Eclipse (was Criterion Cult Film Sub Company)

[Cinephrenic]

We may see Beyond the Valley of the Dolls in this banner as well.

[What A Disgrace]

CC must be loaded with stuff that would otherwise cause these films to not see the light of day for a long time. I don't see any branching out sub-label to be terribly long-term and/or with a frequent release schedule. It'll probably be more like the Merchant-Ivory Collection....which is a sub-label when you think about it.

Tribe

Although I think its a great idea, its also a bit reduncant...there are several high-quality cult film labels out there, after all.

Off-topic for just a moment...there should be an Ozu sub-label.

[Sai]

We may see Beyond the Valley of the Dolls in this banner as well.

I find this an quite interesting thought. It may explain why it's taken them so long and it would be the perfect kick-off for a series like this.

[peerpee]

A sub-label is an acknowledgement that the "Criterion Collection" isn't a broad church. A sub-label would dilute what they already have - a powerful brand - and clash with "cultish fare" like THE BLOB, the Morrissey, THE HONEYMOON KILLERS, etc. that they already have out --- I'd vote for throwing everything in the main CC.

[zedz]

I remember talk of this cult label back in late '98 when I worked for Criterion/Janus. At the time, 'The Blob' and 'The Honeymoon Killers' were both on the proposed list, and I think 'Equinox' was too. At the time, no one around the office had come up with a name for it that met with wide approval. I'm a little surprised that it's finally happening after all this time.

I'd like to see the main collection remain 'cult-friendly', but I can see the advantage of a sub-brand if they've got so much stuff up their sleeves that they'd otherwise have to drip-feed the cult releases over several years so as not to dilute the main collection. If half of the releases every month were wild and crazy genre movies that would completely change (and arguably compromise) their brand identity.

I'm just hoping that whatever happens with the 'cult' sub-brand it creates space (either within the new collection or the old) for more experimental cinema.

Another possibility is that the cult releases will continue to appear within the main collection (spine number and all) but will carry additional branding to identify them as a particular kind of product.

[Keaton]

A sub-label is an acknowledgement that the "Criterion Collection" isn't a broad church. A sub-label would dilute what they already have - a powerful brand - and clash with "cultish fare" like THE BLOB, the Morrissey, THE HONEYMOON KILLERS, etc. that they already have out --- I'd vote for throwing everything in the main CC.

Yes, count my vote for that too.

Regards,

Dennis

[DrewReiber]

Yes, count my vote for that too.

Ditto. After all, those previously released films are already part of the collection. To establish a seperate label just for the "b-movies" is offensive in that it implies the films like Carnival of Souls and The Blob are retroactively unworthy of Criterion's title. They're automatically lowering the face value of their current product as well as those upcoming releases. They should stick to the choices they've made, instead of creating needless confusion and implied standards.

[Mr Pixies]

It's only you guys that would care.

[Tribe]

What are the options? I think this move allows Criterion to release the "cult" stuff that otherwise is gonna sit for years. By the same token, I'm sure that there are other cult movies that will find their way into regular Criterion releases.

Tribe

[Dylan]

Exactly, Tribe.

Drew wrote "To establish a seperate label just for the "b-movies" is offensive in that it implies the films like Carnival of Souls and The Blob are retroactively unworthy of Criterion's title."

There is a difference between a b-monster film like "The Blob" or "Equinox" and an art horror like "Carnival of Souls." In my opinion, the formers (as entertaining as they are) don't transend their cult film appeal, but "Souls" is clearly a serious, professionally accomplished, well-written & acted, genuinely creepy piece (it's all subjective, but what we're looking at is top notch trash and an actually good film here, same goes for the lovely "Eyes Without a Face"). I admire Criterion's diversity as much as anybody here, but I personally like the idea of "top notch trash," exploitation, or skin flicks beginning on another label, and if this label allows other loved cult films to see the light of day, then I'm sure I'm not the only one.

And that certainly isn't to say that something like "The Blob" shouldn't be in the collection, but it'd be hard to argue that it may fare better on a B-film label among its peers ("The Atomic Submarine" for instance).

There is also a lot of money to be made here, as there are considerably more cult film admirers out there as opposed to those who love art films (and I'm not forgetting the many who love both, though generally, you'll find an "Evil Dead" fan before you'll find a "Caligari" fan).

[Gregory]

I'm a bit suspicious of the term "art horror" and I worry that it may reinforce the notion that horror film is an unworthy genre. The same with the term "cult film."
Carnival of souls has many of the same budget constraints and genre conventions as horror films by, say, George Romero and countless others. What makes Vampyr or Cabinet of Dr Caligari more "art" than Dawn of the Dead or Texas Chainsaw Massacre? They're older, they're "foreign," and are taught more in film schools, and thus have more snob appeal (not saying anyone here is being a snob, necessarily, just exploring the content of some of this terminology). But 1970s U.S. horror films at their best are just as rich and intelligent as the best of their predecessors.
Designating horror films (and others) as "genre pictures" is using a term of abuse that for many people says that these are less deserving of serious attention. If one wants to elevate a horror film out of its ghetto, another term has to be used: "art horror" or "thriller" (e.g. Silence of the Lambs). Similarly, the terms "cult," "exploitation," "schlock," and the like are more terms of abuse used to put vast groups of films in their place, when many of them are actually deserve serious appreciation and respect. In other words, we can enjoy watching these films to laugh at them but we want it to be clear that we're not really taking them seriously.
Criterion may be doing the very same thing by creating a ghetto for "cult" and horror films. If they want to create a lower-priced line, that's great, but why make it a ghetto for films that they like but that lack snob appeal in order to avoid tainting the reputation of the rest of the collection.

[Dylan]

Gregory,

I guess it all comes down to the individual, what one considers to be geniunely good or what the viewer is looking for. I particularly don't like films that were meant to be bad, but I know many who adore films like that.

As for sub genres, I guess that's a personal trait I inherited from being picky with the horror genre (which, to me, doesn't generate a lot of good films, though there are a few dozen that I think are seriously great). I don't believe it is an unworthy genre, but I think to pull of a good horror film is a damn near-impossibe task. It seems that everything and anything has been done with it, so what else is there to do? Great films like "Carnival of Souls," "The Haunting," "The Innocents," the original "Night of the Living Dead," "The Tenant," "Repulsion," and "Eyes Without a Face" are intensely refreshing for what their doing dramatically, not to mention terrific characterizations, gorgeous cinematography, and a perfect balance of horror elements. Films like "Caligari," "Suspiria," or "Vampyr" create a visual fairy tale world I haven't seen before, while retaining a wonderful little mystery and terrifically eerie milieus. I guess my expectations for horror is up too many notches, but the ones I like I usually will hold up as great art. That's where I see the significance of distinguishing them from one another. I can certainly enjoy a film like "Equinox," but in no way would I hold it even close to any of the films I mentioned above. If you do, then that's pretty cool, but I certainly think it inescapably falls in the rehelm of the B movie.

And I don't find the categorizations or sub genres to be offensive, but I understand what you're getting at. I don't think this new line will be a ghetto for Criterion though, I think there's a good chance they'll make the most money they've ever made from this new line.

Dylan

[Gregory]

Dylan,
I hope you didn't think my post was directed specifically at you. My question was intended to express my own views and create discussion (though maybe a new thread would be best for that).
On your part, I understand that your own tastes inform the way you talk about film, and I have a great amount of admiration and respect for your tastes. But I was talking more broadly about how these terms are generally used to place valuations on films and in some cases to categorically dismiss them.
I'm afraid that lots of intelligent, worthy movies are mistaken for films that were meant to be bad, but that often has more to do with the attitudes with which people approach the products of abused genres and filmmaking styles, and less to do with what those films really contain.
I think that problem, not how much money Criterion might make, is the crux of the cult/horror ghetto which I think Criterion may be in danger of perpetuating.

[Tribe]

Criterion may be doing the very same thing by creating a ghetto for "cult" and horror films. If they want to create a lower-priced line, that's great, but why make it a ghetto for films that they like but that lack snob appeal in order to avoid tainting the reputation of the rest of the collection.

I don't think we need to worry about that...anything released will be presented well, likely in conjunction with the HVE folks, I'll bet...and the Criterion cache will ensure that the stuff is neither presented nor received as exploitation/cult/etc.

Tribe

[Cinephrenic]

I know what B-Movies are, but what exactly is the "B" in that phrase?

[Dylan]

Gregory,

Good discussion.

I hope you didn't think my post was directed specifically at you.

I was aware of that, but I was also feeling that certain terms (art horror) and films (Caligari) written in my post had something to do with what inspired yours, so discussing my reasons behind what I said, as well as further exploring distinguishment between different works of horror, seemed more than appropriate, even if it was a little into the rehelm of personal preference.

And I admire your tastes as well, very much so, and I understand what you're getting at when talking of a coined genre term standing in as a label for any solitary film the genre seems to fit.

"I'm afraid that lots of intelligent, worthy movies are mistaken for films that were meant to be bad, but that often has more to do with the attitudes with which people approach the products of abused genres and filmmaking styles, and less to do with what those films really contain."

Terrific concept of abused genres and viewers' attitides, which also reflects my own feelings. But I must ask, what are some examples of intelligent, worthy films mistaken for bad (I would throw an example out left, but I'd like to hear what films you have on your mind first)?

Dylan

[DrewReiber]

I'm a bit suspicious of the term "art horror" and I worry that it may reinforce the notion that horror film is an unworthy genre. The same with the term "cult film."

Gregory, I echo your feelings exactly. I take all walks of film very seriously, and I've grown up appreciating the freedoms of concept, theme and statement that these so-called "cult films" have to offer. I'm disgusted by the fact that America is still trying to disavow any genre they feel automatically unworthy of their attention.

If it wasn't for labels or organizations, such as The Criterion Collection or the National Film Registry, most *FILM STUDENTS* I know wouldn't think twice about a film like Night of the Living Dead or Carnival of Souls. It's the collective attitude of the media and society to brush aside lower-budgeted, poorly distributed or otherwise "lower tier" non-studio genre pictures that has resulted in the virtual wasteland that horror filmmaking has become today.

When we try to distance ourselves from works like these, we completely lose perspective on how they are usually the first (and sometimes most aggressive) films echoing the deeper and darker elements of our culture at a given time in history.

Even supposedly credible historians like David J. Skal (in his book "The Monster Show") have a tendency to discredit most of the work outside their field of interest, an example being Deathdream's "war at home" subject matter reflecting the dire and self-destructive results of the Vietnam War on American families. For the purpose of just being a completist, Skal goes far beyond his comprehension or interest zoness in the genre to basically demean or tear apart any filmmaking that sits outside of what he views as worthy (i.e. post 50's).

Like Skal, if Criterion's intentions are to create a lower tier that compares the art values of their own making, then it's just going to be a schlocky marketing gimmick pandering to the masses who already show little interest in the material. Why even bother?

[yumitree]

someone will most certainly correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe the "b" comes from the fact that the movies were often the lesser films on a double bill. "b-movie" like "b-side" of a 45.

[Gregory]

But I must ask, what are some examples of intelligent, worthy films mistaken for bad (I would throw an example out left, but I'd like to hear what films you have on your mind first)?

For me, part of my feelings about this topic were stirred when I went to the CineShlock-O-Rama site recently. Writers there know a huge amount about horror films and "fringe cinema" but their interest in it is all ironic and smirking. They do a write-up on an outstanding, intelligent film like It's Alive but say nothing to distinguish it in any way from the likes of Dinosaur Island or The Perils of Gwendoline In The Land of the Yik Yak. It's "schlock gold" and a complete laff riot, with 13 corpses but unfortunately no breasts. And that's just typical of the way these films are treated almost all over. One of the reasons I like reading Robin Wood is because he's one of the few writers who probes films that I like a lot but that most serious critics don't appreciate or simply wouldn't touch, like It's Alive, Dawn of the Dead and Heaven's Gate.
The example Drew mentioned is also a good one, I think.
Anyway, to go back on topic, I hope that Tribe is right that Criterion's treatment of "cult" films will actually elevate their status, when it is deserved.

[Dylan]

I suppose De Palma's Sisters would also go pretty well with worthy films that get shafted into genre obscurity (though, the former is about killer 'twins', and It's Alive is about a mutant killer baby...pretty 'cultish' subjects, but both have okay scripts that treat the material as realistically as possible, not to mention terrific introspective Bernard Herrmann scores). I think a reviewer you may like, Gregory, is Jeffrey Anderson, who is one of my favorite reviewers (or at least the one I most consistantly agree with). He has a terrific appreciation for films like "It's Alive" or even the recent "Cursed" right along side of films like "The Magnificent Ambersons" or "Juliet of the Spirits," and some of your points brought to mind his brand of reviewing (meaning, he certainly knows the difference between "It's Alive" and "Amazon Women in the Avacado Jungle of Death" {or at least I think that was the title}):

www.combustiblecelluloid.com

http://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/cla ... live.shtml

Anyway, I thought you'd enjoy his writings.

And I've never seen "Heaven's Gate," but I'm a huge Vilmos Zsigmond fan, so I'll see it eventually.

Dylan

[Martha]

I know what B-Movies are, but what exactly is the "B" in that phrase?

I believe it comes from the fact that many of these films were originally the second (or "B") picture in a double feature headed by a big studio film. For example, many of the famous low-budget noirs (Kiss Me Deadly, for example, or Detour) were made by poverty row studios for about $3 each, just to fill the bottom of double bills.....

[Ted Todorov]

I'd like to see the main collection remain 'cult-friendly', but I can see the advantage of a sub-brand if they've got so much stuff up their sleeves that they'd otherwise have to drip-feed the cult releases over several years so as not to dilute the main collection. If half of the releases every month were wild and crazy genre movies that would completely change (and arguably compromise) their brand identity.

I agree with this. I think that Criterion, as it has grown more successful, financially and otherwise, has a problem with the slow pace of its releases. Think of all the classic films they already hold the rights to that are in the "no plans/not on the current production schedule" category. If this allows them to double their output, everyone will come out ahead.

So long as the quality stays as high, collections, sub collections, spine number and all that are just semantics. If I could have my Criterion quality Cria Cuervos and Out 1 tomorrow, I really wouldn't care what the box says. I'm sure that cult film aficionados would feel the same way.

Ted

[oldsheperd]

That's just great! Now I need to get a second job just to keep up.

[Stig Helmer]

I wonder if the the 2 OOP-Morrissey-titles could be released again under this "new label"?

[Narshty]

No - the rights for the Morrissey films are over at Image Entertainment. They'll be releasing new special editions this September.