The Criterion Collection

[mande2013]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Hey, maybe La Dolce Vita might get a 4K release, seeing as how Paramount is playing nice with them again.

I’m all for Criterion UHDs of La Dolce Vita, L’Avventura and many other films provided they eventually start releasing UHDs in the UK so there’ll be a non-Mexican plant option.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Hey, maybe La Dolce Vita might get a 4K release, seeing as how Paramount is playing nice with them again.

Speaking of, a page just appeared for it on Janus's site.

https://www.janusfilms.com/films/2100

Also added:

Accattone - https://www.janusfilms.com/films/2101
Love Meetings - https://www.janusfilms.com/films/2102
The Hawks and the Sparrows - https://www.janusfilms.com/films/2103

[JupiterMission]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

[Show spoiler]Except, the vast majority of films from Black Filmmaker's that Criterion has released are not re-releases, and in every instance where it was a re-release, it's an actual upgrade over any previous release.

So after the NYT article, here are the films or releases from Black directors (re-releases are bolded):

• Soleil Ô
• Mandabi
• The Signifyin' Works of Marlon Riggs (7 films)
• Pariah
• Deep Cover
• Love and Basketball
• Melvin Van Peebles Set (5 films) (including Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song)
• Menace II Society 4K
• One Night in Miami
• The Learning Tree
• Time
• Love Jones
  
• Eyimofe
• Farewell Amor
• Shaft 4K
• Devil in a Blue Dress 4K
• Buck and Preacher
• Faya Dayi
• Muna Moto
• Eve's Bayou
• Malcom X 4K
• Cooley High
• This Is Not a Burial, It's a Resurrection
• Hollywood Shuffle

So of the 34 films listed there, 25 of them are brand new to Blu-ray in the US (if not the world). Of the 9 re-releases, 4 of them have been upgraded to 4K. The other 5 that are BD-only are also improvements over previous releases, featuring newer restorations, and/or a wealth of new supplements.. Even if you remove some of the Marlon Riggs films due to their length, it's still clear that this argument of them doing mostly re-releases of black films is not one based in reality.

The original joking criticism was that Criterion was "taking the easy way out" of their NYT-inspired affirmative action project by re-releasing stuff other labels already had. Of your list - which you and another user have noted aren't all necessarily from black directors, but seem to be part of the project to increase black visibility in the collection - that's accurate for roughly one-third to a quarter of the releases. At the very least this makes the original observation and my defense of it accurate enough (especially since neither of us said that a majority of their affirmative action titles are re-releases), even if some forum users find it "cringe."

I both do and don't understand why people are so touchy about this very obvious project Criterion has embarked upon. I know the tendency of everybody in polite society these days is to constantly demand radical change and then, as it happens, insist that no change is happening and that anybody who notices it is rude. However, I think it's a subject that should be discussed and/or on peoples' radars. I'm not the biggest Criterion-head in these forums by any means, but I want the label to do well and keep putting out good stuff. If about one out of every five of their releases is part of a diversity initiative and then Criterion announces they're laying off 20% (aka one-fifth) of their staff, maybe we shouldn't be too quick in dismissing the notice-ers.

Now, there's a stupid and/or rude way to have these conversations about art, business, etc., but that's another subject.

[gbm82]

Originally Posted by Pinot Grigio

I love Criterion's cover... hard to believe it's being criticized.

The other looks like a generic 2000s studio DVD cover.

exactly

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by JupiterMission

The original joking criticism was that Criterion was "taking the easy way out" of their NYT-inspired affirmative action project by re-releasing stuff other labels already had. Of your list - which you and another user have noted aren't all necessarily from black directors, but seem to be part of the project to increase black visibility in the collection - that's accurate for roughly one-third to a quarter of the releases. At the very least this makes the original observation and my defense of it accurate enough (especially since neither of us said that a majority of their affirmative action titles are re-releases), even if some forum users find it "cringe."

I both do and don't understand why people are so touchy about this very obvious project Criterion has embarked upon. I know the tendency of everybody in polite society these days is to constantly demand radical change and then, as it happens, insist that no change is happening and that anybody who notices it is rude. However, I think it's a subject that should be discussed and/or on peoples' radars. I'm not the biggest Criterion-head in these forums by any means, but I want the label to do well and keep putting out good stuff. If about one out of every five of their releases is part of a diversity initiative and then Criterion announces they're laying off 20% (aka one-fifth) of their staff, maybe we shouldn't be too quick in dismissing the notice-ers.

Now, there's a stupid and/or rude way to have these conversations about art, business, etc., but that's another subject.

The list, as you quoted it, is updated to remove any of the titles that weren't from black directors. The original person gave the implication that Criterion was simply being lazy, and re-releasing titles that other labels got to years ago, and you said that's "sort of true". In what way is it true? I literally provided a list that shows it isn't. I wouldn't even consider releases like Menace II Society, Devil in a Blue Dress, Shaft and Malcolm X 4K to simply be re-releases when they are in fact format upgrades, but even if you do count them, there are still only 9 total re-releases out of the 34 films listed

So, ask yourself, does 25 out of 34 total that have never been released previously on Blu-ray warrant someone saying something this ridiculous:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Express

Waiting for next year’s New York Times exposé about how Criterion is taking the easy way out with their affirmative action titles by simply rereleasing movies that other labels got to years ago instead of coming up with something else.

Not to mention the fact that he's calling them "affirmative action titles", and you're actually repeating that is a big yikes . I won't continue to debate this, but I'll just say that you'd have to be living under a rock for the last two years to say Criterion were taking the easy way out when it comes to them addressing their blind-spot with regards to black filmmakers.

[DukeTogo84]

To bring this thread back on topic, if anyone knows anyone high up at Criterion, let them know I'll pay for all the production costs to get Hunter in the Dark on Blu-ray. I'll also take them out to dinner if it helps my crusade.

[LordoftheRings]

If this was already posted just skip it.
▪︎https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/th...-jane-campion/

[Shanghai Express]

The "original poster design" as mentioned in the Romeo and Juliet blurb is the Polish:

[Show spoiler]

[JupiterMission]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

[Show spoiler]The list, as you quoted it, is updated to remove any of the titles that weren't from black directors. The original person gave the implication that Criterion was simply being lazy, and re-releasing titles that other labels got to years ago, and you said that's "sort of true". In what way is it true? I literally provided a list that shows it isn't. I wouldn't even consider releases like Menace II Society, Devil in a Blue Dress, Shaft and Malcolm X 4K to simply be re-releases when they are in fact format upgrades, but even if you do count them, there are still only 9 total re-releases out of the 34 films listed

So, ask yourself, does 25 out of 34 total that have never been released previously on Blu-ray warrant someone saying something this ridiculous:



Not to mention the fact that he's calling them "affirmative action titles", and you're actually repeating that is a big yikes . I won't continue to debate this, but I'll just say that you'd have to be living under a rock for the last two years to say Criterion were taking the easy way out when it comes to them addressing their blind-spot with regards to black filmmakers.

Ah, I didn't realize you'd fixed your initial post. My bad.

Anyways, I understood the point the person was making and semi-agreed with it (even if it was rather troll-y), so I took it up. I've been happy to see several of the improved re-releases, but 75% fresh is still 25% re-released, so it seemed fair enough to me and still does. It's just a funny thing, not a scathing condemnation of the company. My original response to the "cringe" guy brings up my other thoughts about it.

With regard to calling it affirmative action, look up the definition of that phrase and tell me what I should call it. Wouldn't it be in poor taste if I called it "woke" or whatever? What should this initiative be called? If you don't like affirmative action, that's fine, but it's not an inherently pejorative term, and I think it's accurate enough to apply it to the project Criterion has undertaken (and literally emailed everybody on their mailing list about).

Ultimately I think it's silly when people pretend a film doesn't exist until Criterion puts it out, and I think that attitude combined with the tired racism-scolding (particularly given its timing) is why I object so strongly to the NYT piece and its legacy, and why I brought up the thing about Kino. Aspects of Criterion's response have been silly too, and people are free to point that out.

Apologies if any of this made you do another big yikes or has anybody else out there doin' a cringe.

[gudemameshiba]

Originally Posted by jw007

Did anyone ever think that maybe David Lynch has an "extra" special business relationship with Criterion than other directors?

Literally yes. He has right of refusal on all aspects of his releases and he simply ignored Kino Lorber's attempts to get his participation in their Lost Highway release.

Honestly a lot of the business is loyalty and superstition. Once a film was a success at one of Don Rugoff's theaters on the Upper West Side, that filmmaker would want to open all their movies at the same theater.

Originally Posted by JWFORD

But I'd love to see some of these (as well): Haile Gerima (Bush Mama, Ashes and Embers, Sankofa)

You list a lot of great suggestions but I don't see Haile Gerima licensing to Criterion, given his history, experiences, and outlook. Maybe his estate when he passes. (Hopefully not soon!)

One thing I will say about the NYT article: some people in this thread seem to have taken it as a shot across the bow, but I don't know how to square that with the fact that there are a lot of quotes from Peter Becker. At the very least he did a surprisingly good job getting out in front of the story. I also would not be surprised if this were a direction the company was already moving, and the article became an opportunity to market those changes.

Also, as far as (e.g.) Olive re-releases go, the home video market is currently in a risk-averse phase where basically all the major boutique players are increasing the proportion of re-releases and upgrades. Historically, Criterion has been able to buck trends, but with the market shrinking, it seems like even Criterion is just another player. (See last month's layoffs.)

In that context, maybe the bigger change is the growth of the Criterion Channel, which seems like the new place for risk-taking and broadening the canon (not counting the WCP/African Film Heritage Project restorations).

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by JupiterMission

With regard to calling it affirmative action, look up the definition of that phrase and tell me what I should call it. Wouldn't it be in poor taste if I called it "woke" or whatever? What should this initiative be called? If you don't like affirmative action, that's fine, but it's not an inherently pejorative term, and I think it's accurate enough to apply it to the project Criterion has undertaken (and literally emailed everybody on their mailing list about).

Consider in the 2+ years since the NYT article, Shanghai Express was the first person to call them "affirmative action titles" with his post, and you were the second. Let that sink in. If you can't see why using that term, or the other language you're using like it's simply some "project" is wrong, then all I can suggest is for you brush up on racial history in America.

[DukeTogo84]

Anyone have any good ideas on how to convince Criterion to start releasing their Japanese titles?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Anyone have any good ideas on how to convince Criterion to start releasing their Japanese titles?

I think making at least 5 posts a day complaining on here should do the trick.

[yoloswegmaster420]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I think making at least 5 posts a day complaining on here should do the trick.

5 posts? Too conservative of an estimate there. Try more like 10+ posts.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I think making at least 5 posts a day complaining on here should do the trick.

I wish, but it doesn't seem to be working. What if I increase it to 10?

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by yoloswegmaster420

5 posts? Too conservative of an estimate there. Try more like 10+ posts.

You give me too much credit, but I'll try to make you proud and get those numbers up. We gotta make sure Criterion knows that they are slacking with their Japanese titles.

[jw007]

Is there any chance Criterion would release a film made in Israel?

I am barely knowledgable with Israeli cinema, but I'm curious if there's any one Israeli movie that might make the cut? I'm not referring to Palestinian cinema, but Israeli cinema, just to be clear here.

I can't think of a single one that I'd consider a masterpiece or a classic. But it would be interesting to see something from Israel make it into the collection someday.

[tatterdemalion]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

You give me too much credit, but I'll try to make you proud and get those numbers up. We gotta make sure Criterion knows that they are slacking with their Japanese titles.

Do one-hundred a day and I'll like every post. I'm an extreme non-conformist and absolutely despise politics, the modern day great American cult, so I'd rather see your type of post any day of the week. I wish the block button still existed, or am I just not seeing it, so those that want to do political posts can but I wouldn't have to see it. As long as a movie is good/great/classic from anyone, anywhere in the world, it can be in the collection.

Oh, except Armageddon! Boo to Armageddon! Muhahahaaaa!

[Bradsdadg]

Originally Posted by jw007

Is there any chance Criterion would release a film made in Israel?

I am barely knowledgable with Israeli cinema, but I'm curious if there's any one Israeli movie that might make the cut? I'm not referring to Palestinian cinema, but Israeli cinema, just to be clear here.

I can't think of a single one that I'd consider a masterpiece or a classic. But it would be interesting to see something from Israel make it into the collection someday.

I don't see why not. Though I can't think of a film off hand, I would hope one day they get into the collection. If not a main release, at least part of Martin Scorsese's World Cinema Project

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by tatterdemalion

Do one-hundred a day and I'll like every post. I'm an extreme non-conformist and absolutely despise politics, the modern day great American cult, so I'd rather see your type of post any day of the week. I wish the block button still existed, or am I just not seeing it, so those that want to do political posts can but I wouldn't have to see it. As long as a movie is good/great/classic from anyone, anywhere in the world, it can be in the collection.

Oh, except Armageddon! Boo to Armageddon! Muhahahaaaa!

Yeah, I figured I'd say something to get everyone take some pot shots at me to change the subject, and it worked because the back and forth on the political talk was getting frustrating. At least we are somewhat back on topic.