Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol. 5

[zedz]

Sarcasm doesn't transmit well without emoticons, does it?

Well, you can understand my confusion when you, me and Matt seem to be the only people who think that "Working Girl on Criterion" only works as a punchline.

[Gregory]

Also, I'm ready for Criterion to tackle the 80s head on.

The ladies of Working Girl are ready to be tackled, with shoulder pads and hairspray helmets.

[Zot!]

Working Girl would certainly be an unpopular choice but certainly far from their worst acquisition. I didn't mean I wanted more like it (or even it), just that the 80s have been unfairly maligned as a cultural wasteland. The lists thread for the 80s has plenty of good recommendations.

[Gregory]

I don't think any notion that the '80s were deficient of great films is taken seriously around here. The 1930s were a great time for filmmaking, but Criterion has already released more from the '80s than from the former decade.

[johnnysnatchclub7]

I've read this forum for three or four years now but finally decided to join as I hadn't seen anyone mention these occurrences from this morning yet.

A poster on Facebook inquired about Nashville to which Criterion replied, "It's a great film."
Needless to say, a predictable frenzy of requests resulted thereafter.

Also Criterion tweeted about a Love Streams doc.

I know both of these have been bandied about for years but it's nice to see them drift ever so closer to reality.

[htshell]

Via elsewhere on this board, it looks like Nanook is going to Flicker Alley.

[ianungstad]

Isn't Nanook in the public domain?

[knives]

Yep, Most Dangerous Game too explaining that overlap also.

[Jeff]

And since this news just came out a month ago, I'll be waiting for the Criterion.

I received a newsletter from the Flaherty Seminar, named for Robert Flaherty. In it is this:

"Criterion Collection Partnership - We recently negotiated our distribution agreement with Criterion to re-release Nanook of the North and Louisiana Story on DVD. Look for these films along with many exciting special features in 2013!"

That is the full information provided.

Seems pretty official, if limited in info.

I'm sure that the Flicker Alley transfer comes from a print. I think I read that the Flaherty Foundation did a 4K scan of the negative a year or so ago, and I'd imagine that's what Criterion will be working with.

[ryannichols7]

I've read this forum for three or four years now but finally decided to join as I hadn't seen anyone mention these occurrences from this morning yet.

A poster on Facebook inquired about Nashville to which Criterion replied, "It's a great film."
Needless to say, a predictable frenzy of requests resulted thereafter.

Also Criterion tweeted about a Love Streams doc.

I know both of these have been bandied about for years but it's nice to see them drift ever so closer to reality.

holy fuck

they really are doing Nashville

fuck

i know the Cassavetes was inevitable (come on, Husbands!) but Nashville is one of my very favorites/most requested and i knew it would come but just...the fact they finally mentioned something is awesome

[swo17]

All I get from that post is that someone at Criterion has seen Nashville.

[triodelover]

All I get from that post is that someone at Criterion has seen Nashville.

Or someone with access to their Facebook account has heard that it's a great film (or, to be truly cynical, has heard that they're supposed to think it's a great film).

[domino harvey]

All I got from it was this lousy t-shirt!

[ryannichols7]

but seriously, they never reply to anything anymore! and this has been long in the cards anyway.

[triodelover]

And since this news just came out a month ago, I'll be waiting for the Criterion.

I received a newsletter from the Flaherty Seminar, named for Robert Flaherty. In it is this:

"Criterion Collection Partnership - We recently negotiated our distribution agreement with Criterion to re-release Nanook of the North and Louisiana Story on DVD. Look for these films along with many exciting special features in 2013!"

That is the full information provided.

Seems pretty official, if limited in info.

I'm sure that the Flicker Alley transfer comes from a print. I think I read that the Flaherty Foundation did a 4K scan of the negative a year or so ago, and I'd imagine that's what Criterion will be working with.

But this seems to suggest that the Criterion will be a new DVD, while Flicker Alley are releasing the film on BD in a loaded package. A blurb at the Amazon listing implies the BD is being mastered from the 1972 35mm resto (at correct speed). Doesn't it seem unlikely that two licensed BDs would hit the North American market so close together? Even if the FA license is a short term one (and why would they be putting so much work into the package if it were), I shouldn't think the film hardly has a broad enough base for two commercial BD issues - one on the heels of the other - to be financially viable in the same market even if the Crit is based on a more recent 4K resto. Just asking because I'm having trouble making sense of these announcements.

[Matt]

but seriously, they never reply to anything anymore! and this has been long in the cards anyway.

For all of Criterion's attempts at social networking (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Foursquare for Pete's sake), they've become more opaque and uncommunicative than ever. I guess I can't blame them given the sheer amount of inane noise on their Facebook and Twitter presences, but they've never really been very good at this sort of thing.

[zedz]

If Nanook is public domain, then this isn't a licensing situation at all, it's just a matter of who's got access to elements, and more to the point, who's got access to the best elements.

In the meantime, the Flicker Alley release seems like it's going to be contextualised in quite a different way than Criterion's (presumably) more Flaherty-centric approach, and looks like it will have ample value even if the lead feature is trumped by Criterion's transfer. Which seems like a very sensible approach if there are going to be competing editions.

[triodelover]

If Nanook is public domain, then this isn't a licensing situation at all, it's just a matter of who's got access to elements, and more to the point, who's got access to the best elements.

In the meantime, the Flicker Alley release seems like it's going to be contextualised in quite a different way than Criterion's (presumably) more Flaherty-centric approach, and looks like it will have ample value even if the lead feature is trumped by Criterion's transfer. Which seems like a very sensible approach if there are going to be competing editions.

Thanks, zedz. Forgot about the PD thing. Mind is elsewhere today.

[Jeff]

After seeing Flicker Alley's supplement rundown, I'm more intrigued by their release. Since theirs is a pretty pricey release, I'll probably still hold off until the Criterion comes out to see if both are truly necessary, but I agree with zedz that they're smart to take a different approach.

I wouldn't worry about the Flaherty foundation referring only to DVD releases, as I'm sure they meant the term in a general sense. I can't imagine Criterion not going Blu if they have a 4K transfer and lots of supplements. I wonder if Criterion will do their release as a Flaherty box with Louisiana Story and perhaps Man of Aran.

[flacmurry]

42 windows = 42nd street (1933)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2OaJv0NBB8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Perkins Cobb]

For all of Criterion's attempts at social networking (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Foursquare for Pete's sake), they've become more opaque and uncommunicative than ever. I guess I can't blame them given the sheer amount of inane noise on their Facebook and Twitter presences, but they've never really been very good at this sort of thing.

Clearly you've forgotten the two years or so when buying Tamara a couple of shots could get you a peek at license agreements before the ink was dry.

[ryannichols7]

but seriously, they never reply to anything anymore! and this has been long in the cards anyway.

For all of Criterion's attempts at social networking (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Foursquare for Pete's sake), they've become more opaque and uncommunicative than ever. I guess I can't blame them given the sheer amount of inane noise on their Facebook and Twitter presences, but they've never really been very good at this sort of thing.

i don't blame them. if they answered everything like they used to, we'd all bitch about "THEY SAID IT WAS COMING"

so when they actually hint at something or reply to a post about a movie, i consider it a big deal. it happened with Punch-Drunk Love too.

[Jeff]

I think that "Hypnosifl" of the blu-ray.com forums may have solved the "candy woman" mystery: "Maybe [...] "Life is Sweet" by Mike Leigh? The main character had glasses like that and was a bulemic who binged on chocolate." He's referring to Jane Horrocks' character, with pictures here and here.

After watching the film, I'm almost 100% sure this is correct. The character looks very much like the drawing and kind of compulsively holds her hands up to her face like that. Of course she binges on candy too. The film is back in the hands of Film Four now, whom Criterion has licensed several titles from. Criterion is buds with Mike Leigh, and the film has never been released on disc in the U.S. The last U.S. release of any kind was Republic VHS in 1998.

[colinr0380]

As much as Naked and Topsy-Turvy are great films, it would be nice to see a more 'representative' Mike Leigh film enter the collection too, and Life Is Sweet is kind of the quintessential 'family troubles' film from which the later and more celebrated Secrets & Lies, All Or Nothing (in particular James Corden plays a similar child of the family, upset and acting out in a different way stemming from his issues being ignored, here) and Another Year develop.

It would also be great to see Jane Horrocks enter the Collection for her, if not finest performance (there would probably be competition with her musical turn in Little Voice, and I personally best like her Marilyn Monroe-esque turn in Alan Bleasdale's stranded on a desert island drama Self Catering!), then at least most daring one for such a unlikeable seeming, but affecting portrayal of a bulimic character. Just be warned that it might put the viewer off of chocolate for a while!

I do hope that if this goes well that Criterion would look into releasing Leigh's High Hopes next.

[duck duck]

Y Tu Mamá También was just on Sundance channel and it still had yellow subtitles, so I guess that one's still not quite ready.