Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?

[MuzikJunky]

Personally, I’m really getting sick of Criterion’s almost exclusively Eurocentric and Japanese focus. The Edward Yang and Chantal Akerman announcements are definitely drool-worthy, but it’s about time that the company puts some focus on South Asia and Africa—where most of the films in the world are made. This is stuff that really needs to be seen and discussed, but they remain all but unavailable in the US.

Yes, I want to see an Eclipse boxed set of some of Chico Ejiro’s hundreds of video movies, one or two of the 157 that Lancelot Oduwa Imasuen has made to date, or even Izu Ojukwu’s well-received Laviva, which has been showcased in many international film festivals. Even though these are shot on inferior digital hi-def video (someone buy Mr. Prolific a 35-millimeter Panavision or Arriflex camera, already!), these movies really need to be available.

I really don’t understand why 10-year-old films from Nepal are in such horrible shape—witness this masterfully musical clip from Dayaram Dahal’s Thuldai—and the Nepalese themselves don’t understand the need for film preservation (at least they use 16-millimeter film!). This is such a great song (three notes + drum machine = bliss), and this film is wacky as could be. There’s no other way to see this, and a nice DVD/Blu-Ray would be in order for those of use who hate watching low-quality stuff on the computer. So Criterion should recognize and represent, already! Peace.

[MuzikJunky]

South Asia and Africa, already! It’s time to represent! Peace.

[HerrSchreck]

Thanks for sharing your shopping list. [-X

Well, at least he's consistent.

[kaujot]

I think every single post of yours has contained the name "Chico Ejiro."

[Tommaso]

It rather looks as if Thomas J has found himself a disciple. Ah well, we've been through all this endless times before, but perhaps it should again be pointed out that Criterion is a commercial dvd label, not the UNESCO.

But can I please plead for an Eclipse set of Lilian Harvey/Willy Fritsch films now? Peace.

[HerrSchreck]

I'm about to get my hands on subtitled versions of Drei von Tankstelle and Kongress Tanzt, coincidentally!

Co-inky-dink.

[CSM126]

I think every single post of yours has contained the name "Chico Ejiro."

I think he is Chico Ejiro.

[oldsheperd]

I know that I'm Cornholio and I need TP for my bunghole!

[knives]

Personally I would like to see what a confused shitstorm a disrespected yet in need of a good DVD release like Paganini or Heaven's Gate would stir.

[MuzikJunky]

I think every single post of yours has contained the name Chico Ejiro.

I think he is Chico Ejiro.

Nope. I be a white dude with a degree in filmmakin’, but I’m fascinated with Nollywood, and I abhor hi-def video. Peace.

[Cold Bishop]

Heaven's Gate

Don't get my hopes up. "Release of the Year" material, if ever done right. We'll be lucky if we see a barebone Blu-Ray in six years. Probably with an overly clean transfer as well.

[Tommaso]

I'm about to get my hands on subtitled versions of Drei von Tankstelle and Kongress Tanzt, coincidentally!

You're in for a treat, I'd say! The latter is almost as good as the Lubitsch musicals, and Lilian is even cuter than Jeanette McDonald. Too bad that these two films are the only ones that enjoy some reputation, there are many more and so far as I've seen them, they're all hugely enjoyable.

[MuzikJunky]

Ah well, we've been through all this endless times before, but perhaps it should again be pointed out that Criterion is a commercial dvd label, not the UNESCO.

I don’t understand why all y’all always gotta show so much hate toward the films of South Asia and West Africa, for real. Who says the average art- or foreign-cinema lover wouldn’t be interested in these films? Peace.

[Jeff]

I don’t understand why all y’all always gotta show so much hate toward the films of South Asia and West Africa, for real. Who says the average art- or foreign-cinema lover wouldn’t be interested in these films? Peace.

If the rather well-informed and mostly adventurous group of cinephiles who post on this forum are "showing hate" to Chico & Co., what makes you think that "average" art and foreign cinema lovers would be interested?

[Gregory]

Ah well, we've been through all this endless times before, but perhaps it should again be pointed out that Criterion is a commercial dvd label, not the UNESCO.

The only problem with this point is that a number of other small companies (many with apparently less of a customer base) release films from Latin America, Africa etc. -- Kino, First Run Features, Artificial Eye, and so on. These are also commercial labels, not UNESCO. Not too surprisingly, a certain number, such as New Yorker, may eventually go out of business, but many have also gradually create a viable market for these types of films in which some of them can be distributed without losing too much money in the longrun. Criterion has not been part of this process, and its reasonable to wonder why this is the case and if this will change. Parallel argument and counter-argument could be made regarding their neglect of silents.
At the same time, I do understand that a lot of this is about occupying certain niches, and that companies like Flicker Alley and Milestone can pick up the slack in some ways (foremost silents), but there is a lack of comparable alternatives that can release a lot of worthwhile world cinema from under-recognized areas. It is partly a problem of insufficient interest.

[Doctor Sunshine]

The only problem with this point is that a number of other small companies (many with apparently less of a customer base) release films from Latin America, Africa etc. -- Kino, First Run Features, Artificial Eye, and so on. These are also commercial labels, not UNESCO. Not too surprisingly, a certain number, such as New Yorker, may eventually go out of business, but many have also gradually create a viable market for these types of films in which some of them can be distributed without losing too much money in the longrun. Criterion has not been part of this process, and its reasonable to wonder why this is the case and if this will change. Parallel argument and counter-argument could be made regarding their neglect of silents.
At the same time, I do understand that a lot of this is about occupying certain niches, and that companies like Flicker Alley and Milestone can pick up the slack in some ways (foremost silents), but there is a lack of comparable alternatives that can release a lot of worthwhile world cinema from under-recognized areas. It is partly a problem of insufficient interest.

One point which I don't think has been raised before, as Scorsese's WCF illustrates, many under represented regions don't have well established film institutions with the resources to keep their films alive both in the physically sense and in the public consciousness. Criterion's main focus, of course, is cannon but no one can argue that they don't take chances. Their agreement with the WCF shows they are more than willing to tackle these regions but they also have higher standards than Kino, et al, in terms of picture, audio and supplements. Even Eclipse releases are generally pretty nice (keep in mind Shochiku was pressuring them to get all the Ozus they licensed out--which is all of them--otherwise they may have dragged their feet with the more worn silents like they reputedly did with the Eisenstein silents for source issues.) Certainly Latin American and African film scholars exist (are there any Nollywood film scholars?) but they're not especially visible and, more importantly, Criterion don't have the resources to restore films single-handed.

In terms of interest, from what I've observed, the way to get obscure films or directors (re)discovered: find or become an authority on the subject, get some writings published in various film journals to stoke up some interest, wait 5-10 years. Find an organization that will restore the films and put on an international retrospective (it will help if some of the filmmakers or stars are alive, charismatic and willing to travel) and whet some appetites, wait 5 years. THEN write Criterion. One or two decades more and you're done.

I don’t understand why all y’all always gotta show so much hate toward the films of South Asia and West Africa, for real. Who says the average art- or foreign-cinema lover wouldn’t be interested in these films? Peace.

I don't understand how you think using Sarah Palin techniques is going to get you anywhere with this forum. A bunch of people don't share your enthusiasm and they're "haters". Make peace, man.

[Jun-Dai]

I think one of the problems is that Criterion's standards are much higher than they used to be. What this means is that the sort of release they'd be able to put out for the kinds of films we're talking about here would be of a quality that they might have been willing to put out eight years ago but would be extremely reluctant to put out today. I mean, what's the worst looking DVD they've put out in the last two years? Criterion's reputation is as much tied to the quality of their releases as it is to the selection of their films, and I think those two things put a lot of restrictions on what they release. They get a lot of flack for releasing Benjamin Butt, even though there are a lot of business reasons for them to do so (above all else that the director is important and wants to work with them). I imagine they'd get a similar amount of negative feedback if they started releasing transfers made from poor-quality masters of poor-quality prints of Nepalese musicals from the 90s, and without the business reasons for doing so, it seems unlikely that they'd push that particular envelope.

I think the problem here is the assumption that the pool of films that Criterion has available to them is all the films in the world whose rights haven't been locked down by an unfriendly American studio. But really the pool of films is, for practical purposes, probably going to consist mostly of films that are being handled by others who also have an interest in keeping the film available and in good condition. If Criterion has to go out and dig up the film, figure out who has the rights, twist arms to get good source materials, find all the people to work with to supervise the transfer, interview for extras, etc., then in most cases it's not really going to be worth it, because the expense will be much higher than for a normal release and the combination of high expenses and low returns—not a good business model. On the other hand, if Criterion's going to release it in a fashion they can afford: i.e., work with the digital master that's given to them and put it out on a barebones disc—well, why not just let Kino or some other label do that?

The fact that Criterion releases so many films from Japan, France, Sweden, etc., has probably less to do (directly) with their rich cinematic histories, and much more to do with the fact that they have long-standing relationships with various companies in those countries, all of which are very much interested in working with Criterion as well as keeping their own materials in good shape. If Criterion wants to go out on a limb and pick a French film to release, even though it's not already being restored by Rialto or something, it's much easier to do so in countries where they have all those connections, because they can get the best available materials, find the best people to interview, etc., and put out a release of a quality that no one else would be able to do. Much harder to do so in Iran, Turkey, and Nepal, I'd imagine. Barring the right circumstances just coming together, I doubt that Criterion would go out of their way now to release A Taste of Cherry if they hadn't already, if only because they wouldn't be able to do a much better job of it than they did then, and a release of that quality would go over much less well now than it did then. I don't think there's anything about the film that they'd be averse to now, it's just that they can no longer affordably reach the quality bar that they've been raising over the years.

It would be nice, though, if Criterion could spend a little more time diversifying the collection with the best possible films in areas that have little to no representation. But I'm not going to hold my breath, and I'm not really going to hold it against them—they're still the best (U.S.) DVD company out there. They could be better, but what company can't I say that about?

[Jeff]

lots of good stuff

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Next time somebody whines about what Criterion is or is not releasing, point them straight to Jun-Dai's post.

[Michael Kerpan]

I would love for Criterion to release films by Filipino masters by Bernal and Brocka -- but know they never will (and can't) because there simply are no source materials (of the most important films) that are not in deplorable condition (and probably beyond repair).

[HerrSchreck]

I have access to nine brocka films and three Bernal films, and the elements for all look fine to me-- after all, these are relatively modern films.

Which films are you talking about which are blasted beyond repair?

[AisleSeat]

The fact that Criterion releases so many films from Japan, France, Sweden, etc., has probably less to do (directly) with their rich cinematic histories, and much more to do with the fact that they have long-standing relationships with various companies in those countries, all of which are very much interested in working with Criterion as well as keeping their own materials in good shape.

Agreed. These relationships take time to develop. But even if a relationship has matured and been mutually beneficial, it is by no means certain that a license will be granted for a film Criterion is interested in. It goes without saying, too, that Criterion is a business, not a charity. The costs associated with each and every release is considerable, and whether a DVD can recoup the money put into it, or, better yet, make a profit, has to come into play on some level.

The new relationship with Scorsese's WCF is bringing Criterion a significant number of new titles in which to work with. The importance of this deal in providing new blood, so to say, should not be underestimated. That these films will have already been largely restored before reaching Criterion's hands is nothing short of boon for the company.

[Gregory]

It goes without saying, too, that Criterion is a business, not a charity.

If it goes without saying, then can we please give it a rest, like, permanently? I'm not reacting to you specifically, AisleSeat, but this is the most consistently used straw-man argument I've ever seen in the history of the forum. It's might be different if I hadn't offered a counter-argument to this in this thread within the last day. Jun-Dai raises mentions several more valid reasons why Criterion may not have done more to diversify geographically, so can we all please let this whole irrelevant "charity" thing die already?

[GringoTex]

Worst Criterion month ever.

[AfterTheRain]

Well, big surprise.

[Fiery Angel]

Worst Criterion month ever.

[-X

A Makavejev Eclipse set and a Wings Blu certainly help it avoid that appellation.