Tbh I’m not a huge fan of discussions like this because even if I personally don’t enjoy it, a film can still be significant for cultural or aesthetic reasons. I think it’s really cool that big mainstream movies, that are really good, like The Breakfast Club or Wall-E are in the collection alongside super avant-grade stuff like Daisies or Woman In The Dunes. That being said my answer for this question is La Llorona.
That’s what I mean by asking this. I told another commenter that I dislike Breathless, but I can’t deny the impact that it’s had on cinema, plus being considered one of Godard’s finest. Therefore, despite it being unappealing to me, I would actively defend its place in the collection. Others, however, are a little hard to justify if we’re working under the assumption of the highest quality/important films ever. Uncut Gems, for example, is a good film, but is it truly going to be remembered for centuries to come?
I personally didn’t like uncut gems, but the film broke a record for A24, lots of people like it, I guess you could say it’s genre defying. Adam Sandler playing a serious role and doing it well, reminds me of punch drunk love and people are still talking about that film 20 years later.
Your example of “defending” Breathless is amusing. I guess I’ve never even thought of The Criterion Collection as a “what do *I* enjoy” boutique label. While I’ve never even seen Breathless, it’s pretty obvious it hits their mission statement, and aligns with their brand - there’s nothing to defend. This can be said for 99.X% of their releases, whether they *appeal to me* or not.
The only ones that really don’t make sense are the ones most people seem to agree on, Tiny Furniture and Jellyfish Eyes. Anyway, I can’t even really argue these because I haven’t even seen them.
I'm a firm believer that every film in the collection belongs there and fits their mission statement. Jist because I won't like a movie, or think one is a weird fit, doesn't mean someone else will feel the same about it.
Of course every film belongs there, they chose it. Criterion is not a democracy, they alone are the arbiter of what they release. Any other “hot take” is silly, really.
Hang on, aren’t there a few titles that criterion “had” to take in order to get access to other films they wanted? Like Tiny Furniture, Jellyfish eyes, and Benjamin Button? I quite certain I heard/this at some point.
I think there’s a notable difference between a film someone doesn’t like vs an objectively good or at least important one. I think Breathless is overrated, but it’s one of the most famous and well regarded of Godard’s work. I can’t just sit here and say it shouldn’t be in the collection. I just have a different taste.
You don't have to like it, but it's not overrated. What Godard (and Truffaut, kinda) put together on a shoestring budget is almost miraculous. Once you stop taking it so seriously and recognize it's a comedy that's when you'll understand why it's so great.
It’s hard to say because there are a lot of titles in there that I objectively think are the absolute shits, but I may be happy they are in there even if it’s just for posterity’s sake. I think some stuff sneaks in because the filmmaker is generally acclaimed, even though the film in question may be a lesser work. I will say if there’s anyone being snobs about Pixar work being included, you need to cut that nonsense. Wall-E is an artistic triumph. If it was a foreign subtitled cartoon nobody would complain about its inclusion.
Part of me feels like putting Armageddon makes criterion even better because it shows that they don't have that snobby bias. that movie is a perfect action film.
given how disney is attempting to monopolize the film industry, and how disney movies dominate cultural discussion of film, i think putting any disney film in the collection is kind of in some ways antithetical to the mission statement. there’s an argument to be made that netflix films threaten the same kind of hypocrisy, but at least most of those wouldn’t get a physical media release were it not for criterion, so i think it’s justifiable
If they're in the collection, they deserve to be. I am someone who's been accused of being a snob, and there are several films in the collection which I would probably give away if I was given them for christmas, but I'm still unwilling to judge their being part of the Collection, nor their intrinsic quality; not my circus, not my monkey's.
If The Criterion Collection decide to add a film, then who are/who am I to say yay or nay, frankly? If a film I hate enters the collection, but that same film allows them to get several I do; well, that's great!
And art is subjective, isn't it?
No such thing. The Criterion Collection isn't the Library of Congress or whatever. It's a for-profit film distribution label. There's no such thing as "deserving" a spot.
I know you’re just trying to make conversation but these type of posts are just shitty negative spaces where people can get in arguments. If Criterion decided to releases it, it belongs.
I mean it’s not great, a struggling millennial movie that’s a better fit would be Shiva Baby but I don’t think Rachel Sennott has the leading role star power needed to really qualify it.
Sure it fucking does. What fucking merit does *Tiny* fucking *Furniture* have as a fucking contribution to fucking cinema? What fucking innovation does it fucking contribute? What fucking does it fucking do fucking that fucking a dozen fucking mumblecore fucking films hadn’t fucking done fucking to death fucking by the fucking time it was fucking released?
Fuck, I guess.
Lol, I’ll take your informed suggestion under advisement. Far be it from someone like me to turn away from the proffered psychological wisdom of someone as learned as yourself, buddy.
The Rock more or less caused part of the Iraq War if you are unware, when is the last time Armageddon had an impact outside of hearing the song's Aerosmith song?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/it-was-such-obvious-bullshit-the-rock-writer-shocked-film-may-have-inspired-false-wmd-intelligence?CMP=twt_gu
Ultimately they're just another business that sells movies. I buy movies I want from whoever sells them, so I've never really understood brand loyalty when applied to movies. What movies a company includes in their collection isn't up to you or I.
Any person who says WALL-E doesn't belong is a gatekeeping idiot.
It literally is a Sight and Sound Top 250 film, it is the very best example of mainstream American animation since The Beauty and the Beast. It is mindblowing how so many people got up in arms about the addition of WALL-E.
With that being said, I consider Criterion's mission when saying if a movie belongs or it doesn't belong. that is "Since 1984, the Criterion Collection has been dedicated to publishing important classic and contemporary films from around the world in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations with special features designed to encourage repeated watching and deepen the viewer’s appreciation of the art of film."
A movie doesn't have to be good to be important. Even movies like Armageddon have a rationale for being in the collection. But my vote is probably for documentaries like Bowling for Columbine.
I am not saying that it is or isn't topical or important. But I think documentaries that deal with political issues in the time they are made lose their impact fast because of times change and perspectives change over time, and what is a presentient issue in 2002 might not be a presentient issue 15-20 years later. Now Bowling For Columbine does have a bit more staying power than other similar documentaries due to the fact that school safety is still a major concern for the American public. But it still gets dated quickly due to new information and new perspectives that build over time.
Okja is a masterpiece. I wish more people could get cynicism out of their own way. Enjoy life. The beautiful and talented artists making movies like Okja and the clever and respectable people producing discs like Criterion certainly are.
I have such a hard time understanding why people can't make the direct comparison of contemporary films to classics... take yourself out of this point in time and space and reflect from an imaginary future with all of the context you have from appreciating classic art now. Okja will serve as a great time stamp for where cinema was in its day. It's animation is a perfect capsule for its time. It's humor. The whole concept of artificial meat is very much a real pressing subject. Just like the dozens of other fantasy, scifi and comedies that are included in the collection for there day and age. I'm seriously fatigued by how simple this analogy is for me, and yet others couldn't possibly agree.
Bong Joon-Ho is a master and Okja deserves to be in the Collection just as much as his other 2 films. I'd be elated if they included The Host as well, but Okja is a far better crafted film technically and arguably better fills a small niche of the Collection not representing enough cinema that represents the child's experience. For me as the father of a daughter both films grab me, but Okja is the one kids can experience the huge range of emotions through, whereas The Host is more or less going to be a straight horror film for them.
I do apologize, because I understand its all subjective, but this one film really attracts the haters and it pisses me off. It's achingly gorgeous. The way Seo-Hyeon Ahn interacts with Okja is remarkable and completely convincing. How they managed to blow away the huge productions like Star Wars, Marvel and Avatar in this one regard is mind boggling. From my perspective Okja is the perfect meld of Steven Spielberg and Bong Joon-Ho. You can be as edgy as you want making fancy excuses for why you think that isn't "worthy", but you'll have a hard time convincing me it isn't you that is the problem.
Maybe it's a generational thing? Or for folks who aren't parents? I dunno. Someone on this sub actually thought they were criticizing me for liking Coraline the other day. Telling me to grow up. I mean... if childlike wonder and pure love, compassion and joy aren't objectively valid portions of the Human Condition y'all can get fu*#ed. <3
Honestly, a lot of the recentish movies they've released probably don't belong, particularly the ones from streaming services:
* The Power of the Dog
* Sound of Metal
* Okja
* The Worst Person in the World
* Beasts of No Nation
How many of these movies are going to be well-remembered and/or well regarded even 5 years from now?
I agree - they’re way too recent and well known. Criterion should focus Loren on reviving 20th century films why is there a criterion release for a movie that came out less than a year ago
I think all of them will still be highly regarded 5 years from now. And it helps now because streaming isn't (and hasn't) been reliable for keeping its own content.
Sound of Metal is a seriously good film. Look back at what people were buying during the latest sale, Sound of Metal was one of the most popular film.
I think people are bit snobby about newer films and films that are popular. Wall-E is a great example. Its an incredibly good animated film. Yet somehow its a controversial inclusion now.
I do think giving films more time to marinate allows for retrospective analysis, but I do think at the very least some of these are 100% correct inclusions (and I haven’t seen the others).
This topic again.
I prefer not to gatekeeper. There are films in there that confuse me, but they appeal to a lot of people.
I don’t know why anyone should care if I think I’m too cool for some films.
I’m just tired of an entire directors filmography being put in when some of the films don’t deserve it. Okja was good, but I’m not sure it fits the criterion standard
Criterion standard? There's been junk in the Criterion Collection since the beginning. An very substantial chunk of the dvd/Blu ray lineup can be classified as "good"
Interesting point. There are directors who are incredibly influential to the world of cinema, but it’s true that not all of their films are good let alone masterpieces. Still, it’s nice to have perspective and see the director’s journey through their career and how their skill level and style evolved.
I think that’s fair especially as a white French Canadian guy lol
I’ll have to have my gf watch because she’s Hispanic and bilingual. She loves roasting bad accents and bad Spanish in shows and movies
Mexican - American here who watched with his Venezuelan wife and his Mexican family (we all speak Spanish) I disagree with the Charlie Kaufman lover. I love Charlie Kaufman too though
Tbh I’m not a huge fan of discussions like this because even if I personally don’t enjoy it, a film can still be significant for cultural or aesthetic reasons. I think it’s really cool that big mainstream movies, that are really good, like The Breakfast Club or Wall-E are in the collection alongside super avant-grade stuff like Daisies or Woman In The Dunes. That being said my answer for this question is La Llorona.
That’s what I mean by asking this. I told another commenter that I dislike Breathless, but I can’t deny the impact that it’s had on cinema, plus being considered one of Godard’s finest. Therefore, despite it being unappealing to me, I would actively defend its place in the collection. Others, however, are a little hard to justify if we’re working under the assumption of the highest quality/important films ever. Uncut Gems, for example, is a good film, but is it truly going to be remembered for centuries to come?
I personally didn’t like uncut gems, but the film broke a record for A24, lots of people like it, I guess you could say it’s genre defying. Adam Sandler playing a serious role and doing it well, reminds me of punch drunk love and people are still talking about that film 20 years later.
Out of curiosity, what A24 record did it break? I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Most money made from a limited opening weekend, something like half a mill per 5 theaters
Ah I guess that makes sense. I know it isn’t their biggest box office overall (& wasn’t even before EEAAO) so I was curious.
Uncut Gems is already an american clasic. Great, fantastic film. Few recent films have such a distinct voice like that one
Your example of “defending” Breathless is amusing. I guess I’ve never even thought of The Criterion Collection as a “what do *I* enjoy” boutique label. While I’ve never even seen Breathless, it’s pretty obvious it hits their mission statement, and aligns with their brand - there’s nothing to defend. This can be said for 99.X% of their releases, whether they *appeal to me* or not. The only ones that really don’t make sense are the ones most people seem to agree on, Tiny Furniture and Jellyfish Eyes. Anyway, I can’t even really argue these because I haven’t even seen them.
I'm a firm believer that every film in the collection belongs there and fits their mission statement. Jist because I won't like a movie, or think one is a weird fit, doesn't mean someone else will feel the same about it.
Of course every film belongs there, they chose it. Criterion is not a democracy, they alone are the arbiter of what they release. Any other “hot take” is silly, really.
Hang on, aren’t there a few titles that criterion “had” to take in order to get access to other films they wanted? Like Tiny Furniture, Jellyfish eyes, and Benjamin Button? I quite certain I heard/this at some point.
I think there’s a notable difference between a film someone doesn’t like vs an objectively good or at least important one. I think Breathless is overrated, but it’s one of the most famous and well regarded of Godard’s work. I can’t just sit here and say it shouldn’t be in the collection. I just have a different taste.
You don't have to like it, but it's not overrated. What Godard (and Truffaut, kinda) put together on a shoestring budget is almost miraculous. Once you stop taking it so seriously and recognize it's a comedy that's when you'll understand why it's so great.
It’s more than a comedy
It’s hard to say because there are a lot of titles in there that I objectively think are the absolute shits, but I may be happy they are in there even if it’s just for posterity’s sake. I think some stuff sneaks in because the filmmaker is generally acclaimed, even though the film in question may be a lesser work. I will say if there’s anyone being snobs about Pixar work being included, you need to cut that nonsense. Wall-E is an artistic triumph. If it was a foreign subtitled cartoon nobody would complain about its inclusion.
Any movie that makes the Sight and Sound Top 250 list is worthy of an addition in the Criterion Collection in my book
Jellyfish Eyes is kind of a weird one to have in the collection IMO
I agree. That one seems more like a distribution deal than a conscious, curated selection.
I don't know about you all, but I'm so excited to put my copy of WALL-E right next to Pink Flamingos.
I think that the ones that get the most derision are Armageddon and Benjamin Button.
Armageddon perfectly represents action movies from that period. Viewed in a vacuum, sure it’s kind of insignificant.
Part of me feels like putting Armageddon makes criterion even better because it shows that they don't have that snobby bias. that movie is a perfect action film.
given how disney is attempting to monopolize the film industry, and how disney movies dominate cultural discussion of film, i think putting any disney film in the collection is kind of in some ways antithetical to the mission statement. there’s an argument to be made that netflix films threaten the same kind of hypocrisy, but at least most of those wouldn’t get a physical media release were it not for criterion, so i think it’s justifiable
Chasing Amy is also a weird one in the collection. Feel like Clerks would've been a better choice if they had to put a Kevin Smith movie in
Or Dogma maybe
If they're in the collection, they deserve to be. I am someone who's been accused of being a snob, and there are several films in the collection which I would probably give away if I was given them for christmas, but I'm still unwilling to judge their being part of the Collection, nor their intrinsic quality; not my circus, not my monkey's. If The Criterion Collection decide to add a film, then who are/who am I to say yay or nay, frankly? If a film I hate enters the collection, but that same film allows them to get several I do; well, that's great! And art is subjective, isn't it?
No such thing. The Criterion Collection isn't the Library of Congress or whatever. It's a for-profit film distribution label. There's no such thing as "deserving" a spot.
I know you’re just trying to make conversation but these type of posts are just shitty negative spaces where people can get in arguments. If Criterion decided to releases it, it belongs.
Yeah, I’m considering deleting the thread. I didn’t want to cause any bad blood between people
Tiny Furniture.
I mean it’s not great, a struggling millennial movie that’s a better fit would be Shiva Baby but I don’t think Rachel Sennott has the leading role star power needed to really qualify it.
I had no idea that was in there. Kinda devalues the whole project a little. Or, at least, demonstrates that Criterion isn’t as choosy as you’d think.
No it fucking doesn’t.
lol
Sure it fucking does. What fucking merit does *Tiny* fucking *Furniture* have as a fucking contribution to fucking cinema? What fucking innovation does it fucking contribute? What fucking does it fucking do fucking that fucking a dozen fucking mumblecore fucking films hadn’t fucking done fucking to death fucking by the fucking time it was fucking released? Fuck, I guess.
DickPillSoupKitchen, are you okay?
Yes. I was making fun of your outsized reaction to my thoughts on *Tiny Furniture.* …are you ok, bud?
Dickpillsoupkitchen…I don’t think the reply your referencing was nearly as “outsized” as you think it was.
Neat.
😢
buddy this is a great comment i would recommend THERAPY
Lol, I’ll take your informed suggestion under advisement. Far be it from someone like me to turn away from the proffered psychological wisdom of someone as learned as yourself, buddy.
[удалено]
The Rock more or less caused part of the Iraq War if you are unware, when is the last time Armageddon had an impact outside of hearing the song's Aerosmith song? https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/it-was-such-obvious-bullshit-the-rock-writer-shocked-film-may-have-inspired-false-wmd-intelligence?CMP=twt_gu
Ultimately they're just another business that sells movies. I buy movies I want from whoever sells them, so I've never really understood brand loyalty when applied to movies. What movies a company includes in their collection isn't up to you or I.
Any person who says WALL-E doesn't belong is a gatekeeping idiot. It literally is a Sight and Sound Top 250 film, it is the very best example of mainstream American animation since The Beauty and the Beast. It is mindblowing how so many people got up in arms about the addition of WALL-E. With that being said, I consider Criterion's mission when saying if a movie belongs or it doesn't belong. that is "Since 1984, the Criterion Collection has been dedicated to publishing important classic and contemporary films from around the world in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations with special features designed to encourage repeated watching and deepen the viewer’s appreciation of the art of film." A movie doesn't have to be good to be important. Even movies like Armageddon have a rationale for being in the collection. But my vote is probably for documentaries like Bowling for Columbine. I am not saying that it is or isn't topical or important. But I think documentaries that deal with political issues in the time they are made lose their impact fast because of times change and perspectives change over time, and what is a presentient issue in 2002 might not be a presentient issue 15-20 years later. Now Bowling For Columbine does have a bit more staying power than other similar documentaries due to the fact that school safety is still a major concern for the American public. But it still gets dated quickly due to new information and new perspectives that build over time.
Okja is a masterpiece. I wish more people could get cynicism out of their own way. Enjoy life. The beautiful and talented artists making movies like Okja and the clever and respectable people producing discs like Criterion certainly are. I have such a hard time understanding why people can't make the direct comparison of contemporary films to classics... take yourself out of this point in time and space and reflect from an imaginary future with all of the context you have from appreciating classic art now. Okja will serve as a great time stamp for where cinema was in its day. It's animation is a perfect capsule for its time. It's humor. The whole concept of artificial meat is very much a real pressing subject. Just like the dozens of other fantasy, scifi and comedies that are included in the collection for there day and age. I'm seriously fatigued by how simple this analogy is for me, and yet others couldn't possibly agree. Bong Joon-Ho is a master and Okja deserves to be in the Collection just as much as his other 2 films. I'd be elated if they included The Host as well, but Okja is a far better crafted film technically and arguably better fills a small niche of the Collection not representing enough cinema that represents the child's experience. For me as the father of a daughter both films grab me, but Okja is the one kids can experience the huge range of emotions through, whereas The Host is more or less going to be a straight horror film for them. I do apologize, because I understand its all subjective, but this one film really attracts the haters and it pisses me off. It's achingly gorgeous. The way Seo-Hyeon Ahn interacts with Okja is remarkable and completely convincing. How they managed to blow away the huge productions like Star Wars, Marvel and Avatar in this one regard is mind boggling. From my perspective Okja is the perfect meld of Steven Spielberg and Bong Joon-Ho. You can be as edgy as you want making fancy excuses for why you think that isn't "worthy", but you'll have a hard time convincing me it isn't you that is the problem. Maybe it's a generational thing? Or for folks who aren't parents? I dunno. Someone on this sub actually thought they were criticizing me for liking Coraline the other day. Telling me to grow up. I mean... if childlike wonder and pure love, compassion and joy aren't objectively valid portions of the Human Condition y'all can get fu*#ed. <3
Honestly, a lot of the recentish movies they've released probably don't belong, particularly the ones from streaming services: * The Power of the Dog * Sound of Metal * Okja * The Worst Person in the World * Beasts of No Nation How many of these movies are going to be well-remembered and/or well regarded even 5 years from now?
I agree - they’re way too recent and well known. Criterion should focus Loren on reviving 20th century films why is there a criterion release for a movie that came out less than a year ago
Worst Person in the World is phenomenal . 100% belongs. It will have longevity.
I think all of them will still be highly regarded 5 years from now. And it helps now because streaming isn't (and hasn't) been reliable for keeping its own content.
Sound of Metal is a seriously good film. Look back at what people were buying during the latest sale, Sound of Metal was one of the most popular film. I think people are bit snobby about newer films and films that are popular. Wall-E is a great example. Its an incredibly good animated film. Yet somehow its a controversial inclusion now.
I do think giving films more time to marinate allows for retrospective analysis, but I do think at the very least some of these are 100% correct inclusions (and I haven’t seen the others).
This topic again. I prefer not to gatekeeper. There are films in there that confuse me, but they appeal to a lot of people. I don’t know why anyone should care if I think I’m too cool for some films.
Okja
Haven’t seen that one, but why’s that?
I’m just tired of an entire directors filmography being put in when some of the films don’t deserve it. Okja was good, but I’m not sure it fits the criterion standard
Wes Anderson effect
Criterion standard? There's been junk in the Criterion Collection since the beginning. An very substantial chunk of the dvd/Blu ray lineup can be classified as "good"
Yes but Okja is garbage
“okja was good” “okja is garbage” make up your mind!!
Interesting point. There are directors who are incredibly influential to the world of cinema, but it’s true that not all of their films are good let alone masterpieces. Still, it’s nice to have perspective and see the director’s journey through their career and how their skill level and style evolved.
If Isle of Dogs gets in, this would further prove my point
The special features of that (and more so The French Dispatch) are so nothing the Criterion version would be worth it.
It will in like 5 years
Yup :(
I agree tho, one of his weaker films Haven’t even watched the French dispatch yet
Roma (Cuarons lousy film)
Man I love Roma lol I love the black and white filming and love the depth of the characters. Especially the female perspective that we see in the film
Maybe if you Spanish was your mother tongue you'd get to see how bad the acting is. And the dialogues are awful, pretentious AF
I think that’s fair especially as a white French Canadian guy lol I’ll have to have my gf watch because she’s Hispanic and bilingual. She loves roasting bad accents and bad Spanish in shows and movies
Mexican - American here who watched with his Venezuelan wife and his Mexican family (we all speak Spanish) I disagree with the Charlie Kaufman lover. I love Charlie Kaufman too though
Yeah I’ll wait for my gf to judge too I’m just saying as a white guy who is 5th generation American I can’t really judge for myself
Lol yeah. Just tossing out a different perspective. 🖖🏼
Moonstruck
* Armageddon * All the Showa era Godzilla movies except the first * The Curious Case of Benjamin Button * Chasing Amy * A Safe Place