Breaking The Waves - March 13, 2013

[RogerMathus]

Regarding Sheltering Sky, likely not haze censored but can't be sure. If this is already released, perhaps someone in Japan can answer. It seems that lately they only attack male nudity.

[Bruce Morrison]

Originally Posted by RogerMathus

Regarding Sheltering Sky, likely not haze censored but can't be sure. If this is already released, perhaps someone in Japan can answer. It seems that lately they only attack male nudity.

OK, many thanks for your quick response.

[apollo828]

Well, I bit the bullet and decided to pick up the Blu. Might as well make up for all those times I've waited for somebody to pick up something I wanted but was afraid to take a chance. Anyway, I'll report back regarding nudity when I get a chance. I have the Scandinavian DVD in a box somewhere and will rip it so that I can compare all the questionable scenes (and see if "Life On Mars?" is used in the soundtrack).

[Dan Average]

I might be wrong, but I think "Life on Mars" was only removed from the U.S. video releases. Apparently the UK DVD still had it too.

As for censorship, pubic hair hasn't been a problem in and of itself for some years now. It's actual genitalia that's the main issue, and even that gets through more and more these days (at least in foreign films). The line seems to be whether the nudity occurs during a sexual act. Breaking the Waves might be borderline since Skarsgård's full frontal occurs in the context of a sex scene, but it's not within the act itself, so it could get through.

[apollo828]

Hello. Looks like this is totally uncensored. Male and female pubic hair is present. (I haven't done a shot-for-shot comparison or anything like that, though.) "Life On Mars?" is also present.

Can't really comment on the A/V quality just yet. Haven't watched the Scandinavian DVD in years, so I can't remember if the film's supposed to look like a weird mix of heavy grain and DNR dialed up to 11. I'll try to post screencaps later but it could take a few days.

Thanks.

[Dan Average]

The movie was shot on 35mm (von Trier's last film to use that format), but von Trier forbade the use of "movie lighting," so it used a high ASA stock and a lot of the film had to be push-processed. It was then transferred to PAL D1 video for post-production, intentionally degraded, and then re-transferred from PAL to 35mm (as opposed to the usual method of cutting the 35mm footage to conform with the video edit). So the film is basically what you get when you combine less-than-optimal 35mm with mid-'90s-vintage digital video. It's always looked, um, "lo-fi," and it's never going to look like anything else. It's not much more conducive to HD than Dancer in the Dark, which just dropped 35mm altogether and shot directly on DV.

[apollo828]

Originally Posted by Dan Average

The movie was shot on 35mm (von Trier's last film to use that format), but von Trier forbade the use of "movie lighting," so it used a high ASA stock and a lot of the film had to be push-processed. It was then transferred to PAL D1 video for post-production, intentionally degraded, and then re-transferred from PAL to 35mm (as opposed to the usual method of cutting the 35mm footage to conform with the video edit). So the film is basically what you get when you combine less-than-optimal 35mm with mid-'90s-vintage digital video. It's always looked, um, "lo-fi," and it's never going to look like anything else. It's not much more conducive to HD than Dancer in the Dark, which just dropped 35mm altogether and shot directly on DV.

Ahhh. Thanks for the explanation. I knew Lars has tended to use unconventional filming techniques. I just couldn't remember if BtW was supposed to look so ugly. In that case, the Blu's probably about as good as it'll ever get, with the lossless audio and the correct (?) running speed.