Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?

[FrauBlucher]

Unleash the hounds

[ryannichols7]

I know, feels like years since they've announced something canonical like Raging Bull or Pink Flamingos or Double Indemnity

yeah, I agree with this person in some capacity but to say they haven't been releasing canonical stuff all year would be hugely incorrect. this month? certainly, I do really think it lacks any one title that will stand out and be an obvious seller. but all year they've been doing movies that fit the mold, one (admittedly very weak) month doesn't represent it all.

admittedly they are slowly moving more away from my tastes, though May's slate is very good. something like Chess of the Wind or the Rohmer boxset would've been nice since it's been some time since the Janus tours, and they aren't exactly tied to a 'theme' month like Cure will likely be (though who knows, maybe it comes in September).

have to say it's a missed opportunity too that the rumored Blast of Silence upgrade didn't come this month alongside the two Safdie titles. that movie is a very obvious influence on their work

[John Cope]

It's a great month to me just for Faya Dayi. I'd take that over virtually any sure fire best seller.

[andyli]

Can't say we are not prepared for this. Eerik did say up front not to be "too excited for August", eh? Yet you guys are guessing one masterpiece after another to fit the clue.

[vsski]

It’s interesting to see that every time I bring up the word “canonical” it causes a strong reactions at least with some members here. And of course any title that is released will always have its fans, but am I way off by saying that Criterion’s release strategy has changed to what it was many years ago?

I never said they aren’t releasing “canonical” titles any more, I, however, feel it’s far less than it used to be. And we do know they are sitting on many unreleased ones.
Or is it the word “canonical” that rubs people the wrong way, as different folks have different interpretations of what that means?

When eerik hinted at this month’s releases immediately people guessed Peckinpah and Truffaut - and to me that would have fit the Criterion of old.

Of course Criterion can release whatever they want, it’s their company and their strategy and hopefully they are successful and sell enough discs to stay in business for a long time to come. All I’m saying is that I perceive a very noticeable change and unfortunately for me not one that I like. And that’s all - and I was not the only one remarking they felt this month was “light”, “disappointing” or whatever word is being used.

[MichaelB]

Personally, I'm all for a mixture of so-called "canonical" titles and titles that to me are often more interesting, because less familiar (and therefore more in need of curatorial attention), and I'm very glad that a well-heeled label like Criterion has a similar policy.

Criterion's operating in a very different home video landscape to the one of two or three decades ago. Back then, there was a far greater sense of responsibility, because they were practically the only label producing lovingly-curated and restored editions of canonical titles - but this is clearly no longer the case any more, so why shouldn't they devote their considerable resources to exploring other areas? It's not as if there aren't tons of alternative choices on offer these days from labels that comfortably match Criterion in terms of curatorial attention to detail, to the point where the Criterion mystique is becoming a tad baffling.

So unless you're an OCD-driven spine-number collector, I really don't see why it matters.

Also, who's to say what's "canonical"? To Czechs, Marketa Lazarová has been canonical since 1967, but few in the English-speaking world had even heard of it for the following four decades. And of course it came nowhere in Sight & Sound polls prior to the 2012 one, but I suspect it's going to have a permanent berth there going forward. And throughout the label's entire existence (i.e. right through the alleged good old days), Criterion has completely blanked Miklós Jancsó, a canonical director if ever there was one - but whereas this might have been a problem in the past, it isn't one now because Second Run and latterly Kino Lorber have done a more than adequate job in picking up that particular baton. In fact, as of this month, all eight of Jancsó's reputation-making Hungarian films from The Round-Up to Electra My Love inclusive are now available in excellent English-friendly Blu-ray editions, so it's not as though Criterion's input was necessary. (They'd only release the same Hungarian National Film Archive restorations.)

[vsski]

Criterion's operating in a very different home video landscape to the one of two or three decades ago.

So unless you're an OCD-driven spine-number collector, I really don't see why it matters.

I think you make some excellent points here Michael and give very good examples and you are correct, Criterion is no longer the Gold standard it used to be, so can’t disagree with you.

I used to be an OCD-driven spine collector, so that probably plays a role still, although have come away from it a little bit.

And from the beginning of my disc collection I have always branched out and bought from many labels especially those that focused on some of the more underrepresented international film markets, so Criterion was never the only one I have bought from.

And while I like to discover hidden gems I was not aware of, like many here, maybe I got so disenchanted with the US indie scene (after diligently focusing on it for nearly 15 years), that this turns me off from some of the Criterion releases.
But I would love for Criterion to publish more Eastern European or South American cinema, but as you say at least for the former there is Second Run that does a great job at it.

At the same time I still wonder who will publish in beautifully curated editions directors like Naruse, Bunuel (the Mexican period) or Chabrol (the late 60s / early 70s), or is that purely an issue of existing elements and rights?

[MichaelB]

At the same time I still wonder who will publish in beautifully curated editions directors like Naruse, Bunuel (the Mexican period) or Chabrol (the late 60s / early 70s), or is that purely an issue of existing elements and rights?

In the case of Naruse, both Eureka and the BFI belatedly tried to give him a toehold in the DVD era, but with a signal lack of commercial success. I gather the production costs for HD upgrades (both licensing and masters) are currently prohibitive when set against the likely returns - and, sadly, they have existing figures to point to.

Mexican Buñuel needs significant restoration work, and it's pretty much inconceivable that Criterion - who have, of course, released plenty of Buñuel already - haven't at least made enquiries.

And I suspect Chabrol is in the hands of the French - I assume Arrow's recent releases had more to do with what was available than what would necessarily have been their first choices, not least because they've released the late-60s/early-70s titles on DVD.

[tenia]

I probably would have been in such a position a decade ago, and kind of understand how some people think there might be some "more important" movies still waiting for a good HD release instead of Daddy Longlegs, and since Criterion has a quite fixed pace of release, this is a zero-sum game.

But on the other hand, most of what they release is new to me anyway, so I don't care in the end if it's canonical or not, as long as they're interesting. I suppose that rather than canonical, it might be better to talk about big/small titles or this kind of split.

[dwk]

I understand being disappointed when they sit on title that you know they have and have had for years (the half dozen or so Hideo Gosha titles) or the lack of Blu-ray upgrades of a favorite director (like Kurosawa, the last blu-ray was 6 years ago.) (Of course, in both these specific cases the issue may be with the Japanese companies not with Criterion not wanting to get these out.)

I don't understand being disappointed when they release something you haven't heard of instead of some big name title that the studio will do themselves (I saw someone on the other forum complaining that they aren't releasing Chinatown. A title that Paramount is almost certain to never license out.)

[yoloswegmaster]

I understand being disappointed when they sit on title that you know they have and have had for years (the half dozen or so Hideo Gosha titles) or the lack of Blu-ray upgrades of a favorite director (like Kurosawa, the last blu-ray was 6 years ago.) (Of course, in both these specific cases the issue may be with the Japanese companies not with Criterion not wanting to get these out.)

I don't understand being disappointed when they release something you haven't heard of instead of some big name title that the studio will do themselves (I saw someone on the other forum complaining that they aren't releasing Chinatown. A title that Paramount is almost certain to never license out.)

Don't forget about the people on there advocating for Criterion to release a second line that consists of barebone releases. All this hoopla just because Criterion decided to announce some titles that are more low-key.

[swo17]

Criterion releasing titles I want is great because then I can buy them. Criterion releasing titles I don't want is also great because then I can save money. Who here actually wants Criterion to release 50+ must-buy titles every year?

[Mr Sausage]

Members have been making this same argument for, like, 15 years now. Every time Criterion had a few offbeat or eclectic months, some member would go on about how this was the definitive proof Criterion had changed, they just weren’t who they used to be, who we all loved, that the company was even on a downhill slide. But then Criterion would chug along releasing classics and Criteriony stuff as usual.

To me, it just seemed like some members were not so interested in a handful of releases and needed the strength of their disappointment to be reflected in the very fabric of the universe or something.

[Computer Raheem]

Members have been making this same argument for, like, 15 years now. Every time Criterion had a few offbeat or eclectic months, some member would go on about how this was the definitive proof Criterion had changed, they just weren’t who they used to be, who we all loved, that the company was even on a downhill slide. But then Criterion would chug along releasing classics and Criteriony stuff as usual.

To me, it just seemed like some members were not so interested in a handful of releases and needed the strength of their disappointment to be reflected in the very fabric of the universe or something.

It also negates the idea that there are, in fact, people who are excited for some of these releases. You may not be excited for Buck and the Preacher or Frownland, but there are people out there who are, and there are those who may be interested in a film that haven't heard of before previously.

It's also ironic that these are the exact same people who will complain when Criterion does release a more popular film or canonical classic, saying that it's already on home video and their release is "unnecessary". To me, those people are more obnoxious than the A24 stans who demand Criterion validate their taste or the "get woke, go broke" crowd.

[MichaelB]

I still have fond memories of the guy who really strongly objected to Eureka picking up F for Fake, saying that “everyone” would have imported the Criterion edition already and they were wasting money and effort on a pointless project when they could have been working on a personal favourite of his.

The punchline? F for Fake became one of Eureka’s all-time MoC bestsellers, and almost certainly ended up subsidising projects that this guy found more congenial.

(See also British sitcom The Brittas Empire, of which most non-UK-based MoC fans may never have heard, but whose Eureka release they have ample cause to be grateful for.)

[ballmouse]

I think it's fairly standard for a label, after so many decades and releases, to start broadening the scope of what it releases. For one, it isn't the only label in the game for the so called canonical Criterion releases anymore, so there's more competition for the same pie. Second, after all these decades and with increased competition, the canonical material has increased in value given Criterion's cultivation of a market and competitors who have spawned because of Criterion. So it isn't as simple to get whatever material is out there now. Third, there was always going to be a finite limit to canonical material; they are old films. It's neither self created content nor the supply of, say, music on vinyl. Fourth, I never had the sense that Criterion was ever going to shut down if they ran out of canonical material to release. For a lot of labels (record labels to be specific as this is the closest analogous entity I could think of), this is what happens, or the owners decide to start a new label for different music and end up closing the preceding label. So naturally Criterion is going to have to widen its scope of material if it is going to stick around. Otherwise there would be this expectation of a descending number of releases to the tune of zero and then just maintenance and upgrades forever, which Criterion has never hinted at. Therefore, the solution is to expand the sort of stuff it will release.

So I do believe there is stuff that's being released now that would not have been a Criterion release a decade or two ago. But this is expected because of Criterion's success. A label that's still releasing the exact same stuff after 30 years is either a very, very niche label or one whose content has not come close to sniffing financial or critical success. Criterion is the opposite on all accounts I suspect.

[tenia]

Criterion can also be pointed out at for releasing very big movies (sometimes stuff that could have been directly released by studios) in order to generate cash to finance releases with less sales potential. So it's only logical that... these pop up from time to time, as per the theory.

[diamonds]

Eagerly awaiting the day Criterion uses their Safdie brothers money to start cranking out Raúl Ruiz releases

[domino harvey]

They’ll just release Swanberg box sets

[knives]

Eagerly awaiting the day Criterion uses their Safdie brothers money to start cranking out Raúl Ruiz releases

I get this is just speaking as a Ruiz fan, but Ruiz is more commercial than several directors they have released and their neglect of him should be chalked up to other factors.

[omegadirective]

I’m still pissed we don’t have a complete Children of the Corn box set.
C’mon Criterion. Get with it.

[furbicide]

It's easy to view the past through rose-coloured glasses, but it does sometimes seem to me that the main English-language DVD labels are putting out less interesting stuff in recent years. But how can you possibly quantify that?

Mostly because I was bored, I recently made a list of the 33 English-friendly DVD/Blu-ray releases from the last decade (i.e. 2012 onwards)* that I've been seriously excited about, and organised them by label and year to see if there are any discernible trends. I don't know if anyone cares enough to see the actual list of titles, but if you want to get a rough sense of what I'm into, a lot of this is skewed towards French New Wave and post-New Wave cinema + other major European auteurs (Bergman, Varda, Sokurov, Fassbinder, de Oliveira, Borowczyk, etc.). I'm also perhaps less likely than some here to upgrade if I already have an edition of a film I'm happy with.

Arrow (5): 2014, 2015 (x2), 2016, 2017
Criterion (5): 2014, 2016, 2018 (x2), 2020
Re:Voir (5): 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 (x2)
BFI (3): 2012, 2014, 2017
Grasshopper (2): 2017, 2021
Potemkine (2): 2013, 2021
Absolut Medien (1): 2013
Cinema Guild (1): 2012
Eureka (1): 2017
Icarus (1): 2017
Jupiter (1): 2013
Kino (1): 2015
Nordisk (1): 2014
Second Run (1): 2015
Second Sight (1): 2020
Tamasa (1): 2015
VL (1): 2015

The clear trends seem to be that the main UK arthouse labels (Arrow, BFI, Eureka, Artificial Eye and Second Run) haven't been putting out much that's grabbed my attention at all in the past five years; Criterion has more or less remained steady; and Re:Voir and Grasshopper have been the two I've been increasingly drawn to. The saddest thing for me, however, is seeing the smaller DVD companies at the bottom of the table; it seems like I could bank on around one or two amazing releases every year from one obscure label or other from Europe or the US, but – much like the UK releases – that also seems to have dried up around five years ago.

Of course, my personal tastes may not be particularly relevant here, and I'd like to think that these trends are only because I haven't been looking hard enough lately, but is it possible there has been a broader global decline in what titles are available for release (and/or that companies have the resources to put out)?

*I haven't had a chance yet to go through the list of my favourite pre-2012 releases I own, but off the top of my head I'd say the most represented labels for that time period would be Criterion, Artificial Eye, BFI, Second Run and Madman.

[MichaelB]

I think that says more about your personal taste than it does about the output of those various labels. Second Run's post-2015 Blu-ray output in particular contains some absolutely astonishing stuff.

[tenia]

Ditto.
I also now follow quite closely what Anti-Worlds are doing, since they usually offer in each of their waves of releases 1 movie that ends up very very high in my yearly top.

But it's as a whole indeed pretty much impossible to judge this kind of trend, especially since one person's "meh" might be another one's gold. We've recently had the discussion about Criterion's canonical vs non-canonical pack of releases, and depending of what you want/expect to see released, you might end up very happy or just uninterested. I'm very happy with most Second Run releases because I don't know 99% of what they release anyway and am happy discovering new stuff like this, and am also very happy with what Potemkine have been doing most recently (for instance, I didn't particularly liked the Pierre Clémenti's movies but it's there, it's a good release, so all the best for those movies).

The only ones I can say I've grown uninterested by are Arrow, but that's because I used to buy most of their slashers and have realised I find most of them pretty crappy and so have learnt not to bother anymore, but that's just me since there's clearly a market of happy customers for Hell High (etc).

[MichaelB]

The great thing about the last couple of decades is that for the first time people who don't habitually tour the festival circuit have had opportunities to see stuff in high-quality presentations that normally wouldn't get an English-friendly release, as that would require an Anglophile distributor to pick them up. As a result, I've been able to range far, far wider than the so-called "canonical" mix of mostly American and Western European titles, with Kurosawa, Ozu and Ray typically representing the rest of the world, which was pretty much de rigueur until the turn of the 2000s in terms of easy accessibility.

The notion that amazing releases "dried up five years ago" is simply not true in any way, shape or form - hell, even in terms of unquestionably world-class European auteurs we've had Kino's Miklós Jancsó box out just this month. Which is an absolute banquet of a release, and one that was scarcely imaginable fifteen years ago, when the best we could manage was fuzzy letterboxed SD presentations, sometimes without English subtitles.