369-373 Paul Robeson: Portraits of an Artist

[Minkin]

What other rights to Cohen have that are currently in the collection?

Body and Soul and Borderline were the only titles Criterion ever licensed from Kino (back when Kino ran the catalog of titles that Cohen now has). This boxset's days were limited anyway, with Studio Canal also having a share. Criterion will probably pull an Orphic Trilogy and re-release this without the Cohen/studio Canal titles.

Nothing else is in danger, although Cohen has some extremely dubious claims to a few films which Janus also claims (I don't think anybody actually believes Cohen has Vampyr) - but Janus also claims the rights to Fire over England (which Cohen just released, but its in public domain, thus anyone can release it). So, I don't think Cohen will cause any more trouble, but they might just pull a PD-bandit job with some titles.

[zedz]

What other rights to Cohen have that are currently in the collection?

Body and Soul and Borderline were the only titles Criterion ever licensed from Kino (back when Kino ran the catalog of titles that Cohen now has). This boxset's days were limited anyway, with Studio Canal also having a share. Criterion will probably pull an Orphic Trilogy and re-release this without the Cohen/studio Canal titles.

I really don't think Criterion will ever bother to release any of these Robeson films as standalones. This set is the very definition of "greater than the sum of its parts," with films that are mere curios (or frankly terrible) but which add up to a fascinating historical picture overall.

I could see some of the extras piggybacking onto a release of Show Boat if they ever obtain the rights to that once this goes out of print.

[domino harvey]

And people would whine "We've already seen these extras before!"

[giovannii84]

This'll be back in stock at Amazon on 12/18 for $68, a little under a third off MSRP. Not bad considering it'll go for twice that at least within six months

Amazon have it back in stock. Mine just shipped. Get it while you can

[swo17]

Amazon have it back in stock.

Not that I can see. Plus, they've raised their price to $85. You can still order it direct from Criterion though.

[giovannii84]

Mine just shipped from Amazon, so they may have sold out again

[swo17]

Well now it's back in stock on 12/22 for $75.72.

[domino harvey]

They sent mine in a nice oversized bubble mailer, which is great assuming you like smooshed digipaks

[TMDaines]

Isn't that standard practice for Amazon.com? That's why it's the one Amazon I never bother with.

[swo17]

Deep Discount has this for $60.

[Charles]

How is Deep Discount these days? I used to order a lot from them, then after months of deteriorating service and seeming deterioration of inventory management, I dropped them and never looked back. I'd had it. This has to have been several years ago, and obviously they're alive and well, so maybe I need to give them a new chance? To the point here, would anyone advise against taking a chance on the shipment of a digipack box set from Deep Discount as opposed to Amazon?

[domino harvey]

It won't arrive in a bubble mailer at least

[Charles]

This afternoon it transitioned from Amazon ("4 copies remaining, more on the way") to Amazon ("temporarily out of stock, order now and we'll", etc.) to Newbury Comics -- which is where my copy is coming from and I hope like hell for it to be in good shape.

[Lars Von Truffaut]

Criterion Site has it IN STOCK right now, for some reason...

http://www.criterion.com/boxsets/443-pa ... tocomplete

[swo17]

They originally said it would be going out of print after this month, which isn't over yet. I believe they've had it in stock this whole time.

[giovannii84]

Does out of print mean they're just unable to press more units, or do they also have to withdraw existing stock from sale?

[MichaelB]

Does out of print mean they're just unable to press more units, or do they also have to withdraw existing stock from sale?

I don't know how it works in the US, but in Britain they definitely have to withdraw stock from sale - when I was at the BFI, I was included in mass emails advising that titles were shortly to go out of print and that every effort should be made to shift them before the deadline.

I also believe Eureka ended up with a big pile of unsold and unsellable copies of The Savage Innocents for this reason - doubly frustratingly, since their version was far better than the release that replaced it.

[TMDaines]

I also believe Eureka ended up with a big pile of unsold and unsellable copies of The Savage Innocents for this reason - doubly frustratingly, since their version was far better than the release that replaced it.

I wonder what ever happened to them...

[movielocke]

I've only ever seen Emperor Jones on VHS (or maybe it was LD? It was over ten years ago), is the version in this set substantially different?

I watched Body and Soul tonight. It's a decent, not great film that is elevated by Robeson's damn-fine-hat wearing Reverand villain. In the back half of the film, after Isabelle leaves town for Atlanta, the film finally picks up and becomes more interesting. Isabelle's fallen status, and then the flashback revelations of how the reverend has raped her and then "framed" her for stealing her mother's money make the story finally work. I can imagine watching the first half with a slightly restless audience, some carrying on, taking it only slightly seriously because the film feels naive in the first half, almost as though the film and it's characters deserve some mocking from the audience... only to feel the anger and righteous indignation of the audience rise in the latter half as the details are unveiled of the betrayal; absent such an audience I felt I was missing some catharsis I'd get in a theatre. The film's technical highlight is a superb piece of on the nose editing that cuts back and forth between closeups of the stolen money in Robeson's hands and closeups of hands performing the hard labor--ironing, picking cotton--that earned that money by sweat. It was especially effective, I felt, more so than almost anything else in the film. Additionally, the rape scene editing was well done. Intercutting a closeup of Isabella--with exposed shoulders and let down hair--with "widescreen" masking of a closeup of Robeson's feet slowly, ominously approaching her; an intertitle: Thirty minutes later, and the reverse masked closeup of Robeson's feet, slowly, ominously walking away. For the key moment of the film, Micheaux handled it well. The jazzy score was excellent. It's less subdued than many silent scores, but no matter, the film needs some livening up.

[movielocke]

I found Borderline to be terrific. I loved the well thought out stylized editing. it wasn't just fast cutting, the director was smart enough to shoot for the edit as well, with compositions and layouts designed to be smash cut against each other. an arm shoot out palm down towards the floor and is graphic match cut to arm palm up to the sky, and we're cut from interior to exterior, changing story lines in the process. The whole film is littered with intensely thought out edits and compositions, because there were some really lovely photographic moments throughout. Story wise, the film was a refreshing bold change from Body and Soul. It's a bold and unapologetic story about the damage prejudice against miscegenation does, what's interesting is that the film is not so much a defense of miscegenation as it is an attack on the prejudice against it. That flips the script, so to speak, and puts the action in the hands of the attackers, the portrayal is assertive rather than defensive. Wonderful, unexpectedly rich film.

Sanders of the River, on the other hand, has prejudice pumping through its veins, but an at times schizophrenic approach. The Africans in the film are given the dignity of speaking English that isn't accented nor especially pigeon-style primative grammer. The only one who speaks infantilized English is the titular character when addressing a group of chieftans, but when speaking to them alone usually doesn't infantilize his speech, which is a nice encapsulation of the film's inconstancy. To a certain extent, the film is Robeson's, and refreshingly Robeson is given top billing of the cast. On the other hand, Robeson is given the privilege of top billing but the title of the film is named after a supporting cast member, but a white guy. You win some, you lose some.

And the film is tolerable for the first hour or so, on those sort of win some/lose some terms. It's often fascinating to see how the exploitation and portrayal and mythologizing about Africa were being executed, even if it's sometimes a bit repulsive as well. But then it goes off the rails at the end when Korda decides to go DW Griffith on the characters. He strips his African characters of all agency, and has the heroic white guy ride to the rescue at the last minute to save those innocent poor folks threatened by the scary black men. And it's not just a rescue, the white guy happily uses a machine gun to indiscriminately fire into the entire village of the 'bad' king in order to effect his rescue, huzzah, we just slaughtered a bunch of women and children and some warriors too! To top it all off, the white guy then declares his chosen one to unilaterally be 'king' in order to maintain peace. I don't think the filmmakers have any idea just how chilling it would be to see an imperialist country take a convicted criminal, install him as a king over a country he's not native to and provide him with seemingly unlimited financial support in the name of 'peace' as a good thing. We're still paying the price for these decisions, and it's sort of stunning to see them so celebrated. The crowning of Robeson at the end of the film is in a sense the most uncomfortable moment of the entire experience of watching it.

[movielocke]

Jericho is an interesting title, but it is also the most dull title of the set. Sanders of the River was offensive but it was also vibrant with cinematic energy, Jericho is tepid and uneven, akin to an indifferent Mervyn LeRoy film of the same era.

I watched part of the doc on this disc, and in it they mention that Sanders of the River is sort of Great Britain's Birth of a Nation. I think that's a fair point of comparison to illustrate that Sanders is an enormously problematic film in part because it is so well made and so entertaining. Jericho on the other hand, is not enormously offensive, but it also doesn't have much to recommend it, it is anonymous in comparison to the other films of this set.

The film itself is not all that different from the Beau Geste or Lives of a Bengal Lancer sort of film, Robeson has the Cary Grant/Gary Cooper leading role, and he is the film's only strength. He's let down by weak dialogue and indifferent filmmaking craft, the film is ten minutes shorter than Sanders and feels like it is twenty minutes longer. Jericho is a soldier in WWI, when the ship transporting the men is struck, he helps to save six trapped men, but before saving them, his sergeant panics, pulls a gun on him and orders him to leave the men. Jericho slugs the man (who hits his head and dies as a result) and then saves the men. He's arrested, tried and found guilty, saving the men doesn't matter. Jericho escapes after his superior officer vouches for his conduct, and the superior officer is found guilty of aiding and abetting and serves five years in Leavenworth after being dishonourably discharged. Jericho steals a ship and makes his way south to Africa, picking up a comic relief companion in the process. Before being drafted, Jericho was a doctor, he puts his skills to use, is adopted by a tribe and eventually starts a family. After his officer has served his time, he vows to find Jericho and bring him to justice.

that plot summary seems more interesting than the film, it's sort of amazing it managed to be so dull.

[movielocke]

The doc on Robeson's british career was really excellent, and made me want to seek out someday the films Criterion left out of their boxset.

I was pondering today, what is it that makes Robeson so compelling just in his screen appearances, and I decided that he's basically got what John Wayne had: just an incredible level of charisma and physical presence combined with a naturalistic acting style. He dominates every scene but it never feels like he's stealing a scene. I think the thought originated from the great introduction to Robeson in Jericho, which reminded me of the iconic introduction of Wayne in Stagecoach. There's just a powerful star quality about them.

[Jonathan S]

There's an excellent chapter (about 70 pages) on Robeson's star quality - with emphasis on his physical appeal and racial issues - in Heavenly Bodies (BFI, 1987) by my old tutor Dr. Richard Dyer.

[movielocke]

I netflixed the Native land disc when the set initially came out, because I'd been dying to see it since first hearing about it in college. I thought I'd watched the Proud Valley too, but never got around to it.

The Proud Valley is a very decent film. It feels like a standard programmer and is better than Jericho. The film is audaciously pro labor, like How Green was my Valley, and like that film is set in a welsh mining town. The film illustrates just how good the production design of the Hollywood film was, while also illustrating what a poor substitute Ford's Irish-for-Wales behavioral and accent transpositions were. On the other hand, for being so on the nose explicit about the power and purpose of unions, the film is not nearly as good as Dunne, Miller and Ford's savagely effective and pointed work. It was quite something having the presidents and founding officers of the writer's guild, directors guild and ASC all working together on a film for a fairly anti union producer.

Ah, there I go, talking about How Green Was my Valley again, that's the problem, I watched the Proud Valley and it's a struggle to not talk about the other film instead. The Proud Valley is laudable full of laudable moments and laudable efforts. The final sequence in the mine, trying to break through something or other for something or other for fast reasons for some say so was well done and played out as expected, with the result being identical to and absolutely as cliche as the ending with Bruce Willis & Ben Affleck Armageddon. Hah.

I rewatched Native Land, it's every bit as powerful as I remember, but the film is decidedly a half hour too long. It's incredibly strong, powerful work for the first half hour to forty five minutes, then the style shifts into much longer scenes and recreations, and it loses it's mesmerizing and persuasive power as you suddenly shift gears to unexpectedly grapple with plot and bare bones stories. And then suddenly the scenes and plot are gone and it's about a senate investigation into a conspiracy. What? the first part of the film is so perfect, with phenomenal compositions by Strand, with effective if uninspired editing and the perfect narration from Robeson, and then suddenly it's a different movie, and just as suddenly it's yet another thing, before the coda tying you back to that brilliant beginning.

On the otherhand, in terms of delivering information, the film may have been a quite effective tool, it's just disappointing that it starts off as a pretty stunning work of art before that sense screeches to a halt.

[ando]

Revisiting the entire set over the next week or so. Not many positive comments on The Emperor Jones here and I certainly understand. Thing is, I feel the film works best before the O'Neill play kicks in. It's essentially the classic small town-to-big city story and the options the average black Joe had waiting for him at the turn of the 20th century. Robeson and company make it go. And his Waterboy performance on the rocks with the chain gang tops it all. But we don't really see the strains of a tyrant in the church-going Paul of the first half of the film. And not many of his redeeming qualities seen in the first half surface in the O'Neill story, save his rascal-like charm (though that seems to be more Robeson than Jones). The sea-change conversion of character is not really intended to be realistic, anyway. I've always read his ascent from slave (to Mr. Smithers) to emperor as a fairly tepid allegory on power. And how serious can you take a court with The Marquis and Marchioness of Newark? It's certainly a lot more fun with Paul behind Jones's stolen throne than yet another unfunny blackface performer (as I'm sure certain audiences felt at the time of it's initial run). 1933 NYTimes review