Those that know me know that I am always 100% objective, never opinionated, try to look at every side of things and have never called someone an idiot for daring to disagree with me. I just think it. So if I slip off the beaten track and suddenly (surprisingly!) begin ranting, forgive me. Just keep that in mind whilst you peruse the following.
Every month, I await with bated breath the announcement of the Criterion Collection’s upcoming titles. I’m the sort of person who gets excited over the release of Antonioni’s Red Desert, complete with archival interviews. I was overjoyed by Polanski’s Cul de Sac and Resnais’s Last Year at Marienbad. Criterion DVDs are among the few DVDs I spend money on any more, because they’re guaranteed to be high quality and have mountains of extras, many of them (like the Polanski cuts) supervised by the director.
So why did I get angry with Criterion last week? Was it because they decided, for some reason unknown to God or man, that David Fincher’s The Game needed the Criterion treatment? That they release a bunch of Kevin Smith films or actually did a Criterion of Armageddon, now blessedly out of print? Well, initially, yeah, that was why I got pissed. Bringing personal opinion to bear on this (naturally, I am, as always, 100% objective) I cannot understand why The Game should get anything but a good quality, cheap edition. It is not what I think of when I think of Fincher; I think that many of us can agree that it is neither his most iconic nor his best film. But that’s not really fair, now is it? My apathy towards The Game is not really the issue here; the issue, in my now much calmer mind, is much greater.
There are good films, there are great films, and there are important films. Certainly Citizen Kane is an important film, even if you don’t particularly like it as a piece of entertainment. I’m quite apathetic to much of Godard, but I admit that Breathless is an immensely important work in the history of cinema. There are likewise great films that are not particularly important: Casablanca is an excellent propaganda film, an excellent romance, and an excellent melodrama, but in terms of its importance in the history of cinema, it’s only interesting to those who want to mark a turn in Humphrey Bogart’s career. It’s iconic, but not particularly important. Conversely, Avatar will probably go down in cinematic history as important: it resurrected 3D, is one of the finest uses of motion capture, and is a fairly entertaining picture. It’s important, it’s entertaining, but God save me if it isn’t Dances with Smurfs. The point being that most important films, whether or not you personally enjoy them or find them interesting, are important because they mark a shift in the history of cinema, an advance in technology, acting or cinematography; a marker of the shifting culture. You might be bored in 2001: A Space Odyssey, but you have to admit that it’s an important film. They’re important because they accomplish something that has not been accomplished before.
As much as I dislike Avatar as a work of art (or entertainment, for that matter), I would be far more interested in Criterion preserve it. The Game to me is a marker of a widening gap between what our cinematic heritage is and what it should be. There are hundreds, thousands even, of public domain films languishing, forgotten and unloved, on internet archives and in bargain bins. Poor transfers and maltreated prints of some truly excellent works. There are my pet ones (Why no early Hitchcock, Criterion? Why release The 39 Steps five hundred times but not Murder! or The Pleasure Garden or The Man Who Knew Too Much?); but there are also ones directed by Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, Orson Welles, Howard Hawks, Michael Curtiz, John Ford … argh! Yes, I know that Criterion has to be able to get good work prints, rights, scholars to write essays, etc., but somehow I cannot believe that all of those films are that difficult to obtain. I know also that there’s money and the power of Hollywood to consider and that it won’t be long before they actually do release Kindergarten Cop because Arnold bankrolls it. But really. Is there no shame?
Ahem. Got a little excited there. I am willing to accept that not everyone shares my taste in films (obviously), but an outfit like Criterion or Kino has pronounced their dedication to producing high quality DVDs and Blu-rays of films that deserve the ‘Criterion treatment’. Most of those films – the vast majority, in point of fact – are art house pictures and important works by folks like Godard, Stillman and Brakhage (none of whom, by the way, am I particularly fond of). My problem is not with Criterion releasing The Game, as annoyed as I am that that’s coming out in September and not, say, The Fearless Vampire Killers or The Tenant. It’s rather that more love is being shown to a sub-par Fincher than to a stellar Welles.
Criterion does not market to the regular DVD buying crowd; the prices, the scholarly essays, etc. are all directed at an cinephilic, possibly academic, market. So are we really now to view The Game as somehow an important work of art? No, sorry, no matter how you cut it, The Game is not an important film. Fight Club is, socially and cinematically; you can even make a case for Benjamin Button (which Criterion did release) from a technical standpoint. But The Game is about as important to the cinematic heritage as Alien 3, another Fincher film that had better not wind up as Spine #345 (or whatever we’re up to). I hope that this is only a blip on an otherwise excellent record (Armageddon and The Rock notwithstanding). I hope, but I am not convinced. I still weep for those poor orphaned public domain films, gasping for air on the internet archive. Won’t someone please think of the children?
Wayne (7)
Andrew (4)
John (4)
Steve (4)
Justin (3)
Lauren (3)
Nick (3)
Andy (2)
Dave Enkosky (2)
Emily (2)
I think a lot of it has to do with the rights to the films and more importantly, what they see, in the case of The Game, as important films in a director’s career. The rights of older films are obviously easier to obtain, especially in the case of foreign films, which explains why they have the greats of the masters, like Kurosawa, Fellini, Bergman and so on. But I think for every movie that they put out that might be not worthy of the Criterion treatment, they’re working at cranking out five more really good films as well.
My biggest gripe is that there are lots of public domain films (all the Hitchcocks I mentioned) whose copyrights have slipped and are not owned by anyone. They’re available in some truly atrocious cheap prints. They really do deserve better treatment and many of them are important films by important directors. But I agree, there’s a lot of good coming out of Criterion, which is why I keep buying them.
Deserving of a restoration? Absolutely. But are those public domain movies going to be profitable enough for the whole process to actually be undertaken by someone? Probably not. But, slowly more and more movies are being rescued and restored by AFI, certain film studios and such. We just need to enjoy these films while we can.
I still can’t bring myself to believe that the public was clamoring for a release of ‘I am Curious Yellow.’ Criterion tends to trade in the iconic or the weird, not necessarily what sells the best. That’s what I mean about their niche market.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
June 19, 2012 3:59 pm
As much as you know I want to defend The Game, I have to admit I see your point about polluting the waters.
Here’s a question, though: What do you think about films such as Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, and Terminator 2 making the Criterion cut? They’re not a part of their catalogue yet, but I would argue they’re important films. Again, I can’t give that argument in The Game’s favor, but I would also say that some landmark action films should also totally be included already.
But let’s all be completely serious here. I would buy that Kindergarten Cop Criterion, especially if it had that cover.
I’m assuming you saw this:
http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2229-three-reasons-kindergarten-cop
Mike pretty much nails it. Studios aren’t going to give up the rights to these films without serious cash coming back in their direction, and Criterion can only pay so much. Maybe I’m naive but I honestly think that if Criterion could afford to do it, they’d add anything and everything our little movie nerd hearts desire.
But… that totally misses your point, which is about stuff like The Game. I write off the Michael Bay/Kevin Smith films as a failed marketing strategy from the 90s. To be honest, I’ve never seen The Game so I can’t really speak to the inclusion.
I would say that if it was strictly important, highly influential films that were added to the Criterion Collection, you’d have to drop a lot more than just the Armageddons, Chasing Amys, and The Games of the world. I think the world of filmmakers like Godard and Buñuel, both extraordinarily well-represented in the Criterion Collection, but there’s a threshold where they were honing their skills and mimicking their same influential tricks. It wasn’t anything new. You could perform the same exercise with loads of filmmakers.
In short, I feel your pain but I see where Criterion is coming from.
Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying. That’s why this is a hissy fit — because Criterion really is great and they produce some great editions. Of course, a huge part of this is me being upset that they haven’t released all of Polanski, all of Hitchcock, Rossellini’s ‘Journey to Italy’ and any other director I happen to like. I also admit that I don’t consider Fincher to be a terribly great or important or interesting director as a rule. I feel like there should be about a dozen other filmmakers ahead of him. So it’s all totally opinionated and highly unfair of me.
I think they just have some sort of deal with Fincher, like they do with Wes Anderson (which I fully support in Anderson’s case, when is Moonrise Kingdom getting released to the masses?). Though personally I find myself a little underwhelmed by his work, I think Criterion have assessed him as a potential great director and decided to go for his oeuvre even the lesser ones, in fact they actually seem to have only gone for his lesser works. Of all he’s done at least put out Zodiac for goodness sake! (100% objective, just like you) but I agree, there are so many films in danger of being lost forever, and so many that have been preserved, but not released there is absolutely no need for a Criterion release of The Game.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
June 19, 2012 7:00 pm
By the way, I just had to comment on your mention of Stan Brakhage. The only thing of importance that should be mentioned alongside that dude’s name is the life lesson of not eating lead-based paint, and also not filming your wife giving birth through the lens of an ash tray. Yes, he did that. No, I don’t know why.
I’ve seen the ‘giving birth’ film — can’t remember what it’s called, don’t care to. And ‘Mothlight’ stole twelve minutes of my life that I will never get back (I have seen it four times, and four times I have cried ‘WHY, DEAR GOD, WHY?!’). But he is influential and ostensibly an important experimental filmmaker.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
June 20, 2012 5:50 pm
Let’s not forget Dog Star Man.
Ostensibly is right.
If I understand this post correctly, you think Criterion should release Kindergarten Cop. In which case, I agree.
Twitter: twitter.com/kloipy
June 20, 2012 10:15 am
I think the one criterion film that really got my blood boiling was their release of Anti-Christ. First off it was less than a year after it had come out, and I seriously can’t understand why they felt the film was so significant to actually warrent a release. I felt like they did it because it was supposedly ‘shocking’ and made to be some art-horror.
I know it’s naive, but I like to believe that they release these kinds of films once in awhile in order to make money to do the important ones.
Twitter: GoSeeTalk
June 20, 2012 2:19 pm
I can understand your frustration/confusion as it really seems that there is almost no math or formula to the films selected to the Criterion collection. I wonder why films like Fish Tank, Bottle Rocket (which I think were just pointless) and other less than appealing/marketable films get the Criterion treatment. But your statement here really hypothesizes it nicely: “Criterion does not market to the regular DVD buying crowd; the prices, the scholarly essays, etc. are all directed at an cinephilic, possibly academic, market.” Well said.
Personally I adore The Game and while not his best it began his journey and it was an effective noir that was a modern interpretation of the classical filmmakers whose films populate the Criterion collection. So by that token it was like hi lighting an up and comer which he did very universally become.
Still those wondering about and waiting for groundbreaking and influential films from Spielberg or Huston to arguably overrated films like Blade Runner, Akira etc.
BUt you might be a little late to vent as, it didn’t look like it was brought up above, The Game has already been in the Criterion collection…on LD: http://criterioncast.com/2010/09/28/david-finchers-the-game-returning-to-the-criterion-collection-in-spring-2011/
Now it’s just getting a fresh face on a new format.
To each their own I guess but I love how you spelled our your opinion so well. One of the things one of our writers (Andrew Crump) does is feature two benchmark Criterion films and reviews them back to back in one post. Check out his work if you you’re interested.
Twitter: agracru
June 25, 2012 6:15 am
Hey! Andrew Crump! That’s me!
Twitter: agracru
June 22, 2012 12:16 pm
The problem is that “important” is actually subjective in most cases. Very few films– Kane being one of them, as you mention– are objectively important in that they have a knowable, tangible impact on the flow of cinema history, which can be traced back to them via research and analysis. I couldn’t honestly tell you why Criterion considers Cul-De-Sac or Shoot the Piano Player– good but minor films in the oeuvres of their directors– to be important. Sometimes I think that the Criterion mission statement is just window-dressing, and the Criterion brand is just shorthand for “really great cinema”.
If there’s a real solid answer to this, it probably comes back to rights and money, but John nailed that already.
But this is 100% objective and totally non-biased! Everyone knows that Polanski and Hitchcock are superior to Fincher and Malick!
Yeah, I do agree with you. However, even under the criteria of ‘really great cinema’, I don’t see how The Game fits. It’s not even in the minor canon of an otherwise GREAT director, IMO. But that’s me.
Twitter: agracru
June 25, 2012 11:20 am
I kind of wonder if it’s because The Game is something of a blueprint laying out the foundation of the rest of Fincher’s career. Sure, Seven does this too, but that comes back to issues of rights and arguably The Game does so far, far better, even if it’s the inferior film.