The Criterion Collection

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by joie

Are they counting out-of-print and laser disc titles?

Originally Posted by octagon

Well, Michael Bay is listed as having two titles so probably, yeah.

The two Michael Bay titles are still in print on DVD. In fact, in the B&N that I was in yesterday, I happened to see a copy of Criterion's DVD of Armageddon.

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by jayembee

There are no "politics" involved. Criterion is a company that doesn't actually own any films that they release. They have to license the right to release a given title from the company/studio that does own it, whether it be Universal or Paramount or Sony or Gaumont, or whoever. If a given company doesn't want to license a film of theirs to Criterion, or can't because they've licensed it out to someone else, then Criterion simply cannot release it.

The films that Criterion has released that are now OOP are exactly that because Criterion's license expired, and the original studio made a new licensing deal with someone else.

The only other factors guiding Criterion's decisions about what to release would probably be (1) what (available) films do they want to release, and (2) in what condition are the available source materials.

I guess reason no. 1 is the debatable point.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by mdonovan

I guess reason no. 1 is the debatable point.

Why? They either want to release a title or they don't. I suppose there might be a filmmaker that they dislike enough on a personal level that they don't want to release any of his movies, but given that more than one director in the Collection has had personal issues that have haunted them, but that don't seem to affect their being in the Collection, I doubt it.

I suspect their decisions are based more on whether they like a given film than whether they like a given director. Robinson Crusoe on Mars they badgered out of Paramount (who at the time didn't tend to license their titles out) because it was a favorite film for one of the higher-ups at Criterion. There are probably others that they might not like on a personal level, but think are "important" in some way to include them. And given the variety of films they've released, some of which can be argued to be in some way "Politically Incorrect", I don't imagine they have any sort of agenda.

[smoss469]

I think the titles are part passion, part prudence. You split what you release. Some are those you're passionate about, others are what the customer wants. It's like with musicians. They release what the studio wants to get their earnings up and then they get the freedom to do the CD they want. The ones that make the money, are the ones that allow you to release personal pet projects or obscure favorites.

It's very ironic for me personally, while I don't like half the releases they put out, I love their business model (for the most part) and love that they do release titles that I'm not a fan of. At least this way they do reach a wider audience instead of turning into another niche distributor and hurting their market share.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by ravenus

What they really need to do is do away with the spine numbers nonsense...or jumble them up just to drive the obsessives up the wall

Why do they need to get rid of the numbers? It doesn't appear that the numbers prevent anyone from buying titles they want, and they might actually help by increasing sales amongst the "obsessives".

And they don't need to "jumble them up just to drive the obsessives up the wall". They've been doing that all along. There's no one who can have a complete set of numbers on their shelf, regardless of whether we're talking LD, DVD, or BD.

Not all of their LDs had numbers. And there are some numbers that have no associated title. And at least a couple of titles that have the same spine number (Monterey Pop and Shoot the Piano Player are both numbered "43", for example).

As for the DVDs, more often than not, the boxed sets had a number, while the individual films in the set had their own separate numbers. If you have the set spine out, you'll be displaying the set number, but not the individual numbers. If you have the set spine in, you'll be displaying the individual numbers, but not the set number. I suppose the true obsessive might buy an extra copy of each set in order to have all of the numbers showing. Or take out the individual discs from the box, and place them on the shelf in order to have all of the numbers showing. Even then, there are a number of Criterion DVDs that don't have spine numbers.

As for the BDs, given that Criterion has lost the rights to a number of the films they released on DVD, there will always be some missing numbers. I suppose it's possible they could re-acquire the rights to, say, Grand Illusion, but if not, there will never be a Blu-ray numbered "1".

And then there's the case of Fanny and Alexander. The DVD set was
numbered "261", while the contents had their own numbers. The BD set is also numbered "261", but the contents do not have separate numbers. So unless Criterion decides to release "The Television Version", "The Theatrical Version", and The Making of Fanny and Alexander separately, there will never be BDs numbered "262", "263", and "264".

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but the US has much less of them, once you cut out the cult horror labels. Cohen Film Collection seems to be a solid neighbor to CC.

Not correcting you, just giving props where due:

Flicker Alley
Kino
Cinema Guild
Oscilloscope
Alamo Drafthouse (through Image)

Could be added to the list for very good work on either classic or contemporary cinema releases on our favorite. I also keep an eye out for forthcoming titles from Sony Pictures Classics, Magnolia, Music Box Films, and Magnet; one or two of which might be considered boutique labels.

Not to mention Olive or Twilight, not sure if I'd call them boutique labels, more like distributors.

[Gusto-Guus]

Was watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford last night and would love for that to get a Criterion.

As for PT Anderson, Would love for any of his films to come to CC as well. If you notice, his recent blu-ray releases have decent extras, especially The Master and TWBB. The two historical documentary's are great, especially The Master.

[The Narrator]

Originally Posted by Gusto-Guus

Was watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford last night and would love for that to get a Criterion.

As for PT Anderson, Would love for any of his films to come to CC as well. If you notice, his recent blu-ray releases have decent extras, especially The Master and TWBB. The two historical documentary's are great, especially The Master.

I can say for an almost certain fact that Criterion is going to release Punch-Drunk Love, and that they're at least considering releasing Hard Eight too.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

Not correcting you, just giving props where due:

Flicker Alley
Kino
Cinema Guild
Oscilloscope
Alamo Drafthouse (through Image)

Oh ya, slap me double for not remembering Kino, they pretty much one of the mainstays for silent cinema and in general early films. But I generally don't hear of many releases from FA and Oscilloscope, though to be certain, some of their titles did catch my eye as interesting stuff. Oh wait, I got Nanook of The North from FA, d-oh!

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Oh ya, slap me double for not remembering Kino, they pretty much one of the mainstays for silent cinema and in general early films. But I generally don't hear of many releases from FA and Oscilloscope, though to be certain, some of their titles did catch my eye as interesting stuff. Oh wait, I got Nanook of The North from FA, d-oh!

How is that release? I have the Criterion DVD, and I don't feel an overwhelming compulsion to upgrade to Blu. But I see that this site gives it a good review, and it does include a second film, so I'm curious.

[Yami]

Criterion are going to be releasing a more recent restoration of Nanook of the North and Robert Flaherty's other films, so it's probably worth waiting unless you want The Wedding of Palo.

[ravenus]

^Well I wouldn't know about any upcoming release but the Flicker Alley version of Nanook is quite good indeed. While the age of the film and inherent print damage makes for inconsistencies of detail, I am never in doubt that I am watching a proper HD version, which alone should make it superior to the Criterion DVD. If CC are doing an HD restoration, they might do some more cleanup and stabilization of brightness/contrast, but what we have hear is quite excellent, generally on par with the BFI's wonderful release of The Great White Silence. Have not seen Wedding of Palo or the Nanook Revisited documentary as yet, should do so shortly. There's a substantial booklet with an excerpt from Flaherty's My Eskimo Friends and an essay on Wedding of Palo.

My only disappointment is that the score is a lossy DD 2.0 track at 192 Khz. I suspect this is a limitation of being the only available source of the Tim Brock score. A proper lossless track from the source tapes or a newly commissioned surround mix could elevate the experience further.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by ravenus

^OK that way, I thought you were critiquing them for not having "X" moviemaker on their list

Me, I like the idea of different labels giving us different things. The UK seems to have several very interesting dedicated boutique labels Eureka, Arrow, Second Run, Second Sight, Artificial Eye etc. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but the US has much less of them, once you cut out the cult horror labels. Cohen Film Collection seems to be a solid neighbor to CC.

That's cool. I could see how having a more diverse assortment of labels would be attractive. I guess I'm just attracted to the artist itself, the filmmaker, who might make a few brilliant films.

Originally Posted by octagon

Well of course it does. To my knowlege Criterion has never claimed to represent all important filmmakers or even most important filmmakers. They certainly don't make that claim in the mission statement you've referenced.

I suppose one could quibble with the claim that their library of laser discs, dvds and blu-rays is 'the most significant archive of contemporary filmmaking available to the home viewer' but I'm not sure why one would care one way or the other. They're talking up their company...so what?

And not for nothing, 150 refers to the number of directors who have director approved releases. According to the 'directors' tab of their advanced search function the total number of directors is a little over three times that.

That's fine.

I just think a company like Janus that offers the Criterion Collection should be more highly valued in this day of age. I even think they should be a "mandatory company" and signed into a government contract (okay, sorry, I'm not in a communist society) where the government requires some of the greatest overlooked films and directors to have their movies released in the best possible quality and format. It should be a law. Ha ha j/k.

[smoss469]

I don't understand why more studios don't do business with Criterion. If they have a catalog of films, and haven't released <insert film here> yet and don't have any plans in the next few years why not allow someone else? You still get paid. It's also not as if Criterion ever puts out a poor release (I'm talking PQ/AQ/Supplements <shaking my fist at nothing for Letter Never Sent) anyway so it won't hurt their standing in any way.

Everyone wins that way. Plus it's not as if Criterion is going after major studio blockbusters anyway.

[Tin Drum]

Originally Posted by Nighteyes

Criterion are notorious fanboys of his.

Don't like it. Don't buy it.

It's obvious they have a good working relationship with him and I'm sure selling his titles HELPS to purchase rights to and release lesser known titles that may not sell well.

It's a business but they could do worse.

[pedromvu]

Sorry if this is not Criterion related but not sure if you guys are aware that amazon UK currently has very good prices on a lot of older MoC titles, you can get them from $14-$16 shipped depending on how many you order.

Really good deal for those who have Region free players, but also some of the titles are region free.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Sorry if this is not Criterion related but not sure if you guys are aware that amazon UK currently has very good prices on a lot of older MoC titles, you can get them from $14-$16 shipped depending on how many you order.

Really good deal for those who have Region free players, but also some of the titles are region free.

I've got the Masters of Cinema edition of Murnau's Sunrise in the mail to me, and it should be here any day now. The price was $18.99, including shipping.

The domestic Kino edition of Nosferatu should be arriving this week from Barnes & Noble as well, so it's looking like a Murnau double feature next weekend.

[joie]

Originally Posted by jw007

[...]
I just think a company like Janus that offers the Criterion Collection should be more highly valued in this day of age. I even think they should be a "mandatory company" and signed into a government contract (okay, sorry, I'm not in a communist society) where the government requires some of the greatest overlooked films and directors to have their movies released in the best possible quality and format. It should be a law. Ha ha j/k.

I could get behind something like BFI here in the U.S., but think a private company would be inappropriate for the role. Maybe the Library of Congress could undertake preservation/restoration and license its work to private companies, but the private sector wouldn't be interested in everything, although a publicly funded non-profit could be made to be. Maybe a change of copyright law would be of help, too, so that a studio would have to deposit a copy of each film, which the library could preserve/restore/release should a studio lose interest in its own work.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by smoss469

I don't understand why more studios don't do business with Criterion. If they have a catalog of films, and haven't released <insert film here> yet and don't have any plans in the next few years why not allow someone else? You still get paid. It's also not as if Criterion ever puts out a poor release (I'm talking PQ/AQ/Supplements <shaking my fist at nothing for Letter Never Sent) anyway so it won't hurt their standing in any way.

Everyone wins that way. Plus it's not as if Criterion is going after major studio blockbusters anyway.

Yes, I of course agree. This is the best thing that would ever happen to the movie industry, if more studios got on board with Criterion and let them release films under their ownership. The studios win, the filmmakers win, the retail market wins, the fans win, the film buffs win, etc.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by joie

I could get behind something like BFI here in the U.S., but think a private company would be inappropriate for the role. Maybe the Library of Congress could undertake preservation/restoration and license its work to private companies, but the private sector wouldn't be interested in everything, although a publicly funded non-profit could be made to be. Maybe a change of copyright law would be of help, too, so that a studio would have to deposit a copy of each film, which the library could preserve/restore/release should a studio lose interest in its own work.

Yes, that is what I mean! I didn't think of that. There could be an intermediary non-profit organization that goes between the government and the private sector for restoration, remastering and re-release of certain films. But these would not just be limited to "historical" films (much like the The National Trust for Historic Preservation), but instead a committee-run panel of diverse film scholars, filmmakers and geniuses who are able to select overlooked or underrated films for selection into this non-profit organization's monthly offering for releases in a private company such as Criterion/Janus.