The Criterion Collection

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by JackBros

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?

They have two films from Senegal: Djibril Diop Mambéty's Touki Bouki (in World Cinema Project No. 1) and Ousmane Sembène's Black Girl. That's it.

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.

I'd like to see this trilogy come out from Criterion, too. I also have only seen Water out of the three.

[jw007]

Here are my 2 cents on the whole discussion regarding Criterion under-representing African American directors.

I read the entire NY Times article about the exclusion of black filmmakers. I honestly never in my wildest dreams envisioned The Criterion Collection to be a bunch of white supremacists who are closet racists (yeah, and that has nothing to do with the "Criterion closet"). I still do not believe that to be the case, regardless of Peter Becker's creative decisions on which films belong in the collection.

With that being said, the reality is this: There are 8 black directors whose films are in the Criterion Collection (4 of them being African American directors).

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a very low number and in all honesty this reality should not be the case.

But it is.

And with cancel culture sweeping across the country like another virus infecting people with binary decision-making, the Criterion Collection is also fair game.

Two possible outcomes are going to happen:

1. The Criterion Collection will start introducing more black directors into their releases and cave into the pressure of needing to represent black directors.
   
   or
   
   
2. The Criterion Collection will get cancelled, their reputation destroyed, and a growing movement will pressure them to shut down and close their business of releasing "white supremacist" movies.

A third possibility is neither outcome will occur and we'll continue in a status quo cycle of Criterion continuing to operate their business with a huge under-representation of black directors.

I'd love to see the first outcome happen. I'd also be fine with the third outcome. But the second outcome would be absolutely awful, because cinema should not be politicized. Cinema is art and should be viewed objectively. A film such as Naked shouldn't cause a viewer to demonize the director for depicting scenes of female rape and violence. A film such as Naked is purely the director's expression and vision and art, not to be interpreted as a propaganda film or "cancelled" because its too offensive for women.

This is where the line must never be crossed.

As a film student who majored in Film Studies at the University of Pittsburgh, I sat through 14 film courses in 4 years of college. I learned about every cinematic term there is and gained an understanding and appreciation of cinema. For those who hatefully try to cancel and destroy people who are artists just because they don't agree with their art is a form of fascism. And if that goes unchecked, then anything is up for re-interpretation and cancellation, if it doesn't pass approval by those who practice cancel culture on a daily basis.

[dwk]

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

Originally Posted by NeoNical

Btw, Flowers of Shanghai got a 4K restoration last year on a Chinese Blu-ray. I'm guessing Film Movement can release it since they released Shanghai Triad.

Janus/Criteion has that.

[joy-division]

Maybe some films they could release(I have no clue on rights)?

https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion...s-indie-cinema

[Poya]

Go watch this topic at the Criterion forums site. They’re taking it very civilized. Good to know the community is far more accepting than people assume them to be.

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

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

Mudbound seems more likely due to their deal with Netflix.

More Spike Lee would be great. They gotta stop sleeping on She's Gotta Have It. And again with Netflix, maybe Da 5 Bloods has a chance. But I would really like to see both Girl 6 and Get on the Bus get a release. Honest Spike films that are good and deserve the chance to be seen again.

[Poya]

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.

You should apply for Vox. They’ll love you there.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

Here are my 2 cents on the whole discussion regarding Criterion under-representing African American directors.

[Show spoiler]I read the entire NY Times article about the exclusion of black filmmakers. I honestly never in my wildest dreams envisioned The Criterion Collection to be a bunch of white supremacists who are closet racists (yeah, and that has nothing to do with the "Criterion closet"). I still do not believe that to be the case, regardless of Peter Becker's creative decisions on which films belong in the collection.

With that being said, the reality is this: There are 8 black directors whose films are in the Criterion Collection (4 of them being African American directors).

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a very low number and in all honesty this reality should not be the case.

But it is.

And with cancel culture sweeping across the country like another virus infecting people with binary decision-making, the Criterion Collection is also fair game.

Two possible outcomes are going to happen:

1. The Criterion Collection will start introducing more black directors into their releases and cave into the pressure of needing to represent black directors.
   
   or
   
   
2. The Criterion Collection will get cancelled, their reputation destroyed, and a growing movement will pressure them to shut down and close their business of releasing "white supremacist" movies.

A third possibility is neither outcome will occur and we'll continue in a status quo cycle of Criterion continuing to operate their business with a huge under-representation of black directors.

I'd love to see the first outcome happen. I'd also be fine with the third outcome. But the second outcome would be absolutely awful, because cinema should not be politicized. Cinema is art and should be viewed objectively. A film such as Naked shouldn't cause a viewer to demonize the director for depicting scenes of female rape and violence. A film such as Naked is purely the director's expression and vision and art, not to be interpreted as a propaganda film or "cancelled" because its too offensive for women.

This is where the line must never be crossed.

As a film student who majored in Film Studies at the University of Pittsburgh, I sat through 14 film courses in 4 years of college. I learned about every cinematic term there is and gained an understanding and appreciation of cinema. For those who hatefully try to cancel and destroy people who are artists just because they don't agree with their art is a form of fascism. And if that goes unchecked, then anything is up for re-interpretation and cancellation, if it doesn't pass approval by those who practice cancel culture on a daily basis.

I think the chances of Criterion getting "cancelled" are virtually nil. They may get complaints from some folks, but ultimately, I suspect that the majority of their customers hadn't given any thought to the gaps in Criterion's catalog, and probably don't care beyond being irritated that The Big C isn't giving them more of the filmmakers they jones for.

Quite frankly, the whole issue of "cancel culture" is blown way out of proportion. A bunch of people get riled up, their rile-up gets public attention, there's a call to cancel whatever it is that they're focused on, and then everyone moves on to the next target, and their previous target keeps on keeping on.

I get it that some people think it's beyond belief that Criterion could pass on releasing Daughters of the Dust. I remember going to see that during its initial release -- I believe it was at the Coolidge Corner (one of Greater Boston's major art houses) and was blown away. But eventually Kino Lorber put it out on DVD, and some more eventually later, it was released on DVD and Blu-ray by Cohen. Did it need to be from Criterion? Maybe, maybe not, but it wasn't. It is what it is.

[Hellspawn28]

Originally Posted by frakking toaster

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

Animation is under represented in the Criterion Collection too. Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly desvers to be in the Criterion Collection.

Originally Posted by jayembee

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

Not a fan of the Horror genre?

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I think the chances of Criterion getting "cancelled" are virtually nil. They may get complaints from some folks, but ultimately, I suspect that the majority of their customers hadn't given any thought to the gaps in Criterion's catalog, and probably don't care beyond being irritated that The Big C isn't giving them more of the filmmakers they jones for.

Quite frankly, the whole issue of "cancel culture" is blown way out of proportion. A bunch of people get riled up, their rile-up gets public attention, there's a call to cancel whatever it is that they're focused on, and then everyone moves on to the next target, and their previous target keeps on keeping on.

I get it that some people think it's beyond belief that Criterion could pass on releasing Daughters of the Dust. I remember going to see that during its initial release -- I believe it was at the Coolidge Corner (one of Greater Boston's major art houses) and was blown away. But eventually Kino Lorber put it out on DVD, and some more eventually later, it was released on DVD and Blu-ray by Cohen. Did it need to be from Criterion? Maybe, maybe not, but it wasn't. It is what it is.

True. I guess my fears of cancel culture turning into an all out referendum on controversial art is being blown way out of proportion. Well, wait, that's not what we're talking about here...its about business decisions from a video distributor.

I just hope the "C" in Criterion doesn't stand for "Cancel", or at least makes people think it does.

The Cancel Collection would be a terrible collection otherwise.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by joy-division

Maybe some films they could release(I have no clue on rights)?

https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion...s-indie-cinema

There are some good suggestions there. One they mention is Ganja & Hess, which is a strange, strange movie. I had a DVD of it from All Day. Watched it once, and couldn't quite make heads nor tails of it. More recently, I ended up ordering a copy of the Eureka Classics Blu-ray. I ended up really liking the film this time around. The booklet and the extras tell a lot about the behind the scenes drama of the film's history. It's also out on BD from Kino.

I do recommend Kino's (or BFI's) Pioneers of African-American Cinema.

[Poya]

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.

*Sigh* Allow me to be serious here.

I completely understand the backlash. I don’t excuse it but I see where they’re coming from. Nobody likes to be told that what they like is wrong. That’s not what the article was doing but there are those who will see it that way. As I said before, and as someone who despises cancel culture, nobody is cancelling Criterion. They acknowledge a problem and they’re gonna fix it and good on them. They need to be encouraged (not shame, which the article kinda does, tbh) to broaden their views that aren’t from white men. We can still enjoy Fellini and Kubrick but let Burnett and Parks in, as well. It won’t hurt anyone.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jayembee

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

Originally Posted by Hellspawn28

Not a fan of the Horror genre?

Generally speaking, no. But I think it depends on how much representation one thinks is enough. If one is a major fan of horror films, than Criterion may be too light in that regard. But there are plenty of other labels that can satisfy that itch.

It also depends on what kind of horror films. If one is into the really grisly horror end of things, one might not be satisfied by Cat People or Carnival of Souls or Vampyr.

Quite frankly, I think horror is better represented by Criterion than is science fiction. And I can't think of a single superhero film in the Collection.

[I*heart*Criterion]

Criterion say that their job is to release "important classic and contemporary films" I don't care if the director is black, white, male, female, straight or gay, as long as the film is good, that is all that should matter.

[GeoffOliver]

I doubt Criterion will get “canceled” over this. The article isn’t even being shared by any mainstream platforms (because Criterion itself isn’t really mainstream outside film buffs). Also, I would think most of the people that know and care about Criterion are rational individuals that have a concept of nuance.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by I*heart*Criterion

Criterion say that their job is to release "important classic and contemporary films" I don't care if the director is black, white, male, female, straight or gay, as long as the film is good, that is all that should matter.

I'd like to say that that's the case with me, as well. But there's another point of view: it's about perspective. As time passes, I make a point to expand my perspective. Because the fact is that different people, different cultures have different perspectives. Just because a given country is populated by white men doesn't mean they see things the same way as some other country of white men. I watch a film from Russia or Hungary or Poland, and I see lives that are vastly different from mine, and experiencing those opens my mind to new and different ideas. Apply this to non-white cultures. Apply this to women.

The films that Criterion releases may be great films (and yes, some not so much), but if Criterion doesn't, say, present much in the way of films by black filmmakers, how can we know whether they might be just as amazing as films by white filmmakers?

Now, it shouldn't be on Criterion's shoulders alone. There are other labels that can -- and do -- fill in some of the gaps in Criterion's catalog. But for good or ill, Criterion is the label that people -- even those who aren't deep into home video -- look to to tell them what films are worth watching. If Criterion wants to be what they have claimed by the mission statement, they should be making a greater effort to seek out the great (or even just good) films that aren't part of the collective consciousness.

[BenOswald]

Originally Posted by jw007

True. I guess my fears of cancel culture turning into an all out referendum on controversial art is being blown way out of proportion. Well, wait, that's not what we're talking about here...its about business decisions from a video distributor.

I just hope the "C" in Criterion doesn't stand for "Cancel", or at least makes people think it does.

The Cancel Collection would be a terrible collection otherwise.

There is a substantial number of people who decry "Cancel Culture" that also fear this new era of personal accountability that it accompanies.

Much in the same way many people decried "Political Correctness" as a flippant way to continue to exclude and marginalize smaller voices in our culture.

We should give some credit to the #metoo movement for helping usher in this era of social responsibility.

I mean, I don't really see any of the big labels releasing Woody Allen titles lately?

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by BenOswald

We should give some credit to the #metoo movement for helping usher in this era of social responsibility.

I mean, I don't really see any of the big labels releasing Woody Allen titles lately?

As if that were something to be applauded.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Knaldskalle

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.

Agreed. But let's disagree if you are insinuating that Criterion's curation of the Collection is evil.

In my opinion, we should not allow poorly researched articles and associated virtue signaling, such as the Times piece on Criterion, take precedence over those challenges which are of far greater importance.

For example, what would have provided far more insight and context to the piece are the number of films in the modern era, distributed by country/region, race and gender.

What you would learn is simply the pool of available titles is far greater for white male directors.

What you would also learn is that when addressing the pool of global cinema, many countries outside of the USA have a century-old history of cinema.

Africa? Not to the same extent as Europe and Asia.

Is that Criterion's responsibility? Of course not.

Should Criterion apply a different set of criteria for Black directors and related films to address the historical issues facing Black filmmakers? Of course they should, in order to address the issue of inequality and lack of opportunity.

However, when you take all of the other considerations that come into play, you are still are facing an insurmountable set of challenges to create an equal and fair presence for Black filmmakers.

Now, take the above and then consider global filmmakers from places other than Europe and Japan, women filmmakers, LGBT filmmakers and all other unrepresented filmmakers.

What's next, someone calling out Criterion because so many of the films within their collection reflect studios and/or producers of the Jewish faith?

In my opinion, you place the entire gestalt of Criterion at risk to address an inequality which is not of its making nor in its power to significantly alter.

Which is fine for a handful of journalists, who are risking nothing, and have everything to gain by pursuing a line which places all accountability on so-called gatekeepers.

Why should Criterion be painted with an unfair brush, especially in the context of all of the efforts that have been made with the Criterion Channel, when in fact such efforts do not even begin to address why there are so few Black filmmakers?

[Martin_31]

I think the issue isn’t necessarily statistical, meaning a comparison of white to Black filmmakers. What I saw online was the idea of curation and canonization within a national (U.S.) and global film “consciousness.” How can we as film viewers, and I use we because I assume that all of us are more open and perhaps a little more knowledgeable in terms of film, art, culture, language, etc, grapple with what is “great” cinema or cinema in general. What or who will be remembered? I know that Criterion is the standard in home video distribution and curation. I actually think Criterion and Vinegar Syndrome are two labels which focus on curation and exposure—as someone mentioned the latter has released a couple of Black filmmaker’s works. The problem, then, is if there are not enough Black American filmmakers in the collection (the label which is actually canonizing certain films), what would that mean for us as viewers, film historians, artists, etc.? Of course, people are sweeping this into cancel culture which is ridiculous, as if to not think and raise questions.