Mike Spence: No, I actually didn’t read the rest of the thread! What did you guys come up with?
Ha!
“You don’t think Shimizu or Shepitko or many other films they’ve released are obscure? They are already doing what you say, just not with certain continents.”
I think it is because either they thought there was a core audience who were sufficient in numbers or there was someone inside who was particularly championing the release of this films (or they were trial releases…??) I wonder how the films by such ‘obscure’ directors fared in sales/rental…
I can’t disprove the “core audience” idea but it sounds suspect considering a critic like Jonathan Rosenbaum had not seen any Shimizu films before the Eclipse release. As for the “someone inside,” I think part of the point is that these someones tend to be biased towards certain continents.
@Bolo Tie
A lot
Mike Spence: I’m looking back, and I can see that you made a lot of determinations, but I don’t think anything was set in stone.
My point? Stop relying on Criterion to come up with a solution for every cinema-related problem you have.
You missed the whole point. There were a lot of qualifying remarks within many posts indicating that we didn’t expect Criterion to solve everything.
What point did I miss? Whether it’s part of their stated goal or not, Criterion obviously operates in a distinctly Western-oriented tradition. The reason why Japan is featured so prominently is not because they are considered “enlightened” or “advanced” by Criterion, but rather because Japanese cinema has had a notable impact on the history of Western cinema (and will have, presumably, on its future as well). As global film industries emerge and expand, it’s certain that more of the world will be brought into this tradition.
If I’m to make a personal ideological case, I’d say that this is a wrongheaded, archaic, distinctly modernist approach to the curation of cinema. But if this is the case, why should I expect Criterion to change its model? I think the outrage here stems from a misunderstanding of the tradition of modernist canon-building that Criterion comes out of. Yes, they provide their customers with a wide range of high-quality eclectic cinema, but this doesn’t mean they are benevolent do-gooders whose curatory aesthetics can be molded to embody every liberal, PC fantasy.
From what I could see, the counterargument was “Well, we don’t expect them to do everything, but their stated goal is to present the best cinema” and “X, Y, Z non-Western, non-Japanese directors aren’t exactly obscure, so obscurity is not an excuse” and things of that sort. But as I see it, Criterion is very much an entity which has decided that the Western tradition is its foundation, and everything it includes with either be in that tradition, or somehow contribute to that tradition, directly or indirectly. Even non-Western films will be described in terms of their impact on Western directors, or of the impact of Western cinema on its creation. That is the one defining characteristic I see in everything they release. So I think that, if we’re going to see releases from, say, Africa, we’re going to first have to start seeing Western directors (preferably those already associated with Criterion) championing African cinema, calling upon it as an influence, or alternately describing the influence of Western cinema on African cinema. Criterion’s main burden is in demonstrating the “relevance” of its releases to its primary audience. If they don’t have established directors and critics lined up—and by that, I mean a significant written historical record of criticism from directors and film scholars and mainstream critics establishing the relevance of African film, for example—it’s going to be difficult for them to find a reason to showcase it. I definitely don’t buy the idea, for one, that Criterion can just release any old thing and the cool kids will just eat it on up. The process isn’t nearly as simple as that.
Sorry Bolo, but did you even read what you just posted? You pretty much said exactly what Blue K., myself, and a few others have said. The difference is we didn’t point it out just to say “that’s the way it is” but to question whether a company whose goal is present the best in cinema should allow this dated “western” tradition you speak so highly of to guide practically every choice they make. Your argument is another tired version of the “our country (or company in this case), love it or leave it” mantra that people use to not have to think about anything or work to change it.
Mike: I’m not saying that at all. If I were running Criterion, I wouldn’t use such an archaic ideology to guide the curation of its catalogue. My argument is not “love it or leave it.” My argument is that, if you know what Criterion is, and you know how it operates, it’s insane to expect that it will deviate from that tradition.
Perhaps, but I don’t think anyone on this thread voiced expectations, just concerns.
Well, when it comes to the canon-building model that Criterion is built on, we’re well past the point of concern. We know that this model amplifies some traditions and alienates others. We know that this model places value on that which validates its foundational tradition, and ignores most of what’s left over. My suggestion is that you love it for what it does well, and leave it for that in which it’s deficient. Such a thing is possible, after all, in a world with many consumer choices.
Yes, but it is also possible to post about it, as Blue K. did. Its is also valuable because many visitors to this site see Criterion as the decider of what is important in cinema and are not aware of the western bias. They believe Criterion is snubbing there favorite directors by not adding them to the pantheon. Blue K’s post can help potentially dispel this false notion that would imply that Jules Dassin is a more important director than Ousmane Sembene because he made it to the vaunted Criterion catalogue.
As I write this I realize that all this has basically been said before on this thread so I’m pretty much done. I’m thinking you must’ve skimmed the thread and missed everything of value.
From Blue K’s original post:
“I’m bringing this up because there have been a lot of similar threads that ask what kind of films Criterion should include in the future. And the prevailing trend in people’s responses is basically more of the same. I’ve seen a lot of “A Clockwork Orange” and “2001” type of responses. And frankly, I find this to be sad. I mean those types of films are already available in gazillion different DVD editions. Google the titles of those films, and you will get a gazillion hits. if you were so inclined, you can track down every little trivia about those films on your own with ease.
But I did hear a lot of clamoring for Satyajit Ray films. In fact, there is a thread called “No Satyajit Ray???” in the Criterion section of the forums. However, I got really annoyed in that thread, because someone actually said that “bulk of film history resides in the West” and implied that Criterion’s catalogue is a fair reflection of what qualifies as great cinema from around the world. Please.”
I’m sorry that I didn’t painstakingly linger on every word of every single post debating whether the term “colored” was proper to use in the title of the thread, etc. My bad.
Anybody who thinks that X director is “more important” than Y director—as if such a thing were quantifiable fact—simply because his/her work is put out, in part or in full, by Criterion, does not need to have that notion dispelled. What this person needs is a miracle operation to reverse the lobotomy.
The discussion is interesting, but this discovery about Criterion is not exactly surprising or unexpected unless you somehow really believe/d that Criterion is/was/ever has been just about “releasing the best.” Their catalogue couldn’t be more unabashedly exclusive or more clearly a curated thing, grounded on a specific ideology.
From Blue K’s original post:
“I’m bringing this up because there have been a lot of similar threads that ask what kind of films Criterion should include in the future. And the prevailing trend in people’s responses is basically more of the same. I’ve seen a lot of “A Clockwork Orange” and “2001” type of responses. And frankly, I find this to be sad. I mean those types of films are already available in gazillion different DVD editions. Google the titles of those films, and you will get a gazillion hits. if you were so inclined, you can track down every little trivia about those films on your own with ease.
But I did hear a lot of clamoring for Satyajit Ray films. In fact, there is a thread called “No Satyajit Ray???” in the Criterion section of the forums. However, I got really annoyed in that thread, because someone actually said that “bulk of film history resides in the West” and implied that Criterion’s catalogue is a fair reflection of what qualifies as great cinema from around the world. Please.”
So are you just going to keep posting that quote over and over again? I read the original post, and I responded to it.
1) People who don’t understand that Criterion release doesn’t = best thing in the world are simpleminded and aren’t going to be disabused of that notion very easily.
2) Criterion itself is probably not going to be convinced to abandon its adherence to the sphere of Western cinema. When non-Western cinema “makes its mark” (most likely by significantly influencing, or demonstrating influence by, Western cinema, as per the typical Criterion standard), it will likely be included in Criterion’s canon.
3) Idiots make stupid remarks like “the bulk of film history resides in the West” all the time, and they are stupid idiots for doing so. History doesn’t “reside” anywhere, and it cannot really be judged as a quantity, because it necessarily contains qualitative aspects. But just because idiots make stupid remarks doesn’t mean these remarks constitute the beliefs of reasonable people worth convincing of things.
1. There are many young people on this site
2. Blue K wasn’t trying to convince Criterion, just people on this site
3. Some stupid idiots can learn, from this site
your remarks are a bit ambivalent, maybe even shortsighted. do you mean to believe that non-western cinema has never influenced western cinema, or even stranger, that non-western cinema has never been influenced by western cinema? or that the critical/historical film community has never written about or championed non-western cinema?
the way you write, non-westerrn cinema doesnt even exist yet. its still throwing bones in the air.
I agree with you Blue-K, 100% (except about George Washington being directed by an African-American), with that said, where are the Cuban films produced by ICAIC in the 60s after Castro took over?
the fact someone refers to eastern cinema as non-western is enough for me to understand he/she has no idea of Eastern cinema…..
Bobby Wise: I’m saying that Criterion’s “criterion,” if you will, seems to be that the cinema it releases either come from the Western tradition, influence cinema of the Western tradition, or be influenced by cinema of the Western tradition. That is the single thread that seems to weave through their catalogue. This is not my standard, it’s Criterion’s.
Obviously, I think that non-Western film should be met on different terms, those more relevant to its particular concerns, and not through a specifically Western lens. I mentioned earlier that much of the reason why Japanese film is the notable exception to the Western focus of the Criterion catalogue is particularly because it is perceived as having been influential on Western film, that there is a clear dialogue between Japan and the West that has been documented by scholars, critics, directors, etc. for decades. When the same thing happens with more mainland Chinese cinema, or African cinema, or whatever else, I believe that’s when Criterion will begin including more of it in their catalogue.
Would I wait for this type of validation from scholars, critics, and directors if it were up to me? No, I wouldn’t. But I’m me, and Criterion is Criterion. I like them for what they do well (covering cinema of the Western tradition), but wish that somebody else would come along and pick up the slack on non-Western cinema.
I agree that Criterion is definitely Euro- and Japan-centric, but it probably has less to do with bias and much to do with what rights or licenses the company can secure (or makes any effort to pursue).
There are several home video/dvd distributors that are doing a great job of releasing dvds of films that Criterion ignores in favor of the most obscure Kurosawa and Bergman.
Milestone Films has released some great films by or about ethnic minorities, and from outside Europe/America/Japan: I am Cuba, Killer of Sheep, The Exiles.
Kino has released some obscure world cinema gems, like Iron Island from Iran, but the quality of their dvds is almost unacceptable for how expensive they cost.
Why not start a thread on (third) world cinema that has made it onto the market? Indonesian director Garin Nugroho’s Opera Jawa is a recent classic that has miraculously made the way to Europe and America.
I find that the output of a country’s film industry has some impact on this topic. America, Europe, and Japan have rather large film outputs but only a tiny fraction of those films can be considered truly “important classic and contemporary films.” Africa (apart from the grassroots Nigerian film industry), South American, and the Pacific Islands have rather small film outputs and as such are less likely to release an important work. These nations may be producing well made, enjoyable films but that doesn’t make it a classic. I hope that we see more nations represented in the collection but only with just cause.
Great epic post Blue K. Your right about Criterion needing to look harder for some under seen third world films. Maybe they should partner with Film Movement and release some of their films like how they made a similar deal with IFC. Muyurangabo would make a nice edition to the collection or at the very least a Eclipse set.
Mike Spence
Did you read the rest of the thread? All that has been addressed.