The Criterion Collection

[NeoNical]

I honestly think that some of those films from Taiwan, other small and underrated film countries and ones made by African-American film directors aren't being released on Blu-ray often because they simply don't attract a lot of people. Criterion is out releasing titles they can get their rights to and not big films like Godfather or Dark Knight (Simply because the rights are too difficult to get). But now that the digital stocks are rising and physical media dying, they're nearly forced to do all these popular American films that mainstream people know about (Example: My friend who isn't into Criterion's foreign films but he loves Breakfast Club so he bought it simply because it's nostalgia for him). They could be releasing movies that only a few hundred people on this internet have seen but knowing that it won't sell much and that their company may eventually go bankrupt if they keep showing films nobody has heard about (Which may be the way Twilight Time went out sadly), they have to be releasing big titles like Blue Velvet and Parasite simply because they need the money to stay longer and release more arthouse films for those who really love exploring new films. It's not a bad thing as sometimes companies are forced to do things like that to survive longer and we should be thankful that they're still releasing obscure films like Beau Travail instead of releasing all famous American films like Blue Velvet, Breakfast Club, and many other already released on Blu-ray titles to take their 5 slots each announcement. Yes, some of these movies I'd consider not Criterion worthy as they have a great Blu-ray release but physical media is sadly dying and Criterion is trying to stay up as long as possible so I'd rather they live longer than them releasing obscure films and then dying too soon (It's also sad that not much people care about the special features and hard work on transfer they do which they first invented back in the laserdisc era. Maybe not the transfer part but they're one of the best in the video department for the Blu-ray community now).

If cancel culture is calling Criterion Collection company racist (I don't know if they are and I hope not), they most likely have missed out on the two letters that Criterion wrote supporting the BLM movement to their subscribers and their Instagram. They don't have the rights to release these films out on Blu-ray but at least you can watch them on Criterion Channel (They even had it for free with documentaries like Black Panther by Agnes Varda). It makes me sad knowing that there's still hate in this world that drives us forward and using the internet as a weapon to attack the innocent (And the fear of having your opinion attacked because you may have offended the reader which has been my biggest fear during the pandemic).

Hoping people will understand more about the situation and everyone can come in peace during the pandemic (Even though the pandemic is most likely responsible for all the insanity and anger that people have lately).

[dwk]

Originally Posted by ASAPadam

DuVernay's "13TH" could be Criterion-worthy — probably the most relevant doc of the past few years, and Criterion seems to be into Netflix films lately. And so why not do "Mudbound" too?! I thought that film was better than "Roma" yet there's no Blu-ray release of it. If I were in charge, I'd also jump on "One False Move" — why doesn't that movie have a Blu-ray release?! (Is "The Hit" better? I don't know, I haven't seen that one ...) And I've never seen "Killer of Sheep" but it seems like a fully loaded Criterion release would be a good way for lots of people to be introduced to it. I hope it IS all down to rights and availability issues and not just blind spots.

Thing about Killer of Sheep is that Milestone has the rights and Criterion will not poach titles from them.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Ava Duvernay seems to always gets quoted whenever there's some controversy or cancel culture nonsense somewhere. It gets rather annoying to be honest, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth about her. In general there are fewer black directors out there than white, and fewer still who have critically acclaimed films that would likely fit in the collection. This isn't some intentional segregation or gate-keeping by Criterion, it's more of a reflection of the industry as a whole, which no doubt needs to change (and is slowly). Criterion are simply being scapegoated here, because some just actively look to be offended by everything. Spike Lee is usually as woke as they come, but has a nice relationship with Criterion, so it'll be interesting to see if/how he responds to this.

For their part, Criterion says they can do better, and will. I recall a similar controversy happening with the lack of female directors in the collection, and Criterion having a similar response.

Agreed. Similar to the Oscars. It’s only a reflection on the industry as a whole. Criterion doesn’t have much to choose from and we can all agree that it’s unfortunate. And yes, I can agree on unconscious blind spots but that doesn’t make you a bad person.

[cropduster]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

I hope this means the strange and obscure but memorable Uptight (1968) has a chance of getting a physical release down the road too. It might be considered "too controversial" though (not by me).

Excellent film. Olive Films released it on blu-ray.

[Poya]

That said, I don’t believe this is about canceling Criterion. They’re doing this because they want to keep its rep as a consieur of Art house cinema. And we can value the inclusiveness that’s already there with it being the hub of the best Asian films ever made, among other things, there’s no reason to not look harder to find hidden gems by black filmmakers, domestic or abroad.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

I think it sorta kinda did. Becker pointed out that he would need to make a deal with Lionsgate to license DuVerney’s film. I didn’t mind the article itself too much. The tone could’ve been a lot worse, and I can’t say I disagree with it’s overall intent. I don’t think Criterion is solely to blame though. The industry as a whole (at least in the US and Europe) treats women and minorities poorly compared to white men, although it’s gotten better somewhat.

I think the article was quite reasonable in presenting the crux of the problem, and it's to Becker's credit that he acknowledges his own failings and is working on changing things around.

Part of the problem (but only part), is that Criterion is a victim of its own success. The article points out that there were more African-American filmmakers represented in Criterion's LD catalog. Nevertheless, Criterion's status at that time was largely based on the "Old Masters" (Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini, et alia) as well as classic Hollywood films (Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.). And there's no doubt that such filmmakers and titles were Criterion's bread and butter. When DVD came along, the major studios -- who were largely indifferent to the niche market of laserdisc -- played hob with the Hollywood end of Criterion's catalog. Films like Dead Presidents and Menace II Society just weren't available to Criterion anymore. Still Criterion didn't make enough of an effort to get lesser known titles from the fringes.

But the other problem Criterion faces that comes from its success is the expectations of its consumers. Just consider the complaints in this thread every month from people who clamor for more Kurosawa or Lynch or <fill in the blank>. Or who want Criterion to release the big name Hollywood titles that have already been released by the major studios themselves. Or ask for more titles from the Czech New Wave, or other foreign films that are, at the end, just more films by white, mostly-male people. Or complain that "I've never heard of these films."

(And I'll paint myself with the same brush, because I want many of these things, too.)

The trouble is that there are many, many more films out there that deserve to be in the Collection than Criterion can possibly release. And more of them with each passing year. It feels weird to say that Criterion has followed the safer path, but that's pretty much what they've done. They've painted themselves into a corner by presenting an idea of what they're all about, and their continued success seems to be in releasing the sorts of things that created that success. Because that's what their followers want of them.

[yhzmr]

Criterion, which by anyone's definition promotes films that as a majority come from a left leaning point of view. If Criterion becomes a target of the cancel culture then it is another example of the Left cannibalizing itself in an effort to see who can be the most woke.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

Duvernay is worth millions of dollars. If she wanted to, she could start up her own label and release the movies she thinks Criterion is overlooking. But she rather tell Criterion how they should spend their money and not have to risk any of her own money on movies with limited commercial appeal.

The same can be said of conservatives who constantly complain about how Hollywood is run by the liberals, and there's no room for films from the conservative viewpoint. That may well be true (I, as an unabashed liberal, do think its true, and is a perfectly valid argument) but you wonder why all of the mega-rich conservatives don't start a studio to make such films. Even the (until recently) Murdoch-owned Twentieth Century Fox made "liberal-slanted" films, because those are what make money.

I'm not trying to start a political argument, here, so don't take it in that direction. I'm merely pointing out that it's often the case that people who are in a position to do something tend to complain that other people aren't doing it instead.

You're also missing the point. Duvernay can do that, but she doesn't have anywhere near the cachet that Criterion has in this instance. A lot of people buy Criterions because they're Criterions. If Duvernay starts up her own label to highlight African-American films and filmmakers, a lot of people would likely ignore them, but would happily buy the same movies if they were released by Criterion.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by blujazz

It is a private company so it can do whatever it wants.

But also at the same time, it markets itself as curators of cinema, based in the US, so there definitely is tension there.

If, at the end of this, they end up releasing a big boxset of undiscovered films by Black filmmakers, it’ll be worth the fuss. Lots of people use that C logo as a starting point of discovering something new.

Kino Lorber and BFI put out a big set of films by Pioneers of African-American Cinema. They, and Flicker Alley have put out similar sets for Women Filmmakers. These are the kinds of things that one might expect from Criterion. Criterion certainly can't do everything, but still...sets like these from Criterion would probably outsell the ones by Kino and Flicker Alley, just because they'd be from Criterion.

[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?

Black filmmakers have been around since the birth of cinema. So, one cannot use the argument that focusing on early cinema (1910-1940) should not include them.

Kino put out an excellent “Pioneers of African American Cinema” box set. Why didn’t this come from Criterion? Kino also has released no less than 5 films from Spike Lee, while Criterion has only released two. Why is this?

Criterion has released films by Michael Bay and Andy Warhol, and this is fine. But modern Black filmmakers are dismissed because they are hacks?

When Criterion releases a film by a director, it does carry weight in the cinephile community. I know I take notice when a new filmmaker’s work is represented by Criterion. I do some research – who is this person and why did Criterion feel they were important enough to include in their collection? Even if I decide not to purchase the movie, at least my research would have exposed me to a new person’s work, and possibly even a new genre. I believe it is through this exposure that we grow – not only as cinephiles, but as human beings.

There are two kinds of racism, as the article so aptly addresses. The first kind is the blatant “I hate Blacks” attitude. The other is implicit racism (“White blindness”) that only sees value in the contribution of white people (mainly white males) and dismisses the contribution of other cultures and peoples. As the article said, it is not only what we include, but what we exclude that contributes to racism. By Criterion not including more Black filmmakers sends a message that they aren’t culturally important. This is disturbing to me.

We are all dealing with a lot right now. There is major health crisis, and many have become unemployed. Dealing with racism within our view of the world is the last thing many of us want to deal with. We just want to get excited about the next Blu-ray being released from our favorite artist and add it to our wish list (or preorder it to ensure we get a copy on release day). But that doesn’t make the problem go away.

Someone posted that Criterion has no obligation to add Black filmmakers to their repertoire. I humbly disagree. We all have an obligation to stand against racism whenever, and wherever we see it, and do what we can to eliminate it from society. Dismissing those who do so as part of a “cancel culture” or “being politically correct” is not the answer.

The article challenged me to rethink about my movie collection differently. If that was the intent of the article, then I am glad it was written, and I read it.

It seems that Criterion realizes their error and is looking for ways to correct it. I applaud them for that.

I always have viewed members of this subforum as a rather educated lot. If we do not address racism in our generation, then who will? And when?

The social unrest that we are seeing in this country won’t go away soon. Perhaps, just perhaps, by companies like Criterion being bold enough to expand their critical lens to include more people of color, we can all have our views of humanity expand.

Thank you for listening.

[frakking toaster]

The real problem is horror is under represented in the criterion collection.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by frakking toaster

The real problem is horror is under represented in the criterion collection.

I don't see that as a problem at all.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by frakking toaster

The real problem is horror is under represented in the criterion collection.

They've released more horror than films by black filmmakers.

[GeoffOliver]

Originally Posted by frakking toaster

The real problem is horror is under represented in the criterion collection.

At least they released the perfect edition of Night of the Living Dead, which I’m extremely grateful for. I wish they would reissue Halloween (they released it on Laserdisc). If they got into 4K UHD, they’d have the opportunity to release the definitive release of the film since Lionsgate’s release had flaws.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

At least they released the perfect edition of Night of the Living Dead, which I’m extremely grateful for. I wish they would reissue Halloween (they released it on Laserdisc). If they got into 4K UHD, they’d have the opportunity to release the definitive release of the film since Lionsgate’s release had flaws.

They can't reissue Halloween because the rights are with Lionsgate, who is unlikely to license it to Criterion.

[GeoffOliver]

Originally Posted by jayembee

They can't reissue Halloween because the rights are with Lionsgate, who is unlikely to license it to Criterion.

The rights are with Trancas/Compass International, who license the film to Lionsgate (who inherited said license following their purchase of Anchor Bay). There’s nothing stopping them from licensing it to someone else in the future.

[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.

[moreorless]

You could argue really that by its very nature Criterion is quite conservative, they sell themselves as curators of cinema of established artistic worth not as distributors with their fingers on the pulse of modern art cinema.

[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...).

[Knaldskalle]

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.

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.