The Criterion Collection

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by ravenus

It's good that they're taking suggestions but in the end Criterion is not some essential / public service that needs to adhere to any social / cultural guidelines in their output. Also the byline is misleading in that it suggests all their other releases are by Caucasian film-makers. The total number of non-white directors in the Collection would definitely be healthier than if you only consider Afro-Americans.

That's why it's important to read the article.

[Thebunk]

Originally Posted by bergman864

The company itself accepts suggestions on its website.

Then this is what the Times should have done.

But like all virtual signaling, it’s pointless if no one sees the virtue signaling.

[jkoffman]

My thoughts before I will read the article. I get the feeling from that intro that the article is going to misuse the data to their own end. For example, since they lead with "African American" filmmakers, did they bother to breakdown how many in the Criterion collection aren't even made by Americans? Also, until recent years, the focus of Criterion has been on historic films. Spoiler: Historically, film studios have not produced many black films.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by Thebunk

Then this is what the Times should have done.

But like all virtual signaling, it’s pointless if no one sees the virtue signaling.

That minor slight on their part is no reason to discredit the article.

Originally Posted by jkoffman

My thoughts before I will read the article. I get the feeling from that intro that the article is going to misuse the data to their own end. For example, since they lead with "African American" filmmakers, did they bother to breakdown how many in the Criterion collection aren't even made by Americans? Also, until recent years, the focus of Criterion has been on historic films. Spoiler: Historically, film studios have not produced many black films.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by bergman864

That minor slight on their part is no reason to discredit the article.

It unfortunately looks like a poor seller for Kino. I suppose that's one perk of Criterion, as it would undoubtedly reach a wider audience with their name behind it.

[jkoffman]

Originally Posted by bergman864

That minor slight on their part is no reason to discredit the article.

Definitely aware of the Pioneers set. Several of the films have screened at my local cinema.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It unfortunately looks like a poor seller for Kino. I suppose that's one perk of Criterion, as it would undoubtedly reach a wider audience with their name behind it.

That's true. Much like their Hannibal 4K release, Kino's name just doesn't have the same cache as Criterion.

[jkoffman]

Having now read the article, it's easy to see that the bulk of representation has been the responsibility of Becker. That's pretty pathetic. While I don't subscribe to the Criterion channel, I do get their emails and am aware that they've been doing a far better job than the CC physical releases with inclusion. Of course they can and should always do better. If all of these decisions ultimately fall to just one man, Becker, that is unacceptable.

https://www.criterionchannel.com/pio...merican-cinema

[Thebunk]

Originally Posted by bergman864

That minor slight on their part is no reason to discredit the article.

Sure it is if you consider the full page spread they put together. If it was just the article, I think it would have been different (though there would still be discourse/criticism).

[happydood]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It unfortunately looks like a poor seller for Kino. I suppose that's one perk of Criterion, as it would undoubtedly reach a wider audience with their name behind it.

I'm definitely going to pick it up- it's a great set from all the titles I saw from it on the Criterion Channel- but it's got a pretty hefty price tag. I know you can get it for a little over 50 bucks right now, but I'd wager that's an issue for folks in this financial climate.

[FragnitoM]

Burn.

https://twitter.com/Katherine_Groo/s...089915905?s=20

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It unfortunately looks like a poor seller for Kino. I suppose that's one perk of Criterion, as it would undoubtedly reach a wider audience with their name behind it.

And they didn't really expect it to be otherwise. They weren't willing to pony up the money needed for the restorations, etc. They ran a kickstarter campaign. They obviously thought it was worth doing.

At any rate, I think the point is that there were a lot more films by African-American filmmakers, even in the early years of cinema, than most people realize. The problem was that their distribution was specifically targeted to AA audiences because the general public wouldn't be interested. Even films with all-or mostly-black casts made by white filmmakers had trouble getting screened in the South. They were generally made outside of the Hollywood studio system, making them virtually unknown or forgotten.

If there's anyone out there who has ever even heard of Spencer Williams, chances are they'd only know of him for playing Andy in the Amos n' Andy TV show. But he directed about a dozen films in the 1940s.

Worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_film

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by bergman864

Boyz n the Hood
She's Gotta Have It
Menace II Society
Dead Presidents
Sweet Sweetback's Badasssss Song

These are LaserDisc titles they released that weren't upgraded to DVD or Blu-ray (as far as I know). There are 4 African American directors represented in 384 titles. There are 3 times as many films in the current collection with the same number of represented American directors.

It wouldn't be a case of them re-releasing these films (thought Dead Presidents has no Blu-ray release), just the fact that they could release more films from African American directors.

First, the article and related conversation is not limited to why the above films are not in The Criterion Collection, and to cite your example, Wildfire, is available.

The article poses the question in the title, 'Why Are There So Few Black Directors in the Criterion Collection?," and then states the company's president blames his 'blind spots.'

In my opinion, that is an incredibly simplistic take on the question. If the journalists in question were approaching the article with an unbiased perspective, as they should as journalists, then the scope of the question must include a far deeper dive than giving the impression that all films are equal when the decision is made by Criterion to release a film.

Originally Posted by bergman864

It's not about calling them "gatekeepers" or supporting "cancel culture", it's about a company who has a reputation for selecting "important classic and contemporary films" can't find a few more from African American directors.

That's exactly the case when there exists a complete omission of the underlying dynamics of how films are not only made, but also the historical composition of their respective audiences and related commercial considerations to support their conclusions.

Originally Posted by bergman864

For a company that's released both Tiny Furniture and Wildlife (nothing against either film), you can't seriously think there haven't been African American directed films that couldn't meet the criteria. And there's been plenty of good examples in this thread.

Once again, it's not simply a question of identifying those films by Black directors which are deserving of a Criterion release, just as the same is true for any other film for any other label you choose to apply.

Personally, I'd rather have any of the films you have cited other than The Irishman, but that's just me.

We can all agree that there are films by Black filmmakers, all other considerations aside, that should be in the collection. But then, I feel that way about plenty of films, regardless of the race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality or any label you choose to apply.

It's a far more complicated question specific to the vagaries of film rights and the economics of physical media, as opposed The Criterion Channel, which the article brushes aside as an afterthought.

Furthermore, rather than focus on one person, Becker, as a gatekeeper, why not ask the question why are there so few Black filmmakers of merit?

Or, how about the question do Black audiences support Black arthouse and independent films? If so, do they to the extent that a film, selected as a representation of Black cinema, is commercially viable for a physical media release by Criterion?

As already cited, there is no shortage of Black filmmakers for The Criterion Channel.

To what degree are these films screened, and by whom?

Or is the gist of this article simply that whites, as represented by the New York Times/Criterion audience, should lobby Criterion to support Black filmmakers to the exclusion of all other criteria?

If so, to correct past exclusions, I'm sure most of us would be willing to accept such an approach.

Problem is, there's a fly in the ointment.

Say Criterion do release the films you cite along with a few others, say double the number from 8 to 16, will that be sufficient to remove the stain against Criterion for those who have never purchased a Criterion title and now believe the company is part of the problem, as opposed to a reflection of an uncomfortable truth?

What if Criterion, bowing to the pressure of incorporating Black filmmakers beyond a handful of titles, finds that the perceptual damage to their brand and related economic cost, combined with a rapidly changing physical media market, places the company in an untenable position?

What then?

[robtadrian]

Again I read the article and it never says anything about forcing Criterion to issue titles or fire anyone. The general consensus seems to be Haile Gerima's..ie It's nothing to do with us... Yes they are a private company but don't posit yourself as the releaser of "important cinema" when your releases include trust fund kids running around pretending to be cops and whatever will get the owner invited to the Vanity Fair post-Oscar ball

[robtadrian]

[QUOTE=joy-division;17995467]One of my fave criterion releases

The only worthwhile thing about this trash is that it may introduce people to Adam Bernstein and his much better less celebrated videos for EPMD and They Might Be Giants

[BenOswald]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

What if Criterion, bowing to the pressure of incorporating Black filmmakers beyond a handful of titles, finds that the perceptual damage to their brand and related economic cost, combined with a rapidly changing physical media market, places the company in an untenable position?

What then?

Yes, I can totally see headlines now:

CRITERION GOES OUT OF BUSINESS DUE TO RELEASING MORE TITLES BY BLACK FILMMAKERS.

Owner ship sites "untenable position" due to "bowing to pressure".

[bergman864]

That's exactly the case when there exists a complete omission of the underlying dynamics of how films are not only made, but also the historical composition of their respective audiences and related commercial considerations to support their conclusions.

That hasn't stopped Kino Lorber or Cohen Media releasing historically significant films and projects that aren't huge sellers.

It's a far more complicated question specific to the vagaries of film rights and the economics of physical media, as opposed The Criterion Channel, which the article brushes aside as an afterthought.

Furthermore, rather than focus on one person, Becker, as a gatekeeper, why not ask the question why are there so few Black filmmakers of merit?

Yes. And people realize that they can't license everything. But there are studios they have working relationships with that have films by black directors they could license.

If Becker picks the majority of the releases, why not focus on him? And there are plenty of black filmmakers of merit. Merit is as subjective a term as any other. John Waters has multiple films in the collection. Are they much more important and culturally significant than say, the films of John Singleton or Gordon Parks?

Or, how about the question do Black audiences support Black arthouse and independent films? If so, do they to the extent that a film, selected as a representation of Black cinema, is commercially viable for a physical media release by Criterion?

As opposed to what? Whether Asian or LGBT audiences support arthouse or independent cinema of their respective groups? Commercial viability doesn't play a part into ALL of Criterion's releases. Why would it play a part in the release of a black directed film?

Or is the gist of this article simply that whites, as represented by the New York Times/Criterion audience, should lobby Criterion to support Black filmmakers to the exclusion of all other criteria?

The article seems to be trying to educate folks who might not know or realize that Criterion has so few films by black directors (as a whole) in their collection. And films like Black Orpheus and A Raisin in the Sun, feature black people and tell black stories but they aren't directed by black people. Like I've said people there's nothing wrong with those films. I like both quite a bit, but some people may not realize the directors themselves aren't black.

Say Criterion do release the films you cite along with a few others, say double the number from 8 to 16, will that be sufficient to remove the stain against Criterion for those who have never purchased a Criterion title and now believe the company is part of the problem, as opposed to a reflection of an uncomfortable truth?

It's not about Criterion releasing a specific number. There have been 4 American black directors in the DVD/Blu-ray era and only 2 of those in the Blu-ray era, an era that has stretched going on 11 years now. Three total films in those 11 years when they release about 60 films per year. Three total films out of, what 660?

What if Criterion, bowing to the pressure of incorporating Black filmmakers beyond a handful of titles, finds that the perceptual damage to their brand and related economic cost, combined with a rapidly changing physical media market, places the company in an untenable position?

Do you think the only people that buy Criterion releases are those who sit around message boards arguing about cover art and box sets? Criterion is, for a lot of people, a gateway to undiscovered and harder-to-find gems of cinema. You can watch Youtube videos of people talking about their Criterion Collection and I bet a good number of those people aren't sitting on this forum or perusing NY Times. Criterion might be their only exposure to foreign or independent cinema.

I think it's worth naming the films from black directors, American or International, they've released in the Blu-ray era (2009-present).

Soliel Ô (not yet released)
Bamboozled
Do the Right Thing
To Sleep with Anger
Touki Bouki
Black Girl
A Dry, White Season
Hunger

In that same time frame, Wes Anderson has had 3 films get released by Criterion after previous Blu-ray releases from other studios, Richard Linklater has had 2 releases and Guillermo del Toro has had 1. The Princess Bride, Bull Durham, and The Breafast Club have all had the same treatment. Those are off the top of my head.

No one is saying they should release only black directed films or those films should be the majority, just that there is room for improvement.

[jw007]

For every time Criterion announces their February releases, they ought to only release films by African-American directors because February is Black History Month. I could think of nothing more appropriate than honoring directors of color than by dedicating that entire month to only African-American directed film releases. I'm literally shocked Criterion hasn't even considered such films for their February announcements. They sometimes release horror films around the October announcements (for Halloween), so why not choose February as Black History Month announcements for African-American directors?

[Ray Jackson]

Moonlight would make a perfect Criterion release imo.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Moonlight would make a perfect Criterion release imo.

Lionsgate