The Criterion Collection

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by Xtempo

would this be the original length or the cut down version that the Criterion BD has?

Isn't the theatrical edition the same everywhere? I thought the longer version was the one made for TV screenings.

[Rzzzz]

So I was in a used records/video store this weekend and they had a DVD of CC's The Night Porter. It sounds pretty dark and twisted which I like sometimes (Eraserhead is one of my all time favorites). Has anybody seen it and would you recommend it? It was pretty cheap (10$) the only reason I didn't buy it is I am afraid it will be a nazi version of 9 1/2 weeks (1986) and I DESPISE that film.....

[sawdustandtinsel]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

So I was in a used records/video store this weekend and they had a DVD of CC's The Night Porter. It sounds pretty dark and twisted which I like sometimes (Eraserhead is one of my all time favorites). Has anybody seen it and would you recommend it? It was pretty cheap (10$) the only reason I didn't buy it is I am afraid it will be a nazi version of 9 1/2 weeks (1986) and I DESPISE that film.....

I would advise against a blind buy if the bolded is the case, I wouldn't compare the two necessarily but The Night Porter is Nazi exploitation/sadomasochistic.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by sawdustandtinsel

I would advise against a blind buy if the bolded is the case, I wouldn't compare the two necessarily but The Night Porter is Nazi exploitation/sadomasochistic.

Thanks ! Don't get me wrong I am not a prude, ha ha. I even like John Waters films. I just like a plot and story. If the movie is just them in the bedroom the whole time I am going to hate it.....

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Isn't he supposed to be grating, though?

Yep. Doesn't mean I have to enjoy watching it.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

Thanks ! Don't get me wrong I am not a prude, ha ha. I even like John Waters films. I just like a plot and story. If the movie is just them in the bedroom the whole time I am going to hate it.....

There's not a whole lot of bedroom stuff; but a film about the lingering psychological effects, and resultant sexual kink, of captor/captive dynamics in the context of WW2 is bound to be divisive. Probably not blind buy material (although that's how I saw it, haha).

The original release had a tremendous cover:

[Show spoiler]

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

There's not a whole lot of bedroom stuff; but a film about the lingering psychological effects, and resultant sexual kink, of captor/captive dynamics in the context of WW2 is bound to be divisive. Probably not blind buy material (although that's how I saw it, haha).

The original release had a tremendous cover:

[Show spoiler]

Yep, thats the one I saw. Hmmm, you make it sound interesting. I think I will pick it up. What the hell, its only 10$ and I will just trade it in if I don't like it. Thanks !!

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

There's not a whole lot of bedroom stuff; but a film about the lingering psychological effects, and resultant sexual kink, of captor/captive dynamics in the context of WW2 is bound to be divisive. Probably not blind buy material (although that's how I saw it, haha).

The original release had a tremendous cover:

[Show spoiler]

I first watched this when Criterion was still on Hulu simply based on that image. I figured, why not? I was hooked by this movie. I can't even say I can think of any other movie to compare it to, though I'm sure there is. It was captivating for many reasons, not just the "kink" portion, but for the other items you listed, specifically the psychological effect of what had occurred and just the way they notice each other in the present day...man...I need to watch it again haha.

Also, FWIW, The Night Porter got me obsessed with Charlotte Rampling. Made me realize I've seen a lot of films with her! But this one stuck out.

[belcherman]

I wonder why this thread isn't in the Studios and Distributors forum.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I wonder why this thread isn't in the Studios and Distributors forum.

It was moved there a while back, some people complained then it was moved back.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

It was moved there a while back, some people complained then it was moved back.

Wow. It was in the S&D forum for at least five years. What was the complaint?

[Spire]

Originally Posted by ravenus

You are aware that last year SC did a newer release based on a 4K restoration? I'm probably not going to upgrade, but at least in screencaps it definitely looks better than the Criterion.

I wasn't, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by belcherman

Wow. It was in the S&D forum for at least five years. What was the complaint?

I think it was also taken out of the main North America forum. It came down to requiring an extra click to get to the thread.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I think it was also taken out of the main North America forum. It came down to requiring an extra click to get to the thread.

Geez. I have the S&D forum bookmarked. Those are the only threads I'm really interested in and it was nice having all of them in one place. Oh well.

[koberulz]

Am I the only one that can see all the S&D threads inside the NA forum anyway?

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Criterion's explanation over the aspect ratio:



Emperor 2.0
By Peter Becker

FEB 26, 2008

We’re getting a huge amount of mail about our edition of The Last Emperor, specifically about the aspect ratio, which is 2:1. Some people seem to believe that we’ve lost our minds, forsaken our mission, and taken it upon ourselves to crop the sides off the picture. Others assume we just got careless. Either way, a rising chorus is asking how we could do this to Vittorio Storaro’s Academy Award–winning compositions. And to Bernardo Bertolucci’s framing. The answer is, we couldn’t, and we wouldn’t, and we didn’t do anything to violate the filmmakers’ wishes. This is the way the filmmakers want the film to be seen.

From the start of this project, Bertolucci has insisted that Storaro have ultimate approval of the mastering of the feature. This master was made in Rome under Storaro’s direct supervision, with Bertolucci’s approval. When we asked Storaro about the framing of the film, he unhesitatingly told us that the correct aspect ratio for The Last Emperor was 2:1, even though the film was commonly projected at 2.35:1. He told us that The Last Emperor was the first film he shot specifically for 2.0 framing, and Bertolucci backs him up. Our mission is to present each film as its makers would want it to be seen, and in this case the director and cinematographer asked that we release their film in the format they say they had always envisioned. We had quite a lot of discussion over this, and we certainly knew it would be controversial, but in the end the decision was not made by us. It was made, as it should be, by the filmmakers.

I can understand how people might be upset about this. The general rule of thumb where widescreen films is concerned is that wider is better, but in this case it’s not so obvious. I recently had the pleasure of joining producer Jeremy Thomas at a screening of The Last Emperor, and I asked him about this issue. Was it really true that they had envisioned the film less wide than the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in which it was commonly screened? Thomas said that they had originally hoped that all of the original release prints would be in 70 mm, framed at 2.2:1 or 2:1, but not 2.35:1 or 2.33:1. Thomas said Storaro and Bertolucci filled the wider frame knowing that there would be 2.35:1 prints in circulation as well, but that they always knew they were shooting a format wider than what they hoped to release.

So, in short, while some viewers may prefer the wider framing, the filmmakers must have the final say. This is not a case of our losing track of our mission, but rather one of being true to it.

Very interesting. First time reading it. Clearly, Criterion is going to defer to the director (or DP, at a director's behest) - but the above doesn't really make sense in as much as:

Storaro claims The Last Emperor was shot specifically to be framed in 2:1 - which was not an exhibition standard at the time, and predates his proposal for Univisium (initially "Univision");

The producer then states they (Bertolucci and Storaro) "hoped" all release prints would be 2.20:1 or 2:1 but not 2.35:1 - however, 2.20:1 is clearly not 2:1;

The producer then goes on to say Bertolucci and Storao filled the frame for 2.35:1 exhibition, but again "hoped" it would be released otherwise - again seems to contradict that the film was specifically shot for 2:1.

[jw007]

Quick random question to everyone:

What's your favorite movie in the Criterion Collection to watch on a frigid Winter night where the temp. outside is -6 below zero and its snowing?

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by jw007

Quick random question to everyone:

What's your favorite movie in the Criterion Collection to watch on a frigid Winter night where the temp. outside is -6 below zero and its snowing?

Without hesitation:

[nitin]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

Arrow:
The Killers ‘46
My Darling Clementine
Sullivan’s Travels
Thief
StudioCanal:
Last Year in Marienbad
Mulholland Drive
The Third Man

Re Sullivan’s, the Criterion is actually better cleaned up (although not a huge difference or anything) and I prefer it and sold on the Arrow.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

I've held off on upgrading Night and the City and The Manchurian Candidate because the U.K. editions seem to offer superior all-around packages.

Both of these Criterions look much superior. As someone else has said The Manchurian Candidate is from a new 4K scan whereas the Arrow uses MGM’s old master.

As for Night of the Hunter:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=2518&d2=3977&c=258

The extras on Night of the Hunter are also much better than the Arrow edition (although Arrow tries to make up for it with an extensive booklet which is unlikely to still be available).