Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?

[Napoleon]

I think (OK, I know) the main problem some have with him with him is that he makes lots of money and lots of 'lesser' cinema goers really really like him.

I'm 100% sure that if this forum was around in the early 60's there would be a fair amount of hate directed towards Alf.

That reads far more condescending than I anticipated. Oh well.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

I'm 100% sure that if this forum was around in the early 60's there would be a fair amount of hate directed towards Alf.

Well here's some with a diametrically opposed viewpoint- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3pmEN3Wt_o" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Napoleon]

My EYES! My EARS!!

[rrenault]

Their new additions to the mainline are getting more and more uninteresting as the months go by. It's either well-known canon films that require treatment, such as L'Atalante and The Gold Rush, which I don't have a problem with at all or films that most cinephiles aren't going to give two s***s about. It's been all downhill since fall of 2010. I know I'm only one person, and some may disagree with me, but what happened to them releasing films that were actually interesting like Close Up, Red Desert, Dillinger Is Dead, Colossal Youth, or even Bigger Than Life, a film that had never had a home video release in America up to that point. Two Soderbergh films and a Boyle film. Really?? I say this, especially because Criterion likes to think of and advertise itself as a company that releases films more reminiscent of those in the former group. I don't know, The recent additions to the collection just haven't really grabbed me I guess. How about some Miklos Jancso, Manoel de Oliveira, or more Pialat?

[Tommaso]

I couldn't agree more. CC is getting more boring every month, it seems. Where in God's name is "Lonesome"? And remember that some time ago (perhaps one or two years ago, actually) there was also talk about possible releases of more Erice, and even Stroheim's "Wedding March". Or if they really have to cater to the Blu fans in the main place now, where is "Madadayo"?

[rrenault]

I've said in other forums Criterion shot themselves in the foot by going all blu-ray with new additions to the mainline. My creed is stick to essential canon films that currently have poor DVD releases and rare and hard to find gems, as opposed to catering to hipsters.

[HerrSchreck]

Total agreement here too. CC, and every 15th, and the streeting of titles was a huge monthly ritual for me, and terribly exciting. Over the past 2 or 3 years I've bought a only handful of criterion editions however, and now look increasingly to other labels such as MOC, Ed Filmmuseum, Flicker, BFI, Kino etc. They're just not what they once were..

[rrenault]

The second half of 2010 is when things started going downhill in my opinion. I knew things were headed in the wrong direction when they began releasing way too many MGM films in succession. I honestly don't care about blu ray as much as other people do. If a film I love is released on blu-ray, then great I'll buy it, but it's only icing on the cake for me really. A pristine DVD transfer suffices for me if that's what's available. Facets and Kino transfers obviously won't do, but most of Second Run's transfers, for example, are good enough for me.

[duck duck]

MGM films, really? You're complaining about them putting out Kubrick films and reclaiming things they had on Laser Disc?
You do know that Criterion is a business and needs to make money so they can take chances on things like Hollis Frampton?
Every six months or so a few people bitch about this.
If anything they are giving too many clues and hints for impatient people, if you had no idea they were releasing the things they
are it would be surprising and interesting.

[Tommaso]

You do know that Criterion is a business and needs to make money so they can take chances on things like Hollis Frampton?

Criterion was a business two years ago, too.

[HerrSchreck]

Dude dude duck duck, be a good guy and speak for your own psychology while you defend your fave label whyncha?

I almost wrote 'in before first jingoistic defense of changes in the line,' but I didn't expect that spot of amateur psychoanalysis regarding the 'hints'..

Whether they give hints or not has little to do with whether or not those releases are stuff thats been available for years and years..

Its an expression of taste on a public forum.. Accept it.

[Drucker]

Things come and go in waves, though. The Organizer, Alambrista, Hollis Frampton, Czech New Wave, Letter Never Sent...these are all excellent and really represent CC at its best. A couple of months without this consistently isn't the end of the world or the end of the line. I remember last year when they announced Orpheus, Vigo Set and Ray's Music Room people on Facebook were saying that was weak...I thought it was the best month ever! If you read back posts here from like 2007, you can find people also saying that Criterion's best days are behind them. I'm optimistic more cool stuff will continue to come out.
And then there's always MoC, which is damn near batting 1000 this year...so...plenty to buy!

[Tommaso]

Czech New Wave is an excellent example for what I mean. These are probably very important films, exactly the kind of stuff that made CC great. And where did they end up? In Eclipse.

As to MoC: I would have almost included them in my initial rant. But at least the films they are recycling these days are undeniably great ones.

[colinr0380]

I can't complain too much about Criterion in the light of Alambrista, The Organizer and especially the Hollis Frampton set coming up next month. One of the great things about Criterion is its eclecticism and I think it is great that modern films can co-exist with older ones, which is something that even MoC does, and I certainly do not blame them for taking the opportunity of tackling more studio acquisitions in light of the flight by other studios into burn-on-demand and streaming, or shifting focus onto more modern films for a while, as much as the choice of Tiny Furniture may raise eyebrows, or cause suggestions of 'better' titles which could have fulfilled that gap!

Though I do agree with Tommaso and rrenault that I do miss the more leftfield releases (April releases, Letter and The Moment of Truth aside for now) and that releasing everything new on Blu and the upgrading of titles into Blu must have a lot to do with it. There's also the ongoing issue of the relative lack of commitment to silent film, though that has always been a bugbear. I'd personally love to see Criterion forging out in different directions rather than just sticking within their comfort zone (which is another reason why I applaud going for studio films and more modern ones, even if they have predominated recently as much as 50s and 60s films did just a few years ago) and I'd really look forward to a better mix of 'canon' titles with more adventurous out of the blue ones, especially ones which cause debate about whether they are 'worthy' of inclusion or not.

My big selfish issues at the moment have more to do with the rather generic Blu-ray menus when compared to wonderfully eclectic, personalised menu screens that presumably are still produced for the DVD editions, along with the way that in-house produced extra features seem to be getting cut back quite severely, especially audio commentaries (has something gone wrong with Criterion's extra feature production team? Which would be another explanation for the move towards bought-in material and studio acquisitions or upgrades from DVD of films with their own extra features produced elsewhere or just ported over)

Of course I agree with Tommaso of Eclipse still holding the torch, despite a few occasions where the sets would have seem better suited for the main line with extra features (again, due to the potential issue with extra production above? Along with this being the one place where Criterion can still release DVDs) than to a line of rediscovering rarities.

[rrenault]

Next Up:

Eclipse set consisting of Before The Revolution (easily in my top 20), Partner, and The Spider's Stratagem.

That's the thing. This may seem selfish, but I just feel like they've been dropping the ball on releasing "foreign art-house" films lately. They're far from having exhausted that segment of the canon, even if they like to think they have in the back of their minds.

[colinr0380]

With La Luna as a bare bones Blu

[Tommaso]

One of the great things about Criterion is its eclecticism and I think it is great that modern films can co-exist with older ones, which is something that even MoC does, and I certainly do not blame them for taking the opportunity of tackling more studio acquisitions in light of the flight by other studios into burn-on-demand and streaming, or shifting focus onto more modern films for a while, as much as the choice of Tiny Furniture may raise eyebrows, or cause suggestions of 'better' titles which could have fulfilled that gap!

What comes to my mind in this respect is that of course it's harder for them to get their hands at the more 'significant' modern films because the studios that own them will want to release them on their own in many cases. Sure, they got "Antichrist", probably because the film is a bit too 'heavy' for mainstream distributors, but unsurprisingly, they didn't get "Melancholia" or "The Tree of Life" in spite of their track record with von Trier and Malick. I'm pretty sure we won't see things like "Mulholland Drive" either. And that's the difference between their releases of older films and newer ones. The older films are timeless classics from Kurosawa, Antonioni and so on; the newer ones most often are ones of which I doubt that they will once be held in similar esteem.

[rrenault]

Antichrist was also IFC. I haven't seen Antichrist, but of the IFC films they've released that I have seen not one of them has truly wowed me. Certified Copy was good, but it's no Close-up or The Wind Will Carry Us. Secret Sunshine was okay, but I doubt it'll be held in the same esteem as the films of Antonioni, Bresson, Bunuel, etc. in the years to come. As for White Material, I prefer 35 Shots of Rum and Beau Travail. Abbas Kiarostami himself though I'm sure will eventually be held in the same esteem as the Old Masters.

[Drucker]

This is somewhat starting to feel like 'why won't they release what I want' territory...and I don't mean to "defend" Criterion's choices...they release lots of stuff I don't have an interest in and whoa lord would I love more silent movies...so many more silents.
But just to play devil's advocate, there's still no way to please everyone. They released this amazing package of Anatomy of a Murder-a more well-known film. Someone here posted (can't find it) that the studio had no intention of releasing this on blu, and it took an intermediary to convince them they should let Criterion do it. So even if this isn't a more left-field choice, I'd rather Criterion be doing the work than nobody!

And as it pertains to only blu ray on the main line, if you look back at old posts, it seems people were bummed when things like War Trilogy, 3 Silent Classics and 2 or 3 Things I Know came out and WEREN'T on blu ray! And now people are upset that they don't choose to release stuff to the mainline on DVD-only?

Again, there's an endless list of stuff I'd love to see on Criterion over what they are releasing (and an even longer list of stuff I've never heard of but would love to learn about through the label!) But to imply that "they've changed man, it's all downhill from here..." may not really be accurate.

[colinr0380]

That is true, modern cinema is always going to emphasise the compromises of which companies Criterion has a relationship with and whether companies are willing to license out or still think there is commercial sense to their releasing directly themselves.

But then Shallow Grave is a great film to represent Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, for all my issues with it, would be just as good for its Cool Britannia-zeitgeist defining effects) and while The Tree of Life and Melancholia are not Criterions, Antichrist, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line should not be considered replacements or substitutes in any way (I think they are more successful films by their respective directors!). And at least the IFC deal has given Criterion a chance to include works by some major filmmakers, even if they arguably may not be the 'most representative', or (my big beef with White Material and Secret Sunshine) capitalised on the chance to include a raft of extra material introducing these filmmakers to a wider audience.

Mulholland Drive though is a whole different issue due to it being Studio Canal, along with a whole raft of classic films that have suddenly become unavailable to Criterion. And look at the way that Antonioni's The Passenger was unavailble for so long, and I doubt that Warners would ever have licensed Blow Up or Zabriske Point to Criterion (or Akira Kurosawa's Dreams, which is currently consigned to the burn on demand Warner Archive), even if they had a policy of licensing material out.

[bamwc2]

And an eclipse set geared to the Hulu crowd:
Eclipse Series 34: The Morally and Legally Dubious Films of David Hamilton

Lol

I can only attribute any wit in that to my 103 degree fever yesterday. I had also thought of Eclipse Series 34: David Hamilton's Barely Legal Box. I'm not sure which one is better.

[swo17]

CC is getting more boring every month, it seems. Where in God's name is "Lonesome"? And remember that some time ago (perhaps one or two years ago, actually) there was also talk about possible releases of more Erice

They should still be coming. I don't know that it's fair to criticize CC's tastes generally for not happening to announce this month worthy titles that we know they are working on.

Czech New Wave is an excellent example for what I mean. These are probably very important films, exactly the kind of stuff that made CC great. And where did they end up? In Eclipse.

In this particular case, the decision to put these films in Eclipse appears to have been due to the quality of available materials. If you want an example of something that could have been Blu-ray that got dumped onto Eclipse for business reasons, then there's the Gorin set.

[rrenault]

As I said, I don't have a problem with them releasing well-known canon films that need decent releases. Thus, I don't have a problem with Chaplin, Jean Vigo, The Three Colors Trilogy, Anatomy of a Murder, Orpheus, Belle de Jour, or an extra Bergman. But stuff like Being John Malkovich, Blow Out, Broadcast News, Something Wild, and even Easy Rider makes me scratch my head. Criterion likes to position itself as an arbiter of high culture, and many people allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking anything CC releases is representative of the best the cinematic medium has to offer, since they've bought into CC's marketing scheme. It's a problem when a self-styled arbiter of high culture brainwashes people into thinking Blow Out belongs in the canon alongside Hitchcock, and Jean Vigo.


Would Penguin Classics give black binding treatment to Bonfire of the Vanities or A Million Little Pieces?

[rrenault]

They could have released bare-bones mainline releases of a few of the Czech films. I won't mention the word blu-ray since I'd be contradicting myself.

[What A Disgrace]

In my opinion, Blow Out is every bit as worthy of inclusion in the collection as the Three Colors trilogy, if not moreso.