The Criterion Collection

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

The rights the Hollywood Reporter piece is referring to are indeed rights for platforms, as the quoted text above makes quite clear.

Pro-B

With due respect Pro-B, Criterion got the titles in question from Westchester! Westchester's "strengths" may lie in platforms, but they apparently have some Home Video Distribution assets as well.

[the sordid sentinel]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

William Friedkin's DVD Picks - YouTube

Love Friedkin. Hope if I live as long as he has I am still as passionate about movies I love.

[TJS_Blu]

In case anyone hasn't been following the CC defective disc thread, CC has acknowledged the problem.

[SammyJankis]

This piece is more useful.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

With due respect Pro-B, Criterion got the titles in question from Westchester! Westchester's "strengths" may lie in platforms, but they apparently have some Home Video Distribution assets as well.

This could very well be the case for some titles as they are indeed involved with the upcoming Blu-ray release of Othello, though I am unsure exactly what their contribution is. However, they have been known for platform distribution assets, and even their own description emphasizes it:

In addition to their classic films, the company also distributes contemporary films for theatrical and non-theatrical releases.

Pro-B

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This could very well be the case for some titles as they are indeed involved with the upcoming Blu-ray release of Othello, though I am unsure exactly what their contribution is. However, they have been known for platform distribution assets, and even their own description emphasizes it:
Pro-B

I agree, I suspect that is the reason this deal got done.

Well there's a reason legal gets paid to unravel this stuff, it's byzantine...

Janus also currently manages part of the Caidin Film Company library for Westchester Films, and the Faces Distribution/John Cassavetes library for Jumer Productions, both companies successors-in-interest to Castle Hill Productions.

My point, is that if you want one of these titles, you may want to pick them up during one of the 50% off sales coming up. I never understand why people wait until something goes OOP to decide they want it and can't live without it.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

This piece is more useful.

It is indeed. Thank You!

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

I agree, I suspect that is the reason this deal got done.

Well there's a reason legal gets paid to unravel this stuff, it's byzantine...

The second point you make I completely agree with. However, I think that some of the terminology thrown around is misleading. Owning would mean outright controlling the content. Representing a third party and "owning distribution rights" is something quite different. I am unsure if this is clear.

I personally am not entirely familiar with their library and do not know what acquisitions have been made. But they are known for platform distribution.

However, it would appear that they are indeed working with other parties on the home video market. And this is the reason why I initially mentioned that they do not own the rights. (I would agree with you that the media's use of these terms is quite loose, which is why there is some confusion).

In this piece, for instance, it is clearly stated that one of the company's owners is overseeing the upcoming Blu-ray release of Othello for the Welles' estate. And the same piece -- at Wellesnet -- also mentions that they hold the rights to the film (the company).

Schlossberg has been overseeing an upcoming Blu-ray release of Othello for the Welles' estate.

Do you see the difference?

http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=10624

Pro-B

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

In this piece, for instance, it is clearly stated that one of the company's owners is overseeing the upcoming Blu-ray release of Othello for the Welles' estate. And the same piece -- at Wellesnet -- also mentions that they hold the rights to the film (the company).

Do you see the difference?

http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=10624

Pro-B

Sure, not difficult. Riddle-me-this, "under exclusive license from Westchester Films, Inc. c 1942 Caidin Film Trust. All rights reserved*." So does Westchester's acquisition by Shout! impact Janus films' management of To Be or Not To Be or not?

*back cover of CC edn of To Be or Not To Be

My answer: Dunno, but probably

And by impact, I do not mean impacting the existing distribution agreement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS2kh...ature=youtu.be

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

I'm excited that my local theater is showing Videodrome in 35mm later on this month!

OT Love your avatar. Great album, great band. Really liked midwest values too.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

iScottie, I don't believe their partnership has ever been interrupted. StudioCanal simply work with different parties on this side of the Atlantic. Of course, Lionsgate has a very close relationship with them, which covers areas outside of the home video market.

That's not the way I understood it. Criterion had always licensed films from StudioCanal on a case-by-case basis, and never had any sort of overall right to the SC catalog. It's my understanding that StudioCanal wanted a North American partner who would put up the money for the rights to their full catalog (at least, those films not already owned by someone else in NA), partly as a means for getting money for restoration work. Criterion was (reportedly) unwilling to do that, and Lionsgate was. And that's why Lionsgate ended up with the NA rights to the StudioCanal Collection. Criterion's licenses on the various SC titles they did expired at different times, so they didn't all go OOP at once.

There really is no sensible reason why Criterion would up and lose the rights to films like Ran -- for which they were already working on a Blu-ray upgrade -- or The Third Man -- which they'd been steadily keeping in print since 1985 -- if this wasn't the case.

The Tati box wasn't actually part of an ongoing relationship between Criterion and StudioCanal. It's been said that the Tati estate put pressure on StudioCanal to let Criterion release the films again.

Given that Lionsgate has done very little with the catalog, it would appear that StudioCanal is going back to licensing titles to Criterion again.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

Sure, not difficult. Riddle-me-this, "under exclusive license from Westchester Films, Inc. c 1942 Caidin Film Trust. All rights reserved*." So does Westchester's acquisition by Shout! impact Janus films' management of To Be or Not To Be or not?

As I mentioned earlier, the company can very well be "exclusively" managing the distribution rights on behalf of a different party.

And the acquisition could very easily have all sorts of contractual restrictions allowing content to be distributed under existing conditions. This is one of many reasons why after Warner gained "exclusive rights" to more than 600 Paramount titles said Paramount titles of the initial pressing are still in circulation -- no impact.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ibution-376469


Pro-B

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by jayembee

That's not the way I understood it. Criterion had always licensed films from StudioCanal on a case-by-case basis, and never had any sort of overall right to the SC catalog. It's my understanding that StudioCanal wanted a North American partner who would put up the money for the rights to their full catalog (at least, those films not already owned by someone else in NA), partly as a means for getting money for restoration work. Criterion was (reportedly) unwilling to do that, and Lionsgate was. And that's why Lionsgate ended up with the NA rights to the StudioCanal Collection. Criterion's licenses on the various SC titles they did expired at different times, so they didn't all go OOP at once.

That's my understanding as well. Though I think there was some "presumption" that the previous case by case arrangement would go on for a bit longer than CC reckoned. In the end, (projecting?), I'm guessing the LG arrangement didn't work out like SC planned when they leveraged that deal.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by jayembee

That's not the way I understood it. Criterion had always licensed films from StudioCanal on a case-by-case basis, and never had any sort of overall right to the SC catalog. It's my understanding that StudioCanal wanted a North American partner who would put up the money for the rights to their full catalog (at least, those films not already owned by someone else in NA), partly as a means for getting money for restoration work. Criterion was (reportedly) unwilling to do that, and Lionsgate was. And that's why Lionsgate ended up with the NA rights to the StudioCanal Collection. Criterion's licenses on the various SC titles they did expired at different times, so they didn't all go OOP at once.

There really is no sensible reason why Criterion would up and lose the rights to films like Ran -- for which they were already working on a Blu-ray upgrade -- or The Third Man -- which they'd been steadily keeping in print since 1985 -- if this wasn't the case.

The Tati box wasn't actually part of an ongoing relationship between Criterion and StudioCanal. It's been said that the Tati estate put pressure on StudioCanal to let Criterion release the films again.

Given that Lionsgate has done very little with the catalog, it would appear that StudioCanal is going back to licensing titles to Criterion again.

jayembee,

Just a few quick answers because I have to run

1. To license titles after content has been redirected to a different party -- as it is the case with Lionsgate -- means that you have to have an existing relationship. Also, StudioCanal's library is too big for one party to handle it in North America. It is why it has appeared that Lionsgate are too slow. This wasn't easy even in European markets -- which is why they took over Optimum in the UK and Kinowelt in Germany -- so it would have been absolutely impossible for Criterion to do it. A very big infrastructure is needed. It would not have made sense.

2. Lionsgate did not take over the StudioCanal Collection. Senso, for example, which is part of the European collection, was still released by Criterion. It is a StudioCanal, Centro Sperimentale di Cinematografia/Cineteca Nazionale, Cineteca di Bologna/L'Immagine Ritrovata restoration.

3. Because rights overlap in different territories -- this is how big Canal are -- there are also titles that were released in one European territory but not in another. The trend for Canal in smaller markets has been to take over existing boutique labels and form branches. They have done it in the UK, Germany, Australia, etc.

4. Lionsgate has been Canal's big partner in the U.S., but their partnership covers various areas, not only home video, which is why there have been some fluctuations.

Pro-B

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

the company can very well be "exclusively" managing the distribution rights on behalf of a different party.

Pro-B

That is true. Not sure that applies to the topic under discussion, but I'll take your word for it.

Thanks for your thoughts on the issue. Have a great weekend.

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

OT Love your avatar. Great album, great band. Really liked midwest values too.

WOAH. Someone else has heard of them?! And on this forum no less. That's awesome. Yeah, some great dudes and even greater music.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

You should give Hulot's Holiday a try. I haven't seen PlayTime in several years but I recall it being much more subtle than Hulot's Holiday which I love.

Originally Posted by Sifox211

I love Tati's work but have only seen Playtime once and like you I appreciated the art but found it a little unengaging. I absolutely love Trafic however but that may be because I am a bit of a petrol head (with a particular weakness for European cars of the 60s and 70s).

M. Hulot is probably my favourite though.

I also loved The Illusionist, Sylvain Chomet's Tati film that never was. Anyone else here seen it?

I also love Tati with my favorites being in chronological order with Holiday my favorite and Trafic my least. I find each one a little less funny than the previous one. Perhaps it's because his movements get slower and his physical comedy is more subdued due to age and a serious auto accident he was in but I love the frenetic pace he sets in Holiday and the non-Hulot Jour de fete. I have a great book on him-Jacques Tati by David Bellos that I would highly recommend.
Also to note that the Hulot character has a brief (very!) cameo in Truffaut's Bed and Board.

[jw007]

I watched Amour last night, the recent film by Michael Haneke, and it was phenomenal. If anyone deserves to be in the Criterion Collection its this director, possibly the most talented of all still working today.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by jw007

I watched Amour last night, the recent film by Michael Haneke, and it was phenomenal. If anyone deserves to be in the Criterion Collection its this director, possibly the most talented of all still working today.

Amour is certainly not my favorite Haneke film. That being said, I agree that he needs to be in the collection.

Caché is a phenomenal thriller and perhaps one of the best of the entire century (thus far).

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Amour is certainly not my favorite Haneke film. That being said, I agree that he needs to be in the collection.

Caché is a phenomenal thriller and perhaps one of the best of the entire century.

It's funny. We're already in 2014, and half the time (at least) someone says something about the "entire century" I think to myself, "Wow. Really? That's a LOT of movies over 100 years!"

I'm slow to adjust, clearly.