The Criterion Collection

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Helter145

I agree that Criterion is too often condemned no matter what they choose to release, as we want them to adjust to our priorities and our notions of what's worthy and what's not, and as Joe Rubin, co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome, puts it: "Every Criterion film is an event"; we wait anxiously as the 15th of every month approaches just for that new group of titles to be announced; yet as much as I would love something like Kurosawa's Ran or like Lynch's The Elephant Man to be announced, I think discovering new films, overlooked ones if you will, from as many parts of the world as possible, is just as great as watching something familiar, and Criterion has shown us it sometimes has place for both, and they also need to find things that are bankable; I think people who've written those articles are only finding problematic the fact that the industry and the movie-buying public, deem more worthy of their time a new release by Cronenberg or any other big director and not willing to explore historically neglected films....

I think the problem is even some of the films recognized as world classics have also been neglected, too. The Apu Trilogy was practically left for dead before Criterion initiated a massive restoration project on it. Lawrence of Arabia underwent two well-documented restoration projects in 1989 and several years ago. They're are countless other classics (eg Seven Samurai) with no surviving negatives.

Unfortunately not all classics are fortunate to have caretakers. I think this a reason why Criterion hasn't released much from Africa or South America - two places I'd love to see more cinema from. Though there have been rumors of Ousmane Sembene entering the collection.

[Helter145]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

What type of 'criticism' and 'scrutiny' do they face that other male directors wouldn't? I find the claim for this 'scrutiny' is far stronger than the actual evidence.

Sofia Coppola generally gets criticized for two things: 1)being the product of nepotism; and 2)being a typical 'bourgeois' director. None of those criticisms have anything to do with her being a woman.

Well, for starters Sofia Coppola is not the only director who has benefited from belonging to a certain family, there are many examples of that, like Jason Reitman or Nick Cassavetes, yet one barely even hears those names when a conversation on the issue of nepotism is taking place; and she's for certain not only director with a wealthy background or the only director who thrives on themes of privilege, take Noah Baumbach or Whit Stillman for example, and yet it's always her who gets huge amounts of hatred, she has become an easy target, just look at some of the reviews of The Bling Ring and Marie Antoinette, they are more interested in discussing Sofia's background than her actual work, and I think her condition as female definitely has something to do with that willingness to overlook the quality of her work and focus instead on making assumptions on how she got to be where she is; as for the rest of the directors I mentioned in my previous post I think Lynne Ramsay got an unfortunate amount of hostility after she left Jane Got a Gun, with some media outlets, industry insiders and random commentators accusing her of being unstable, ungrateful and unreliable, so much so that some worried it would be difficult for her to find another big-budget project....

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Helter145

I agree that Criterion is too often condemned no matter what they choose to release, as we want them to adjust to our priorities and our notions of what's worthy and what's not, and as Joe Rubin, co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome, puts it: "Every Criterion film is an event"; we wait anxiously as the 15th of every month approaches just for that new group of titles to be announced; yet as much as I would love something like Kurosawa's Ran or like Lynch's The Elephant Man to be announced, I think discovering new films, overlooked ones if you will, from as many parts of the world as possible, is just as great as watching something familiar, and Criterion has shown us it sometimes has place for both, and they also need to find things that are bankable; I think people who've written those articles are only finding problematic the fact that the industry and the movie-buying public, deem more worthy of their time a new release by Cronenberg or any other big director and not willing to explore historically neglected films....

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I find it disheartening when Criterion makes their announcements, and so many people (more on the "News" page than here) respond dismissively with "I haven't heard of any of these films". People seem to be so focused on what Criterion isn't releasing, that they're ignoring what Criterion is releasing.

[malakaheso]

Jason Reitman doesn't get criticised for being privileged Nobody talks about Nick Cassavetes because he isn't worth talking about. What about Sean Lennon? Yes, he is a musician, not a film maker, but he gets criticised for being a trust fund baby all the time. Sophia Coppola is taken far more seriously in her field than he is in his.

All of those film makers you listed get criticised for focusing on those kinds of people. Todd Haynes too. The difference is that Sofia Coppola's talent is the thing that's in question. If you think that is because she is a woman, good luck to you.

One of the main reasons that female directors have it harder is because very few of them make successful films. Let's take Elaine May as an example. The standard narrative goes that because she was a tough woman back in her day, studios didn't want to work with her. It's rarely mentioned that almost every film she made was a bomb.

I'm not denying that female directors have it harder, but we cannot blame gender for all the criticism directed their way, nor for their failures.

[Scottie]

Cover updated with the proper date.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I find it disheartening when Criterion makes their announcements, and so many people (more on the "News" page than here) respond dismissively with "I haven't heard of any of these films". People seem to be so focused on what Criterion isn't releasing, that they're ignoring what Criterion is releasing.

I guess my main gripe about the monthly releases are what they're not upgrading as opposed to what new title they're not releasing.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by jayembee

People seem to be so focused on what Criterion isn't releasing, that they're ignoring what Criterion is releasing.

well i find it perfectly logical and legitimate for people wanting films they know and love than explore films they haven't ever heard. Especially since they're paying for them and especially if they have limited budgets and can't go around blind buying eveything..

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Helter145

Well, for starters Sofia Coppola is not the only director who has benefited from belonging to a certain family, there are many examples of that, like Jason Reitman or Nick Cassavetes, yet one barely even hears those names when a conversation on the issue of nepotism is taking place; and she's for certain not only director with a wealthy background or the only director who thrives on themes of privilege, take Noah Baumbach or Whit Stillman for example, and yet it's always her who gets huge amounts of hatred,

I know your heart is in the right place, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. She doesn't get much crap about nepotism, especially considering Francis Ford hasn't made anything worth watching in decades. I regularly hear her dismissed as making films strictly from the perspective of the super-upper class (or for being "bourgeois" as someone else put it above), with "SHE SYMPATHIZED WITH MARIE FRICKIN ANTOINETTE" being one of the main lines of reasoning there. Or I hear ones along the lines of "I hated the Bling Ring so much I have no interest in anything else she does." I've seen her labelled a product of nepotism exactly zero times since The Virgin Suicides came out. Maybe I just lurk around comment sections on particularly liberal movie boards or something, but I've been doing it for decades and never hear that said about her.

She was labelled as a product of nepotism when she starred in Godfather III, of course, but that was accurate.

If you want to see someone who actually DOES receive a constant stream of hate for being a hack who only gets jobs through nepotism, check out Max Landis!

[nitin]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

well i find it perfectly logical and legitimate for people wanting films they know and love than explore films they haven't ever heard. Especially since they're paying for them and especially if they have limited budgets and can't go around blind buying eveything..

The thing is only wanting films you have heard of is one thing, but complaining about films you have never heard of is another.

And by you, I dont mean you, but people more generally.

[Helter145]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I know your heart is in the right place, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. She doesn't get much crap about nepotism, especially considering Francis Ford hasn't made anything worth watching in decades. I regularly hear her dismissed as making films strictly from the perspective of the super-upper class (or for being "bourgeois" as someone else put it above), with "SHE SYMPATHIZED WITH MARIE FRICKIN ANTOINETTE" being one of the main lines of reasoning there. Or I hear ones along the lines of "I hated the Bling Ring so much I have no interest in anything else she does." I've seen her labelled a product of nepotism exactly zero times since The Virgin Suicides came out. Maybe I just lurk around comment sections on particularly liberal movie boards or something, but I've been doing it for decades and never hear that said about her.

She was labelled as a product of nepotism when she starred in Godfather III, of course, but that was accurate.

If you want to see someone who actually DOES receive a constant stream of hate for being a hack who only gets jobs through nepotism, check out Max Landis!

No, don't get me wrong, I do realize her work is sometimes highly praised too, as well as properly analyzed by established critics, it's just that whenever it is dismissed her privileged background comes into play; but you're right, accusations of nepotism are not as common as they once were; I personally think she's pretty talented, with Marie Antoinette actually being my favorite film by hers...

[jw007]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

What type of 'criticism' and 'scrutiny' do they face that other male directors wouldn't? I find the claim for this 'scrutiny' is far stronger than the actual evidence.

Sofia Coppola generally gets criticised for two things: 1)being the product of nepotism; and 2)being a typical 'bourgeois' director. None of those criticisms have anything to do with her being a woman.

True indeed.

There's a double standard here... unlike the other Coppola, Roman. Roman Coppola has some films under his belt too but he's not criticized as much as Sofia.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I find it disheartening when Criterion makes their announcements, and so many people (more on the "News" page than here) respond dismissively with "I haven't heard of any of these films". People seem to be so focused on what Criterion isn't releasing, that they're ignoring what Criterion is releasing.

I can't bare to look at that ridiculous news page for whenever the Criterion announcements are released. I automatically get down-voted if I share positive enthusiasm for the new releases. Why? Do people resonate better with negative news than positive these days, when it comes to cinema?

I think "down-vote depression" might be a real thing on this website. Nobody likes being down-voted, especially me.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Jonathan, cover art, fair or not, often helps to create a first impression of a film. The very fact that Criterion is so vigilant in choosing their covers should speak to this. Even for buyers that know all about the film they are buying, cover art is still important.

Different people react to imagery in different ways. To somebody like me that is very artistic, and responds to color, the European cover did its job. It caught my eye, it created a curiosity, and that curiosity, coupled with the reading that followed, has me deciding which version I am going to buy. In part, it achieved its objective. Maybe it does look like the cover of any other "highly stylized European film", but apparently, those kinds of covers do attract buyers. They have to, or they wouldn't be using them. Now, that doesn't take anything away from the apparent brilliance of the Criterion cover. But if context is needed to "get" the cover, how effective was it in attracting a potential buyer? I realize that Criterion's catalog appeals to a different kind of moviegoer, and many of the films the company releases are already known to their customers. But when it comes to somebody like me, who is not knowledgeable of many of these films yet, cover art can help spark interest.

I have no doubt that once I buy the film, and watch it, the cover art chosen by Criterion will make more sense, and I'll appreciate it much more than I possibly could now. I didn't mean to impugn the cover that Criterion choose. I realize an artist was involved, and I respect their work, and Criterion's decision. I guess I should have been more careful in how I chose my words. I was just trying to speak as to my personal aesthetic preference.

I understand your point. But what if it wasn't Criterion who decided on the artwork but by the director, Kiarostami, himself? Would you be accepting of a great director's decision? I would. If its the director's own personal vision in how he sees the artwork for his home video releases, then I could roll with that perspective.

Usually, I come to appreciate the artwork for any movie I buy after I watch it, not before. Because after watching the film, I can understand why the cover artwork is designed that way. It's analogous to writing an email to someone. You don't bother to analyze what you wrote until usually after you send it to someone. Then you go in there and see the devil in the details. You start to notice punctuation marks you could have had corrected had you slowed down and noticed things more before hitting the "Send" button. After watching a film, I go back and I mentally regurgitate everything I just witnessed. That includes having a second look at the case artwork too.

Watch Certified Copy tonight, and you will be certifiably pleased with my opinion.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by nitin

The thing is only wanting films you have heard of is one thing, but complaining about films you have never heard of is another.

And by you, I dont mean you, but people more generally.

Indeed, as much I want the films I have already seen and loved, there is always room for new discoveries, I was just researching about a BFI silent new release called Shooting Stars by Anthony Asquith and seems to be quite good from the sparse information I found, and was quite surprised to see the number of ratings of it on IMDB is only 81 , has to be the lowest number I have seen for a blu-ray release, thankfully BFI doesn't really take in account that only very few people have heard of it.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by jw007

True indeed.

There's a double standard here... unlike the other Coppola, Roman. Roman Coppola has some films under his belt too but he's not criticized as much as Sofia.

Probably because no one knows anything he's made. Sofia's films, however, have won awards and been marginal hits. It's too bad more people didn't see CQ.

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Jonathan, cover art, fair or not, often helps to create a first impression of a film. The very fact that Criterion is so vigilant in choosing their covers should speak to this. Even for buyers that know all about the film they are buying, cover art is still important.

Different people react to imagery in different ways. To somebody like me that is very artistic, and responds to color, the European cover did its job. It caught my eye, it created a curiosity, and that curiosity, coupled with the reading that followed, has me deciding which version I am going to buy. In part, it achieved its objective. Maybe it does look like the cover of any other "highly stylized European film", but apparently, those kinds of covers do attract buyers. They have to, or they wouldn't be using them. Now, that doesn't take anything away from the apparent brilliance of the Criterion cover. But if context is needed to "get" the cover, how effective was it in attracting a potential buyer? I realize that Criterion's catalog appeals to a different kind of moviegoer, and many of the films the company releases are already known to their customers. But when it comes to somebody like me, who is not knowledgeable of many of these films yet, cover art can help spark interest.

I have no doubt that once I buy the film, and watch it, the cover art chosen by Criterion will make more sense, and I'll appreciate it much more than I possibly could now. I didn't mean to impugn the cover that Criterion choose. I realize an artist was involved, and I respect their work, and Criterion's decision. I guess I should have been more careful in how I chose my words. I was just trying to speak as to my personal aesthetic preference.

I've seen films in the theater and never saw the poster beforehand. And once you've seen the film, who cares about what "first impression" a poster makes? If a poster makes you like a movie less, then I dare say you're doing it wrong. Maybe you should buy films based on the content of the film itself rather than judging them by a cover? Isn't that the quote? "Don't judge a book by its cover"?

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Probably because no one knows anything he's made. Sofia's films, however, have won awards and been marginal hits. It's too bad more people didn't see CQ.

Because maybe the title was a subliminal message.

CQ means... See Q. But who's Q? Q Who? (Sorry, ST: Next Gen episode title).

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I've seen films in the theater and never saw the poster beforehand. And once you've seen the film, who cares about what "first impression" a poster makes? If a poster makes you like a movie less, then I dare say you're doing it wrong. Maybe you should buy films based on the content of the film itself rather than judging them by a cover? Isn't that the quote? "Don't judge a book by its cover"?

Indeed it is sir.

We must create a new MEME. "Don't Judge a Criterion by its Cover".

I'll go ahead and make one now.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by jw007

True indeed.

There's a double standard here... unlike the other Coppola, Roman. Roman Coppola has some films under his belt too but he's not criticized as much as Sofia.

I believe you have quoted the wrong person mate! :-)

Roman doesn't get as much crap because he is regularly dismissed as a loser director

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by nitin

The thing is only wanting films you have heard of is one thing, but complaining about films you have never heard of is another.

And by you, I dont mean you, but people more generally.

it's a pity that there isn't another word for "you" in plural in English, and we sometimes have to give the definition.
i have to do it too sometimes.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

well i find it perfectly logical and legitimate for people wanting films they know and love than explore films they haven't ever heard. Especially since they're paying for them and especially if they have limited budgets and can't go around blind buying eveything..

Yes, that seems "logical and legitimate". I'm not saying everyone should blind-buy everything. But one would think that if people believed that Criterion puts out worthy films, they should suspect that the ones they haven't heard of before might just be as worthy as the ones they know they already want. At the very least, maybe they try reading up on the films they haven't heard of instead of simply dismissing them out of hand under the belief that if they haven't heard of a film it can't be worth anything.

And that last is the tone that I get from such comments, because they're usually a "haven't heard of them" remark rather than a "I haven't heard of these films, but one or two of them sound like they might be right up my alley; I'll have to check them out" remark.