Comments on: What Exactly Are the Criterion Collection’s “Criteria”?

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:09:24 +0000

Well Criterion Collection IS a for-profit company. So while Criterion does appeal to the BFI set which makes them seem holier-than-thou, it is just as much a money making corporation as any other film distribution company like Fox or Time Warner. What drives which films Criterion releases has just as much do to with what the film snob community decides is a "worthy" film as much as what they can get the licensing rights to (for example, the lack of a Criterion release of any Coen brothers film) and whether or not they can get a sweet deal from a large production company that wants Criterion to make the film seem a bit more distinguished (I am sure they got something for Armageddon.) That being said, Criterion does do a pretty good job of picking out under-seen classic art cinema. Jon, I agree- while there is plenty to critique about Criterion, I am not sure if "Un conte de Noël" is the best example. While I haven't seen it yet, I did really like "Roi et reines" and I think Desplechin is certainly one of the most important contemporary French directors. While his films are based on a lot of overwrought bourgeois melodramatic conventions, his films rise well beyond the genre with his deft and well realized characters and plots. (Matt, if you think a Desplechin film is long and boring, try sitting through some of the other Criterion films like "Jeanne Dielman.")

By: matt

matt — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:53:37 +0000

Danny: You're absolutely right about the associations. Had this been a full-length feature, I would have gone deeper into Criterion's bedfellows, the most recent being a partnership with IFC Pictures (hence ACT, Gomorra and the forthcoming Che). This isn’t to anyway undermine the company (or the films for that matter) but I think it's interesting to shed light on the selection process. As per my Zodiac comment: it is indeed a fine movie but not one many people saw. I have little doubt that its stature will increase in the coming years and a Criterion version will emerge eventually. Jonathan: Again, somewhere in this hip shot of a post lies an interesting, longer feature (editors take note!) including interviews with the brain trusts behind the process since there are infinite variables that could warrant the distinction of being an "important classic and/or contemporary film." Certainly, ACT was extremely well-received but for me, it was dull to the touch. I agree with your conceit that a great director can transform rote concepts and illuminate something new and strange (Herzog's latest is a testament to such) but this didn't leave me with the same feeling.

By: Danny Gavigan

Danny Gavigan — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:21:43 +0000

I think Criterion's library has more to do with their association with Janus Film and other preservation orientated efforts than some uppity cinephile's perfect collection. Ten years ago I asked the same question about Criterion when I realized they actually had fucking Armageddon in their collection. But shitty movies are just as important to look back on as shitty socio-political standards.

And come on, I think Zodiac was the most underrated movie that year, if at least for Robert Downey Jr's performance alone.

By: Jonathan L. Fischer

Jonathan L. Fischer — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:37:56 +0000

That Desplechin is a very respected director and that the film earned an 86 percent on the Tomatometer (92 from top critics) seems reason enough for a Criterion release. But in its defense: I haven't seen the film in over a year, but I remember liking how messy it was, in terms of the style, the ideas, the plot (and Desplechin is a master in at least the first category). And I think it was very aware of its characters' pretentiousness, and hilarious for it. The two most self-serious, melodramatic characters (Anne Consigny's and Mathieu Amalric's) were basically the butts of most of the film's jokes, but they were also expertly realized. It's true, the spouse-swap subplot was iffy (perhaps it was not nearly messy enough). But I think there's something truly thrilling about an expert director creating something weird and discursive but also familiar--even if, at times, it's also depressing as hell.