criterionforum.org

Criterion posted a hint on Underworld (1927).

http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone heard anything on the Andrei Rublev re-release that was hinted at a year or so ago?

andyli wrote:Criterion posted a hint on Underworld (1927).

http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buck Mulligan! Is he stately and plump?

so Underworld and Docks of NY in the mainline coming up? that'd be pretty cool.

I was also kind of hoping we'd get Dishonored, the Case of Lena Smith, and An American Tragedy. I'm fascinated by the salacious pre-code stuff...thus was thinking that might make for a good eclipse set.


And whatever happened to The French Lieutenant's Woman? Wasn't that announced along with the Sternbergs a while back?

zedz wrote:

andyli wrote:Criterion posted a hint on Underworld (1927).

http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buck Mulligan! Is he stately and plump?

And Slippy Lewis! Kind of sounds like a porn name. indeed, both do! what kind of flick is this anyway?!?

andyli wrote:Criterion posted a hint on Underworld (1927).

http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't believe we're getting important news like this from something called 'twitgoo'.

nostalghic wrote:Anyone heard anything on the Andrei Rublev re-release that was hinted at a year or so ago?

I promised to buy everyone on the forum a copy if it happened last year; now may be the right time to re-up the promise for this year.

This is my way of saying "don't hold your breath." Criterion's interests seem elsewhere for the time being. But, if Kino gets around to releasing a good quality Blu of The Sacrifice (and let's pray The Mirror as well), then they'll officially be lapping Criterion for Blu-rays I care about.

andyli wrote:Criterion posted a hint on Underworld (1927).

http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this evidence of an actual boxset, vs. Eclipse? Or does it mean nothing? And who the hell's Twitter account is that?

HistoryProf wrote:so Underworld and Docks of NY in the mainline coming up? that'd be pretty cool.

I was also kind of hoping we'd get Dishonored, the Case of Lena Smith, and An American Tragedy. I'm fascinated by the salacious pre-code stuff...thus was thinking that might make for a good eclipse set.

And whatever happened to The French Lieutenant's Woman? Wasn't that announced along with the Sternbergs a while back?

The Case of Lena Smith is not going to happen, unless they find it in some Brazilian vault ala Metropolis. The only bit of it that remains is about 5 minutes worth of film. If Sosin's wrong, and this is a mainline release, I would expect that to be a special feature.

HistoryProf wrote:what kind of flick is this anyway?!?

People describe it as "the first gangster film", but I found that's the wrong attitude to take into it. This is a character study, and the expectations of a genre defining film do not suit Underworld well. George Bancroft is extremely hammy to start (which also puts into perspective just how good his performance in Docks of New York is), but the last half of the film really won me over.

As for what films are released, the Eastman post on the Current mentioned 3, and so did Sosin. Underworld, Docks of New York, and The Last Command should be seeing a release of some kind. I'm still holding out some hope for a mainline release.

And while we're throwing out titles previously confirmed that haven't materialized, Cronos?

zedz wrote: Buck Mulligan! Is he stately and plump?

Yes, I said, yes, Yes he is. Yes.

Svevan wrote:

andyli wrote:Criterion posted a hint on Underworld (1927).

http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this evidence of an actual boxset, vs. Eclipse? Or does it mean nothing? And who the hell's Twitter account is that?

Eh... I don't know how to properly put an entire tweet here. But this is the Criterion tweet 14 hours ago:

Criterion RT @AgainstNature The Players: http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
about 14 hours ago via HootSuite

andyli wrote:

Svevan wrote:

andyli wrote:Criterion posted a hint on Underworld (1927).

http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this evidence of an actual boxset, vs. Eclipse? Or does it mean nothing? And who the hell's Twitter account is that?

Eh... I don't know how to properly put an entire tweet here. But this is the Criterion tweet 14 hours ago:

Criterion RT @AgainstNature The Players: http://twitgoo.com/p3zvn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
about 14 hours ago via HootSuite

I'm probably being dense, but how do we know this has anything to do with Criterion?

They "re-tweeted" it. I imagine that they wouldn't bother unless it had something to do with them.

captveg wrote:Considering Criterion has already released more pre-60s films on Blu-ray in the US than any major studio outside of WB, I don't think they deserve the criticism in this regard.

Don't get me wrong—I think Criterion is doing an excellent job. In fact, they've surprised me with how aggressive they've been about putting out Blu-rays of older films. There's no criticism here. I just think it'd be sad if they decided against releasing a classic on Blu-ray because they felt there wasn't much of a market for such an old film. It'd be sad because they'd underestimated their audience. Or worse, because they hadn't.

Moving off of Blu but on, I think, the same subject: I think a lot of Criterion's decisions re: silent film underestimate their audience. Pandora's Box was a big effort that must've gone kerplunk, sales-wise, because we've been getting mainline silent films at the rate of one per 2.5 years. Perhaps this forthcoming Sternberg effort will turn the tide.

Of course, if they want to funnel all their silents onto Eclipse, I say do it; we want them, we'll buy them, all eight of us. I'll buy five copies of every L'Herbier DVD they drop.

I think in regards to silent films they simply don't have the rights to many of them. Kino has almost all the prominent international ones, as well as Keaton's pre-MGM features; Warner owns all the Warner, First National, MGM and FBO (which became RKO) silents; Universal owns all the Universal and Paramount silents. Fox own all of their silents. Sony own all of Columbia silents. So, unless they are able to license some (something Kino and Warner won't do) they have some limited ability to release silent films.

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but who has the rights to A PAGE OF MADNESS?
According to IMDB, New Line had it in 1975...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_ ... nt_library" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In short, Universal owns about 750 pre-1950 Paramount films. Some exceptions which Paramount still owns are The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, Wings, and the vague "some" other silent films. It does mention some are in the public domain.

In any case, my point was that Criterion would still need to license from one of the big studios in most cases.

Criterion has also promised several silents that have yet to surface - Cabiria, the Eisensteins, more Ozu, and I'm sure others that I can't recall. The Chaplin box/discs/whatevers plus whatever potential silent Sternbergs are thrown in the mix could nearly double their output.

I think Criterion didn't treat silent film the way they treated talking cinema: they didn't start with the greats and build a fan base around them. Nanook and Haxan are great films and hugely important to their respective national cinemas, but they aren't the bread and butter of silent cinema (esp. Haxan, which is an aberration even within Swedish silent cinema). I'm not denying that rights, available materials, et al. didn't affect their decisions, and limits them in many ways, but even considering all factors, when faced with procuring and disseminating the greats of all time, Criterion has been heavily slanted towards foreign talking cinema of the 50s and 60s and against any silent cinema. I think Criterion has the ability to shape public opinion, not merely respond to it (notice all the Facebook crazies who only buy Criterions), so a willful push in the direction of the oldest movies could change the market for the better.

I don't think Criterion ever said something about Cabiria?
A silent they can release though is Sjöström's Phantom Charriot.

Saturnome wrote:I don't think Criterion ever said something about Cabiria?

I think you might be right. Roger Ebert, in his Great Movies essay on the film, mentions that the full-length version will be released on DVD by Criterion - and that might be where the rumor started. One wonders where he might have got such information, but since we haven't heard anything since (that I know of) it may be that he was misinformed.

Edit: It seems that a poster here emailed Criterion about it a few years ago and their response suggests that it might not be happening.

Did Cannes announce Criterion's late '10/11 release schedule?

-The Battle of the Rails
- Boudu Saved from Drowning
- TRISTANA
- The Tin Drum
- KHANDAHAR
- LA CAMPAGNE DE CICERON
- LE GRAND AMOUR
-MEST (The Red Flute)
-KÉT LÁNY AZ UTCÁN (Two Girls in the Street)
-TITASH EKTI NADIR NAAM (A River Called Titas)
two short films: IL RUSCELLO DI RIPASOTTILE (Italy, 1941, 6’) by Roberto Rossellini, and THE ELOQUENT PEASANT by Chadi Abdel Salam (Egypt, 1970, 8’).

Tristana is a Janus title, but as some of those films listed are definitely not coming to Criterion even your reduced list is suspect.

It's probably safe to assume that The Eloquent Peasant (which I didn't even know existed - and nor did IMDB) will make it onto Criterion's eventual release of The Night of Counting the Years. Pre-existing extras for that film are likely to be very thin on the ground.

Do you have a source for that zedz? I've never seen any mention of The Night of Counting the Years being Criterion property, I thought it was still New Yorker?