Michael Kerpan wrote:. It really did _feel_ shorter than the shorter version.
Over in the AE thread there were reports that Pt.2 looked significantly worse, which kept me from ordering the discs yet, not having seen any caps or any online review (which is suspicious in itself, I'd say). I just want another opinion on how 'bad' Pt.2 really looks...
Hi Tom
That was me over on the other thread. I received the Part 2 first and was quite dismayed at first impressions on my I-Mac but after futzing with contrast and progressive modes on my Linn player it was more than passable but I still feel after now comparing it with Part1 that it it feels like it was from a different print source than part 1. Anyway I would say that given the circumstances and the realpolitik of distribution there's nothing horrendous that should prevent you from ordering them.
Thanks Zazou, now I'm convinced and will order it pronto. There's no alternative anyway, and I've given up on CC or other companies on this one.
Michael Kerpan wrote:That Noroit cover looks dreadful -- if this wasn't an official Amazon title (rather than a marketplace one), I'd definitely guess bootleg. Who know?
Amazon occasionally DID have bootlegs or semi-bootlegs in their official program. I think of those dreadful Riefenstahl discs from Pathfinder, for example. And there's no review of the disc to be found anywhere at the moment, although it got released six weeks ago.
justeleblanc wrote:Criterion on their Facebook page poses an open question asking how many people would like to see Out 1 released onto DVD.
The latest:
Criterion on Facebook wrote:Wow, Kristina, look what you started! We're going to try to get this done, but everyone in this thread is going to have to buy about 100 copies for us to break even...
Drama queens! But this is jaw-dropping news. Also, you've got to assume that the number of potential buyers who happened to stumble across the Facebook thread in its first 24 hours of existence is only a tiny percentage of the potential market - though maybe more than 1%!
The other plus for such a release is that the chances of Criterion being gazumped by another region's release is miniscule.
Much as I love MoC, I'm sure they wouldn't have the resources to initiate a project on this scale, and even if they released an eventual Out 1 they'd be beholden to Criterion's master, so Criterion could call the shots on release windows.
zedz wrote:Much as I love MoC, I'm sure they wouldn't have the resources to initiate a project on this scale, and even if they released an eventual Out 1 they'd be beholden to Criterion's master, so Criterion could call the shots on release windows.
...and region coding, if For All Mankind is any indication.
Zazou dans le Metro wrote:. I received the Part 2 first and was quite dismayed at first impressions on my I-Mac but after futzing with contrast and progressive modes on my Linn player it was more than passable but I still feel after now comparing it with Part1 that it it feels like it was from a different print source than part 1. Anyway I would say that given the circumstances and the realpolitik of distribution there's nothing horrendous that should prevent you from ordering them.
Well, I've received them both and while I didn't watch the films in their entirety yet, I think I can safely say something about the image quality of both discs now. Pt.1 is alright, clearly a new transfer, though it has some very visible edge enhancement occasionally. But not bad at all. But with Pt.2, I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you there. It simply looks HORRIBLE in my view, one of the worst transfers of a new film I've seen for quite awhile. There is terrible colour-bleeding (sometimes Jeanne's white shirt looks greenish on the edges) a completely different and very boosted colour scheme (Jeanne's skin-tones are often ridiculously red), it is unsharp (though it actually looks sharpness-enhanced) and generally looks like a bad video cassette. The dirt on the film is the least problem here, really. I don't know whether playing around with the settings (mine are set pretty 'neutral', I think) might help, but I must be say: this is simply unacceptable for a 2009 release. There are discs from 1999 that look far, far better. I don't know what went wrong, but it went terribly wrong.
If the films were not so essential, I would simply have to recommend to abstain at least from Pt.2 in this case.
Zazou dans le Metro wrote:. I received the Part 2 first and was quite dismayed at first impressions on my I-Mac but after futzing with contrast and progressive modes on my Linn player it was more than passable but I still feel after now comparing it with Part1 that it it feels like it was from a different print source than part 1. Anyway I would say that given the circumstances and the realpolitik of distribution there's nothing horrendous that should prevent you from ordering them.
Well, I've received them both and while I didn't watch the films in their entirety yet, I think I can safely say something about the image quality of both discs now. Pt.1 is alright, clearly a new transfer, though it has some very visible edge enhancement occasionally. But not bad at all. But with Pt.2, I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you there. It simply looks HORRIBLE in my view, one of the worst transfers of a new film I've seen for quite awhile. There is terrible colour-bleeding (sometimes Jeanne's white shirt looks greenish on the edges) a completely different and very boosted colour scheme (Jeanne's skin-tones are often ridiculously red), it is unsharp (though it actually looks sharpness-enhanced) and generally looks like a bad video cassette. The dirt on the film is the least problem here, really. I don't know whether playing around with the settings (mine are set pretty 'neutral', I think) might help, but I must be say: this is simply unacceptable for a 2009 release. There are discs from 1999 that look far, far better. I don't know what went wrong, but it went terribly wrong.
If the films were not so essential, I would simply have to recommend to abstain at least from Pt.2 in this case.
Well Tom If you remember my first impressions of Part 2 were overwhelmingly negative too. However as I said after much fussing with contrast and hue and progressive modes I got it looking better and given that the option is not to see it at all I think for the price (I paid £9 odd from Amazon) it is at least worth the (maybe temporary) investment.
Yes, Zazou, it's certainly worth a temporary investment (I also got it for 9,99 Pounds from amazon), and my post was not meant to criticize you for recommending it in the first place. But still, there may be people out there who are not as much devoted to Rivette or this film in particular, and I think they deserve to be warned. Fiddling around with the settings may help a bit (have tried it, but the improvement was somewhat marginal), but honestly, I don't think something like that should be required with a new disc of a film from the 90s; if the source transfer looked like this, I would have expected AE to do the fiddling for the customer; they surely have the better equipment to do that and get at least the colour scheme back to normal (i.e. like Pt.1).
Quite apart from the fact that it is still completely incomprehensible to me why the quality is that bad. Honestly, I have the feeling they used a very old video transfer for this, and I just cannot see why it shouldn't have been possible to get a new transfer from somewhere if it was possible for Pt.1. These films belong together, the rights are surely the same for both parts, and one would assume that the negatives exist in good condition as well. I mean, AE actually once put a disclaimer about image quality on the first volume of their Satyajit Ray sets, which made me fear the worst, only to find that the image quality was actually really good for Indian films of the time (certainly not worse than many a Mizoguchi film). So they must somehow care for what they release, and releasing "Jeanne" Pt.2 in this way without a similar warning makes me think that something simply went wrong during the production of the disc without them noticing it. This reminds me of the discussion about their "Nostalghia" release, another disc which seems to be disastrous by all accounts, and which also came totally unexpected from them, after their already good track record with Tarkovsky (and now also with Rivette).
Tommaso wrote:Well, I've received them both and while I didn't watch the films in their entirety yet, I think I can safely say something about the image quality of both discs now. Pt.1 is alright, clearly a new transfer, though it has some very visible edge enhancement occasionally. But not bad at all. But with Pt.2, I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you there. It simply looks HORRIBLE in my view, one of the worst transfers of a new film I've seen for quite awhile. There is terrible colour-bleeding (sometimes Jeanne's white shirt looks greenish on the edges) a completely different and very boosted colour scheme (Jeanne's skin-tones are often ridiculously red), it is unsharp (though it actually looks sharpness-enhanced) and generally looks like a bad video cassette. The dirt on the film is the least problem here, really. I don't know whether playing around with the settings (mine are set pretty 'neutral', I think) might help, but I must be say: this is simply unacceptable for a 2009 release. There are discs from 1999 that look far, far better. I don't know what went wrong, but it went terribly wrong.
I'm assuming the final retail version of part 2 wasn't as bad as what I was sent as a review copy, if only because it was non-anamorphic, had burned-in subs and no menus - I'd guess it was sourced from a 1990s VHS master. From what you say, it sounds as though even the final version wasn't much better.
Watched part 2 of Joan last night -- not as bad looking as I feared, but nowhere close to state of the art. But what a wonderful film this is -- in its unbutchered form.
MichaelB wrote:
I'm assuming the final retail version of part 2 wasn't as bad as what I was sent as a review copy, if only because it was non-anamorphic, had burned-in subs and no menus - I'd guess it was sourced from a 1990s VHS master. From what you say, it sounds as though even the final version wasn't much better.
I assume the final version comes from the same VHS master; the only difference would be that it's anamorphic, has menus and the subs are removable. Otherwise, could you imagine they'd sent you a screener that came from a totally different master than the one used for production? In any case, your description in the AE thread of the master on your checkdisc - "it looks hideous" - is true for the retail version, too.
Tommaso wrote:Otherwise, could you imagine they'd sent you a screener that came from a totally different master than the one used for production?
Very easily, if they didn't have a superior copy to hand. Bear in mind this is the same company that sent me a barely-watchable Hungarian screener of The Man From London when they were releasing the Anglo-French version - though in that case I dug in my heels and refused to review it until they sent me something that bore some resemblance to what was actually being shown to the public.
This wasn't necessary with Jeanne la Pucelle as I was at least able to watch the film in the correct aspect ratio, language and length, which was all I needed.
Ted Todorov wrote:
He said that likely the his last film (36 vues du Pic Saint Loup which I'm seeing tonight) will be his last film due to Rivette's very poor health.
This makes me very sad, though it somewhat explains the short running time of this latest film. It's tough to think that this last giant of 'old-time filmmaking' (wrong word) might not be able to continue his work; almost feels like the end of an era, similar perhaps to the death of Kurosawa.
I went to see 36 vues... last night. Out of all of the films of 2009, it's the one I've been looking forward to the most, so I was very glad to get the chance. It's light and slight, but makes for a very pleasant viewing experience; I think I'll have to see it again before fully making my mind up about it. It feels very much like a goodbye from Rivette, and I think that'll be the case - I feel that this is his last film whether he intends it to be or not. It reinforces much of what Rivette's often had to say about performance (both on and off stage), and I think it'll eventually find its place as something more than a footnote yet will never be considered major Rivette (a crude assessment of it would be that it's Va Savoir-lite). I have to say I got far more out of Don't Touch the Axe, but 36 vues... is obviously a must-see for many on this thread.
He came up as empty on that one as I think most people do. The film is impenetrable, for sure, and I'm not surprised that Rosenbaum's reaction is ultimately a bit dismissive. Just the same, I wonder if something as quintessentially Rivette as an irreducible and unassailable text isn't worth a bit more admiration. After all, the setting is an island fortress, and who could argue that, in a paradoxical way, that location is the most comprehensible significance in the film.
Dazza wrote:I went to see 36 vues... last night. Out of all of the films of 2009, it's the one I've been looking forward to the most, so I was very glad to get the chance. It's light and slight, but makes for a very pleasant viewing experience; I think I'll have to see it again before fully making my mind up about it. It feels very much like a goodbye from Rivette, and I think that'll be the case - I feel that this is his last film whether he intends it to be or not. It reinforces much of what Rivette's often had to say about performance (both on and off stage), and I think it'll eventually find its place as something more than a footnote yet will never be considered major Rivette (a crude assessment of it would be that it's Va Savoir-lite). I have to say I got far more out of Don't Touch the Axe, but 36 vues... is obviously a must-see for many on this thread.
I was there as well.* This is another Rivette film with a completely bizarre title translation for the American release: Around a Small Mountain? I really did enjoy this one, though I agree with Dazza that this will always be a minor Rivette. A really compact but still very funny and very melancholy little film. I could have watched Jane Birkin walking the tightrope for ten minutes.
*what the hell was that fight that nearly broke out before the opening short?
Michael Kerpan wrote:Watched part 2 of Joan last night -- not as bad looking as I feared, but nowhere close to state of the art. But what a wonderful film this is -- in its unbutchered form.
After watching part 2 I'm forced to concede that, even by my low standards, the quality is pretty disappointing. What a film, though. I love Gang of Four and La belle noiseuse, but they've always seemed pretty weak by Rivette standards to me. The rest of his films from the 90s are pitch perfect.
