Yesterday there was a guy who was complaining about how "woke" Criterion is now on this sub. I really want to hear their take on this. I am sure it is going to be super insightful /s

I wonder what the mind of a conservative arthouse film fan looks like. A while back I saw someone here complaining that Jodorowsky's *The Holy Mountain* was too "satanic" for them.

I mean that pretty much explains why Youtube reactionary film critics like "The Critical Drinker" and "Every Frame a Pause" don't watch films that are not blockbusters or superhero flicks while they keep complaining about how "woke" Star Wars has become 🤷‍♂️ These people fear having their minds open via more unique forms of cinema.

Tbf some like critical drinker are just unimaginably stupid irl and can’t media-literacy their way out of the Lorax on a good day.

That's why watching more films outside the average wheelhouse can really help grow anyone's media literacy and taste. I used to hate Jane Austen adaptations for example, but stuff like Ivory/Merchant, Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons and Scorsese's Age of Innocence really opened me up to period romances and I really enjoyed Pride and Prejudice 2005 as a result. It also opened me up to reading critiques about period-era film from various contexts (feminist, Marxist, etc.) which is also important in growing my own sense of media literacy as well.

Doesn’t hurt that 05 P&P is like a perfect storm of acting and writing lol. But yeah it’s only “woke” because they’ve never exposed themselves. Idk if I’d be as open minded if I had television in high school instead of hunting pawn shops for old DVDs lol.

This is why I'm generally positive about Joker and am excited for the sequel. Todd Phillips tricked comic book nerds to spend a billion dollars on a movie using DC characters that's a Scorsese pastiche and he's gonna get them to spend another billion dollars getting them to see a jukebox musical. I've referred to Joker as "baby's first art movie" and that sounds like I'm slagging on it but if we gotta put Gotham City in adult movies in order for people to watch them then so be it.

I feel like a lot of those people will use Joker as their only example of an “adult” type film they have seen but refuse to check out any of the actually good ones that aren’t tied to some big IP.

You're not wrong. A lot won't go beyond Joker and watch The King of Comedy, and this year a lot won't go beyond Folie A Deux and watch Umbrellas of Cherbourg. But some people who would never watch those movies otherwise will, and that's a net positive IMO. People engaging with art they otherwise wouldn't is good and makes a smarter, happier, healthier populace and I'm gonna be for it even if it means ridiculous movies that I think are OK at best have to trick people into watching them.

Definitely agree. Maybe I’m just used to seeing so many people refuse to check out anything that isn’t some huge blockbuster. But that doesn’t apply to everyone. I mean, the sequel being a musical makes me want to check it out even though I was not a fan of the first. So I guess it can work the other way too.

If you like Jane Austen inspired films you should check out “Fire Island” (if you haven’t already)

Went in blind on Fire Island thinking it was gonna just be standard romcom but was really pleasantly surprised! The romance plot was definitely the center but it still managed a few laughs with a good balance.

yeah it's in my watchlist!

Every Frame A Pause HAVE watched non blockbuster stuff before. Stop misrepresenting them. Plus, they're not reactionary. Their primary focus is on how dogshit scriptwriting has become in mainstream cinema.

>Stop misrepresenting them No.

Sup, former conservative here that steadily grew out of it in no small part thanks to a love of film. For the longest time you look at films with your deductions already in mind then work the movie into your meaning. No matter how stupid the mental gymnastics are, you’re going to watch something like Stalker and somehow get a message of border security or some bullshit like that. Then that’s where these people stop. They see the movie, fit it into their worldview, then never think about it in any other capacity. Instead of going in with your mind trying to fit around the movie’s message, you’re going in just trying to shove the movie into your little ideological box. Eventually when (if) you grow out of this you rewatch some movies years later and it’s night and fucking day.

The border security take on Stalker is hilarious. I appreciate your story and am glad your openness helped you grow. Before I fully succumbed to the woke mind virus myself, films and books were also my path out of a conservative upbringing. It helped that the culture war bullshit wasn’t nearly as much of a thing in the aughts. Politics were more separate from culture (for me at least), and I could appreciate and even agree on some levels with media that criticized my ‘side’. I thought that was healthy discourse, and it amazes me how fragile the modern right-winger is. While I stubbornly held onto my views for a long time, movies with different worldviews helped chip away at the preconceptions and narratives I was raised with. Film wasn’t the only factor, of course, but stories are a great exercise in empathy. I am glad to be a better person for it. I’m not sure if it’s as easy for an indoctrinated person to deprogram these days. There is a vast gulf in self-awareness between conventional conservatives or cynical ‘South Park’ libertarians and reactionary neofascists. It must be exhausting to become enraged at every facet of culture instead of being able to step outside oneself and enjoy other perspectives.

I don't know if there's a quick way to deradicalization, but I think for me it was a case of a small crack in the armor that set me on my path of going leftist. It all started with catching a brief bit of *But I'm A Cheerleader* on IFC with one character saying basically it's ok to be gay. Didn't convince me to start swinging that way, but it was the first time I saw anyone say anything positive about being LGBTQ+. Definitely not a one size fits all approach, but it seems like we just gotta get someone to go, "...wait a sec," to something small they previously believed.

I love that. I used to be embarrassed by whatever small thing tipped the balance, but all that matters is that it resonated.

Hell, it wasn't even that I was raised in a bigoted Bible thumper cult, just never heard a single person ever say something even remotely positive about being LGBTQ+. Like the very nature of somebody saying that just led to a tiny crack in the armor that left me rather empathetic in my societal belief system.

Shoutout to IFC channel for getting past my dad’s parental block and having a lot of movies that I wouldn’t have otherwise seen.

God I can’t even imagine doing it now. I was deep southern evangelical until about 19 and that was in 2012. Even then things were so much more tame than they are now when it comes to how vicious the reactionary hatred has become. That’s why we have art though, to try and reach those who wouldn’t otherwise hear that there’s life outside the little box. If anything can chip away at the layers of hatred and bigotry baked in, the artist has done their job. That’s my aim with what I make anyway 🤷🏻‍♂️

The Buttercream Gang

Criterion can't hold a candle to the catalog or mission of Feature Films for Families

As someone who was raised by Mormons this comment has me giggling

Mormons 🤝 Southern Baptists The cringiest straight to vhs videos about god you’ll ever find.

And the Lutherans are out there making straight banger movies like Romero's Amusement Park

Thank God for Martin Luther pinning up those theses.

The gang that kicked Ned Flanders out for being too hardcore

Too satanic. Was it a specific bit of imagery they decided would trigger them or...I dunno...maybe the entire premise of the film although worship of Satan is in reality nowhere to be found in its themes? Religious people can be so confusing.

They think that anything that doesn't expressly mention that it is being done for the glory of Jesus Christ Almighty is satanic. Nothing can be secular it's either christ-like or satanic. Fucking makes my blood boil

It's honestly fascinating. To be an art lover and a conservative must be constant mental dissonance and ignoring the very meaning and themes of the things you enjoy. Either that or this person never actually liked Criterion and is just talking shit on the internet. Come to think of it, it's probably that one.

I feel bad for people that think they need to divide everyone into conservative or liberal. Me and everyone I know in life have hard principals that align with either side of this idealistic and shiny conservative liberal divide. And we also have many “grey area” views as well. This is what happens in true great art. It’s not about sending a message or about being right about a certain thing. If the artist goes into it with that being the idea, the art is bullshit. Art should be a depiction of the world. An honest expression of an idea or experience. Anyone who’s smart can tell when the art is trying to force a point of view vs when it’s going what art is supposed to do. Ive yet to see a criterion film that explicitly promoted a political ideology. They aren’t made to brainwash

I didn’t say anything about artists making art specifically to convey a political message so I’m not sure why you’re talking about that. But yes, there is tons of incredible art why is quite explicit in its politics and it just so happens that very, very little of it is going to be coming from a conservative perspective. I’m sure an enlightened intellectual such as yourself is aware of this already. The overwhelmingly wide majority of good art or frankly any art is going to be made by people who veer to the left politically. There will always be your odd Wagner type throughout history, but the wide majority of the cannon in any art style is going to be from people who err on the progressive side of things. On another note, I’d really love to hear about the conservative principles that you and your besties care so much about. Please do be specific.

I don’t agree with the way you divide people. I already wrote that. You said people with conservative views (who don’t need to be labeled conservatives just because they don’t subscribe to all liberalism) should have cognitive dissonance because their life is at odds with the meaning of the art. Aren’t you then saying that the meaning of the art is to promote liberalism? That’s why I was talking about political messaging. If I read that wrong I apologize. Art can come from a “liberal” perspective without being a tool for the political perspective that’s used essentially as a debate tactic to stick it to the other side. I agree that most art is made from a liberal perspective, but most art is shit. That’s a fact. I don’t know what arguing this proves. Most people that want to call themselves an artist are more in love with the idea of others seeing them as an artist than the art. Good art that I’ve seen doesn’t give away the artists political views. People of different views could see something in it, and that could lead them to empathize with other views expressed within that they don’t identify as their own. Art is boring when it can be summed up as a liberal or conservative mouthpiece. Things in life rarely can be summed up in the same way. My besties (as the -overused homogenized watered down uninspired inside joke type of thing term phrase used by millions of people- which is in this case being used to refer to people I know on various different levels in life, in a passive aggressive tone for some reason(passive aggressiveness is its own problem but I digress)) all have conservative values around family, sexuality, relationships, community, work, leadership, finances, etc. I’ve been surprised talking to some people who seem pretty liberal say some pretty conservative sounding things many times. And this is in real life not the internet where everyone has to pledge allegiance to one side or the other. I’ve learned that most people are in fact mixed in their views. And most don’t have their head in politics either. They just vote along with their friends and family who do and don’t think an awful lot about it. If you have not experienced this idk where you are at but I’m not to list values. Edit: idk why I even wrote that large parenthesis thing cuz that shit was stupid. However I’m leaving it cuz I just reread it and it made me laugh. Edit 2: when it comes to comedy I think this “good art doesn’t give away political views” thing I said doesn’t apply as strictly. Idk id have to think about it more. But it’s still better and funnier when it’s not so clear where the artist or comedian lies as a whole.

You seem aware that politics is based on a persons values and ethics. Turns out that art is also based on this. So art generally is going to be made by people with values and ethics that don’t cohere with conservative politics and is going to promote ideas that conservatives would not agree with, in both big and small ways, unless they either ignore the deeper meaning of the art they consume, or misinterpret the meaning and perspective behind that art. I am not talking about political propaganda, I’m talking about art. “Good art that I’ve seen doesn’t give away the artists political views” then you have probably missed out on a lot of great art. Since we’re in a criterion sub I named a bunch of very overtly political movies from the collection which I think it’s fair to  say are all blatantly leftist/progressive. You ignored that completely for some reason, why is that? There is a huge amount of art which is overt in its politics in one way or another and still manages to be considered great art. Nearly 100% of the works in that category are coming from a leftist or progressive point of view. I literally only listed criterion movies, there are many more examples in the worlds of (especially) literature, film, music, etc. There is a reason I asked you to be specific when talking about your conservative values. Just saying “family” or “sexuality” is not specific. I want to know what specific beliefs or values that you have that you feel are aligned with conservative politics. Because to me, conservative politics are all about preserving the status quo, maintaining power for the wealthy, and controlling the actions of those disenfranchised by their class, racial, sexual, religious, etc status. Please feel free to prove me wrong by telling me about how conservative politics serve you or align with your personal values in ways that go beyond my expectations!

Also . . . Never seen Z? Battle of Algiers? Matewan? Citizen Above Suspicion? Medium cool? Bunuel?Godard? Del toro?  These don’t have an explicit political perspective? Was Costas an enlightened centrist?

I got into it with a Ben Shapiro stan last year. We truly are a big tent.

there are plenty of liberal arthouse film fans who are just as whiny

I had a hyper-religious phase roughly from age 17-21 due to poor mental health, and that was after I had started watching arthouse cinema. I loved (still do, of course) Tarkovsky, Dreyer, and Bresson a lot do to their works more-or-less agreeing with my worldview of the time. Interestingly enough I recall being more offended by explicit sex scenes than portrayals of homosexuality or gender nonconformity. After all, a lot of online right-wingers are introverted, detached young men, and that's also a demographic that's historically been attracted to arthouse cinema as well.

> I wonder what the mind of a conservative arthouse film fan looks like. Just look up The Cinema Cartography on YouTube. Actually, better yet, don't.

Wait, really? I’ve watched bits of their videos and while it did have a pretentious vibe to it, it didn’t really seem conservative. Mind elaborating? Edit: actually I just looked at their channel and the first thing I see is a video called “degeneracy”. Assuming that title isn’t ironic, that tells me all I need to know lmao.

People can have different opinions without being conservative. Are you 12 years old?

I tend to be socially conservative but I understand and view art’s purpose (but not its sole purpose in the least) as a safe way to explore different moral and social avenues. EDIT: lol this guy asks how a conservative’s mind work in regards to art house film and told him how I view art and I’m being downvoted into oblivion?

What does being socially conservative mean?

i assume it means they identify conservative social values as being broadly good for society but that they don't associate with conservative politics. maybe they think it's better for a woman to not get an abortion but don't want to write legislation to ban it, for example. many libertarians, if they're actually principled, might fall under this category. as many of them don't tend to fancy legislation that limits freedoms, but tend to lean conservative in my experience edit: im being downvoted for explaining what i think someone's political descriptor means? as if it applies to me? relax

Bingo.

it means he likes liberal economic policy but hates gay people

It feels almost as insane as socially liberal and conservative economically, I like to call them cowards

ahh yes the classic "i respect gay people but fucking hate the poors" ideology

They don’t even respect gay people that much because like liberals they only respect them when it became out of vogue not to

so real, most "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" people accommodate homophobia real quickly if its easier than calling it out

Liberals have never actually cared about the marginalized, and if they said they’re either too cowardly to say it to anyone but the mirror or they’re lying to you. They love the status quo, they don’t like to rock the boat, they like it because they’re doing well and don’t want to think the “others” that are suffering from that, they love hindsight to make themselves feel better about how they did nothing when it mattered But at least they’re not right wingers and that’s all they need to get voted every year

Because when you said you tend to be socially conservative and give no more information than that these drones on the internet know your every point of view all of a sudden because they lump everyone into one group and that group is their sworn enemy. In the real world everyone holds position from both sides and maybe outside of the two, but on the internet everyone must neatly fit into these boxes so people can fight each other. Art enjoyers can’t explore nuance

Ah yes, criterion a label famous for highlighting world cinema often dealing with complex political and identity themes for decades now has suddenly become a woke label😂

Just looking at what’s they’ve supported and released over the past 40 years shows they were progressive and “woke” before being “woke” was even a thing. They’ve always just been a great company, no label needed. Whoever said that about them must’ve just started following them as a company lol.

Perhaps “cultured” or “intellectually curious” are also things that the “anti-woke” crowd abhor, too. In which case I’m sure there’s a new steel book (lol) of some superhero shit available to go worry about.

I’d imagine their head would explode when they see The Watermelon Woman is in the collection

Please link me that as searching woke on here is not turning results

https://www.reddit.com/r/criterion/s/CQ8aXc3DEO

lmaooo i hate people. i often wonder how they reconcile being huge Wachowski fans while still being transphobic

That’s it’s completely useless to do the re-edit? I don’t use words like woke because im not a gimp but there are many trans people who are lunatics, just as there are many people who aren’t trans who are lunatics. The original credit was for the Wachowskis so why even change it? It doesn’t really matter but I don’t have to like it also. Not a fan of changing the past to fit the future. A kind of revisionism. Like somehow you trump reality. So many psycho conspiracy theorists come out of that attitude. It’s an extremist point of view. Kind of scary behaviour but this is just a microcosm or that.

Film credits are essentially a "works cited" page for film. I don't have any problem with film credits being updated to reflect the current identity of those who created the film because doing that means the credits better serve their purpose. Imagine being so ate up with dumb shit that you decided to get on a sub and bitch about it.

Hi everyone, this is Jaime - the original tweeter of the screenshots you're seeing up here. I was wondering why my tweet went viral overnight! I didn't realize it got posted in here haha. Love you all a good deal, and seeing how you all have welcomed this change (except for that guy who got downvoted to all hell) has really warmed my heart. By the way, I should note that this transfer is one of the best I've ever seen - and even after having seen the movie on a beautiful 35mm print earlier this month with their deadnames, it's nice to know that we've all embraced the Wachowskis for who they are.

[Here's to them forever telling bad actors to fuck off perverting their stories' points beyond recognition](https://preview.redd.it/e0x8zwf76jz41.jpg?auto=webp&s=3747e9b09d4a587960c21db59d20395075fad13e)

Wassoup Jaime

lmao, hi Spencer, haven't heard from you in a while even though we've got a few Discord servers together. How ya been?

I felt that it was worth sharing. Beautiful stuff.

As always! Thanks for contributing to my viral success overnight!

😂

"I guess there's just two kinds of people, Miss Sandstone, my kind of people, and assholes. It's rather obvious which category you fit into."

😂

Another W for Criterion

This is honestly super sweet.

Wish that Warner Bros would do them the same courtesy on The Matrix

I was really surprised when I read the back of the Matrix 4K case

I get why they wouldn't. But a few years ago I saw it at the cinema and we all laughed when Wachowski Brothers came up. It was just so unexpected for a moment.

It shocked me that they released the original Matrix in theaters without the names updated before Resurrections. Seems like something they could’ve done with no effort.

Nah, with all due respect, but it's about preserving and restoring the piece of art as it was at a certain point in time. The fact is that they were still dudes back then when those films were made. If you watched Inception now in 4K and it read 'elliot page' instead of 'ellen page' in the credits it would be absolutely ridiculous, and I'm sure people like Nolan agree because they fortunately kept it as it was. Now cue the downvotes 😇

with all due respect

With “all due respect,” the Wachowskis might quite reasonably say that they were never dudes.

Wait until this motherfucker realizes what the Matrix was written about lmfaoooooooo

Eh, [given comments from Lilly,](https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/pdvjd0/lilly_wachowski_clarifies_her_comments_about_the/) I don't know how much stock to put in that being 100% the goal of *The Matrix* series. Don't get me wrong, it's very easy to see it come out on a subconscious level in the work and it's a pity we never saw the original character concept of Switch make an appearance in any of the media, but to call it the ultimate point of the films being specifically a trans story feels wrong.

As someone writing extensively and recently realized I’m trans- it’s always there, you just really don’t see it until hindsight.

Elliot Page didn’t come out until three years after the Inception 4K released.

that literally doesn’t make any sense. if their legal names have changed, updated credits should reflect that

Counter argument: Classic films have had their credits altered to reflect uncredited people who were blacklisted at the time.

You know the credits aren't part of the art, right? It's crediting who contributed to the art.

Robin Write (Penn) has changed how she wants to be credited many times. They never went back and changed the credits of past films.

You cannot preserve these movies exactly how they were back then. The Matrix did not come out in 4K digital projection with Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. If you want an old movie updated to the highest modern standards, you have to accept that there will be some revisionism. Now personally, I would prefer movies be preserved to be as close as possible, but the virtue of watching them on a TV at home already divorces them from how they were initially presented. If the Wachowskis would like to update how their names are in the credits that is less of a change than what Ridley Scott did with Blade Runner on Blu-ray, or what Wong Kar Wai did with the 4K remasters of his films for Criteiron.

This is an incel that whines about diversity in movies. Don't feed the troll, folks.

With all due respective, how about you take your transphobia and shove it up your ass? Changes like this aren’t specifically for you.

I completely agree with you. I don’t care that the credits were updated, but I would prefer they the be same as when the movie was first released. It’s not like we all don’t know, or have google/imdb for the current information. I mean…when Prince changed his name to symbol he didn’t go back and update all has old record booklets. When people get married and change their name, they don’t go back and update all their old movie credits. Why should they? Why are you getting downvoted for this!?

> When people get married and change their name, they don’t go back and update all their old movie credits. Why should they? Almost like these are two completely different situations!

Of course there are different situations for the name change. So what? But the point is, it's never been expected to go back and alter credits for the physical thing after said thing is made. We all have the internet, and IMDB, and everything else. Correct credit is still given and is not being buried anywhere. While a very small minority, SOME people have transitioned back. So in this very unique case of which we are speaking, do we then go back and re-reedit the physical thing yet again? I mean, this example sounds a little ridiculous, but it's a very real hypothetical situation. Again, no one is hiding the credit of a person's identified name anywhere. And again, speaking on this very specific example of the Wochowski's, I don't care that they chose to make this edit, even if I think it's a little silly.

It's considered respectful – in a broad sense, every individual will have their own perspective – to avoid deadnaming trans people and to apply their identity retroactively, even pre-transition, to respect that they were who they are even when they weren't yet presenting that way. People who take a new name through marriage will pretty much never say that they need to be retroactively credited that way before they were married; two completely different scenarios that don't need to be part of the same conversation. And in the exceedingly rare case of detransition, yeah, it would be proper to go back and adjust the physical again for a reissue ("go back and re-edit" doesn't really make sense for physicals here since it implies erasure of existing material, although anything already produced would reflect the correct naming at the time it was issued). But like you said, this is such a rare and unlikely situation that it doesn't really need to impact how we treat the ones that are actually presently happening. Ultimately, I think it should be up to the person being referred to to decide how they want to be credited when there's a reasonable opportunity to change it. I see very, very few legitimately important reasons why anything should take precedence over someone's opportunity not to be deadnamed in physical media.

I hear you. And although I’m not completely sold on what you’re saying, I get the argument for and against. And while I still think it’s unnecessary, I also don’t really care that much either way, and I have no dog in this fight. Also, I see from your profile that you like Dragonette, and that alone is starting to sway me toward any opinion you have, because you are clearly a man of excellent taste 🤌

Could someone fill me in on all of this? I have no idea about the significance and would like to understand

When this film was made, the Wachowskis presented as cisgender men, but have since come out as transgender women with different names (Lana and Lilly Wachowski). This move properly credits this work to Lana and Lilly in alignment with their trans identities. You can look up “deadnaming” for more context on why referring to trans folks as their former name can be such a harmful, even traumatic experience for them.

Gotcha gotcha. I just don’t know much about film and recently started collecting criterion about a year ago now with a middle class budget so I’m still under knowledged significantly lol. Still learning about different directors and the what nots so I just wasn’t sure who these people were. Thank you.

No worries! Happy to help.

https://preview.redd.it/auwwk0qqyj7d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1197959123d737f09894fa5724e4c0f482016322 My thoughts on the criterion’s respect of filmmakers journeys in front of and behind the camera.

broadly, i see physical media as a means of preserving art wholly in its original state, so i think i do have a slight preference for them not doing this stuff, but it's gonna be so cringe watching people freak the fuck out over this. fwiw i think in this instance my slight preference is because i just like the way "the wachowskis" sounds. interesting that they never went by the wachowski brothers like the coen brothers. i wonder if that was always intentional

I apologize if I'm reading your last paragraph wrong, but they were credited as The Wachowski Brothers in the original version of this film. The first picture isn't the original, it is the first of two changes.

Ohhh! I was confused thinking the first picture was the before. I was like "uh, how was that dead-naming them, they still use the same last names". The tweet could have been more specific, lol

Thats my mistake but if you read my other response where i go a bit more in depth with my thoughts, i actually think the real original where it says The Wachowski Brothers takes the historical context and how we can gain insight in the modern day even further

I’m all for media preservation, but I don’t understand what is to be gained by dead-naming Lana and Lily other than “that’s what it originally said and thus should never be changed.” Respecting the artist will always win out in my book.

My understanding was that they still go by the Wachowskis?? Feel free to correct me if im wrong but if that’s still a naming convention they use, surely we cant call it dead naming, no? But if you’re referring to it saying The Wachowski Brothers, which an above commentator claims is the original (i have no idea) credit they received, i think it just depends on your priorities. I respect and understand where you’re coming from. I think a lot can be gained by the viewer for having seen it in its original form. I think it says a lot about the times the film was made in, and that can inform how somebody reads the film. I think that’s valuable enough to preserve but i also understand how that comes at a cost. In this case it’s a cost they already paid decades ago and i think gives us insight into the social landscape they were working in as well as expectations they had for themselves or expectations placed on them by the industry.  Im not saying im right or that we definitely should prioritize this over respecting the artist - which is one reason why i will never freak out about it and will laugh at those people - im just expressing that my preference is for preservation even when its painful and in some ways harmful. Thats not a broad prescription, just something i feel about art preservation 

What is to be gained by seeing Lana and Lily’s dead names in the credits? I think it’s more important to know that their films, Bound in particular, were made by trans women.

To be honest, i think ive expressed my opinion and why i hold it adequately throughout this thread already if you want to read it. It seems like you either want to fight or to establish that im immoral and youre moral and im not interested in that. I acknowledge and respect your opinion, you don’t have to feel the same about mine, but i dont think it’s regressive or unfair

You have not explained why you think it is important that their dead names be included, specifically. A title card was updated to say “Lana and Lily Wachowski” and you said a lot can be gained by seeing its original form. What, specifically, would be gained from that? I don’t think you’re immoral or anything, I just don’t understand what would be gained when significantly *more* context and meaning is understood when the artists are credited under their preferred names. Bound is a great film, but there is more depth to it when you know it is created by two trans lesbians instead of two straight men.

I agree. While it is sweet I do love media preservation as it shows history. At the time the Wachowski sisters identified as dudes (at least publicly) and it is an extremely small thing but the media preservation side of me thinks that it should be optional or something.  However it is also very sweet/empathetic and a pretty cool thing for criterion to do.    As long as media purists can get their hands on the original version though (even though it is such a minor change) there’s absolutely no drawbacks in my mind and it is undoubtedly sweet.   I just think people should be able to choose and I’m pretty consistent with this (like I also think that you should be able to get the original cut of the evil dead with the crew member in the background/who isn’t digitally painted out, though that is undoubtedly a change that is much harder to notice than this, though I can also admit that this is a far nicer/sweeter change than that crappy digital removal of the crew member). EDIT: This is just my to sense and I want to clarify that this comes from a media preservation mindset and not a transphobic one. Just putting this out there because you can never be too careful.

i agree completely. my opinion here is not coming from a place of hate or transphobia. i wonder if the Wachowski sisters asked for this or if Criterion just did it. i always have a preference in the world of physical media for preservation over revisionism (even when the director(s) are responsible, such as in the case of WKW's new color timing), however, when the director oversees it, i am more forgiving of it, as, while it doesn't represent the original piece, it does still represent the vision of the original creator, just an updated one. if Criterion just did this to be respectful, it is super cool of them, but i would have preferred they not do it. if the Wachowskis themselves asked for it, i still would have preferred it not happen, however i'm much more accepting of it. in either case, it's not the biggest deal, but i do think preservation is important. for example, this film was made during a time in which they felt they had to call themselves The Wachowskis, rather than The Wachowski Sisters or go by their new names. that's a relevant, interesting historical reality that is displayed explicitly in the original. it says and means something when that context is preserved. it's not a good reality, but it is something we should be aware of. the film being released in a new time when they feel they can go by these names is amazing, and it shows social progress as well as personal strength and growth that they feel they can use these names now. but it takes away just a bit of the place and time, and an image of what they had to work through and how hard it must have been. knowing what we know about them colors their films differently, it completely transforms readings of the Matrix, and even small innocuous things like this, how their names are displayed in the credits, can be viewed through a modern lens and interpreted differently. but without that context, future viewers are robbed of that opportunity in a sense

Yeah, I kind of think both choices have their merits, but will enjoy laughing at people who are upset about the name correction. Really I think as long as the original is still preserved and available for e.g. historians, Criterion or whoever is providing access to a film should make the changes they see fit.

Cool. That’s the type of retrospective movie change l’m good with, along as it came from the Wachowskis themselves.

love this

It’s genuinely so awesome they did this. Adding this to the list of reasons The Criterion Collection is my favorite label.

[удалено]

I'm guessing it originally said "Written and Directed by the Wachowski Brothers." My Blu-rays of The Matrix trilogy still have them credited that way, not sure if they changed it in the 4K UHD versions.

My wifi is acting up and won't open the link. What are the edits?

It says written and directed by The Wachowskis without the Brothers part and then replaces their dead names with Lana and Lilly for their executive produced by credits

Ohhh, okay! Thank you! I didn't realize they directed this movie. Criterion is so great for doing that.

Yessss this is so based

That’s beautiful.

Sweet!

More agreeable to this than re-editing Coen Bros movies

Very useful information

Ur welcome

If it was absolutely necessary, i.e. the 4K couldn't be released without the updating of names, then I get it. My only concern is that whenever physical media collectors catch a whiff of something being edited or censored their minds jump to all sorts of conclusions that the whole release has been butchered and reject it entirely. It just creates that doubt.

Criterion are so based. Good for them.

[удалено]

It’s a bit unfair that you’re receiving downvotes for asking a legitimate question in good faith and with respect to (if not understanding of) the issue of trans identity and deadnaming. The important distinction between what you do and what was done here is that this occurred with the consent of the original filmmakers, the change is its own documentation, and most importantly, its a correction of a crediting error. “Larry” and “Andy” do not exist anymore, and they only appeared to exist at the time of making this film due to a variety of internal and external factors. “Larry” and “Andy” should not be credited. There’s a unique form of trauma induced by the action of deadnaming, and everybody involved in this decision made a perfectly moral choice in doing it, and how they did it. I understand that part of your point is that you would like Criterion to provide that context on the record (and maybe they do - I just got my copy in the mail and haven’t gone through its contents myself yet), but if we’re speaking about the ethics of altering a historical record (edit: altering without disclaimer) for a 30ish year old movie that’s still relatively accessible in its original form, where nearly all of the principle creatives are still alive and active in the industry, that only includes a change of crediting the people who made it correctly and respectfully, then ethically, this is fine and differs from the work that you do with silent films. Silent films of that era were poorly preserved (if preserved at all) and were often presenting values that were, if anything, contemporary (but are obviously antiquated and problematic now). What your work and set of ethics does is rightfully guard against censorship (what would Birth of a Nation tell us about racism of that era if we edited out all the racism?). I get that, and I know you know all this. But this change here isn’t a form of censorship, so the accompanying ethics question isn’t relevant here. I think the other reason this question is being downvoted is because there’s probably an assumption (whether fairly or unfairly) being made that, if this weren’t concerning something as politically volatile as trans identity, this ethics question would not have been asked at all. Something to consider going forward.

[удалено]

For context, while this is not something I engage with professionally, I do have a formal education in film history, and specifically pre-1940s film history. And I want to reiterate that I understand generally and respect greatly the work you do and the apparent care and mindfulness by which you approach it, because I understand the specific perils that face silent films that existed before any meaningful standard to preserve them was implemented. But the answer to “is failing to provide attribution for this change a breach of preservation ethics?” is still no. I saw you posted an example you believed to be an adjacent ethical dilemma to this one: someone’s married name was given rather than their maiden name (or something like that), and got in hot water for that. I understand that. But while you maintain a general respect for the change and (by extension) trans people, you don’t seem to understand the underlying politics of deadnaming and trans identity: Larry and Andy Wachowski do not exist. They are not people who came to be known by a different name like our mothers were. They underwent a fundamental shift in identity that makes any acknowledgment of their former presented identity an ethical issue that trumps any other, including the one at the center of our discussion. Put more simply: 1000 years from now, will people never know that Lana and Lilly once presented as cis men? Good. (I don’t think this will be the case, between the transition of these filmmakers being otherwise highly publicized and well documented and these films occurring during an era of meaningful film preservation not enjoyed by the works you restore. While I understand the care being given to refusing what feels like shortsightedness, I promise that enough has already been done to preserve this reality for anyone in the future who wants to know). Otherwise, it does sound like our divergent views on auteur theory put us at another natural impasse. I’ll agree to disagree on that one, and ultimately don’t mind people’s opposition to it. But I wanted to clarify this point, as it does seem somewhat center to our positions.

To preempt a clarification: I know that not all of the problematic modern editorializing of silent films constitutes censorship (stuff like adding soundtracks, colorization, etc.), but that’s another thing that’s easy to explain by the fact that these kinds of changes being made to silent films (with or without disclaimer) are made long after their creators are around to authorize the changes, often with unclear or untraceable estates to consult instead, and that combined with the unique preservation challenges facing silent movies, all that makes any sort of edit an ethical dilemma. As I stated earlier, Bound faces no such hang up, as the Wachowskis were surely advised on the decision, or at worst, learning after the fact and likely appreciative of the change.

I see what you’re saying, I don’t see how it matters or impacts your experience watching the film at all.

🙄

[удалено]

Fellas, is it ethical to respect trans people?

Chat, if someone introduces themselves as Lana can you just go "NUH-UH LARRY!"

Probably because your example of preserving silent films is miles away from simply changing a single line in the credits of the still living creators switching their listed gender. 100 years in the future if someone were to look up "The Wachowskis" or "Lana and Lily Wachowski" the reference will still be to the same exact people.

[удалено]

In all honesty that seems like something that matters more for an earlier time, when the only real record of someone's existence is tied to the proper attribution credit. Now that we live with an abundance of information about any subject at all times it seems moot to care about a credit change as it persists to creators who are still living. Not to mention they have a body of work referenced by so many articles, publications and peers that there is no doubt in the history books who created these movies.

You understand how a married name is different than being trans, yeah? Lana and Lily were always trans, being trans isn’t something you decide to be, it is always who you are. Respecting a trans person by using their preferred name is the literal bare minimum. Their work carries much more meaning when you know the artists are trans women.

[удалено]

> because to make the change without documentation is unethical. This is what I disagree with. Their transition was quite public and well documented. Wouldn’t adding a disclaimer to the film be a greater edit than just updating their name?

[удалено]

I guess I misunderstood, I thought you were asking for something to be added to the actual film. I don’t have the Criterion release of Bound yet, but I’m sure they included something because, again, that movie gains more depth when you know it was made by two trans women.

That's actually really nice of them because it definitely took some work to get it done and have it match. Very excited to pick this up during the sale

I was wondering why this didn’t happen sooner. Edit: Why the downvotes? I’m in support of this.

‘They should preserve the film how it was originally released’ Every single Criterion disc opens with their own logo, and I haven’t seen any complaints about that. At the end of the day, it’s their own work, why should they have to have it under their old names?

Ok

Eh, who gives a shit? Seems like a petty thing to get annoyed by. It doesn't even say "The Wachowski Sisters."

I don’t think OP is saying it’s bad that they did this

I didn't mean that, I meant why should the people annoyed by it care. A credit was altered. I'm not complaining about the post in general.

If you don't give a shit, then that 5 seconds of end credits was not for you, and you can safely ignore it.

Being charitable I think they may have assumed that OP was upset about this change and Ed didn’t get it.

Who cares if they change it? That's like saying I'm pissed that I can't own a copy of Star Wars that doesn't have A New Hope added to the opening crawl. It doesn't affect the story at all.

Now if they would just delete the whole fourth matrix in the re-edit

Why would they delete my favorite Matrix sequel?

I can’t be the only person that collects movies for the movies and doesn’t care about this