criterionforum.org

The only thing hipper than liking Wes Anderson is hating Wes Anderson.

I don't hate him I just hate where he's going. And I hate that he's more defined by the little suits he wears than his films.

The same could be said of Lynch. Doesn't take away from the films though. (I'm talking of the suite comment by the by)

Just got the blu-ray, let me know if the standard is any different at all from the pic from below.

I know that they make a good bit of money for Criterion, but to release every single Wes Anderson film (well except for his latest) seems to be a bit of favoritism to me. Do the people at Criterion just absolutely love every single one of his films? While I don't love everything that Criterion has put out, I at least understand why they did it. But this to me is a blatant commercial move that seems to go directly against Criterion's mission. While I agree that one or even two Wes Anderson films should be included in the collection, including his entire oeuvre is making a bold statement about a filmmaker, much less one that is still very active.

I have strong opinions concerning Anderson's films and I've purposefully left those out for the sake of keeping the conversation just on the point of whether or not all of a contemporary director's films should be released by Criterion.

Allow me to reveal the secret ulterior motive behind Criterion releasing Wes Anderson movies:

Spoiler

$$$$$$$$

domino harvey wrote:Allow me to reveal the secret ulterior motive behind Criterion releasing Wes Anderson movies:

Spoiler

$$$$$$$$

That's what I figured...it seems a shame though. If those make a lot of money, then will they release whatever they can get their hands on that will make money (albiet, films that at least appear to have some form of artistic value (i.e. mainstream pseudo-art films like American Beauty or A Beautiful Mind; both atrocious movies IMHO)?

jciswhatis wrote:Just got the blu-ray, let me know if the standard is any different at all from the pic from below.

Nice pants. Levis 501s?

Lindhorst wrote:I know that they make a good bit of money for Criterion, but to release every single Wes Anderson film (well except for his latest) seems to be a bit of favoritism to me. Do the people at Criterion just absolutely love every single one of his films? While I don't love everything that Criterion has put out, I at least understand why they did it. But this to me is a blatant commercial move that seems to go directly against Criterion's mission. While I agree that one or even two Wes Anderson films should be included in the collection, including his entire oeuvre is making a bold statement about a filmmaker, much less one that is still very active.

I have strong opinions concerning Anderson's films and I've purposefully left those out for the sake of keeping the conversation just on the point of whether or not all of a contemporary director's films should be released by Criterion.

A-They haven't released every film of his.
B-The only bold statement it makes is that "Criterion has a working relationship with a current director." Just because Criterion releases something does not necessarily mean that they insist it should be part of some canon. See here.

And yes, Anderson's films make more $$$ than, say, Border Radio, but it's not like Criterion put out Dark Knight or Mamma Mia! or something.

swo17 wrote:it's not like Criterion put out Dark Knight or Mamma Mia! or something.

Only because they wouldn't be able to get Armond White to write the essays

swo17 wrote:And yes, Anderson's films make more $$$ than, say, Border Radio

Every other title in the collection made more money than Border Radio

Even Border Radio has made more money than Border Radio

swo17 wrote:A-They haven't released every film of his.
B-The only bold statement it makes is that "Criterion has a working relationship with a current director." Just because Criterion releases something does not necessarily mean that they insist it should be part of some canon. See here.

And yes, Anderson's films make more $$$ than, say, Border Radio, but it's not like Criterion put out Dark Knight or Mamma Mia! or something.

A: Yes, as I noted in my previous post, the only feature of his they haven't released yet is his latest, The Darjeeling Limited. However, don't you think releasing 4/5 of the features he has made is a bit much?
B: This is from the link you sent me to:
Criterion says, "Many factors enter into our decision to release a particular film. At the outset, we must ask ourselves: Do we consider the film interesting, important, and worthy of the other films in the collection? Is this film something we believe our loyal customers will appreciate? Are the rights available? Is it cost effective? Are there quality available prints/elements/supplements?

So I guess every single one of the Anderson movies they've put out fits the bill for the first and most important question they ask themselves? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

Lindhorst wrote:B: This is from the link you sent me to:
Criterion says, "Many factors enter into our decision to release a particular film. At the outset, we must ask ourselves: Do we consider the film interesting, important, and worthy of the other films in the collection? Is this film something we believe our loyal customers will appreciate? Are the rights available? Is it cost effective? Are there quality available prints/elements/supplements?

So I guess every single one of the Anderson movies they've put out fits the bill for the first and most important question they ask themselves? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

I would say they're interesting, and I would argue that at the very least, two of his films are important to modern American filmmaking, and compared to such films as Border Radio, The Night Porter, etc., they're more than worthy. Lord knows there are enough customers who are interested in Wes Anderson, and even a lowly mortal such as myself knows that the films are cost effective for Criterion.

Lindhorst wrote: A: Yes, as I noted in my previous post, the only feature of his they haven't released yet is his latest, The Darjeeling Limited. However, don't you think releasing 4/5 of the features he has made is a bit much?
B: This is from the link you sent me to:
Criterion says, "Many factors enter into our decision to release a particular film. At the outset, we must ask ourselves: Do we consider the film interesting, important, and worthy of the other films in the collection? Is this film something we believe our loyal customers will appreciate? Are the rights available? Is it cost effective? Are there quality available prints/elements/supplements?

So I guess every single one of the Anderson movies they've put out fits the bill for the first and most important question they ask themselves? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

I see that you did acknowledge Darjeeling in your first post. My bad. If you read a little further on in that link though, it says:

Criterion is a privately held, for-profit corporation. Criterion is not a grant-funded entity designed to award the best films in the world with really cool DVDs.

The fact is, no film is objectively "interesting, important, or worthy of other films in the collection." Different strokes for different folks. Criterion releases 50 some odd releases each year, and they're up to nearly 500 in total. Are the four Anderson films really the only ones you find unworthy? And if so, can't you just be happy with the 496ish titles that you find acceptable? If nothing else, can't you at least thank Criterion for leaving your wallet a little fuller in the month they release a Wes Anderson film?

swo17 wrote:The fact is, no film is objectively "interesting, important, or worthy of other films in the collection." Different strokes for different folks. Criterion releases 50 some odd releases each year, and they're up to nearly 500 in total. Are the four Anderson films really the only ones you find unworthy? And if so, can't you just be happy with the 496ish titles that you find acceptable? If nothing else, can't you at least thank Criterion for leaving your wallet a little fuller in the month they release a Wes Anderson film?

That's a good point and yes, I can find other films that less worthy than Anderson's in the Criterion catalog. And while I would rather have my wallet not quite as full because there was a release that I am jumping to get, I am glad that I don't feel obliged to buy every single one of them.

However, my argument is that Criterion knowingly supports a working director in a way that is not at all in line with the rest of the series. What I do not want to get into a conversation about is the worthiness of any film but only the nature in which Criterion has chosen to release some of them. They are a profit based company and they don't have to listen to me (and probably shouldn't) but IMHO I still find that releasing a movie with blurbs from various critics on the back (i.e. The Life Aquatic) to be not up to par with how I've experienced and loved Criterion in the past. Whether or not Anderson's films deserve to be here is not the question. It's whether or not Criterion has damaged their integrity (and of course, this is subjective) by releasing most of the films of ANY working director.

Surely their resources could be put to better use exposing us to more unknown gems.

Lindhorst wrote:but IMHO I still find that releasing a movie with blurbs from various critics on the back (i.e. The Life Aquatic) to be not up to par with how I've experienced and loved Criterion in the past.

In all fairness the blurbs only appear on the single-disc release, and Disney actually handled the packaging and distribution of both editions of that film, explaining the blurbs on the one edition. (Both Aquatic and Tenenbaums are essentially Disney releases with the Criterion logo slapped on them.)

Lindhorst wrote:However, my argument is that Criterion knowingly supports a working director in a way that is not at all in line with the rest of the series. What I do not want to get into a conversation about is the worthiness of any film but only the nature in which Criterion has chosen to release some of them. They are a profit based company and they don't have to listen to me (and probably shouldn't) but IMHO I still find that releasing a movie with blurbs from various critics on the back (i.e. The Life Aquatic) to be not up to par with how I've experienced and loved Criterion in the past. Whether or not Anderson's films deserve to be here is not the question. It's whether or not Criterion has damaged their integrity (and of course, this is subjective) by releasing most of the films of ANY working director.

Do you think it is appropriate for Criterion to carry on a relationship with a working director that they deem to be important? Or do you have a problem with the fact that they are releasing these newer films at all?

Surely their resources could be put to better use exposing us to more unknown gems.

Actually, the profits they make from more bankable titles allow them to invest resources in the unknown gems. If it weren't for Bottle Rocket, you likely would have gone the rest of your life without ever even hearing about Fanfan la Tulipe.

swo17 wrote:If it weren't for Bottle Rocket, you likely would have gone the rest of your life without ever even hearing about Fanfan la Tulipe.

In that case we maybe could have done without Bottle Rocket.

Criterion isn't the Film Vatican.

You can pee on your copy of Bottle Rocket and not go to Hell. It's awesome.

Yeah, Wes Anderson is like the Clay Aiken of cinema. He's so fucking commercial. Criterion is a bunch of sellouts.

*cries over his copy of Sweet Movie*

I just don't get it... Two years ago everyone on the forum was pining for Criterion to snatch Bottle Rocket.

Now that it's out, it's not hip anymore.

So it's hipper to hate Wes Anderson instead of liking him now...

And it's hip to not think something is cool as soon as it goes from a would-be to an "is".

Sigh.

It's the same bullshit people have with all facets of art.

Once it becomes pupular, it ain't cool any more.

I guess it's hip to say "It's hip to _________ now" now

i didn't read this entire thread, but i think it's funny that you're arguing that criterion releasing wes anderson films (other than rushmore, i would assume) is a questionable, money-grabbing move on their part. also that it tarnishes their integrity as a company that issues dvds by directors that are either more artistic or important but not one mention of armageddon?

so, you're telling me you guys get more enjoyment out of michael bay films than wes anderson films?

okey dokey.