criterionforum.org

HerrSchreck wrote: or z (who I love to death and I consider a dynamite gent, he knows that from our correspondence) saying that the CC is the cinephiles last best hope (I would put them behind Ed Filmmsm, MOC, have been saying for years that the Kino catalogue is far more up my alley, tech issues aside...

What I meant by this is that most of those other labels (who I also tend to be much more interested in) don't have the financial or market-share clout to actually spearhead major restorations, or even fund new transfers of films, whereas Criterion does. Ed Filmmuseum (and, to an extent, BFI) do have a little latitude in that respect, but they're constrained by their specific remits, and for non-British work, for example, BFI seems to be as beholden to existing transfers as a label like MoC or Second Run. If you're looking for a company that could actually single-handedly undertake to rescue a specific film from oblivion and issue it in cutting-edge HD, I don't know if there are many (any?) other labels in the game. I can't think of any other label in any country that's undertaken a project like the Brakhage Blus. And obviously they have to pick their battles and limit their exposure.

Oh, and as to Tommaso's point, I think there really are a lot of people who want to buy the same old favourites over and over and over again. I don't get it either, but it seems to be the backbone of most major labels' 'classics' release strategies, and I guess they've done their sums.

Frankly, so many films have been ( and continue to be) restored and tranferred (for at bare minimum, at least television, for private cinemateque membership dvd viewing and whatever licensing opps appear) that just sit there marinating because few labels release this material any longer that your point is just a total nonstarter for me.

Again, the economy, I know. But still , my buying habits are my buying habits and dont find all that much in R1 land anymore. Just is what it is.

Doesn't The Report take precedence over CC though, just to play devil's advocate. Also I'm not aware of a previous release for the Gorin's or most of the Frampton's. That's not much, but even taking out double dips they've released an okay amount of films.

They're not releasing either Grande Illusion nor The River at the moment, so I have no idea of why those are examples here. And I think there's a major distinction between arguing 'Criterion has changed for the worse because they no longer release titles that aren't available elsewhere' and 'Criterion has changed for the worse because they no longer release titles that interest me'- the latter is pointless to debate, and not generally meaningful but anyone but you, whereas the former at least has an assertion that can be checked and some sort of general applicability.

Also, knives' point about The Report seems pretty key to me, as one of the things Criterion has been doing a lot lately is bundling second features with their releases- Murder a la Mod with Blow Out, second monologues on both Spalding Grey releases, Tragedy in a Temporary Town on 12 Angry Men, and so on- it seems deceptive to ignore those in tallying up what new to home video releases Criterion has put out, and to act as though they're just retreading others' steps when they put out a main feature with something like that as a back up.

movielocke wrote:Just because you were presumably born knowing and loving the most obscure of the obscure doesn't mean that others don't come from a different path, others can take longer to reach enlightenment during their personal journey through cinematic history.

Not ashamed to say that I was introduced to Criterion ten years ago by the Rushmore DVD -- Wes Anderson's commentary was the first time I think I'd even heard of Powell and Pressburger. The "strategy," if it is that, works; I know high school students with far more considerable awareness of arthouse cinema than I had because they had Anderson or Fincher or Kevin Smith or whoever as a way in, specifically via Criterion.

Absolutely, but even without that crutch and ignoring the IFC titles, the eclipse sets, and thinking of the Frampton set as one thing I count at least six premiers or one a month this year. There may be more (I believe Vanya is a premier, but I'm not counting it because I am probably wrong), but for a studio that releases so few films each month and has generally been very conservative in keeping to the cannon (even someone like Brakhage who was a very daring choice seems to be the go to guy for teachers of experimental film) that seems like a reasonable balance.

movielocke wrote:You're also underestimating that one of the points of having a more well known film every few months is to expand the brand to customers that don't regularly pay attention to Criterion. If they get some of the buyers who routinely pick up Citizen Kane and North by Northwest and want Gold Rush or Harold and Maude but don't really care about The Music Room or Brakhage then they've expanded their base, and eventually those new recruits will explore other directions of the Collection.

This would be the ideal scenario, but I was specifically addressing zedz' point about the end of the dvd boom, which I think is a good point. So I don't think that this ideal scenario still works today, unfortunate as this may be.

movielocke wrote: Just because you were presumably born knowing and loving the most obscure of the obscure doesn't mean that others don't come from a different path, others can take longer to reach enlightenment during their personal journey through cinematic history. Erecting walls to cloister only those who are currently 'enlightened' is a foolhardy approach, commercially, Criterion ought to be welcoming more people into the fold, not scaring them off.

That's right, not everyone had the super-occult mother milk drink from the fountain of cinematic knowledge that I had at age 3 or 4... But those poor creatures who have never seen "Citizen Kane" (they missed all the TV showings, have never rented it, or - heavens forbid! - downloaded it illegally), or, to use "Stagecoach" as a better example because it's in the collection: wouldn't they be more likely to pick up one of the old Warner discs cheapo rather than to shell out a considerable sum of money for the CC version? I still haven't upgraded my Warner even though the CC is very obviously superior, btw.

swo17 wrote:You're underestimating how willing people are to upgrade when it's from DVD to Blu-ray.

Yes, that's probably right. But then I don't understand why they put out parallel new DVD editions of the blus as well, unless of course the dvd needs upgrading, too. The new "Red Shoes" was a godsend on any medium, but a new version of "Rules of the game" on dvd? What's the point?

To those trying to contest Tommaso on the issue of upgrading to blu-ray, Easy Rider has already been released on blu elsewhere. Traffic is available on non-CC blu. The non-CC Easy Rider blu-ray, but I'm sure that's due to the fact that Criterion released it. Being John Malkovich is available on Region A compatible non-CC blu ray. Okay, maybe I haven't listed enough example to make a convincing argument, but Tommaso does have a point that it's usually the cinematheque crowd that's bound to blind buy a film for over $20, but if that's the case the buyer is going to want to have confidence in the tastes of the specific DVD/blu-ray company. Otherwise...

Okay, maybe I'm not making a strong argument but merely agreeing with Tommaso, but I think people like swo and movielocke are only looking at the surface and acknowledging only what sounds plausible in theory but actually isn't.

Saying it's okay to release Being John Malkovich, so they can build up the funds to work on a release of Out 1 is sort of like saying, "Okay, I'll direct Transformers 3, so that I'll have enough money to fund an independent production of the next L'Avventura. I know that may be extreme, since Being John Malkovich isn't as offensive to cinephile sensibilities as Transformers, but still...

Book publishers have subsidized literary fiction and, in the case of Random House/Knopf, some poetry for decades using the model you describe, rrenault. We are not talking about grant or government subsidized nonprofit home video publishing here. Even in the case of the Library of America, a canonical nonprofit publishing venture that purports to trade in only America's best writing, the occasional genre writer or collection helps underwrite Hart Crane. This is the way it works in the US. Be happy for Transformers. And, more to the point re: Criterion, Armageddon (ducks).

In this thread: people not understanding that Easy Rider was a part of a box set.

rrenault wrote:Saying it's okay to release Being John Malkovich, so they can build up the funds to work on a release of Out 1 is sort of like saying, "Okay, I'll direct Transformers 3, so that I'll have enough money to fund an independent production of the next L'Avventura.

While I would never say that Good Will Hunting or Milk are equivalent to Transformers 3, isn't this essentially the Gus Van Sant playbook?

During his Section 8 years especially, the Steven Soderbergh playbook too.

rrenault wrote:Saying it's okay to release Being John Malkovich, so they can build up the funds to work on a release of Out 1 is sort of like saying, "Okay, I'll direct Transformers 3, so that I'll have enough money to fund an independent production of the next L'Avventura. I know that may be extreme, since Being John Malkovich isn't as offensive to cinephile sensibilities as Transformers, but still...

It's the shit that makes the roses grow. We all have to do it.

zedz wrote:What I meant by this is that most of those other labels (who I also tend to be much more interested in) don't have the financial or market-share clout to actually spearhead major restorations, or even fund new transfers of films, whereas Criterion does. Ed Filmmuseum (and, to an extent, BFI) do have a little latitude in that respect, but they're constrained by their specific remits, and for non-British work, for example, BFI seems to be as beholden to existing transfers as a label like MoC or Second Run.

Yes, this is largely true - though there have been happy exceptions like last year's Alice, a blissful situation in which the best possible source materials (the original 35mm interpos, with the spliced camera negative on standby if needed) were given a brand new 2K transfer, every stage from telecine to digital cleanup being supervised by a single BFI expert (James White, who flew to Prague to oversee the initial telecine).

But I suspect it helped that the film is part-British (at least in terms of funding, if not direct nationality) and also that it had genuine commercial appeal. It's much harder to justify that kind of outlay for something wholly foreign and with much less recoupment potential.

And of course one major difference between Criterion and its European counterparts is that the latter are generally catering for much smaller markets.

Kalatozov's Letter Never Sent is hardly standard repertoire -- and Criterions BR release of this shows that it continues to come up with some must-buy releases.

Personally, I have really liked the direction Criterion has taken in the last eighteen to twenty-four months: a healthy mix of classic and contemporary, mainstream and obscure, old and new. Plus lots of Blu-ray and (this is the future anyway) streaming.

Most of the complaints in this thread's weekend discussion seem to be of the variety of "oh nos, they've wasted their time on stupid titles x, y, and z which I really don't like, or which were already released by someone else at some point on some format in some region during the prior 15 years" or of the variety of "whatever, I only buy like two titles a year these days (you know, unlike the 2000s when they happened to be releasing the fucking international arthouse canon on DVD for the first time)." Neither point seems to suggest that the label has fundamentally shifted its approach or has been captured by the Facebook lamestreamers.

My only complaint is the one that swo mentioned: the shift away from heavy supplements and commentary.

I don't pay much attention to streaming myself, but if you look at the CC lineup available on Hulu, all of which was added during the past year, I think it would be hard to call it anything but adventurous. This is probably kind of a testing ground for the viability of certain titles in physical format, so I suppose that to some extent, if some of these films never get a physical release, it's more the consumer's fault than Criterion's.

I don't like being blamed for things SWO, and that is a lot of pressure.

Have to agree by and large with Tom Hagen: I'm reasonably happy with Criterion's line-up though admittedly neither the 2011 nor the 2012 offerings so far have (yet) equalled the tremendous 2010 releases. I'm not unsympathetic towards David's complaint that they are duplicating other companies' releases (I too would much rather see Limite or Lonesome instead of Certified Copy, especially when the Artificial Eye disc is significantly cheaper, has been out for months, and CC's packaging looks so meh) but that neglects the fact that they are serving US customers first and foremost (not sure how much profit comes from their overseas customers; anyone know?). I think, for me, the duplication or reissue of a title is more welcome or regrettable in context: Sony could have done a wonderful job on Anatomy of a Murder but they don't seem to have had much interest in putting it out anytime soon so I appreciate that Criterion stepped in. Same applies to MoC with Lifeboat (how long would it have taken for that film to arrive in the UK in 1080p if not for MoC?). And considering how sloppy Universal are with their catalogue, I'm grateful that Criterion are taking on some of their library titles (imagine Videodrome with DNR slapped all over it) though I'm no fan of BJM by any means and would have preferred something else but at the end of the day, it no doubt helps to offset the financial risks of investing into the likes of Brakhage, Frampton etc. And if Criterion are no longer quite the pioneers as back in the early 2000s, it's partially also due to the likes of MoC, BFI, Kino, Second Run etc having stepped up their game to the extent that worldwide first releases of key films are no longer just down to Criterion although it is still happening: Letter Never Sent is not the best film by its director (still awestruck by my viewing of Milestone's fucking awesome edition of (I Am Cuba from last year!) but it definitely merits inclusion in the canon and I can't see anyone else putting it in HD anytime soon.

Tom Hagen wrote:My only complaint is the one that swo mentioned: the shift away from heavy supplements and commentary.

Yeah, and this is a place where I'm always disappointed when they put out a long available title, like Something Wild- it's one thing when they totally transform the context of the release with supplements, but when it's just a blu upgrade with some interviews slapped on that seems a bit disappointing. Though to their credit, what supplements they do put on (and the new commentaries in particular) are still consistently excellent.

When's the last time something was released with a new director's commentary, though?

matrixschmatrix wrote:And I think there's a major distinction between arguing 'Criterion has changed for the worse because they no longer release titles that aren't available elsewhere' and 'Criterion has changed for the worse because they no longer release titles that interest me'- the latter is pointless to debate, and not generally meaningful but anyone but you, whereas the former at least has an assertion that can be checked and some sort of general applicability.

Yes, and the former is the major complaint I had about Criterion last year.

This year, however, I really can't see how the same charge can be levelled.

Here's a rough and ready tally (based on my limited knowledge of international DVD releases) of the 2012 releases so far:

Never Released on Home Video (in English-friendly editions, at least):
18 titles (half Eclipse; half main line; not including The Report)

First Time Releases in the US (but already available in English-friendly editions overseas):
8 titles (I've included 3 Leans in here, maybe erroneously?)

Previously Available in the US:
13 titles - note that this includes some long-OOP titles and some (e.g. The Joke) whose previous releases were atrocious.

Upgrades of existing Criterion titles:
11 titles

So it looks like the debuts are actually leading the pack.

On the other hand, I snapped up Something Wild immediately.

And on the other other hand, how long before Criterion gets around to doing the right thing with Tin Drum. Or Picnic At Hanging Rock for that matter.

How much of what Criterion releases reflects what they want to do versus what they're able to do? For instance, several years ago prior to their switch to Blu Ray, I was told by Criterion in an email with no uncertain terms that the early films of Costa Gavras, which have had almost no home video release save for an odd VHS, were going to be announced soon.

Obviously that didn't happen but it may be because they've decided to wait until they could get the materials HD ready. I don't know a lot about the business, but it may be easier to pump out BJM type films than the Rivettes in the current market.

Generally what is the turnaround between an informal announcement ("XYZ Studio has teamed up with Criterion to release ABC", not coming from CC directly) to official announcement?

In 2010, Chris Nolan's Following was announced, and I have an email from Jon Mulvaney at CC that says they are releasing it "in the near future" (that was 2 years ago). I assume it was going to be released in June or July to tie in with The Dark Knight Rises, but now I have faint hopes.

I am absolutely thrilled for this release for the purely speculative reason that the extras includes the other 2 of Nolan's shorts that have never been seen before.

So basically...is a two year wait normal?