criterionforum.org

Firstly the Fantastic Planet is wrong headed as that is as great (and canonical) a film as any of the Mizoguchis. Secondly I assume this is a case like the Naruse's where the sales are simply so low that housing them in storage bleeds them far more then can be excused. This isn't a break from anything that MOC or most other labels have done in the past. Also frankly I don't really see that many big money earners in MOC's wing. Some of the Universal titles probably and maybe some of the uber canon silents, but they don't have anything on the level of The Blob or 12 Angry Men in terms of sales potential.

bdlover wrote:So because the numbers aren't 'huge' they have no intention of renewing the two most canonical Asian films in their catalogue. Surely then this does suggest a break from the established model for this kind of label, that lower-selling but canonical titles are balanced by less important but more commercial releases. Or if you like that Fantastic Planet makes the money whilst Ugetsu monogatari earns the prestige.

It's not remotely "a break from the established model", since the established model based on my experience of actually working for and with distributors going back nearly 25 years is that if particular titles aren't selling, the rights aren't renewed. Because the alternative is to renew the rights with money (and often a great deal of money) that could be more profitably diverted elsewhere - and who benefits from that? Nobody.

What's unusual here is that Eureka are being publicly candid about the lack of renewal and the reasons - most of the time in other cases, rights simply aren't renewed and titles quietly pass out of print. But that's really the only aspect of this situation that's "a break from the established model".

Kevin@Eureka wrote:we are extremely close to the end of our licence period on these with no intention to renew (they really haven't sold in huge numbers)

Translation: We know how these films sold on DVD. Using basic math, we would lose a ton of money if we paid to relicense them. Sorry. But as a consolation prize, here is a public heads-up about the situation, and oh yeah, here are all eight of our Mizoguchi films looking stunning on Blu-ray.

MichaelB wrote:What's unusual here is that Eureka are being publicly candid about the lack of renewal and the reasons - most of the time in other cases, rights simply aren't renewed and titles quietly pass out of print.

I find it only logical, since this is a first in the collection, and most likley because everyone was waiting some official statement that, indeed, the titles wouldn't be sold separately. It's good that they took the time not only to respond to this, but also extensively explain the hows and the whys.

If nothing else, this discussion generated what should be our forum's tagline on the homepage:

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:a small coterie of sadfuck cinephiles

Jeff wrote:If nothing else, this discussion generated what should be our forum's tagline on the homepage:

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:a small coterie of sadfuck cinephiles

I prefer "cinéastes" to "cinephiles".

Cinéaste can also refer to film _makers_ as well as fans -- so cinephile is less ambiguous.

It's not the first time I've heard MoC staff intimate that this or that title was--disappointingly-- not doing particularly well. I know at least a couple of the initial run of silents could have sold better, at least versus wishes or projections... Michael by Dreyer being an example lurking near the top of my head.

It's the cruel economics of releasing sliver titles like these that see me overflowing with gratitude when a co like MoC releases the Dreyer in a dual-transfer set, or Kino goes out on a limb for something like Warning Shadows by Robison or Alibi by West.

This is home video cataloguing not to fill a waiting market--few even in the silent or early sound world even heard of these films upon release--this is home video production to try to advance and develop culture substantively and qualitatively.

Completely different species of strategy.

Most ironic is when a company introduces a super obscure title to the world single handedly . . . title and director catch on with the cine subculture . . . other labels jump on the bandwagon as the vaults start opening op as home vid projects and arthouse tours become potentially profitable . . . new transfers start appearing . . . and the original transfer that started it all gets bashed by the tech obsessed.

I was mystified that so relatively few people (apparently even withing this community) snapped up MOC's release of Renoir's Toni (even moreso than at the lack of public embrace, at last, of Naruse).

Fun drinking game: Take a shot every time bdlover frames his argument around Sanso and Ugetsu being canonical

I'm already dead tired man, don't make me have a dead liver too.

Gregory wrote:"£1-74" (that same odd hyphen usage is the only reason I remembered this)

I've only seen one other person hyphenate a price like that. Oddly enough, that other person used to post at this very forum until he was banned. Twice. He had the same taste in internet service providers as bdlover and shared his interests in the inner workings of the Cannes Film Festival and telling companies what films should be released and what was fair to charge for them. Other mutual interests include what the UK National Lottery has funded and rooting for the failure of director Steve McQueen. I think those guys would be great pals.

Just when I was beginning to wonder what all of bdlover's sound and fury signified...

Er, if you can't win an argument then formulate a conspiracy theory?

Better have your bottle of bourbon ready.

Whether some people here like the films or not, they are much more canonical than anything directed by Naruse, a minor Dreyer like Michael or a minor Renoir like Toni. Both films have been a feature of every Sight & Sound best of all time poll since they were made. Ugetsu actually came 4th in 1962 and 10th in 1972. Tokyo Story, Seven Samurai, Rashomon and Pather Panchali are the only Asian films to make a greater or equal impact on the poll, none of which Masters of Cinema own. Certainly Janus seem to know the importance of the films, making the effort to re-release them both on blu-ray with no suggestion their editions will go out of print. Anyway looking at recent releases and decisions including this one I remain convinced that MoC are changing course, drawing back on their commitment to world cinema to focus more on Hollywood classics. Time will tell.

bdlover wrote:Er, if you can't win an argument then formulate a conspiracy theory?

What argument are you envisioning winning here? You are positing that a film's importance amongst a small but influential set of film experts predicates the necessity of its home video availability. Your own example shows the malleable fluidity of the film cannon in that Ugetsu is not in the Top 10 for Sight and Sound and hasn't been for over forty years. No one here, including me, is saying these films aren't important or worth having available. We're mocking your hand-line stance against a label making financially prudent decisions because you think somehow a very specific historical relevancy is a metric by which retail worth is measured.

bdlover wrote:Er, if you can't win an argument then formulate a conspiracy theory?

Is that directed at me, Tom? I haven't put forth any argument. I know you always enjoy a good conspiracy theory anyway.

I love the two Mizoguchis in question, but certainly understand Eureka's decision not to renew their license.

If the bourbon thing is a reference, it sailed right over my head. [EDIT: Ah, thanks, domino.]

Re: bourbon, see drinking game comment above

That's not my name and I don't know Jeff, but you seem to have a horse in this race, trying to get me banned for using the UK's most popular ISP. It's not 1776 anymore, but I'll happily go away if you want me to.

Yes, please go away.

bdlover wrote:That's not my name and I don't know Jeff, but you seem to have a horse in this race, trying to get me banned for using the UK's most popular ISP. It's not 1776 anymore, but I'll happily go away if you want me to.

Is your name Thomas? Rumpelstiltskin, perhaps? I'm not "trying to get [you] banned." I did consider banning you, but things have been a bit dull around here lately.

For the record, it was the price thing and the content of your posts that tipped your hand, not the ISP.

Fuck bourbon, I need dilaudid after reading this guy.

Now excuse me while I watch my shitty image DVD of the television 16mm of The Flying Serpent.

bdlover wrote:Certainly Janus seem to know the importance of the films, making the effort to re-release them both on blu-ray

Not Ugetsu.

I remain convinced that MoC are changing course, drawing back on their commitment to world cinema to focus more on Hollywood classics.

Jan-Nov 2013 MoC releases by country:

Japan/USA: 7 each
France: 6
Germany/Italy: 3 each
Turkey/Morocco/Kazakhstan: 1 each

And there are at least a couple of those American releases that I wouldn't really call "classic Hollywood."

bdlover wrote:Whether some people here like the films or not, they are much more canonical than anything directed by Naruse, a minor Dreyer like Michael or a minor Renoir like Toni. Both films have been a feature of every Sight & Sound best of all time poll since they were made. Ugetsu actually came 4th in 1962 and 10th in 1972. Tokyo Story, Seven Samurai, Rashomon and Pather Panchali are the only Asian films to make a greater or equal impact on the poll, none of which Masters of Cinema own. Certainly Janus seem to know the importance of the films, making the effort to re-release them both on blu-ray with no suggestion their editions will go out of print. Anyway looking at recent releases and decisions including this one I remain convinced that MoC are changing course, drawing back on their commitment to world cinema to focus more on Hollywood classics. Time will tell.

Once again, your argument completely ignores the underlying economic factors. Janus is both richer than Eureka and has a much larger market, so they can afford to keep more things in print. Which, as I've mentioned more than once, costs money upfront - in other words, if you don't have a realistic chance of recouping that investment, you have to think long and hard about whether it's worth it. Clearly, sales of the Mizoguchis suggest that it isn't, and I completely understand where they're coming from - I'd make exactly the same decision if I was in the same situation.

Until you grasp this very simple point, you're not going to understand how this business works. And it is, at base, a business, however "canonical" the titles under discussion might be.

Domino, although no longer in the Top 10, Ugetsu was still the 7th highest ranking Asian film in the 2012 Sight & Sound poll and, with Sansho, the only Asian film that MoC distribute to make it into the Top 250. It is the 5th highest ranking film of any nationality in their entire catalogue after Sunrise, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Shoah and Metropolis.

Michael, I don't believe Nick ever saw Masters of Cinema as just a profit-driven venture and think it was precisely this wider vision for the label, this ability to look beyond the short term number-crunching, that enabled him to transform Eureka into a label of such repute. Of course there is a balance to be struck between ambition and financial reality but in this case I still believe Nick would've made a different decision, although I may of course be wrong.

bdlover wrote:Domino, although no longer in the Top 10, Ugetsu was still the 7th highest ranking Asian film in the 2012 Sight & Sound poll and, with Sansho, the only Asian film that MoC distribute to make it into the Top 250. It is the 5th highest ranking film of any nationality in their entire catalogue after Sunrise, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Shoah and Metropolis.

So what? None of this makes any difference to the fact that it hasn't sold well enough to justify renewing the UK rights, thus tying up money that could be more profitably spent on bringing something else to the UK market - and possibly something more successful.

Michael, I don't believe Nick ever saw Masters of Cinema as just a profit-driven venture and think it was precisely this wider vision for the label, this ability to look beyond the short term number-crunching, that enabled him to transform Eureka into a label of such repute. Of course there is a balance to be struck between ambition and financial reality but in this case I still believe Nick would've made a different decision, although I may of course be wrong.

I can't speak for Nick, but I would personally have a hard time justifying to the people who actually pay the bills (i.e. Eureka) that it's worth paying to renew the rights for titles that have demonstrably not been selling well. The cultural prestige argument is certainly a valid one when deciding whether or not to license a title in the first place (as is the balancing strategy whereby hits like Metropolis and Nosferatu subsidise less successful titles, which is standard practice with independent labels), but rights renewal is a different matter.

As I said, this is utterly routine in this business - titles are licensed for a limited period of a few years, and then in most cases the licensee gets the option to renew, but at a price. In the case of, say, the BFI's Kurosawa titles, that's clearly a price well worth paying, as they've always done well on DVD, and at least one is about to emerge on Blu-ray (and I'd be very surprised indeed if Seven Samurai was the only one). But if they've been performing badly, like the Naruses or Mizoguchis, no amount of argument regarding their cultural prestige or their place on the Sight & Sound critics' poll is going to outweigh the all too evident fact that renewing the rights will almost certainly be a money-losing proposition. So why do it?

(I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm repeating myself endlessly here, but you really do seem to have extreme difficulty grasping one of the most basic elements of how film distribution works. Seriously, does anyone else find this at all complicated?)

It's a prestige title. Their fifth most prestigious title / most prestigious Asian title in a collection of films that purports to represent the 'Masters of Cinema' from around the globe. Even Hollywood studios still have prestige titles, films like Lincoln which they know are unlikely to make any money but which benefit their brand in other ways. I also struggle to imagine that the sales are any worse than 95% of the films in the current Masters of Cinema catalogue, which is why I suspect this represents a shift in strategy and that over the next few years we may see the label transform into something more closely resembling Arrow than Criterion. But you're right we're repeating ourselves.