The Criterion Collection

[DandyDancing]

How about this. Criterion ups their number of releases so no one film feels like it is taking the place of another. I know it is unlikely but in a perfect world it feels like a solution. I want them to release films by Paul Dano and Melvin Van Peebles. I know I’m crazy and ignorant but thats the world where I’m happy.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by ASAPadam

To me, the fact that Paul Dano got the Criterion treatment for his debut film and yet the label has no Dee Rees or Ryan Coogler, no John Singleton or Julie Dash or Carl Franklin or Melvin Van Peebles, is the most egregious. The article addresses how Dano jumped to the front of the line (even if it's not white male privilege, it's privilege of some sort), and I'd argue he should be way back behind other more deserving filmmakers of all backgrounds and colors. I watched "Wildlife" only because Criterion released it and I watched "To Sleep With Anger" only because Criterion released it. I wasn't won over by either film but at least "Sleep" was unique, and a product of someone doing his own thing with the medium (and not just imitating his influences). For better or worse, Criterion is a big window into the world of film for white me, so the fact that we're scrutinizing one of the biggest gatekeepers is a good thing (excuse the mixed metaphor...).

Well, any effort to curate an artistic medium other than by race, gender, sexuality, religion or any other label a human being may choose to define themselves is open to the charge of 'gatekeeping.'

If your intent is curation guided by those labels, well, why bother? Why not simply use AI to ensure the curated content reflects the demographics of the viewing audience or of the entire global population?

What is concerning to me is the very divisive discourse about representation in the arts while the United States is confronted with a significant literacy gap for younger Americans.

What is the future of Criterion when the average American has no greater than an 8th grade reading level and literacy is trending downward?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by ASAPadam

To me, the fact that Paul Dano got the Criterion treatment for his debut film and yet the label has no Dee Rees or Ryan Coogler, no John Singleton or Julie Dash or Carl Franklin or Melvin Van Peebles, is the most egregious.

Can you list the films by each of the directors you mentioned that should have gotten a Criterion release.

[DandyDancing]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Well, any effort to curate an artistic medium other than by race, gender, sexuality, religion or any other label a human being may choose to define themselves is open to the charge of 'gatekeeping.'

If your intent is curation guided by those labels, well, why bother? Why not simply use AI to ensure the curated content reflects the demographics of the viewing audience or of the entire global population?

What is concerning to me is the very divisive discourse about representation in the arts while the United States is confronted with a significant literacy gap for younger Americans.

What is the future of Criterion when the average American has no greater than an 8th grade reading level and literacy is trending downward?

This is why we can’t have nice things.

[ASAPadam]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Can you list the films by each of the directors you mentioned that should have gotten a Criterion release.

Dee Rees: "Mudbound"
Ryan Coogler: "Fruitvale Station"
John Singleton: "Boyz n the Hood" (carried over from LaserDisc)
Julie Dash: "Daughters of the Dust"
Carl Franklin: "One False Move" (or "Devil in a Blue Dress")
Melvin Van Peebles: “Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song" (carried over from LaserDisc). Indicator just released "Watermelon Man" too, which is far from a total success but it is fascinating and groundbreaking and one-of-a-kind.

I'm not saying these films "should have gotten a Criterion release" — no film automatically "should" — but to me they feel like, as Criterion itself puts it, "important classic and contemporary films." Importance is relative and hard to agree on, but is "Wildlife" important?! And this gets tricky — I didn't like "Fruitvale Station" but I also recognize the great skill and anger and passion that went into it, and its broad subject matter is still front-page news seven years later.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by ASAPadam

Dee Rees: "Mudbound"
Ryan Coogler: "Fruitvale Station"
John Singleton: "Boyz n the Hood" (carried over from LaserDisc)
Julie Dash: "Daughters of the Dust"
Carl Franklin: "One False Move" (or "Devil in a Blue Dress")
Melvin Van Peebles: “Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song" (carried over from LaserDisc). Indicator just released "Watermelon Man" too, which is far from a total success but it is fascinating and groundbreaking and one-of-a-kind.

I'm not saying these films "should have gotten a Criterion release" — no film automatically "should" — but to me they feel like, as Criterion itself puts it, "important classic and contemporary films." Importance is relative and hard to agree on, but is "Wildlife" important?! And this gets tricky — I didn't like "Fruitvale Station" but I also recognize the great skill and anger and passion that went into it, and its broad subject matter is still front-page news seven years later.

I agree that some of these could/should get Criterion releases, but you also have to factor in rights with some too. For instance, I'm not sure if Fruitvale Station, a movie put out by The Weinstein Company, and held by Anchor Bay / Starz. Another one like Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song already has a nice release from Vinegar Syndrome, a label which I think fits the film perfectly.

Criterion are limited by the amount of fims they can release, and they have enough trouble releasing upgrades to titles they already have rights too. I think that's the problem with sort of putting this all on their shoulders. Yes, they're the pre-eminent boutique label, and are highly influential when it comes to arthouse/independent cinema, but if people branched out more, the will see that Vinegar Syndrome, Kino, Cohen, Arrow, and others are filling the gaps that Criterion may not be able to perfectly fill all by themselves.

No doubt, Criterion has a blind spot, but I think one person on social media said it best that calling out Criterion is like attacking the symptoms, and not the disease. The paltry list of african american directors in the collection is a reflection of the paltry amount in America as a whole when compared to white directors. This is something that obviously needs to change.

[HipsterTrash]

Thank you for saying that rights plays a factor into this.
Sometimes it's hard to get the rights to films and get them released. Various factors come in and ruin the chance at any films prospects of being on a label.

[ASAPadam]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I agree that some of these could/should get Criterion releases, but you also have to factor in rights with some too. For instance, I'm not sure if Fruitvale Station, a movie put out by The Weinstein Company, and held by Anchor Bay / Starz. Another one like Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song already has a nice release from Vinegar Syndrome, a label which I think fits the film perfectly.

Oh yeah, I'm not factoring in rights and studios and all that, which hurts my arguments, I know. I was talking perfect-world. But Becker does seem to acknowledge in the article that Criterion could have done more to regain/retain the rights to "Sweetback" and "Boyz" after their Criterion LaserDiscs. But yeah, VS might be a better fit for "Sweetback" anyway. And Cohen might be a better home for "Daughters." We can't expect Criterion to do it all. But "Mudbound" and "One False Move" have no Blu-ray releases anywhere — what's up with that?!

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

W/r/t the NYT article, it's just annoying how this idea that the Criterion Collection is a definitive movie canon has somehow become established and entrenched. They're just a company that sells DVDs.

Criterion has never tried to disabuse anyone of that notion. At the outset, they billed themselves as "a continuing series of both classics and important contemporary films". Their current "About Us" statement on their website says:

"Since 1984, the Criterion Collection has been dedicated to publishing important classic and contemporary films from around the world in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD and Blu-ray to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations with special features designed to encourage repeated watching and deepen the viewer’s appreciation of the art of film."

[bergman864]

I think Dee Rees's Pariah would be a worthy inclusion.

[HenryHill]

Coming soon. . .

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by bergman864

I think Dee Rees's Pariah would be a worthy inclusion.

Yeah, I agree. It's from Focus Features, which Criterion hasn't licensed from aside from Moonrise Kingdom, but I think that's through Wes Anderson or something.

I contacted Criterion about Mudbound, and I think it's a great time to send some other suggestions to them:

suggestions@criterion.com

[KMR]

Originally Posted by Knaldskalle

That is true. It's also true, though, that people here talk about movies (and directors) as being "Criterion worthy" or "worthy of inclusion" (I am guilty of that as well, no finger pointing), so clearly the company has somehow ended up being perceived as an arbiter of what is good film making and what isn't. It doesn't really matter whether it's deserved or not, true or not - it's about perception. When Criterion selects "from on high" a title to be added to the Collection people take notice and I've seen more than one person get ecstatic at the inclusion of director X's movie because that person now had some sort of elevated "status."

What we're seeing now is the flipside of that status. If Criterion "bestows" some sort of honor on the directors included in the Collection (rightly or wrongly - again it's about perception), then what does it say when a director isn't included in the Collection? What does is say about black filmmakers when there are only four of them in the Collection? Are black filmmakers making poorer films than non-black directors or does Criterion have a bias in their selection? By their own admission it's a selection bias at Criterion and they're working on it. At this point it's about all we can ask of them and then hope to see some more inclusion in the future. This isn't easy and nobody's saying it is. Becoming aware of your own blind spots is a difficult process and fixing them means making conscious decisions that may go against what you're comfortable doing.

I pretty much agree with your post here, except I don't think it's necessary to cut in half the number of Black directors represented in order to make your point. According to the NYT article, there are eight, not four.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by KMR

I pretty much agree with your post here, except I don't think it's necessary to cut in half the number of Black directors represented in order to make your point. According to the NYT article, there are eight, not four.

I think it's because there's mainly a focus on there being only 4 African American directors, while also passively mentioning 4 additional ones internationally. Don't think it was intentional or anything on their part.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by filmlover22

I am not sure what made me more sad and angry – reading the NY times article or reading the reaction to the article here. I actually had to step away from the computer for a while to collect my thoughts before I wrote this.

Racism is a social disease that affects all aspects of our lives and culture. This includes the arts and entertainment. Boutique movie distributors, like Criterion, are not exempt from being infected with this disease.

The fact that Criterion has over 1,000 movies in its collection, and only 4 black directors should be disturbing to everyone. Why is this? Does this fact not bother people?

No, it doesn't. In fact, in the context of the challenges facing our nation and our planet, it's nothing more than an insignificant distraction.

As a father of two children, one about to begin college and another about to begin senior year of HS, I have many concerns regarding the future they will inherit from previous generations, who have failed them at every step. All of us, regardless of our race, our gender and so forth, are failures in this regard, above all others.

The representation of black filmmakers within the Criterion Collection, as opposed to the Criterion Channel where there are a multitude of new and exciting films from every walk of life, race, gender, sexuality and perspective, is not the issue that should have our attention if we are committed to end racism and strive for equality.

In my opinion, it's not a question of what we think, what we say, what we do or what aspects of society or lives that we are personally prepared to sacrifice.

Because we don't get to choose what must be sacrificed, especially not a few slots in the Criterion Collection release schedule.

We must be prepared to sacrifice everything.

Are you?

For example, what if I told you that Hollywood and all forms of cinema has perpetuated racism for over 100 years, and the only true and viable solution was to dismantle it completely and stop the release of all films until we have our society in order?

Or, what if I said the promise of professional sports and related college admission practices has made it near impossible for many students to prioritize academics over team sports and related scholarships, so much so that the only viable solution is to ban them completely?

If you're not prepared to give up the arts and sports in society to end racism and inequality, which is quite honestly not much of a sacrifice at all, how will you and others accept the fact that to simply be an American in a global context is a privilege that must also be sacrificed?

Thought so.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by KMR

I pretty much agree with your post here, except I don't think it's necessary to cut in half the number of Black directors represented in order to make your point. According to the NYT article, there are eight, not four.

Sorry, I somehow got the numbers mixed up, as MifuneFan explains above. No need to make things worse than they are, 8 black directors in the Collection, 4 of them American.

[JackBros]

I agree that I don't entirely see this as Criterion's fault, though I think it's something that they'll think about going forward when looking at future releases. The issue of being able to obtain rights for titles is also something that can't be forgotten.

I'm probably also just showing my complete lack of knowledge on International films in the collection, but I do want to ask. Does the Criterion collection feature any African cinema?

If we're throwing out movies, what I've love to see Criterion release (besides my love of old hollywood) is Deepa Mehta's Elements Trilogy. I've only had the pleasure of seeing Water, but it was a gorgeous film that delved into issues that women face in India and the other two deal with similar themes. Would also just love Criterion to sit down to do an interview with her because the interviews I have seen her do have been wonderful. She comes across as a really cool lady.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

No, it doesn't. In fact, in the context of the challenges facing our nation and our planet, it's nothing more than an insignificant distraction.

As a father of two children, one about to begin college and another about to begin senior year of HS, I have many concerns regarding the future they will inherit from previous generations, who have failed them at every step. All of us, regardless of our race, our gender and so forth, are failures in this regard, above all others.

The representation of black filmmakers within the Criterion Collection, as opposed to the Criterion Channel where there are a multitude of new and exciting films from every walk of life, race, gender, sexuality and perspective, is not the issue that should have our attention if we are committed to end racism and strive for equality.

In my opinion, it's not a question of what we think, what we say, what we do or what aspects of society or lives that we are personally prepared to sacrifice.

Because we don't get to choose what must be sacrificed, especially not a few slots in the Criterion Collection release schedule.

We must be prepared to sacrifice everything.

Are you?

For example, what if I told you that Hollywood and all forms of cinema has perpetuated racism for over 100 years, and the only true and viable solution was to dismantle it completely and stop the release of all films until we have our society in order?

Or, what if I said the promise of professional sports and related college admission practices has made it near impossible for many students to prioritize academics over team sports and related scholarships, so much so that the only viable solution is to ban them completely?

If you're not prepared to give up the arts and sports in society to end racism and inequality, which is quite honestly not much of a sacrifice at all, how will you and others accept the fact that to simply be an American in a global context is a privilege that must also be sacrificed?

Thought so.

The fact that there's a greater evil does not mean that we need to focus only on that greater evil and everything else is unimportant. By that reasoning we shouldn't worry about things like the economy or Covid-19 because global warming is a much bigger threat to mankind.

Nothing prevents us from working on small issues while also working on bigger issues.

[FragnitoM]

We have been getting a good amount of female directors this year. At least once a month for the next 3 months and there have been more throughout the year—not just the Varda set. Hopefully this just means in 2021-2 we will start to see the same attention to black filmmakers too

[Hellspawn28]

Originally Posted by jjlikesonions

I'm sure them or another distributor will pick it up soon. IIRC it was recently restored and the new restoration supposed to be screened at a festival somewhere.

I hope Criterion or even Arrow picks it up because it is a very important movie. The movie is more relevant than ever before.