The Criterion Collection

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

In addition to communicating in a way that seems profound and significant, but is, in reality, vague and meaningless.

Endlessly repeating yourself does not necessarily make your position or perspective valid. Make your statement once, maybe twice, and then leave it out there and let it speak for itself. Constantly explaining, clarifying, defending, whatever, ultimately weakens everything you have been trying to communicate.

fair enough. people who present an opinion that dissents from the popular opinion get themselves in trouble when they get too wordy. having been there before myself, part of the reason he may be feeling inclined to continue to defend himself is because 1) the debate his between himself and several people, not just one and 2) other posters here, while making some good points, too, are cherry picking sentences as if they exemplified the crux of his argument.

I think most people have a good understanding of what his points are, but all it takes one disingenuous comment to feel like Al Pacino in Godfather III ("just when I thought I was out...")

full disclosure/confession - I haven't read every word of this debate and I'm not singling out any single person's post as disingenuous, so please don't take offense. I'm just describing a feeling that I can relate to.

[albabe]

Originally Posted by dylrichard02

https://www.amazon.com/gp/promotion/...A3UBIBMMLCIRPP

Here's the sale page for B2G1, it has it's own unique search bar near the top of the page.

Thanx for that!

B&N Sale soon... I hope<

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Talk to the Mouse...

I really don't know why Disney is just holding onto Beuna Vista and Fox titles. Shame.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

I really don't know why Disney is just holding onto Beuna Vista and Fox titles. Shame.

Because they can.

Also, they might decide on a Disney+ series about Zardoz at some point.

Now that would be something.

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by dvining

Because they can.

Also, they might decide on a Disney+ series about Zardoz at some point.

Now that would be something.

I'll eat my shoe, Herzog style, if Zardoz appears on Disney+.

[Show spoiler]I already regret that comment.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

In addition to communicating in a way that seems profound and significant, but is, in reality, vague and meaningless.

Endlessly repeating yourself does not necessarily make your position or perspective valid. Make your statement once, maybe twice, and then leave it out there and let it speak for itself. Constantly explaining, clarifying, defending, whatever, ultimately weakens everything you have been trying to communicate.

That writing style, man... If he isn't employed as a communications officer for a politician, he should be.

[Snicket]

A Reddit user is reporting the B&N sale begins 7/2 to 8/2

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

I totally agree with all of this! I don't think there was a NYT article about female filmmakers, but they've definitely made more strives for inclusion over the past few years. I'm thankful they exist.

It's probably natural (canonisation depends upon a film's availability), but what's mentioned in the Hollywood Reporter article, feels like somewhat of a burden but perhaps Criterion didn't realise in the 80s. That they will come to define the film landscape, in addition being a resource for film fans, students, teachers. And I'm not sure other labels have that burden of canonisation, perhaps because they haven't been as around as long or seem so legendary with 1000+ films and a streaming service. I think having your film join Criterion should be a mark of hour, but I also think the same should be true of other labels. If someone chose to only watch Criterion films, they would have a good overview of film history, but still quite a few blindspots.

I do think projects e.g. World Cinema Project can be somewhat of a corrective in exploring different national cinemas than only the US, UK, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan etc. I'm confident there are other national cinemas not represented, or only with a sole example.

And yes, it's good when Criterion can be ahead of the curve.

It's partly because of Criterion's own wording but also because of its rescue of so many lost or obscure international films from some of the most renowned directors, and helping introduce them to Western (re: American) audiences.

After a while Criterion became the purveyor of "great" cinema and all their physical media releases are scrutinized for this reason. The problem came when other boutique labels sprung up and started releasing a larger number of films from black and women filmmakers without needing to be prompted to do so. Vinegar Syndrome started releasing in 2013 and they have a good number of Blaxploitation releases, with both numbers being comparable when VS has a third of Criterion's output in the DVD & Blu-ray age.

But VS, Shout!, Arrow and others don't have a closet full of titles by Godard, Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and Ozu. When you've put out movies that routinely make the 'Best Of' lists, the lack of black, women, and queer filmmakers starts to look bad.

And the World Cinema Project is fantastic. It's a new chance to introduce these lesser known films to a Western audience.

[StarDestroyer52]

Originally Posted by Snicket

A Reddit user is reporting the B&N sale begins 7/2 to 8/2

That would be superb news. I can place an order in July and then place another at the beginning of August.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Why do you keep talking about "some people" and "the Criterion audience" like you're not a part of either?

Because it's not about me, or for that matter, you or any other individual.

It's about a release in the context of the noise surrounding Criterion ever since the Times article was released, where Criterion has been viewed in the context of its lack of representation by Black filmmakers and how they are responding to that perception.

I don't know about you, but there's a world beyond Blu-ray.com, and when I have a conversation with my friends about recent Criterion releases, it's either too much or too little too late or not good enough. So, perhaps I'm biased due to my experience over the past year, but that's it.

If you want ignore that fact, well sure, isn't that how we as a society deal with issues and related perspectives that we would prefer not read or deal with, you know, put them on your ignore list?

It's not as if I'm the one bringing this issue up all over Twitter, Reddit and every other media outlet.

You can check my post history, this is the first time I've cited that article since it was released, or addressed the issue of recent Criterion releases to address the lack of representation.

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Yes, when Criterion releases a title that has been released on blu-ray before, some people say they're fine with the previous release, or they'll only upgrade if there is a remaster, while others will be all over it because they only find something worthy of purchase with that "C" on the label.

But you're the one that's been posting these diatribes about Love & Basketball specifically and invoking the new efforts at diversity on Criterion's part, implying that there is some sort of funny business going on with them releasing it by saying things like: "If the answer is releasing Love and Basketball, honestly, they have a problem and then being disingenuous when others point out that there seems to be more to this argument on your part than the fact that someone bought it for a buck in a dollar store.

My problem with Love and Basketball is simply the opinion that Criterion's efforts to expand Black representation with would have been better served with unavailable films such as Carl Franklin's One False Move or Devil in a Blue Dress, or selections from John Singleton, Antoine Fuqua, Hughes Brothers, who have plenty of films with less than stellar releases.

If you're going release Love and Basketball, balance it with films that the existing Criterion audience has been clamoring for them to release. That's the challenge. Make it happen.

Beyond that, perhaps Criterion should have included films which give perspective to the Black experience, even if directed by a white director, e.g., A Soldier's Story or The Hurricane, in a sign of racial unity and harmony.

I believe if Criterion had simply changed the mix of the films which they have released post-article, it would have minimized some of the pushback and this 'woke' tag that people keep citing about the brand. They can't escape it.

If you disagree, or suggest that the actual films don't matter, that's ok.

If you can't express an opinion or make an argument without personalizing the issue, well, no one has changed my mind on the subject or my original post.

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Criterion releasing Love & Basketball is no more of a financial risk than any of the other arthouse or foreign titles they've released, and it's certainly not going to harm their brand by doing so either.

It's not about one title. It's about how people perceive the brand, from both perspectives, and the challenge that it represents for Criterion.

If you don't understand this simple statement, there's really nothing else for me to state.

The bottom line is simply we won't know the impact, if any, until time passes and the dust settles.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Beyond that, perhaps Criterion should have included films which give perspective to the Black experience, even if directed by a white director, e.g., A Soldier's Story or The Hurricane, in a sign of racial unity and harmony.

Racial harmony unity and harmony, or a reassertion of the status quo where Black people aren’t even trusted to tell their own stories? Criterion has already released quite a few films about Black life by white directors e.g. George Washington, I remember Barry Jenkins being shocked to learn it was by a white man. White directors are capable of directing good films dealing with racial issues - A Soldier’s Story is a good film - but meaningful diversity comes from both sides of the camera. And I think films by white directors dealing with the Black experience - Crash, The Help, Green Book - have faced greater scrutiny for trading in stereotypes or “both sides” narratives or centring on white stories. It’s also true that cinema and culture has been adapting co-opting Black modes of cultural expression for decades, from AAVE that becomes everyday slang, or music like jazz and rap, no matter the quality of the art.

Both of the examples you give are, like Love and Basketball, are already on Blu. Also, apparently Jewison was initially attached to Malcolm X before it became Lee’s project. I think when Black people tell Black stories, it becomes more nuanced as it can be informed by a lifetime, rather than a few years of research.

Generally, for the other side of things, I think Black directors telling white stories can be more instructive than Black stories told from white perspectives, because a Black director can be informed by their own interactions with white people and white supremacy. Whereas white directors will have a wider system that has historically benefited them to reckon with.

Criterion recently released a Black film directed by a white man, When We Were Kings.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Because it's not about me, or for that matter, you or any other individual.

It's about a release in the context of the noise surrounding Criterion ever since the Times article was released, where Criterion has been viewed in the context of its lack of representation by Black filmmakers and how they are responding to that perception.

I don't know about you, but there's a world beyond Blu-ray.com, and when I have a conversation with my friends about recent Criterion releases, it's either too much or too little too late or not good enough. So, perhaps I'm biased due to my experience over the past year, but that's it.

If you want ignore that fact, well sure, isn't that how we as a society deal with issues and related perspectives that we would prefer not read or deal with, you know, put them on your ignore list?

It's not as if I'm the one bringing this issue up all over Twitter, Reddit and every other media outlet.

You can check my post history, this is the first time I've cited that article since it was released, or addressed the issue of recent Criterion releases to address the lack of representation.

My problem with Love and Basketball is simply the opinion that Criterion's efforts to expand Black representation with would have been better served with unavailable films such as Carl Franklin's One False Move or Devil in a Blue Dress, or selections from John Singleton, Antoine Fuqua, Hughes Brothers, who have plenty of films with less than stellar releases.

If you're going release Love and Basketball, balance it with films that the existing Criterion audience has been clamoring for them to release. That's the challenge. Make it happen.

Beyond that, perhaps Criterion should have included films which give perspective to the Black experience, even if directed by a white director, e.g., A Soldier's Story or The Hurricane, in a sign of racial unity and harmony.

I believe if Criterion had simply changed the mix of the films which they have released post-article, it would have minimized some of the pushback and this 'woke' tag that people keep citing about the brand. They can't escape it.

If you disagree, or suggest that the actual films don't matter, that's ok.

If you can't express an opinion or make an argument without personalizing the issue, well, no one has changed my mind on the subject or my original post.

Are Criterion releasing Love & Basketball as a response to criticism? Probably, yes. Does that make the film unworthy? No. I really don't think Criterion are in the business of releasing any old rubbish just to meet a quota.

It's entirely possible that other releases of the titles and/or directors you mentioned are coming down the pipe in the future. We all know Criterion can take their time getting releases ready, plus some of the films you cited may not available be for licensing.

Oh, and by the way, I have a perfectly good blu-ray release of The Hurricane already that I bought for $4.99 CDN at Giant Tiger.

Originally Posted by cgpublic

It's about how people perceive the brand, from both perspectives, and the challenge that it represents for Criterion.

If you don't understand this simple statement, there's really nothing else for me to state.

I understand the words, but the phrase itself says nothing of substance.

[Rayjg]

Originally Posted by bergman864

Criterion has less than 15 (the exact number escapes me) releases from black and African filmmakers in the DVD & Blu-ray days. That's out of over 1000 total releases.

There's no way you can't see the problem here. No one (I hope) is asking every release to be by a black filmmaker, or even a black filmmaker every month. But they should average more than 1 per year.

I don't see it as a problem because the rest of those releases aren't from white Americans only. They cover other ethnic groups in America and numerous peoples all over the world. White Americans may still dominate overall but there are filmmakers from Japan, India, South Korea, Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines and Iran in the collection too. Just to name a few.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by bergman864

It's partly because of Criterion's own wording but also because of its rescue of so many lost or obscure international films from some of the most renowned directors, and helping introduce them to Western (re: American) audiences.

After a while Criterion became the purveyor of "great" cinema and all their physical media releases are scrutinized for this reason. The problem came when other boutique labels sprung up and started releasing a larger number of films from black and women filmmakers without needing to be prompted to do so. Vinegar Syndrome started releasing in 2013 and they have a good number of Blaxploitation releases, with both numbers being comparable when VS has a third of Criterion's output in the DVD & Blu-ray age.

But VS, Shout!, Arrow and others don't have a closet full of titles by Godard, Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and Ozu. When you've put out movies that routinely make the 'Best Of' lists, the lack of black, women, and queer filmmakers starts to look bad.

And the World Cinema Project is fantastic. It's a new chance to introduce these lesser known films to a Western audience.

I have all three World Cinema Project boxes and I have yet to dislike anything in them.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

To actually talk about movies, I saw this as well. I was a little surprised that it took as long as it did with the theatrical release years ago. I wonder how the color grading is? Also, it is not being released as a BD, which lends to speculation of it ending up in a box set by Criterion. The Criterion DVD gives the current BD a run for its money, and this is one of my most anticipated Criterion re-acquisitions. And, thanks to Criterion’s policy of releasing diverse films, I now have the opinion that High and Low is my favorite film by Kurosawa.

Originally Posted by bergman864

I have the previous 4K Restoration release. As great as that looks it has a bit too much teal. I want to see if they dialed it back a bit.

I only have the Criterion DVD release, which I think is fine. Will definitely be interested in reviews of the SC 4K.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

I don't see it as a problem because the rest of those releases aren't from white Americans only. They cover other ethnic groups in America and numerous peoples all over the world. White Americans may still dominate overall but there are filmmakers from Japan, India, South Korea, Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines and Iran in the collection too. Just to name a few.

They were called out for their lack of African American directors specifically. With so few releases by African American directors it downplays the significance of black directors in the history of American cinema (and cinema in general). The same can be said of female directors. And now they're looking to correct both of those issues.

[tatterdemalion]

I just wanted to come in and say I like movies. Thank you very much...

[Cremildo]

Not sure why this has become such a controversy. If Criterion are releasing films you're not interested in, just... Don't buy them? I couldn't care less about Love & Basketball, but it being in the collection - and irrespective of the reasons it's in the collection - doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever as a consumer. There are people clamoring for that kind of film to get the wacky C treatment. Good for them.

[Member-682067]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

Racial harmony unity and harmony, or a reassertion of the status quo where Black people aren’t even trusted to tell their own stories? Criterion has already released quite a few films about Black life by white directors e.g. George Washington, I remember Barry Jenkins being shocked to learn it was by a white man. White directors are capable of directing good films dealing with racial issues - A Soldier’s Story is a good film - but meaningful diversity comes from both sides of the camera. And I think films by white directors dealing with the Black experience - Crash, The Help, Green Book - have faced greater scrutiny for trading in stereotypes or “both sides” narratives or centring on white stories. It’s also true that cinema and culture has been adapting co-opting Black modes of cultural expression for decades, from AAVE that becomes everyday slang, or music like jazz and rap, no matter the quality of the art.

Both of the examples you give are, like Love and Basketball, are already on Blu. Also, apparently Jewison was initially attached to Malcolm X before it became Lee’s project. I think when Black people tell Black stories, it becomes more nuanced as it can be informed by a lifetime, rather than a few years of research.

Generally, for the other side of things, I think Black directors telling white stories can be more instructive than Black stories told from white perspectives, because a Black director can be informed by their own interactions with white people and white supremacy. Whereas white directors will have a wider system that has historically benefited them to reckon with.

Criterion recently released a Black film directed by a white man, When We Were Kings.

I for one can't take those three movies seriously as realism and see them as mostly products of screenwriting contrivance and emotional manipulation.

Love and Basketball on the other hand was decent, but like others here I sure ain't paying a Criterion-esque price for it.

[jw007]

The only thing better than love and basketball is sex and basketball.