criterionforum.org

kschell wrote:* The Magnificent Ambersons

Has been out in R2 - France for years now.

However, I disagree with the premiss that a film has to be "famous" (whatever that means) to matter. Mizoguchi's 47 Loyal Ronin & Sansho The Bailiff, not to mention two thirds of Rivette's films and Truffaut's The Green Room for Pete's sake -- all of these are world cinema classics that are in dire need of a first rate DVD release, Criterion or otherwise.

All that said, I think that Dazed & Confused is a great film, and I agree that at least some of the complainers haven't actually seen it. Kicking and Screaming on the other hand is total garbage, but really, there is nothing wrong with Criterion's output as a whole. I just want ALL my Rivette before the decade is out...

Ted Todorov wrote:I just want ALL my Rivette before the decade is out...

Not a chance. ;~{

I have the strangest feeling that if Kicking and Screaming were in French, people on this board would like it a lot better.

carax09 wrote:I have the strangest feeling that if Kicking and Screaming were in French, people on this board would like it a lot better.

I don't think many have even seen the film, let alone attempt to seek it out and view it. I think many are going by IMDb ratings (Which are garbage, because most of the people who vote on there are fan boys with down syndrome to some extent.)... I understand many have seen it. But to those who haven't don't bash it until you have seen it... Then when you see it and you like it you'll be a hypocrite... And no one wants that.

Clearly there is a polarization of opinions here. I do not like the progress so far in 2006 Criterion issues. I must explain my reasons. Other members are free to disagree. I start by asking what is the mission of this label that gets me to visit this site every day and look forward to their announcements every month. I do the same for MoC and for Second Run films. I do not do it for Sony or MGM. What made Criterion different for me is that they issued disproportionate number of classics in supeior editions regardless of their popular appeal. Many will question what "classic" means in this context. My working difinition is that a classic in any art form is a work whose appeal does not significantly diminish with time, and whose appeal is universal. They may never enjoy the size of following of a pop art, but they endure. Since they have limited instantaneous audience, most commercial organizations do not pursue them. I get the impression that this is what drove many of us towards Criterion, and MoC and First Run. We ignore if these organizations occasionally deviate from this expectation, but we get concerned when there is a pattern of these deviaions. I see a pattern of these deviations in Criterion's choices recently. By contrast, I believe MoC (as an example) remains true to this mission so far. This is why I am disappointed with Criterion in 2006.

kekid wrote:My working difinition is that a classic in any art form is a work whose appeal does not significantly diminish with time, and whose appeal is universal.

I contest that very few of the 2006 releases are being drawn and quartered for having diminished over time (perhaps Metropolitan and K&S, but I don't see many saying that D&C used to be great but has lost appeal, and, if anything, Equinox's appeal *to it's current supporters* has massively grown since its release).

The problem, then, seems to be universal appeal. And when isn't that a problem? But if you look at the releases to date, I would argue that, despite the random nay-sayer here and there (which will be present for any film), The Bad Sleep Well, Virgin Spring, La Bete Humaine, Young Mr. Lincoln, Au Revoir, Mr Arkadin, Elevator to the Gallows, Late Spring, Viridiana, and Harlan County have a well above average level of appeal.

Kind Hearts, the remaining Malles, Children Are Watching Us, Fists In The Pocket, and A Nous Amours would seem to be the underdogs of the group -- the contenders for "Suprise of the Year", if you will.

So, we have an entire thread devoted to the downfall of Criterion, stemming from Metropolitan, Dazed & Confused, Equinox, and Kicking & Screaming, all of which also have a decent amount of backers on this forum. Four releases spread over more than six months. For those of you who despise all four, yes, it's a bit above Criterion's average for potential disappointments. However, if you're just a Link-hater (ha!), or think Equinox should be burned, is one release in half a year worth the trouble? And if you do despise all four, I would be very curious to hear why, as (perhaps the Metropolitan/K&S pair excepting) they are hardly of the same vein.

Heh... Link-hater...

-Toilet Dcuk

I don't know what all the complaining is about. June may be the first month I actually buy every title Criterion releases.

Metropolitan I can understand. Dazed and Confused? Kicking & Screaming? Pialat?!

Where is Tristana, El, Nazarin, Resnais, Ophuls, Imamura, Sansho the Bailiff, Shanghai Express?

Or even STraight Time (Great D. Hoffman performance), ozu silents and Two or three things I like about her? Maybe, as someone else mentioned The Green Room, or El Norte? S-A-T-I-Y-A-J-I-T R-A-Y.......

LOTS of random suggestions up above, from different periods, from different directors. All considered masterpieces of some sort. Why not release those first, if they have the opportunity.

PS for all you who have not seen Equinox, it is pure shit.

LightBulbFilm wrote:boys with down syndrome to some extent

Is it even possible to have down syndrome "to some extent"? I thought it was a bit like being "a little bit pregnant." (Just couldn't resist taking that out of context.)

stroszeck wrote:Metropolitan I can understand. Dazed and Confused? Kicking & Screaming? Pialat?!

Where is Tristana, El, Nazarin, Resnais, Ophuls, Imamura, Sansho the Bailiff, Shanghai Express?

Or even STraight Time (Great D. Hoffman performance), ozu silents and Two or three things I like about her? Maybe, as someone else mentioned The Green Room, or El Norte? S-A-T-I-Y-A-J-I-T R-A-Y.......

LOTS of random suggestions up above, from different periods, from different directors. All considered masterpieces of some sort. Why not release those first, if they have the opportunity.

PS for all you who have not seen Equinox, it is pure shit.

yet another "why not release [insert cinema classic here] first?" post. Weren't you at the conference? We all agreed to stop doing that. Did you get the memo? Did someone forget to send Stroszek a memo? Who forgot to get the memo out?

tryavna wrote:

LightBulbFilm wrote:boys with down syndrome to some extent

Is it even possible to have down syndrome "to some extent"? I thought it was a bit like being "a little bit pregnant." (Just couldn't resist taking that out of context.)

Didn't Stroszeck have down syndrome to some extent?

stroszeck wrote:Why not release those first, if they have the opportunity.

Why don't you get back to us on that? The moment you find out conclusively that Becker is hording all the Ophuls for himself just so he can release Equinox, come on back. At least your oh so eloquent argument will have a leg to stand on then...

-Toilet Dcuk

This thread absolutely baffles me.

It seems that:

"The current output is crap"

OR

"They're OK, but somehow "beneath" the CC of old"

OR

"Equinox is an amusing diversion but NOT at the expense of........"

A couple of thoughts:

Years ago, right after "The Blob" and "Fiend Without a Face" we were treated to a Bergman, a Bunuel, and even a Sturges (among others of course.)

Why does everyone want EVERYTHING....RIGHT NOW???? Criterion is a going concern for years to come, they can't release everyone's favorite movie next month and close up shop with kudos all around for a job well done!

OK, continue. I think I'll go watch a movie.

carax09 wrote:I have the strangest feeling that if Kicking and Screaming were in French, people on this board would like it a lot better.

No, if it were in French it would be merdeux.

I guess part of the problem arises from the fact that this forum maintained a list of "certainties" and "near certainties", many of them based on direct communications from people at Criterion. This created some expectations. We can hardly be called impatient if we were to go back and see how long a period has elapsed since some of these tentalizing titles were mentioned. Was it misinformation? Coming directly from Criterion it should not be. Did they run into unexpected technical problems? The list is too long to support that justification. The only explanation that makes sense is that Criterion could release many of those announced items, but are choosing not to prioritize those. I do not wish to single out any release this year as being "sub-standard". At best that would be my opinion, and of little relevance to the rest of people on the forum. The central question is, as they reduce the level of output, why are they sitting on these long-awaited titles?

The most baffling thing about this thread, and the recurrent negativity therein, is the fact that every once in a while someone I actually respect chimes in against the CC in a big way. That's really surprising to me. Do people actually believe that what they're putting out goes against their mission statement, or releasing D&C has something to do with the Image deal? C'mon! If there is any adverse effect from that deal, it is probably limited to production-pipeline delays resulting in fewer films released monthly---That seems like a legitimate concern.

Believe me, any time you find me defending a effing corporation, it's a pretty strange day. If I really saw anything to bitch about, I would be right beside you ready to storm the gates. As of today, I just don't. I guess time will tell...

Arn777 wrote:My concern is not with Dazed & Confused (nor Equinox for that matter), I saw it at the cinema and loved it (even bought the soundtrack on Cassette!), but more about the overall lack of inspiration from several of the films released this year. E.g. This month I have no interest for the 3 Malle films (I saw Au revoir les enfants when it came out and didn't like it, and the other two don't appeal to me at all), and the De Sica. I was under-whelmed by Kind hearts…, Metropolitan was interesting but not amazing, La Bete Humaine and A nos Amours exist in superb R2 editions

Once again, this futile argument boils down to personal preference. I personally want to see Murmur of the Heart and Lacombe, Lucien primarily because I have never seen them and "Lacombe" has never been issued here, EVER

Also, this begs the question. How many here on this board are North American or European? Unlike Criterion DVD's which are region encoded and can play on most European players, I am in the U.S. and I can't play Region 2 discs on my player. I don't ( nor want to invest) need a Region 2 machine and then go to the trouble of buying import DVD's online. That is why I love Criterion. So What if La Bete Humaine is available in Region 2, I deserve a Region 1 regardless. Is is expensive for the European users here to acquire Criterion's? Also, unlike say Kerpan here, I can't read French subtitle DVD's and I wouldn't watch a Japanese film without English subs. So Region 1 for me only.

With all due respect, TW -- the cost of a multi-region player is so minuscule (the cost of a couple of high-tier Criterions) and English-friendly non-R1 releases are so plentiful, it seems almost perverse not to get a multi-region player.

;~}

Listen, the fact people we have this board addressing the complaints shows there is discontent with Criterion customers. What is the first rule of any business? The customer is always right. So, if you have no problems about these current releases, that is your opinion. However, you don't have to rag on people who do. I realize many comments are borderline insane. However, I have a right to say them.

Also, if people want to complain, they should complain. If you don't like their complaints, try to prove them wrong, instead of attacking the complainer. After all, we live in a democracy. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy. If you prove the complainers wrong, you win the debate. If you attack the complainer just for complaining, you are being downright authoritarian.

pzman84 wrote:I realize many comments are borderline insane.

Wow, thank you for that wonderful personal attack justeleblanc; makes me feel pretty important having emotionally involved some members of this forum with my post. But anyway, fine, you guys win, I'll shut up.

But come next year when we get THE RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES: with George Clooney Commentary, or MALCOLM MCDWELL in Caligula: The Criterion Version, don't get all pissy. Because, as is the case with so many of these so-called cult films, these titles can also be viewed as having some sort of "importance" and being "Landmark" pictures.

So, in conclusion, enjoy.

pzman84 wrote:Also, if people want to complain, they should complain. If you don't like their complaints, try to prove them wrong, instead of attacking the complainer. After all, we live in a democracy. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy. If you prove the complainers wrong, you win the debate. If you attack the complainer just for complaining, you are being downright authoritarian.

I personally can see how the presence of all these complaints -- or rather the way they're expressed -- has become maddening lately. How do you prove people wrong who simply repeat ad nauseum statements like, "I don't like this movie. Criterion shouldn't release this movie. Criterion should release more and/or better movies. These choices are no good" Maybe if people gave a more reasoned analysis there would be room for discussion. As it stands, most of the discussion hasn't even begun to resemble a democratic "marketplace of ideas." I don't think the idea is to shut people up but instead to get them to express themselves more constructively.

tryavna wrote:

LightBulbFilm wrote:boys with down syndrome to some extent

Is it even possible to have down syndrome "to some extent"? I thought it was a bit like being "a little bit pregnant." (Just couldn't resist taking that out of context.)

Well if you've seen Palindromes, the one kid, Skippy has down syndrome... But it's obviously not to a FULL extent because he could say things clearly and act like a normal person... Now if you have ever seen someone who has down syndrome to a full extent, they can't act like a normal person and can't say things clearly... GOD I REALLY HOPE NO ONE'S SIBLINGS HAVE DOWN SYNDROME ON HERE.

With all due respect, TW -- the cost of a multi-region player is so minuscule (the cost of a couple of high-tier Criterions) and English-friendly non-R1 releases are so plentiful, it seems almost perverse not to get a multi-region player.

I'll agree that non-R1 DVD players are very cheap and I have been tempted to buy one. I've stopped short on three different occasions because I wouldn't be able to afford all the very cool and desirable DVDs from other regions. All those Tarkovsky and Bergman films on Artificial Eye not to mention all the Fellini films that keep coming out that don't see the light of day in the US. I want to see 1900 again only because I want to see how it held up since I last saw it in college when it was first released. I would snatch up The Double Life of Veronique without a moment's hesitation. And then I would want to buy every single MOC title just because they release great stuff and they look far more captivating than Criterion. I would then need to buy every Second Run title simply because I know less than 15% of what they release and they always look so much more interesting than the tripe that lands at most DVD shops.

Players are cheap but the DVDs alone would kill me (and my addiction to albums never seems to die; I'd buy the impending double disc reissue of Daydream Nation before I'd buy anything on DVD, including The Double Life of Veronique).

Shouldn't you all have bailed as soon as Chasing Amy was announced?