Criterion's obsession with Suzuki

[tavernier]

Christ! I'd hate to see what you people did during their laserdisc days!

"Evita!! WTF!!?? Dead Presidents!!?? WTF!!!???"

[Theodore R. Stockton]

I like Evita, Damn it!

[zedz]

I'm as bemused as the rest of you. This film is a jidai-geki that simultaneously rips off Superman, E.T., and Close Encounters, but - its crucial failing - with hardly any of the redeeming camp you'd expect from such an enterprise. Ichikawa is either not good enough or not bad enough to pull it off. And the film seems too tame for Eclipse (if that's even happening). Chalk up another "Huh?" for Criterion this year.

[LightBulbFilm]

How can anyone burn Dead Presidents? Do you have down syndrome or something? That film is amazing... Shit, the war scenes alone could be a film and be brilliant.

[cdnchris]

How can anyone burn Dead Presidents? Do you have down syndrome or something? That film is amazing... Shit, the war scenes alone could be a film and be brilliant.

Actually I have nothing against it and like it a lot, and I didn't mean to burn it (with Evita I did). I wouldn't mind seeing that being released by Criterion (with the hope Menace II Society would be as well). But I can imagine if Criterion did release it on DVD, people around here would just FLIP OUT.

I haven't seen Princess of the Moon (never heard of it in all honesty), and maybe it isn't a great film, but it still slays me when people around here think they should only release certain kinds of films, when in fact they can release whatever the hell they feel like is worthy of their time. There's been a lot of that going on lately here, and I was just wondering out loud how people would be reacting if their DVD releases were closer to the diversity of their laserdisc releases.

[zedz]

I haven't seen Princess of the Moon (never heard of it in all honesty), and maybe it isn't a great film, but it still slays me when people around here think they should only release certain kinds of films, when in fact they can release whatever the hell they feel like is worthy of their time.

And let's chalk another "huh?" up to cdnchris while we're at it. Who exactly said that Criterion shouldn't release the film, or that they should only release certain kinds of films? The feedback that I read (and contributed to) simply commented on the quality of the film (particularly in relation to other Ichikawas). Is this not useful information for prospective purchasers?

Or were you responding to a different thread entirely?

[cdnchris]

Well, while no one has said directly they shouldn't release it or that they should be releasing certain kinds of films, it's hard not to pick up on the hint that people feel that way in this thread by reading the posts. Or the Dazed and Confused thread. Or the thread involving Kicking and Screaming.

[pzman84]

Criterion got famous for releasing foreign art films (and some older Hollywood films) that are parents and grandparents went to movie theaters to go see. Not to say they shouldn't mix it up and put in a newer, off-beat film, but they should nonetheless remember where their bread is buttered.

[ben d banana]

Criterion got famous for releasing foreign art films (and some older Hollywood films) that are parents and grandparents went to movie theaters to go see. Not to say they shouldn't mix it up and put in a newer, off-beat film, but they should nonetheless remember where their bread is buttered.

Or high quality laserdiscs in OAR with commentaries and extras when no one else would bother, but why should anyone pay attention to cdnchris or reality or anything that doesn't meet their preconceptions.

The first film my mother saw in a theater was The Red Shoes, however.

[cdnchris]

Criterion got famous for releasing foreign art films (and some older Hollywood films) that are parents and grandparents went to movie theaters to go see. Not to say they shouldn't mix it up and put in a newer, off-beat film, but they should nonetheless remember where their bread is buttered.

They're actually more famous for their special editions, but okay (they made a name for themselves with sets like the ones for Citizen Kane, Seven, and of course, Brazil). They're whole thing is releasing films considered important, influential, or had some sort of impact in movie history or on the audience, or just does a damn good job within its genre, and NOT just wheither they're old or foreign. And if they believe a movie fits into that criteria they're going to release it, wheither the movie be a haunting, beautiully shot film like Ugetsu, or a movie that captures the spirit of high school perfectly like Dazed and Confused, or a movie that would drastically change a genre (Silence of the Lambs or Seven)

(Ben d Banana beat me, but pretty much what he said.)

Like I said, I haven't seen this movie, but obviously they want to release it (and who knows, maybe it will be an Eclipse title), if it is true they are releasing it. But no one said those other titles aren't coming out. Maybe they're all coming at the same time, or coming later because they require more work, or maybe they're even coming before this one, who knows? However they come out maybe it's just a matter of convenience.

[pzman84]

To ben d banana and cdnchris, I am sorry to offend you by making a generalization. However, like all generalizations, there is truth in it. I should have also added about the special features and great transfers. That is also important to Criterion.

However, to get to the matter, they are known for the "art cinema" of the last century. When you say Seven Samurai, I bet one of your immediate thoughts is it was released on Criterion. Same with Wild Strawberries. Same with 8 1/2. What about Chasing Amy? The Rock? An Angel at My Table? All good films (with the possible exception the Michael Bay film) but not necessarily what you have in mind when you think of Criterion. Am I saying they should not be in the collection? No. But with all this talk of Dazed and Confused, Kicking and Screaming, and now Princess of the Moon, I was trying to point out Criterion's base does lie with those old art house films.

Notice, I did not say Moon was a bad film. I did not say their should be no modern films in the collection. However, I do know plenty of people on these boards who are waiting for another released of Rossellini and Mizoguchi, Breathless and L'Atalante, not to mention those silent films by Eisenstein we have been waiting for over the last 6 years.

I did not see Moon but I am upset by the fact it seems Criterion's new focus is on films of the last 25 years. No other service releases the classics like Criterion does. I don't want to see that avenue closed. So, as I said before, ben d banana and cdnchris, don't get angry at me. Prove me wrong. Tell everyone why Moon diserves to be in the collection. Otherwise, as my avatar would say, you're just being a "fact Nazi"

[Theodore R. Stockton]

there were plenty of great films made in the last 25 years

Like Evita!!!!
Why do I get shit for liking Alan Parker?

PZman84

I know putting quotes felt fun

You didn't give me much to work with.

[ben d banana]

To ben d banana and cdnchris, I am sorry to offend you by making a generalization. However, like all generalizations, there is truth in it. I should have also added about the special features and great transfers. That is also important to Criterion.

However, to get to the matter, they are known for the "art cinema" of the last century. When you say Seven Samurai, I bet one of your immediate thoughts is it was released on Criterion. Same with Wild Strawberries. Same with 8 1/2. What about Chasing Amy? The Rock? An Angel at My Table? All good films (with the possible exception the Michael Bay film) but not necessarily what you have in mind when you think of Criterion. Am I saying they should not be in the collection? No. But with all this talk of Dazed and Confused, Kicking and Screaming, and now Princess of the Moon, I was trying to point out Criterion's base does lie with those old art house films.

Notice, I did not say Moon was a bad film. I did not say their should be no modern films in the collection. However, I do know plenty of people on these boards who are waiting for another released of Rossellini and Mizoguchi, Breathless and L'Atalante, not to mention those silent films by Eisenstein we have been waiting for over the last 6 years.

I did not see Moon but I am upset by the fact it seems Criterion's new focus is on films of the last 25 years. No other service releases the classics like Criterion does. I don't want to see that avenue closed. So, as I said before, ben d banana and cdnchris, don't get angry at me. Prove me wrong. Tell everyone why Moon diserves to be in the collection. Otherwise, as my avatar would say, you're just being a "fact Nazi"

How about a little truthiness then: I'm not easily offended, generalizations due tend to contain some basis in fact (insert racial stereotype here Crash fans), I think of Criterion when I think of any of those films on the DVD format, I don't know why you'd only point out the Bay as an exception in quality (but I'm no fan of Smith, Campion or Fellini either), as you must know Breathless and L'Atalante are already in-print as R1 DVDs so rather unlikely to be released by Criterion, I'd hardly say Criterion has a new focus, I'm not angry, you're wrong, and Stephen Colbert is actually funny.

[Napoleon]

I did not see Moon but I am upset by the fact it seems Criterion's new focus is on films of the last 25 years.

Only six from the last 35 confirmed releases have been from the last 25 years. Considering that cinema has been going for approximately 100 years, then films from this period are statistically under-represented.

[HerrSchreck]

I did not see Moon but I am upset by the fact it seems Criterion's new focus is on films of the last 25 years.

Only six from the last 35 confirmed releases have been from the last 25 years. Considering that cinema has been going for approximately 100 years, then films from this period are statistically under-represented.

I really don't understand this leaping onto people who don't get certain films earning a place in the Collection. If Lincoln Center did a FOUR KINGS retrospective, do you think folks who'd been pumping cash into the institution would be complete nitzes for tipping a head w a "huh?"

[nyasa]

...If Lincoln Center did a FOUR KINGS retrospective, do you think folks who'd been pumping cash into the institution would be complete nitzes for tipping a head w a "huh?"

We're the ones pumping cash into Criterion. We pay premium prices for premium product. Extras and fine transfers are part of the appeal, but the bottom line is the quality of the film.

If Criterion start releasing films of questionable artistic merit, they'll become just like any other DVD company - albeit, one that charges more than its rivals.

I stand by my original assertion: The Princess from the Moon is not a great film, and no matter how many bells and whistles Criterion attach to it, that won't change. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of other films - including, as has been said here, many by Ichikawa - that are begging for a decent release on DVD.

[HerrSchreck]

Right. Those who try to squelch debate or apologize for Criterion are better off applying for marketing positions, since they're doing it gratis anyhow. What kind of product line expects their customer feedback to be met with a "shut up!"?

[richast2]

How can anyone burn Dead Presidents? Do you have down syndrome or something? That film is amazing... Shit, the war scenes alone could be a film and be brilliant.

I found it to be a decent film, but the Vietnam sequences didn't feel convincing at all. They felt like the filmmakers simply watched a couple of Vietnam movies and said "alright, let's do that."

[feihong]

I haven't been paying attention to this post for some time now. I'm a little interested again, and maybe as I sit here in a jury-service waiting room, waiting to hopefully not be assigned to a case, I can express some of this.

There are a lot of Suzuki-haters out there. A lot more, probably, than for any other director represented on the Criterion label. And while I think I've made it clear that I find it a pointless subject to be cranky about (and I think that those parties negative criticism DOES hurt chances of future Suzuki releases), I'd like to suggest a reason why these feelings exist out there.

If you take the tenants of auteur theory as a given, then you can divide directors of well-made, incisive, and important movies into two camps via their storytelling style:

A) There are directors who present clear messages and ideas, as part of a conscious crafting of their film story and the style in which it is presented. These are generally directors with social and political aims, with social transformation or amelioration of social problems as at least an implicit goal. These directors range in approach from Pasolini to Forman to Mizoguchi, to Kurosawa, to Ozu, to Bunuel to Zhang Yimou, even Jean-Luc Godard. These are people who work largely on the outside of our literary consciousness, forming images and symbols that have clear representative meanings. At the end, we leave their best movies feeling as if a point has been made about something quite tangible in our lives--often something that needs to change, or something that we should be alert to in our daily existence.

Probably the quintessential director of this style of cinema is Vittorio De Sica, for he presents problems and observations entirely ingrained into his story concept. Every feeling of De Sica's connected with a picture is at the service of the external story. Any subtext of a De Sica picture is at the service of its larger context, and what I mean by that is that paramount in De Sica's concerns is what is right in front of the audience; the story, the characters. Any idea De Sica wishes to express must be filtered through this matrix. But there is another approach to cinema that is completely different:

B) There are directors for whom the JOB is to present a story, but for whom there is necessarily a need to express, not necessarily subversive ideas, but ideas that are revealed within a subversive context. The most immediate examples of this would be the films of Jean-Pierre Melville, Victor Erice's Spirit of the Beehive or any early Hou Hsiao Hsien movie. Hou's DUST IN THE WIND is a good example of this style. The film plays out very clearly, but we as an audience aren't really sure what we're supposed to be looking for. What is this about, anyway, we think as we watch the two protagonists lumbering through mind-numbing daily routines. Then at the end of the movie, when the sour-faced boy protagonist realizes by reading a letter that he has lost the girl he so apparently took for granted, he cries bitterly, and the movie suddenly ends. The subtextual relationship between the two protagonists of DUST IN THE WIND is only exposited in those final seconds at the end of the film, and it not only changes what we are to make of the events that have transpired in the movie, but it has given us a complete set of subject matter with which to re-examine the film.

Whereas the type-A films are often addressing topical social and political concerns, the type-B films almost always try to capture some sort of transcendent set of concerns, expressing a feeling, an emotion the filmmaker connects with these ideas. The type-Bs are almost never urgent and topical (I would call SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE an exception to this rule, or a hybrid film that spans these categories). I have found that, with the exception of only a few of us, film critics and fans divide completely across this line. Either you like the one type of film, or you like the other.

Type-A films appeal on the whole to people who like a firm intellectual justification for their appreciation of a film, for the structure of these films aims to meet that need. Type-A films deal with issues in clear, intellectual ways.

Type-B, to which, I feel, Suzuki belongs, is a much less articulate group of films on the whole. These are pictures where the subtext is paramount, and so it is possible, as perhaps some of us experienced the first time we saw a Melville picture, or the like, that we miss the director's set of personal concerns lodged in the subtext of the picture, and come away from the experience wondering what all the fuss was about. The first time I saw Johnnie To's THE MISSION, on a lousy VHS tape with miniature subtitles, I was very unimpressed. Only later, upon watching and rewatching, did I discover the subtext of the film--the little twitches and carefully modulated expressions which the triads act out between each other that communicate a complicated group hierarchy and an wholly unspoken professional debate going on between the protagonists. These are all concerns that obsess director To, and which appear in all of his greater films, and they make up an unspoken subtext within his work that gives it worth and meaning. I can't very readily tell you why that makes To's films great, except that his passion and feeling for concepts of professionalism and the degree to which people assimilate within their personalities the expectations of their jobs illuminate his movies with a rare feeling we don't find in other filmmakers' work. But then again, every time anyone posts on the asiandvdguide board about a good new Johnnie To film, a million people post that Johnnie To isn't up to jack shit.

Seijun Suzuki belongs squarely in this bunch, because what he presents in his films are a series of quintessentially existential questions and motifs that have haunted him throughout his own wildly unpredictable, even chaotic life. The concerns of his films reflect his personal concerns, and Suzuki's expression of these concerns is almost entirely subliminal in nature. That a film like KANTO WANDERER might not be so much about the gangster melodrama it presents as it is about the existential malaise that propels the protagonist into a spiral of digressions (in a sense, the film is about procrastination as a means to hold off a wholly irrational end-point of an outmoded philosophy), is not readily apparent on the surface of the movie. Not everyone will appreciate this subtext, but I maintain that it is there. If anything, Suzuki's filmography since the 1980s has proven that he has serious concerns on his mind and that he is interested in expressing them primarily through cinema: none of the films from ZIGEUNERWEISEN through PRINCESS RACCOON could be described as cash-ins by a studio workhorse.

I understand that this type of cinema isn't for everyone. But as Melville (whose work I dearly love, though my posts here have probably not borne that up) and Hou Hsiao Hsien and Tsai Ming-Liang and Sam Peckinpah are critically resurrected and cannonized, it makes me angry that Suzuki is left behind. There is no serious critical examination of Suzuki's work, and the longer a more comprehensive group of his films are not available, the less likely it will be that any serious critical work will emerge. I still do not understand why Suzuki is singled out amongst all the directors represented in the Criterion label, and why his claim to importance in film is still so hotly debated. I hope somebody from the opposing camp might be able to make this clear. Until then, this is the first idea I can offer as to why that must be.

[J M Powell]

That's a good post, feihong. I'm afraid I don't really have anything to say about it, except that I'd like to see more posts like that on the forum. You're actually trying to think through a problem; seems like we used to do a lot more of that at one point . . .

[Michael Kerpan]

Interesting analysis Feihong -- but not sure that there aren't plenty of directors and film fans that span both factions.

I would assume that Rivette is a Group B -- and he is one of my favorites (though the majority of my favorites fall in your Group A).. And where would one fit in Bunuel?

Not sure what I think of Suzuki overall -- but I could hardly enjoy "Princess Raccoon" more than I did (and having watched it three times already, I think my affection won't wane soon).

[HerrSchreck]

Although I don't entirely agree with the analytical parameters that you've set up viz A/B (metaphorical/subtextual imperatives overriding the linear action onscreen has been around to varying degrees and via various employed devices, since the silent era, and plain and simple deliberate ambiguity as well... all applied with wavering degrees of force which cloud this sort of grouping; where do the avant garde/impressionists stand? where do the German Expressionists stand? where do Dreyer/Tarkovsky/Bresson stand, three beloved CC heroes?) I far more respect your desire to discuss than your unbelievable post from a month or so ago.

The conversational terrain becomes a bit difficult I think when you appoint, as you did, a director a Prime Example of a certain style, and by affixing this style to the director, thus hold a lack of appreciation of this style as cause for the lack of a mass appreciation for the director. For if there is anything that the hardcore afficionado of CC certainly should be familiar with (that is, as long as they're just not popping in for luscious editions of ROCK, TENNENBAUMS, ARMAGEDDON, etc), is the idea of subjectivity and interpretive ambiguities and open-ended employment of poetics. Just last week FISTS IN THE POCKET illustrates the very same set of subjective ambiguities in the collection, though used in a very unique & individual way versus counterparts & certainly Suzuki.

I would warn you off of hewing too closely to labeling film directors' styles. Labels pose difficulties and primarily operate in the service of our conversation about these films, not the films themselves. Applying ex post facto stylistic labels to individual works which are entirely unique of their alleged counterparts is a critics/professor's schitck, and rarely finds substantial truck with the films themselves. For half the films called Noir, Expressionist, Surrealist, Avant Garde, are absolutely and empirically not, not least because these labels don't exist outside of the bounds of language.

I don't agree that anybody's pissing & moaning about a director is "hurting the directors sales/study/future appearance on dvd"... you had raised a point like this in your last months post. If people don't like his films that's his fault. If not enough folks like any director's films to compel producers to create dvd editions in the future, it is not the fault of consumers who don't like his stuff vocalizing their feelings... it's just a fact of life, the vast public isn't interested. That's just The Way His Art Is Received (a condition which Suzuki is clearly not in, incidentally!). It's just a fact of his artistic life.

Lastly, I just cannot understand the spirit that exists nowadays, that when somebody doesn't like something, folks ridicule them & tell them to shut up (as was experienced by some on the CC 2006 thread). Many folks who have opinions I do not agree with, they get the shit socked out of them for expressing an opinion... people act like it's a crime to express a dislike. Politically correctified. If folks are not interested in what you are, enjoy your private pleasure, celebrate the pit of obscurity you find yourself living in, and modulate your self-perception accordingly. My family comes over my apt & sees my huge wall of bizarro DVDs and think I'm NUTS-- what can I do? I'm just into stuff most people can't even conceive of giving a passing glance to, I spend thousands on stuff people wouldn't even want as a gift. Some of my favorite films are obscure silents which I guarantee you will never make it onto DVD. What can I do?

But fury it seems to me, if round the dinner table some hardhead relative says "Wut de fuck you waste your money on that garbage for?", is silly.
"Go back to sweeping peas under your mash potatoes, Gil," seems more apt than leaping up screaming SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU'RE BRAINWASHING MY RELATIVES INTO NOT BUYING AVANT GARDE SILENTS WHICH WILL JACK THE MARKET DOWN INTO THE SWILL PREVENTING FURTHER RELEASE OF MY PASSION!!!"

[feihong]

"The conversational terrain becomes a bit difficult I think when you appoint, as you did, a director a Prime Example of a certain style, and by affixing this style to the director, thus hold a lack of appreciation of this style as cause for the lack of a mass appreciation for the director."

I'm talking about style in the sense of giving a film "grammar." If a viewer doesn't understand the subtext of a film, it's generally because they're not understanding the film's grammar. The style of the picture (I'm sorry, mein herr, directors generally do have a particular set of stylistic parameters in which they operate as they tell a story, and it is possible to look at the movies they direct within the context of a director's general style--for instance, you won't find a Victor Erice film with pacing, nervy hand-held camerawork, and you won't find a chase in a Tarkovsky picture...you can, though, probably count on Erice to use carefully considered imagery, framed like a painting, and you can generally expect Tarkovsky to place a religious emphasis within his films--these are elements of personal styles) is simply not registering with the viewer as coherent or meaningful.

No one's talking about "mass appreciation" here. I'm talking about the effect of a film on an individual. There's a group of individuals here who like to make their opinions known. Fine. Every time we try to have a discussion here they feel the need to make their feelings known AGAIN AND AGAIN. It's very exasperating. And I do think that this small group of people has a discouraging effect on companies who are trying to figure out what discs to release. If they're thinking about getting a Suzuki movie, and they scan the web as one of their research tools, in order to determine audience views on the film in question, they'll run into scads of these "I think he's overrated" posts. The rest of us--and perhaps this is a majority, or a minority, or neither, who knows?--remains silent.

This doesn't happen to other directors. Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Melville, Erice, Bresson, Dreyer, Fuller...all of them have scholarly works expounding on their films. The pictures are a known quantity, known to have at least cultural, intellectual merit. People won't so readily assail them, and if they do, their words can be given a grain of salt. Can you really say that the presence of a high-profile work like Ritchie's "The Films of Akira Kurosawa" doesn't have something to do with the grandual but rather certain release of nearly all of his filmography? Suzuki doesn't have this kind of support. And with the absence of any major scholarly work on his pictures, Suzuki is in a different position than any of these other directors. He has had to present the persona of a commercial director all his life, and in Japan, certainly, he has had to deny many claims that he is a dilletante, making films for artistic ends or with literary ambitions. For many people out there, including the people who program his films into festivals and the people who acquire distrubution rights for DVDs of Suzuki's work, the lack of any firm footing for Suzuki as an accepted artist of merit makes further releases of his films a dicey proposition.

And still, I don't understand why this repetition of ire, this repetition of the same gripes in thread after thread, only pertains to Suzuki! I haven't seen this kind of crankiness levelled against any other director on these pages or elsewhere. It's not a majority of people at all, but it's absolutely aggravating.

"For if there is anything that the hardcore afficionado of CC certainly should be familiar with (that is, as long as they're just not popping in for luscious editions of ROCK, TENNENBAUMS, ARMAGEDDON, etc), is the idea of subjectivity and interpretive ambiguities and open-ended employment of poetics. Just last week FISTS IN THE POCKET illustrates the very same set of subjective ambiguities in the collection, though used in a very unique & individual way versus counterparts & certainly Suzuki. "

But why is it Suzuki gets all the shit for it? No one raises complaints about Bellochio. You watch for the next FIST IN THE POCKET thread that gets started up. The haters, the ones with the "Bellochio's overrated" comments will be gone. They've said their bit. Then the people who love the movie will get to talking. That's how it usually is. But with Suzuki, you've got this constant reiteration of bullshit you have to wade through to have a dialogue on the thread. No one of these people filled with their not-especially-analytical critical ire has been able to answer for me why they keep coming back for more.

Now about HerrSchreck: Thanks for warning me off the hewing, and educating me in the way things really are, and all that bullshit. And that discourse about "the spirit that exists nowadays." You're right. Things were better back then. Now go fuck yourself, and see if I care.

[HerrSchreck]

You can come out from under the table. The earthquake was not outside of your head.

[zedz]

. . . you won't find a chase in a Tarkovsky picture. . .

There's a pretty exciting chase in Mirror, even if the object of the pursuit is only a typo. And Andrey Rublyov includes one of the most spectacular action sequences ever put on film, so let's not consign the guy to a transcendental straitjacket.

Much of what's so distinctive about Ivan's Childhood, Rublyov, Mirror, Stalker and Nostalghia is their physicality (but then I quickly tire of his religiosity).