Criterion & Eclipse in the Press

[domino harvey]

To be fair, no director looks good when they get thirsty about being released by Criterion. Do y’all remember Aronfsky’s quest to get the Fountain released? True cringe

[knives]

Thankfully that’s blotted from memory.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah that was even more brutal than ususal, because the movie is awfully self-important enough without the campaigning

[Never Cursed]

I don't think this will much affect Criterion's popularity or lead to widespread calls for its dismantling.

No, I’m using “cancel” in the “cancel culture” sense (not necessarily in the “dismantle” sense). There are people that I’ve seen make good arguments for films that should be in the collection. And there are some people that have been championing films for years (I, for one, have Mexican films I would be interested in seeing in the collection).

But looking at Ava’s tweet and the comments that follow, there isn’t much nuance. Also that quote from Peter Becker is pretty bad.

Not defending DuVernay's statements within or outside of the article, but again, neither she nor anyone in the comments of her single tweet about this issue actually calls for a cancel culture approach to Criterion, just that Becker's (insufficient, by all of our admissions) statements within the article rang hollow. Again, I have yet to see anyone use cancel culture rhetoric towards Criterion in response to this article, which makes me question the idea that anyone is or has been quick to cancel Criterion in any way.

Also, what is the difference between the "cancel culture" and "dismantle" uses of the word "cancel?"

[FrauBlucher]

I also haven't seen calls or a movement to cancel Criterion. But I bet the Criterion Website had an epic day in clicks

Kyle Buchanan, co-writer of the NY Times article, retweeted Barry Jenkins/Peter Becker interview. I don't remember seeing it but I'm sure some of you have
https://twitter.com/kyalbr/status/1296481197606998016

[ianungstad]

It's true that Criterion could be more diverse but the article fails to even discuss in detail the World Cinema Project or licensing agreements in recent years to bring films from China, India, Korea etc. to the Collection. It name drops a lot of international auteurs but focuses it's daggers on the lack of black Hollywood and American independent films made from 1990 to the present. Seems like a pretty narrow slice of the pie that disregards a lot of diversity present in the collection.

It also criticizes Criterion for not releasing Medicine for Melancholy but then mentions that Becker reached out to Jenkins in 2018 about doing just that and quotes Becker as saying that he hopes to release it in the near future.

It also claims that they passed on Ava's film and Becker's response was that they would love to do it and that Ava would have to reach out to Lionsgate. When has Lionsgate licensed to ANY third party label?

Criterion only ever had a first run deal with IFC films and whittles that down to only 3-4 releases a year. Only recently having similar arrangements with Netflix and Neon. Those are atypical releases for them. In fact one of the common complaints on the forum is the desire to see less contemporary releases from Criterion and not more. It is too bad that they passed on Daughters of the Dust back in the laserdisc days but they also passed on Bottle Rocket at the time too. (speaking of the Andersons!)

Lots of virtue signaling BS in that article that buries what is a legit criticism that could have been discussed in a more thoughtful manner.

[CSM126]

Lionsgate has licensed to Criterion exactly twice: Kicking & Screaming and Naqoyqatsi. They’re definitely not a regular business partner, and I imagine Becker is probably right to say the filmmaker needs to get involved, since that’s how those two licenses happened.

[Ribs]

Amores perros which is imminent is also from Lionsgate.

[Big Ben]

Isn't a Sembene related something coming too? A boxset or something?

[dwk]

They are working on restoring Sembene's films.

Now, back to Lionsgate.

I assume that Amores perros' rights are back with Iñárritu and Naqoyqatsi is a Miramax title, so, for all we know, that could've been licensed to Criterion back when Disney owned them and they only got around to getting it out after Miramax was sold and Lionsgate assumed physical distribution of that catalog. So Kicking & Screaming is, most likely, the sole Lionsgate title. Maybe people aught to be yelling at Lionsgate for sitting on these films instead of licensing them out. ('though,truthfully, if Criterion were to gain access to a Lionsgate film directed by an African American woman, Eve's Bayou would be my pick.)

[knives]

That would be a much better choice. Still my favorite Jackson performance and Lemmons just knows how to build relationships visually.

[KJones77]

I think the broader problem is that Criterion has this image as being a prestigious walled garden rather than just a boutique label that licenses product, which of course gives them an advantage in the marketplace, but I wish people didn't propagate this notion that a film only becomes "important" when they release it.

That said: Kino's generosity with things like the Pioneers boxes and their vastly greater pace of releases definitely makes them look good in this scenario, but of course that requires ignoring the two companies' relative quality control.

This is exactly where I land here. The controversy is based on people buying into their marketing hype about being "important" and "canon" when they're just a private company trying to make a profit. At worst, they're emblematic of a larger societal issue. Yes, they should release more films by black filmmakers and I'm sure they will moving forward, but it doesn't make those films any more important nor are they the only ones guilty of this. You mention Kino's box-set, but aside from that and a few releases here and there, is Kino much better percentage-wise in black to non-black directors? How about Indicator (aside from Black Joy, do they have any other black films included)? Arrow (their blaxploitation releases being the main ones I can think of)? It's not a Criterion only issue, yet because of their marketing themselves as arbiters of canon and people buying into that, they're getting slammed for what is endemic in the industry from film production to eventual home media releases to consumer decisions.

[CSM126]

I’d be interested to see figures for POC inclusion overall in the collection - not just directors but screenwriters, producers, composers, actors etc. It probably makes this whole issue look overblown, unless you’re a rabid auteurist who thinks directors are the only people who matter on a film shoot.

[knives]

Indicator released Watermelon Man.

[KJones77]

Indicator released Watermelon Man.

So there's 1 black director (Black Joy was directed by a white guy, though its cast is all Black IIRC). Not exactly a great percentage there either.

[swo17]

And yet they're currently the most vital label running

[domino harvey]

Indicator is already getting canceled once anyone listens to the James Ellroy commentary for the Lineup

[hearthesilence]

Dennis Doros of Milestone commented on the article when someone tagged him on social media with it:

Well... What the writer didn't mention is what I said. Yes, we are very proud of what we've done. But... We LOVE Criterion. We don't have to support 30+ people's salaries so there is a big difference in what we can afford to distribute. Also, they have not poached our best sellers (they have been offered some of them by the producers) so they have kept us in business by their friendship. Knowing the owners and being their friend, I know they will be correcting this as they already have done on the Criterion Channel.

[hearthesilence]

Ava DuVernay twitter... not good for Peter Becker

Did she miss the entire last few months, when Criterion set up funds specifically to go to black artists and dropped the paywall on dozens of black-artist directed films on their streaming service? Has she not heard that Atlantics, a contemporary film directed by a black woman, is coming to the collection soon? Could Criterion be doing “better” (whatever that means)? Probably. But this axe-grindy, cherry picking bullshit is ridiculous.

It really is obnoxious how they're suddenly going after a company that already started re-evaluating what they've done and was actively turning things around.

[Luke M]

Re-reading the article, I think the most indefensible part is learning Paul Dano is good friends.

[spectre]

It's an interesting article, and yes it'd be great to have more quality blu-ray releases from Black directors (among other less-represented areas of film). The article does raise many questions; for instance, the author either doesn't understand or pretends not to understand both the complexity of home video rights, and the fact that the early years of DVD were such a financial boon for the studios that they licensed out a mere fraction of what gets licensed now.

To me though, the biggest question, and I'm not sure where I even stand personally on this, is how much social responsibility a private company is expected to have. Criterion is the most "famous" boutique label (I say this because it's the only one my non-film fan friends can name), but it's not the only one. Why are only their choices criticized? Criterion is not a public entity, or even a publicly-controlled company. It's a private company, and in America, aren't they allowed to run their business as see fit (within the obvious limits of the law and the norms of their industry)? To look at it another way, why do they have the sole responsibility (that is, like it or not, the tenor of that article) for the home video representation of black directors?

I think the questions about its role as a perceived cultural gatekeeper are legitimate, but ultimately the biggest issue here is how Criterion wants to represent itself. Of course it has a right to hardly ever release the work of African-American directors if it doesn't want to; but is "the DVD company that isn't interested in African-American work" really how the company want to see itself, and be seen by others? Because this article shows that that's how they've been seen for a while now, and there's no point complaining about the unfairness of being singled out (nobody gets upset at Kino et al because they don't have the cultural prestige; Criterion are lucky that enough people are invested in the company's work to care).

What I think we have here is a dissociation between a company's goal – to be a prestige label that carries the best of world cinema – and the reality that has emerged from their self-admitted blind spots, which is that their image of "world cinema" has been very white and US/European/Japanese-focused. So an article like this will, hopefully, offer an opportunity for a bit of company soul-searching and a bit more commitment to seeking out work off the beaten track (not only from African-American filmmakers but also those from Africa and other regions of the Global South). Not because the world needs a super-woke, virtue-signalling Criterion – Lord help us all – but because we all (as viewers, critics, filmmakers) benefit from a Criterion that lives up to its own mission statement and performs a more active curatorial role, instead of lazily falling back on [insert overrepresented filmmaker/s of your choice].

[kcota17]

Well let’s hope this article helps get Killer of Sheep on blu-ray quicker

[hearthesilence]

There's a long list of African films that I hope to see release soon (though I'm bracing for the possibility of rights and source material issues with many of my long-available wishes because that's been a frequent problem with many other favorites elsewhere in the world).

[knives]

There's a long list of African films that I hope to see release soon (though I'm bracing for the possibility of rights and source material issues with many of my long-available wishes because that's been a frequent problem with many other favorites elsewhere in the world).

A lot of the best examples are with California Newsreel. A company no one has ever heard of.

[Calvin]

Something I've observed in the aftermath of the article is those critical of Criterion on social media saying that they should release the likes of Moonlight or Get Out - well known films by well known filmmakers that already have excellent releases. If the article had a point, agree or disagree, it was surely that Criterion has some sort of cultural responsibility to widen the availability and exposure of African-American films that otherwise, like Daughters of the Dust, are absent from the home media landscape for a period of time. Criterion have brought it on themselves with their self-important mission statement, but surely the responsibility also lies with the consumer to buy the Cohen (or BFI) release of Daughters of the Dust or the Milestone Killer of Sheep or the Vinegar Syndrome Sweet Sweetback and not think that Criterion's catalog is the only one that matters. If those releases sold like hotcakes then I'm sure we'd be seeing much more in their vein from labels across the market.