The Criterion Collection

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I'm going to buy Certified Copy at the end of the month, though, honestly, I'm torn as to which release to buy. Interestingly enough, I first discovered the film while browsing British releases on our site. I saw Juliette Binoche (who I adore) on the cover, and the designation of Best Actress at Cannes; my curiosity piqued, I immediately began reading about the film. It was the region free Artificial Eye copy that initially caught my eye, and for some reason, it didn't register that Criterion had released the film, too.

I guess it all boils down to The Report, Abbas Kiarostami's first film from 1977, which Criterion includes in their release. Have you guys watched it, and is it good enough to justify the additional expense? I'm going to be paying for the import shipping, anyway, so my choice is the Artificial Eye import, which will cost about $8.40 USD, or the Criterion which would cost three times as much.

I might add, I wish the Criterion cover was as colorful as the import. I'm not one to usually harp on a film's cover, as it's just window dressing--the film is what matters--but in this case, I have to. There's no comparison here.



Colorful and beautiful, or....drab.

Thanks in advance for any input you guys might have.

The Criterion ties in better with the film than the AE cover tbh - also I think the AE cover is a tad misleading! Great film though!

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I might add, I wish the Criterion cover was as colorful as the import. I'm not one to usually harp on a film's cover, as it's just window dressing--the film is what matters--but in this case, I have to. There's no comparison here.



Colorful and beautiful, or....drab.

Thanks in advance for any input you guys might have.

The Criterion cover is a "certified copy" of the book cover featured in the film. So it actually looks that way on purpose, not just to be "drab."



Not to mention, not everything has to be colorful, and not everything that's colorful is good.

[olivianewtonyawn]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Not to mention, not everything has to be colorful, and not everything that's colorful is good.

Tell that to these gents.

[Helter145]

So, there hasn't been much discussion here in relation to the lack of female-directed films on the collection, which surprises me, as several articles on the subject have been making the rounds since film critic Sophie Mayer analyzed Criterion's entire output and found out that only 21 films out of almost 800 were directed by women, and we need to realize that a lot of those are only available through Criterion's Eclipse banner and through the DVD format, so the number becomes even more meagre when counting only the blu-ray format, some very appealing and historically-important films, like Vera Chytilová's Daisies and Larisa Shepitko's The Ascent, have been denied a blu-ray release, being instead buried under the Eclipse banner, which, sure, is better than nothing, but still problematic, as some articles have mentioned how obscure male-directed films such as Marketa Lazarova have been given the deluxe treatment, and that film is I think as important or as deserving as the also Czech Daisies...

This obviously is not only Criterion's fault, that meagre number of 21 speaks of a much larger issue, one related to the gender-bias of the film industry at large and of the movie-buying public, and sometimes there's not a restoration available or there are licensing issues, which can take years to clear, so the fact that some films like Lucrecia Martel's La Ciénaga have seen the light of day on blu-ray is a small miracle in and of itself, yet there so many films out there still unavailable on any format that it's kind of difficult to feel overtly optimistic....

This is definitely a difficult subject, and while I do think Criterion has been oblivious of some very fine female-directed films, ultimately not to talk about the bigger picture would be a mistake, and still, we as buyers should put our money where our mouth is and consume as much of something we want represented...

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

The Criterion cover is a "certified copy" of the book cover featured in the film. So it actually looks that way on purpose, not just to be "drab."



Not to mention, not everything has to be colorful, and not everything that's colorful is good.

I appreciate your providing the context of the cover. I haven't seen the film yet, so now it makes sense.

If you've been closely following this thread for the past month or so, you'd have seen me openly speaking out against the colorization of classic films. I'm a purist, and I feel the movement Ted Turner started is sacrilegious. I can find great beauty, and purity, in black and white photography. So, I appreciate full well that not everything needs color. Similarly, I know that when Criterion chooses a particular cover for their releases, there is a reason why, out of all the options provided by various artists, one stands out to them. They don't just select something that "looks good".

Unless a cover is exceptionally well done, warranting further examination, and appreciation, I don't usually spend an inordinate amount of time looking it at after the announcement date. When the middle of the month comes, and Criterion announces their upcoming releases, I take time to appreciate the work done by the selected artists. I know how much time and effort can go into getting their final work just right, having been an artist myself. And, just occasionally, there are examples that completely blow me away.



This is one such example. When I first saw the Phoenix cover, it knocked me out. And knowing nothing about the film, seeing that cover made me want to learn more about it. That, to me, is an effective cover. It spurs interest. The Certified Copy cover, while it might be germane to the film, did not achieve the same effect. And the European release...did. Now, I know from the preceding posts that the colorful cover might be misleading; it may not be at all in sync with the theme of the film. But that picture of Juliette Binoche, and the color used, moved me to look into the film, where the Criterion cover did not.

I was commenting merely on the aesthetic, not the relevance of the presentation.

[jw007]

Bill/theater dreamer,

Here's one example I must disagree with you on... Once you watch the film, Certified Copy, you will realize why the artwork Criterion used is brilliant.

At first I too thought it was drab and pathetic, and I wondered if it was an inside joke or perhaps a total accident. But obviously, it was carefully measured and calculated flawlessly.

I hadn't realized it was modeled after the book in the movie... and now I cannot see the artwork for Certified Copy in any other way, ever...period. End of story.

I realize you are now aware that this was all intentional... but artwork shouldn't be a concern anyway. It's the movie that counts. And blah... that European colorful artwork version isn't that interesting. Looks like another highly stylized foreign movie if I didn't know anything about it.

The Criterion version evokes mystery ... kind of like in a Kubrickian way. Perhaps parallel universes can be thought of, with the identical sets of people looking at one another. It makes me think. And thinking is good!

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by Helter145

So, there hasn't been much discussion here in relation to the lack of female-directed films on the collection, which surprises me, as several articles on the subject have been making the rounds since film critic Sophie Mayer analyzed Criterion's entire output and found out that only 21 films out of almost 800 were directed by women, and we need to realize that a lot of those are only available through Criterion's Eclipse banner and through the DVD format, so the number becomes even more meagre when counting only the blu-ray format, some very appealing and historically-important films, like Vera Chytilová's Daisies and Larisa Shepitko's The Ascent, have been denied a blu-ray release, being instead buried under the Eclipse banner, which, sure, is better than nothing, but still problematic, as some articles have mentioned how obscure male-directed films such as Marketa Lazarova have been given the deluxe treatment, and that film is I think as important or as deserving as the also Czech Daisies...

This obviously is not only Criterion's fault, that meagre number of 21 speaks of a much larger issue, one related to the gender-bias of the film industry at large and of the movie-buying public, and sometimes there's not a restoration available or there are licensing issues, which can take years to clear, so the fact that some films like Lucrecia Martel's La Ciénaga have seen the light of day on blu-ray is a small miracle in and of itself, yet there so many films out there still unavailable on any format that it's kind of difficult to feel overtly optimistic....

This is definitely a difficult subject, and while I do think Criterion has been oblivious of some very fine female-directed films, ultimately not to talk about the bigger picture would be a mistake, and still, we as buyers should put our money where our mouth is and consume as much of something we want represented...

Peter Beckers word is the only one that matters
http://moviemezzanine.com/a-response-from-criterion/

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by Helter145

So, there hasn't been much discussion here in relation to the lack of female-directed films on the collection, which surprises me, as several articles on the subject have been making the rounds since film critic Sophie Mayer analyzed Criterion's entire output and found out that only 21 films out of almost 800 were directed by women, and we need to realize that a lot of those are only available through Criterion's Eclipse banner and through the DVD format, so the number becomes even more meagre when counting only the blu-ray format, some very appealing and historically-important films, like Vera Chytilová's Daisies and Larisa Shepitko's The Ascent, have been denied a blu-ray release, being instead buried under the Eclipse banner, which, sure, is better than nothing, but still problematic, as some articles have mentioned how obscure male-directed films such as Marketa Lazarova have been given the deluxe treatment, and that film is I think as important or as deserving as the also Czech Daisies...

This obviously is not only Criterion's fault, that meagre number of 21 speaks of a much larger issue, one related to the gender-bias of the film industry at large and of the movie-buying public, and sometimes there's not a restoration available or there are licensing issues, which can take years to clear, so the fact that some films like Lucrecia Martel's La Ciénaga have seen the light of day on blu-ray is a small miracle in and of itself, yet there so many films out there still unavailable on any format that it's kind of difficult to feel overtly optimistic....

This is definitely a difficult subject, and while I do think Criterion has been oblivious of some very fine female-directed films, ultimately not to talk about the bigger picture would be a mistake, and still, we as buyers should put our money where our mouth is and consume as much of something we want represented...

I agree that, unfortunately, female directors are far too often overlooked, and criminally undervalued in Hollywood. I certainly am guilty of not exploring the works of female directors more, though I do plan on spending a good deal of time investigating Chantal Ackerman's filmography here very soon. Jeanne Dielman is very high on my to-watch list. I don't think that I have excluded female directors on a conscious level, rather, I seek out the majority of films I watch because the premise intrigues me. In most cases, I learn who the director is only after the fact. Yes, there are certain directors now that I have developed a great affinity for, and that list has grown tenfold since I started collecting Criterion films. And I will watch anything and everything they have done as soon as I can get my hot little hands on their films. But it is an unfortunate commentary, I think, and perhaps an indictment of Hollywood, that the majority of films that women have directed...I'm just not all that interested in. The sex of the director has nothing to do with that determination. Rather, I'm just not that big into saccharine love stories, and from my own limited experience, it seems that that's all Hollywood will really allow women directors to do. If they want to do something with more teeth, they have to go the independent route. But there are certainly exceptions. I didn't know that Kathryn Bigelow had directed The Hurt Locker until after I'd bought the film. The film interested me, and if Hollywood would allow women directors like Bigelow to direct more films that would appeal to me, I'd give them my patronage in the blink of an eye.

HBO has been showing Everything is Copy, a documentary on Nora Ephron, the author/playwright/screenwriter and director who passed away in 2012 from Leukemia. She wrote the screenplays for Silkwood, When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, and Michael, among others, and she also directed the last two films I mentioned, as well as Julie & Julia. She got her start as a reporter for the Washington Post, then took her talents as a writer, and her acerbic wit, to work as a columnist for Esquire.

I highly recommend the documentary, as well as the documentary short that HBO is showing immediately after; it deals specifically with the issue of women directors in Hollywood. Both are illuminating, and I hope that, together, they create more discourse on this subject.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by jw007

Bill/theater dreamer,

Here's one example I must disagree with you on... Once you watch the film, Certified Copy, you will realize why the artwork Criterion used is brilliant.

At first I too thought it was drab and pathetic, and I wondered if it was an inside joke or perhaps a total accident. But obviously, it was carefully measured and calculated flawlessly.

I hadn't realized it was modeled after the book in the movie... and now I cannot see the artwork for Certified Copy in any other way, ever...period. End of story.

I realize you are now aware that this was all intentional... but artwork shouldn't be a concern anyway. It's the movie that counts. And blah... that European colorful artwork version isn't that interesting. Looks like another highly stylized foreign movie if I didn't know anything about it.

The Criterion version evokes mystery ... kind of like in a Kubrickian way. Perhaps parallel universes can be thought of, with the identical sets of people looking at one another. It makes me think. And thinking is good!

Jonathan, cover art, fair or not, often helps to create a first impression of a film. The very fact that Criterion is so vigilant in choosing their covers should speak to this. Even for buyers that know all about the film they are buying, cover art is still important.

Different people react to imagery in different ways. To somebody like me that is very artistic, and responds to color, the European cover did its job. It caught my eye, it created a curiosity, and that curiosity, coupled with the reading that followed, has me deciding which version I am going to buy. In part, it achieved its objective. Maybe it does look like the cover of any other "highly stylized European film", but apparently, those kinds of covers do attract buyers. They have to, or they wouldn't be using them. Now, that doesn't take anything away from the apparent brilliance of the Criterion cover. But if context is needed to "get" the cover, how effective was it in attracting a potential buyer? I realize that Criterion's catalog appeals to a different kind of moviegoer, and many of the films the company releases are already known to their customers. But when it comes to somebody like me, who is not knowledgeable of many of these films yet, cover art can help spark interest.

I have no doubt that once I buy the film, and watch it, the cover art chosen by Criterion will make more sense, and I'll appreciate it much more than I possibly could now. I didn't mean to impugn the cover that Criterion choose. I realize an artist was involved, and I respect their work, and Criterion's decision. I guess I should have been more careful in how I chose my words. I was just trying to speak as to my personal aesthetic preference.

[theater dreamer]

Lost amongst the friendly teeth-gnashing spawned by my comments about the Certified Copy cover is my question about which release to buy, the Artificial Eye, or the Criterion. This is purely a cost comparison, for me. Both films seem to have high technical marks for picture and audio, so the real difference seems to be the inclusion of Abbas Kiarostami's first film, The Report (1977). I'm curious if any of you film aficionados have watched it, and does its inclusion justify paying, essentially, three times as much?

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by iScottie

From Criterion's Instagram.

Maybe some day.

maybe the upcoming French release made them decide to release their version eventually too!

[Helter145]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I agree that, unfortunately, female directors are far too often overlooked, and criminally undervalued in Hollywood. I certainly am guilty of not exploring the works of female directors more, though I do plan on spending a good deal of time investigating Chantal Ackerman's filmography here very soon. Jeanne Dielman is very high on my to-watch list. I don't think that I have excluded female directors on a conscious level, rather, I seek out the majority of films I watch because the premise intrigues me. In most cases, I learn who the director is only after the fact. Yes, there are certain directors now that I have developed a great affinity for, and that list has grown tenfold since I started collecting Criterion films. And I will watch anything and everything they have done as soon as I can get my hot little hands on their films. But it is an unfortunate commentary, I think, and perhaps an indictment of Hollywood, that the majority of films that women have directed...I'm just not all that interested in. The sex of the director has nothing to do with that determination. Rather, I'm just not that big into saccharine love stories, and from my own limited experience, it seems that that's all Hollywood will really allow women directors to do. If they want to do something with more teeth, they have to go the independent route. But there are certainly exceptions. I didn't know that Kathryn Bigelow had directed The Hurt Locker until after I'd bought the film. The film interested me, and if Hollywood would allow women directors like Bigelow to direct more films that would appeal to me, I'd give them my patronage in the blink of an eye.

HBO has been showing Everything is Copy, a documentary on Nora Ephron, the author/playwright/screenwriter and director who passed away in 2012 from Leukemia. She wrote the screenplays for Silkwood, When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, and Michael, among others, and she also directed the last two films I mentioned, as well as Julie & Julia. She got her start as a reporter for the Washington Post, then took her talents as a writer, and her acerbic wit, to work as a columnist for Esquire.

I highly recommend the documentary, as well as the documentary short that HBO is showing immediately after; it deals specifically with the issue of women directors in Hollywood. Both are illuminating, and I hope that, together, they create more discourse on this subject.

I think you're quite right when you say Hollywood only allows women to direct a very specific type of film and that is usually the romantic comedy, or at best, the romantic drama, and even though those films can be quite good, they tend to limit the popular perception of what women can do; lately the tide has been turning though and directors such as Ava DuVernay are not only given interesting projects such as Selma, but also developing their own distribution companies, which is great; and ultimately even within Hollywood there are some great female filmmakers developing unconventional, off-beat projects, think of Sofia Coppola, Kathryn Bigelow, Lynne Ramsay and Jane Campion, and sure sometimes they are subjected to an amount of criticism and scrutiny that would not be there were they male, but I think the general attitude is slowly changing...

[imsounoriginal]

Anyone know what the difference is between the first and second pressing of Last Emperor? Didn't even realize there as a second pressing til I ordered a copy from FYE last week (ended up receiving the 2008 pressing anyway), but just curious as to why Criterion re-issued it. Did they just put it in a normal case?

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Jonathan, cover art, fair or not, often helps to create a first impression of a film. The very fact that Criterion is so vigilant in choosing their covers should speak to this. Even for buyers that know all about the film they are buying, cover art is still important.

[Show spoiler]Different people react to imagery in different ways. To somebody like me that is very artistic, and responds to color, the European cover did its job. It caught my eye, it created a curiosity, and that curiosity, coupled with the reading that followed, has me deciding which version I am going to buy. In part, it achieved its objective. Maybe it does look like the cover of any other "highly stylized European film", but apparently, those kinds of covers do attract buyers. They have to, or they wouldn't be using them. Now, that doesn't take anything away from the apparent brilliance of the Criterion cover. But if context is needed to "get" the cover, how effective was it in attracting a potential buyer? I realize that Criterion's catalog appeals to a different kind of moviegoer, and many of the films the company releases are already known to their customers. But when it comes to somebody like me, who is not knowledgeable of many of these films yet, cover art can help spark interest.

I have no doubt that once I buy the film, and watch it, the cover art chosen by Criterion will make more sense, and I'll appreciate it much more than I possibly could now. I didn't mean to impugn the cover that Criterion choose. I realize an artist was involved, and I respect their work, and Criterion's decision. I guess I should have been more careful in how I chose my words. I was just trying to speak as to my personal aesthetic preference.

AE may have achieved their objective, as you say, but once you see the film, you're more likely to say, "those deceptive bastards! They lead me to believe I was seeing a film directed by Pedro Almodovar!" I don't think there's anything "brilliant" about Criterion's cover design, but it is, as others have pointed out, directly from the film.

Come to think of it, that AE cover, considering the film, its themes, and the context of the scene from which the image was taken from in relation to the whole film, is just awful.

It's worse than the To The Wonder cover.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Anyone know what the difference is between the first and second pressing of Last Emperor? Didn't even realize there as a second pressing til I ordered a copy from FYE last week (ended up receiving the 2008 pressing anyway), but just curious as to why Criterion re-issued it. Did they just put it in a normal case?

Several Blu-rays distributed by Criterion between 2009 and 2010 experienced disc rot. The Last Emperor was first released by Criterion during that time period, so I'd expect the second pressing was done to replace any faulty discs.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Several Blu-rays distributed by Criterion between 2009 and 2010 experienced disc rot. The Last Emperor was first released by Criterion during that time period, so I'd expect the second pressing was done to replace any faulty discs.

Thanks for clarifying. The one I received seems to be fine, thankfully, at least from visually inspecting the disc itself.

[ShellOilJunior]

Today is the day Chungking Express would have to begin shipping to meet the 4/6 estimation. My Amazon account shows "Not yet shipped" for the order.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Today is the day Chungking Express would have to begin shipping to meet the 4/6 estimation. My Amazon account shows "Not yet shipped" for the order.

My Amazon shows "Arriving April 5 through April 13."

I had a placed a few different orders days apart from one another, but Amazon is apparently shipping all of them together, as they've been doing for the past year.

Chungking Express
The City of the Dead
The Roommates/A Woman for all Men
Bonnie's Kids/The Centerfold Girls
The Red House (Film Detective Blu-ray edition)
Death Proof

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

My Amazon shows "Arriving April 5 through April 13."

I had a placed a few different orders days apart from one another, but Amazon is apparently shipping all of them together, as they've been doing for the past year.

Chungking Express
The City of the Dead
The Roommates/A Woman for all Men
Bonnie's Kids/The Centerfold Girls
The Red House (Film Detective Blu-ray edition)
Death Proof

I just did a search on Twitter. Nobody has reported getting a shipping notice yet. If/When it's confirmed legit...

[Show spoiler]

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Today is the day Chungking Express would have to begin shipping to meet the 4/6 estimation. My Amazon account shows "Not yet shipped" for the order.

Mine is arriving April 7-11. I'm holding my breath until it arrives.