This is a disappointing but important story to take in. My own amateur-made watchlist (sculpted by a racist society and canon) shouldn't have half as many Black directors as a bunch of film experts. My white ass can at least come up with a few that Criterion doesn't have:
-
Xala (same director as Black Girl)
-
Punks - queer, Black movie from 2000. seems to fit perfectly with the Collection's marketing. - in licensing hell because of its use of mainstream music.
-
Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood
-
Who Killed Captain Alex? - Has a respectable Blu-Ray (upscale) already, but definitely meets the Criterion notability requirements.
I wish IMDB had a way to filter by Black directors so I could see what great films in my history were directed by Black people.
Criterion fans have a habit of not watching anything non-Criterion. I agree with some others here, if a film has a good Blu-Ray it may not need a Criterion. (But that hasn't stopped white directors from making the cut in the past.)
Can we not second-guess the rights for every movie people suggest? If a movie's not on Blu-Ray in the US it's fair game to suggest for a Criterion release. Nobody does this for the white directors people want.
I've also taken some Asian cinema courses and I know for sure any one of those professors would've loved to collaborate with Criterion on bringing some attention to lesser-known directors or films. This one I found on my own -
Talking Head, directed by Mamoru Oshii (Ghost in the Shell), and has a meta narrative that Criterion fans would love. Damn near impossible to find and less than 1000 ratings on IMDB.
There are some Chinese propaganda films from the Cultural Revolution that are special to me. They were taught in a Chinese history class but the only available versions were grainy and had terrible subtitles. Stuff like The Second Spring (1975, dir. Sang Hu and Wang Xiuwen) I think is excellent propaganda and worth highlighting with some historical context.
This article is removing some wool from my eyes. I can't imagine a world where a white version of Moonlight doesn't get put out on Criterion.
I'm also getting the feeling that there are trends in Black cinema that would be good to archive and catalog, just as Criterion currently does with white cinema.
From the article:
The Criterion Collection wasn't always quite as white as it is now. In the early 1990s, it put out several acclaimed films by Black directors on laser disc, including Melvin Van Peebles's "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song," John Singleton's "Boyz N the Hood," Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It," and the Hughes brothers films "Menace II Society" and "Dead Presidents." But none of those titles survived the transition, in 1998, to DVD.
Methodology: The New York Times analyzed all 22 years of DVD/Blu-ray titles issued through June 30, as listed on the Criterion website. Only features bearing the Criterion Collection label were counted. Films had to be 60 minutes or longer; streaming-only titles and those on the company's ancillary DVD labels were omitted.
This is a non sequitur. The Collection is viewed as eternal by most fans. LaserDisc means it's in the Collection. But yeah, being 20 years out of print is bad.
Some of the responses here on Era seem misinformed though.
1. The Rock could be argued as a great piece of cinema. "Only high art can be good" is suffocating. I haven't seen Armageddon, but I agree with the response that these films were included partially as an example of an influential / archetypal type of filmmaking. The market value of these films funding lesser known acquisitions is plausible too. Armageddon also came with a pretty loose commentary track - I don't think that track would be released under Warner or Fox.
2. The marketing image of Criterion and what Criterion actually is are different. Criterion PRETENDS to be this elitist secret club with only the best films. But in reality, it's the intersection of 3 factors:
- what will sell (or at least not be a horrific loss)
- what they can license (this is how the full modern director catalogs end up in the Collection)
- what is interesting (hidden 4th factor - interesting to white leadership)
I don't know how you can be a Criterion fan and argue they only put out masterpieces. I hate how they write their slipcovers - every film is influential, spellbinding, ahead of its time. No, sometimes a film can just be interesting without being the best thing ever.
"Just shut up, Ben!"
www.polygon.com
https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/113-the-rock (to see some Criterion-backed explanation of The Rock's merits)