The Complete Kubrick

[MichaelB]

The Quay Brothers' Nocturna Artificialia was in a similar position—it was the Quays' first film, they've pretty much disowned it, and would have much preferred it not to be included in the BFI compilation.

The problem was that the BFI produced it and owned it outright, and so they ultimately had no say.

But I agreed with them that if I stuck it on the extras disc instead of the main one, and promised not to cut anything negative that they said about it in the interview, they'd consider that an acceptable compromise. And since there are few things that I enjoy more than filmmakers slagging off their own work, I was only too happy to go along with it.

[hanshotfirst1138]

That price just about made my eyes pop out of my head. There’s no denying it’s worth it, but I don’t know if I can afford it.

[DimitriL]

That price just about made my eyes pop out of my head. There’s no denying it’s worth it, but I don’t know if I can afford it.

It’s eye-watering, but thank god for the frequent sales. $300 is a big gulp, a very big gulp, but it’s also a lot more in the “I was saving up for this” bucket than MSRP. (Heck, you can’t even get a computer SSD for $300 anymore.)

[Lowry_Sam]

As far as standalones go, I would think that Criterion would probably wait until their existing stock to sell out before releasing new editions and to wait and help pad a slow month to release the titles they haven't already released.

[MichaelB]

$300 seems perfectly reasonable. It's actually slightly less than what I paid for the complete Wojciech Has box set, and that was Blu-ray only and completely barebones aside from a hefty book.

(Although the latter was a legitimate business expense, whereas this one won't be!)

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah, at 13 films, I believe it comes out to be just slightly less than a 50% off UHD price per film

[Finch]

Also, it makes sense to buy from Criterion direct during their sale so you can accrue quite a bit of credit for the Kubrick set towards a $50 gift card. I don't know if B&N offer anything similar.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah, it depends. Some credit cards offer good deals where you trade points for inflated B&N credit and the deal works out better than Criterion's point system. Also, if you have an Amazon Chase credit card, you get 5% cash back on all purchases, so when Amazon price-matches B&N's prices, you're essentially getting the same deal as the points system on the website (potentially a better deal, if Criterion's site taxes you more than Amazon)

[swo17]

B&N gives you 5% credit for purchases, Criterion gives you 10%

[therewillbeblus]

Ah right, math

[mfunk9786]

You could also shoplift it, which results in a cost of $0 (but you will not earn points)

[dwk]

Barnes and Noble would be the way to go if the 50% off sale happens when they or someone else are running deals on gift cards. (B&N do usually run a promotion in November where you get $10 gift card when you purchase $100 and Costco just ended a deal where you got $20 gift card emailed to you when you bought a $100 B&N gift card)

[Brianruns10]

The Quay Brothers' Nocturna Artificialia was in a similar position—it was the Quays' first film, they've pretty much disowned it, and would have much preferred it not to be included in the BFI compilation.

The problem was that the BFI produced it and owned it outright, and so they ultimately had no say.

But I agreed with them that if I stuck it on the extras disc instead of the main one, and promised not to cut anything negative that they said about it in the interview, they'd consider that an acceptable compromise. And since there are few things that I enjoy more than filmmakers slagging off their own work, I was only too happy to go along with it.

I feel that, at a certain point, the imperative toward access and academic inquiry supersedes the wishes of the artist. Because every work, in early works made before the artist attains maturity, are important for understanding how that artist grows and evolves.

It frankly paints a false picture when an artist withholds early work, because it would seem to imply that they were sui generis, fully formed and not the product of, shock, trial and error, success and failure. I dare say it makes people like Kubrick more inspiring, to see how they evolved and grew over time, than to be left with this idea that he's some kind of genius sphynx.

[Lowry_Sam]

You could also shoplift it, which results in a cost of $0 (but you will not earn points)

Or you could wait until you are invited into the closet and not risk arrest.

[MichaelB]

I feel that, at a certain point, the imperative toward access and academic inquiry supersedes the wishes of the artist.

Not if they own it, which in the case of very early work they often do.

Because every work, in early works made before the artist attains maturity, are important for understanding how that artist grows and evolves.

I'd say "indulgent" rather than "important". You don't actually need it, but obviously it's a perfectly human response to want it. But the artist is equally entitled not to let you have it.

It frankly paints a false picture when an artist withholds early work, because it would seem to imply that they were sui generis, fully formed and not the product of, shock, trial and error, success and failure. I dare say it makes people like Kubrick more inspiring, to see how they evolved and grew over time, than to be left with this idea that he's some kind of genius sphynx.

It may well be, but I'm strongly in favour of letting the artist decide whether they want to keep juvenilia in circulation—although in the case of films it's often the case that the artist doesn't own the work. And calling it "a false picture" is clearly hyperbole.

[ryannichols7]

Barnes and Noble would be the way to go if the 50% off sale happens when they or someone else are running deals on gift cards. (B&N do usually run a promotion in November where you get $10 gift card when you purchase $100 and Costco just ended a deal where you got $20 gift card emailed to you when you bought a $100 B&N gift card)

adding onto this, if you're a premium member at B&N it's usually quite easy to stockpile $5 rewards with them and carry a pretty high balance between a few Criterion sales, if you do more than just movie shopping at B&N. I had been stockpiling rewards for years in favor of being able to inevitably get a Criterion Ozu box for basically free with my redemptions, but since it looks like that's not happening any time soon, I may settle for the Kubrick set...

but anyone who does buy a good bit in the July sale from B&N will inevitably have a decent bit ready to go for the November one

[DimitriL]

It may well be, but I'm strongly in favour of letting the artist decide whether they want to keep juvenilia in circulation—although in the case of films it's often the case that the artist doesn't own the work. And calling it "a false picture" is clearly hyperbole.

I'm all in favor of that, but copyright always acknowledged - even if the term has gotten pushed out further and further - that at a certain point the public interest outweighs any rights or preferences the artist had and shifts the works into the public domain. So I don't have any particular moral issue with people defying the artist's wishes, especially if it's okayed by the people who knew him best.

There were indeed screenings of Fear and Desire while he was alive. While he issued statements indicating his displeasure, he also took no actions to stop those screenings. (Which he was entirely willing to do, considering the many legal actions he took to keep A Clockwork Orange from screening in the UK.) Considering what a highly litigious individual he was, I take that as a tacit admission that while he would've scrapped the print if he could, he acknowledged the academic interest in the work and stood down.

Anyway, I'm not sure it really matters much in an age where tons of people are defying George Lucas' explicit wishes with infinite recuts of Star Wars to restore it to its individual condition. They're seen as champions, the last I checked.

[MichaelB]

With regard to A Clockwork Orange, he asked Warner Bros to withdraw it from UK distribution in 1973, and two decades later the Scala Cinema was sued for copyright infringement for hosting an illicit screening—but the plaintiff was Warner Bros, not Kubrick.

So I’m not actually aware of any legal action specifically initiated by this allegedly “highly litigious individual”, but maybe you can fill me in.

[dwk]

Not sure how long the extras for The Shining will be, but it'd make sense to split the content over 2 discs. There are 18 changes between the 2 cuts, which starts to be a lot for seamless branching, but Criterion never used seamless branched to begin with. The 2 cuts combine 263 min. Better to split that (and spread out the extras).

I think their Risky Business release does use seamless branching, but in that instance the only difference is the end of the film.

[aox]

There are 18 changes between the 2 cuts, which starts to be a lot for seamless branching, but Criterion never used seamless branched to begin with. The 2 cuts combine 263 min. Better to split that (and spread out the extras).

But in this case, the "changes" are all scenes filling in the holes of the International Cut, not moving scenes around which would require more of the disc. No? The movie still follows the same trajectory.

EDIT: word

[Maladroit Aggregator]

Kubrick shot scenes for a James Agee-scripted television series about Lincoln. it would be nice to have that included, though I imagine it might be hard to confirm exactly which scenes he shot.

[Maladroit Aggregator]

I think one of the biggest new special feature is the inclusion of short films by John Whitney. I know many have been restored by the Academy Film Archive and his estate in 4K.

EDIT: And Graphic Films! Have those ever been available? If they include the experiential 70mm films, it would be a major coop.

Would be a good opportunity to include some of Jordan Belson's work, too, a blatant influence on the "organic" segments of the stargate sequence.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

There were indeed screenings of Fear and Desire while he was alive. While he issued statements indicating his displeasure, he also took no actions to stop those screenings. (Which he was entirely willing to do, considering the many legal actions he took to keep A Clockwork Orange from screening in the UK.) Considering what a highly litigious individual he was, I take that as a tacit admission that while he would've scrapped the print if he could, he acknowledged the academic interest in the work and stood down.

There was no legal basis for Kubrick to prevent screenings of Fear and Desire, which entered the public domain in 1981 after the copyright holder (an uncle of Kubrick's who put up most of the production budget) failed to renew. The George Eastman Museum acquired a print that originally belonged to distributor Joseph Burstyn (who may well have donated it himself before his death in late 1953—the Museum also has a nitrate print of Bicycle Thieves that he donated the same year) and restored it in the early '90s, after which it was screened on a few occasions. Since Kubrick had no claim to either the copyright or the print, all he could do was complain, though he did supposedly pressure UCLA into cancelling a screening in 1996.

[Finch]

At least one boutique seller, Jesse at DiabolikDVD, won't be selling the set:

My 2 cents about the Kubrick boxset....I think it is a boxset that is priced knowing full well that no one is going to buy it at that price and they need to get at least the BN sale price to make it profitable. Also the reason I won't be carrying it