The Criterion Collection

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by BenOswald

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".

The headline is yours, not mine.

What I stated was "...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."

In my opinion, when the New York Times suggests that Criterion, and its owner, is exclusively responsible for the lack of titles by Black directors within their collection without context, it has the potential to damage the Criterion brand.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

[gorobei]

Criterion is not getting "canceled." They're going to add more black filmmakers to their lineup. That's a good thing. Naysayers can skip purchasing those releases.

Get your own company? Don't shove your values down others' throats? Similar arguments were made and continue to be made about a billion other issues, but this is one component of how change can occur.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by bergman864

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.

No, what the New York Times and the journalists in question are inferring is that Criterion, and by extension Becker, are gatekeepers who are exclusively responsible for the lack of Black filmmakers within the collection.

Pure and simple.

So let's stop ignoring the title and related subhead of the NYTs article and call it out for what is it. An attack on a business that has been extremely supportive of filmmakers and the filmmaking community, regardless of their county of origin, race, gender, sexuality or any other label besides filmmaker.

On the topic of 'cancel culture,' let it be known I am so angry about this article that once I've written a letter to the editors, perhaps the next step is to cancel my $1,000+ annual subscription to the New York Times.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

In my opinion, when the New York Times suggests that Criterion, and its owner, is exclusively responsible for the lack of titles by Black directors within their collection without context, it has the potential to damage the Criterion brand.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

The article doesn't suggest that, it outright states that Peter Becker, the president and creative lead, is exclusively responsible for the lack of Black directors, and here's the key thing... he agreed with them! He clearly takes responsibility and says that he has/had a blind spot, and pledges to do better in the future. That's not going to damage the Criterion brand, it can only improve it, even from the simple PR point of view.

Of course there are other factors at play such as licencing and marketability, but those have always been less of a concern for Criterion than other labels, as their reputation alone has always helped them to overcome many of those (e.g. being able to licence from Warner Bros when other labels couldn't), and even if licencing does prevent them from getting some titles, there are plenty of other ones out there they could get their hands on that would be deserving of a release.

[HillSprinter]

Why does there have to be African-American filmmakers in the collection anyway? I’d personally rather have much more films from the vastly underrepresented African cinema archives, made by African filmmakers.

[dwk]

Originally Posted by bergman864

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

Kino often releases more titles in a week than Criterion does in an entire month. And Cohen, other than Daughters of the Dust, what African American directed films have they released?

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

In my opinion, when the New York Times suggests that Criterion, and its owner, is exclusively responsible for the lack of titles by Black directors within their collection without context, it has the potential to damage the Criterion brand.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

Who else is responsible? Criterion picks and chooses what films to release.
That has nothing to do with the number of black directed films in existence.
There are plenty of films by African American directors that could be included. I already mentioned quite a few that were included in their LaserDisc days. What's stopping them, right now, from including more?

Originally Posted by HillSprinter

Why does there have to be African-American filmmakers in the collection anyway? I’d personally rather have much more films from the vastly underrepresented African cinema archives, made by African filmmakers.

They could do both.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by HillSprinter

Why does there have to be African-American filmmakers in the collection anyway?

Because there are plenty of White American filmmakers in the Collection, and a growing number of Female American filmmakers in the Collection. Are you suggesting that African-American filmmakers are less important?

I’d personally rather have much more films from the vastly underrepresented African cinema archives, made by African filmmakers.

I'd rather have both. As well as the vastly underrepresented (other than Kiarostami) Middle Eastern filmmakers, the vastly underrepresented (other than Tarkovsky and Kieślowski) Eastern European filmmakers, the vastly underrepresented (other than Ray) Indian filmmakers, the vastly underrepresented (there are none) Mainland Chinese filmmakers, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

[NeoNical]

Originally Posted by dwk

They are working on restoring the rest of Sembene's films.



Janus/Criteion has that.

Thank you. I'm excited for this already!

[MifuneFan]

Realistically speaking, with Criterion saying they can do better, how many titles from African American (or even just Black) directors would you expect to see each year from them? Personally, I'd say 3 or 4 tops.

[exzachary]

Originally Posted by bergman864

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.

Do you not understand how a business works? They want to make a profit. Those Wes Anderson films fly off the shelves. No one is clamoring to buy a Gordon Parks film.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

The article doesn't suggest that, it outright states that Peter Becker, the president and creative lead, is exclusively responsible for the lack of Black directors, and here's the key thing... he agreed with them! He clearly takes responsibility and says that he has/had a blind spot, and pledges to do better in the future. That's not going to damage the Criterion brand, it can only improve it, even from the simple PR point of view.

What do you expect him to say in the context of today's racial divide when confronted with the fact that there are only four films in the collection?

Given that most viewers won't even read the article or accept his promise to do better, let's acknowledge that the headline and subhead is designed for impact, the inference is clear, and the damage is done.

Look at the Oscars. They are never going to recover from the damage that has been done to their brand, and some would say that's a good thing. Perhaps that's true for Criterion as well.

Four films, eight films, 16 films, what difference does it make?

You have to understand, many readers are not going to suggest what film to add to the Criterion Collection.

They are going ask the question, why is a middle-aged white guy selecting the best of cinema?

Others will say why should Becker be defensive and apologize about an issue that is far broader than the films he has selected and the associated reasons.

So when you ask the question, "Why Are There So Few Black Directors in the Criterion Collection," have the resolve to research and provide the potential reasons why for the reader in an unbiased manner.

There was, and remains, a paucity of Black directors of merit, related influence and cultural impact when you look back over the past 100 years of cinema.

That's the reason, not Criterion.

You asked the question, now find the courage to ask and identify the reasons behind the reason why, and publish that as an article, instead of placing the blame on Criterion.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by exzachary

Do you not understand how a business works? They want to make a profit. Those Wes Anderson films fly off the shelves. No one is clamoring to buy a Gordon Parks film.

I doubt Smiethereens, The Story of Temple Drake, and The Cloud-Capped Star are flying off the shelves but it didn't stop them from getting Criterion releases.

[captainron_howdy]

Originally Posted by bergman864

I doubt Smiethereens, The Story of Temple Drake, and The Cloud-Capped Star are flying off the shelves but it didn't stop them from getting Criterion releases.

I've heard Wes Anderson literally has it in his contract that Criterion gets to release his films.

[Thebunk]

Originally Posted by exzachary

Do you not understand how a business works? They want to make a profit. Those Wes Anderson films fly off the shelves. No one is clamoring to buy a Gordon Parks film.

Exactly. The Wes Anderson films help subsidize the release of the many foreign, independent and/or older films that do not move as many units.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by bergman864

Who else is responsible? Criterion picks and chooses what films to release. That has nothing to do with the number of black directed films in existence. There are plenty of films by African American directors that could be included. I already mentioned quite a few that were included in their LaserDisc days. What's stopping them, right now, from including more.

If you knew anything about anything, you wouldn't be citing four films.

Criterion doesn't start with four films to arrive at four films.

In order to address all the issues specific to adding a film to the collection, we may need to begin with two, three or four times that number to get to four films.

So name 16 names films to arrive at four. Then we're looking at a year, two years, perhaps more, for them to reach the market.

Now we need to ask is Criterion is going to repair the damage to their brand with four films in a year or two?

Can you guess the answer?

[HillSprinter]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Because there are plenty of White American filmmakers in the Collection, and a growing number of Female American filmmakers in the Collection. Are you suggesting that African-American filmmakers are less important?



I'd rather have both. As well as the vastly underrepresented (other than Kiarostami) Middle Eastern filmmakers, the vastly underrepresented (other than Tarkovsky and Kieślowski) Eastern European filmmakers, the vastly underrepresented (other than Ray) Indian filmmakers, the vastly underrepresented (there are none) Mainland Chinese filmmakers, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

I’m definitely not suggesting African-American filmmakers are “less important”, whatever that even means. Odd you’d take it that way? But my love and appreciation for World Cinema comes from seeing, experiencing and exploring different cultures/histories from other parts of the globe, and the stories and landscapes these filmmakers present.

[MifuneFan]

Wes Anderson is the new "The Criterion released Michael Bay films"

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

So when you ask the question, "Why Are There So Few Black Directors in the Criterion Collection," have the resolve to research and provide the potential reasons why for the reader in an unbiased manner.

The title asks a simple question. The question is regarding the Criterion Collection. All this talk about the reasoning behind black directors of merit is obfuscating the point of the article to conflate two different issues. One is is strictly about the product in the title: The Criterion Collection. The second is issue is about the political and racial divide of cinema in the United States.

The article is clearly, even from the headline, about the first issue. There's no reason why it should talk about the political and racial reasons as to why there aren't as many films by American black directors in the cinema history because Criterion doesn't have to search high and low for films by black directors, American or otherwise. We've seen plenty of films released by black directors in the last thirty years. Criterion has been releasing quite a few contemporary American films as well. It's not like the studios they work with and have gotten a lot of films from don't have films from black directors.

Are you arguing that Criterion should try to fix the injustices minority directors faced in the early years of cinema by releasing their films, because, the article isn't advocating for that. It's specifically talking about the Criterion Collection and their releases.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by bergman864

The title asks a simple question. The question is regarding the Criterion Collection. All this talk about the reasoning behind black directors of merit is obfuscating the point of the article to conflate two different issues. One is is strictly about the product in the title: The Criterion Collection. The second is issue is about the political and racial divide of cinema in the United States.

The article is clearly, even from the headline, about the first issue. There's no reason why it should talk about the political and racial reasons as to why there aren't as many films by American black directors in the cinema history because Criterion doesn't have to search high and low for films by black directors, American or otherwise. We've seen plenty of films released by black directors in the last thirty years. Criterion has been releasing quite a few contemporary American films as well. It's not like the studios they work with and have gotten a lot of films from don't have films from black directors.

Are you arguing that Criterion should try to fix the injustices minority directors faced in the early years of cinema by releasing their films, because, the article isn't advocating for that. It's specifically talking about the Criterion Collection and their releases.

Let's agree to disagree about the intent and impact of the New York Times article.

I completely understand that for some the answer is as simple as Criterion including more Black directors.