The Criterion Collection

[dwk]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Yeah, ssme. Now that they have the Lionsgate Limited site, I could possibly see them doing a release through there, if anything.

Which is an equally awful way to release it. (I really despise these site exclusives.)

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by mande2013

My understanding is it was next to impossible in the 80s and 90s to track down a lot of these films unless you lived in NYC or Paris.

It wasn’t THAT hard. I grew up in California’s Central Valley and started my film education at a city college in Fresno, and I’d still seen a lot of the key films by all of them by 1988 or so. And even though it was a drive for me, there were excellent repertory theaters playing a wide selection frequently.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

For any in the NYC area, The IFC center will be showing Kurosawa's Ran from its 4K restoration for its 40th Anniversary starting May 23rd. I've seen the film from the restoration twice over the years, and it's pretty amazing to see it on the big screen. Kind of wish Criterion could get this one back since the US 4K release has been OOP for years, and Criterion's DVD had some exclusive extras that are absent from the international releases.

https://www.ifccenter.com/films/ran-2/

Interesting timing with this post only a few down after the Mark Rylance closet visit. Interesting because as I was watching Rylance, who I consider the finest actor working today, I thought of how much I would like to see him play KING LEAR.

[HarryAlbright89]

Originally Posted by poisonmail

I would also cautiously recommend Juliet of the Spirits, which to me is a very effective portrait of a woman's loneliness within a marriage despite its fanciful qualities.

I Vitelloni is probably my favorite, so I'm definitely in a similar wheelhouse. I ended up eventually falling for La Dolce Vita because my criticisms of it -- that Fellini is celebrating the exact stuff he pretends to find reprehensible -- is more baked into the film itself than I realized. I now see a lot of profound sadness over just a loss of identity, although I can also see the critique that it's ultimately a sad-rich-people story, which was certainly my issue with it the first time (and still is, to a degree, with 8 1/2).

I'm really caught between two minds on La Dolce Vita because the intellectual backbone of the film is fascinating, but the execution is plodding. Throughout the film there were numerous moments Marcello's story felt like it had come full circle only for Fellini to extend things out further. With a more measured, tightly edited hand La Dolce Vita may well have worked it's way into my heart as the flashy counterpoint to L'Avventura.


Hopefully in the years to come I'll have the eureka moment with La Dolce. For now the meandering excess pulls it down a peg from other Italian gems of the time.

[gekats]

Originally Posted by Keepcalm

The likes of Ingmar Bergman and Federico Fellini, for example, were spectacular directors formally too, their blocking and mise-en-scene is underrated if anything, most of the discussions about their movies regard their themes and vibes.

Agreed. Fellini has to be my most beloved director, especially his post-8 1/2 works, and have been surprised at some of the takes here.

Talking about formal achievements, the visceral, vertiginous appeal of the chaotic Raccordo Anulare highway sequence "which circles Rome like the Saturn's rings" or the final montage of the new Barbarians entering Rome and rushing towards an uncertain future or the Roman in Roma are hard to match.

I would agree with those who think it is in his themes and vibes are where he truly shines though, as it's his unique worldview that anchors his fantasies and resonates the most. In both scenes (actually, everywhere in his work), the excitement, business, and loudness subside, leading to a halt, implying something deeper and more heartfelt that the outward carnivalesque spectacle he is mostly known for.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Keepcalm

And yet, you'll never see Curtiz ranked very high in the canon, if at all. He is often dismissed as a journeyman director, more than happy to take on any film and any genre that Warner put on his plate, being at the mercy of the writers. His greatest film, Casablanca, gets more praise to the cast and writers than to him. Isn't this at least a bit unfair? It is, and there have been attempts to positively reevaluate Curtiz's reputation.

I've noticed this unspoken "shunning" of directors in particular who never much adhered to what later became known as the auteur theory, particularly the qualification of pushing forth a personal theme throughout the entirety of their works. Curtiz and others like John Huston (who I have always felt is vastly underrated) were just too skilled for their own good. Being able to capture and often transcend all genres with their art made them more talented craftsmen than visionaries and true artists according to the ideas and ideals of many film intelligentsia. It's a shame, but it's tough to beat up that auteur theory, especially after all these years.

[mande2013]

I always found it weird that Bergman was dismissed by Anglophone auteurist critics like Andrew Sarris, Dave Kehr, Fred Camper, etc. considering the OG Cahiers folks always admired him. Truffaut considered him the greatest of all postwar directors barring Hitchcock.

[mande2013]

Originally Posted by dwk

Even though I'd prefer Criterion somehow getting Ran back, I do not understand why Lionsgate hasn't re-issued that in a standard case. That stupid Best Buy steelbook sold out quite quickly.

Well you can probably import a standard 4K release from Europe if you want.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I've noticed this unspoken "shunning" of directors in particular who never much adhered to what later became known as the auteur theory, particularly the qualification of pushing forth a personal theme throughout the entirety of their works.

Auteur theory is incredibly dumb, at least the way it exists now. Can't really speak to its original formulation in the 50s, as I'm not sufficiently familiar with it, but this idea that a) the director is the only creative force of any consequence, b) "auteur" directors are superior to other kinds of directors, and c) as a result of that "auteur" means "good" is asinine.

These days you get indie writer-director-editor types dismissed as "not auteurs" because the resulting films are bad, and people tying themselves into knots trying to wrangle this theory of a singular creative force into a form that makes sense with a collaborative medium.

As a descriptive thing, i.e. "these directors have consistent themes in their work," sure. But as a prescriptive notion, "directors should have consistent themes in their work," it's bollocks. There are also many reasons for a consistent creative theme: perhaps the director can assert that particular idea in any work through their direction, or perhaps they only choose scripts that were already tackling that theme to begin with.

There's an extra on Indicator's Affair in Trinidad Blu-ray ("The End of the Affair") in which Eddie Muller correctly acknowledges that film is collaborative and not just the brainchild of the director: he's discussing actors with Peter Ford, and notes that “they are as responsible for what you’re seeing on the screen as the producer, the writer, or the director.” And yet instead of concluding that auteur theory is bunk, he asserts that many actors “become auteurs in their own right.” It's nonsensical, but auteur theory is just too precious to let go of apparently even as you're reaching conclusions explicitly counter to it.

[gekats]

Originally Posted by Keepcalm

And yet, you'll never see Curtiz ranked very high in the canon, if at all. He is often dismissed as a journeyman director, more than happy to take on any film and any genre that Warner put on his plate, being at the mercy of the writers. His greatest film, Casablanca, gets more praise to the cast and writers than to him. Isn't this at least a bit unfair? It is, and there have been attempts to positively reevaluate Curtiz's reputation.

And it must have been figures like Curtiz that Truffaut had in mind when he juxtaposed Hitchcock to those Hollywood directors who would produce a western one year, then a comedy or a musical, varying along with the trends etc., in his introduction to the Hitchcock/Truffaut book.

Probably has to do with the tradition created in other fine arts, where creative expression, individual technique, and consistency, rather than mere workmanship, are of utmost importance. For instance, (giving examples from music, since that is my field) you value Scriabin, Wagner, Debussy, Beethoven for their distinctive styles, preoccupations, and individual traits, rather than their versatility.

Likewise, you would not expect Antonioni to successfully direct una farsa scabrosa with Ciccio and Franco and Woody Allen would probably make a poor action film director.

While this viewpoint might be unfair (especially for the classic Hollywood period), as you suggest, indeed makes sense in the wider fine arts tradition. I guess those who share it think of it as a way to give the 7th art the distinction the others already enjoy. However, as your examples indicate, this viewpoint ignores the fact that cinema essentially and historically has predominantly been a more popular art for the masses, more akin to decorative or applied arts.

[mande2013]

Well I do think the OG auteurists had noble intentions in trying to construct a paradigm that approached "the cinema" entirely on its own indivisible aesthetic terms without recourse to the traditional 'highbrow' strictures that prevailed in other fine art discourses. It was all about 'what's unique to cinema that can't be aesthetically replicated in other mediums'. Surely we can agree this is a noble intellectual pursuit, even if we disagree with a lot of auteurism's conclusions.

So it can initially come off as somewhat anti-intellectual and flippant to say "auteur theory was all just bullshit" even if many of its assumptions are in fact misguided and wrong-headed.

I have a hard time simply saying Bazin, Sarris, and Rivette "were all just full of shit".

That being said, I came across an old interview with Raymond Durgnat yesterday where I calls Rivette "thoroughly conservative" along with a few other Nouvelle Vague directors, although Godard doesn't get mentioned. Rohmer and Truffaut do though. I can see the conservative argument for Rohmer, but less so for Rivette, who was arguably the most radical of the NV directors in some ways. Durgnat's main issue seems to be that guys like Rivette were 'anarcho-bourgeois' but then so were Nabokov and Borges.

So I guess this all comes down to how one defines 'radicalism'. The Pasolini/Godard/and even Antonioni brand of radicalism is quite different from the Rivette brand of radicalism.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by mande2013

Well I do think the OG auteurists had noble intentions in trying to construct a paradigm that approached "the cinema" entirely on its own indivisible aesthetic terms without recourse to the traditional 'highbrow' strictures that prevailed in other fine art discourses. It was all about 'what's unique to cinema that can't be aesthetically replicated in other mediums'. Surely we can agree this is a noble intellectual pursuit, even if we disagree with a lot of auteurism's conclusions.

So it can initially come off as somewhat anti-intellectual and flippant to say "auteur theory was all just bullshit" even if many of its assumptions are in fact misguided and wrong-headed.

I have a hard time simply saying Bazin, Sarris, and Rivette "were all just full of shit".

That being said, I came across an old interview with Raymond Durgnat yesterday where I calls Rivette "thoroughly conservative" along with a few other Nouvelle Vague directors, although Godard doesn't get mentioned. Rohmer and Truffaut do though. I can see the conservative argument for Rohmer, but less so for Rivette, who was arguably the most radical of the NV directors in some ways. Durgnat's main issue seems to be that guys like Rivette were 'anarcho-bourgeois' but then so were Nabokov and Borges.

So I guess this all comes down to how one defines 'radicalism'. The Pasolini/Godard/and even Antonioni brand of radicalism is quite different from the Rivette brand of radicalism.

I think with a lot of theories about art, you kind of have to pick and choose which aspects make the most sense to YOU, not just some appointed arbiter of definition, no matter who they are or who does the appointing. Or those who scrupulously follow them.

I tend to enjoy listening to Martin Scorsese discuss and review films because his idea mostly seems to approach the collaborative aspects of great movies and not limit his appreciation to just a select few participants. Also he is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to ALL types of filmmaking over time and not just the rarefied few that were elevated by educated, perceptive critics who may have ended up imposing a few too many restrictions to properly calibrate the art of cinema. I love the French critics of the 50's and critics like Dave Kehr, but when push comes to shove I'll always make time to listen to Scorsese or Coppola to hear their thoughts about the great examples of cinema history. Then again, in addition to their creative expertise, they also exhibit a raconteur level of reviewing and recounting the subject and their experiences with it. Despite all the director's commentaries on discs, I'm not sure any artists these days have the talent to delineate the art of films as do Scorsese and Coppola and old timers like John Huston, Howard Hawks and William Wellman before them.

[dwk]

Originally Posted by mande2013

Well you can probably import a standard 4K release from Europe if you want.

Yeah, but that still doesn't explain why Lionsgate hasn't re-issued it sometime in the past 4 years.

[MifuneFan]

All We Imagine as Light (2024) (Janus Contemporaries)

Release Date July 22nd, 2025

https://www.criterion.com/films/3459...agine-as-light

Payal Kapadia’s acclaimed fiction-feature debut is a radiant ode to hope-giving connections forged amid big-city anonymity. Set against the hypnotic luminescence of Mumbai, All We Imagine as Light follows three very different women working at the same hospital—Prabha (Kani Kusruti), Anu (Divya Prabha), and Parvathy (Chhaya Kadam)—each contending with personal and material struggles amid a modernizing India riven by gentrification and rising Hindu nationalism. When eviction drives Parvathy back to her childhood village, the trio embark on an enchanting getaway by the sea, where they shake loose their remaining secrets and—in one otherworldly sequence—a lingering ghost. Winner of the Grand Prix at the Cannes Film Festival, All We Imagine as Light is a deep-rooted study of the fortifying power of friendship, propelled by moving performances and the director’s compassionate eye.

INCLUDES

• Meet the Filmmakers, a new interview with director Payal Kapadia
• Trailer

ALL WE IMAGINE AS LIGHT - Official US Trailer - YouTube

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Despite all the director's commentaries on discs, I'm not sure any artists these days have the talent to delineate the art of films as do Scorsese and Coppola and old timers like John Huston, Howard Hawks and William Wellman before them.

I'd argue Soderbergh does.

[Querelle]

Originally Posted by apricissimus

I almost never look at the booklets. Mine are all in a stack in a closet mostly because I can't bring myself to throw them out. (I transferred all my discs to sleeves to save space, and the sleeves cannot accommodate the booklets.)

That's kinda insane to me (but I think some people would think it's insane that I rarely watch special features). The booklet is often a huge selling point with me (not as much with Criterion since all their releases come with them, and that's one thing I've always appreciated about them, i.e., that they don't stop including one after a certain run, though I would be more apt to pick up a Criterion if the same movie was put out by someone else so I could get their booklet) to get a limited edition over a standard, such as from Radiance. For me, the supplementary writing about a film is a big part of the experience and what I look forward to most about the packaging (see first line of my sig). But that probably says more about how I relate to art (and life tbh) than anything: first and foremost through words and text rather than image (although the two are inherently interrelated and, to paraphrase Derrida, always arbitrarily limited)

[SeanJoyce]

A good booklet is my favorite supplement.

[DrasticHandprint]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

A good booklet is my favorite supplement.

Yep. Can't agree more. Wish I could like more than once. Reading through the booklets/essays really help form my opinions about what I just watched, and I value that as much as the movie itself sometimes. But only if they are good, as you said.

[apricissimus]

While I'm not into booklets, I did really appreciate the insert in After Hours. It's the "This man is a burglar!" sketch that Teri Garr made of Griffin Dunne to post all around the neighborhood. I audibly laughed when I first opened the case and saw that.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

A good booklet is my favorite supplement.

Same for me. I've often double dipped to get solid booklets from other labels and it takes me back to my student days and reading about film in deep, thoughtful and patient ways. You can only get so much from filmed extras, although visual essays are usually exceptionally good, and commentaries too sometimes, but they can often be limited or too ephemeral. A well written review or concise analysis via tract just can't be beat.