Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol. 5

[Moe Dickstein]

There's no reason that the films won't be available outside the box and inside the box. There would just theoretically be exclusive extras to the box like the Malle set. Also sometimes not all the films are outside the box, like the Cassavettes.

The argument for a box set shouldn't just be lumping in smaller films with big ones so they'll sell, but when you have three films that have a legit reason to go together, why wouldn't you release a box set?

Just because there likely will and should be a box, doesn't mean your precious l'avventura will be trapped within it for all time...

[Moe Dickstein]

October Predictions:
Scanners
The Brood
Eraserhead
I Married a Witch

And we'll probably get one or two other films that we won't have been expecting...

Of course I Married A Witch, and Eraserhead is a good call too.

I just really want Tootsie asap lol. I want to watch it again but now I want to wait for the Blu.

[swo17]

There's no reason that the films won't be available outside the box and inside the box.

Criterion has released plenty of box sets that don't conform to this logic.

Also, troublingly, I just learned from a reliable source that since L'eclisse isn't HD-ready, they're replacing it in the Antonioni box with It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.

[Moe Dickstein]

That works, Mad World is about the same as an Antonioni film...

[matrixschmatrix]

The difference is that in Antonioni, the viewer watches someone else experience disquiet and alienation, while in Kramer's masterwork, you get to experience it for yourself

[monsieurmerde]

Does anyone know the likelihood of a Something in the Air release? I'm not aware of the status of the IFC deal, though I heard rumors about Frances Ha. I suppose it wouldn't be out of the blue given the few Assayas releases already on Criterion, but can somebody confirm/shoot down my dreams?

[rrenault]

Tootsie?? Do they need to make up for their Shoah losses or something?

[Moe Dickstein]

Tootsie is a great film, at one point the top grossing comedy of all time, and Criterion released it on Laserdisc and owns several exclusive extras including a fantastic commentary by Sydney Pollack.

[knives]

What does it making a lot of money have to do with anything. If two hours of a guy pooping were to gross a billion dollars would that give it merit as a film?

[johnnysnatchclub7]

Apparently in today's American marketplace, box office success does a good movie make. Just ask The Internet.

[Moe Dickstein]

I didn't say that it was a good movie because of the money it made. Those were two separate facts, one not dependent on the other.

It is a good film, in my opinion, and far more of an all time favorite personally than the last "popular entertainment" film I stuck up for here, Mad World.

But I suppose it doesn't matter what's said here. I'll enjoy it when it gets released.

[knives]

I don't deny that a good argument could be made for Tootsie as a very good film, my own feelings aside. I'm just genuinely curious what the film's financial success has to do with the quality of the film.

[domino harvey]

Tootsie is worse than most Stanley Kramer films, I'll give you that. I had some words for the film a few years back

[knives]

I maintain that Garr did a pretty great job considering the material though. Murray doesn't come off as shabby either.

[swo17]

I'll enjoy it when it gets released.

When has there ever been an indication that Criterion is working on Tootsie? If you're basing this on them having put it out on Laserdisc, that makes it no more likely than 100 other films that will never get released.

[Moe Dickstein]

I'll enjoy it when it gets released.

When has there ever been an indication that Criterion is working on Tootsie? If you're basing this on them having put it out on Laserdisc, that makes it no more likely than 100 other films that will never get released.

I have knowledge that it is coming. I can't say more so believe what you like.

[swo17]

I don't doubt that you might have insider knowledge. I just don't believe that that information has ever been hinted at anywhere before now.

[Moe Dickstein]

I don't deny that a good argument could be made for Tootsie as a very good film, my own feelings aside. I'm just genuinely curious what the film's financial success has to do with the quality of the film.

There isn't a correlation beyond the fact that often times quality films attract people with money to the theater, but so do crappy films. I read my first post again to be sure that I hadn't said that the two were related, so I think you just may be inferring something I didn't ever intend to say.

I pointed the success out in the first place, not just because it made money, but beyond that was the MOST successful comedy of all time (Until Ghostbusters 2 years later, which was also a Criterion title).

I think that Criterion's mission is to represent all aspects of Cinema, so isn't Tootsie a valid representation of what was popular in a comedy with the mass audience in 1982, just as Safety Last! is a valid representation of a mass audience comedy in 1923?

There's nothing that comes to mind that I don't love about this film, even the Grusin score which usually I find horrible. And Pollack's LD commentary was very influential on me as a young filmmaker.

[Moe Dickstein]

I don't doubt that you might have insider knowledge. I just don't believe that that information has ever been hinted at anywhere before now.

It may well not have been hinted at before, I don't have omniscient knowledge of the world.

[knives]

I think that Criterion's mission is to represent all aspects of Cinema, so isn't Tootsie a valid representation of what was popular in a comedy with the mass audience in 1982, just as Safety Last! is a valid representation of a mass audience comedy in 1923?

One would hope that they'd look to the good films in such cases, but then one remembers Tiny Furniture and shrugs. I guess I can just happily stick to Lookin' to Get Out for my early '80s comedy viewing. You're also not going to win me over personally with Ghost Busters.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think that Criterion's mission is to represent all aspects of Cinema

Is it? I know they've got the 'important' signifier in their mission statement, but they seem pretty comfortable with letting fairly sizable aspects of cinema get taken care of by others- animated features, say, or films from like anywhere in Africa. Which is fine, really, but I should hope that if they're putting out blockbusters it's because they think they're good or interesting, not just because they're part of cinema.

[Moe Dickstein]

I think that Criterion's mission is to represent all aspects of Cinema, so isn't Tootsie a valid representation of what was popular in a comedy with the mass audience in 1982, just as Safety Last! is a valid representation of a mass audience comedy in 1923?

One would hope that they'd look to the good films in such cases, but then one remembers Tiny Furniture and shrugs. I guess I can just happily stick to Lookin' to Get Out for my early '80s comedy viewing. You're also not going to win me over personally with Ghost Busters.

I don't think I hold out much hope of convincing around here, I feel content to share my views and be mocked lol.

Again, my point was not merely the time period of early 80s but a film from that period with mass audience acceptance. That distinction is mutually exclusive with one of quality, though this film has both I feel.

The point is, good bad or indifferent, the film was POPULAR, so perhaps it's worth looking at to see what was so attractive to an audience of that time period, in a purely film-scholar type of way.

Maybe that's not of interest, but I understand the CC mission to look to include films of all types, from the most obscure to the most mainstream in order to provide some sort of microcosm of cinema as a whole. That's one way to look at Armageddon, which I don't think is a great film at all, but it was certainly financially successful in its time and therefore a piece that helps us understand what was popular with a mass audience in the late 90s blockbuster/summer tentpole type film.

[Moe Dickstein]

I think that Criterion's mission is to represent all aspects of Cinema

Is it? I know they've got the 'important' signifier in their mission statement, but they seem pretty comfortable with letting fairly sizable aspects of cinema get taken care of by others- animated features, say, or films from like anywhere in Africa. Which is fine, really, but I should hope that if they're putting out blockbusters it's because they think they're good or interesting, not just because they're part of cinema.

There's also the factor of availability to consider. What "important" Animated title could they license? I think if they could put something out like the original version of The Thief and the Cobbler, they would jump at that. If I'm not mistaken Home Vision did Allegro Non Troppo, so that's something they could get, but they're not getting anything from Disney outside of MAYBE Song of the South someday.

African films, I'd love to see something from African cinema, more out of curiosity than anything else.

For years Criterion didn't release any "Big" Hollywood type films - because they couldn't get them.

Now they can.

[knives]

I think that Criterion's mission is to represent all aspects of Cinema, so isn't Tootsie a valid representation of what was popular in a comedy with the mass audience in 1982, just as Safety Last! is a valid representation of a mass audience comedy in 1923?

One would hope that they'd look to the good films in such cases, but then one remembers Tiny Furniture and shrugs. I guess I can just happily stick to Lookin' to Get Out for my early '80s comedy viewing. You're also not going to win me over personally with Ghost Busters.

I don't think I hold out much hope of convincing around here, I feel content to share my views and be mocked lol.

Again, my point was not merely the time period of early 80s but a film from that period with mass audience acceptance. That distinction is mutually exclusive with one of quality, though this film has both I feel.

The point is, good bad or indifferent, the film was POPULAR, so perhaps it's worth looking at to see what was so attractive to an audience of that time period, in a purely film-scholar type of way.

Maybe that's not of interest, but I understand the CC mission to look to include films of all types, from the most obscure to the most mainstream in order to provide some sort of microcosm of cinema as a whole. That's one way to look at Armageddon, which I don't think is a great film at all, but it was certainly financially successful in its time and therefore a piece that helps us understand what was popular with a mass audience in the late 90s blockbuster/summer tentpole type film.

As Matrix said though if this is just about checking the mission statement than there are bigger whole out there then popular 1980 comedies already with good DVD releases.

[matrixschmatrix]

God only knows the rights issues, but it would be pretty great to see a Criterion of Le Roman de Renard, Frederic Back's work, Triplets of Belleville, or a boxed set of stuff from the Quays or Svankmajer- all vital, none of it available on R1 blu, and none of it owned by the likes of Disney as far as I know. And that's not even getting into animation that's 'important' but dull, or once-popular but now somewhat forgotten, as with the big boring comedies thing they seem to be going for.