The Criterion Collection

[FragnitoM]

Originally Posted by Snicket

So a label that prides itself on being the Noah’s Ark of cinema gets in the spotlight for its lack of black directed films, the head of said company admits its partially due to his bias and cinematic blind spot and vows to do better and the person you decide to throw shade at is...Ava Duvernay?? Beyond silly.

Ava Duvernay kinda threw shade at him on twitter, even though he gave an open and honest quote. Thought that was kind of silly

[FragnitoM]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

One of the film critics who was mad about the article tweeted that he had been waiting for Criterion to release Candyman and couldn’t understand why there wasn’t a release. You’d think a fan would know about the Scream Factory release.

Yes by the great African American filmmaker Bernard Rose...

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by FragnitoM

Ava Duvernay kinda threw shade at him on twitter, even though he gave an open and honest quote. Thought that was kind of silly

That's the problem with cancel culture in general. There's little to no room for improvement and maturation given to the people being shamed. Even if those individuals acknowledge their mistakes and promise to do better, these cancel culturists just think "too little, too late, you're cancelled!". Just look at the responses this is getting despite Becker clearly admitting among other things that he has blind spots, that he actively sought out Barry Jenkin's film in 2018, that he has been limited with some black director's due to licensing rights, and that he plans to address the issue going forward.

[kidglov3s]

I saw someone on Twitter request Criterion do a Fanaka set. That would be fun. They could also license Addicted and give the world a Blu-ray.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

I saw someone on Twitter request Criterion do a Fanaka set. That would be fun. They could also license Addicted and give the world a Blu-ray.

4 of his 6 feature films have been released by Vinegar Syndrome.

Welcome Home Brother Charles
Emma Mae
Penitentiary
Penitentiary II

[RazorwireRyan]

Originally Posted by joy-division

Kurosawa would have all the films already released by Criterion by you knos they would buy it anyway. I don't see the point but then again, I would never purchase it.

They could add stuff like for the first time restoring the eclipse films & upgrading them to blu-ray olus a massive book

How much Kurosawa archive stuff is there that has still to see the light/not on blu-ray yet?

Most of his early films need an HD upgrade, the Sanshiro Sugata films, The Men Who Tread On The Tiger's Tail, Drunken Angel, Stray Dog, I Live in Fear and more. Then there's Red Beard which is a big one that's yet to have a HD release, Dersu Uzala is the big one for me, absolute masterpiece and one of his best films, no real English friendly release. His underrated colour films like Dodes'kaden, Rhapsody in August and Madadayo would be great to see in HD. There's all the reasons in the world to release a comprehensive blu-ray box set similar to the AK 100 DVD set, though I suspect making it a complete collection would be very difficult, if not impossible. It'd certainly sell like gangbusters though.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by Snicket

So a label that prides itself on being the Noah’s Ark of cinema gets in the spotlight for its lack of black directed films, the head of said company admits its partially due to his bias and cinematic blind spot and vows to do better and the person you decide to throw shade at is...Ava Duvernay?? Beyond silly.

Yeah, when the company itself openly admits there's an issue and that they're working on addressing it, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there is indeed a problem. And in that context it doesn't really matter who points it out.

And, if I recall correctly, this isn't the first time that Criterion has admitted that it's an issue. I seem to remember a similar admission during the "Oscars so white" polemic a couple of years ago. Criterion has also committed to including more movies directed by women and I think we're starting to see that manifest itself in the releases. I don't know how long it takes to 'turn the ship around' on an issue like this, but I think we'll start seeing more diversity in the next couple of years.

I doubt there'll by much fallout from this.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by blujazz

Fascinating article on the NY times on the Criterion Collection

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...americans.html

Came here to post this...

I'm sure others have already opined about the "cancel culture" aspect of this, but it's worth reading because it strongly hints at future Criterion releases.

For example, we might finally see Dead Presidents on Blu-ray.

[FragnitoM]

Thinking about it some more... I think the thing that bothers me about the article (and I agree that there should be more black filmmakers in the collection, and they can put a spotlight on lesser-known works) is that people should not be relying on Criterion as the arbiters of what is good/important/worth seeing and at the end of the day it's just another brand.


In my film studies classes in college, my professors were not assigning films because of what DVD company they were released on (only a handful of them assigned or showed clips from Criterion released films) but I was seeing films by Charles Burnett, female filmmakers, and from lesser-known filmmakers from all over the world. This sparked my passion for movies and made me branch out, do my own research, and seek out new filmmakers on my own. Don't wait for anyone to tell you what to watch ya'll!

[Cremildo]

Personally speaking, I feel that South American, African, and Chinese cinema are under-represented in the Collection. If it weren't for the World Cinema Project sets, there would be even less movies from those regions. But then again, I'm not sure that Criterion's apparent lack of interest stems from the possible fact that they don't sell as well as European/Japanese stuff, or if the rights are harder to get, or if someone who makes decisions there doesn't think they're worthy.

[CelestialAgent]

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.

Much of the film was shot on 35mm.

I think it’s an issue with every label (and distributor) besides maybe Milestone. Even turning to Black critics (there’s a few like Angelica Jade Bastién and Ashley Clark) isn’t something every label does either.

There’s other labels, but Criterion has been there three decades. So it makes sense to use them as sn example, especially when so many directors collect them.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by blujazz

Fascinating article on the NY times on the Criterion Collection

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...americans.html

What's fascinating is how the argument is so poorly constructed, to the degree of misleading the reader in regard to the diversity of films curated with the Criterion imprint.

First, let's begin the following paragraph, which is preceded by an account of FilmStruck and its five-year gestation:

The Criterion Channel, which was begun last year as a spiritual successor to FilmStruck, has been at the forefront of that diversity push, Becker said. Because streaming rights are available at a lower comparative cost to DVD and Blu-ray, and because the Criterion Channel doesn’t require the resource-intensive special features of the physical collection, the company has quickly generated a less homogeneous streaming catalog.

Now, here's the sentence where the entire article lives or dies:

But the physical collection, which has greater cachet among cinephiles and in film schools, has not kept up.

First, the statement is made without any supporting evidence. As the reader, I'd like to know who actually offered this opinion, the journalists themselves or someone who was interviewed for the article.

Second, I'm not sure what if the term 'cachet' is appropriate if the goal is to expose films by Black filmmakers to new audiences. The word is so subjective, that in my opinion it's worthless given the context.

Third, because the Criterion Channel can potentially reach a large audience far more quickly due to the overall trend and related cost of entry economics of streaming, I would argue not only does the diversity of CC offerings have far more potential and reach to accomplish the intent, but is actually one of the better sources for such programming.

[joy-division]

Seems like Ava is bitter & it's a personal thing because her film was not accepted.
If this was a topic about directors from a diverse background, then there wouldn't be that much of a case. Just look at all the Asian films they gave released

[The Sovereign]

Unless Criterion is taking handouts, or some sort of government assistance, they are under no obligation - like any pure business - to be all things to all people. They can and should run their business with whatever decisions and philosophies they see fit to keep it going. As long as it’s not infringing on the law, the market will decide the rest.

Given the output of the collection, I have zero concerns that there are any biases based on race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That doesn’t mean it all equals out; that doesn’t mean that one person or another couldn’t take issue with a shortcoming they see - it just means that there is an observable mix from many voices and visions. If filmmakers continue to generate great films, I believe that I and others will continue to find them, whether they land on Criterion discs or not.

[whiteberry]

Originally Posted by joy-division

Seems lime Ava is bitter & it's a personal thing because her film was not accepted.

Yep. She's publicly smearing Criterion because she thinks it will force them to release one of her movies and/or be included as a talking head in the extras on some of their releases.

[joy-division]

I'm looking forward to Criterion's release of Blacula

[Rayjg]

It’s unfortunate that Criterion took the bait. It’s not like every single movie ever made is at their disposal.

[JupiterMission]

I'd love to get Dead Presidents out anywhere. That's an underrated one. Belly would fit right into the collection too. And it might be a stretch, but how about Deep Cover and Mr 3000? :^)

However, I find this critique (of everything) very tiresome. Criterion doesn't just get its pick of whatever they want to release, and the NYT knows this. The bulk of the Janus Films are old European and Asian arthouse movies. Although it's hard to believe, there just weren't a lot of black people - let alone African Americans - directing movies in mid 20th century Europe and Asia. There are apparently plenty of people that measure everything by racial "equity" standards, and they should certainly have their say, and oh how they do every single day in every corner of the culture. But there are also people that value things other than the tone of a person's skin, and it's getting to be like a game to smear them as racist. There you are, minding your own business, putting out crap like The Breakfast Club on blu-ray, when this terrible shadow of "you're racist because you don't fixate hard enough on skin color" is cast over you. To what end?

Criterion is a company, and they have to balance financial along with artistic and historical considerations for their releases, or they'll cease being a company. Based on their Criterion Channel communiques, I have no doubt that they are sufficiently "woke." They really do a great job on the CC selecting and highlighting a diverse (racially and otherwise) array of films, but I sometimes wonder how many people are actually watching those. Seriously: For everybody sharing that NYT article, I sincerely hope you picked up Kino's Pioneers of African American Cinema set. Vinegar Syndrome's Sweet Sweetback (and the Rudy Ray Moore pictures, of course). Scream Factory's Demon Knight. Twilight Time's Devil in a Blue Dress. Olive's Hoodlum, Meteor Man, and Cooley High. Etc. Put your money and time where your mouth is, or else this is all just useless hipster posturing.

Also, while I'm here: Ava DuVernay is an absolute hack. Selma was directed like a below average TV movie, and A Wrinkle In Time is an awful mess and one of the biggest flops in movie history. Her documentary work makes Michael Moore at his worst look perfectly reasonable. Of course she's retreated to Netflix where box office doesn't matter.

[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.

[Rayjg]

Criterion has released films from all over the world in many different languages. What boutique label, let alone major studio, is more diverse than that? Is it Criterion’s decision who directs what in the U.S.? They don’t produce films.