2022 Criterion Forum Awards

[DarkImbecile]

It absolutely kills me to see people voting the best cover of the year as the worst

Sounds like someone’s going to have to scramble to get a ballot together to rectify this situation

[beamish14]

Only 6 eligible commentaries this year. Wow.

It pains me to see it as a “bonus” film, but Calendar handily wins in that category, and I’m a huge fan of the cover for Worst Person in the World

[therewillbeblus]

I hope more people see the bonus films on Daisies before casting votes - I think they’re better than Calendar, good as it is

[criterionsnob]

BEST RELEASE
1. Le cercle rouge [UHD]
2. ‘Round Midnight
3. Eyimofe (This Is My Desire)
4. Martin Scorsese’s World Cinema Project Vol. 4
5. Written on the Wind

BEST BOXED SET
Martin Scorsese’s World Cinema Project Vol. 4

BEST MODERN FILM
Drive My Car

BEST "BONUS" FILM
Calendar

BEST BOOKLET
Martin Scorsese’s World Cinema Project Vol. 4

BEST UHD RELEASE (1-5 ONLY)
1. Le cercle rouge [UHD]
2. Lost Highway [UHD]
3. The Piano [UHD]
4. A Hard Day’s Night [UHD]
5. Raging Bull [UHD]

BEST REISSUE
Written on the Wind

BEST UPGRADE
Le cercle rouge [UHD]

BEST COVER
Rouge

WORST COVER
Daddy Longlegs

BEST PACKAGING - NON-BOXED SET INDIVIDUAL RELEASE
The Celebration

BEST PACKAGING - BOXED SET
Martin Scorsese’s World Cinema Project Vol. 4

BEST DISCOVERY
Chess of the Wind

MOST UNNECESSARY RELEASE
In the Mood for Love [UHD]

MOST FLAWED RELEASE
Miller’s Crossing - Not a new 4K transfer, plus director revisions.

[rde]

It absolutely kills me to see people voting the best cover of the year as the worst

Exactly.

WORST COVER
Daddy Longlegs

Hard to argue against.

[Finch]

BEST RELEASE

1. Rouge
2. Cure
3. Round Midnight
4. Love Affair
5. The Celebration
6. The Girl Can't Help It
7. Blow Out UHD
8. Double Indemnity UHD

BEST UHD RELEASE Blow Out

BEST REISSUE Written on the Wind

BEST UPGRADE Blow Out

BEST COVER
Cure (also runners: Round Midnight, The Girl Can't Help It, The Celebration, Hotel Du Nord, Pink Flamingos)

WORST COVER
Frownland (also runners: Daddy Longlegs, Okja, Rouge, Raging Bull, Michael Haneke trilogy)

BEST PACKAGING - NON-BOXED SET INDIVIDUAL RELEASE
Pink Flamingos

BEST DISCOVERY
Rouge

MOST UNNECESSARY RELEASE
In The Mood For Love UHD

MOST FLAWED RELEASE
Miller's Crossing

BEST THREAD
tie between Sight & Sound and the Hongkong Cinema thread

MEMBER OF THE YEAR
feihong

RICHARD CRANIUM AWARD
cinephile1

REISSUES
Written on the Wind

UPGRADES
562 Blow Out

BEST BONUS FEATURE
Yang ± Yin: Gender in Chinese Cinema (Rouge)

[Never Cursed]

I can tolerate the Trier cover slander no longer, and I have thus been roused from my grad-school final papers:

BEST RELEASE:
1. Pink Flamingos
2. Martin Scorsese's World Cinema Project, Volume 4
3. Three Films by Mai Zetterling
4. Daisies
5. The Celebration

BEST BOXED SET: Martin Scorsese's World Cinema Project, Volume 4
BEST MODERN FILM: Drive My Car

BEST BOOKLET: Pink Flamingos
BEST COVER: The Worst Person in the World. It would have been The Celebration, but some of you are insane.
WORST COVER: Arsenic and Old Lace
BEST PACKAGING - NON-BOXED SET INDIVIDUAL RELEASE: Pink Flamingos

BEST DISCOVERY: Daisies
MOST UNNECESSARY RELEASE: WALL-E
MOST FLAWED RELEASE: The Infernal Affairs Trilogy

BEST THREAD: Sight and Sound, for one of the funniest posts I have seen on this or any website
MEMBER OF THE YEAR: knives
RICHARD CRANIUM AWARD: Israeli Cinema Expert Guy

[DarkImbecile]

Kind of hoping it wins both categories now

[colinr0380]

Maybe the true best covers were the worst covers we made along the way?

[therewillbeblus]

BEST RELEASE
1. Three Films by Mai Zetterling
2. Exotica
3. Lost Highway
4. The Girl Can't Help It
5. Boat People

BEST BOXED SET
Three Films by Mai Zetterling

BEST MODERN FILM
The Worst Person in the World

BEST BONUS FILM
Ceiling (Daisies)

BEST UHD RELEASE
Devil in a Blue Dress

BEST REISSUE
Written on the Wind

BEST UPGRADE
For All Mankind

BEST COVER
Shaft

WORST COVER
Arsenic and Old Lace

BEST PACKAGING
The Celebration

BEST DISCOVERY
Kalpana

MOST UNNECESSARY RELEASE
Arsenic and Old Lace

MOST FLAWED RELEASE
Miller's Crossing

BEST THREAD
Euphoria (I think people forgot about this one since its activity peaked almost a year ago, but the pleasures of recording thoughts on the new season week-to-week + witnessing those new to the show track impressions for Never Cursed's film club project = no contest)

MEMBER OF THE YEAR
swo17 - Invaluable services include keeping list projects alive, finding creative ways to democratically increase enthusiasm within important pockets of the forum, organizing group buys, imbuing a sense of humor into deadly-serious places, taking action to usurp Framed-guy's spotlight

[MV88]

Interesting that The Worst Person in the World and Rouge appear to be considered among both the best and worst covers of the year. In retrospect, I think I should actually withdraw my vote for Worst Person as Worst Cover simply because I haven't seen the movie and am therefore totally willing to admit that I might just not understand why or how the cover works since I don't have the proper context. I voted for it just because it's the most visually unappealing of this year's covers, but I concede that may be intentional and I just don't get it (I do still plan on seeing the movie, so maybe I'll change my tune soon). If I do end up changing my vote, though, Rouge is definitely not what I'll be switching it to.

Also, since In the Mood for Love and Miller's Crossing seem to be the main contenders for Most Flawed Release, it makes me wonder if the people at Criterion become aware of how divisive certain releases will be once it becomes clear the director is intent on making changes to the film. Like, do you think Criterion would ever step in to prevent a director from altering a film in such a way that it would damage the reputation of the release, or do they just give 100% control to any director who agrees to work directly with them?

[colinr0380]

I would doubt that anyone would step in to prevent the Coen Brothers doing whatever they wanted to their films, especially now that it seems a regular thing for them to do. Or if I were Criterion I would at least play along until getting the chance to do Barton Fink or The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

[tenia]

I recall them saying at a Wexler conference they stopped Cimino's at some point because he wanted to do additional alterations to Heaven's Gate and they felt what he wanted to do was too much.
I can only suspect he accepted the remark, but the question is what would have happened if he didn't (I suppose they would have caved in).

[therewillbeblus]

I would doubt that anyone would step in to prevent the Coen Brothers doing whatever they wanted to their films, especially now that it seems a regular thing for them to do. Or if I were Criterion I would at least play along until getting the chance to do Barton Fink or The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Making cuts to Buster Scruggs might produce a better film, but excising Mike Starr's "Jesus Tom" makes zero sense when it's both a running gag not cut elsewhere, and arguably the funniest of the bunch

[MV88]

I recall them saying at a Wexler conference they stopped Cimino's at some point because he wanted to do additional alterations to Heaven's Gate and they felt what he wanted to do was too much.
I can only suspect he accepted the remark, but the question is what would have happened if he didn't (I suppose they would have caved in).

I suppose a fair compromise had he not accepted the remark would have been to insist on including two different cuts in the release, although I realize that may have made it a far more expensive and time-consuming project for them (albeit fitting considering that particular film).

At this point, though, there have to be some at Criterion who realize a 4K UHD release of In the Mood for Love NOT approved by WKW would likely sell better than the current release, or at least would be far better received. Makes you question if they put too much value into having director-approved releases sometimes.

[yoloswegmaster]

I recall them saying at a Wexler conference they stopped Cimino's at some point because he wanted to do additional alterations to Heaven's Gate and they felt what he wanted to do was too much.
I can only suspect he accepted the remark, but the question is what would have happened if he didn't (I suppose they would have caved in).

I suppose a fair compromise had he not accepted the remark would have been to insist on including two different cuts in the release, although I realize that may have made it a far more expensive and time-consuming project for them (albeit fitting considering that particular film).

At this point, though, there have to be some at Criterion who realize a 4K UHD release of In the Mood for Love NOT approved by WKW would likely sell better than the current release, or at least would be far better received. Makes you question if they put too much value into having director-approved releases sometimes.

You have to realize that WKW owns the rights to ITMFL (as well as Chungking, Happy Together, and Fallen Angels), so they are obviously going to be stuck with a master that's been approved by him. Nothing to do with putting too much value into director-approved releases.

[MV88]

Oh I know his films are a special case since he owns them. I only meant that I wonder if anyone at Criterion secretly wishes they didn’t have to work with him directly because they’re aware of how divisive the new versions are. I do know that it’s most likely impossible for them to ever do a release that isn’t approved by him. My comment about putting too much stock into directors’ approval was more about the Coens, Cimino, and others, although I realize tying it into the WKW discussion was misleading. I just intended to use him as an example of when a director’s approval might not achieve a desirable result.

By the way, does anyone know if Christopher Doyle or Mark Lee Ping-bing have ever said anything publicly about the new versions of the film? I kind of feel like they should have had a say in the restorations too. Again, I know WKW doesn’t need their input, but you know, just out of respect for them and all.

[diamonds]

By the way, does anyone know if Christopher Doyle or Mark Lee Ping-bing have ever said anything publicly about the new versions of the film? I kind of feel like they should have had a say in the restorations too. Again, I know WKW doesn’t need their input, but you know, just out of respect for them and all.

Doyle:

“I think that we should not be so sensitive with our works. You have to let go, let them go. No need to masturbate over creations. I was not firmly involved in the restorations, although I gave my opinion several times and I was observing how the process was carried out,” he told the Spanish outlet Pagina 12 (via @standardspeeds). “I think the Fallen Angels case is a perfect example of an attitude towards work: they tried switching to an anamorphic format and oh, how they marveled. You always have to see with new eyes, the social and conceptual changes have been many. One thing that happened in almost all of those movies, something that people often call our ‘style,’ is that it usually came out of a mistake,” he said with a laugh.

[yoshimori]

Ha! Thanks, diamonds. Makes me smile when people with no professional filmmaking experience (even if pretty savvy people) take what are filmmakers' very often spur-of-the moment choices and even, as Doyle indicates, their "mistakes" as the Inviolable Word of God. Of course, some filmmakers try to pass themselves off as gods, and some perhaps even actually approach divinity. But Doyle's open-minded POV on the new versions of his films -- especially when he could've used the opportunity to poke at an estranged former co-filmmaker -- warns against a fundamentalist approach to film.

[zedz]

Oh I know his films are a special case since he owns them. I only meant that I wonder if anyone at Criterion secretly wishes they didn’t have to work with him directly [. . .]

The list of directors people at Criterion secretly wish they didn't have to work with is probably as long as your arm.

[colinr0380]

The main problem is always the wiping the slate clean revisionism of it all by replacing an original work with an updated one. Filmmakers should be free to do what they want with their films as much as they want - re-cut, mess around with them, turn French Connection bright yellow, turn every gun in Pulp Fiction into a walkie talkie, turn Brief Encounter into a colourised and 3D version in which the trains actually seem to be popping out of the screen in order to go after that new Avatar: The Way of Water audience if they want to, etc. Go wild! Although the best filmmakers sort of leave their past work behind at some point, move on and 'reply' or 'critique' their previous films in the films they make afterwards, whether consciously or not. But any new version really should exist in parallel with preserving a previously extant one, especially if that version is the one that has either made their reputation or had a significant impact on the culture at large. It is kind of the world's at that point, and to change it both betrays the original film's place in the world and the generations of audiences who have come to admire it, and what that original work may have said that any new tinkerings may mess with.

But multiple versions can be fun to look at and compare. There are many director's cuts that I prefer to their original theatrical releases. If just added on to the original, rather than replacing it, new versions of a film can revitalise a film for an audience, if just in the debate about which they prefer (although Oliver Stone can perhaps safely stop doing Alexander at this point )

I mean, we are getting into questions that presumably classical art restorers making best judgments in their current preservation efforts have to make all the time, only now with film (does that make the Ritrovata blanket colour re-grading for every film regardless of context people the equivalent of that lady who did the wonky amateur painting of Jesus? ). But the passing of time is naturally revisionist enough in itself without having to jump the walkie talkie and pre-emptorily do its job for it. You would think Wong Kar-Wai, of all filmmakers, would have known that.

[MichaelB]

The original editor of Michael Powell's Age of Consent complained about the Indicator edition including both the original Australian cut and the bastardised and completely rescored Columbia cut.

I completely accept that he had strong feelings about the latter, and entirely understandably so, but from a scholarly perspective the Columbia cut was effectively the only version that was easily available for nearly forty years, and virtually everything that had been written about the film prior to the mid-2000s would have been about that cut. I don't think anyone would prefer that version, and the packaging and menu made it absolutely clear which should be prioritised, but we felt that it was very important to include the Columbia cut for historical reasons.

See also The Stranglers of Bombay - when we realised that the UK and US release versions had been cut by different censors with different hang-ups (violence in the UK, sex in the US), we couldn't resist creating a hybrid cut that included all extant footage, and we're pretty certain that this is as close to Terence Fisher's original cut as it's possible to get. But there was never the slightest question of making this the only version, and the US and UK theatrical cuts are duly included as well. (As a minimum, the US cut had to be, as that's what the screenwriter's commentary was synced to.)

[ryannichols7]

I'm still not quite there yet on voting but I'm researching my ballot and realized that the Best Rescue category is gone - when did we eliminate that one? was a decent category and has a few contenders this year (Exotica, Arsenic..., Cure, Mississippi Masala)

[swo17]

the Best Rescue category is gone - when did we eliminate that one?

When the vast majority of their releases could be categorized as "rescues"

[ryannichols7]

the Best Rescue category is gone - when did we eliminate that one?

When the vast majority of their releases could be categorized as "rescues"

okay fair point. plus with UHD being a thing now I can see that one being even more of a debate than usual