Criterion & Eclipse in the Press

[StevenJ0001]

Exte, that "lecture track" excerpt is fascinating. I was pretty sure CC were the first to issue a commentary track. Does anybody know if they were the first to issue letterboxed transfers of non-Academy ratio films on a home video format?

[Matt]

Exte, that "lecture track" excerpt is fascinating. I was pretty sure CC were the first to issue a commentary track. Does anybody know if they were the first to issue letterboxed transfers of non-Academy ratio films on a home video format?

They were the first to issue a commentary track. Believe it or not, King Kong was a Criterion laserdisc release, spine #2. According to the "LaserDisc Museum," Fellini's Casanova was the first laserdisc to feature any letterboxing, but it was only the opening credits. The first fully letterboxed laserdisc was apparently Manhattan (but there were letterboxed VHS and CED releases before it).

[cdnchris]

CED

Oh, the fond memories of that format.

My parents a couple hundred titles and I watched just about all of them in my younger days. I recall widescreen appearing on a few during credits but never the full film. Of course, never saw Amarcord.

[Matt]

Oh, the fond memories of that format.

We had a SelectaVision CED player, too. We didn't own any titles, mainly because there was a rental place on the corner of our block. My main memory of the format is endlessly rewinding and rewatching a scene from an early film by a major Hollywood star whose dangly bits were briefly visible thanks to an open-matte transfer.

[Antoine Doinel]

Some praise for Criterion's streaming rental model.

[ianungstad]

Nicked from the HTF. The only thing of note, is the comments about the sales volume on the Blu-Rays:

The April 2009 issue of Home Theater Magazine has a nice story on the Criterion Collection and its move into the world of Blu-ray.

A few highlights:

• Criterion's simultaneous Blu-ray releases have made up 30-50% of the titles' total sales vs. the less than 10% typical for big studio films.

• Lee Kline, technical director: "If there's grain, we'll leave it in. We may tone it down a bit, especially with Blu-ray, where it can show too much. But you'll still see some grain. That's what makes a film look like film."

• Last Year at Marienbad will be released on Blu-ray (and DVD) "this Spring."

• "Coming, in the next few months": Walkabout, For All Mankind, Gimme Shelter, Monterey Pop.

• Peter Becker, president: "We're still figuring it out, deciding month-to-month. But we'll be more aggressive, not less, because sales have been pretty strong. We'll take chances."

[Antoine Doinel]

Nicked from the HTF. The only thing of note, is the comments about the sales volume on the Blu-Rays:

The April 2009 issue of Home Theater Magazine has a nice story on the Criterion Collection and its move into the world of Blu-ray.

A few highlights:

• Peter Becker, president: "We're still figuring it out, deciding month-to-month. But we'll be more aggressive, not less, because sales have been pretty strong. We'll take chances."

Guess that explains the Bergman doc, US edit standalone release.

[knives]

• "Coming, in the next few months": Walkabout, For All Mankind,

Those two will make my week when a date is made.

[Antoine Doinel]

Lee Kline talks about film grain with The Washington Times.

[Antoine Doinel]

Jonathan Rosenbaum makes a rambling sorta screed against the profileration of director's cuts and restored films and takes some digs at Criterion in the process. Somewhere in the hazy muddle of that article I see a point, but frankly I'd rather live in age of studios actually attempting to properly restore films - even if sometimes misguided or improperly marketed - rather than not bothering at all.

[HerrSchreck]

I actually think it's something that needs to be said-- I think it's a good article. One another thread about ten minutes ago you lampooned Universal for restoring Do The Right Thing down into the toilet bowl, and here you say you'd rather live in a world where some action was taken by the studio rather than none at all. Well that's a perfect instance where a positive "restorative" action was taken where none was needed at all.

I don't think Rosenbaum is suggesting that the other extreme be reconstituted and we go back tho the television masters from the 60's and just leave it at that. What he's talking about is the turning of the process into just another cheap marketing vehicle applied in almost every case where it has absolutely no meaning besides shorthand for the studio creating a process by which they can sell you a film twice.. three times, etc. That's not progress, that's absurdity. That's the manufacture of a history where there was none to start with, a faux-history where it is pretended that a 'vision' was interfered with, even with the most absurd lite teen comedy or ballbuster horror bloodbucket. Where formerly applied in genuine cases where a director's vision for a real classic was fucked with because he didn't have final cut, and the studio, one generation or two later, realizes in an ex post facto way that their decision was an idiotic one that shortchanged culture, tries, at least to some degree, to rectify their shortsightedness.

Today all it means is that the studio told the director to shoot some extra T&A footage, and one extra song for the o let's say Notorious BIG that can be left out in the circuiting theatrical version... so that after the first wave of dvd releases dies out, the title can get an adrenal injection with a release of "the directors cut".. more album sales, more cable licensing, new round sold to netflix, etc. It's ridiculous.

That's NOT a director's cut. That's the marketing departments second, and cheapest shot.

[nsps]

Today all it means is that the studio told the director to shoot some extra T&A footage, and one extra song for the o let's say Notorious BIG that can be left out in the circuiting theatrical version... so that after the first wave of dvd releases dies out, the title can get an adrenal injection with a release of "the directors cut".. more album sales, more cable licensing, new round sold to netflix, etc. It's ridiculous.

And with the modern releases you describe, they call it an "extended cut" or "unrated cut" (in some cases not because it's more obscene, but because they didn't submit it to the MPAA). So it's not really a director's cut, and you're left unclear as to which cut is considered definitive. (At least some releases like Pineapple Express include both cuts—it really annoys me when each cut is on a separate release.)

[Antoine Doinel]

Herr - when I'm speaking of restoration, I'm talking about something like Criterion's Mr. Arkadin (which Rosenbaum nitpicks to death), not a bad transfer like the recent Blu of Do The Right Thing, which is another issue altogether. Rosenbaum's issues with Mr. Arkadin, Touch Of Evil and Blade Runner are ultimately semantic in nature. Are they truly "definitive"? Maybe not, but probably about as definitive as they are ever going to get. So why bitch and moan about what some marketing intern wrote for copy on the back of the box? It's the content that ultimately counts. The "havoc" he speaks of exists only in his mind --- anyone buying or even remotely curious about these films have probably read about them anyway, and know what they are getting into regarding the "true" status of the films. The fact that studios are spending money, getting extras together, paying film scholars etc to address this films for what is, ultimately, a very niche market is important. Do they fuck up from time to time? Of course.

As for more contemporary films, yes, marketing departments are using the whole unrated/version you didn't see/extended cut thing to death. But, they are also allowing filmmakers a certain freedom. To use a recent example, Watchmen will arrive on DVD in the director's preferred longer cut, rather than the shorter theatrical version. A decade ego, a filmmaker would not have the freedom to negotiate theatrical cuts (which studios generally want shorter or PG-13 friendly) -- it would be a much more cut and dried affair. Now a studio and filmmaker can at least come to an understanding as to what they will support theatrically or on DVD. This is especially important for films that don't fit into a theatrical model that exists to have as many screenings per day as possible. For example, it's probably a safe guess that Soderbergh's Che, when it arrives from Criterion later this year, will be the full roadshow version on BluRay versus the Part 1/Part 2 that is arriving in most other territories.

I get a lot of what Rosenbaum is saying, but a lot of the article, imo, was bellyaching. Really, studios are using film noir too liberally? With all the problems plaguing arthouses, landmark classic films in need of restoration or release and countless other issues, the entire article seems like it was written in reaction to an accidental visit to Blockbuster.

[nsps]

Herr - when I'm speaking of restoration, I'm talking about something like Criterion's Mr. Arkadin (which Rosenbaum nitpicks to death), not a bad transfer like the recent Blu of Do The Right Thing, which is another issue altogether. Rosenbaum's issues with Mr. Arkadin, Touch Of Evil and Blade Runner are ultimately semantic in nature. Are they truly "definitive"? Maybe not, but probably about as definitive as they are ever going to get. So why bitch and moan about what some marketing intern wrote for copy on the back of the box?

Yes, the semantic quibbles over "The Complete Mr. Arkadin" are particularly thin. The set wasn't called "The Definitive Orson Welles Cut of Mr. Arkadin"—indeed, it provides three versions, the boldest claim being that one of them is "comprehensive."

The whole article is more focused on semantics in that he's concerned that the language used to sell (and pay for) the projects will affect knowledge of film history. (Hence the paragraph on film noir, which is about 50 years too late and quite silly.) He's not talking about bad telecines and misguided color-correction, or even grain reduction and edge enhancement—all of which I consider to be of greater concern. He simply doesn't like the phrases stuck on the box, as Antoine said. Rosenbaum raises some interesting points, but I suspect he would rather have access to the 2004 The Big Red One with a misleading name than only have the 1980 cut. If a studio paid to produce a new edition, it's not going to highlight its compromised, incomplete nature as a selling point (which, I suppose, is why people like Rosenbaum need to publish articles about the story behind the version).

[HerrSchreck]

I don't know that the Spike Lee issue is unrelated-- the thrust of Rosenbaums article is "How DVD marketing is rewriting the history of film."
In this case it concerns a studio deciding to revisit a film on the event of its BD release, and instead of reaching for existing, corrected HD elements, they went on their own little adventure and struck up a giant turd... but this is of course the "20th Anniversary Edition" providing "The Perfect HI DEF Movie Experience!", which has created a false record for this generation of what the film looked like when it appeared in the cinema.

This points by Rosenbaum is particularly key:

Regarding terms like director's cut and restoration: The fact that these categories are now integral parts of sales pitches seriously diminishes the possibility of their serving as accurate descriptions.

Regardless of whatever you feel about the examples he chooses to illustrate his point, it is absolutely a valid one. Is it quibbling? It all depends on the depth of your interest in the arts and the massive changes in corporate behavior and marketing strategies wrought by the digital age. His article is no more or less "quibbling" or "rambling" than a thousand other articles that appear in Film Comment, Sight & SOund, this forum, Variety, etc, about the state of cinema, trends in the business, etc. On a board where gallons of sweat droplets drip & evaporate annually over dvd cover art, the worthiness of Button, the real ID of KevYip, the rhythm of the CC release-tempo, and How To Pronounce Your Favorite Director's Name, regarding as "quibbling" an article about the effect of marketing trends on cinema history and scholarship probably constitutes an albatross.

I didn't find the tone of his article particularly shrill or bellyachey (his article on the packaging of MurBorz, however, was for sure)... I thought he was simply speaking-- while acknowledging the pros-- of the cons of a fairly new industrial trend which soon enough is going to require a language adjustment as well as a shifting of the concept of version primacy: what do you call an actual restored directors cut (vs these 'second go-rounds'), and what, in today's age, should the buyer view as constituting the 'official' cut of the film for his library, when two version were in truth planned from the embryonic stage?

His point, (which is probably more relevant to individuals beyond a certain age who were privvy to a very different world) is that what once was a valid piece of terminology within the realm of the preservationist, the cinemateque, and the arthouse circuit, which once caught the eye of the cineaste when browsing, is now the axis on which turns the everyday marketing cycle for every cheeseball film that comes down the pike. Whereas the term once was applied in very limited circumstance years and years after a films release... i e the film came and went, the film became a (compromised) classic, and years later the film was rebuilt according to the director's original wish, revealing the film in a more powerful incarnation which was the director's original dishonored intention.. whereas it was once thus, now the terminology is mostly a joke signifying absolutely nothing. Now directors cut simply means "Second sales cycle".

As for the way other appellations are bandied about-- his noir examples are fitting I think. It's not a nuclear crisis but there's nothing wrong with mentioning the issue in tandem with the sum point of the above: Fox in particular stretches the term to the breaking point because they know buyers will take a blind chance on a title if they think it's a well made vintage noir. Like Universal with horror films, Fox seems to be frightened of saying "We have no more 1940's shadowy crime dramas". The well cannot be conceded to have run dry. Not infrequently will buyers vent that they bought something that was misleadingly classified. What was formerly the territory of B-films and exploitation films of half a century ago (promising-- usually salacious-- elements that were not delivered) is now common ground in the simple categorization of noirs, gangster pics, and 'lascivious pre-codes'.

As to whether or not filmmakers are receiving more freedom as a byproduct of this trend vs 10 yrs ago: my sense is that the studios exert the same amount of control over the second cycle's "directors cut" content as they do over the first. They know they've got to lure back an audience that's seen the film theatrically, and already bought or rented one dvd. Most of the stuff that's going to go into that second version is planned beforehand nowadays-- they simply create two edits when shooting wraps. It's all part of the same primary process viz the same general film-- not two completely different versions, one of standard Hollywood fare and the other of Grand Aesthetic Design. One is just slightly longer with some extra naughty bits & perhaps extra music.

[Tribe]

On a board where gallons of sweat droplets drip & evaporate annually over dvd cover art, the worthiness of Button, the real ID of KevYip...

My friend, one of the pleasures of this Forum are quips like the above...you never fail to effin' crack me up!

[akaten]

Rosenbaum overlooks the issue that most concerned people about Touch of Evil, namely the aspect ratio but still the point is broadly valid about the troubling 'feature creep' of alterations and changes to films and the way this is being marketed.

But its one thing to talk of contemporary films being repackaged to entice an audience that maybe doesn't care to watch films more than once unless a value proposition is offered such as extended cuts, its quite another for what started as an aside from the main feature, additional scenes then led to alternative versions of a feature; to what are now considered corrections, which relegate the original to retired status and prevent those who first saw them in cinemas from revisiting the film in the way they wish to do so.

The most damning indication of this situation is when creative staff from the original production are involved and are considered above reproach, Star Wars, The Last Emperor, The French Connection leaving consumers and cinephiles upon release to ask - why can't I also see the version I first fell in love with at the time?

A pet peeve of mine about the trend of feature creep being three films directed by Mamoru Oshii, starting with the "sound renewal" of both Patlabor films which soon became sound replacement with a new 5.1 mix, even rerecording dialogue and a new score without including the original. This has then moved onto forthcoming ghastly looking Redux of Ghost in the Shell which by all accounts from the director at the time go against his wishes and presumably the wishes of staff whose work is removed but not made available alongside the new edition.

[HerrSchreck]

akaten: Ditto, ditto and ditto.

[colinr0380]

I often think that these revamps of films simply to 'bring them up to date' exposes both the filmmaker's lack of confidence in the quality of their original film (along with a contempt for the audience that may have actually appreciated it in its 'imperfect' form), and a rather cynical attitude to milking past successes. But only when there is the attempt made to write the original versions out of the picture - if Ridley Scott wants to release another ten versions of Blade Runner or Oliver Stone wants to try and make a watchable film out of Alexander with yet another version, I would not be upset and may even be curious to see the results (in that sense I can sympathise with the blurb writers to some extent - after all who wants to see the "maybe final, maybe not. We'll see how the DVD sales work out" edition when you can own the "ultimate", "final", or "absolutely last" edition of a work, even when such a moniker is often a blatant lie, since the Blu-Ray edition will be due out within the year!). I love seeing different versions of a film as it just emphasises more that our relationships to films are constantly evolving - sometimes a similar sequence may not work quite as well because of edits or extra footage throwing the pacing off. Sometimes different takes can add a whole new facet to a scene or the film as a whole. The Dawn of the Dead boxset along with Blade Runner and The Killing of a Chinese Bookie are great examples of multiple versions of films deepening appreciation rather than ruining it, and it likely helps that neither version of the films in their various sets are being stated as definitive or the final word about which version is definitive, because audience members might have their own opinions on which they prefer.

It is a refusal to acknowledge the cultural heritage a film has accrued in the time since it left the filmmakers hands that upsets me the most, or as in the unmodified E.T. or Star Wars films (or Disney, as much as I am bothered about any of those films either way, but some people are) a reluctant acquiescence to a petition with the sense that they have deigned to do the nerds a favour by preserving the original version and letting you buy it again at full price for a limited period.

I'm going to paraphrase here but wasn't it Terry Gilliam in one of the documentaries on Brazil who said that while he always found flaws in his past films that he would not want to go back and fix them, firstly because he likely could not make them totally perfect even twenty or thirty years on, but more importantly that however flawed they serve as a snapshot of who he was as a filmmaker at that point in time and that to change it would in a way betray his past self as much as the life the film has gone on to have with an audience in the years since it was made.

In that sense aren't 'revampers' fouling their own nest to some extent? By running the risk that audiences might realise that there was not much to have gotten excited over in the first place (thereby ruining any chance as standing as a cultural symbol of the period at the very least) in the desperate attempt to win over an uninterested younger generation over with the latest, coolest special effects? (And yes, I do bracket this together to some extent with the remake culture that seems intent on mining the back catalogue of cinema and extracting anything that gave an original film its vital spark of excitement, interest or relevance in order to produce an easily digested mass market product with a 'name recognition factor').

[akaten]

I love seeing different versions of a film as it just emphasises more that our relationships to films are constantly evolving - sometimes a similar sequence may not work quite as well because of edits or extra footage throwing the pacing off. Sometimes different takes can add a whole new facet to a scene or the film as a whole. The Dawn of the Dead boxset along with Blade Runner and The Killing of a Chinese Bookie are great examples of multiple versions of films deepening appreciation rather than ruining it, and it likely helps that neither version of the films in their various sets are being stated as definitive or the final word about which version is definitive, because audience members might have their own opinions on which they prefer.

Being able to draw upon additional edits of personal favourites such as on the Blade Runner set can be a joy, shame the larger Blu Ray set rom the states never made it here. Another I would give mention to is the workprint cut featured on the 2DVD for Robert Wise's The Sand Pebbles. Makes one wonder as to what alternative cuts are around, one that interests me is an extended edit overseen by Burt Lancaster of Robert Aldrich's Ulzana's Raid, previously available on a UK OOP VHS. I tried to contact Criterion about taking up the case, sadly I received no response but I do hope this extended cut does get an clean up and become available once more at some point.

I think the key is that they are given as a way of allowing the public to decide which version they enjoy most, rather than imposing a decision on which is suitable for public consumption that sets those apart from other examples. But in other instances what I find odd is that feeling that with the onset of Blu Ray as of itself the semblance of that elusive filmic quality on a home version is not considered enough for many today is a pity.

Alongside existing issues of knowing what was meant at the time, what is doable now restoration wise, costs offset against concemporary appeal, issues regarding colours, flesh tones and such forth, which as an aside it always surprises me is how little meaty insight journalist and critics sought to get from directors at the time (maybe Bogdanovich tapes would be less irksome today if there was more production detail as opposed to set anedotes in silly voices) we have the additional problem of films being fiddled with, letter boxed, contrast boosted, napalm dropped onto the original canvas its odd that it goes unchallenged by the people involved, on forums such as this and elsewhere when there is some form of scrutiny being placed on those decisions, its far too late.

Future Noir and other sources have covered Blade Runner but for those that haven't seen it, some interesting thoughts from Ridley Scott was asked about new editions and cuts.

One last thing, when you brought up Terry Gilliam it reminded me of a repeat for a Monty Python doc a week ago on Dave, it was very refreshing (when others dislike or disown the amateur qualities of early works) to hear Gilliam admit being a little bewildered by what he was thinking at the time when revisiting his animated skits, but also about trying to make something out of nothing, teaching himself in the moment with the spaceraft and aliens in the Life of Brian.

[rudieobias]

Hello!
My name is Rudie! and I’m the co-host of The CriterionCast. We’re a bi-weekly podcast dedicated to The Criterion Collection. Our mission is to review every dvd in The Criterion Collection. We just posted our first episode on CC#453 CHUNGKING EXPRESS. Look out for our next episode on CC# 37, TIME BANDITS.

You can find us on iTunes by searching for “CriterionCast” or visit our blog, http://CriterionCast.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Send us your feedback via email criterioncast@gmail.com or call our voicemail line 206-208-7916 or follow us on Twitter @CriterionCast

Our direct iTunes feed.

Please subscribe! Thank you!

-Rudie! Obias

[Antoine Doinel]

My interview with Jonathan Turrell is up at the The Playlist.

Stay tuned - later in the day there will be a chat with Mulvaney as well.

[Tribe]

My interview with Jonathan Turrell is up at the The Playlist.

Stay tuned - later in the day there will be a chat with Mulvaney as well.

Nicely done, thanks.

[aox]

I found it odd that Criterion thought they would bring in 'new customers' just by introducing Blu to their line. They have always been a niche market. Do they think the mainstream has just been bidding their time to get into Playtime because it hasn't been presented properly yet?

[Perkins Cobb]

I'm impressed that you managed to get an interview with Turell without being able to spell his name correctly...

... and I hope the Mulvaney piece includes a photo!