What's the Criterion Collection?
The Criterion Collection is a home-video label that restores and re-releases important classic and contemporary films from around the world: art-house staples, world-cinema classics and cult favorites, usually packaged with essays, commentaries and other extras. Among film fans, it's a mark of quality. A Criterion release means the film has been judged worth preserving, and true duds are rare. That makes it ideal for picking at random. You might not like every film you land on, but you'll almost always land on something worth talking about.
How I picked these films
I didn't. I'm following along with Random Acts of Cinema, a podcast where two friends let a random number generator nicknamed "Randy" pick a Criterion film for them each week. They have been watching and reviewing them since 2019. I started at the beginning. Going random means, I end up watching films I may not have chosen myself, for better or worse.
Other ways to roll the dice
I've thought about a few other random methods:
- Reelgood Roulette: Reelgood has a "roulette" feature that picks a random title from the streaming services you choose. You can limit it to services known for interesting films, like the Criterion Channel and MUBI.
- Kanopy: Many public libraries and universities offer Kanopy for free with a library card. It has a solid Criterion and extensive independent film selection. You can include this in Reelgood's roulette spin, but most libraries cap how many titles you can stream each month.
- Duds filter: Outside Criterion's built-in curation, it's worth setting a rating filter of greater than 5 out of 10. In theory you'll still land on divisive films that people loved or hated, just with fewer outright bad ones.
- Letterboxd watchlist shufflers: Apps like RandomBoxd pick a random film from a public Letterboxd watchlist or list. You can also add a friend's username to find films you both want to see or draw from everyone's lists combined. If you'd rather use a website, Watchlist Picker does something similar and also takes multiple usernames.
Watchlist shufflers are great for picking a film with someone else, or for finally getting to films you've been meaning to see. The other methods have a different advantage, though: they can land on films that were never on your radar. I think that's the most fun part, and it means you don't need to keep up a watchlist.
Richard III (1955), dir. Laurence Olivier
The film was a bit of a slog, especially through its long middle stretch. I felt inspired at the start but burned out along the way. Still, the Shakespearean language hits the spot, and Laurence Olivier (who also directed) hams it up gloriously as Richard, which is cool.
Verdict: Skippable for most people. Watch it if you're a classic-film completionist or interested in the play.
Thief (1981), dir. Michael Mann
Thief deserves some praise. It feels so real, yet stylized. The thief's tools impressed me more than in other heist films, and the camera work is great. The pace is relaxed at times without ever getting boring. The opening is a good example: I was surprised to go what I believe was over 10 minutes without hearing a word. The acting is good too.
Fair warning: as you'd expect from a movie this old, there's a fair bit of misogyny and other "goodies." It's still forgivable enough for me to recommend it. I don't think our main character Frank is actually racist, but a couple of his lines reflect the racism common in the society around him. I also noticed how he treats people in the service industry: lowkey terribly. But who says a thief has to be a stand-up guy? The film doesn't hold your hand or tell you what to think, yet it does enough that you never feel he's the real villain. A friend compared it to Breaking Bad, and I can see why.
Verdict: Recommended.
Seduced and Abandoned (1964), dir. Pietro Germi
I can admit it's a good film. It's a parody that critiques traditional Italian "honor" culture, and it has real laugh-out-loud moments. Still, the ending and the abuse along the way left me uneasy, given the film's comic tone. I guess not everything ends well in real life though…
The film is not a true tragedy either, and I find tragedy somehow easier to enjoy. Here there's no catharsis. While watching, it helps to remember that the absurdity is the point. That leaves room for some uncomfortable enjoyment.
Verdict: Worth a watch (even if enjoyment may vary depending on the person.)
Rashomon (1950), dir. Akira Kurosawa
First off, the lighting and shots are beautiful. But I want to focus on theme. Strangely, the way Rashomon handles sensitive material didn't bother me the way Seduced and Abandoned did. Maybe it's because the storytellers keep saying how awful the events were, though you could argue their own tellings are problematic too.
The characters' clashing versions of events show more than how we lie to others. They show how we lie to ourselves. From how each character feels about their own story, you can piece together a loose version of what might have actually happened. Each story exposes the teller and also their society. How much of each account is self-interest, guilt or pride, and how much is ingrained social roles? On the surface it looks simple, almost like a stage play with only a few locations, but it has plenty of deep themes to go on an exploration of.
Verdict: Recommended.