criterionforum.org

I wonder to how many people OOPness is really an obstacle. In addition to alternate means of seeing the films, a lot of the more recent OOP titles have been well publicized, and I suspect many of us are keeping copies safe in our underground bunkers. I agree that not excluding people should be a priority, but I think it would be easier to make an informed decision if we put it to a vote, i.e.

Each round, we will vote from among five films randomly or otherwise selected from this list. Which titles do you think should be excluded from this vote? (You may select more than one.)

( ) None
( ) Merchant Ivory titles
( ) Janus, Rialto, or Essential Art House exclusive titles (e.g. The Red Balloon, Murderous Maids, Le jour se lève)
( ) Titles that are not currently streaming on Hulu
( ) Non-film releases (e.g. Beastie Boys Anthology, Martha Graham, Fishing with John)
( ) Recently announced titles that have not yet been released but are readily available from another label
( ) Titles that have not yet been available in a 50% off sale
( ) All titles for which the Criterion release is OOP
( ) Only those OOP titles that don't have at least, say, 20 copies available for less than original MSRP on Amazon US
( ) Only those OOP titles with no in-print alternative from either Amazon US or Amazon UK

EDIT: This wouldn't be a majority-rules situation, but it would just give Mr Sausage a better idea of how to make the most people happy. Because while there are plenty of readily available titles to discuss, there are also plenty of OOP titles that it would be a shame if we couldn't discuss.

Do titles that don't win a round get folded back into the pot of available titles? For instance, if Pygmalion doesn't win, does it have as much a chance as appearing in the next round as any other title generated by the random number thingy?

I was thinking yes, that I would only remove films that win from the running. EDIT: Though I'd probably try to make sure that a losing title didn't come up eligible again for at least another two or three votes.

This one's for Mr Sausage directly, but along the lines of swo getting to be "guest curator," what about letting whoever wins Member of the Year curate five titles for a future round? Since the only real prize as of now is the likelihood of being invoked in the same breath as a cockring, might be a kinda nice perk for whoever nets the title going forward?

But wouldn't that only encourage members to contribute something of worth to the forum?

I'm fully anticipating that there will be titles that for various logistical reasons I won't be able to discuss, and I don't have a problem with that. As it happens, Le deuxième souffle is a near-perfect choice for me right now - I treated myself to a Melville marathon earlier this year, so not only is it very fresh in my mind, so is the surrounding context.

With regard to the internationalism point, this seems to me to cut two ways - because even if a title is OOP as a Criterion or only streaming on Hulu in the US, it may well be very easily available to me on a different DVD label. (The Carlos Saura flamenco films spring to mind). I'm assuming the purpose of this group isn't to discuss transfer quality and extras, so presumably it doesn't really matter which particular distributor you go for, provided the actual film is the same version?

If you sneak a peek at the rules thread you'll find that M Sausage actually forbade talking about transfers, aspect ratios, etc in the film club discussion, so it shouldn't matter how you take the film in so long as you do take it in

swo17 wrote:Which titles do you think should be excluded from this vote? (You may select more than one.)

Of your options, I think it's definitely wise to exclude (for obvious reasons):

( ) Recently announced titles that have not yet been released

I can also never imagine myself (or most other people on this forum) getting deep into a discussion of any of the Merchant Ivory Collection films - in all their years of release they've barely figured as a blip on the forum - but I don't see any reason they should be excluded from consideration on principle.

What zedz means is if he wins Member of the Year, his selections will just be the Hullabaloo Over Georgie and Bonnie's Pictures five times

zedz wrote:I can also never imagine myself (or most other people on this forum) getting deep into a discussion of any of the Merchant Ivory Collection films - in all their years of release they've barely figured as a blip on the forum - but I don't see any reason they should be excluded from consideration on principle.

After fighting shy of it for two decades (largely because I thought the novel was unfilmable and I didn't want to see anyone try), I was surprisingly impressed by The Remains of the Day when I watched it as part of a TiVo hard-drive clear-out last week. Although that was never a Criterion title, was it?

No, it's the one Sony owns outright, and of course my favorite all time Merchant Ivory title...

domino harvey wrote:This one's for Mr Sausage directly, but along the lines of swo getting to be "guest curator," what about letting whoever wins Member of the Year curate five titles for a future round? Since the only real prize as of now is the likelihood of being invoked in the same breath as a cockring, might be a kinda nice perk for whoever nets the title going forward?

Yeah, absolutely. I also plan to let members who've put in extra time and effort into helping run this forum guest curate the five.

domino harvey wrote:Do titles that don't win a round get folded back into the pot of available titles? For instance, if Pygmalion doesn't win, does it have as much a chance as appearing in the next round as any other title generated by the random number thingy?

Those that don't win go right back in the pot of available titles, yes.

black hat wrote:I get that this only applies to US dwellers but considering many of us do live here, Criterion an American company and the goal I would imagine being getting as many people as possible to participate, selecting films available on Hulu would be of huge help. Le Deuxième Souffle is not.

Matt brought this up earlier, and you're right, it'll be hugely helpful. I'm not sure how I'll do it at the moment--do I restrict the list only to films on Hulu, or make sure there are Hulu titles on each list of five? I don't how much of the collection is on Hulu at the moment, but I'm planning to look into it. I'm open to any ideas in the mean time.

swo17 wrote: I agree that not excluding people should be a priority, but I think it would be easier to make an informed decision if we put it to a vote, i.e.

It's a good idea, and I'll definitely look to set it up in the near future. It'll be two or more months until it'll be an issue, so I'll wait a bit before burdening everyone with yet another poll.

zedz wrote:What zedz means is if he wins Member of the Year, his selections will just be the Hullabaloo Over Georgie and Bonnie's Pictures five times

Huh. So there is something that'd make me ban zedz. Didn't think it was possible.

Moe Dickstein wrote:No, it's the one Sony owns outright, and of course my favorite all time Merchant Ivory title...

Getting the Blu-ray treatment in the UK in October, FYI

domino harvey wrote:

Moe Dickstein wrote:No, it's the one Sony owns outright, and of course my favorite all time Merchant Ivory title...

Getting the Blu-ray treatment in the UK in October, FYI

cool! That's one I'd maybe bend my no-imports thing for, especially as it's sure to have the full image this time the older releases were cropped to 2.0. If the Blu is ready though I wouldn't be shocked to see either Criterion or Twilight Time getting it here though.

I suspect it will be a long time - if ever! - before Merchant Ivory will be working with Criterion again.

They don't have to, Sony owns the film and there are already supplements.

Moe Dickstein wrote:No, it's the one Sony owns outright, and of course my favorite all time Merchant Ivory title...

Check out Maurice in that case.

Moe Dickstein wrote:They don't have to, Sony owns the film and there are already supplements.

I was thinking that the antipathy would work both ways. I doubt Criterion would want to devote resources to any Merchant Ivory film after that messy divorce.

MichaelB wrote:

zedz wrote:I can also never imagine myself (or most other people on this forum) getting deep into a discussion of any of the Merchant Ivory Collection films - in all their years of release they've barely figured as a blip on the forum - but I don't see any reason they should be excluded from consideration on principle.

After fighting shy of it for two decades (largely because I thought the novel was unfilmable and I didn't want to see anyone try), I was surprisingly impressed by The Remains of the Day when I watched it as part of a TiVo hard-drive clear-out last week. Although that was never a Criterion title, was it?

I'm no Merchant Ivory fan but this really is a very good film, and a model of novel to film adaptation. Now let's see someone have a go at The Unconsoled...

Well, barring some sort of last-minute rally, looks like the Melville has it. Props to the board for giving a strong showing to at least two other titles as well

It wasn't my first choice—of the Melvilles I've seen, it's my least favorite—but I'd be happy to give it a second chance.

Ironically, though I've seen all of the films listed save the Akerman (which is in my unseen condo), the Melville's the only one I've actually weighed in on in its dedicated thread! But I barely remember it now so a reviewing is def in order-- what I recall tells me there'll hopefully be some good discussion, though I do think devoting a month to any film is too long, so hopefully Sausage trims the perimeters down a bit

I gave it a month to be on the safe side, but I doubt we'll actually make it that long. The unofficial deadline is basically whenever discussion peters out.

Are we waiting a month before voting on the next title? Or will we have a couple of threads going at the same time?

One film discussion at a time. The next vote will happen two weeks into the current discussion.