'Forthcoming' Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.2

[Jeff]

My complaint against Criterion is that they aren't releasing every new spine number/title on blu-ray as well as on standard dvd...This Xmas we will probably see a huge surge in blu-ray player/disc sales; yet Criterion doesn't seem to have a logical approach to how they'll support the format - Imagine "Che" or the upcoming Rosselini War Trilogy not coming out on blu-ray - it could happen. Likewise, why did Criterion bother to create a new HD transfer for "The Last Days of Disco," only to not release it simultaniously on blu-ray? If nothing else, why can't Criterion be like Disney and let buyers buy a double disc set that has both the blu-ray and the standard dvd? Wouldn't that please everyone?

I wish that everything could come out on Blu-ray too, but that's just not realistic. The estimate is that by the end of 2009, 6.2 percent of U.S. homes will have a Blu-ray player (the number jumps to 14.8 percent if you include all PS3s). That's still very much a niche market. The number of people who are in that group and who would buy a $40 MSRP Blu-ray of The Last Days of Disco is minuscule. You and I are amongst that group, and there are probably several dozen more here on the forum, but Criterion can't produce a disc just for us.

With Blu-ray production costs being what they are, companies only release things on Blu-ray that they expect to have extremely high levels of market penetration. They also focus on movies where they feel the demographic that owns most Blu-ray players (which right now is heavily overlapped with PS3 owners) overlaps with the demographic of the film. That is why the film about Italian mobsters is coming out, but not the film about French familial angst.

I'm pretty sure that Criterion's Che will be released on Blu-ray, but I would be shocked if the Rossellini set is. The odds that it would be profitable are slim.

I, for one, would not be pleased to see Criterion go down the Disney path. It's not like Disney is releasing everything in that hybrid format. They own thousands of films, but only do that for a few major releases. Including both versions increases the cost to the consumer and is wasteful. You can find further debate on the merits of this practice here.

[Tribe]

These films would not have gone undistributed (in the US) if it were not for Criterion. And because they are new films, it's not like Criterion will even be able to give them significantly superior transfers.

This is one of the most significant observations made in this discussion, I think. There's only so much money CC can invest in securing the dvd rights for films, and if we're talking about the mission statement: it not only says "classic and contemporary films" but also "important" films. Now, how do you judge the importance of a contemporary film, if importance is a construct that is normally based on some years or decades of critical and audience reception? There's little doubt that "Vampyr" or "L'Eclisse" can be seen as important films, as there is a whole tradition of discussion and influence concerning them. This is obviously not possible with "Button" or "Gomorrah"; we simply don't know yet how these films will be regarded in ten years or so, but they didn't cause a scandal or were highlighted by critics as particularly inventive or 'out of the normal' in a more general sense. The question then is: can an entry in the collection be justified any other way? I'd say yes, and one of the ways - apart from the assumption that a particular film makes money - for me would be something like 'originality', a quite distinct style on the part of the director. That's why I'm always clamouring for Rivette and Greenaway, for instance, although as far as 'acceptance' or 'importance' are concerned, these are not the best examples because - like them or not - they are sure to have a quite prominent part in film history already. The same goes for von Trier, for example, if "Antichrist" is a possibility, though I haven't even seen that particular film yet. I would be the first to congratulate them if they blind-bought Malick's "Tree of Life", too..

Tommaso...I can't agree with you on this. It seems to me you're parsing "important" and "originality" and you're getting to the dead alley of this type of argument...and that's subjectivity. The argument that started this, and now I'm para-phrasing is that CC is somehow "not delivering" this month because an edition of the film is released in Europe (or something very close to this). We all know that the reality of film distribution is that nutty network where the World is devided into Regions. So...in my view, a release in a Region which didn't have an edition isn't, in an of itself, something that is a legitimate reason for an additional monthly uproar.

I want to see those Greenaways and others that are rumoured as bad as anyone...that's a different argument...and one that's been re-hashed on this Forum during off months.

[Tommaso]

It seems to me you're parsing "important" and "originality" and you're getting to the dead alley of this type of argument...and that's subjectivity.

I agree, it's entirely subjective, but 'important' as used by CC is a subjective term which however I tried to define as some sort of 'received wisdom' accumulated over the years. I offered 'originality' only as a way-out for films too young to have this accumulated opinion, but even there I agree: the 'canon' will always be revised, and that's not a bad thing, and some 'original' works of art may not be seen as such in fifty years. But I simply don't have any better suggestion on how to decide what might make a film 'important' or not.

[tenia]

The argument that started this, and now I'm para-phrasing is that CC is somehow "not delivering" this month because an edition of the film is released in Europe (or something very close to this). We all know that the reality of film distribution is that nutty network where the World is devided into Regions. So...in my view, a release in a Region which didn't have an edition isn't, in an of itself, something that is a legitimate reason for an additional monthly uproar.

That's where I think it's too bad they don't do something unique for these movies.

Of course, it's an opportunity for every US people to see these movies in great editions and with english subtitles. But what they are doing here is nothing more than what they did with Button : having a package already done, putting a nice cover with a wacky C, and sell it $40.
Though, as it is no Button, but a French author movie, and an Italian author movie, everyone is saying "Hurray !"

For these movies' diffusion in the USA, of course, Hurray !.
But as Criterion editions, there is nothing spectacular. At all.

I'm much more impressed by the release of Z, and all the French movies you have but we don't (I'm French) like Le corbeau or Les diaboliques, or even the great double-disc of The Wages of Fear.
These are real unique Criterion pieces.

For the rest, I think that, in terms of movies choice, they are still doing great. Not as great as they could be (especially with all the movies from the speculations that everybody are craving for), but still : the Oshimas, the Rossellinis, Z, Wings of Desire, Repulsion, Marienbad,the Bunuel, Dodes'Kaden, the Painlevé box, Wise Blood, the Imamura box, The Human Condition (with special features !), The golden Age of TV...

It could be worse.

Much worse.

There is still enough to spend $60 a month at least for them.

[Cinetwist]

With Blu-ray production costs being what they are, companies only release things on Blu-ray that they expect to have extremely high levels of market penetration. They also focus on movies where they feel the demographic that owns most Blu-ray players (which right now is heavily overlapped with PS3 owners) overlaps with the demographic of the film. That is why the film about Italian mobsters is coming out, but not the film about French familial angst.

This isn't quite true. There's some extremely esoteric stuff being released on Blu-ray. In fact there's loads of stuff being released that has never even been out on video or dvd ever before.

I doubt whether Eureka and Blue Underground expect Bad Boy Bubby to receive 'high levels of market penetration'. Just look at the stuff BFI are releasing, it's mind blowing. Or look at small labels like Severin starting up and releasing cult films like Eagles Over London. Of course overall the market being catered to probably is the teenage boy but there's still some great, weird and wonderful stuff sneaking out. Or in the case of BFI, streaming out.

[Jeff]

There's some extremely esoteric stuff being released on Blu-ray.

Sure there is, but it's a tiny amount of the Blu-ray market, and I'm not sure how fiscally responsible it is. My comments and figures really only apply to the American market anyway. I can't speak to the conditions in the British market. I have been criticized for pointing out that Criterion is not a charitable organization dedicated to promoting world cinema. They are a for-profit business. The thing is, the BFI is a charitable organization dedicated to promoting world cinema.

[Cinetwist]

Severin and Blue Underground (both labels I mentioned) are American. Both have released Blu-rays that are the first release of those films in the home video market. Uniformly region free too.

[Jeff]

Severin and Blue Underground (both labels I mentioned) are American. Both have released Blu-rays that are the first release of those films in the home video market. Uniformly region free too.

I know. That is what I was referring to here:

it's a tiny amount of the Blu-ray market, and I'm not sure how fiscally responsible it is

My other comments are referring to Eureka and BFI (the other two labels you mentioned).

[Doctor Sunshine]

That's what I'm not so sure about, either (the temporary thing). And I wonder whether the sales of a relatively recent film (unless they accidentily hit on an instant classic) will not also be temporary. I'd assume that any Renoir, Oshima or Antonioni would go on selling for many years, even if in smaller quantities than "Button" will sell in its first few months. But "Button" may be completely without interest in three or four years.

At some point brick and mortar stores are going to expand their stock again and major studios will return to their back catalogues and be willing to spend a little more on rights acquisitions and distribution. Right now Criterion are operating similarly to their laserdisc days with a relatively even focus on classic and contemporary films (though they're still never going to get Citizen Kane again) and even in the face of a fully recovered economy it's possible they could keep going this way for a bit but the pendulum's going to swing back eventually.

Anyway, I like the importance discussion a lot more. Another way to look at it is by examining their track record with contemporaneous releases. I like Insomnia but there are plenty of solid late 90s fare its better or equal and the director's career certainly didn't go anywhere. Mostly I think it's a good example of the filter craze that swept the film industry at that time. I never see any discussion of Man Bites Dog but it's still a hidden gem in my opinion. Armageddon seems destined to be remembered, maybe as a WTF moment, but it actually did win me over as hypermasculine camp on DVD where I first saw it in a drive-in double feature and hated it. Those are just off the top of my head but there's also Shine, The English Patient on laserdisc and, I think, Time Bandits was contemporaneous--though with auteurs even if they're wrong they're right. Oh, and I loved both George Washington and Ratcatcher but haven't watched them in some time.

I haven't seen Gomorrah or A Christmas Tale (thought it was A Christmas Story at first) but someone was saying how Gomorrah was exceptional for linking the stories but not resorting to the butterfly effect; I think Revanche, beyond being a solid film, is similarly exceptional for what it doesn't do. I guess youse takes your chances with this kind of thing. For MOC, I like Kurosawa but Johnny To does nothing for me. BFI Modern Classics (the books, that is) were trying their hand at the same thing but look to have abandoned it a few years ago. It doesn't look like they did very many within a year or two of the film release though. I see Seven, Titanic and Independence Day.

[Jeff]

At some point brick and mortar stores are going to expand their stock again and major studios will return to their back catalogues and be willing to spend a little more on rights acquisitions and distribution. Right now Criterion are operating similarly to their laserdisc days with a relatively even focus on classic and contemporary films (though they're still never going to get Citizen Kane again) and even in the face of a fully recovered economy it's possible they could keep going this way for a bit but the pendulum's going to swing back eventually.

I suspect that you're right and it is, like most things, cyclical. We're at a low point in the cycle right now in terms of Criterion's willingness to take risks. It could be much worse though. The people who bitch each month now would have been suicidal 15 years ago.

[Doctor Sunshine]

I suspect that you're right and it is, like most things, cyclical. We're at a low point in the cycle right now in terms of Criterion's willingness to take risks. It could be much worse though. The people who bitch each month now would have been suicidal 15 years ago.

Hah. Yeah, and I've said this before but with all the cultish stuff we were getting last year in the lead up to bluray it almost evens out.

[SSF]

Can you understand at all why some of us have feelings of urgency for good releases of many pre-1970s films where none are available, especially when it's looking less and less likely that they will be released? I feel like the clock is running out for most of this stuff, with the economy being what it is (the fundamental problems of which are not going away anytime soon) and the shift to Blu-Ray, which seems to place B&W academy-ratio films at an even greater disadvantage than before -- not to even mention silents. And of course Blu-Ray means massively more resources being devoted to releasing things that were already on DVD (not that I'm against this per se, but it does have a big downside).
Of course I'm happy they released the Buñuels and Human Condition, but let's look at the bigger picture.

Of course I understand your feelings of urgency but I don't think these worries are based on anything more than just "feelings."

[Gregory]

The trends I (and many others here) have referred to are not based on feelings, but you can think whatever you like about them. For example, my feelings of urgency and disappointment that Warner may not issue Greed and The Big Parade (etc.) on DVD are not based on my own feelings and intuitions. They're based on years of false promises (which is not to say deliberately deceptive promises) leading up to the past year, when they're all but closing down their flow of classic titles on DVD, leaving a long list of things that were said to be forthcoming. Again, this is only part of a larger picture.

[lachrymologist]

I must say, I am ecstatic about the upcoming Z release. I wish there were some Ousmane Sembene titles (specifically, from what I've seen, Moolaade and Guelwaar), chock-full of extras to honor this auteur-par-excellence. Pixote, along with some of Babenco's early work would be excellent, as would a real "special edition" of Amenabar's Tesis (I have no idea who owns rights to Agora, but I am highly anticipating that movie). These last two are extant filmmakers who need to have their commentaries heard. It also occurred to me recently that there are so many important silent films that don't have commentary tracks (and what better venue?) which should and this is a problem that criterion could rectify with a "forgotten silent film" boxset, and I would kill for things like a Vertov or silent Eisenstein boxset (which has been mentioned here). The audio essay to Man With a Movie Camera is brilliant, but more features and re-releases of Enthusiasm and his Finland documentaries would be excellent. The Celebration, We The Living, and commentaries by Bela Tarr to his films would also all be welcome. In regards to Tarr, his Facets releases are a major letdown, with absolutely no special features to speak of.

[jbeall]

I must say, I am ecstatic about the upcoming Z release. I wish there were some Ousmane Sembene titles (specifically, from what I've seen, Moolaade and Guelwaar), chock-full of extras to honor this auteur-par-excellence.

How long do the rights last for New Yorker titles? They put out Moolaade, for example, in R1 only a couple of years ago, so even though New Yorker is no more, there's probably a window before the rights elapse, no? (I admit to being totally clueless about this issue, but there are a lot of NY'er titles, like Stephanie Black's Life and Debt, Godard's Weekend, and of course the Sembene titles that'd be great in the CC or with another boutique label.)

[lachrymologist]

Yea, I was just spouting off, and I'm sure the rights are still going. I, also, am clueless about this, but felt the need to chime in, since none of these posters mentioned Sembene, et al. #-o

[fiddlesticks]

Yea, I was just spouting off, and I'm sure the rights are still going. I, also, am clueless about this, but felt the need to chime in, since none of these posters mentioned Sembene, et al. #-o

A quick search on "Sembene" in this forum turned up 75 hits, including several pleas that he be added to the Collection in this thread. Believe me, you're not alone in this.

[ShellOilJunior]

I haven't posted here before, but I read the forums everyday. My complaint against Criterion is that they aren't releasing every new spine number/title on blu-ray as well as on standard dvd. If am particularly miffed that the upcoming "A Christmas Tale," which by the way was perhaps the best reviewed film of 2008 by many notable film critics (see the Cinema-scope chart in the winter 2009 issue), is not getting a blu-ray release; there's no excuse for that. Likewise, I would've bought "Z" and the two recent Godard reissues had they been released on blu, but now will skip them. This Xmas we will probably see a huge surge in blu-ray player/disc sales; yet Criterion doesn't seem to have a logical approach to how they'll support the format - Imagine "Che" or the upcoming Rosselini War Trilogy not coming out on blu-ray - it could happen. Likewise, why did Criterion bother to create a new HD transfer for "The Last Days of Disco," only to not release it simultaniously on blu-ray? If nothing else, why can't Criterion be like Disney and let buyers buy a double disc set that has both the blu-ray and the standard dvd? Wouldn't that please everyone?

I don't think the hybrid approach is the way to go for CC because those buying for the blu-ray disc won't have use for the dvd.

I do agree with you in that CC SHOULD release both Blu-ray and DVD for each new release. I probably would've bought the Godards but will pass on them since it's only dvd. Also, I probably would've purchased The Human Condition set and perhaps Z had they been Blu-ray releases.

I know I may be in the minority here but once I upgraded to Blu-ray I stopped purchasing DVD's. If I want to watch a film that's on DVD then I'll borrow it from my library. In my opinion, it makes little sense to purchase a film in an antiquated format which will eventually be released for BD. (It's really hard going back to low resolution and compressed audio )

I do understand the frustration with those upcoming Criterion releases. I know some have waited for those for a long time and hoped they'd be BD releases. The question is then: Alright, it gets a SD release---- how long do I have to wait for the BD?

[ianungstad]

I'm not even sure blu ray is the next generation technology. Image Entertainment just released quarterly financials last week. Blu Ray sales for the last quarter were DOWN 30% from the same quarter last year. I think blu sales at just about all the major studios have been dropping. For what is a niche product with less than 10% marketshare and still relatively new, income shouldn't be dropping this steeply already. That's why your hearing news about studios not doing classic films on blu, why companies like Criterion are being selective and everyone just being overall cautious.

With the IFC releases, it may not be Criterion's decision as to which films get released on what media. IFC almost definitly has a say. If we look at the box office receipts:
A Christmas tale did $7,285,490 total worldwide box office. Gomorrah did $34,809,873. While we may not care about the numbers as consumers, IFC and Criterion certainly do and this may possibly be part of the reason that there isn't a blu for A Christmas Tale.

[onedimension]

I'm not even sure blu ray is the next generation technology. Image Entertainment just released quarterly financials last week. Blu Ray sales for the last quarter were DOWN 30% from the same quarter last year. I think blu sales at just about all the major studios have been dropping. For what is a niche product with less than 10% marketshare and still relatively new, income shouldn't be dropping this steeply already.

Personally, anecdotally- I haven't bought many blu-rays because: 1) the PQ is better than DVD, but not so much better that it justifies an upgrade for a film that I already own; 2) having seen many DVD editions later upstaged by special editions, new transfers, etc., I'm reluctant to pay for first-run blu-rays; 3) If I buy a DVD, I know I can take it anywhere or lend it to anyone, whereas blu ray is far from the same in terms of market penetration.

re: 1) - The difference between a VHS and an anamorphic widescreen DVD from a contemporary transfer is enormous- but my eyes can't, on my current TV, see much of a difference between a movie on late DVD and early BD. It's better, some films benefit more than others, but DVD quality is largely good enough.

[cdnchris]

I do see a difference between DVD and Blu-ray, and it's impressive, but like I said before I won't be upgrading a lot of the films I have on DVD, unlike VHS to DVD, only a few will get the upgrade, more in the areas where I bought the original super inferior DVDs and never got the improved DVDs (the Bond films, the Kubricks, the latter I picked up on HD DVD when they went super cheap.) But again, if I come across the Blu-ray version pretty cheap I might pick it up then.

I'm still not Blu-ray exclusive with new purchases, though. I just bought Mad Men Season 2 on DVD because I could get it cheaper than the Blu-ray and honestly I'm not too concerned about the picture quality difference (and I was so unimpressed with how the first season looked on Blu-ray I didn't really see it as an ungrade anyways.)

[aox]

Not that this matters at all, but theoretically, Che could be spine #500?

[HerrSchreck]

Oh, please.

Please what? You don't like your special edition Bunuels?

Enough already with this hectoring on people who've noted a change in the label's direction. If it angers you that folks are having a worried reaction to what they have every right to perceive as a dilution of what they see and saw as the label's original direction, then you shouldn't be on a discussion forum about the label. Everybody has a right to their opinions and wishes for the label's direction, especially those who've spent thousands of dollars on hundreds of their DVD's over the years. There are some people here who aren't big on old films, and love high quality arthouse of the past 30 years-- these folks have every right to be happy. There are folks who looked to the label to put out masterworks and rare arthouse films from prior to to the 60's in dream come true editions... the Dreyers, the Eisensteins, the Renoirs, the Lubitsch, Pabst, Lang, the Sternberg, Ozu, Mizoguchi, Bergman, Hitchcock, Fellini, Coctaeu, Duvivier... the kind of films that seem to epitomize the Janus line which drew them to CC because of these lavish dream come true editions of films one would think wouldn't even be available in the US beyond PD or barebones editions were it not for CC. There's nothing wrong with them expressing their disappointment as of late for what they see as the slowing of that kind of output, the global premiere editions that become immediate core staples in film libraries around the world.

Nobody is obligated to agree, but making the poster feel like a self-centered drunken mook is just hokey. They're just cineastes wishing for the hard core as they see it.

[Tribe]

Nobody is obligated to agree, but making the poster feel like a self-centered drunken mook is just hokey.

That sounds like the whiskey talkin.'

[HerrSchreck]

I was always a vodka boy myself. Usedta drink the shit like water in my 20's, and never got hangovers. Iron constitution I had. Now if I drink past a certain point, I wake up in the morning feeling like a rusty ships anchor is angling up thru my cerebellum-- I simply can't drink any more.

But shrill crackling falsetto of jingoes might drive me back into the arms of sweet zhena boodka.