The Criterion Collection

[jw007]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

I believe you have quoted the wrong person mate! :-)

Roman doesn't get as much crap because he is regularly dismissed as a loser director

I think I was confused indeed. There is no double standard after all.

And Roman is a crappy director... but not a bad writer (as seen in Wes Anderson's films).

But writers don't get criticized nearly as much as directors, so..... they get a free pass often.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by jw007

Indeed it is sir.

We must create a new MEME. "Don't Judge a Criterion by its Cover".

I'll go ahead and make one now.

[Show spoiler]

Agreed:



This was probably made for a digipak that is why the transition to normal case didn't work.

Ohh almost forgot these:

[Show spoiler]

[Monroville]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

See I thought they should have showed Binoche putting on lipstick and big red earrings.

When I first skimmed over your comment, I thought you wrote: "..and her red herrings"

[oildude]

[Show spoiler]

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...

Originally Posted by Helter145

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...

Originally Posted by Helter145

I agree that Criterion is too often condemned no matter what they choose to release, as we want them to adjust to our priorities and our notions of what's worthy and what's not, and as Joe Rubin, co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome, puts it: "Every Criterion film is an event"; we wait anxiously as the 15th of every month approaches just for that new group of titles to be announced; yet as much as I would love something like Kurosawa's Ran or like Lynch's The Elephant Man to be announced, I think discovering new films, overlooked ones if you will, from as many parts of the world as possible, is just as great as watching something familiar, and Criterion has shown us it sometimes has place for both, and they also need to find things that are bankable; I think people who've written those articles are only finding problematic the fact that the industry and the movie-buying public, deem more worthy of their time a new release by Cronenberg or any other big director and not willing to explore historically neglected films....

Originally Posted by Helter145

Well, for starters Sofia Coppola is not the only director who has benefited from belonging to a certain family, there are many examples of that, like Jason Reitman or Nick Cassavetes, yet one barely even hears those names when a conversation on the issue of nepotism is taking place; and she's for certain not only director with a wealthy background or the only director who thrives on themes of privilege, take Noah Baumbach or Whit Stillman for example, and yet it's always her who gets huge amounts of hatred, she has become an easy target, just look at some of the reviews of The Bling Ring and Marie Antoinette, they are more interested in discussing Sofia's background than her actual work, and I think her condition as female definitely has something to do with that willingness to overlook the quality of her work and focus instead on making assumptions on how she got to be where she is; as for the rest of the directors I mentioned in my previous post I think Lynne Ramsay got an unfortunate amount of hostility after she left Jane Got a Gun, with some media outlets, industry insiders and random commentators accusing her of being unstable, ungrateful and unreliable, so much so that some worried it would be difficult for her to find another big-budget project....

I hope I am not being out of line here in asking, if you plan to post here regularly, that you please consider parsing your thoughts into bite-size sentences. Not trying to be rude at all and I hope this doesn't come across that way. If this is your normal writing style, then so be it. I want to read your posts, but for someone like me who is challenged by very long run-on sentences, I find the effort too exhausting. I think it is a shame, and my loss.

For the record, I want more Jane Campion on Criterion Blu-ray. Also, I love Criterion's Eclipse line of releases. I have nearly all of them. I think they include some of the greatest films ever released, among them Larisa Shepitko's powerfully emotional Wings and The Ascent in Eclipse Series 11. While it would be a dream to get her work released by Criterion on Blu-ray, I would not hesitate to recommend her Eclipse set to anyone who, like me, finds it hard to buy a DVD anymore. Her work is that good. It deserves to be seen and rediscovered by new generations. She was a towering talent who died way to young after making only four feature films. The Criterion DVDs look quite good. I don't consider Shepitko to be relegated by Criterion to second-tier status because her only films in the collection are in the Eclipse line.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I've seen films in the theater and never saw the poster beforehand.

Good for you. I'm disabled, and 99.9% of the films I buy are mailed to me by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Best Buy or Criterion. Other films, I'll stream from Hulu or Netflix, or watch live on HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, EPIX, etc. The one thing all these sites and channels have in common for movie listings is the cover art is on full display. On the rare occasion when I feel well enough to leave my home for an hour, I'm not going to the theater. So, the likelihood of my seeing a film before seeing the movie poster is slim to none.

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And once you've seen the film, who cares about what "first impression" a poster makes? If a poster makes you like a movie less, then I dare say you're doing it wrong.

I'm sorry, where did I ever state or even imply that a movie poster made me like a movie less, or that a movie's poster/cover art mattered to me one iota after seeing a film? I said it might catch my attention. That's what movie posters do. If I see Juliette Binoche on a film cover, I don't care if the movie is about her farting "La Marseillaise". I'm going to stop, and at least read the synopsis. But my buying decision is based on things like the film's narrative, and the talent in front of, and behind the camera.

What I actually said.

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.

To summarize:

The European release of Certified Copy caught my eye. My curiosity piqued, I immediately began reading about the film. I decided to buy it, but the decision as to which release I would purchase, the Artificial Eye import, or the Criterion, boiled down to the cost difference between the two. I asked if Abbas Kiarostami's first film, The Report, which is included on Criterion's Blu-ray release, was good enough to justify the additional expense.

Nowhere....nowhere does the cover of either release enter into my buying decision. I said that when Criterion announces their film releases at mid month, I will take the time to look at the cover art that has been provided. I appreciate the work these artists do, and will spend a little time admiring their submissions. I started out as a graphic artist in college (I was an advertising arts major before switching to political science). I've painted, and I've done web development. On the rare occasion that a cover art really moves me, yes, I will go back and look at it again, sometimes with great frequency. But never does a cover have any impact on my decision to buy a film, or skip over it.

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Maybe you should buy films based on the content of the film itself rather than judging them by a cover? Isn't that the quote? "Don't judge a book by its cover"?

And, maybe you should spend less time telling people what to do, and devote more time to carefully reading what they have actually said.

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.

Do you think I've spent over $4,000 on blu-ray films over the past year because of their cover art? Do you seriously think me that daft? I've been posting in this discussion with increasing regularity over the past few months, and I think I've made it clear that I love film; classic film, foreign films, arthouse and independent films. I've waxed poetic about my new found love for noir, my surprise at just how much I am enjoying westerns and musicals; I've posted with gleeful anticipation about experiencing movies by Ozu, Cassavetes, Wenders, Altman and Kobayashi for the first time. My Criterion collection is linked in my signature, and my film collection is available for all to see in my profile here. Before big sales, I've asked for opinions on films I was considering buying, and I've acted on the feedback I've received. I've mentioned multiple times now that I just finished reading one of Roger Ebert's books on film journalism, and now I'm reading Hitchcock Truffaut. And, I've stated quite openly that my own aim is to write about films once I have a broad enough knowledge of the topic.

How could any of this possibly lead you to believe that it's not the films themselves I am interested in?

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Good for you. I'm disabled, and 99.9% of the films I buy are mailed to me by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Best Buy or Criterion. Other films, I'll stream from Hulu or Netflix, or watch live on HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, EPIX, etc. The one thing all these sites and channels have in common for movie listings is the cover art is on full display. On the rare occasion when I feel well enough to leave my home for an hour, I'm not going to the theater. So, the likelihood of my seeing a film before seeing the movie poster is slim to none.



I'm sorry, where did I ever state or even imply that a movie poster made me like a movie less, or that a movie's poster/cover art mattered to me one iota after seeing a film? I said it might catch my attention. That's what movie posters do. If I see Juliette Binoche on a film cover, I don't care if the movie is about her farting "La Marseillaise". I'm going to stop, and at least read the synopsis. But my buying decision is based on things like the film's narrative, and the talent in front of, and behind the camera.

What I actually said.



To summarize:

The European release of Certified Copy caught my eye. My curiosity piqued, I immediately began reading about the film. I decided to buy it, but the decision as to which release I would purchase, the Artificial Eye import, or the Criterion, boiled down to the cost difference between the two. I asked if Abbas Kiarostami's first film, The Report, which is included on Criterion's Blu-ray release, was good enough to justify the additional expense.

Nowhere....nowhere does the cover of either release enter into my buying decision. I said that when Criterion announces their film releases at mid month, I will take the time to look at the cover art that has been provided. I appreciate the work these artists do, and will spend a little time admiring their submissions. I started out as a graphic artist in college (I was an advertising arts major before switching to political science). I've painted, and I've done web development. On the rare occasion that a cover art really moves me, yes, I will go back and look at it again, sometimes with great frequency. But never does a cover have any impact on my decision to buy a film, or skip over it.



And, maybe you should spend less time telling people what to do, and devote more time to carefully reading what they have actually said.



Do you think I've spent over $4,000 on blu-ray films over the past year because of their cover art? Do you seriously think me that daft? I've been posting in this discussion with increasing regularity over the past few months, and I think I've made it clear that I love film; classic film, foreign films, arthouse and independent films. I've waxed poetic about my new found love for noir, my surprise at just how much I am enjoying westerns and musicals; I've posted with gleeful anticipation about experiencing movies by Ozu, Cassavetes, Wenders, Altman and Kobayashi for the first time. My Criterion collection is linked in my signature, and my film collection is available for all to see in my profile here. Before big sales, I've asked for opinions on films I was considering buying, and I've acted on the feedback I've received. I've mentioned multiple times now that I just finished reading one of Roger Ebert's books on film journalism, and now I'm reading Hitchcock Truffaut. And, I've stated quite openly that my own aim is to write about films once I have a broad enough knowledge of the topic.

How could any of this possibly lead you to believe that it's not the films themselves I am interested in?

What's daft about buying blurays for their artwork? Many people collect art and stuff and some bluray packaging is a work of art and stunning and worth buying for that alone..

[Donnie D]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

What's daft about buying blurays for their artwork? Many people collect art and stuff and some bluray packaging is a work of art and stunning and worth buying for that alone..

Definitely agree. Some of Criterion Collection covers are stunning. Steelbooks are so cool as other special printed material cover packaging

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

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

Happy to help. It's an educated guess, but some more digging last night didn't reveal a definitive reason why Criterion did a second pressing.

As for the bronzing of the discs, it's still something that concerns me, as I have a couple discs released from that period that I haven't opened up. I supposed I should probably check them out, huh?

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.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

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

Amazon shows mine arriving between April 11th and 13th; however, I didn't order until I saw the post on the 2nd. If I get it at all at the listed price, I'll be ecstatic. The when doesn't matter to me as much, as it will be a while before I get to it. I have such a long list right now, it's not funny. My DVR is stuffed to near capacity with films I've recorded from TCM: The Man Who Knew Too Much, Suspicion, Stage Fright, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Cimarron, The Lion in Winter, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The Thin Man, A Day at the Races, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Lost Weekend, Shane, Cabaret, Yankee Doodle Dandy, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Marty, All The King's Men, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Gaslight, Rififi. I'm going to finish Black Narcissus tonight. That will clear about 1% of my DVR space. Then I think I'm going to watch Love Streams, my introduction to John Cassavetes.


By the way, Bates_Motel, I apologize if it seems that I was a little bit pissy in my response. I've had a really rough night. Besides the usual stuff I deal with, it looks like the BBQ I bought for the family last night gave me a touch of food poisoning. I spent a good five hours running back and forth to the restroom.

And Polaroid, I do know there are those who collect multiple copies of films because they like the packaging. There's nothing wrong with that. Who am I to tell somebody else what or how to collect? Hell, I just dropped $1,000 on a 100 year old baseball card. Most people here wouldn't understand that, I suppose.

If you look at my collection, there are a couple films I love so much that I've bought box sets with a bunch of extras-Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, and recently, West Side Story. The additional discs with documentaries are always a big plus for me, as are the color books that come with them. And I display the boxes with my collection. They're nice show pieces, just like framed movie posters. What I meant to say is that I will never buy a movie only for the cover art. If I really enjoy a particular film, then I'm open to anything that is available. If I don't like a film, all bets are off. And, whenever I have the opportunity, if a movie I want is available as a digibook, I'll choose that over the regular blu case because, again, the extras really add value to the purchase. I like looking at production stills, and conceptual sketches, and the bio information is often very interesting.

If it seems I've been a bit on edge as of late, I'm sorry. Usually my medications do a good job of keeping me comfortable, but throwing these digestive issues on top of it all has been a bit much. I hope you guys will accept my apology, and chalk it up as one of those brain farts that we all have occasionally. I love being here, talking with you all, and the last thing I want to do is to create any waves.

Darn it, where is Ray Jackson and his animated gifs when I need him??

[Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Donnie D

Definitely agree. Some of Criterion Collection covers are stunning. Steelbooks are so cool as other special printed material cover packaging

Originally Posted by Polaroid

What's daft about buying blurays for their artwork? Many people collect art and stuff and some bluray packaging is a work of art and stunning and worth buying for that alone..

What irks me is buying multiple copies of the same movie Just for the different artwork. For me, I buy the art/case that looks the best to me. I don't feel the need in spending that much more for the same thing.

It reminds me of the comic craze of the early 90s where they made like 6 covers of X men #1 and they showed this panoramic shot of all of them. A few months later you could buy any one of them for $1 cause they saturated the market too much.

The blu's are a bit different because they are only in store for a limited time. Just as long as they don't have more supply than demand.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Vinyl

What irks me is buying multiple copies of the same movie Just for the different artwork.

yes, that is crazy, but collecting is crazy, so..

[Donnie D]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

yes, that is crazy, but collecting is crazy, so..

Yes it is obsessive crazy. I tell myself, well, at least I am not addicted to (fill in the blank).

Speaking of crazy collecting, well, I'd watch my regular edition of 'Inside Llewyn Davis' before the Criterion was announced and I loved it. Then I saw the awesome cover for Criterion and now I am seriously considering buying it for the cover but also to justify 'double dip' for extras.

Same thing with 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' and 'Moonrise Kingdom'. Though, I haven't opened my regular edition of Moonrise yet.

[ShellOilJunior]

I can understand upgrading from blu-ray to blu-ray (eg A Hard Day's Night, The Manchurian Candidate, etc) because I've done it a few times to get the definitive versions.

The double (or triple or even quadruple) dip I don't understand is going from blu-ray to blu-ray upgrade where the disc is the exact same but the cover has changed. There's a studio (No names, you probably know who it is) that often does this and some fans of the director will buy them to have all the releases from this director.

I don't position myself as one to tell others how to spend their disposable income. I just don't understand this kind of purchase.

[Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Donnie D

Yes it is obsessive crazy. I tell myself, well, at least I am not addicted to (fill in the blank).

Speaking of crazy collecting, well, I'd watch my regular edition of 'Inside Llewyn Davis' before the Criterion was announced and I loved it. Then I saw the awesome cover for Criterion and now I am seriously considering buying it for the cover but also to justify 'double dip' for extras.

Same thing with 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' and 'Moonrise Kingdom'. Though, I haven't opened my regular edition of Moonrise yet.

Well double dipping for more content makes more sense. The art for that criterion looks nice and it has great extras.

[Knaldskalle]

I'm told there are people who buy paintings just because of how they look or because of the name of the artist.

Cwazy.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

What's daft about buying blurays for their artwork? Many people collect art and stuff and some bluray packaging is a work of art and stunning and worth buying for that alone..

I often do make decisions on what edition I buy based on packaging, typically regarding retailer exclusives. For example, just a short while ago, I went to Best Buy to get their SteelBook edition of The Force Awakens rather than pop around the corner to Target to get their edition. Sometimes, just alternate covers/sleeves will make me choose one vendor/edition over another.

But that's all other things being equal. I love DigiBook packaging, but I wasn't going to buy Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters just because Target had a DigiBook exclusive.

Likewise, I can't imagine spending money on a Blu-ray of a film I don't want to watch just because of the cover art. I suppose that's because I don't imagine myself standing in front of the bookcase, pulling out a Blu-ray, staring at the cover, say to myself, "Damn, that's a beautiful piece of artwork", and putting it back on the shelf because I'm never going to watch the film.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I often do make decisions on what edition I buy based on packaging, typically regarding retailer exclusives. For example, just a short while ago, I went to Best Buy to get their SteelBook edition of The Force Awakens rather than pop around the corner to Target to get their edition. Sometimes, just alternate covers/sleeves will make me choose one vendor/edition over another.

I bought the standard Blu-ray package for Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens this morning, because I think that it's the best-looking one of the bunch, and because all other things are equal.

I'm ambivalent about the actual movie, Clouds of Sils Maria, but I like that Criterion cover art a lot. It's cool how the faces blend into the mountain range.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I can understand upgrading from blu-ray to blu-ray (eg A Hard Day's Night, The Manchurian Candidate, etc) because I've done it a few times to get the definitive versions.

The double (or triple or even quadruple) dip I don't understand is going from blu-ray to blu-ray upgrade where the disc is the exact same but the cover has changed. There's a studio (No names, you probably know who it is) that often does this and some fans of the director will buy them to have all the releases from this director.

I don't position myself as one to tell others how to spend their disposable income. I just don't understand this kind of purchase.

In my experience, book collectors also make purchases based on variations in cover art alone. The story and internal illustrations may be pressed from the original plates, but when the dustjacket or cover art changes, that creates a new collectible, especially for completists. Take the example of the 11th title in the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories, The Clue of the Broken Locket, originally published in 1934. The original white-spined dustjacket, with artwork by Nat Braley, was updated in 1950's. Then in 1962, the artwork on the volume was updated again. The 1962 cover created quite a stir because it showed a man who was (gasp) smoking a pipe. The publisher quickly ordered the cover to be replaced with a fourth design. Then, in 1965, the entire novel was revised and updated; the new text was accompanied by the fourth design. Today, the 1962 "pipe smoking" cover is considered quite collectible, as are the 1963-64 printings that feature the original text and the fourth artwork.

Similarly, for many years beginning in 1932, the Hardy Boys Mysteries were published with orange endpapers designed by an artist named J. Clemens Gretta. But in 1933 or 1934, a run of endpapers were accidentally printed using brown ink. The publisher, rather than wasting them, used them up. They're now considered quite rare. I've seen a 1932 orange endpaper printing of a title in excellent condition sell for a couple of hundred dollars, while the 1934 brown endpaper printing in similar condition has fetched as much as $800.00.

Such are the vagaries of collecting and collectors.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jmclick

In my experience, book collectors also make purchases based on variations in cover art alone.

Certainly true. Among collectors, the desirability of vintage (from the 40s and 50s) paperbacks, for example, depends a lot on the cover art. There are some magnificent pieces of artwork on those books, most especially crime novels. On the other hand, many (if not most) collectors of such will buy them anyway, just to collect the books.

There were certainly some paperbacks (new at the time...I'm talking the 70s) that I bought simply for the covers. There was an artist named Darrell Sweet, who did a lot of covers for Ballantine/Del Rey SF and fantasy novels -- my favorite being for a Fletcher Pratt novel, The Blue Star but he also did a handful of covers for things like Regency romances by Georgette Heyer. I did buy some of those simply because I loved Sweet's artwork, but those sorts of things were few and far between.

[ShellOilJunior]

This company seems to be the "Criterion of books":

http://www.foliosociety.com/

[ShellOilJunior]

As most probably know, Woody Allen's Cafe Society will open the Cannes Film Festival next month. More good news:

It’s the first film of the official selection at this year's Cannes to be unveiled. But several prominent directors are rumoured to be taking part in the festival, whether in competition or not, including Terrence Malick, Ken Loach, brothers Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, Abbas Kiarostami and Pedro Almodovar

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...annes-fil.aspx

The word is Malick's Voyage of Time will be shopped to buyers. The Dardenne Brothers' The Unknown Girl will likely screen. I'm curious what film Kiarostami might have to show considering his IMDB does not list a current project.