criterionforum.org

willoneill wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:11 pm 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)?

I would say that would be true five years back and beyond but now companies and corporations have been forced to become more socially conscious and representative

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:26 pm I would say that would be true five years back and beyond but now companies and corporations have been forced to become more socially conscious and representative

Yeah that's pretty obvious. So my question would be, where is the New York Times article on Shout Factory's release diversity?

Saturnome wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:36 pm
Also isn't it almost certain that a some point we'll get a physical release of Watermelon Woman? They made a lot of promotion of it's stream, and it got quite popular on social media

Watermelon Woman is distributed on DVD by First Run Features, although a blu-ray would be most welcome regardless of who was putting it out.

I think the difference is that Shout Factory nor any other US label has it in their mission statement that they release important films.

The article was a good one even if the inclusion of Ava Duverney was cringeful.

So many of these films lie with rights holders who never license to Criterion or do releases themselves. Someone in this thread was mentioning The Watermelon Woman, but that has already been restored and re-released a few years ago by First Run Features. I know this because I saw it in the theater with Cheryl Dunye in person! Hollywood Shuffle (a film I love) is constantly promoted by Criterion for their channel, but it's an MGM title that Olive Films released a while ago and is still in print. Vinegar Syndrome has done incredible releases of Jamaa Fanakaa's first four films (a man who's career was destroyed because he attempt legal action against the DGA of racist practices) along with a gorgeous release of Sweet Sweetback's Baadassss Song (though I cling onto the Criterion laserdisc for the commentary). UCLA grads like Charles Burnett and Billy Woodberry have had Milestone Films champion their films for years (partly as I think Milestone has very close connections to Ross Lipman, the senior film restorationist at UCLA).

I do think the view that everything released by Criterion is thus canonized is troubling as Criterion has released some certified doo-doo (The Big Chill, Valley of the Dolls) and have still not touched some pretty major directors and movements (no Frank Tashlin, films from mainland China, more collections of avant-garde filmmakers). I think their focus on American cinema in the last few years has sort of dissolved a lot of enthusiasm for the label, especially as Kino can crank out a release that looks as good as a Criterion now at a fraction of the cost.

Menace II Society has had a great Blu-ray from Warner Bros. for years with plenty of special features, but I would love to see Dead Presidents come back. I actually watched my laserdisc of it fairly recently and although it's not a perfect movie (the Hughes Bros. criticize the flaws themselves in the commentary), but it's a much better film than I remember that seems to draw equally from Mean Streets, exploitation cinema, and the Vietnam War films. Bill Duke's Deep Cover is a awesome thriller from the early 90s that for some reason still has no Blu-ray release! There's also Spencer Williams who made fascinating poverty row budget films specifically for black theaters like the excellent The Blood of Jesus.

It's frustrating to say this as there are so few black female filmmakers who have made a name for themselves, but Ava DuVernay is constantly cringeworthy. She's bothered me for years and is more of a business person than any artist. And she'll forever be associated with this tweet in my mind:

HinkyDinkyTruesmith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:03 pm Laurie, Wes, Paul Thomas, Lindsay, and John Murray.

knives wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:10 pm Dang, that is a lot of Andersons.

You might even say that they are ........magnificent \:D/

Also, I know it doesn't matter, but I'd gleefully trade either Wildlife or Tiny Furniture (maybe even more!) in exchange for absolutely anyone's un-wacky C'd film immediately.

I seem to recall the New Line Blu-ray of Menace II Society as being a bit of a DNR mess, so it definitely could use a new release. (As, frankly could a number of New Line Blus. Dark City and A History of Violence to name two.)

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:55 pm 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.

Paul Schrader's complicated and I think carefully thought out Canon Fodder touches on this issue of Canon with a fairly measured critique:

Context: Describing the collapse of the concept of a Canon as a result of the rise of "non-value" value judgments with the rise of the bourgeois:

"The Nonjudgmentals have devised schemes by which art could be closely studied and analyzed without prejudice—the prejudice, that is, of having to determine if the art work is good or bad vis-à-vis another work of art (as if we still know what good and bad is!).
The Nonjudgmentals fall into several categories. The fore- most are the (1) pleaders of special causes: minority, gender, and cultural studies. Black Studies, Latino, Feminist, Gay, etc. By separating a select group of art works from the larger Dead White Male panorama, a critic can study the works as part of a subset, evaluating them by how they function in the subset. These are fascinating and important studies; they have the added benefit of freeing the critic from having to pass judgment. (An irony of attackers of the DWM canon is that, having freed themselves of the Western tradition and its implied qual- ifications, the special causes of Nonjudgmentals proceed to set up alternative canons: black, Latino, feminist, gay, etc.) The same holds true of genre and cultural studies: westerns, pulp novels, British theater, Indian cinema. Careers and academic departments have been built around fields of interest that free the scholar from passing judgment. Culture in this case really means subculture, and, in studying these subcultural art works, the critic examines their relationship to the larger cul- ture rather than their comparative value."

DuVarney has a talent for self promotion, which I suppose she needs to maintain her career, which has led to some specious statements such as when she suggested that she should automatically be nominated for best director whenever she puts out a movie because the oscars need to nominate more black women.

A lot of classic black cinema has been released by Xenon Pictures. They are still very much in business. Criterion is suppose to poach their titles to get Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song or to reissue The Harder They Come?

Criterion isn't perfect, but they've released films spanning a (near) decade and numerous countries. I don't see how their standard feels "very white supremacist," as said by one of the interviewees.

willoneill wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:32 pm

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:26 pm I would say that would be true five years back and beyond but now companies and corporations have been forced to become more socially conscious and representative

Yeah that's pretty obvious. So my question would be, where is the New York Times article on Shout Factory's release diversity?

Not naming any names, but someone from Kino tweeted a list of their titles they’ve released from Black filmmakers over the past five years... and it was also eight releases (five Spike Lees). Over what I estimate at around 1300 releases. It’s a universal problem - I was trying to think of the UK labels en masse, and other than Arrow’s blaxploitstion releases I can barely think of any movies from Black directors. Which makes this article pretending like Criterion is operating in a vacuum free from their competitors more frustrating. I think the article gets at an important issue but kind of bungles the specifics to not really be constructive.

Luke M wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:42 pm I think the difference is that Shout Factory nor any other US label has it in their mission statement that they release important films.

So are the films released by other labels not important since they don't state it in their mission statement? This double standard is ridiculous and it's not fair that other labels get off scot-free while one label has to be dragged through the mud.

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:55 pm Ava DuVernay twitter... not good for Peter Becker

I actually agree with her that Daughters of the Dust would be a no-brainer for the collection

Except Cohen has the rights.

I also question the idea that Peter Becker was the sole decision maker at Criterion in 1992 was he was 28 years old, which is what the article implies.

Fact: Criterion has released more films directed by living African Americans than they have titles encoded by David Mackenzie

swo17 wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:14 pm

FrauBlucher wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:55 pm Ava DuVernay twitter... not good for Peter Becker

I actually agree with her that Daughters of the Dust would be a no-brainer for the collection

Wholeheartedly agree. But his explanation was terrible. As following twitter comments say, this from someone who has released Godard's films.

Controversial statement(s):

Whenever things get into a black vs white binary, the significance of other “people of color” get lost (I say this as a gay man of Mexican descent). The article barely mentions any Mexican films, South American films, Asian films, Middle Eastern films, and seems to focus more on African American filmmakers rather then focusing on international black filmmakers.

Also, the emphasis on “Criterion could release...” gets into the issue of putting Criterion into a vacuum where they have all the rights and the money to release these films. They don’t. And their line of output is slow (how many years did it take to release all the Chaplins? How many years will we be waiting for all the Almodovar / Fassbinder / Kurosawa / Harold Lloyd releases?). Moreover, as people pointed out, Criterion isn’t the only company releasing films.

This is not an excuse to say that Criterion is free from blame, but I think - like with Oscars so White - Criterion is a symptom of a problem. The bigger issue is the film industry itself. If the industry is not emphasizing a bigger push for diversity and gender parity, then you only get a select few films that are put out by female filmmakers and by black filmmakers. And if those films are omitted from the Criterion announcements, then the issue becomes conflated to say that Criterion is the sole problem, when it is a more complex issue than that. And then people are quick to cancel Criterion.

I'll throw myself under the bus and admit that I don't really "understand" Daughters of the Dust either, or care for it (please hold the tomatoes!) but one person's barometer of comprehension and appreciation isn't the brand of the company. I would never doubt that the film is important, and part of his job is to pick films that may not be accessible to someone in his position and find supplementary material from people outside those around you to help with that.

knives wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:41 pm Bill Gunn seems a good choice as well.

If this prompts a boutique label to release Stop! I'll be over the moon, though it's about a bunch of white people so I don't see why that should be a mark of success vs films that give attention to non-white groups but are by white directors. I'm definitely not saying that we shouldn't also encourage the inclusion of black filmmakers, but wish the conversation wasn't so auteurist, when the person behind the camera is only a part of the puzzle. If Criterion continues down the Jewison pipeline, and for example releases the excellent A Solider's Story, would that not count as a film focused on marginalized populations because the director is white?

Anyways my favorite film that does make the cut is The Color of Fear, which would be an incredible release, but nobody knows about it.

criterionoop wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:19 pmAnd then people are quick to cancel Criterion.

For what it's worth, I haven't seen a single person on Film Twitter call for the "cancellation" of Criterion over this story. On the contrary, the few people that I see talking about it there are doing so in a remarkably nuanced way for Film Twitter, with a lot of people either discussing this as a more systemic issue relating to the way movies in general are made and released (which I think is entirely fair game) or thinking in rather moderate terms about specific African-American directed films that could easily be released by Criterion (though I had to laugh when someone suggested Get Out and Precious and was promptly mocked, in much the same manner as they would have been here). Barring someone else taking this story and running with it in a way that hasn't happened yet, I don't think this will much affect Criterion's popularity or lead to widespread calls for its dismantling.

criterionoop wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:19 pm Controversial statement(s):

Whenever things get into a black vs white binary, the significance of other “people of color” get lost (I say this as a gay man of Mexican descent). The article barely mentions any Mexican films, South American films, Asian films, Middle Eastern films, and seems to focus more on African American filmmakers rather then focusing on international black filmmakers.

Also, the emphasis on “Criterion could release...” gets into the issue of putting Criterion into a vacuum where they have all the rights and the money to release these films. They don’t. And their line of output is slow (how many years did it take to release all the Chaplins? How many years will we be waiting for all the Almodovar / Fassbinder / Kurosawa / Harold Lloyd releases?). Moreover, as people pointed out, Criterion isn’t the only company releasing films.

This is not an excuse to say that Criterion is free from blame, but I think - like with Oscars so White - Criterion is a symptom of a problem. The bigger issue is the film industry itself. If the industry is not emphasizing a bigger push for diversity and gender parity, then you only get a select few films that are put out by female filmmakers and by black filmmakers. And if those films are omitted from the Criterion announcements, then the issue becomes conflated to say that Criterion is the sole problem, when it is a more complex issue than that. And then people are quick to cancel Criterion.

This was on my mind as well, but didn’t want to be the first to bring it up. I think that’s the main issue of America’s racialist discourse in general as it ignores the complexity of non hegemonic groups in the US as well as keeping blacks as othered. In all seriousness who was the last Mexican-American filmmaker to have a major hit and follow up in the way DuVarney and Jenkins have been afforded? Robert Rodriguez?

That doesn’t even get into a lot of other elements which make up a person as well. While watching Glass I was really impressed with the sense that this would be a radically different film if made by someone who lived in LA rather than remaining in PA. Regional voices are very important and something we don’t get at large. I mean, even something as basic as the fact that Biden would only be the second ever non-Protestant president gets shoved under the rug due to this absurd dichotomy.

Never Cursed wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:51 pmI 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.