The Criterion Collection

[FantasticMrFox]

Thank you so much guys @Vinyl @dvining @jshaide @latehong

I’m in Germany so I don’t have the Criterion Channel. I now ordered the Eclipse set and Samurai Rebellion. And I also ordered a book, it’s called: A Dream of Resistance: The Cinema of Kobayashi Masaki by Stephen Prince

[nitin]

Originally Posted by koberulz

We can't buy from Amazon UK at all, AFAIK. Amazon AU has the UK version through the global store, but it comes out at $35 US, around 30 GBP, 46 Australian dollars. Most US Criterions are around $30 Australian at the moment.

It's even more than that to get it via RareWaves on eBay.

It's a US$49.95 title in the US, should come out to around $40AUD on sale atm (like other US$49.95 titles) on Amazon AU if you monitor it.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by FantasticMrFox

I just watched Harakiri for the first time. Now I’m sitting on the balcony, listening to Hiroshi Yoshimuras record ‚Green’, smoking a cig, and to be totally honest, right now, it feels like I’ll never be able to watch something perfect like this again!? My whole cinema world is upside-down. It’s just that brilliant in every aspect.

This is actually very common with a lot of classic vintage Japanese cinema. The best of it can change your life forever if you allow yourself to absorb it the way it should be.

A lot of folks just don't invest all their senses in films, let alone their hearts. Who knows why, fear of what they may find out about themselves or similar hang ups or perhaps just a lack of exercising imagination or maybe weak focusing skills or whatever. But some films just demand you do it. You don't walk away from them because you...can't.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

This is actually very common with a lot of classic vintage Japanese cinema. The best of it can change your life forever if you allow yourself to absorb it the way it should be.

A lot of folks just don't invest all their senses in films, let alone their hearts. Who knows why, fear of what they may find out about themselves or similar hang ups or perhaps just a lack of exercising imagination or maybe weak focusing skills or whatever. But some films just demand you do it. You don't walk away from them because you...can't.

Doesn't go boom enough. Could use more pews.

[Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

This is actually very common with a lot of classic vintage Japanese cinema. The best of it can change your life forever if you allow yourself to absorb it the way it should be.

A lot of folks just don't invest all their senses in films, let alone their hearts. Who knows why, fear of what they may find out about themselves or similar hang ups or perhaps just a lack of exercising imagination or maybe weak focusing skills or whatever. But some films just demand you do it. You don't walk away from them because you...can't.

Originally Posted by dvining

Doesn't go boom enough. Could use more pews.

A lot of this is due to the times we are living in. When you look at these forums it seems like people buy media as easily as penny candy. This is the same with music, where we play our favorites in between other activities and don’t actually “sit down” with it any longer. It seems as though some people get armfuls of movies every major sale. On top of this, we are very tight on time and watch movies in a very narrow window of ”free time”. For me, I have to do something that grabs me, or I will fall asleep because I am always tired. I would love to go back and revisit old favorites like Hara Kiri, some great silent films, etc. but when I have time to sit I will get tired and easily fall asleep.

The easy availability mixed with the lack of free time is drastically changing our viewing habits and relationship to the media we consume.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Vinyl

A lot of this is due to the times we are living in. When you look at these forums it seems like people buy media as easily as penny candy. This is the same with music, where we play our favorites in between other activities and don’t actually “sit down” with it any longer. It seems as though some people get armfuls of movies every major sale. On top of this, we are very tight on time and watch movies in a very narrow window of ”free time”. For me, I have to do something that grabs me, or I will fall asleep because I am always tired. I would love to go back and revisit old favorites like Hara Kiri, some great silent films, etc. but when I have time to sit I will get tired and easily fall asleep.

The easy availability mixed with the lack of free time is drastically changing our viewing habits and relationship to the media we consume.

This is so true and excellent points that I should have included in my post, so thanks for these very valid insights.

None of us are immune to the situations you describe. I'm guilty of buying lots of movies, but when I'm doing it I never think oh this will just sit on a shelf for years and who knows if I will ever get to it. Instead my mindset is always, wow I can't wait to get this and watch it! But as you say, free time is at such a premium and when exhaustion at the end of the day sets in, it becomes easier to just say, oh yeah, I'll get to that Ingmar Bergman film tomorrow, but now I'll check out an episode of THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW that I've seen 25 times already.

Maybe too a part of the problem is that when faced with so many choices rather than being bound by limits as the media used to impose upon us, we have a tendency at times to just jump to the comfort food of movies rather than trying out something more challenging.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by jw007

Since its a question of money, I would be very surprised to see a return of Janus Films and Criterion going after some bigger blockbusters like the Michael Bay films, and maybe even directors like Peter Jackson (unlikely), Steven Spielberg (unlikely but who knows), Ridley Scott (extremely unlikely), J.J. Abrams (tremendously unlikely), Roland Emmerich (enormously unlikely), George Lucas (incredibly unlikely unless it was an early film of his like THX 1138), James Cameron (spectacularly unlikely), Richard Donner (maybe but probably not), John McTiernan (unlikely), M. Night Shyamalan (unlikely), Tim Burton (quite unlikely), and John Carpenter (possibly but I doubt it).

In case anyone is curious, the handful of blockbuster directors that are in the Criterion Collection (for those whose films grossed more than 1 billion dollars in the box office worldwide) are:

Michael Bay ($6,443,668,115)
Christopher Nolan ($4,960,225,738)
Robert Zemeckis ($4,357,046,005)

Followed by:

Stephen Soderbergh ($2,292,578,496)
Martin Scorsese ($2,153,717,738)
David Fincher ($2,108,393,607)
Ang Lee ($1,692,941,738)
Alfonso Cuarón ($1,654,904,636)
John Woo ($1,328,084,552)
Sydney Pollack ($1,270,147,068)
Joel Coen ($1,161,489,095)
Paul Verhoeven ($1,061,993,917)
Lasse Hallström ($1,051,158,504)
Mike Nichols ($1,047,422,380)
Michael Mann ($1,041,943,727)
Brian De Palma ($1,036,840,757)

Did you read what Shell posted? It wasn't a question of money at all. Criterion didn't seek out Michael Bay's films. Michael Bay sought out Criterion. He wanted to do a special edition with Criterion, told Disney those intentions, and Disney reached out to Criterion. Criterion thought about it, and decided to do it, and thus The Rock special edition was made. Bay also wanted the same thing done for Armageddon, and was in contact with Criterion during production. Since the relationship was good for both parties, they made a special edition for that film too. So no, even if the titles may have been good sellers, it wasn't about the money for Criterion. It was more to do with Bay's insistence, and the good working relationship they had with him (and with Disney at the time to a larger extent).

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by ravenus

As some have already pointed out, such a scenario might have made sense in the early days of DVD when the use of director supervised/approved transfers and extras was still nascent, but later in the DVD and blu-ray age, that was no longer the case. Some of their early films may be a possibility, but then you also have to weigh out the benefits - is it worth getting some film that is unremarkable or less remarkable in itself just because it was the debut or early feature of some name director?

I mean, the timeline doesn’t support that. By the time Criterion was getting into serious blockbusters, director-approved transfers and gigantic collections of extras had been extremely common for almost a decade. I mean, I’ve got the 50th Anniversary Fantasia LD box, and it’s mammoth by anyone’s standards. Same with The Abyss. Most of the biggest contemporary releases Criterion did came substantially after studios had pumped out some seriously epic releases of their own.

The closest thing to support this might be Criterion’s release of Blade Runner in 1987, the success of which rocked the industry, and can reasonably be said to have kicked off studios doing their own special editions. But by 1996, 97, studios were fully capable of doing their own great releases. Already by that point, the main reason for a Criterion release was that 1) the director wanted it, or 2) the imprint itself could be an enormous marketing advantage.

I think the biggest reason we didn’t see as many contemporary - or other - blockbusters after that point is that Criterion was in the middle of the biggest transition of its existence, literally making the move to a different format. I think the needs of that consumed the resources of the company for years. And in that period, for lots of reasons - especially regime change - its big studio relationships fell apart. WB, Miramax, Columbia, those were the biggest feeders of front-line product, and they simply stopped licensing to Criterion over a decade.

At the same time, studios increasingly stopped making the kind of high-budget contemporary film that Criterion would jump at. I mean, Criterion would absolutely go for that kind of film now. I think of Benjamin Button in that category. But studios started spending enormous money on IP tentpoles, films designed to set up franchises and over which they would never, ever give up an ounce of control. And the blockbuster American indie - your Pulp Fiction - more or less disappeared from the scene, too. Anyway, I think this all contributed to this perception of what Criterion licenses out these days.

And because some have questioned it, you know, they’re still willing to do the big spend. Do you know how much it must’ve cost to license Dr. Strangelove? Dr. Strangelove sells *massively* well. It’s a cash cow. It’s now been included in a 4K box set AND as a 4K stand-alone. Sony knows it. And yet Criterion snagged it. They’re willing to take a massive swing because it pays for itself and brings people into the collection.

Anyway, that’s pretty much all I have to offer on the topic and I’m gonna stop at this point before I get too much more repetitive, but I’m certainly curious to hear other perspectives.

[Vinyl]

So, when was it that criterion switched from a third party that put out films because a film company or director got in contact with them to the type of company they have been for the last decade or two? For me, It’s hard to tell because they started out on DVD with La Grande Illusion and then went into big name directors and movies.

And what exactly would you call Criterion now, a boutique label that caters to film buffs? Are they a subsidiary or independent distributor? How do they get a film in the collection? It feels as though they have been getting a ton more films in the last few years than in the past.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by Vinyl

A lot of this is due to the times we are living in. When you look at these forums it seems like people buy media as easily as penny candy. This is the same with music, where we play our favorites in between other activities and don’t actually “sit down” with it any longer. It seems as though some people get armfuls of movies every major sale. On top of this, we are very tight on time and watch movies in a very narrow window of ”free time”. For me, I have to do something that grabs me, or I will fall asleep because I am always tired. I would love to go back and revisit old favorites like Hara Kiri, some great silent films, etc. but when I have time to sit I will get tired and easily fall asleep.

The easy availability mixed with the lack of free time is drastically changing our viewing habits and relationship to the media we consume.

I keep this in mind when I'm sitting down to watch a movie. I don't like watching movies back to back or even watching multiple movies in a day. I've done it and still do but I like to sit with them for a little while before moving on to the next one.

I feel the same way when I'm watching TV shows for the first time. I want to give my full attention to what I'm watching and not treat it as a notch on my films watched list.

[regeyer]

If and when Criterion releases it's first UHD I think it would be more than fantastic if the chosen movie is Kindergarten Cop.

Oh, the irony.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Vinyl

So, when was it that criterion switched from a third party that put out films because a film company or director got in contact with them to the type of company they have been for the last decade or two? For me, It’s hard to tell because they started out on DVD with La Grande Illusion and then went into big name directors and movies.

And what exactly would you call Criterion now, a boutique label that caters to film buffs? Are they a subsidiary or independent distributor? How do they get a film in the collection? It feels as though they have been getting a ton more films in the last few years than in the past.

I mean…they put out films like La Grande Illusion because they OWNED a ton of films like that. Not that particular one, obviously, but Janus has its own in-house vast library, so their mix from day one was always going to be a lot of arthouse, with third-parties supplementing that library for a greater variety.

But there’s never been one route to getting a film in the Criterion Collection. Some are the defaults of the Janus library, some are Criterion reaching out bc they want a particular film in the collection. Some are Criterion spearheading a restoration, like the Apu Trilogy. Some are relationships with directors, some are relationships with studios (especially when new relationships open up like with Fox and Paramount), some are taking advantage of particular moments in the market.

I’d like to know, for instance, how grabbing all those Warner Archive titles came about. I’d also love to know how they got their hands on Parasite.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by bergman864

I keep this in mind when I'm sitting down to watch a movie. I don't like watching movies back to back or even watching multiple movies in a day. I've done it and still do but I like to sit with them for a little while before moving on to the next one.

Out of curiosity, do you do film festivals at all? I kind of agree with where you’re coming from - I like to sit with a film - but I find I switch mindsets in a festival or repertory theater situation.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by nitin

It's a US$49.95 title in the US, should come out to around $40AUD on sale atm (like other US$49.95 titles) on Amazon AU if you monitor it.

Originally Posted by hariseldon

It;s available at Deep Discount though remember that Othello is a $50MSRP title so it's going to be $5-10 more to begin. I'm not sure what the UK base price is (?RRP), but my guess it's also more expensive since it's a 2 disc title

Even with a 15% off code DD would be more expensive than AmazonAU after shipping and GST however

Wasn't aware it was a more expensive title to begin with, that makes more sense. Took the plunge on the UK version, which brings the damage for the month to:


And technically the previous month, for Prime Day:


As well as these, while I was there:




Should keep me busy...

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by jw007

It seems to me Criterion's early days in the Laserdisc industry were a different time for both the company and the home video market. Perhaps Janus Films were able to afford bigger productions and movies to license back then but now with the studios and bigger wallets at the top, the Criterion Collection found their niche in acquiring films that the bigger studios would pass on, as opposed to competing with them.

Janus never has owned Criterion, it was just a business partnership. When the main larger label titles were licensed, it was by Criterion themselves... The Disney/Miramax titles were during the later days of the LD business. (It helped that Image Entertainment, now RJL, distributed Disney and Criterion at the time)

fitprod

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

I’d also love to know how they got their hands on Parasite.

They've had a working relationship with Universal since the LD days.

fitprod

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by fitprod

Janus never has owned Criterion, it was just a business partnership.

Quite correct. Though Peter Becker’s father co-owned Janus, and Peter is still very involved in Janus, so I can see why there’s the perception that they’re the same company.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by fitprod

They've had a working relationship with Universal since the LD days.

fitprod

They didn't get it from Universal, but from NEON, same for Memories of Murder, and Portrait of a Lady on Fire. Universal is simply NEON's main, and typical distributor, but I can definitely see more titles that they've acquired going to Criterion, including the recent Palme d'Or winner Titane.

[ShellOilJunior]

#478 Last Year at Marienbad

Watched the movie again this past weekend and studied the strategy for winning at Nim. The strategy of always leaving a nim sum of zero after each turn finally clicked with me and I've defeated the computer a few times.

Row 1: 1x1
Row 2: 1x2, 1x1
Row 3: 1x4, 1x1
Row 4: 1x4, 1x2, 1x1

The game starts with a nim sum of 0. That is, you have perfect pairings that cancel each other out. There are no un-matched sticks on the board:
1s - 4 total
2s - 2 total
4s - 2 total

It's advantageous to have one's opponent move first because the game starts at nim sum=0. Every move is made to maintain a nim sum of 0 (Playing against the computer there is no margin for error). Later in the film, X seems to realize he's at a disadvantage of moving first each time so he suggests M move first.

[Show spoiler]Although X never defeats M at nim, he does leave with A.

.

It's been said understanding Nim may help one understand Marienbad. My belief is the movie is comparable to Nim in that each are games, mental exercises. For me, the movie is best experienced by being actively engaged, questioning everything that's presented (Not trusting the narrator as always reliable), and considering all possibilities. It's possible to theorize X raped A but then X rejects this idea by saying "it was not done with force". However, one might say X is not reliable and is lying, etc.

The big reason why I've re-visited this movie so many times over the years is the total respect it has for the viewer. The movie allows the viewer to be the "co-author" of the motion picture. There's no right answer and the possibilities are endless. Kiarostami does this to an extent with Certified Copy. Knowing everything with absolute certainty would spoil the fun.

Nim: https://www.archimedes-lab.org/game_..._nim_game.html

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

Out of curiosity, do you do film festivals at all? I kind of agree with where you’re coming from - I like to sit with a film - but I find I switch mindsets in a festival or repertory theater situation.

No festivals. I don't live close enough to any and can never really afford it. If it's a heavier film, I could do an afternoon and evening session maybe.