The Criterion Collection

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

Just posted on Criterion's twitter and facebook:

yeah, that is definitely a shot of the beautiful Irene Jacob. Good call CC..

[Hendershot737]

Originally Posted by jcs913

yeah, that is definitely a shot of the beautiful Irene Jacob. Good call CC..

+1 on the Beautiful. Haven't seen this trilogy, but am looking forward to it based on what I've heard.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by keldons

I wish Criterion would dive into more Russian film.

Who you telling, they make people think Tarkovsky is the only Russian film great, which (like in case with Fellini) there are alot of directors from the Soviet days that I would call my favs.

[jacobb1313]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Not anxious for Following.

Nolan is respectable, but I don't see any of his films besides Memento being Criterion style films. That said, I don't see Broadcast News, Something Wild, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, most of the Wes Anderson films, and plenty of others as particularly fitting of my perception of the Criterion mission either.
...

My attitude toward this ongoing contemporary mainstream director argument is, let the major studios put out those films. Transfers aren't really an issue, supplements appeal to a very limited set of people, and directors like Nolan don't need discovering or reevaluating (yet); nothing in this profile hints at a need for Criterion's specialty approach, so let them concentrate on restoring and reviving established works of importance. Nolan can wait.

Depends on what you mean by "Criterion Mission". This is my opinion: during the laserdisc days Criterion wrote the book on elite home video releases, basically inventing commentaries and special features. Studios defaulted some of their legacy titles to Criterion for that reason, see: King Kong, Citizen Kane, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Wizard of Oz, Evita, English Patient, the 3 James Bond films, Blade Runner, Swing Time. Then the studios, during the DVD age, took those titles and did it themselves using the Criterion model, and Criterion had to delve the depths of overlooked or obscure international and independent releases. It's a bit history revisionist, I know, but it seems to me that the focus on "Super Art House" came out of a necessity to stay in business, but was not The primary focus of the company.

Blu-Ray being a kind of specialty format that places supreme importance on A/V quality has turned the tides back to laserdisc days, and Criterion has been given access to films that are "important" but don't fit the "super art house" mold: like Something Wild, Ride with the Devil and the Wes Andersons. And studios are giving them access to legacy films again: Stagecoach, Night of the Hunter, BBS Series, and the Kubricks.

Personally, I'm thrilled, even if I don't think Broadcast News or Nolan films are worthy of a "super art house" moniker or should be on my shelf. At least it opens the door for a different kind of appreciation.

[painted_klown]

It seems to me that Criterion used to have more contemporary/American movies in the collection.

The Wizard of Oz, Blade Runner, Dracula, Citizen Kane, King Kong, The Graduate, It's a Wonderful Life, The Producers, The Princess Bride, 12 Angry Men, Forbidden Planet, West Side Story, Casablanca, Some Like it Hot, Ghostbusters, Lawrence of Arabia, Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Pulp Fiction, some Bond films, etc...the list goes on and on. There was probably 100 or more films that would fall into the modern/contemporary/American film categoty.

At one time the Criterion Collection was FILLED with these great movies. For whatever reason, though, they have sort of evolved over the years to mostly foreign films or obscure/older American films.

Personally, I would LOVE to see a return to adding more modern/contemporary/American films and things. Certainly, keep on doing the foreign/obscure releases as well, but a little bit of "Hollywood" in the mix certainly wouldn't be a bad thing either.

I kind of look at this (the aforementioned films plus many more) as the business model and catalog that made Criterion into the behemoth that it is today. If it weren't for these titles being in the catalog during the Laser Disc days, then they may not have grown the way they did. These days Criteriton is successful because of their great (well deserved) reputation for putting the utmost care into their library. Yes, they are known more today as a "boutique" label that specializes in foreign/obscure films, and thats great, they do that very well. They release the films that other labels won't touch, and a some of their old Laser Disc catalog has had BD releases that are top notch from other companies. I cannot argue/deny that point, but none-the-less, I would welcome more releases of this type once again.

[ShellOilJunior]

The reason they got those films was during the LD days the major studios didn't see that format as lasting and ultimately not cost-effective. They had nothing to lose by licensing out those films.

[painted_klown]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

The reason they got those films was during the LD days the major studios didn't see that format as lasting and ultimately not cost-effective. They had nothing to lose by licensing out those films.

Certainly, I understand that. I also know that there is probably NO way that Criterion could possibly get back a lot of those films.

I do believe that having more commercial films would be a benefit to Criterion though. If you take a look at Benjamin Button, Fear and Loathing, Thin Red Line, etc. These movies were purchased not just by Criterion enthusiasts, but by a lot of "average joe" movie collectors as well. This, I am sure, probably turned a lot of people on to the collection that prior, had no idea of who Criterion were or what they were all about. I would venture to say that these (films) are probably some of the higher selling titles for Criterion as well.

There is a LOT of money to be made by catering to the average consumer, at least a little bit, to draw them into the collection. After that, some people will buy all of them just to have the numbered spines on their shelves, and to expose themselves to different types of movies. And for those who do not care about collecting all of them, they will more than likely look at the collection and find more films they would otherwise have skipped/not heard of.

This is a win/win for Criterion. Sell titles that would move a lot of units, while at the same time, exposing more people to their collection and adding to their fan base. Criterion may be a "smaller" label, but I guarantee you it's not because they choose to be. If given the choice, I am sure they would love to sell 500 million units of every title they have in the collection. If I were them I would want that as well.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't want them to release just any old crap. Continue to cherry pick only the best/most deserving titles, but there have been a few movies in the past year or so that I feel would have been great additions to the collection. Let the right one in, Let me in (American version), Social network, Black Swan, Kings Speech, Steig Larson trilogy, Inception, etc...all of thes films (love them or hate them) were unique works that added something to the landscape of film making and were all generally well received by both critics and audiences alike.

[blkhrt]

A new process blog on the Solaris cover is available on Sam Smith's website:

http://samsmyth.blogspot.com/2011/05...s-solaris.html

[ShellOilJunior]

Criterion is certainly not only making money on Ben Button-type releases though....They do very well on the typical "Criterion" titles. I've never heard of them being in the red.

[Banned User]

Well personally I'm happy whenever Criterion gets the rights to any film I love because I know it will get the right treatment. I don't think they should be forced to adhere to any set 'type' of film. To me Criterion means quality. Period.

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Don't know how my comments amount to "Nolan hate" - because I wouldn't buy a Following Blu-ray? I like Nolan's films in general. There are plenty of Criterion Blu-rays that I don't intend to buy that aren't judgments about their quality, but instead on what I will watch repeatedly.

The fact is Nolan is a popular director with a very rabid slice of the moviegoing public but we spend way too much time exhaustively discussing if he "deserves" to be in the CC. Why aren't we having this conversation about Sofia Coppola*?

* Don't say it's because she's on the Beastie Boys video anthology, either.

Sorry I wasn't trying to single you out. Just carrying on the discussion. I meant in general I've seen a lot of negative stuff lately about him on the forums. I wasn't implying you were the source of all that hatred. Unless of course you are? In which case I have to tip my hat to the amount of power you wield.

[painted_klown]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Criterion is certainly not only making money on Ben Button-type releases though....They do very well on the typical "Criterion" titles. I've never heard of them being in the red.

I agree. I also never thought they were in any financial trouble either. At the rate they are releasing movies, I am sure they are doing very well. I am just saying...that's all.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by painted_klown

Certainly, I understand that. I also know that there is probably NO way that Criterion could possibly get back a lot of those films.

I do believe that having more commercial films would be a benefit to Criterion though. If you take a look at Benjamin Button, Fear and Loathing, Thin Red Line, etc. These movies were purchased not just by Criterion enthusiasts, but by a lot of "average joe" movie collectors as well. This, I am sure, probably turned a lot of people on to the collection that prior, had no idea of who Criterion were or what they were all about. I would venture to say that these (films) are probably some of the higher selling titles for Criterion as well.

There is a LOT of money to be made by catering to the average consumer, at least a little bit, to draw them into the collection. After that, some people will buy all of them just to have the numbered spines on their shelves, and to expose themselves to different types of movies. And for those who do not care about collecting all of them, they will more than likely look at the collection and find more films they would otherwise have skipped/not heard of. This is a win/win for Criterion.

Sell titles that would move a lot of units, while at the same time, exposing more people to their collection and adding to their fan base.

The reason why you do not see many modern films, except the foreign ones that Criterion licensed from IFC is the reason in bold. Why would any major studio, Sony,Universal, etc.. ever license out a film they know they can make money on from the 'average consumer'? The only reason why a Benjamin Button has a Criterion name on it is because Fincher insisted they handle it. The majority of that money went into Paramounts' pockets anyway.

Folks, the reason why you do not see these modern directors on CC releases is simply money. Always has and always will be. What Shell said a few posts ago is literally the only reason why Criterion ever got the license for those mass market films. Ever since those days and dvd became popular, Criterion has not released 1 major new film that I can think of from the US right after its release date. Studios will always have the 1st crack at newer pictures. Thankfully, Criterion usually jumps in line to release the quality newer foreign releases, as usually most studios do not do them justice.

Frankly, this talk about Nolan, Fincher, etc.. is moot. Criterion may get some of the older catalog titles, if the money is right. Other than that, the collection is what you see released now and what has been released for 10+ years. It will continue to be a collection of mostly important foreign films current and past, that most US studios frankly do not have the balls to take a gamble on...

[painted_klown]

Originally Posted by jcs913

The reason why you do not see many modern films, except the foreign ones that Criterion licensed from IFC is the reason in bold. Why would any major studio, Sony,Universal, etc.. ever license out a film they know they can make money on from the 'average consumer'? The only reason why a Benjamin Button has a Criterion name on it is because Fincher insisted they handle it. The majority of that money went into Paramounts' pockets anyway.

Folks, the reason why you do not see these modern directors on CC releases is simply money. Always has and always will be. What Shell said a few posts ago is literally the only reason why Criterion ever got the license for those mass market films. Ever since those days and dvd became popular, Criterion has not released 1 major new film that I can think of from the US right after its release date. Studios will always have the 1st crack at newer pictures. Thankfully, Criterion usually jumps in line to release the quality newer foreign releases, as usually most studios do not do them justice.

Frankly, this talk about Nolan, Fincher, etc.. is moot. Criterion may get some of the older catalog titles, if the money is right. Other than that, the collection is what you see released now and what has been released for 10+ years. It will continue to be a collection of mostly important foreign films current and past, that most US studios frankly do not have the balls to take a gamble on...

I agree with these points. Everything always comes down to money, always.

I know it is a bit of a pipe dream to think Criterion would return to having these types of films in their library once again. The other studios want that revenue more than they want to be a part of the Criterion Collection. So, I agree that it is a bit of a moot point to discuss these things, but it is fun conversation and adds an interesting discussion to the thread. Criterion will release what films it chooses to license and can aquire said license for. Nothing more/nothing less.

[blg]

Personally, I think the one "contemporay American" director that fits well with Criterion is Paul Thomas Anderson. Although the only two movies of his that haven't been put on blu are Hard Eight and Punch-Drunk Love (my least favorite PTA movie).

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by painted_klown

I agree with these points. Everything always comes down to money, always.

I know it is a bit of a pipe dream to think Criterion would return to having these types of films in their library once again. The other studios want that revenue more than they want to be a part of the Criterion Collection. So, I agree that it is a bit of a moot point to discuss these things, but it is fun conversation and adds an interesting discussion to the thread. Criterion will release what films it chooses to license and can aquire said license for. Nothing more/nothing less.

I understand, as it is just talk. It's a sad state when quality films overseas are shunned by most studios. I believe the major studios believe people will not buy them mostly due to the 'reading' (subtitles) of the film. Our culture is so 'dumbed down' that it is nice when someone comes to bat for quality, regardless of the country or whether it is 60 years old.

I find it very interesting that all these John Wayne films are being released now. I wonder if Criterion would have even been considered for Stagecoach now. Looks like the studios see that releasing Wayne makes money..

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by blg

Personally, I think the one "contemporay American" director that fits well with Criterion is Paul Thomas Anderson. Although the only two movies of his that haven't been put on blu are Hard Eight and Punch-Drunk Love (my least favorite PTA movie).

He may fit, but the studios that have the rights to his films know that he makes them money. Again, why would they license out a film that will make them money? It's interesting that Criterion has the license for The Killing and Paths, considering the Kubrick Warner box set is coming out. I guess those were the 'throw aways' from Warner. They must have thought they were not important enough for his box set. I certainly think Paths is a much more important film than Eyes Wide Shut. But then again, Cruise and Kidman are not in it.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Banned User

I don't understand the Nolan hate. He makes a lot of movies that are different then the typical genre movies that flood the box office. If anything I commend him for taking the chances he does. Memento, Inception and The Prestige were all good and very imaginative films with excellent casting and directing. Also may I add his direction of Insomnia was superb.
I get the feeling that hating Nolan is just the in thing right now and usually it just comes off sounding like some overly critical movie reviewer. Then again I've always been a 'glass half full' person. I try to find what I like in a movie and not overly condemn what I don't. I will critique things I don't like in a movie, but usually find something to like about most movies.

While I agree the film's plot was full of holes. Heath gave a amazing performance of a character that audiences love. I don't think his death had any real impact on the popularity of the film. It has enough elements that are good enough to stand on its own. Plot wasn't one of them. My biggest disappointment about Heath's death is how it hurt Terry Gilliam's film so badly.

Well, MANY people who wouldn't have gone to see TDK went just because it was billed as Ledger's last film - which also wasn't even the case. I know people who went "just to see", but had no interest in Batman of the films.

The problem I have with Nolan, I already stated... his films have ZERO heart and soul. They are all cold when it comes to emotions.. Everyone acts rigid in stiff in EVERY one of his films. He tried making a relationship the core of Inception, but you can't have a relationship in films without actually showing the characters in scenes together. That was Inception's major flaw, other than the fact that it had zero imagination (you're in dreams and the ONLY thing he can come up with is James Bond car chases and shoot outs? C'mon, in dreams you can do ANYTHING.).

[keldons]

Insight into the Solaris redesign for Criterion by Sam Smith.

Also of note is the last paragraph, in which Smith writes:

Thanks for reading, and thanks of course to everyone at Criterion for this dream assignment. And I hope anyone reading this will enjoy discovering or re-discovering this sci-fi classic by one of the world's master filmmakers, another of which is coming just around the corner from Janus Films...

Edit: Ahh, sorry, I realize someone already mentioned this last page.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I understand, as it is just talk. It's a sad state when quality films overseas are shunned by most studios. I believe the major studios believe people will not buy them mostly due to the 'reading' (subtitles) of the film. Our culture is so 'dumbed down' that it is nice when someone comes to bat for quality, regardless of the country or whether it is 60 years old.

I find it very interesting that all these John Wayne films are being released now. I wonder if Criterion would have even been considered for Stagecoach now. Looks like the studios see that releasing Wayne makes money..

I think so. I think when Criterion got their hands on it the film wasn't in great shape at all. The studio would probably not be willing to invest in an expensive restoration. Stagecoach is a fine film but doesn't have the cache as something like The Searchers (released very early in the blu-ray cycle).

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I think so. I think when Criterion got their hands on it the film wasn't in great shape at all. The studio would probably not be willing to invest in an expensive restoration. Stagecoach is a fine film but doesn't have the cache as something like The Searchers (released very early in the blu-ray cycle).

right, but Wayne was already a superstar when The Searchers came out. That was a no-brainer release for Warner. They would never take a chance on Stagecoach, as it may not seemed profitable to them. It doesn't have the following for Wayne. I am sure Criterion had to beg to get this film, as it pretty much made Wayne a star. Sooner or later someone would have realized that this film could make them money and would have done a poor restoration. Looks like the studios waited for 'True Grit' to come out to capitalize on his popularity. Again, they have no gumption to release films, too much of a gamble. They needed a hook....