The Criterion Collection

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I concede I may be wrong.

And I concede that you may be correct.

It's just that while "cancel culture" is a thing nowadays, on the flip side there seems to be a trend among people who speculate that anything and everything that isn't released or becomes unavailable must be because someone is being "cancelled".

[Gacivory]

Criterion has been sitting on rights for more movies than ones they’ve released.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Criterion has been sitting on rights for more movies than ones they’ve released.

Yeah, and that drives me bonkers. I get that it's costly to do quality monthly releases, but they seem to be amassing a stockpile of films that have proper HD elements, but no release.

I understand that they want to spread things out, but I'm not getting any younger and I could be dead before I ever see some of my favorites that I know they have, get a release.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Shout released it, and with a brand new Polanski interview on it, no less. And to my knowledge, they didn't receive any significant backlash about releasing it.

Different audiences I suppose. The type of fans who buy Scream Factory releases are probably going to let more things slides. I'm mean, the majority of the films Scream releases involve brutal murders and gore that will make your grandma want to disown you.

Criterion will have a more "dignified" audience that will complain to high heaven about certain elements of a film. Scream fans will probably complain that a film doesn't have enough nudity or gore and the fact that it might be directed Polanski will be an afterthought.

[randian]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Criterion has been sitting on rights for more movies than ones they’ve released.

Paying for the rights to a movie you don't sell is throwing money away. It's great that Criterion is so flush with cash they can do that, but what's the point? Are they buying the rights so they can keep a movie off the market?

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by randian

Paying for the rights to a movie you don't sell is throwing money away. It's great that Criterion is so flush with cash they can do that, but what's the point? Are they buying the rights so they can keep a movie off the market?

They might get certain package deals? I have no idea, but I think the intent is to release what they have, just at their own pace.

They are the only label that has been able to work with nearly every major motion picture studio, so they seem to be able to work things out to their benefit in a timeframe that suits their needs.

[dwk]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

.

It was over a year and a half later when they released "A Dry White Season". When that film was made, MUCH was made of the fact that Brando came out of retirement to do the film, for FREE, and he was the most acclaimed aspect of that otherwise lukewarm film. He wound up receiving the film's only Academy Award nomination, for Best Supporting Actor. When Criterion released it, he is not mentioned in the synopsis, the artwork, or any of their marketing for the film. Even their cast listing omitted him. They mention everyone else, lead star Donald Sutherland, and even Susan Sarandon, who has only a brief cameo. But NO mention of Brando. If that is not deliberately downplaying his involvement, then I don't know what is.

I can't find it now, but I seem to recall some discussion that Brando didn't want to be used in the marketing and if that is true, they could've just been honoring that.

It is funny, in terms of these, lets call them, hot button films/filmmakers, the Channel has no issue with them, as they've streamed Burn, The Tenant, Annie Hall, stuff from Bertolucci, etc. with little to no issue.

However, the grief they'd likely take if they released a Polanski title on Blu, I can't blame them for sitting or skipping them. Fairly or unfairly, Criterion has a profile that Shout/Scream, Arrow, Kino (by sheer volume alone, a whole bunch of Kino releases go unnoticed), Vinegar Syndrome, Mondo Macabro, etc don't have.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Different audiences I suppose. The type of fans who buy Scream Factory releases are probably going to let more things slides. I'm mean, the majority of the films Scream releases involve brutal murders and gore that will make your grandma want to disown you.

Criterion will have a more "dignified" audience that will complain to high heaven about certain elements of a film. Scream fans will probably complain that a film doesn't have enough nudity or gore and the fact that it might be directed Polanski will be an afterthought.

"Dignified" is too complimentary for those kind of folks. There's many many more accurate classifications.

[dwk]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Different audiences I suppose. The type of fans who buy Scream Factory releases are probably going to let more things slides. I'm mean, the majority of the films Scream releases involve brutal murders and gore that will make your grandma want to disown you.

Criterion will have a more "dignified" audience that will complain to high heaven about certain elements of a film. Scream fans will probably complain that a film doesn't have enough nudity or gore and the fact that it might be directed Polanski will be an afterthought.

Scream did catch some grief for releasing those Victor Salva's Jeepers Creepers 1 and 2, but it blew over pretty quickly.

[Akibiyori]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Criterion will have a more "dignified" audience that will complain to high heaven about certain elements of a film. Scream fans will probably complain that a film doesn't have enough nudity or gore and the fact that it might be directed Polanski will be an afterthought.

No, if Criterion is avoiding certain things at this point, it’s just, like everything else, an inability to distinguish what somebody somewhere might say (not even will, might) versus the reality which is that no one actually cares...or cares that much.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

If Criterion has the Pianist, I hope they pass it along another label like Shout. The Pianist is a pretty important film and the "woke" culture should not be able to block such an amazing film from finding a new audience.

If Criterion has no plans to release it, I agree, they need to let the rights go.

On the one hand, I am thrilled to see that as a society, we have become more conscientious about how what we do and say impacts the lives of others. An increased awareness was long overdue. We need to be more respectful and tolerant of those around us.

That being said, as so often happens in America, especially, it’s been taken to a ridiculous extreme. It is possible to be more cognizant of the feelings of people going forward, without needing to whitewash every work of art that came before because it contained one or more elements that offended someone. Because at that point, it becomes a form of historical revisionism.

Life is a learning process, and we cannot judge a work from the past through the filter of today’s morality. Instead of hiding a work, shouldn’t it be left up to the individual to decide what’s a worthy investment of their time?

The Pianist is a stunning cinematic achievement. Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters, etc, are fantastic films. I caught the last hour of American Beauty two nights ago.

Should I never watch another Roman Polanski film again because of his conviction? Should I avoid all of Woody Allen’s work based on some accusations? Does Kevin Spacey’s fall from grace mean that every film he ever appeared in suddenly becomes taboo? I might as well start tossing out my blu-rays now.

If we look hard enough, or wait long enough, every work of art can be attached to someone who did something odious. Where does it end?

As I’ve said before, a film is a collaborative effort of a large group of people, people who worked incredibly hard to make the vision of the film a reality. Do we simply cast all their hard work aside because one man or woman did something, or was accused of something sinister?

We need to tread carefully.

Originally Posted by MidnightMovies

I would love to see Criterion release La Vie En Rose (as no US blu-ray exists). It seems like something that would be up their alley and would draw in some interest.

I have the import, and I feel strongly that it deserves a US blu-Ray release. Marion Cotilliard is a fantastic actress, and her work deserves more exposure here.

[bergman864]

I would love it if Criterion released Terence Davies' The Neon Bible. If not them then someone else. Davies is one of my favorite directors and so little of his filmography is on Blu-ray.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

This conversation seems a bit pointless. Everyone is speculating about Criterion’s opinions and no one has any definitive information. I don’t know that might just be me. Also these boards don’t seem the most suited to a nuanced discussion.

This says it.

I've seen the so called "woke" rhetoric from every type of humanity and from every corner of the globe, not just a single one, which is a laughable assumption. As with anything else that seeks change, there will be some good, some bad. Yes, I too have worried and warned about a not too distant future of book burning, but instead of just living in fear and/or hope, I am trying to be proactive, make my own individual decisions on what to support and what not to support and stop believing that everyone who thinks differently than I do is out to destroy the world. I grant you that's a very tough order for a natural born cynic like me.

As things stand now, I do purchase some Blus of movies that for whatever reason might not always be easily available, but often it has more to do with other factors than labels running scared of content. If Criterion is indeed capitulating to new cultural pressures, that's regrettable and disturbing, but as is posted in the quote above, we don't yet know that for certain. To be honest, I've had more issues with some of their choices for release lately than the reasons why or why not. But that's just par for the course with Criterion and always will be. Whatever they choose to do as a private company is on them, choosing to patronize it, on us.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Criterion will have a more "dignified" audience that will complain to high heaven about certain elements of a film. Scream fans will probably complain that a film doesn't have enough nudity or gore and the fact that it might be directed Polanski will be an afterthought.

I'd like to think that Polanski movies are purchased by Polanski fans, not Criterion fans or Scream fans.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by randian

Paying for the rights to a movie you don't sell is throwing money away. It's great that Criterion is so flush with cash they can do that, but what's the point? Are they buying the rights so they can keep a movie off the market?

Rather than assuming from an entitled point of view that Criterion must fulfill everyone's wish releases immediately, why not consider that they might not be able to fulfill your individual timetable because they are NOT flush with cash.

Just because someone wants something and cries on a message board that they can't get it, doesn't translate as that person suddenly being an authority on how a business should be run. If you truly believe that Criterion is "throwing money away" have you thought about sharing your expertise with Criterion themselves rather than wasting it on a forum?

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by ravenus

I'd like to think that Polanski movies are purchased by Polanski fans, not Criterion fans or Scream fans.

I actually think it's ok to be all three.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Well, I don't think that.

I know I and others wrote Criterion for years, asking about "The Tenant". I received an email back from the mythic "Jon Mulvaney", saying that they'd love to release the film, and had tried to, but that the rights were not available to them, at that time. They released a number of Polanski films during those years.

Now, in this climate, "The Tenant" was finally made available, and Criterion passed on it, so it went to Shout. Shout released it, and with a brand new Polanski interview on it, no less. And to my knowledge, they didn't receive any significant backlash about releasing it.

Criterion released a number of Lars von Trier films before, with his involvement. But since the current climate, they passed on at least two of his titles that were offered to them, first.

I'm not just imagining theories out of thin air.

But, yes, everyone is right in saying I've nothing necessarily concrete.

I'm just explaining WHY I've felt this way. I again admit I could be totally off. But it just LOOKS like they have a 'naughty list' , now.

Anyway, I've really said all I should say on the subject by now, and I'm certain people are sick of me, so, I'll leave it alone, now. For real, LOL.

I wasn't responding to your comments about Polanski and The Piano or The Tenant (which incidentally I watched on the Criterion Channel in December). I was pointing out that I think your assumption that they are purposefully avoiding releasing Burn because of perceived controversies involving Brando was a bit iffy.

Originally Posted by ravenus

I'd like to think that Polanski movies are purchased by Polanski fans, not Criterion fans or Scream fans.

Huh? There are lots of Criterion fans who buy everything they release. Likewise with Scream fans. And there are classic movie fans who buy plenty of films regardless of what label puts them. I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of Polanski but I've got a fair number of his films in my collection.

[Sean_PSC]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

That being said, as so often happens in America, especially, it’s been taken to a ridiculous extreme.

It really is not.

Life is a learning process, and we cannot judge a work from the past through the filter of today’s morality. Instead of hiding a work, shouldn’t it be left up to the individual to decide what’s a worthy investment of their time?

The most obvious issue some people have with these releases is that they generate income for Polanski, and there's plenty of good reason to not want to financially support a sex offender.

This consideration would obviously not apply whenever Polanski dies.

This isn't to say that I necessarily agree in all cases (it's particularly debatable when dealing with such an inherently collaborative medium), but it's hardly misguided to question whether we should be giving money to people like Polanski to support their careers.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by ravenus

I'd like to think that Polanski movies are purchased by Polanski fans, not Criterion fans or Scream fans.

If only that were the case. I know a few collectors (and plenty here) that tend to buy whatever a certain label releases. I can't knock them that much because they help keep labels alive, but believe there are collectors who will buy whatever a certain label releases.

To be fair, there are a few films I've bought because it was Arrow and I was pretty iffy on. In the end I ended up enjoying some, and some, not so much.

[BluProofie]

Hope Spellbound and Written on the Wind come out this year. And where is Memories of Murder?