The Criterion Collection

[DukeTogo84]

I'm not quite sure where some of these conversations are headed, but I'll take them over the "why no 4K?" comments we usually get for about 48 hours after new title reveals.

[mmarczi]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I don't like that the best films are not highlighted because we, as a society, feel the need to right (these specific) perceived wrongs. How many people of different ethnic backgrounds and different gender identification were nominated or not nominated for an Oscar is of zero interest to me.

Call Me By Your Name is my 2nd favorite movie from the last 10 years. I loved it because it is a good love story with great cinematography and acting. It was made well. Period. The fact that it is about a gay romance doesn't even move the needle for me. That is, I don't look at it differently than I would at anything else or any other love.

It's been said so many times by people of different ethnicities, gender, sexual orientation, etc, "I don't want to be considered a great female athlete/actor, whatever." "I want to be considered a great athlete. Period."

So why have an agenda that could place a qualifier on some film's or actor's nomination? That's unfortunate for the people who are doing truly great work.

I think a good starting point would be to not view the word 'agenda' in such pejorative terms, or as though it's incompatible with the idea of the Criterion Collection as being a catalogue of some of the greatest films in the history of cinema. I've already made the argument that their catalogue already shows it's very possible to combine both world-class cinema with 'social messaging', which frequently overlap.

The particular 'perceived wrong' that was charged against them last year is an underrepresentation of African-American (specifically, as opposed to black) directors. To add more African-American directors while retaining the quality of the catalogue is not even remotely difficult, since there are many fantastic ones out there.

Whether or not things are of interest to you...is not of interest to me. The fact that you love a movie about a gay love story and yet the gay aspect in and of itself doesn't move the needle for you...doesn't move the needle for me.

I'm sure you're a straight white guy. I am too. But someone like me has never experienced underrepresentation like this before. It's a noble goal for a film catalogue with the prestige and reputation of Criterion to aspire to be more reflective of true film history beyond the 'canon' and showcase a wide variety of great art from all possible viewpoints.

For people who are not of the societal defaults (white, straight, cis, male, middle class, etc.), to grow up in a world that doesn't reflect or acknowledge them can have a deflating effect. Not everybody sees it that way, but I can tell you from personal experience that yes, it does matter to some people when they see themselves represented within their spheres of interest, because I've had these conversations with my friends who are women and minorities. And, you know, the fact that there was a major article about it just last year. It's obvious that it matters because it's talked about...whether or not it personally matters to you.

Great filmmaking is not exclusive to older white men, or even to white men and women (plus the Japanese). Nobody's saying that it is, but then it's reasonable for a company to want to aspire to demonstrating that through their catalogue.

There is no qualifier when Marlon Riggs or Dee Rees get added to the collection, except by those who place it on them. Comments about Criterion 'going woke' were deleted. While their inclusion may have been prioritized or fast-tracked due to a desire to create less of an imbalance, they were added not as the product of Great African-American Filmmakers, but as great films worthy of standing alongside the thousand other films already in the collection.

The bottom line is this: any effort to expand the Collection to include a more diverse grouping of directors and narratives in no way diminishes the quality of the line, because individuals and titles being added are worthy on their own merits, not simply because they meet a diversity criteria. As somebody suggested above, nobody would bat an eye if somebody from Criterion gave an interview in which they said they'd like to have better representation from Czech directors in their line. But it triggers different things when somebody says something similar about African-Americans or gays.

[dwk]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

I'm not quite sure where some of these conversations are headed, but I'll take them over the "why no 4K?" comments we usually get for about 48 hours after new title reveals.

I think even the hardcore "why no 4K" crowd has to admit that this slate is no where near commercial enough to justify UHD releases.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by dwk

I think even the hardcore "why no 4K" crowd has to admit that this slate is no where near commercial enough to justify UHD releases.

True. That's probably why it's been quiet with the 4K comments, and it's honestly refreshing.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

I think a good starting point would be to not view the word 'agenda' in such pejorative terms, or as though it's incompatible with the idea of the Criterion Collection as being a catalogue of some of the greatest films in the history of cinema. I've already made the argument that their catalogue already shows it's very possible to combine both world-class cinema with 'social messaging', which frequently overlap.

The particular 'perceived wrong' that was charged against them last year is an underrepresentation of African-American (specifically, as opposed to black) directors. To add more African-American directors while retaining the quality of the catalogue is not even remotely difficult, since there are many fantastic ones out there.

Whether or not things are of interest to you...is not of interest to me. The fact that you love a movie about a gay love story and yet the gay aspect in and of itself doesn't move the needle for you...doesn't move the needle for me.

I'm sure you're a straight white guy. I am too. But someone like me has never experienced underrepresentation like this before. It's a noble goal for a film catalogue with the prestige and reputation of Criterion to aspire to be more reflective of true film history beyond the 'canon' and showcase a wide variety of great art from all possible viewpoints.

For people who are not of the societal defaults (white, straight, cis, male, middle class, etc.), to grow up in a world that doesn't reflect or acknowledge them can have a deflating effect. Not everybody sees it that way, but I can tell you from personal experience that yes, it does matter to some people when they see themselves represented within their spheres of interest, because I've had these conversations with my friends who are women and minorities. And, you know, the fact that there was a major article about it just last year. It's obvious that it matters because it's talked about...whether or not it personally matters to you.

Great filmmaking is not exclusive to older white men, or even to white men and women (plus the Japanese). Nobody's saying that it is, but then it's reasonable for a company to want to aspire to demonstrating that through their catalogue.

There is no qualifier when Marlon Riggs or Dee Rees get added to the collection, except by those who place it on them. Comments about Criterion 'going woke' were deleted. While their inclusion may have been prioritized or fast-tracked due to a desire to create less of an imbalance, they were added not as the product of Great African-American Filmmakers, but as great films worthy of standing alongside the thousand other films already in the collection.

The bottom line is this: any effort to expand the Collection to include a more diverse grouping of directors and narratives in no way diminishes the quality of the line, because individuals and titles being added are worthy on their own merits, not simply because they meet a diversity criteria. As somebody suggested above, nobody would bat an eye if somebody from Criterion gave an interview in which they said they'd like to have better representation from Czech directors in their line. But it triggers different things when somebody says something similar about African-Americans or gays.

that's great that you're not interested in how I feel about things (the 'move the needle' comment.) next time, though, put a better foot forward instead of rushing to a generalization. there are aspects of my personal life (I'm in an interracial marriage with mixed race kids. the most important male figure in my life is gay and has a husband. I have more pictures of Jackie Robinson on my wall in my office than I do my kids) that make me more "socially conscious" than many of the films you mentioned. but you only care about my personal experience so far as to call me a bigot and a racist, so I'm sorry for mentioning all this.

there are many truths in what you say here above and the likelihood is you're going to get about 50 likes. there should be nothing controversial, though, about wanting the best films to be front and center as opposed to having to discover them in later years, as another poster said above, due to films being prioritized as part of an agenda.

but I do understand that it is a loaded opinion.

pushing too hard "due to a desire to create less of an imbalance" and other "woke" ideas are starting to not sit so well with people on the left, too, and it is self defeating. I assure you - I am not alone.

[mmarczi]

The fact that you would connect the idea of Criterion putting more effort into introducing African-American filmmakers into their canon with the notion of some sort of dilution of the catalogue makes no sense. There's no correlation between the two. They already have the rights to a number of films by African-American filmmakers and have been working on titles for years. This didn't just start because of that article. Here are a couple of quotes from Peter Becker from that piece, by the way:

In reference to his first exposure to Julie Dash's Daughters of the Dust upon release:

“I didn’t understand what I was looking at,” he said, reflecting on the decision. “I didn’t understand it for what it was. And I wasn’t talking with people who were going to help me.”

On one of the company's stated goals with their digital streaming services predating The Criterion Channel:

“We looked up, looked around, and went, ‘Oh my God, we have to actually really deal with the fact that, one edition at a time, we’ve knit together something that is almost all male and predominantly white,’” Becker said.

On the importance of representation within an established body of work:

“I think canons end up being defined as much by what they leave out,” he said, “as by what they let in.”

Beyond that, I don't see how your personal preferences are relevant, so I'm not sure why you would be bothered by my dismissal of the fact that you don't value the gayness of gay films that you like. The point was your personal inclinations don't dictate others' priorities, so if you didn't care about the fact that people were gay in a gay movie, that doesn't change the fact that it was important that they were gay for other people. And I never called you anything, let alone racist, beyond questioning how identifying as leftist and being opposed to a desire to actively correct an imbalance in representation are compatible. You've been consistently very defensive throughout this exchange.

P.S. It's really hard to take people seriously when they pejoratively use 'woke' in scare quotes.

P.P.S. An 'agenda' is 'something I would like to accomplish. Stop insinuating that there are some nefarious, dishonorable, or misguided intentions. Criterion has never claimed to have this agenda, anyway, it was just the word choice that someone on this forum happened to use. One could just as easily say that they have an 'interest' in adding more African-American directors into the canon, just as they have an interest in adding more contemporary French films. But again, doing so somehow becomes loaded with 'social messaging'.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

The fact that...

I have said what I wanted to say on this topic.

[liveandletmarblerye]

So, uh, has anybody watched any good movies lately?

[exzachary]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

I think a good starting point would be to not view the word 'agenda' in such pejorative terms, or as though it's incompatible with the idea of the Criterion Collection as being a catalogue of some of the greatest films in the history of cinema. I've already made the argument that their catalogue already shows it's very possible to combine both world-class cinema with 'social messaging', which frequently overlap.

The particular 'perceived wrong' that was charged against them last year is an underrepresentation of African-American (specifically, as opposed to black) directors. To add more African-American directors while retaining the quality of the catalogue is not even remotely difficult, since there are many fantastic ones out there.

Whether or not things are of interest to you...is not of interest to me. The fact that you love a movie about a gay love story and yet the gay aspect in and of itself doesn't move the needle for you...doesn't move the needle for me.

I'm sure you're a straight white guy. I am too. But someone like me has never experienced underrepresentation like this before. It's a noble goal for a film catalogue with the prestige and reputation of Criterion to aspire to be more reflective of true film history beyond the 'canon' and showcase a wide variety of great art from all possible viewpoints.

For people who are not of the societal defaults (white, straight, cis, male, middle class, etc.), to grow up in a world that doesn't reflect or acknowledge them can have a deflating effect. Not everybody sees it that way, but I can tell you from personal experience that yes, it does matter to some people when they see themselves represented within their spheres of interest, because I've had these conversations with my friends who are women and minorities. And, you know, the fact that there was a major article about it just last year. It's obvious that it matters because it's talked about...whether or not it personally matters to you.

Great filmmaking is not exclusive to older white men, or even to white men and women (plus the Japanese). Nobody's saying that it is, but then it's reasonable for a company to want to aspire to demonstrating that through their catalogue.

There is no qualifier when Marlon Riggs or Dee Rees get added to the collection, except by those who place it on them. Comments about Criterion 'going woke' were deleted. While their inclusion may have been prioritized or fast-tracked due to a desire to create less of an imbalance, they were added not as the product of Great African-American Filmmakers, but as great films worthy of standing alongside the thousand other films already in the collection.

The bottom line is this: any effort to expand the Collection to include a more diverse grouping of directors and narratives in no way diminishes the quality of the line, because individuals and titles being added are worthy on their own merits, not simply because they meet a diversity criteria. As somebody suggested above, nobody would bat an eye if somebody from Criterion gave an interview in which they said they'd like to have better representation from Czech directors in their line. But it triggers different things when somebody says something similar about African-Americans or gays.

But Czech directors aren’t whining that they are underrepresented in the collection.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Call Me By Your Name is my 2nd favorite movie from the last 10 years. I loved it because it is a good love story with great cinematography and acting. It was made well. Period. The fact that it is about a gay romance doesn't even move the needle for me. That is, I don't look at it differently than I would at anything else or any other love.

It's been said so many times by people of different ethnicities, gender, sexual orientation, etc, "I don't want to be considered a great female athlete/actor, whatever." "I want to be considered a great athlete. Period."

So why have an agenda that could place a qualifier on some film's or actor's nomination? That's unfortunate for the people who are doing truly great work.

You don't see the significance of a bisexual Jewish romance featuring some erotic sequences getting a wide release around the world from a major studio?

Or the validity I felt as a queer person seeing that and Moonlight winning an Oscar for Best Picture in the same year? Okay.

It's worth noting that queer identity is inseparable from being a queer person, no matter how involved in the community you are. There should be a distinction for gay cinema because it's important (and underrepresented).

One of the inclusion aspects Criterion have been headed down is featuring more women directors but I've seen less criticism of that now than there might have been before.

Criterion have three and a half decades of releasing films where they haven't released enough Black cinema, they have lots to catch up on. Although of course other distributors like Milestone are out there and Black cinema is slippery. George Washington is about Black life, but it isn't by a Black filmmaker. And it should be in tandem with other ethnic minorities receiving more representation - like Ramin Bahrani getting two features in the same month (Chop Shop is excellent.)

Originally Posted by liveandletmarblerye

So, uh, has anybody watched any good movies lately?

I saw some Barbara Hammer films yesterday. She's really overdue a boxset.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

my favorite film from the last few years is Burning. yes, I like foreign cinema... otherwise, I wouldn't be in this thread.

we may have digressed from the original discussion, but if you've got some recommendations for me, lay them on me. you can link to my list of recently watched through my collection count figures on the left here.

It's difficult to give out recommendations. It would take more time than I'm willing to commit to check and see every film you've mentioned on here. I wanted to stay away from "bigger" films and Oscar winnners. Here are a few you may or may not have seen:

The Rider (2017)
Columbus (2017)
Hanagatami (2017)
Starfish (2018)
Shirkers (2018)
Long Day's Journey Into Night (2018)
Sing Street (2016)
Honey Boy (2019)
Apollo 11 (2019)
The Guilty (2018)
Three Identical Strangers (2018)
I Lost My Body (2019)
Lady Macbeth (2016)
Luce (2018)
All About Nina (2018)
Leave No Trace (2018)
God's Own Country (2017)
On Body and Soul (2017)
A Fantastic Woman (2017)
Mustang (2015)
Predestination (2014)
Amour Fou (2014)
Endless Poetry (2016)
Mr. Turner (2014)
Upstream Color (2013)
The Duke of Burgundy (2014)
Mysteries of Lisbon (2010)
The Garden of Words (2013)
The Tribe (2014)
The Red Turtle (2016)
Brooklyn (2015)
Cloud Atlas (2012)
A Werewolf Boy (2012)
She Monkeys (2011)
Brimstone (2016)
Embrace of the Serpent (2015)
You and the Night (2013)
Dope (2015)
In Search of Fellini (2017)

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by bergman864

It's difficult to give out recommendations. It would take more time than I'm willing to commit to check and see every film you've mentioned on here. I wanted to stay away from "bigger" films and Oscar winnners. Here are a few you may or may not have seen:

Columbus (2017)
Apollo 11 (2019)
Three Identical Strangers (2018)
Lady Macbeth (2016)
God's Own Country (2017)
On Body and Soul (2017)
Predestination (2014)
The Duke of Burgundy (2014)
The Garden of Words (2013)
The Red Turtle (2016)
Cloud Atlas (2012)

Ones I've seen and can strongly recommend in bold

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Most movies from the 70's could not be made now - not just because of political correctness, but because the loudest voices in society don't seem to have a taste for movies that don't deal with social issues.

I see plenty of people complaining about mid-budget dramas and indie films - that deal with social issues - being difficult to get made or distributed widely to theaters nowadays because of the interest of studios in making large blockbusters that recoup their budgets multiple times over. Meanwhile streaming services and VOD (before the pandemic) are left with the smaller films people don't go to theaters. New Hollywood films that people admire from the 70s really kind of fell apart in the 80s, even if directors like Coppola and Malick kept at it forging their own path into the 2010s.

Lots of 70s exploitation and comedies and romances and horror and those films still get made. Maybe not some of the Blaxploitation and martial arts so much though

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

So happy I started my Altman collection few months ago.

Altman has such a large catalogue, many of which are films that are highly well reviewed, that it's both a little intimidating but quite exciting to collect his films.

[mmarczi]

Originally Posted by exzachary

But Czech directors aren’t whining that they are underrepresented in the collection.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[jedidarrick]

Originally Posted by dwk

I think even the hardcore "why no 4K" crowd has to admit that this slate is no where near commercial enough to justify UHD releases.

This site during the May 2021 announcements: "WE WANT 4K! WE WANT 4K! WE WANT 4-"
(ONE MONTH LATER)
This site during the June 2021 announcements: "...We didn't see any of these coming."

Originally Posted by liveandletmarblerye

So, uh, has anybody watched any good movies lately?

I did watch Crash last night with some friends. Highly recommended if you're not turned off by sexual content.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by bergman864

It's difficult to give out recommendations. It would take more time than I'm willing to commit to check and see every film you've mentioned on here. I wanted to stay away from "bigger" films and Oscar winnners. Here are a few you may or may not have seen:

The Rider (2017)
Columbus (2017)
Hanagatami (2017)
Starfish (2018)
Shirkers (2018)
Long Day's Journey Into Night (2018)
Sing Street (2016)
Honey Boy (2019)
Apollo 11 (2019)
The Guilty (2018)
Three Identical Strangers (2018)
I Lost My Body (2019)
Lady Macbeth (2016)
Luce (2018)
All About Nina (2018)
Leave No Trace (2018)
God's Own Country (2017)
On Body and Soul (2017)
A Fantastic Woman (2017)
Mustang (2015)
Predestination (2014)
Amour Fou (2014)
Endless Poetry (2016)
Mr. Turner (2014)
Upstream Color (2013)
The Duke of Burgundy (2014)
Mysteries of Lisbon (2010)
The Garden of Words (2013)
The Tribe (2014)
The Red Turtle (2016)
Brooklyn (2015)
Cloud Atlas (2012)
A Werewolf Boy (2012)
She Monkeys (2011)
Brimstone (2016)
Embrace of the Serpent (2015)
You and the Night (2013)
Dope (2015)
In Search of Fellini (2017)

Shirkers was really good. Mustang, I enjoyed, too.

Thank you. I'll further research some of these as I have heard of a good number of them. Maybe I'll seek some of them out. My wife's preference is for newer movies, so that's when I see most of the modern films I do see.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Shirkers was really good. Mustang, I enjoyed, too.

Thank you. I'll further research some of these as I have heard of a good number of them. Maybe I'll seek some of them out. My wife's preference is for newer movies, so that's when I see most of the modern films I do see.

It's a varied list. Like I said it's hard to tell what anyone has seen without doing a full deep dive in their recently viewed list.

Hope you enjoy those you check out.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

This is why we can't have nice things.

I don't know any Czech people but you asked them they might likely say yes. So many major films from a country's national cinema never even gets released internationally.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

Ones I've seen and can strongly recommend in bold

I see plenty of people complaining about mid-budget dramas and indie films - that deal with social issues - being difficult to get made or distributed widely to theaters nowadays because of the interest of studios in making large blockbusters that recoup their budgets multiple times over. Meanwhile streaming services and VOD (before the pandemic) are left with the smaller films people don't go to theaters. New Hollywood films that people admire from the 70s really kind of fell apart in the 80s, even if directors like Coppola and Malick kept at it forging their own path into the 2010s.

Lots of 70s exploitation and comedies and romances and horror and those films still get made. Maybe not some of the Blaxploitation and martial arts so much though



Altman has such a large catalogue, many of which are films that are highly well reviewed, that it's both a little intimidating but quite exciting to collect his films.

Glad to hear someone else enjoyed them. I wanted to find a lot of worthy films people may not have heard about. A few might be familiar to most but, in my opinion, they deserve to be talked about more.

And I also want to mention that a lot of the films I listed I found on Netflix and Hulu. I know streaming services get a bad rap because they focus so much on "content" but they have some excellent films on there that are waiting to be discovered.

[liveandletmarblerye]

Originally Posted by jedidarrick

I did watch Crash last night with some friends. Highly recommended if you're not turned off by sexual content.

I have the

[Show spoiler]Arrow 4K

Blu of Crash but haven't gotten to watching it yet.

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

I saw some Barbara Hammer films yesterday. She's really overdue a boxset.

Haven't heard of Barbara Hammer before, any of her films stick out more than others?


I guess to answer my prompt I watched Downhill Racer recently. Amazing how great that movie is despite lacking a strong narrative and having a really unlikeable protagonist. Must be something in that Alpine photography.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by liveandletmarblerye

Haven't heard of Barbara Hammer before, any of her films stick out more than others?

It's experimental queer cinema usually with a decent amount of nudity so maybe not everyone's cup of tea.

There's been lots of interest films streaming free online recently though, like True Mothers and Film about a Father Who.