criterionforum.org

Perkins Cobb wrote:Dix Nix Pix Crix: Todd McCarthy axed by Variety.

Gary Tooze wrote:Hey Matt!
Sorry this doesn't fit - people have emailed me this interview of Eddie, found here:

http://www.dvdmania.co.pt/Conteudos/ent ... l.php?ID=9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interviewer: What in particular do you find special about your collection of Criterion Collection DVDs? Why did you lose interest in that sub-collection?

Eddie Feng: "Like a lot of things in the cinema industry, the Criterion Collection is “special” only because of advertising and hype. Criterion is like any other third-party licensor that obtains the rights to distribute movies that rights-holders aren’t interested in releasing. Criterion does what Arnold Schwarzenegger did as a bricklayer--you charge people a lot of money and throw around a lot of European names, and suddenly, people think you must be offering a special kind of service that is a cut above the average."


Gary

The fact of the matter is that a lot of Criterion releases are exactly the kind of bad “high art” that I attacked in response to a previous question. (see post above)

Also, Criterion is beholden to financial realities like any other company. For example, Criterion was interested in releasing some titles owned by Buena Vista (Disney). The contract that both companies signed gives Criterion little control over what Buena Vista does with Buena Vista-Criterion discs. This explains why the awful director Michael Bay rates two Criterion mentions (for “The Rock” and “Armageddon”) and why the living-in-his-own-world “high art” Wes Anderson rates three Criterion mentions.

Criterion also rarely ventures beyond Japan, France, and Italy when it releases a non-English-language movie. This means that the Criterion Collection is hardly as representative of the “best” of world cinema as it claims.

Criterion puts a lot of good stuff into the market. At the same time, it’s a company whose reputation is built upon a foundation of half-truths and people’s mis-perceptions of what it does. Criterion doesn’t actively foster those mis-perceptions, but it doesn’t dis-abuse people of them, either.

Matt wrote:If there's anything Feng knows, it's film criticism.

By the way, I can't wait for "epic fail" and its ilk to go the way of "talk to the hand" and "all that and a bag of chips."

Do you distinguish “high art” films from low-brow, pop culture films?

No. This is actually a very dangerous and simple-minded distinction. “High art” can be suffocating, boring, stilted, pretentious, and racist/sexist/biased without the artist consciously intending it. Studying “low art” can be very revelatory because we can see what the majority of people in a given time liked to enjoy when they had free time. This provides insights into how people of an era perceived themselves and the world.

dx23 wrote:Why the hell would anyone interview Feng about any topic in life? His responses are almost as bad a Armond White reviews. Just this answer gave me nausea:

Do you distinguish “high art” films from low-brow, pop culture films?

No. This is actually a very dangerous and simple-minded distinction. “High art” can be suffocating, boring, stilted, pretentious, and racist/sexist/biased without the artist consciously intending it. Studying “low art” can be very revelatory because we can see what the majority of people in a given time liked to enjoy when they had free time. This provides insights into how people of an era perceived themselves and the world.