criterionforum.org

mfunk9786 wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:47 pmDirector's Cut is coming to Blu-ray on February 4th from Scream Factory - officially the first time I'm buying into Domino's suspicion that cancel culture has reached the halls of Criterion

I definitely think that's what's going on. Obviously they're not going to release Dancer in the Dark either, but it'd be a shame if they also passed on The Kingdom's recent restoration. Pretty rich that Shout/Scream Factory ended up with Jack, as the brass over there nixed a proposed release of Ms. 45 in the company's early days over concerns about the content.

Was it ever really all that likely that Criterion would release this? It's not like they've exactly been dedicated Von Trier distributors over the years anyway – why haven't we seen much more significant titles like The Idiots, Melancholia, Dogville or Dancer in the Dark at any point? – unless I'm misunderstanding the argument and there's more to Criterion's relationship with this particular film than I'm aware of.

The House that Jack Built is an IFC title, so Criterion has first dibs on a physical release due to a deal between the companies. My understanding is that they had to consciously pass on the film for another label to pick it up. Then there was this post a few months back:

dwk wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:30 pm Jonathan Keogh mentioned on Twitter that Criterion is not going to release The House That Jack Built and he doesn't know who is going to release it.

I’m not sure why they haven’t released those other films - it could be any number of reasons from rights issues to Criterion prioritizing other releases, but I don’t think they suddenly decided that they don’t like von Trier when his films have overall been praised and are certainly deemed “culturally significant” by many people in film communities. I also don’t think not seeing a release for a while is telling of future releases. We didn’t get a Bergman for years before the box and while I nearly pulled the few hairs I have left waiting for another Godard, we got an announcement the other month. I’d be surprised if this was indicative of a long-lasting distancing from von Trier himself, and more to do with the content of this particular film coming out at this particular time.

I mean it's not the first time Criterion has passed on content that would be right up there alley. I'm under the impression that Enter the Void was on the table at one point (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) and Criterion declined to do it. Surely Criterion passing on this isn't that shocking right?

therewillbeblus wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:48 pm I’d be surprised if this was indicative of a long-lasting distancing from von Trier himself, and more to do with the content of this particular film coming out at this particular time.

Methinks this is the answer. Much in the same way it was treated with gloves on at Cannes.

If genital self-mutilation in Antichrist and a kid getting fondled to the point of making him visibly uncomfortable in In The Realm of The Senses, not to mention all that stuff in Salo, got a pass at their offices, then two kids getting shot surely wouldn't have raised more eyebrows. Considering that Criterion did get Antichrist, I suspect none of the producers there simply felt passionately enough about Jack to license it.

Finch wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:59 pm If genital self-mutilation in Antichrist and a kid getting fondled to the point of making him visibly uncomfortable in In The Realm of The Senses, not to mention all that stuff in Salo, got a pass at their offices, then two kids getting shot surely wouldn't have raised more eyebrows. Considering that Criterion did get Antichrist, I suspect none of the producers there simply felt passionately enough about Jack to license it.

Presumably they *did* license it at one point, though, since we know Jonathan Keogh created the menus for it.

Finch wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:59 pm If genital self-mutilation in Antichrist and a kid getting fondled to the point of making him visibly uncomfortable in In The Realm of The Senses, not to mention all that stuff in Salo, got a pass at their offices, then two kids getting shot surely wouldn't have raised more eyebrows. Considering that Criterion did get Antichrist, I suspect none of the producers there simply felt passionately enough about Jack to license it.

The point is that was then, this is now

Doubtful we'll ever know whether this has more to to do the accusation again von Trier or the content of this film, but I'm guessing if we never see another of his films in the collection we'll eventually have our answer. Bainbridgezu is right though that Dancer in the Dark is absolutely not happening regardless of who holds the rights, but I've still got hope we'll see Dogville and The Idiots someday.

soundchaser wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:03 am

Finch wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:59 pm If genital self-mutilation in Antichrist and a kid getting fondled to the point of making him visibly uncomfortable in In The Realm of The Senses, not to mention all that stuff in Salo, got a pass at their offices, then two kids getting shot surely wouldn't have raised more eyebrows. Considering that Criterion did get Antichrist, I suspect none of the producers there simply felt passionately enough about Jack to license it.

Presumably they *did* license it at one point, though, since we know Jonathan Keogh created the menus for it.

I have more info, can't say from where: Criterion never had The House That Jack Built - presumably they just passed outright, but they didn't have a release planned at any point

domino harvey wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:07 am

Finch wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:59 pm If genital self-mutilation in Antichrist and a kid getting fondled to the point of making him visibly uncomfortable in In The Realm of The Senses, not to mention all that stuff in Salo, got a pass at their offices, then two kids getting shot surely wouldn't have raised more eyebrows. Considering that Criterion did get Antichrist, I suspect none of the producers there simply felt passionately enough about Jack to license it.

The point is that was then, this is now

If Criterion cares so much about being "with the times," then why have they still not hired David Mackenzie to do encodes?

If you were Criterion, would you hire anyone who posted here?

I would hire you in a heartbeat

That was a really sweet thing to say. Thank you! I now return you all to the discussion of the women & children-slaughterer movie

swo17 wrote:If Criterion cares so much about being "with the times," then why have they still not hired David Mackenzie to do encodes?

I asked Peter Becker and wasn't the first one to tell him about their crappy encodes on that day. The question to your answer is : loyalty to their historical authoring houses. But they seemingly know they need to look into it. I mentioned David being at NY, so they don't have any excuses. Hopefully, they'll really look into it, at least to get their authoring houses to improve their knowledge and related work.
However, I was unimpressed by Fumiko Takagi who said, when I mentioned Thief as a good example to compare encodes, that she was told Arrow's release had sharpening on it, which is total non sense and plain wrong and why I then mentioned My Own Private Idaho needs no comparison to see how intrinsequially problematic the encode is.

domino harvey wrote:If you were Criterion, would you hire anyone who posted here?

They hired me to write a booklet essay.

But only the once.

They hired :: kogonoda, but he doesn't go by that name here.




Kidding! I just wanted to freak you all out.

And I think I puked a little typing that double colon.

I am Kogonada

I quite liked this. I think Zedz look at the film is probably the right one although I'm a bit more loving of that because of how the film differentiates itself from the norm. Usually von Trier empathizes with a central female character either on a purely emotional level, Breaking the Waves, or as a literal figure of himself, Melancholia, while his male centered films aren't terribly character driven, Epidemic being an extreme example, and this sort of confuses that norm by having a fairly literal representation of von Trier (I think it's intentional that Jack so often talks about stuff that reflects von Trier's own controversies. Not just the Nazi thing Zedz points out to, but also Bjork seems like a major ghost haunting the film) who is male. I think that has to be due to the subject of the film being one of self loathing where von Trier sort of hates the trouble he gets himself into and is in an emotional space of self damning at least within the text of the film. That makes the film incredibly engaging, for me, as a bit of armchair therapist.