The Criterion Collection

[Feiereisel]

Slow week--I've been lurking on the Dressed to Kill thread, and, among other things, people have been discussing whether or not they still trust Criterion after the company's (admittedly odd) handling of the DtK situation.

There's also a bit of railing against the "blind faith" that some perceive consumers, both specifically and generally, maintain in Criterion despite some recent production gaffes. It's similar to the sentiments found in other threads about discs with mastering or authoring issues or peculiarities: bronzing discs, Eraserhead, Scanners, Thief, etc.

Quickly, though, a note: The preceding paragraphs are meant to provide a context for a question I subsequently pose. The question is an honest one, and the invitation at the end of the post is one in favor of considered, thoughtful pondering. It is not to be used as a means to harp on other users, and it is especially not an invitation to rehash the arguments regarding certain contentious aspects of the above-mentioned discs.

I'm likely borrowing trouble here, but I've spent part of my afternoon here thinking about the notions of trust and brand loyalty with regard to Criterion in relation to the following question:

Do I "trust" Criterion in any significant or meaningful way?

Here's how I figure it: though I own a lot of Criterion releases and think they release a high-quality products, I don't sense that there's a trust between myself and the company in the same way that there is, say, a trust between myself and a close friend. Furthermore, I'm not sure there's any need for this trust to exist. Criterion's releases are a means for me to view and enjoy films; the rest is largely incidental.

I'm not objecting to the expectation of quality associated with the brand; it's a reasonable thing, but I don't feel wronged or personally slighted by mistakes or faulty discs. I find myself loosely interested when there's some sort of problem, but only enough to find out if a replacement is being offered--for purposes of comparison, it's about the same level of interest and investment that I feel in checking the weather in the morning to see if I'll need a coat or umbrella.

Does this make me some kind of stooge, or is it just some kind of odd, quiet apathy? I don't like to be inconvenienced, but, as everyone, I'm inconvenienced in many minor ways throughout the day--traffic, weather, queuing--and I just lump disc defects, when they do happen, in with that. It may be a demeanor thing...I don't know. Regardless, I find myself unperturbed by things like this, though I understand there are some exacerbating factors for people who have to ship their discs overseas and the like.

I feel a similar fuzziness on the question of brand loyalty--But that leads to another question: What exactly does brand loyalty entail?

I don't know if I would say that I'm "loyal" to the brand beyond liking what they do, even though a glance at my collection would suggest otherwise. At the very least it points to something beyond casual interest which, I would suggest, is rooted in what I perceive to be the high technical and critical qualities of Criterion's releases.

But even so, I don't own or feel compelled to own every Criterion blu-ray, and I though I'm intensely interested in their monthly announcements and teasing doodles (guessing is fun, you guys), it's the films that I like. Even limiting the conversation to other region A companies, other houses release blu-rays similar to the Criterion standard, and I buy those as well.

Then again, looking at the amount of money I've spent on Criterions of the past few years--figuratively speaking, of course; to actually do this would lead to overwhelming shame, if not some sort of shock-induced aneurysm--I'm not sure if defining myself as anything but a loyalist is a tenable position.

It's a strange bit of cognitive dissonance: I like the movies Criterion releases and thus I like the Criterion Collection more than just about any other label--even though I don't feel the trust that users are talking about losing or chiding others for still having. I feel like I'm going in circles--I don't feel Criterion or myself owe each other anything...and I'm comfortable with that. Is that unusual?

So I put it to you: Do you feel like you "trust" Criterion? Is that trust tarnished by mistakes?

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

No, I can deny it. One's gender has absolutely zero relevance to the enjoyment of a particular film. You're putting the film into a little box, implying its values are only attracted by males, which really has no basis outside of your "I worked in a video store and I've seen things" claim.

How many women do you know who like the film? How many female critics have written about it? You think women and men aren't different in any way? Oh brother!

[Bob Kramer]

And yes, Ridley Scott is a moronic hack too. Alien is nothing more than Jaws in space, with a large helping of Planet of the Vampires. Blade Runner is nothing more than set dressing, and reduces the many themes of Dick's book to a series of foot chases and portentous conversations.

But, hey, he's a KNIGHT! Do with me as you will, your highness!

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

How many women do you know who like the film? How many female critics have written about it? You think women and men aren't different in any way? Oh brother!

Okay, now you're just sounding trollish, and I'll try to refrain from engaging in any lengthy manner. I'll just say that you're limiting genders by saying certain pieces of art can be inherently limited with their appeal. Which, really, is just insane.

EDIT: *looks at your post above me* Yeah, that settles it.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

Nolan is the most turgid, dull director since John Sturges. His films are wretchedly pretentious. The fanboys are salivating with anticipation of his eventual beknighting! Oh, SIR Christopher, grace us with your next vision! Perhaps a re-imagining of the Herbie Popnecker saga? Maybe another remake? Haha, good times.

Grow up.

[mja345]

Young men in their teens and early 20s may identify with films like "Taxi Driver" or "A Clockwork Orange" because they see them in their "Angry Young Man" phase and they identify with misanthropes like Alex DeLarge or Travis Bickle. The difference between the two films is that "A Clockwork Orange" is an incredibly stylized film that can, in the eyes of the wrong viewer, make the misanthropy and psychosis of Alex seem cool. There is never one moment in "Taxi Driver" where Travis Bickle's descent into psychosis seems cool or stylized.

With that said, "A Clockwork Orange" is a great film. I've had discussions with several people, all male, who dislike the film based on moral grounds, in that it glorifies the behavior at the beginning of the film. I'm not the type to judge films on moral grounds and, truthfully, if you approach movies that way, you won't have much fun. It's like saying you object to "Hard Boiled" because it glorifies gunplay. That aside, the second half of the film is Alex being put through brainwashing, with the ending essentially saying that having terribly violent tendencies is essentially incurable.

I think films like "Taxi Driver", "A Clockwork Orange" and "Natural Born Killers" are completely different experiences when you seen them at 18 as opposed to when you see them when you are older. It's not that you grow out of them, but you view them differently. Of those three, I would certainly argue "NBK" is the film that could legitimately be said to glorify violence.

[Scottie]

Stop feeding him.

[InTheMood]

I cannot understand why one would ridicule others for liking a film or a certain director. If you don't like it, let it be and let others enjoy.

Also, if you're trying to sound smart or intelligent by telling others what they should and should not like just makes you look like an infantile idiot.

Why spread the hate?

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by InTheMood

I cannot understand why one would ridicule others for liking a film or a certain director. If you don't like it, let it be and let others enjoy.

Also, if you're trying to sound smart or intelligent by telling others what they should and should not like just makes you look like an infantile idiot.

Why spread the hate?

Because it's the only way that he or she can get some attention.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Because it's the only way that he or she can get some attention.

Now that would be something.

[ajnejedi]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

And yes, Ridley Scott is a moronic hack too. Alien is nothing more than Jaws in space, with a large helping of Planet of the Vampires. Blade Runner is nothing more than set dressing, and reduces the many themes of Dick's book to a series of foot chases and portentous conversations.

But, hey, he's a KNIGHT! Do with me as you will, your highness!

Blade Runner was nothing compared to the book, as a PKD fan I've read most of his books, and the movie paled in any comparison...

But calling something Jaws in space is just ridiculous...Jaws ripped off half of its themes and if Spielberg had gotten his way (and we had seen the shark way more) it wouldn't be half the film it was and he might not have learned the less it's more approach to filmmaking which has really helped him in his career.

The creature he and Giger created, however, was a horrifying masterpiece the likes of which will likely never been seen again. I myself prefer Aliens to the original, but it was a great little film that spawned a generation's worth of copycats, merchandise, and was an answer to Star War's nice aliens.

The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was fantastic (that's right I said it)

Gladiator had flaws but was still a fun commercial success.

Not every movie needs to be some pretentious artsy film that only high brow critics enjoy, some can just be fun...

You just sound like you are way too into being anti-mainstream and it's made you bitter...

[CriterionBlues]

As I've gotten older, and I'm hardly old by any stretch, I've come to wonder why people feel so strongly about a film/director/actor to passionately argue with another. People disagree about art all the time, and film is truly a subjective art form.

I'll start questioning my own mental state when I start getting upset about how others value art.

[ajnejedi]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

Oh, SIR Christopher, grace us with your next vision! Perhaps a re-imagining of the Herbie Popnecker saga? Maybe another remake? Haha, good times.

Awww, is someone jealous that they'll never do anything worthwhile enough in their lives to deserve a knighthood?

I know I am a little, but seriously, grow up, or down a little and maybe step off your pedestal...

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Feiereisel

So I put it to you: Do you feel like you "trust" Criterion?

Definitely. I've used this analogy before but it works: if somebody at work or a particular reviewer had an excellent track record of turning me onto movies I wound up enjoying immensely I would of course give their recommendations more weight.

Originally Posted by Feiereisel

Is that trust tarnished by mistakes?

Not particularly, no.

In the first place, people here (the site generally) point to 'mistakes' that aren't necessarily mistakes. The color timing of Thief comes to mind. I can't even remember if I saw Thief theatrically let alone what the color timing looked like but I'm inclined to give Lee Kline the benefit of doubt on things like that.

As for the out-and-out mistakes? Shit happens. And it seems to happen fairly infrequently with their releases.

And I never buy any of their stuff before reviews hit the street. I'm almost always waiting for some sale or another anyway.

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by ajnejedi

Blade Runner was nothing compared to the book, as a PKD fan I've read most of his books, and the movie paled in any comparison...

But calling something Jaws in space is just ridiculous...Jaws ripped off half of its themes and if Spielberg had gotten his way (and we had seen the shark way more) it wouldn't be half the film it was and he might not have learned the less it's more approach to filmmaking which has really helped him in his career.

The creature he and Giger created, however, was a horrifying masterpiece the likes of which will likely never been seen again. I myself prefer Aliens to the original, but it was a great little film that spawned a generation's worth of copycats, merchandise, and was an answer to Star War's nice aliens.

The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was fantastic (that's right I said it)

Gladiator had flaws but was still a fun commercial success.

Not every movie needs to be some pretentious artsy film that only high brow critics enjoy, some can just be fun...

You just sound like you are way too into being anti-mainstream and it's made you bitter...

Alien has the exact same structure as Jaws, period. Mysterious unseen creature wreaks havok, gets blown up at end. And it swiped scene after scene from Bava's film. The creature was already designed by Giger before the film, Scott had nothing to do with it.

I'm not anti-mainstream at all. Frank Capra is one of my favorite directors. I've seen Die Hard a thousand times, etc. I am however not interested in middlebrow pretense like Scott, Nolan, et al. when there are scores of B-directors who made better, smarter, less assuming genre films.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by Feiereisel

So I put it to you: Do you feel like you "trust" Criterion? Is that trust tarnished by mistakes?

I absolutely trust Criterion. And that trust is strengthened by their mistakes. Because every time Criterion messes up, they take responsibility for making it right with their customers (the bronzed disc replacement program; the current Dressed to Kill issue; etc.), at least in my experience.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jmclick

I absolutely trust Criterion. And that trust is strengthened by their mistakes. Because every time Criterion messes up, they take responsibility for making it right with their customers (the bronzed disc replacement program; the current Dressed to Kill issue; etc.), at least in my experience.

I bought Carlos during the recent sale and the second disc was defective and part of the first printing. Emailed Jon Mulvaney...the man, the myth, the legend...and received a replacement disc in the mail ten days later.

Didn't have to provide proof or send back the defective disc.

I thought that was pretty cool.

...that's how companies earn lifelong customers.

[nondiatonic]

Originally Posted by Feiereisel

[...]
Do I "trust" Criterion in any significant or meaningful way?
[...]
So I put it to you: Do you feel like you "trust" Criterion? Is that trust tarnished by mistakes?

Extremely eloquent exposition.

I agree with everything you've written here.

As to your second question: I don't feel I've lost any trust, not that I had any beyond the fact that their track record lends me to have high expectations of their products. These blunders are simply oversights on their part. Nothing malicious. And, in (almost) all cases they've handled each with poise and solid customer service.

The one gray area in all of this is the response to the framing of Blue in the Three Colors set. I don't want to start a discussion on this topic as there have been plenty (some in this thread). However, there exists evidence that suggests the initial scan was incorrectly framed (a potential I personally believe to be true). This is not at all the fault of Criterion. However, to use apparent smoke and mirror tactics to divert attention from the fact that it may be wrong (presumably because, in this instance, Criterion can do nothing about it--such as issue replacement discs--since this scan is the only HD source of the film) undermines their customer base.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

The Spy and Picnic are great!!!
(although I haven't purchased them yet).

I didn't like L'Avventura so much, but after I finished it I was thinking about it for a couple of days, so I guess it left an impression on me.
So, I think I should re-watch it.

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is possibly Burton's finest role. Although he'll always be Major Smith to me.

Never seen an Antonioni and figure L'aaventura is the place to start.

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Excellent picks! Enjoy the Marienbad disc. IMO, it's one of the crown jewels of the collection. Its replay value is off the charts.

Thanks. I've tried not to read too much about it. But from what I do know, my intention is to simply immerse myself in the experience.

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Can't wait to hear what you think of High and Low, Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Battle of Algiers.

Three of my all-time favorites.

...filmmaking just doesn't get any better than that.

All three blind buys. Out of all the titles I picked up this sale, High and Low may be the one I'm most looking forward to - in no small measure due to the high regard in which it seems to be held around these parts. Especially by yourself.

[SkyAntoine]

My Criterion Collection corner is complete. Added a shelf for more storage and my street sign I found on eBay...