What do you propose they do, buy the rights to every good film ever released? The "homogenization of film culture," is clearly not an issue for members of this forum, and it's not a problem that Criterion can -- or needs to -- solve.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I would want them to change their mission statements. Beyond that, nothing. I have said this in the past, and I have come to terms with what they release. But to deny that the "homogenization of film culture" is a product of my own imagination and is not really occurring is naive and moreover a bit disturbing, since it serves my argument.

Only a minimal percentage of surviving films throughout history are distributed for release before the same group of films are re-released. The rest just aren't released. As a result, it follows that commercial interests dictate what our classics are, and therefore dictates what films are commercially viable for release. The movies that are not distributed are held back since they're ostensibly not commercially viable - yet they can't become that if they're never released. So the films that are heralded in our film culture are but a small percentage and sort of forced upon us through corporate interests. The other would-be commercially-viable titles don't have a commercial fanbase because they're out of sight, out of mind.

It's not that Criterion ever set out to be a main purveyor of this condition. They do their best within their financial restraints. That doesn't mean they exist outside hegemony, though. Gradually the commercial interests of film culture/history (that which you've articulately made clear) in cooperation with an audience that is fundamentally accepting of such practices, has brought about this condition. And it will only get worse as time goes on.

It's funny to me that I initially I was labeled a neoconservative and now I'm the opposite. Make up your minds.

Nothing for...Ophuls

Wow.

It's difficult to make a convincing argument when the example you put forth to refute my assertion of monthly "French Criterions" is itself a French Criterion.

Actually I said

Nothing for Shepitko, Klein, Vampyr, Missing, Ophuls... notwithstanding the desert of Mizo in R1.

Thomas "The affirmative-action-dvd-troll" J, ladies and gentlemen.

Dude, you're colorlessly nuts. I can't even read your posts anymore. It's just too tiresome.

First, you're still not refuting my point about Ophuls being a French Criterion release. Just admit you messed up. It's not a big deal. This is just the Internet -- no need to be embarrassed.

If standing up for equal representation is tiresome to you, then just keep it moving and don't read my posts. Fact of the matter is that I've received multiple messages from people who agree with me. Not to mention that these matters are a big component of academic film theory these days.

Again, I'm happy for the Shepitko, VAMPYR, etc.

Moving on...

[blindside8zao]

You mean to tell me that these works by Kurosawa, Ozu and Mizoguchi have been overlooked, forgotten, eclipsed? In fact, it's quite the contrary. When you open up any Intro to Film History book, those are the three Japanese filmmakers that are mentioned. Since Seven Samurai, Tokyo Story and Ugetsu are held in such high esteem in these books and Intro to Film History classes, film audiences are compelled to seek out other works by these filmmakers, such as those being released through the Eclipse line.

Just having emerged from Undergraduate and having met several film/media/comm. arts majors, some from NC, some GA, even a few from NYU (they've even used my bedroom and house to film on several occasions). I can tell you none of them had a clue who Mizoguchi or Ozu were and the names 'Ugetsu' and 'Tokyo Story' didn't help much. Even in academic fields these seemingly obvious classics are withdrawing from notice. Even the ones who knew the names Bresson, Tarkovsky, and Dreyer hadn't heard of these two Japanese directors. I think Kurosawa's name and the entire samurai genre more often than not serves to obscure any other work done by the Japanese when it comes to film-school kids.

[klee13]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I would want them to change their mission statements. Beyond that, nothing. I have said this in the past, and I have come to terms with what they release. But to deny that the "homogenization of film culture" is a product of my own imagination and is not really occurring is naive and moreover a bit disturbing, since it serves my argument.

Only a minimal percentage of surviving films throughout history are distributed for release before the same group of films are re-released. The rest just aren't released. As a result, it follows that commercial interests dictate what our classics are, and therefore dictates what films are commercially viable for release. The movies that are not distributed are held back since they're ostensibly not commercially viable - yet they can't become that if they're never released. So the films that are heralded in our film culture are but a small percentage and sort of forced upon us through corporate interests. The other would-be commercially-viable titles don't have a commercial fanbase because they're out of sight, out of mind.

It's not that Criterion ever set out to be a main purveyor of this condition. They do their best within their financial restraints. That doesn't mean they exist outside hegemony, though. Gradually the commercial interests of film culture/history (that which you've articulately made clear) in cooperation with an audience that is fundamentally accepting of such practices, has brought about this condition. And it will only get worse as time goes on.

It's funny to me that I initially I was labeled a neoconservative and now I'm the opposite. Make up your minds.

Although I can see what you are saying, you don't seem to actually be offering any solutions to this problem of "the homogenization of film culture". Since releasing every movie ever made so that viewers could make their own conclusions would be essentially impossible, (nor would viewers be patient enough to watch all of those films even if they were all released) the only seemingly possible solutions would be for companies to randomly select films to distribute based on no merit whatsoever, or for home viewing to be done away with completely so that we could revert back to the way it was back when once a movie left the theaters, it was rarely viewed again. Repertory showings would be a no-go too, since such selections would lead back into the kind of homogenization that you have described.

If I may, this problem could be represented on a much smaller scale. Film critics are necessary because many people need help selecting which films to see in theaters. I would imagine that very few people actually have enough money to see every film that is playing and decide for themselves which is the best. Even if it isn't the critics, everybody bases the films they see on something. Yes, perhaps this isn't the "fairest" way, but it is unfortunately a necessary evil.

Perhaps if home viewing formats didn't change every few decades, then maybe what you have described wouldn't be such a problem. That is what I think you should be riled up about, not small specialized companies like Criterion.

[Jeff]

Only a minimal percentage of surviving films throughout history are distributed for release before the same group of films are re-released. The rest just aren't released.

Okay. At least I understand what your concern is now. I'm glad you understand that this isn't an issue that Criterion should be held responsible for, or one they can solve (even though the recent Criterion announcements left you "really [thinking] Criterion has devolved into self-parody by this point").

You think Criterion's mission statement should be amended? I wouldn't worry about it too much, since it's just a marketing tool. The entire thing is quite lengthy, and for many years has pointed out that "the foundation of the collection is the work of such masters of cinema as Renoir, Godard, Kurosawa, Cocteau, Fellini, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock, Fuller, Lean, Kubrick, Lang, Sturges, Dreyer, Eisenstein, Ozu, Sirk, Buñuel, Powell and Pressburger," so I don't know why it should surprise you that their films turn up more than others.

Eclipse's mission statement is, “Eclipse presents a selection of lost, forgotten, or overshadowed films in simple, affordable editions. Each series is a brief cinematheque retrospective for the adventurous home viewer.” It never says that the directors will be obscure too. The Bergman, Ozu, Kurosawa, and Mizoguchi titles that they have released are the overshadowed films by those directors. If the mission statements still concern you, how should they reword them? What should they say in order to be more accurate in your eyes?

I'm also glad that we agree that releasing obscure, unknown films isn't a commercially viable proposition. Granting that, what do you propose be done. How is it that you think this problem of "the hegemony of cinema" can be solved?

I'm sure sure we would all love to see lots of obscure films released that have never been available before. I know I would. I would also like for Natalie Portman to ring my doorbell and tell me that she is hot and sweaty from driving all day and could she please use my shower. Neither scenario is likely.

It has already been proposed by another member that if you really think such titles deserve a release, you should release them yourself. If the prospect of spending several hundred thousand dollars to acquire the rights, restore the films, produce, author, and distribute the discs all to see a gross return of a few hundred dollars doesn't sound appealing to you, you can imagine that doesn't sound appealing to existing distributors either.

[swo17]

I would also like for Natalie Portman to ring my doorbell...

I'm glad you did not mention Tamara here.

[ianungstad]

Has anyone asked Criterion about the possibility of The Darjeeling Limited? Take with a grain of salt:

Yeah, when I interviewed/chatted with Wes Anderson last year, he said Darjeeling would come out first on a regular, studio DVD (which it did), and then later be released on Criterion. So, we will see...

[Gregory]

The assumption that I'm seeing here (and that I've seen in several earlier discussions of this issue) is that it'd be less profitable for Criterion to release films from certain parts of the globe than everything else they release. Do we really have any evidence about this? Do we really know how much profit they would make on something like an Eclipse set of Mexican melodramas vs. some of the Eclipse sets they have in fact released? Do we know that Brazilian cinema novo films are far less profitable than something like Mon Oncle Antoine or even, for that matter, titles that probably sell better? We really have practically no idea how much they spent licensing The Ice Storm and paying to create special features (etc., etc.) nor do we know how many people paid the high price to get the Criterion edition when there were already so many thousands of discs out there with a fine-looking transfer. If producing DVDs of films from Latin America (etc.) is categorically an obviously stupid financial move, then I wonder why they have repeatedly stated that they hope to branch into areas like this, and have in fact finally made the first steps at doing so? Why should we assume that really important films from the region would be less viable for them to release than something like Sólo con tu Pareja, which almost no one cares about? I wish we could all put aside arguments based on profitability when none of us can really do any more than make wild speculations.
To those arguing that this boils completely down to costs and projected profits, I want to offer a reminder of Criterion's own response to this question in one of the old forum interviews. They said something like, We want to release films from Africa and Latin America, but we don't have any idea what titles we should choose. You're welcome to send lists to help us. I don't mean to argue that it boils down to ignorance, but I think Criterion's track record shows that they have a certain number of titles each year that they can release because they want to, knowing they probably will lose a bit of money. This is part of what allows them to take on a curatorial role, and while it this is their prerogative, it is their consumer's prerogative to lobby them to pay more attention to certain categories they have neglected, such as silents.

For my own part, I don't think Criterion has any special responsibility to release the films I want from neglected areas of the film world. Other companies show a similar lack of interest, with the exception of Facets, First Run/Icarus, and to a lesser extent New Yorker, and this is extremely frustrating. I just want to have access to more than one or two new classic Latin American films each year. I want to live long enough to be able to watch The Battle of Chile in a decent presentation. I want someone, anyone, to release this stuff beyond the excruciatingly slow trickle of expensive and usually poor-quality stuff from the aforementioned companies. But, according to most people here, this is just not possible. Every other imaginable type of DVD can be released, but not the stuff I want to see.

I ask the average reader of this forum to try and put yourself in my position. Imagine a parallel universe where there is far less interest in, say, German film. In this hypothetical situation, Criterion has released only one German film, and it's a fairly recent one that next to no one really cares about. The only companies in the world that have released Metropolis and Fear Eats the Soul are Facets and New Yorker, and no other titles by Lang and Fassbinder are available, with the exception of four or five VHS tapes that are extremely expensive. You go to the best film discussion forum on the internet only to find that there is next to zero interest in most German cinema, and when you suggest that Criterion should really be taking a greater interest in putting the situation right, you're told, "DVDs of German films are less profitable than those of French films, and Criterion is a business after all" and "If you care so much about these niche German films, release them yourself -- have fun going bankrupt." People on the forum discuss Lang, but Murnau and Pabst are never mentioned. Worse still, it is impossible (or next to impossible) to see most of the classic films from Germany, and you'll probably never be able to because no one knows about them, and no one cares to, so they're perpetually unprofitable. Well, this is how I feel about Latin American cinema.
Yes, Criterion is a business, but they have also assumed a curatorial role in a world where there are almost no non-business entities that are in any position to do anything about the problem I'm describing. One of the things we love about them is that they put an inordinate amount of time, effort, and expense into projects that wouldn't fly if profit were the overriding concern. Fortunately, they release things that we can safely assume lose money. They are an unusual business, and they partly owe their success to their reputation for introducing people to a lot of films they had never had the chance to see before, and doing so in a way that exceeds normal expectations of what is possible in the commercial home video marketplace. So when there is a severe shortage of a certain kind of film on the market, of course people who care about that type of film (few thought they may be) are going to look to them to help put the situation right.
When people criticize them for releasing so few silent films, I don't any of these counter-arguments trotted out, but when someone wants to be able to see more Latin American or Middle Eastern film, there's no shortage of people with long lists of why it's not possible.

[depositio]

When people criticize them for releasing so few silent films, I don't any of these counter-arguments trotted out, but when someone wants to be able to see more Latin American or Middle Eastern film, there's no shortage of people with long lists of why it's not possible.

This is all the more noteworthy, since there really is a fairly competitive niche industry already at work restoring and presenting a wide spectrum of extant silent film in DVD editions of Criterion-comparable quality.

Doing justice to Guzman's work could certainly go some way toward rehabilitating the creeping, parochial cinephilistinism in evidence even among some of the otherwise perfectly charming Criterionomaniacs!

I want to live long enough to be able to watch The Battle of Chile in a decent presentation.

[MuzikJunky]

Two oft-repeated words: Chico Ejiro. Peace.

[CSM126]

Two oft-repeated words: Chico Ejiro. Peace.

Give it up already, Chico. We ain't watching your damned movies.

[domino harvey]

Two oft-repeated words: Chico Ejiro. Peace.

Give it up already, Chico. We ain't watching your damned movies.

lol

Gregory's post makes an incorrect assumption. The films which remain in the art house periphery today are those films and directors that have been kept alive via academic critical teaching and writing. There is more written about the German films you mention than the Latin American ones, and it is the continued visibility of discussed films which keeps them alive. You want save a film? Write about it, and not on the internet.

[Cinephrenic]

Two oft-repeated words: Chico Ejiro. Peace.

Let me guess, the box will be called "New Nigerian Cinema".

[domino harvey]

Two oft-repeated words: Chico Ejiro. Peace.

Let me guess, the box will be called "New Nigerian Cinema".

It will feature a sticker on the front reminding retailers to periodically wipe the dust off the set.