The Criterion Collection

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by Yami

I'd be surprised if they didn't include the TCM version if they ever released it. But, personally, I found the TCM version to be a tough watch. 2 hours worth of still frames interfered with any flow.

I had no problem with it and thought it was very well done. I had a much harder time with their reconstruction of London After Midnight since it was made up totally of stills and even with a very short running time it was a tough slog. To make matters worse, they either chose not to or were unable to use more of the stills that exist so the same stills were repeated over and over.

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

NAPOLEON is undergoing yet another restoration by the Cinematheque Francaise with Francis Ford Coppola (claiming that Kevin Brownlow's restoration is all wrong), so there's a chance that newest version will show up on Blu-ray.

Wasn't Napoleon was hinted at in a Criterion newsletter or New Year's drawing once?

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

I'd love to see more silents on Blu-ray. Actually THE BIG PARADE is already on a very impressive Blu-ray from Warner...
Warner also owns THE CROWD and GREED, so it's unlikely Criterion would be able to release them.

Well coming from the guy who forgot about the release (that he owns) of the Big Parade, take this for what its worth; backbefore DVD sales"crashed" and the fanastic Warner boxed sets were still coming out Big Parade and 2 other titles were "promised" but never materialized. I'm pretty sure one of those was The Crowd.

[StingingVelvet]

Went to put Le Cercle Rouge on my wish list this morning and discovered it was out of print. That stinks! Any other Criterions in danger of this? Do they announce it ahead of time? Thanks.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Went to put Le Cercle Rouge on my wish list this morning and discovered it was out of print. That stinks! Any other Criterions in danger of this? Do they announce it ahead of time? Thanks.

In terms of Blu-ray you're looking at:

#64 - The Third Man
#112 - Playtime*
#218 - Le Cercle Rouge
#304 - The Man Who Fell To Earth
#385 - Army Of Shadows
#421 - Pierrot Le Fou
#453 - Chungking Express
#478 - Last Year At Marienbad
#488 - Howards End
#572 - Leon Morin, Priest

* = In print as part of box set, single release OOP

Usually there is some notice given

[spargs]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Went to put Le Cercle Rouge on my wish list this morning and discovered it was out of print. That stinks! Any other Criterions in danger of this? Do they announce it ahead of time? Thanks.

Been OOP for a couple years, unfortunately. I bought my copy on ebay in 2013, when I discovered Melville and went on a binge with all his films.

[mrjohnnyb]

As of today, February 7th 2015, the 2015 "TSPDT" 1,000 Greatest Films List is on-line. In addition, Bill Gregorius, who maintains the site, has included a new list of films 1,001 through 2,000.

Here is the link:

http://www.theyshootpictures.com

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

It's awful to thank you for this unfortunate news, but I had not read about it and so I do thank you for bringing it to attention here. At least, at 92, she had lived quite a life. She's a film noir icon, but at the same time she is very underrated, and her name should come up much more often!

RIP Lizabeth Scott

Sad news, saw this earlier.

[lordmorpheus72]

Finally finished Rififi with my wife last night. Excellent movie, love heist movies and great to see how and where so many got some of thier ideas. I know it's not the first, but you can the blue prints in so many movies.

[Show spoiler]Heat and the Oceans films (though I know they started with a remake of the original)

came to mind specifically.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by joie

Godard's remark about losing the "character" of films may have been concerned with the removal of scratches, nicks and dirt which no film is immune to -- they are a part of film's "character."

When you see a new release do you want a clean print or do you hope the print has already acquired some "character"?

Roger Ebert used to wax nostalgic about waiting in the rain outside a small theater in southern Illinois (apparently it rained quite frequently down there when Ebert was in college) and sitting a cramped, smoke-filled theater watching beat up prints of this or that.

I too have fond memories of watching scratchy, beat-up films both on TV and in local theaters.

But as fond as those memories are I'd still rather watch a clean print whenever practical.

[joie]

Originally Posted by mrjohnnyb

As of today, February 7th 2015, the 2015 "TSPDT" 1,000 Greatest Films List is on-line. In addition, Bill Gregorius, who maintains the site, has included a new list of films 1,001 through 2,000.

Here is the link:

http://www.theyshootpictures.com

Long lists may be indicative of the list maker's indecisiveness.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by GenPion

On a semi-related note, Godard has also stated how he dismisses his earlier films (you know, the ones which made him famous) but that won't stop me from thinking those are amongst his best work.

He's hardly alone when it comes to artists rejecting or resenting their earlier work, especially when they feel as though they develop in a direction away from that. I remember when Radiohead used to refuse to play 'Creep' for example, while Duchamp renounced his art in the face of the commercial takeover.

It's also worth noting that Godard is a world class wind-up merchant, and ought not be taken too seriously (I know for a fact that he still has a degree of interest in the films from this era, having crossed paths with him around the time of the most recent Breathless restoration).

I fear Godard is getting a bad rep in this thread. While his grandstanding statements can make for jarring headlines which invite defensive responses I've always found that he speaks with great passion and eloquence. The Cavett interviews on the Every Man For Himself Blu-ray are an example of this, as is the recent Canon interview recorded to promote Goodbye To Language.

He's like Mike Leigh, he doesn't suffer fools, but when it comes to discussing his work there's a sincerity and intellect that is admirable, not to mention valuable.

The Canon interview can be found here.

Originally Posted by sjconstable

He also wanted English people to watch Film Socialisme with those God-awful 'Navajo' subtitles, nuff said.

Like I say, he's a world class wind up merchant. That being said, I do think there's a note of interest in his presentation of that film to non-French speaking audiences. It's a line of enquiry that is present in much of his latter day work, in which themes of communication are prevalent.

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by octagon

When you see a new release do you want a clean print or do you hope the print has already acquired some "character"?

Roger Ebert used to wax nostalgic about waiting in the rain outside a small theater in southern Illinois (apparently it rained quite frequently down there when Ebert was in college) and sitting a cramped, smoke-filled theater watching beat up prints of this or that.

I too have fond memories of watching scratchy, beat-up films both on TV and in local theaters.

But as fond as those memories are I'd still rather watch a clean print whenever practical.

For me it really depends... some of the older movies I love seeing in theaters, no matter whether they are clean or not. I don't mind a little age on my film. Now never big movies, I'll take clean!

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by octagon

When you see a new release do you want a clean print or do you hope the print has already acquired some "character"?

But as fond as those memories are I'd still rather watch a clean print whenever practical.

I like both. I attend a 70mm festival every year and some of those prints have degraded to the point of "pink", but I'd sooner take that over a brand-new digital restoration presented via DCP (in that scenario). Were I watching a film on Blu-ray then I'd hope for it to be restored to as high a standard as possible.

Incidentally when recently offered the choice of seeing Inherent Vice digitally or via a 35mm that had already been screened a number of times I opted for the print, given that it was the directors preferred method of exhibition. That print, tho only a few months old, had begun to show its scars, and the experience of watching the film was all the more memorable for it.

[joie]

Originally Posted by octagon

When you see a new release do you want a clean print or do you hope the print has already acquired some "character"?

Roger Ebert used to wax nostalgic about waiting in the rain outside a small theater in southern Illinois (apparently it rained quite frequently down there when Ebert was in college) and sitting a cramped, smoke-filled theater watching beat up prints of this or that.

I too have fond memories of watching scratchy, beat-up films both on TV and in local theaters.

But as fond as those memories are I'd still rather watch a clean print whenever practical.

It's not an issue with new releases, because no one is interested in "restoring" them, yet.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by octagon

When you see a new release do you want a clean print or do you hope the print has already acquired some "character"?

Roger Ebert used to wax nostalgic about waiting in the rain outside a small theater in southern Illinois (apparently it rained quite frequently down there when Ebert was in college) and sitting a cramped, smoke-filled theater watching beat up prints of this or that.

I too have fond memories of watching scratchy, beat-up films both on TV and in local theaters.

But as fond as those memories are I'd still rather watch a clean print whenever practical.

Yes, I'd agree too. This reminds me of the 1987 Stanley Kubrick interview by Rolling Stone magazine and how he was upset that many theaters at the time projected damaged films and didn't replace the reels after a few weeks, as grain and dust further damaged prints. Here's a quote of what he said about "beat-up" films:

Stanley Kubrick:

"Many exhibitors are terribly guilty of ignoring minimum standards of picture quality. For instance, you now have theaters where all the reels are run in one continuous string. And they never clean the aperture gate. You get one little piece of gritty dust in there, and every time the film runs, it gets bigger. After a couple of days, it starts to put a scratch on the film. The scratch goes from one end of the film to the other. You've seen it, I'm sure... The Lucas report found that after fifteen days, most films should be junked. [The report says that after seventeen days, most films are damaged.] Now, is it an unreal concern if I want to make sure that on the press shows or on key city openings, everything in the theater is going to run smoothly? You just send someone to check the place out three or four days ahead of time. Make sure nothing's broken. It's really only a phone call or two, pressuring some people to fix things. I mean, is this a legitimate concern, or is this mindless anxiety?"

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...-1987-20110307

People might have thought Kubrick was an obsessive perfectionist, but really his standards for high quality were incredible. It's something I keep in mind with most work I do myself. I can't stand when quality control is neglected. If Kubrick were still alive today, I'm sure he would have loved these new digital chips most films are now projected through.

[mrjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by joie

Long lists may be indicative of the list maker's indecisiveness.

The list is not based on his personal opinion. Rather, Mr. Gregorius has compiled a collection of twenty-eight expert lists from around the world (Sight and Sound, Cinephilia, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) and, by using a formula, has made an amalgam of these lists.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by octagon

When you see a new release do you want a clean print or do you hope the print has already acquired some "character"?

Roger Ebert used to wax nostalgic about waiting in the rain outside a small theater in southern Illinois (apparently it rained quite frequently down there when Ebert was in college) and sitting a cramped, smoke-filled theater watching beat up prints of this or that.

I too have fond memories of watching scratchy, beat-up films both on TV and in local theaters.

But as fond as those memories are I'd still rather watch a clean print whenever practical.

It's sort of like all of these Instagram applications that all of the hipsters use to make their flawlessly beautiful 2015 digital photos look as though they were taken by a Polaroid One-Step Camera during the 1970s.

Do you remember how awesome it was to see photos with faded images, white splotches, and patches of discoloration?

No, I don't remember that either.

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

It's sort of like all of these Instagram applications that all of the hipsters use to make their flawlessly beautiful 2015 digital photos look as though they were taken by a Polaroid One-Step Camera during the 1970s.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by joie

It's not an issue with new releases, because no one is interested in "restoring" them, yet.

Have you ever watched the restoration demo on the Stagecoach BD?

The restored version still has quite a few warts and while I was watching the film I found myself waxing nostalgic about watching beat up old movies on TV when I was a kid.

Then I watched the restoration demo and realized just how fuzzy my warm and fuzzy memories could be. The stuff I watched as a kid didn't just have "character". It had missing frames, bad frame rate conversions, washed out colors, black-and-white movies that were gray-and-darker-shades-of-gray movies. The stuff I watched as a kid looked pretty terrible sometimes.

And don't even get me started on silent movies. The restorations of silent films are nothing short of miraculous.

Godard might want those films to retain their "character" but not me.