Then they can get on those next. Look a Rocha release for example would be 1 release that entire year. 1. In the middle of the Godzilla releases, or the Being John Malkovich releases, would it hurt to put out 1 release of something like that instead of "discovering" more of the same from someone like a Malle? Put out an African film the next year, etc. When all of those Countries are >1% of your releases combined, it's like you don't even try.

I agree with much of the criticism leveled at the CC's 2012 release schedule. Personally, I blame their current business model. In the "golden age" (circa 2003-7), the vast majority of releases were for films new to the collection (not counting the LaserDisc days). Then the release schedule became so clogged with first hi-def remasters and then Blu-ray re-re-releases (typically with no additional extras), and these pushed a lot of the new-to-the-collection stuff off the schedule. That's what makes me sad.

Initially, I was eager to upgrade many DVDs in my collection to Blu-ray, but these days I'm more selective, and I'm getting tired of buying titles for the third time (I know, no one held a gun to my head).

The heart of the collection for me has been the Renoirs, Fellinis, Ozus, Bergmans, Buñuels, Tarkovskys, Sternbergs, Bressons, Mizoguchis, Ophuls, et al. Maybe I'd be more satisfied if the Blu-ray re-releases were more heavily concentrated in this territory. But mainly I miss discovering new films, new directors (new to me, at least).

A big part of this- and why, for instance, they lean so heavily on Malle- is that Criterion has the Rialto catalog, and Rialto distributed mostly French, Japanese, and Italian movies in the first place (which is, as I understand it, one of the reasons those countries have such an arthouse edge in the first place.) It's not like they just release whatever they feel like, they work from a list of titles they have available.

That doesn't mean they couldn't work harder to go after a more diverse catalog still, but it's not as though every Malle release represents them going "well, we could put out something from South America, or we could put out Black Moon. Pssh, fuck South America"

I do wonder how much of Criterion's acquisitions process could be described by Nick's comment in the MoC thread yesterday:

I think you mean the Janus catalog....
(Most of Rialto's is now unfortunately inaccessable to them due to it mainly coming from StudioCanal...)

But I absolutely agree, much of what they put out is what they have easy access to from Janus free of licensing fees...

Oh, right, I forgot those were different entities.

That's very true matrixschmatrix (about the Malle situation), but after 600+ titles, not even counting the Eclipse films, there has to be a little "fuck South America" when you have nothing.

In my mind, when someone points out that Rivette is the "next missing filmmaker Criterion hasn't put out" I see Glauber Rocha and Yoshida higher on that list. Now when a company that prides itself on gathering the "big" directors from around the world, I'm curious why they would leave out the "biggest" name of South American films this side of the 60's. The funny thing about this is, the Rocha films that needs releases are his Euro ones from the 70's (with the likes of Juliet Berto in them). So not even Brazilian films.

Yeah- in some ways it's as much a problem with the viewpoint that Criterion is the standard-bearer for world arthouse cinema in the US as it is with Criterion, which has been pretty consistent about the kind of material it distributes, because if you see Criterion as representing legitimization (and looking at the Tiny Furniture thread, that's obviously a belief that's hard to avoid) then anything Criterion doesn't put out seems perforce less legitimate.

On the other hand, I don't know of anybody that's putting out Rocha's films, and Criterion seems as likely a candidate as anyone else. The only South American filmmaker I can think of off the top of my head that is fairly well distributed is Patricio Guzman, whom Icarus has been doing well by lately.

Though I'm sure most of the people who work for Criterion know more than I do, I wonder how much of their selection IS limited by individual's tastes. I know I've read that each disc has its own producer, and I got the impression that for a release to come out (at least) one person kind of has to "take the lead" on the project.
So to a degree, certainly this could present some sort of limit on what's coming out.

^ This is something I wanted to bring up and didn't. Maybe no one at Criterion has seen or even heard of Rocha (which sounds crazy) and is the reason they don't go after his films for example. No one there to say they like his films.

There's others brazilian filmmakers that deserve to be mencioned. Maybe Criterion will listen: Joaquim Pedro de Andrade, Hector Babenco (argentinian-born, but brazilian radicated), Roberto Santos, Nelson Pereira dos Santos, Roberto Farias, Walter Lima Jr., Anselmo Duarte, among others.

I think it would jump about 4% overall.
Eclipse has 135 titles and is roughly broken down like this:

Japan: 33%
USA: 15%
France: 13%
UK: 10%
Italy: 5%
Finland: 4%
Czechloslovakia: 4%
Sweden: 4%
Canada: 4%
Yugoslavia: 2%
Spain: 2%
Soviet Union: 1%
Belgium*: 1%

*for the Akerman set, I just used the first country listed on the website, so one Belgium, two USA, two france

2011: new releases only, 40 titles:
USA: 32.5%
France: 27.5%
UK: 15%
Japan: 10%
Italy: 5%
Sweden 1%
South Korea 1%
India 1%
Germany 1%

2012: through july, new releases only, 26 titles:
USA: 42%
UK: 15%
Italy: 11%
Sweden: 8%
Japan: 8%
France 4%
Soviet Union 4%
Germany 4%
Finland 4%

Note that 2012 has already released films from as many countries as 2011.

So, there were 40 new titles in 2011 in 12 months, while 2012 has 26 in 7 months. If that pace is kept 2012 will have 3-6 more new titles than 2011.

I would also add Júlio Bressane, Andrea Tonacci, and Rogério Sganzerla. Would be a cool Cinema Marginal Eclipse set.

Too long, will not proofread.

I have been consuming film avidly for about 20 years. This conversation motivated me to make my first post here, and my feelings are almost identical to those stated by FilmFanSea, above. I would add that another possible reason for Criterion's increasingly thin offerings is that they no longer are the only high quality, easily accessible game in town. Kino has improved, MoC is very good, BFI has become a real treat even in Region A, and even some of the major US studios are doing a respectable job. Plus, there are only so many truly fine titles out there to resurrect. See also, the Jerry Lewis catalogue appearing in Blu Ray.

Up until about six months ago, I owned every Criterion title. Not because I fantasize that someone will be impressed by my collection or because of some compulsive neuroses, but because I truly believed -- chose to believe -- that Criterion's editorial decisions would escort me further down the path toward understanding and benefitting from this fabulous art form.

Admittedly, I always had a small "This can wait a very long time" stack (Chasing Amy, the Stillmans, the Bays, a few others), but I gladly shouldered that possibly wasted money on DVDs that might never get opened, for the enlightening bliss that is watching the Resnais titles for the first time, and then the second and third. My god.

Then about six months ago I watched a single Criterion title fairly recently re-released on Blu, and a fairly recent Eclipse set, both of which just made me mad. These were the kind of dumb films I knew to avoid before I even seriously started down my path. The listentothesoundtrackandreminisceaboutyourimaginedpast sincetherereallyisnotafilmtowatch approach, and the dreaded unfunny crap knuckle-dragging college boys call black comedy. Great.

These experiences caused two things for me: First, I now had a theory about the curious term "cult film", that it possibly means there is a cult of people who begin pretending it isn't atrocious at age 20 (because it reminds them of their awesome selves and their awesome friends), and like most cults, once you're in, it never occurs to you that something might not be quite right. Second, that it was time to liquidate some Criterion titles.

I've sold the entire "This can wait stack". I've abandoned the goal to upgrade all Criterion titles to Blu. And I'm skipping entirely quite a few things from the last year or so. All without remorse. Because you know, I've seen very very good college film projects. I don't need to own them on Blu Ray. Everyone (no offense) who takes film classes in college likes Clerks and Tiny Furniture because it is flattering, because every college film class always makes Clerks and Tiny Furniture, before, during, and after the wildly distributed versions. Yea for me!! I did that too!!

This week I watched Nathalie Granger, astounding even in its Facets transfer, and the gorgeous recent Blu-Ray of Pasolini's Media. These are the kind of breath-taking films that got me interested in the Criterion Collection, and I'm glad someone is distributing them. And I'm glad Criterion continues to put out some fine titles as well. But the time has passed to put faith in just buying them all -- a slightly flawed approach now significantly defective.

2011 - 40 new mainline releases
2010 - 51 new mainline releases
2009 - 39 new mainline releases
2008 - 40 new mainline releases
2007 - 48 new mainline releases
2006 - 41 new releases
2005 - 51 new releases
2004 - 42 new releases
2003 - 45 new releases
2002 - 32 new releases
2001 - 48 new releases (appears there were many and more delays of early spine numbers)
2000 - 32 new releases
1999 - 31 new releases
1998 - 27 new releases

They've been remarkably stable at releases about 40 new releases a year for the last ten years. they've had a few outlier years, but these have happened before and after the implementation of eclipse or bluray.

Despite many cries to the contrary, the data does not support that mainline releases have been inhibited by the adoption of bluray, the introduction of eclipse, releasing new versions of early spine numbers, or the introduction of bluray upgrades.

I'd like to add from Argentina: Leonardo Favio, Eliseo Subiela, Leopoldo Torre Nilsson, María Luisa Bemberg, Luis Puenzo, Fabián Bielinsky, etc.

Am I the only one who is suprised that we didn't get a reissue of Tokyo Olympiad to coincide with the opening of the London games at the end of July?

It's been out of print for ages, so no big surprise.

But, I have always assumed that it is out of print pending a restoration / reissue. It is a still Janus property after all, the only one that I can think of that has gone completely out of print.

I think the whole issue of Criterion's "decline" or "lack of diversity" is largely a figment of adventurous viewers imaginations. Matt Yglesias, in reviewing Tyler Cowen's recent argument, has a very apt explanation that I think is a phenomenon that happens in most niche groups.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/04/16/why_do_restaurants_decline_over_time_.html

Criterion has a responsibility to keep the steak and chicken entrees on the menu. They may also put venison sweetbreads on the menu or wild boar belly or tripe of lamb on the menu to satisfy their most adventurous patrons, but they know that their bread and butter is in the steak and chicken.

Well put, movielocke! So to extend your analogy, Rustle's complaints above are on the order of a foodie saying: I used to love this restaurant. In fact, I've had every item that's ever been on the menu because I loved the food and trusted the chefs' tastes so much. But lately I've found there are some menu items that aren't nearly as tasty as I had expected, not even close to as scrumtrulescent as most of the first 500 odd offerings.

The more menu items on offer, the more likely it is that any number of them will not square with what brought you to said restaurant in the first place.

Unless, like me, you've always been a picky eater...

This analogy doesn't convince me. First of all, everybody has to eat but noone has to buy dvds. Those who still buy dvds or blus, given the current economic climate and the easy availability of almost everything that isn't too obscure on the net, are precisely those adventuresome diners. Even if the exotic food may not be as exciting as 500 dishes earlier, nobody would really complain about one more Kurosawa or even (dare I say it) more Ozu. The steak and chicken lovers basically eat at home these days, and the regulars won't eat that stuff. It may be possible, though, that the steak and chicken lovers are attracted by the glamour which eating in that particular restaurant seems to provide, which might be the card that Criterion is playing. But that's short-term thinking: you can't sell old steak and chicken in a few years, but good old wine will get more valuable with time.

Or it's just old whine in new bottles.

If your point was "everybody has to eat at restaurants," this would make sense. But it's not, because obviously no one has to eat at a restaurant.

The point of an analogy is not that every single aspect of the two subjects correspond exactly. The point is that the two are similar enough on a specific point for one to be able to highlight something essential about the other. Stretching an analogy to the level of absurdity is not an argument against it, it is a failure to understand the use of analogy.

The key point here that everyone ought to consider fully is this: "being venturesome they would perceive their own growing familiarity with the food as declining quality one way or the other."

Exactly. The effect of this psychological point cannot be overstated. It is very much at work here, and other places on the board, too. For example, it is the thing that makes it more likely for people who've spent a lot of time exploring--and championing--the eclectic outer edges of an area of interest to look back on their starting points or the fundamental bases of that area and perceive a diminished quality. And it is not because those things actually have diminished in quality, it's a general psychological effect that comes from being "venturesome." The more people recognize this, the more this discussion can actually go somewhere meaningful (to say nothing of people better understanding their reactions).