Criterion Random Speculation Vol.3

[Michael Kerpan]

I don't know if this is the best place to ask but does anyone know whether Gate of Hell (Teinosuke Kinugasa, 1953) has been mentioned as a future release or if anyone has any information, the VHS details say that it is a Homevision release from a Janus films print. Surely Criterion can't pass up this Cannes and Oscar winner?

FWIW -- Japanese critics have always (mostly) considered this film a bit of piffling nonsense -- and it's success in the West was viewed with considerable bemusement in Japan. I have not seen this particular "late" Kinugasa film -- but the others I have seen were pretty poor. (His early "Page of Madness" and "Crossroads" are not the same sort of films as his later work).

[tryavna]

I don't know if this is the best place to ask but does anyone know whether Gate of Hell (Teinosuke Kinugasa, 1953) has been mentioned as a future release or if anyone has any information, the VHS details say that it is a Homevision release from a Janus films print. Surely Criterion can't pass up this Cannes and Oscar winner?

You're not likely to get much sympathy for this title around here. Gate of Hell's critical reputation has fallen off dramatically in recent years. Personally, I'd like to see it again to re-evaluate it for myself. But I have no idea what Criterion's plans are for it. Considering its historical stature, I can't imagine that this will end up in an Eclipse set, but that may actually be the best place for it.

All I can tell you is that, when I saw it on TCM several years ago, it still bore a Janus logo. You might try e-mailing Criterion directly, though.

[Via_Chicago]

As far as I know, this is not in Janus' current holding. I assume that they've either had to get rid of their print (quality issues), or that the U.S. distribution rights have lapsed.

[thechallenger]

FWIW -- Japanese critics have always (mostly) considered this film a bit of piffling nonsense -- and it's success in the West was viewed with considerable bemusement in Japan. I have not seen this particular "late" Kinugasa film -- but the others I have seen were pretty poor. (His early "Page of Madness" and "Crossroads" are not the same sort of films as his later work).

Speaking of "Page of Madness" - I saw the film a long while ago and enjoyed it. Does anyone here know if Criterion owns the rights to this film? Whenever I email Criterion about a film or film-related question I never get a response but some of you folks seem to have no trouble getting them to respond to you. How do you folks do it? I used the contact John M. form on the Criterion website.

[Matt]

As far as I know, this is not in Janus' current holding. I assume that they've either had to get rid of their print (quality issues), or that the U.S. distribution rights have lapsed.

Having a circulating print and owning the rights are two very different things.

[Via_Chicago]

As far as I know, this is not in Janus' current holding. I assume that they've either had to get rid of their print (quality issues), or that the U.S. distribution rights have lapsed.

Having a circulating print and owning the rights are two very different things.

I know. But Janus has neither as far as I know.

[Cinephrenic]

Could you elaborate on how you know?

[Via_Chicago]

Could you elaborate on how you know?

Only from my experience as a programmer. I could be TOTALLY wrong, just thought I'd share what I do know.

[Narshty]

According to Jonathan Turell, House of Games is only a one-off deal with MGM, but they'll "keep trying". This seems to be how their relationship with Universal works, and that's yielded a reasonably long-term trickle of titles. However, it might still be wise at this infancy stage to email MGM (at [email protected]) with some variation on "Hooray! More please."

[stroszeck]

Are there any possibilities to see a Theo Angelopolous movie or 2 either on the main criterion label or as a box set on eclipse?
I cannot get my hands on Travelling players!

[Scharphedin2]

The Greek New Star release of The Travelling Players is available from Xploitedcinema.com for apx. $35. If it is not listed on the site, I am sure they will be happy to special order it for you.

The Greek editions of his films were transferred with Aneglopoulos' participation and generally look really good.

[zedz]

It would make the most sense for it to be a box set for a single film, with a supplemental film getting its own spine like My Metier, A Constant Forge or Ingmar Bergman Makes a Movie. I would also caution against the assumption that 400 is Breathless, given that there has never been only a one month gap between a newsletter confirmation and an announcement.

Not that I care, but I'm 100% sure that there will be no box set involved, since Criterion boxes have their own spine number, which would mean that 400 / 401 would have to be a one-film box set (i.e. not a box set at all). What you suggest would require three spine numbers, according to the system. And multi-disc releases of single films, however lavish, don't attract that extra spine number.

[Gigi M.]

Darren Aronofsky wants his movie to get Criterion treatment.

[justeleblanc]

Darren Aronofsky wants his movie to get Criterion treatment.

Too bad Warner doesn't license their films to Criterion.

[Matt]

Darren Aronofsky wants his movie to get Criterion treatment.

Too bad his film has the great misfortune to be owned by Warner Brothers, who have about as much interest in licensing films to Criterion as they have in making The Fountain II.

[tryavna]

Plus, suggesting that folks blindly bombard Criterion with e-mail, when Criterion has no say in the matter, isn't going to win Aronofsky any friends there. No matter how frustrated he is, he shoud know better than that.

[Via_Chicago]

Poor Mulvaney...

[Jeff]

Hopefully the current Mulvaney is smart enough to put "Fountain" into to their email filter and steer clear of this whole thing altogether. It's too bad that Aronofsky wasn't wise enough to contact Criterion himself, before making that suggestion. He would have quickly learned that it wasn't plausible.

I imagine this was how the Before Sunrise/Before Sunset Criterion rumors got started. Linklater wanted it to happen, and he assumed that was enough.

[Matt]

These poor filmmakers don't realize that once they step away from the camera, they become the least important person in a film's life.

[Bajaja]

Too bad Warner doesn't license their films to Criterion.

In the case of The Fountain, replace "too bad" with "fortunately".

[Antoine Doinel]

Plus, suggesting that folks blindly bombard Criterion with e-mail, when Criterion has no say in the matter, isn't going to win Aronofsky any friends there. No matter how frustrated he is, he shoud know better than that.

Aronofsky has previously spoken to Criterion regarding Pi and Requiem For A Dream (he had mentioned this is a previous blog post) but at the time Criterion didn't feel there was enough they could add to the existing DVD releases to make the venture worthwhile.

As for The Fountain, I would love to see a Criterion DVD, but that will require nothing short of a miracle. But I suppose there is a first time for everything.

[justeleblanc]

As for The Fountain, I would love to see a Criterion DVD, but that will require nothing short of a miracle. But I suppose there is a first time for everything.

Why would we want Criterion spending their time on THE FOUNTAIN. I liked the movie, but it's pretty cocky to say it's more deserving than Ozu, Renoir, Godard, or Bunuel. It's Aronofsky's problem to begin with. If he wanted it released by Criterion, the hell was he doing selling it to Warner in the first place?

[Antoine Doinel]

As for The Fountain, I would love to see a Criterion DVD, but that will require nothing short of a miracle. But I suppose there is a first time for everything.

Why would we want Criterion spending their time on THE FOUNTAIN. I liked the movie, but it's pretty cocky to say it's more deserving than Ozu, Renoir, Godard, or Bunuel. It's Aronofsky's problem to begin with. If he wanted it released by Criterion, the hell was he doing selling it to Warner in the first place?

Warner financed the film and thus has DVD rights. Simple as that. There is no filmmaker on the planet who has the luxury of choosing what studios get to finance his films and what DVD company will handle the video release. Aronofsky even asked Warner if he could record a commentary track for the film and was turned down. He has only requested that his fans email Criterion after trying all the channels he had at his disposal with Warner. Warner clearly has no interest in doing a special edition DVD, so he's hoping that enough people will get Criterion interested to perhaps contact Warner themselves.

I never said it's more deserving than Ozu, Renoir, Godard or Bunuel and Aronofsky is not making that assertion either. But the Criterion Collection certainly shouldn't just reflect that well established "canon" either. Fans of The Fountain and Aronofsky simply want a DVD version they feel the film deserves with a commentary track, storyboards, set design from the first version of the film etc etc.

Furthermore, IF this happens (which it probably won't) I highly doubt it will come at the expense of another title.

[justeleblanc]

He sold his script to Warner. That was his choice to have Warner own it from the very beginning. There were other studios that wanted to release the next Aronofsky picture. Hindsight is twenty-twenty of course.

As for a Criterion DVD, I do think the demand is a bit cocky. Criterion is a brand name for quality cinema, and I think Aronofsky wants a special edition released through Criterion, not Warner, if only for validation of his labors. And while I do appreciate Criterion's releasing of contemporary cinema, I do prefer they spend time releasing films that have only shitty transfers, or no DVD at all, instead of spending energy to re-release a film with perfectly decent picture and sound. And if he's releasing his own commentary track separately, what's the need to buy it?

I felt the same way for DAZED AND CONFUSED, only I was hoping it would be a big money maker for Criterion, which I think it was. FOUNTAIN wouldn't even serve that purpose.

[Narshty]

Why would we want Criterion spending their time on THE FOUNTAIN. I liked the movie, but it's pretty cocky to say it's more deserving than Ozu, Renoir, Godard, or Bunuel.

A) He never said that, or even implied it. He wants Criterion to handle it only because Warner won't. B) Criterion have always had more on the menu than those four filmmakers and their canonised ilk. C) Who is this "we"?

It's Aronofsky's problem to begin with. If he wanted it released by Criterion, the hell was he doing selling it to Warner in the first place?

I've read some boneheaded nonsense on this forum in my time, but this is almost epic in its ignorance of the real world.

*Note to Scharphedin2: this is what I meant by "whinging rats' nest".