Press Release Criterion Press Release: The Wiz (1978) (4k UHD Combo) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[DarkVader]

In hindsight maybe it was a good thing that 20th Century Fox exercised their first refusal rights and didn't produce the film version of THE WIZ (they financed the original Broadway production), because if they had produced it then it would now be in the hands of Disney and we probably wouldn't be getting this 4K/Blu-Ray restoration at all.

When released in 1978 Universal/Motown had to pay Fox a sizeable percentage of the film's profits.

 

[JoshZ]

Interestingly, I'm not sure how many people are looking at things this way, ie Criterion artistically validating movies, instead of movies being already validated and thus fit for the collection.

Those are definitely the two main sides to the Criterion model: the "All-Time Great Movies" Criterion is enshrining (Citizen Kane, Double Indemnity, etc.) and the "Criterion Discoveries" that fans believe the label is curating for their personal attention (including Thirty-Two Short Films).

Then they periodically slip in movies like Risky Business and Mother that don't seem to fit either of those criteria.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I see nothing wrong with Criterion releasing mainstream films when the ultimate goal is to stay in business.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

You are definitely correct that being part of the Criterion Collection gives certain otherwise obscure movies a cachet with the audience. However, that still boils down to savvy marketing on Criterion's part.

No, Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould is not some blockbuster title that will drawn in casual customers who wouldn't normally buy Criterion (as The Shape of Water might), but it is very much a title Criterion knows will appeal to its base with the right amount of promotion.

I think Criterion has been around long enough now that they have, and they kind of are one of the few resources that does this, attracted/created a base audience that is into film history and sees motion pictures as culturally relevant. They are not alone in this, I think BFI does the same kind of thing and other boutiques do their things but Criterion is probably the biggest name doing it because they have done it since the laser disc days.

So, I think many regular Criterion buyers consider, at least think about, buying everything they release and there are Criterion completists out there that do buy them all. I don't, I buy the ones I know I will watch more than once or with regularity. Now it has become a thing to check what they are releasing every month for people into them.

I think The Wiz and the Glenn Gould picture will now get a lot more eyes on them, will be reevaluated, because they made it into the "collection" and the end result of that is when people are making lists of films that are "great" or "must see" or "influential" these films will now start climbing onto those lists.

 

[JoshZ]

I see nothing wrong with Criterion releasing mainstream films when the ultimate goal is to stay in business.

I don't either. But I do think the notion that Criterion is a highbrow Seal of Quality with incredibly high artistic standards for what does or does not get into the Collection is also a fallacy - one actively fostered by Criterion themselves.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't either. But I do think the notion that Criterion is a highbrow Seal of Quality with incredibly high artistic standards for what does or does not get into the Collection is also a fallacy - one actively fostered by Criterion themselves.

LOL, I don’t think that misconception is being preached much around this forum. Matter of fact, Criterion’s reputation is probably at a low point around these parts.

 

[TravisR]

Then they periodically slip in movies like Risky Business and Mother that don't seem to fit either of those criteria.

I think Mother basically got in there on the coattails of Albert Brooks' superior earlier movies.

 

[tenia]

I haven't seen Mother (yet) but loved Real Life and Defending Your Life (a bit less Lost in America). Mother is on par with other movies directed by Brooks on IMDB, and is his most awarded movie. Is it really that less worthy of accompanying his other movies released by Criterion ?

So, I think many regular Criterion buyers consider, at least think about, buying everything they release and there are Criterion completists out there that do buy them all. I don't, I buy the ones I know I will watch more than once or with regularity. Now it has become a thing to check what they are releasing every month for people into them.

By definition, regular buyers are regular buyers, but even Criterion have titles selling better or worse, which even a good chunk of people still don't blind-buy everything (especially since those aren't coming cheap). I'm fairly certain even hardcore Criterion buyers didn't blind-buy Tiny Furniture or Jellyfish Eyes (or Border Radio) just because it was in the collection.

In more recent news, I also doubt Dick Johnson Is Dead, Sound of Metal, Minding the Gap, This Is Not a Burial It’s a Resurrection, Not A Pretty Picture or the Marlon Riggs boxset got Criterion usual fans extatic. (I'm also quite curious of how much Jo Jo Dancer and Crossing Delancey will sell)

 

[TravisR]

I haven't seen Mother (yet) but loved Real Life and Defending Your Life (a bit less Lost in America). Mother is on par with other movies directed by Brooks on IMDB, and is his most awarded movie. Is it really that less worthy of accompanying his other movies released by Criterion ?

I don't think Mother is a bad movie (and it's better than The Muse) but having revisited it via Criterion's disc, I still don't think that it's anywhere near as good as his earlier work. If Criterion hadn't released some of his other movies, I can't see them having decided to release only Mother.

EDIT: I suppose it's worth noting that comedy is very subjective so maybe there's a ton of people out there that think that Mother is Brooks' best movie.

 

[Lord Dalek]

At some point or another since it began in 1984 Criterion has released:

Ghostbusters
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Silverado
The Blob
The Rock
Armageddon
Robocop
And many, MANY other so-called "mainstream" movies.

Don't give me this crap.

 

[tenia]

At some point or another since it began in 1984 Criterion has released:

Ghostbusters
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Silverado
The Blob
The Rock
Armageddon
Robocop
And many, MANY other so-called "mainstream" movies.

Don't give me this crap.

One of Criterion's biggest seller on DVD was Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas : in 2005, they had sold 300 000 DVDs of it (overtaking the previous best seller which was... Seven Samurai). That's pretty mainstream to me.
On the other hand, they sold 15 000 DVDs of The Passion of Joan of Arc. That's a 20:1 ratio between not Michael Bay and Dreyer, but Kurosawa and Dreyer.
In the middle, they sold 150 000 DVDs of The Royal Tenenbaums.

A bout de souffle, Les 400 coups, La dolce vita, The Seventh Seal and al : those aren't obscure titles but "cinema school 101". That's also part of the mainstream within the Criterion releases themselves.

But I do think the notion that Criterion is a highbrow Seal of Quality with incredibly high artistic standards for what does or does not get into the Collection is also a fallacy - one actively fostered by Criterion themselves.

I'm fairly certain Criterion's reputation is based on this but has gone so much beyond what I call "the canonized canon of canonic movies" (because there are only so many classic Kurozawatruffautgodardozubergmanfellini movies to release) that it quite obviously just isn't only so anymore.

But sure enough (why wouldn't the label ?), Criterion are happy to be perceived as some kind of an ultra-premium labels, both technically (despite never really having been) and editorially (despite the collection having widened past that). And they are helped by the newspapers and magazines that clearly don't know much about the market but are still writing outdated articles about it and that includes describing Criterion like this.

 

[JoshZ]

LOL, I don’t think that misconception is being preached much around this forum. Matter of fact, Criterion’s reputation is probably at a low point around these parts.

Most of the animosity toward Criterion around here seems to be less about title selection (which is what I was referring to) than about supposedly have the "absolute worst encoding quality of anything on home video EVER EVER EVER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Josh Steinberg]

EDIT: I suppose it's worth noting that comedy is very subjective so maybe there's a ton of people out there that think that Mother is Brooks' best movie.

I do, but it’s a very specific sense of humor targeted at a very specific kind of audience - but for those with a similar cultural background, the Debbie Reynolds character isn’t a caricature or an exaggeration but a very realistic portrayal of a certain kind of mother/grandmother - and if you were raised by someone like that, the movie is not only hilarious in its accuracy, but also very validating because of the gaslighting that is common among that type of parent (as glimpsed in the film).

My grandfather, father and I have never laughed so hard together over anything as we did with that film. And my grandmother sat there, not laughing at a single thing, genuinely mystified at why anyone would laugh at Debbie Reynolds’ character when the film clearly showed (as my grandmother saw it) that character to be eminently reasonable, practical, kind hearted and the only one in the picture making responsible decisions.

Defending Your Life is a close second for me, with everything else behind those two.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Anyway, back to the late, great Nipsey Russell... for a hot minute, he hosted his own game show, Star Words, in 1983! Despite Nipsey being a game show fixture since the 60's, his own show didn't get past three pilot episodes.

In one episode, he dropped this poem:

50% of married women cheat on their husbands,
That's what the researcher claims.
Percentages don't mean a thing to me,
What I need to know are some names!

 

[HDVizion]

Most of the animosity toward Criterion around here seems to be less about title selection (which is what I was referring to) than about supposedly have the "absolute worst encoding quality of anything on home video EVER EVER EVER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Which is a gross exaggeration. Hell, their release Wages of Fear is superior to BFI's release, which was encoded by Fidelity in Motion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Most of the animosity toward Criterion around here seems to be less about title selection (which is what I was referring to) than about supposedly have the "absolute worst encoding quality of anything on home video EVER EVER EVER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I don't know about that because I've been buying more Arrow than Criterion lately.

 

[tenia]

Most of the animosity toward Criterion around here seems to be less about title selection (which is what I was referring to) than about supposedly have the "absolute worst encoding quality of anything on home video EVER EVER EVER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Not speaking about here but more in general : the issues I'm perceiving about Criterion for some years are split between "why don't they only release what I want" and "ugh, another recent movie that shouldn't be in the collection but only is because of that NYT article" which is a specific variant of "why don't they only release what I want".

Encoding is... an issue, because considering how much they're asking for their releases and how long they had to fix it, they have 0 excuse for having released so many sub-par discs in this respect (this, and their offices being like 2 subway stations apart from Fidelity in Motion's).

Which is a gross exaggeration. Hell, their release Wages of Fear is superior to BFI's release, which was encoded by Fidelity in Motion.

Which isn't because of a difference in encode, though.
This being written, their encoding house seemingly have gotten better since, say, that Walkabout UHD.

 

[B-ROLL]

I think Mother basically got in there on the coattails of Albert Brooks' superior earlier movies.

It also has a film appearances by a former M-G-M star and Princess Leia's mommy IRL ...

WikiPedia says "The film earned positive reviews and was Brooks's most financially successful film as a director."

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don't either. But I do think the notion that Criterion is a highbrow Seal of Quality with incredibly high artistic standards for what does or does not get into the Collection is also a fallacy - one actively fostered by Criterion themselves.

I'm not sure it is a highbrow seal of quality, I think I would just say that the films that end up in the collection have some type of significance and this is why they end up on Criterion. So, everything does not have to be Kurosawa, Welles, and Bergman, or a foreign film, I think they are just films that stand out in some way even if the only way is that it represents something that was popular in a specific time period.

I think if Criterion only did foreign films or pictures made prior to 1960, or something like that, yes, they would not be as well known as they are now and probably would not get as much attention. I think if it gets a Criterion release then that does cause people to think "Maybe I should check this film out."

The story of film is not all highbrow, and not all classic, and not all foreign art house. It lives and breathes and continues on and all I think Criterion does is attempt to highlight films that may be worth your while to check out. I think there should be diversity and the collection should touch on every decade of film. That can mean selecting from newer films that have not yet become "classic" or have not yet stood out over a long period of time.

I actually don't know how the selection process has played out for each film in the collection, who chose them, or what deals were made to get them on a Criterion disc.

I actually don't really find any particular film to be without merit that they have released, I think you can find a set of reasons to have selected most of them.

I suppose it is interesting that they seem to be releasing every Wes Anderson film and I wonder how that deal came to be because it seems to say every one of his films is already "Criterion worthy" if that is how people look at it. I love Wes, love getting his films on Criterion but I bet every filmmaker would love that deal.

 

[TravisR]

I'm not sure it is a highbrow seal of quality, I think I would just say that the films that end up in the collection have some type of significance and this is why they end up on Criterion. So, everything does not have to be Kurosawa, Welles, and Bergman, or a foreign film, I think they are just films that stand out in some way even if the only way is that it represents something that was popular in a specific time period.

That's accurate when you look at the entirety of their catalog but I do think that, among film fans, Criterion is best known and most recognized for releasing "great films".