Studio Canal / Kinowelt / Optimum

[manicsounds]

"The Servant" (1963) (dir: Joseph Losey) March 22nd

Special Features:
James Fox interviewed by Richard Ayoade
Interview with Wendy Craig
Interview with Sarah Miles
Audio interview with Douglas Slocombe (Director of photography)
Harold Pinter Tempo interview
Joseph Losey talks about The Servant
Interview with Stephen Wooley (fan of the film)
Harry Burton (Pinter expert) on Harold Pinter
Joseph Losey and Adolfas Mekas at the New York film festival
John Coldstream (Bogarde biographer) on Dirk Bogarde
Stills gallery
Trailer

"Accident" (1967) (dir: Joseph Losey) April 8th

Special Features:
Talking About Accident - documentary featuring an interview with Harry Pinter
Joseph Losey and Harold Pinter discuss Accident (1957)
Dirk Bogarde biographer John Coldstream discussing Dirk Bogarde – NEW
Harry Pinter expert Harry Burton discussing Harold Pinter – NEW
Interview with feminist author and academic Melanie Williams – NEW
Interview with film critic Tim Robey – NEW

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

"The Servant" (1963) (dir: Joseph Losey) March 22nd

Harry Pinter expert Harry Burton discussing Harold Pinter – NEW

I just hope he knows something about Harold as well as Harry.

[Nadsat]

Review of Army of Shadows

[TMDaines]

I guess the recently released UK Blu-ray of Malena features the usual, butchered cut and not the Original Italian Version?

The Korean Blu-ray is uncut! It looks quite a nice set too.

[eerik]

The Wicker Man coming to Blu-ray in October.

There's also a Zavvi exclusive steelbook edition, limited to 4000 copies.

[Minkin]

The Wicker Man coming to Blu-ray in October.

There's also a Zavvi exclusive steelbook edition, limited to 4000 copies.

Does Studio Canal/Lionsgate have worldwide rights to The Wicker Man? Or at least the US rights? If that's the case, looks like I'll be buying my first Studio Canal product in quite a few years. Hope they don't screw this up somehow.

[dwk]

Yes, Lionsgate has the US rights to The Wicker Man

[manicsounds]

The 2 Joseph Losey films released by Studio Canal gets very high marks.

Blu-ray.com on "The Servant"

Blu-ray.com on "Accident"

[manicsounds]

DVDBeaver on Forbidden Games compared next to the old pictureboxed Criterion DVD

[MichaelB]

The 2 Joseph Losey films released by Studio Canal gets very high marks.

Blu-ray.com on "The Servant"

Blu-ray.com on "Accident"

The high marks for Accident come as no surprise - it's actually derived from the BFI's recent 2K digital restoration (which played theatrically circa 2009), which was supervised by cinematographer Gerry Fisher.

Which may explain why it's a cut above the norm - effectively, it's the equivalent of Hammer's Dracula in that most of the heavy lifting was done elsewhere, and with a big-screen presentation in mind rather than just a Blu-ray.

[manicsounds]

"Billy Liar" BD review at BlurayDefinition

[peerpee]

Based on those grabs and the reviewer's tech description, this doesn't look as good as it should or could.

[manicsounds]

AVforums reviews Billy Liar as well and they aren't that happy with the PQ as well.

[andyli]

It looks very much the way Lola does, i.e. lack of grain, no true details.

[MichaelB]

I have no idea why they're blaming the original materials - I don't remember anything untoward about the cinematography when I saw it in 35mm. Denys Coop wasn't exactly a beginner!

[peerpee]

I've never had a Blu-ray.com Forum ID and I'm not creating one just to reply to this post by Dr Svet, but I'll reply to it here:

pro-bassoonist wrote:

Originally Posted by adamhopelies
Funnily enough I remember MoC founder Nick Wrigley defending Tooze over his DVDBeaver review of Peeping Tom quite recently. Nick was particularly scathing about the transfer, and made a point out of saying that Tooze was one of the only people who picked up on the problems in review.

It is pretty funny, actually, because Nick isn't an authority on that particular restoration and transfer. In fact, I am unsure if he has actually seen the new restoration theatrically. There are also comments on this forum pointing to the fact that apparently Mr. Scorsese isn't unimpressed with the new restoration - quite the contrary.

I really do not want to go back and rehash old arguments over this release, but if someone is unhappy with something, this something surely goes straight back to the restoration. Because you don't get this type of detail after you DNR something:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...491&position=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is much closer to this resto:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...093&position=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...which also introduces plenty of food for thought as to what was actually done there.

Now, can we go back to using this thread for MOC information, not to discuss other releases or restoration issues. Thanks.
Pro-B

I'd be grateful if somebody could please post my following response back in that Blu-ray.com thread?

Dear Pro-B,

I've talked to someone in confidence who is an absolute authority on this particular restoration and you (clearly) haven't, so please quit the snidey character slights, because you're dead wrong on this one. I can back everything up, and with bells on.

I have not surmised or pretended to know anything in my carefully worded views about this terrible restoration. You really *do* need to go over this one from scratch – trust me. I wouldn't have kept banging on about it if I weren't 100% sure.

-Nick>-

[EddieLarkin]

I've done that for you Nick. The discussion led me to run through my disc again and I spotted these as I was skipping around (1:27:00):

http://i.imgur.com/Uf9NtV9.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://i.imgur.com/W1WU7Gr.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They sort of look like digital "tears" to me, though I'm no expert. Or maybe auto-DNR attempting to scrub something. What would cause them?

[peerpee]

Thanks Eddie! It's difficult to tell re: your grabs without looking at the surrounding frames, but whatever they are, this "restoration"'s underlying problems are much larger.

[Graham]

Press release about a Wicker Man restoration:

STUDIOCANAL LAUNCHES WORLDWIDE APPEAL TO RETRIEVE ORIGINAL MISSING FILM MATERIALS FOR HORROR CLASSIC THE WICKER MAN

40th ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION TO RESURRECT AND RESTORE FOR UK CINEMA AUDIENCES

LONDON, UK, 9th May 2013 - STUDIOCANAL, with the endorsement of director Robin Hardy, today launched a world-wide public appeal to locate original film materials relating to legendary horror classic THE WICKER MAN, originally released in 1973, in celebration of the cult film's 40th anniversary.

2013 marks the 40th anniversary of the THE WICKER MAN'S original release. In celebration of this and continuing its project to conserve, restore and release for future generations the best of Classic British cinema, STUDIOCANAL today announces its intention to release the most complete version of the film possible. The now widely lauded film was released with minimal promotion in 1973 as second feature of a double bill with Don't Look Now. The version exhibited to audiences was significantly shorter than director Robin Hardy's original vision. In what has now become an apocryphal episode in British film history, the negatives disappeared from storage at Shepperton Studios, were then allegedly used as landfill in the construction of the nearby M4 motorway, and are considered lost forever.

STUDIOCANAL are now appealing worldwide to film collectors, historians, programmers and all-round fans to support the campaign and come forward with any information relating to the potential whereabouts of original materials.

Director Robin Hardy comments: "I never thought that, after forty years, they would still be finding lost fragments of my film, We thought all of The Wicker Man had gone up in flames, but fragments keep turning up and the hunt goes on!"

STUDIOCANAL General Manager UK Home Entertainment John Rodden adds: "The Wicker Man is not only a great horror film, it is a true classic that grows in stature as the years pass. We're now appealing to the public to help us create the most definitive version possible."

A special facebook page has been created to serve as a forum for the search to continue. For further updates and to join the conversation with any news please visit https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Wicker-Man/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More details about the history of the various cuts of the film are below.

THE WICKER MAN: A SHORT HISTORY

In 1973, Robin Hardy's debut film THE WICKER MAN fell victim to a boardroom takeover at distribution company British Lion, and had its release temporarily shelved. A finished version of the film that director Hardy was happy with had been delivered with a running time of 102 minutes.

When it did finally reach UK cinemas that year, with little fanfare or promotion, and as part of a Double Bill with DON'T LOOK NOW, 15 minutes had been cut, leaving the film's running time a trim 88 minutes. Director Robin Hardy and the other filmmakers had not been involved and did not approve of this new version.

A few years later when Hardy tried to track down his original version, he was told that all the negative trims from it that had been stored at Shepperton Studios had been thrown away, and the only "original negative" was now the 88-minute version. He finally managed to ascertain that Cult US Director Roger Corman still had a print of the full-length version, and this was used for the US theatrical release. Corman's print has been missing since the 1980's and only poor quality 1" video material is known to exist of this version.

[krnash]

That is incredible news. The Wicker Man truly is a classic, and anyone who has seen the DVD containing the scrapped together full cut utilizing the 1" video footage knows that the 15 minutes of cut material is vital to the pulse of the film. Here's hoping for a successful campaign and a great restoration to follow.

[Calvin]

Anyone started a Number 10 petition to dig up the M4 yet?

[peerpee]

If they do find anything, let's hope they don't use the same "restoration" process they used for DON'T LOOK NOW and PEEPING TOM. Two of the most overcooked, unacceptable, messy digital restorations of major films that exist.

[zedz]

In what has now become an apocryphal episode in British film history, the negatives disappeared from storage at Shepperton Studios, were then allegedly used as landfill in the construction of the nearby M4 motorway, and are considered lost forever.

So does this mean that they have confirmed that the destruction / removal of the negatives never happened (in which case the restoration should be a doddle!), or do they not know what 'apocryphal' means?

[pro-bassoonist]

I've never had a Blu-ray.com Forum ID and I'm not creating one just to reply to this post by Dr Svet, but I'll reply to it here:

pro-bassoonist wrote:

Originally Posted by adamhopelies
Funnily enough I remember MoC founder Nick Wrigley defending Tooze over his DVDBeaver review of Peeping Tom quite recently. Nick was particularly scathing about the transfer, and made a point out of saying that Tooze was one of the only people who picked up on the problems in review.

It is pretty funny, actually, because Nick isn't an authority on that particular restoration and transfer. In fact, I am unsure if he has actually seen the new restoration theatrically. There are also comments on this forum pointing to the fact that apparently Mr. Scorsese isn't unimpressed with the new restoration - quite the contrary.

I really do not want to go back and rehash old arguments over this release, but if someone is unhappy with something, this something surely goes straight back to the restoration. Because you don't get this type of detail after you DNR something:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...491&position=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is much closer to this resto:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...093&position=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...which also introduces plenty of food for thought as to what was actually done there.

Now, can we go back to using this thread for MOC information, not to discuss other releases or restoration issues. Thanks.
Pro-B

I'd be grateful if somebody could please post my following response back in that Blu-ray.com thread?

Dear Pro-B,

I've talked to someone in confidence who is an absolute authority on this particular restoration and you (clearly) haven't, so please quit the snidey character slights, because you're dead wrong on this one. I can back everything up, and with bells on.

I have not surmised or pretended to know anything in my carefully worded views about this terrible restoration. You really *do* need to go over this one from scratch – trust me. I wouldn't have kept banging on about it if I weren't 100% sure.

-Nick>-

Hello Nick,

I am going to respond to your comment(s) here.

First, could you please contact me via PM or email next time you want me to address any questions you might have? The reason I ask is because I do not visit, read or post regularly on this forum. Not because I am not interested, but because I simply do not have the time. The only time I come here is when I occasionally exchange PMs with David (from time to time we share info on older DVD or Blu-ray releases).

Now to address what you have written. I don't intend to have an ongoing debate here because I really do not believe that there is anything I need to discuss in detail. Also, the manner in which you have addressed me here -- without me even knowing (I refer to the posts/requests that I just discovered you made quite some time ago despite the fact that I am not an active member here) -- really does not inspire me much to write. Again, if there was anything snidey it must have been that series of posts where you apparently wanted me to respond on a forum that I do not visit. The tone of those posts is very aggressive and I don't think I've written something that deserves it. I occasionally enjoy good debates, but only when they are friendly

The Canal release. I don't have the desire to discuss something with anonymous sources. But whoever/whatever your source is, he must be a much bigger authority on the film than Mr. Scorsese. (I will include what I believe is a relevant quote below).

This particular release I like because it clearly has nothing in common with the likes of, say, Don't Look Now, or The Outsiders, where someone clearly turned up something. The difference between the transfers used for Don't Look Now and Peeping Tom should be obvious even to those who don't typically pay attention to digital manipulations.

Now, if you have a problem with the actual restoration of Peeping Tom, this is an entirely different matter. You may question why the restorers have made certain decisions, but as far as I am concerned this has little to do with the final transfer. I can clearly see that the people that worked on the restoration went in certain places and did certain things, but as I have illustrated with the screencaptures there is plenty of very good detail and depth on that release. It has a certain "trashy" look, if you will, but I think it is appropriate.

Was this how the film looked in the theaters many years ago? No need to debate here, it most certainly did not. But this could also be said about Apocalypse Now (also with some obvious corrections made) or The Godfather.

Again, maybe you are unhappy with the restoration, but this is a very different debate, and I don't think you want to have it with me.

I think that this restoration works. And according to one of our members, who also has a blog/site I believe, so does Mr. Scorsese. Here's what he had to say:

That would be me then! I saw the film a few weeks ago, with Martin Scorsese in attendance. While I'm more concerned with looking at cinema academically (as opposed to from a technical standpoint) I had no discerning issues with what I saw that night, nor what I can see on the Blu-ray (both in relation to the theatrical screening, and the disc itself). For what its worth, the disc is an accurate representation of the restored theatrical version of the film. And further to that Mr. Scorsese himself is very pleased with the restoration, and we all know his feelings towards digital manipulation (re; the quote above).

As I'm sure I've pointed out before, I have been around this film for much of my film-keen life. I saw the film at 16, theatrically, and have owned every previous DVD incarnation of the title. In my mind, the Blu-ray looks right. Again, I'm not sure whether my opinion actually matters on this issue, being far less technically concerned than most, but thats my view.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... stcount=96" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lastly, unlike what you write above, I did have quite a few exchanges with people from Canal when the disc arrived on the market. (Just like when there were doubts about Arrow's release of The Conformist I reached out for additional information, and just like I recently exchanged emails with the people who worked on the recent Herzog restorations in Germany; so, yes, I do check my sources). Unfortunately, these exchanges took place almost 3 years ago, and I don't believe I keep any emails from that time.

OK, Nick, I hope this info is sufficient as I do not plan on engaging in a debate. And I very much hope that we are on friendly terms now as I genuinely dislike drama.

Take care, Nick.

S.

[manicsounds]

Only NOW is Studio Canal trying to locate materials for "Wicker Man"? I thought it was well known enough about the missing original materials that anyone who found it would've come forward by now. That press release seems like an April fools joke, instead of a press release for an anniversary edition release, it's just an anniversary for the search....