Criterion Random Speculation Vol.2

[godardslave]

Didn't know Paramount didn't license their stuff out.

If only there were some kind of FAQ or something here where people could find this out on their own.

its good to see Matt back and 'kicking ass' again.

[kazantzakis]

Such absolute assertions are meaningless. Whereas there may not be any precedent for something happening, it does not mean that it cannot happen. Business is driven by profit. No company binds itself to a set of rules that are never to change or circumvented. "Unlikely" and "improbable" are fair descriptions of the prospects of this happening. But "never" is way overconfident.

My point is this: Why waste our time fantasizing about "unprecedented" Criterion projects that have little hope of ever happening? That was never the purpose of this thread. There are thousands of films that Criterion has a reasonable chance of licensing without invoking those controlled by Paramount, Sony, and Warner (anyone wanna speculate on the chances for a Criterion Ambersons or Greed??? Not. Gonna. Happen.).

Brian, I agree that the chances are limited given that there is no such precedent. But policies are not constitutions. As for people wasting time: who's time? There is no such law as "time conservation", if I waste my time, yours not affected by more than the 2 seconds it takes to read-and-skip each post. And besides, there is little else beyond speculation in this forum, and specifically in a thread titled "Random Speculation" anyway.

[rwaits]

LightBulbFilm wrote:
Didn't know Paramount didn't license their stuff out.

If only there were some kind of FAQ or something here where people could find this out on their own.

Anyone noticed what a smartass Matt's been lately?

[Gordon]

The disinterest that Paramount seems to show to their more obscure and foreign titles, would seem to point toward licensing to other companies - even Fox do this, yet maintaining a healthy output of catalogue tiltles off their own back. In addition to The Conformist, I believe that Paramount also hold the U.S. rights to Costa-Gavras', The Confession, also from 1970 and would it too would make a great Criterion title. All of this fantasizing, but we might as well bash away, until someone releases these masterpieces.

PS: I saw White Dog recently on DVD-r (from an analogue tape source) and although the concept is challenging and daring and the film features many powerful sequences, I personally don't feel that it is a wholly substantial film - it has a TV-movie vibe to it and is quite overwrought in places - but this is what many people love about Fuller (me included, to some degree). It is long-overdue on home video, so once, again, it doesn't matter who releases it, as long as someone does - legit, of course.

[mikeohhh]

Didn't Paramount license out their entire pre-1948 catalog to Universal? Hey, are Criterion still licensing stuff from Universal?? Because "Make Way for Tomorrow" (Paramount, '37) is just itching for a DVD release.

[Gordon]

"Make Way for Tomorrow" (Paramount, '37) is just itching for a DVD release.

Never a truer word spoken! But I gets the feelin' that the bumble-fucks at Universal are not even aware that this masterpiece is in their library. It is one of the great movies about life as seen through the eyes of 60-somethings - definitely one of the best from America, at least, although there haven't been many; certainly not recently!

[FilmFanSea]

Didn't Paramount license out their entire pre-1948 catalog to Universal? Hey, are Criterion still licensing stuff from Universal?? Because "Make Way for Tomorrow" (Paramount, '37) is just itching for a DVD release.

No, Paramount sold its pre-1948 film library to MCA in 1957 (for the paltry sum of $50 million). MCA bought Universal in 1962. (subsequently, Matsushita bought MCA in 1990; Seagram's bought a controlling stake in MCA/Universal in 1995; Vivendi bought Seagram's in 2000 and inherited MCA/Universal; in 2003, Vivendi spun off Universal into a joint venture with NBC--owned by GE. That venture is now known as NBC Universal. The complicated history is available here.) So NBC Universal owns the pre-1948 Paramount film library.

With respect to McCarey's Make Way for Tomorrow, Universal never even saw fit to release it on VHS (it's probably decomposing in a neglected vault somewhere as I type this). I beg "Jon Mulvaney" to license it annually. God knows it would've been perfect paired with Tokyo Story, though it certainly merits its own release.

[mikeohhh]

My winkey face meant that I know the difference between licensing and selling half a century's worth of films.

[pzman84]

Can someone explain this: Murmur of the Heart, Lacombe Lucien, and Au revoir les enfants are all available on 3/1 but 3 Films by Louis Malle, which has all three titles (and no other ones) in the box set, is available on 3/28. Why is this? There is a bonus disc in the box set but why can't it be released on the same day? Why release it later?

[souvenir]

Can someone explain this: Murmur of the Heart, Lacombe Lucien, and Au revoir les enfants are all available on 3/1 but 3 Films by Louis Malle, which has all three titles (and no other ones) in the box set, is available on 3/28. Why is this? There is a bonus disc in the box set but why can't it be released on the same day? Why release it later?

It's an error. Criterion's been having trouble for months now with their releases on the Coming Soon page being listed as due on the first of the month. The trouble is, the page will probably stay like that until it's actually March 1 and someone at Criterion realizes that the titles have vanished from the page. At least that's been the case for the past couple of months.

[pzman84]

Thanks. You think the money we fork over for one of their discs they could fix that glitch.

[FilmFanSea]

Getting back to the subject, the only US Majors with licencing arrangements to Criterion up to now are Fox and Universal (and New Line?) I would welcome input from posters far better informed than me to bring the thread up to date. There are also obviously licencing arrangements from Shochiku, Studio Canal and a wide band of non Stateside distributors. People?

Obsessive/compulsive that I am, I have compiled a list of all of the companies that have licensed films to Criterion during the DVD era. It is located in the FAQ section here.

Corrections are most welcome.

[HerrSchreck]

There is at least one-- off the top of my head-- Paramount title in the CC collection, this being if you'll remember THE SCARLET EMPRESS. The only studio I know offa the top of my head that does not & will not (firm;ly) license it's catalog out to CC is Warner Bros... and with the artful disposition of their telecine operators, blinding rate of release, and pretty decent preservation operation, we're not missing out on a hell of a lot.

On the Paramount end, one thing I'd love to see get licensed for distribution by CC via Universal is THE ISLAND OF LOST SOULS w Laughton from 32/33. This is one of the greatest & most genuinely frightening horror films of the 30's, is rather under-viewed & under-appreciated... and derives-- as FREAKS does-- much of its nape-hair tingling from the use of genuinely deformed/handicapped individuals in horrific roles (though in this case to an even more nightmarish effect). I can't um believe that uh Universal has not found fit to release this thing on DVD yet... my early 90's MCA/Uni VHS is another tape that's been worn clear to scotch tape via endless viewings. The tight direction, perfect casting, great performances... and majesterial art direction (not to mention mind-blowing makeup) make this an endlessly satisfying film.

Erle Kenton, who turned every piece of slop handed to him by Universal in the early/mid 40's into something visually beautiful (aided by the great dp's Elwood "Woody" Bredell [of SCARLETT STREET] & George Robinson)and rather enjoyable--HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, HOUSE OF DRACULA (the attractive little female hunchback nurse - lab asst... how much better can it get??? the vertebrae popping thru her dress.. ah, camp)-- justifies himself rather well in this film.

Speaking of Warner Bros I noticed over on the Warner thread the primary post for "confirmed" forthcoming titles included GREED, THE TEX AVERY COLLECTION (one of the greatest & most original directors to work in any genre)... and there was a mention of a TCM Collection Volume Two for Lon Chaney, which was supposed to include HE WHO GETS SLAPPED, THE UNHOLY THREE, & TELL IT TO THE MARINES (or maybe WEST OF ZANZIBAR) along with two other Chaney's. Does anyone know anything regarding the Avery and the Chaney TCM? I of course left a jet-trajectory complete with flying papers & dust cloud to grab the 1st Chaney set when it came out (ah the UNKNOWN), but would love to see some of these more sinister titles get the Warner cleanup... plus have never seen MARINES. And am curious to know whether they'll use the talkie or silent UNHOLY 3. And hope they'll keep the Mike Blake commentaries coming-- a real loony fanatic who's devoted the better portion of his life to this one subject, Chaney, just like Kalat w MABUSE... the kind of commentary I love to hear, the complete opposite of the Peter Cowie / Alain Silver snoozers, putting historians up simply because they're known historians, who thence bone up on the film to be commented upon and record an aural barbiturate.

As for Silver, who I can't stand (not only for his sniffy rudeness to the more blue collar Ursini in the Fox titles, particularly NIGHTMARE ALLEY): I love how hideous Warner made him look in the extras to THE PUBLIC ENEMY. With his 80's disco-era gold chains & half-unbuttoned shirt, they pasted this self-important whale against a background which made his head look like a shelled peanut. I have a feeling it wasn't accidental & I love it. Dink this guy is.

Does anyone know anything about either the Chaney or the Avery?

[FilmFanSea]

There is at least one-- off the top of my head-- Paramount title in the CC collection, this being if you'll remember THE SCARLET EMPRESS. The only studio I know offa the top of my head that does not & will not (firm;ly) license it's catalog out to CC is Warner Bros... and with the artful disposition of their telecine operators, blinding rate of release, and pretty decent preservation operation, we're not missing out on a hell of a lot.

There is no question that The Scarlet Empress was produced by Paramount---as were Trouble in Paradise, Sullivan's Travels, and The Lady Eve---but the rights to all of these were sold to what is now Universal in 1957, and all were licensed to Criterion by Universal. (Have you been reading the recent posts in this thread, HerrSchreck??)

As can be seen from the list I posted yesterday, the following "majors" and "minors" have never licensed films to Criterion during the DVD era:

* Warner Bros. [note: New Line--which has licensed films to Criterion--is an independent subsidiary of Time Warner, but has a separate licensing policy; at the recent HTF chat, Warner Home Video reiterated (as it has done numerous times in the past): "We do not license product to third parties. It's a strict company policy."]
* MGM/UA ---now owned by Sony
* Columbia/Tri-Star---owned by Sony
* Paramount
* Lion's Gate/Artisan

likewise with Facets, Kino, New Yorker, and other smaller players

[HerrSchreck]

There is at least one-- off the top of my head-- Paramount title in the CC collection, this being if you'll remember THE SCARLET EMPRESS. The only studio I know offa the top of my head that does not & will not (firm;ly) license it's catalog out to CC is Warner Bros... and with the artful disposition of their telecine operators, blinding rate of release, and pretty decent preservation operation, we're not missing out on a hell of a lot.

There is no question that The Scarlet Empress was produced by Paramount---as were Trouble in Paradise, Sullivan's Travels, and The Lady Eve---but the rights to all of these were sold to what is now Universal in 1957, and all were licensed to Criterion by Universal. (Have you been reading the recent posts in this thread, HerrSchreck??)

Dude you need to calm down. I work for Universal & regularly steal the Distribution depts-- who are one floor down-- sourdough pretzels & Earl Grey tea because of their excellent kitchen. You ask if I've been reading the thread, the answer is Yes (I'm all over it)-- have you been reading mine, just above yours where I wrote:

On the Paramount end, one thing I'd love to see get licensed for distribution by CC via Universal is THE ISLAND OF LOST SOULS w Laughton from 32/33

inasmuch as LOST SOULS & EMPRESS are virtually back to back (1 year) it would follow that you could extrapolate I know both were covered by the same catalog-chunk sale.

I know you came up with a list which You Take Very Seriously wanting it to be used & feeling all thread-authoritative & collaborative 'nd all owing to all that work, but ease up, kid.

[FilmFanSea]

Well, DUDE, you might read what you wrote again:

There is at least one-- off the top of my head-- Paramount title in the CC collection, this being if you'll remember THE SCARLET EMPRESS. The only studio I know offa the top of my head that does not & will not (firm;ly) license it's catalog out to CC is Warner Bros...

By placing those sentences back-to-back, you seem to be suggesting that Paramount has licensed at least one title to the CC. So what was the point of that first sentence? What did it have to do with the second? Read it again from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the complicated story of which-studio-controls-which-film. I was correcting the mistaken implication that you'd left that Paramount had licensed films to Criterion.

Peace out, DUDE.

[pzman84]

Well, HerrSchreck, you work for Universal. Can you please give your boss a swift kick in the ass for:

1. That Horrible Marx Brother's set
2. Finding time to release special editions of The Fast and the Furious and Meet the Parents while ignoring their catalogue of great films by Lubitsch, Wilder, Sturges, and Von Sternberg, to name a few.
3. For paying $200 million for that horrible remake of King Kong (whether or not you liked the film you gotta admit, it's not worth $200 million).

I know you just work there, so my anger is not directed at you, HerrSchreck. It is at your employers. So, please, give them a swift kick in the ass for me.

[HerrSchreck]

Well, DUDE, you might read what you wrote again:

There is at least one-- off the top of my head-- Paramount title in the CC collection, this being if you'll remember THE SCARLET EMPRESS. The only studio I know offa the top of my head that does not & will not (firm;ly) license it's catalog out to CC is Warner Bros...

By placing those sentences back-to-back, you seem to be suggesting that Paramount has licensed at least one title to the CC. So what was the point of that first sentence? What did it have to do with the second? Read it again from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the complicated story of which-studio-controls-which-film. I was correcting the mistaken implication that you'd left that Paramount had licensed films to Criterion.

Peace out, DUDE.

Again, as I said you need to calm down or eat a suppository. For all those nitpickers reading on the edge of their seat digging their fingernails into their palms over How Studio Stuff Gets Worded, any confusion was dispelled by my very clear elucidation of the licensing arrangement in the next paragraph. So all this for a three second prostate-crinkle? You really wanta take this to the teeth for something so rediculous FilmFanSHeSellsSeaShells?

And to the next poster--pzman I think-- don't even get me started on their home video operation. I just recently took home the Dracula box (Legacy Collection, to clear out all my old MCAUni Horror VHS) and I couldn't believe the original DRACULA was non-progressive, the audio & video were worse than my old VHS.

That said, the complaint about their new films is a bit dorky. What major studio (what studio) isn't in desperate need of bowlsnaking via their flooding the world with shit. Universal is far from alone.

[HerrSchreck]

Mon cher Schreck, what the hell is "Bowlsnaking"?

By way of nothing I started the Image Unseen Box with "Mr Whatsis and his Singing duck." I don't know why I did this but I've been feeling odd ever since.

Aha! Movietone sound tests! If you watch that singing duck for too long, you might get a sinister form of birdflu... Enjoy signor-- was just quacking out BLACK DAWN over inna nother thread w zedz.

Bowlsnaking is when your uh, loo gets clogged... and the plumbers come and stick their uh, snake into the bowl to clear the uh blockage (while yelling at the toilet "Squeal! Louda! Louda!").

(How to make the Grand Aussie drool w double entendre)

Actually Dave a snake is a word used (here in US only?) for that winding plumbers tool jammed down into toilet bowls to clear clogs. So bowlsnaking metaphor.

My good man I'm finishing my 2-day date with M LANGE (part of the appreciation problem may well be Old Interama VHS). Although my opinion is slightly elevating vs my last view yr or 2 ago when I was under the influence of more pictorial films, I still don't see this film on a par with Renoirs obvious masterworks. I love the Wellesian overlapping chit-chat in the group scenes, deliberately miked thus to create realism... I think it's a good film, very good in parts-- but not fully up there in the world of the sublime.

After that I'll revisit MABUSE der Spieler as you requested. I'm due anyway. I'd love to move on to a better copy than the Image dvd, and was going to place an order for the Eureka when FAUST comes out... but now folks are suggesting MoC are going to revisit this for them. Is the Eur. not progressve?-- they just came out with this a yr or 2 ago and the POP on the images vs the Shepard discs looked amazing.

[LightBulbFilm]

likewise with Facets, Kino, New Yorker, and other smaller players

Kanal and Ashes and diamonds - Facets?
The Tin Drum - Kino?
Elevator to the Gallows - New Yorker?

[ByMarkClark.com]

>>Does anyone know anything regarding the Avery and the Chaney TCM?<<

I am hearing that the Chaney Archives Vol. 2 will include both the silent and talkie versions of THE UNHOLY THREE, along with HE WHO GETS SLAPPED and TELL IT TO THE MARINES. MARINES is one of Chaney's best features, although it's not the sort of movie we now associate with the actor. Unfortunately, I haven't heard that WEST OF ZANZIBAR will be included, but it would make an excellent addition if it DOES make the cut.

[Matt]

likewise with Facets, Kino, New Yorker, and other smaller players

Kanal and Ashes and diamonds - Facets?
The Tin Drum - Kino?
Elevator to the Gallows - New Yorker?

Those were not licensed. They lost the rights.

[HerrSchreck]

likewise with Facets, Kino, New Yorker, and other smaller players

Kanal and Ashes and diamonds - Facets?
The Tin Drum - Kino?
Elevator to the Gallows - New Yorker?

Those were not licensed. They lost the rights.

Indeed-- Including companies like Kino & New Yorker in the "Studios Which Do Not License To CC" column is a slightly incongruous as these are not content-originators... they are feindishly-competing fellow theatrical-exhibitors/home-video-distributors/rights-acquirers working parallel to Janus as the same species... although it's true they have dabbled here & there in the content zone as when a DVD-series producer within one of these distributors gets creative (like Bret Wood over at Kino with his HELL's HIWAY or KINGDOM OF SHADOWS) but these are projects which make use of pre-existing celluloid. And are obviously made for inhouse distribution. The only crosscutting of rights I've seen between Kino & Janus is when Janus licensed the home video VHS rights for PANDORAS BOX off of Kino who have it in their Theatrical Distrib/35 & 16mm reels catalog but never threw it up for home viewing on DVD or VHS. Obviously Janus/HvE ran telecine off of Kinos theatrical reels.

[FilmFanSea]

Indeed-- Including companies like Kino & New Yorker in the "Studios Which Do Not License To CC" column is a slightly incongruous as these are not content-originators... they are feindishly-competing fellow theatrical-exhibitors/home-video-distributors/rights-acquirers working parallel to Janus as the same species... although it's true they have dabbled here & there in the content zone ...

I agree that they are not "studios" in any traditional sense; I use "studio" as shorthand for "feindishly[sic]-competing fellow theatrical-exhibitors/home-video-distributors/rights-acquirers," which takes up too much space.

However we label them, the distinction is still valid: Image, Waterbearer, Wellspring, Zeitgeist, Interama, Rialto, and Anchor Bay (e.g. Dead Ringers) have all licensed (or sub-licensed, if you will) films to Criterion, even though they were not the "content originators"; Kino, New Yorker, and Facets have not.

[justeleblanc]

Hey, when was the last time anyone get an email from JM?