The other day I came across an article in Vice Magazine about the "missteps" of The Criterion Collection. I had these exact feelings going through this list of Criterion "fuck ups" and wondered what made Criterion add these films (among others) to the collection.
Adding films and filmmakers to the catalog that wouldn't necessarily fit in the magnificent collection that is Criterion. If The Criterion Collection is the mark and model for "important classic and contemporary films", then why is Michael Bay's ARMAGEDDON and THE ROCK in the collection but not any David Lynch's MULHOLLAND DR. or Paul Thomas Anderson's MAGNOLIA? What makes Kevin Smith's CHASING AMY worth analyzing and discussing over Mary Harron's AMERICAN PSYCHO or Lars Von Trier's DANCER IN THE DARK? I understand that some films in the collection are, in fact, films that have reached a certain cult status like Alex Cox's SID & NANCY and Perry Henzell's THE HARDER THEY COME, which would make it reasonable to be a highlight of contemporary achievement. But films from Michael Bay are hardly of the status of cult or art house but rather examination of explosions, slow motion and hyper-patriotism. PEARL HARBOR anyone?
In a collection of some 500+ films, there are bound to be some "missteps" along the way. It's interesting to think that Criterion, just like any other company, has made mistakes in their past. It's also interesting to think what films in the Criterion Collection have they themselves have reconsidered or actually regretted to be part of their comprehensive collection. Have they ever felt like that drunken guy at the bar interacting with the wrong people? Going through the bad and questionable decisions just really makes you appreciate the good and wonderful choices you have made. Hopefully, they have learned from their clumsy "one night stands" so we wouldn't have to endure the sight of a Criterion release of Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS 2: THE REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, next to Yasujiro Ozu's LATE SPRING on our DVD shelves.
What do you think? Do you feel Criterion has made some "missteps" in the past? Or you wouldn't change a thing, The Criterion Collection is perfect as it is?
3 comments:
You feel the Criterion Collection regrets having these films in their collection? According to their FAQ, they are trying to be all-inclusive in the collection, and not to be snobs about it:
"http://www.criterion.com/help#q3
3. How does Criterion decide which films receive the “Criterion treatment”?
We aim to reflect the breadth of filmed expression. We try not to be restrictive or snobby about what kinds of films are appropriate. An auteur classic, a Hollywood blockbuster or an independent B horror film has to be taken on its own terms. All we ask is that each film in the collection be an exemplary film of its kind. Of course we can’t just pick movies and put them out. The process of getting the rights to release a film can take years. Even if we want a film, we can’t work on it unless the film’s owners grant us the rights."
Have you contacted the Criterion Collection to see if they're interested in adding Mulholland Drive, Magnolia, American Psycho or Dancer In The Dark to the list? They do mention that the process can take some time. Perhaps it is in queue? I think that is a wrong assumption that you have, and I think you lose credit buy not researching it first.
As for your chosen theme of "one night stand," as the way to tie in your thoughts on the Criterion Collection, well all I can say is I agree with your co-hosts. I can understand you are including your personal experience, but I don't think the Criterion Collection shares your sentiment with their choices. They, as stated as well as practiced in their list, are trying to be open-minded and inclusive. By the end of your article, I have a feeling that you don't follow this theory and practice.
My heart breaks that Ben Affleck can be found anywhere in the Criterion. And where is the Darjeeling Limited?
well, ben affleck is also in Kevin Smith's CHASING AMY (CC #75)
Post a Comment