Eclipse (was Criterion Cult Film Sub Company)

[Gordon]

Very interesting development. And an equally interesting thread with excellent comments from everyone.

I wonder where something like By Brakhage would fit into all of this? In the future, would something like this (not that there is anything like old Stan!) fall under "Cult" (I hate that word, by the way - stupid word to use when speaking about Art of any standard) or "Criterion"? Not that it really matters - as long as the quality is good, I don't care what label you stick on it.

Eyes Without a Face is a film that is considered "cult", but it totally deserves massive respect and its place in the Criterion Collection.

Over the last few months, I was wondering what kind of effect releasing Equinox as a Criterion was going to have, as most DVD collectors haven't seen it and anyone review the disc would wonder what the hell was going on over at Criterion! I'm not mocking the film, but it is pretty funky and out-there. Having a seperate lable for experimental horror, fantasy ans sci-fi is a very good idea, although it will take a bit of getting used to.

Gojira, in it's original version with Japanese dialogue and no Raymond Burr (though great he was) and with super-accuarate subtitles is a truly landmark film - one of the most important films of all time, for good or ill and would be fully deserving of being in the Criterion Collection, but I don't believe that Criterion has the rights, even though Rialto released the restored print recently. I believe that Rialto has said as much.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Columbia owns all the rights to Godzilla I belive.

The seperate label doesn't sound like a good idea. Any good B-movies deserve full Criterion treatment as well, just as much as any art film.

[Theodore R. Stockton]

either side of this arguement seems that Criterion should hire more people.

[pzman84]

[quote="The Elegant Dandy Fop"]

The seperate label doesn't sound like a good idea. Any good B-movies deserve full Criterion treatment as well, just as much as any art film.[/quote]

I think any new label that Criterion releases will excite some controversy. People will ask, rightfully so, why isn't this in the collection? I have always felt that Criterion's biggest weakness is they've had to play God. While other labels can do great jobs on their transfers and special features, Criterion is the Bentley of DVDs. No one give a damn if a film gets released on Kino or Anchor Bay, but a Criterion release is an event.

The problem always comes with what to release. There are so many titles that are not on DVD (Il Conformista, Chimes at Midnight) or just have really bad transfers (Battleship Potemkin, Breathless). There is a long list of "high art" film that desperatly need to be in the collection.

However, there is also a list of "B-Pictures" that, for stupid reasons, never were given the respect they deserve. These films are just as good as a film by Renoir or Bergman but because they never were as respected as the so-called "high-art" films, it is very unlikely they will see the light of day.

To me, the idea of having a separate collection for "cult films" is a good idea. But if it is called "The Criterion Cult Films" collection, it will not show the much needed respect these films deserve. I think the best option for Criterion is to give a name to this collection that shows respect to the films and looks at them not as "cult classics" or "B-Pictures" but as important films in all cinema.

[rossbrew]

How about "The Criterion Forgotten Gems Collection" ...just a thought...

[DrewReiber]

How about "The Criterion Forgotten Gems Collection" ...just a thought...

C'mon, who are we trying to fool here? The only reason to seperate these films into a new label is for marketing purposes. They clearly believe that it's not enough to include these films in their prime label, and that there is a way to convince the people looking for schlock to spend more money than they would if they thought a title was actually going to make them think.

"Hey, dude, look at this thing... it looks weird."
"Carnival of Souls, what's that?"
"I dunno, but it's expensive and it has that dumb logo all those foreign flicks have..."
"Hey man, waitaminute. Check this out, Wes Craven must have made a new version of the movie. I bet that it's a lot better, I think he made those Scream movies."
"Cool!"

That's the audience they are going to try and target. That's the whole purpose of having a recognizable label like "Wes Craven Presents", becuase the brilliant people in marketing firms believe consistent repetition of lowered standard will eventually train these idiots to alter their purchasing patterns. And the horrying aspect is that they are probably right. Criterion probably doesn't see it this way, but I don't think it's possible to find a middle road when you are trying to play this game. You're either aiming to appeal to the less educated or artistically biased, or you're not.

[DrewReiber]

fake intellectuals don't want their subtitled dramas sharing space with monster movies

if you're insecure enough to perpetuate the ghettoization of genre films because you don't understand their value then you need to leave the film discussion table and come back when you're a grown up

Well, that's ultimately the problem. A lot of the people who preach themselves as masters of the "cult genre" are elitists who have already decided that it's better to box them in their little crappy corner then let any truly thoughtful people get ahold of it and take all their fun (i.e. pointing and laughing while drunk) away.

As luck would have it, I know A LOT of people like this. It's a big part of the American culture... belittingly a group of something to the point where you create a substandard value that establishes your intelligence and simultaneously elevates everything else you deem as actually worthy of notice. The Oscars anyone?

Oh and to add to what someone said earlier, as I can't imagine why Criterion would need more employees as a result of this plan. Every indication or report I've seen regarding the films implied to be a part of this label were apparently worked on (and I think completed) when Criterion was already putting 5 titles out a month. The decision seems to be more market concern based than any sort of staff problem, thus resulting in them holding back on the releases.

[indy81]

I understand the concerns about elitism and canon formation, etc. but I'm looking at this pragmatically: Criterion is only going to allow a limited number of genre or exploitation films into the Collection at a time. It's OK to flood the market with Kurosawa or Bergman, but you're not going to get them to release 6-8 vintage horror titles a year, for example. This new label would allow Criterion/HVE to release their exploitation holdings at a much faster rate - many more films will see the light of day.

Criterion is doing well enough that they seemed to have amped up production considerably. In my interview with Susan Arosteguy, she said to expect many more "bare-bones" releases from Criterion. The market is large enough that they're able to put out tons of stuff at a rapid rate - and they don't need to waste time with bonus features in some cases. That's both good news and bad news, I think.

Brad

[Gregory]

Criterion is doing well enough that they seemed to have amped up production considerably.

Kim Hendrickson stated that Criterion's output had increased and that it's around 40 titles per year. But that's been their average for years. In fact, they released 47 titles in 2001. Maybe what she meant was that it has been around 40 per year and is about to increase?

In my interview with Susan Arosteguy, she said to expect many more "bare-bones" releases from Criterion. The market is large enough that they're able to put out tons of stuff at a rapid rate - and they don't need to waste time with bonus features in some cases.

That's a real disappointment. Criterion's supplements have never generally been a waste of time. And which kinds of titles can we expect to get the short end of the stick? Probably not those from beloved directors like Bergman, Antonioni, and Wajda. Thus, my fear is that for marketing reasons, films by underappreciated directors that people don't know much about will be too short on supplements.

[javelin]

Thus, my fear is that for marketing reasons, films by underappreciated directors that people don't know much about will be too short on supplements.

And, I don't know about you, but the supplements on the lesser-known films are twice as dear to me as those on films I know. The commentaries on the two recent Dassin films, the short "La Cotta" on the Il Posto disc, "Blood of the Beasts" on Eyes Without a Face, the interview with Bertolucci on La Commare Secca - these things are priceless. Or at least they're worth $29.95.

I agree, Gregory, this is a little disheartening.

[DrewReiber]

I understand the concerns about elitism and canon formation, etc. but I'm looking at this pragmatically: Criterion is only going to allow a limited number of genre or exploitation films into the Collection at a time. It's OK to flood the market with Kurosawa or Bergman, but you're not going to get them to release 6-8 vintage horror titles a year, for example. This new label would allow Criterion/HVE to release their exploitation holdings at a much faster rate - many more films will see the light of day.

Who's talking about flooding? No one, not even Criterion. From what I can tell, they've been sitting on Equinox for nearly 3 years now. The Richard Gordon box set (4 titles) was only just completed last year. They are opting to hold onto these films, thereby building a backlog, for no other apparent reason than that they are uncomfortable releasing them under the Criterion or HVE labels. HVE already releases so-called "exploitation" films, so your argument holds no water.

They're just looking for a way to market these films to what they perceive to be a more prejudicial market. That's horrible.

[Tribe]

They are opting to hold onto these films, thereby building a backlog, for no other apparent reason than that they are uncomfortable releasing them under the Criterion or HVE labels.

Where did this notion come from?

Tribe

[glueman]

A good discussion concerning some of the same fundamentals as the Warner / Studio 'classic' threads.
Rather than a dilatation on this topic, a question: what kind of world, or market, would it be where there was no 'Criterion', nor a 'Collection', nor - think it! - any spine numbers- instead just a bunch of wonderfully produced releases under, say, the HVe label?

[DrewReiber]

They are opting to hold onto these films, thereby building a backlog, for no other apparent reason than that they are uncomfortable releasing them under the Criterion or HVE labels.

Where did this notion come from?

It's the discussion of the thread. If they are comfortable releasing those titles under the Criterion label, as per their origininal announced intent, then they would do so. If they were comfortable releasing them under the HVE label, why not do so instead of a new label? It's pretty clear.

[Cinephrenic]

Well whatever label they are planning on releasing DVDs from, they better do so soon.

[Harold Gervais]

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

Wow. A voice of reason. Exactly.
This doesn't seem like a method of putting down films already in the collection but more of an effort to target a specific audience and to get more product on the shelves to generate more income for the company. It's easy to forget that Criterion is a company that has to look at profits & losses like any other company and something no business likes to do is sit on inventory. If they have a serious amount of films lying in wait and they have a committed group of people waiting to buy, it just makes sense for them to get the movies to market. As long as the quality is there, I don't see any of this as a negative.

[godardslave]

And to continue the economic common-sense theme:

the more profit Criterion makes, the more money they have to re-invest in acquiring and restoring more classic films for all of us.

[Gregory]

They've never needed to target an audience before. They've said they take pride in making the collection as diverse and varied as possible (something that seems less true to me in the last couple of years). Creating a sub-brand or sitting on the films are not the only options. Their releases of films that could be considered "cult" such as Man Bites Dog or Honeymoon Killers were acclaimed and probably did fairly well in finding their audience. The Blob and Fiend Without a Face probably didn't do all that well because not many people want to pay $40 SRP for that kind of thing. Why not just release the films within the regular collection at a lower price point?
Also, they're sitting on a lot of Janus Collection films and others they've bought the rights to (Ozu, etc.) and yet when they create a sub-brand it's for "cult" films. Is it any coincidence that this maintains a long tradition of isolating the horror genre from serious consideration and from more respected films by treating it as "camp" or "schlock"?

[oldsheperd]

Oh trust me, Man Bites Dog did pretty well if not in sales then in rentals.

[glueman]

They've never needed to target an audience before. They've said they take pride in making the collection as diverse and varied as possible (something that seems less true to me in the last couple of years). Creating a sub-brand or sitting on the films are not the only options. Their releases of films that could be considered "cult" such as Man Bites Dog or Honeymoon Killers were acclaimed and probably did fairly well in finding their audience. The Blob and Fiend Without a Face probably didn't do all that well because not many people want to pay $40 SRP for that kind of thing. Why not just release the films within the regular collection at a lower price point?
Also, they're sitting on a lot of Janus Collection films and others they've bought the rights to (Ozu, etc.) and yet when they create a sub-brand it's for "cult" films. Is it any coincidence that this maintains a long tradition of isolating the horror genre from serious consideration and from more respected films by treating it as "camp" or "schlock"?

As has been suggested, it eases the pain if you think of this 'sub-brand' - although that term helps perpetuate the attitude you decry - as a commercial, rather than an aesthetic, judgement on the films marketed within it. I suppose these films would then have their own cachet and self-consistent price-pointing, rather than seeming like the lower-price-point 'poor relations' of the regular collection. And as has also been suggested, it would probably only make sense having a new 'brand' if 'they' wanted to release more of these films than they would otherwise.

[Gregory]

The "ghettoization" I'm talking about has everything to do with the way films are marketed. "Genre films" are shunted off into their own category because they're unworthy. It's often very deliberate and it becomes a habit. An analogy would be the fact that throughout much of the 20th century there were two main categories of music for marketing purposes; they were called "serious music" and "popular music." The latter category was stigmatized until enough people realized that it was just idiotic snobbery. The same thing needs to happen with stigmatized areas of film, but I'm afraid Criterion's decision will just reinforce it, as if they're afraid that their "canonical" films would be seen as less special.
(edited to fix a strange misspelling)

[Sai]

The "ghettoization" I'm talking about has everything to do with the way films are marketed. "Genre films" are shunted off into their own category because they're unworthy. It's often very deliberate and it becomes a habit. An analogy would be the fact that throughout much of the 20th century there were two main categories of music for marketing purposes; they were called "serious music" and "popular music." The latter category was stamatized until enough people realized that it was just idiotic snobbery. The same thing needs to happen with stigmatized areas of film, but I'm afraid Criterion's decision will just reinforce it, as if they're afraid that their "canonical" films would be seen as less special.

But what about, for example, the Fox Film Noir Line? I certainly don't think that bundling those films into one canon in any way decreases their special-ness. In fact, it helps to bring them to a wider audience.
There are differences of course, since Criterion has a name for releasing high art and Fox has a name for releasing, well, movies they have released, and therefore a Criterion sub-company can easier be seen as lesser than the original. However, I do think that you are terribly overstating, my dear man.

[Cinephrenic]

I don't get this cult film line, when they are releasing Gate of Flesh, a great cult film by Suzuki under their regular label.

[glueman]

The same thing needs to happen with stigmatized areas of film, but I'm afraid Criterion's decision will just reinforce it, as if they're afraid that their "canonical" films would be seen as less special.

In marketing terms, they're right - just imagine if those well-known purveyors of camp and schlock Merchant Ivory had been marketed with CC spine numbers.

[zedz]

Flippancy aside, I think the Merchant Ivory analogy is a useful one. My assumption is that for Criterion to propose this solution, it must have far more 'cult' films on hand, ready to release, than it can accommodate within its regular release schedule. Criterion's brand identity is probably its most valuable property, and radically changing the balance of its releases would radically alter that identity and thus risk compromising the value of that property. If half of the Criterion releases in a given calendar year had been Merchant Ivory films, for example, that would have had a similar (and possibly even more deleterious) effect.

If a sub-brand is under serious consideration, then I'd guess they've got at least a couple of releasable titles per month lined up - maybe 30 per year. If Criterion decides against the sub-brand, that's just going to mean that we'll all have to wait longer for the films involved to be released (and, I presume, that ultimately Criterion will stop acquiring such films because they've got too great a backlog): not a solution I'd favour.

But given some of the recent releases (four Suzukis this year, plus Sword of Doom and Crazed Fruit), maybe this is what Criterion has decided to do?