Moderator: MichaelB
Pity it's not on the Region B. The Tony Palmer docu is excellent.manicsounds wrote:The US Blu-ray review adds an 82 minutes Maria Callas documentary, but with lossy audio
Compared to the Raro version of Medea (claimed to be based on a digital restoration available at that time), the colors on the bfi Blu Ray are muted, and more brown. To me the Raro SD looks better. None of the reviews I read makes a comparison. In absence of any reference, the Blu Ray might look just fine. The issue is not whether the bfi produced a proper reproduction of the restored version (it most likely did); but how decisions were made by the producers of the restored version that resulted in this image quality. I don't know if someone will make an argument that this is how the original film looked. I have also read arguments that sometimes the original films look certain way because the director or cinematogrpher or whoever made compensation for the type of light the projector bulb emitted, and so on. I am not a technical person. I have difficulty accepting arguments that I should learn to like what to me looks inferior because someone claims this is how it once looked. While this point is made in relation to the recent Blu Ray of Medea, it requires a more general discussion. It applies to several Criterion Blu Rays in relation to the alternative versions. Let us have an objective discussion on the subject.nolanoe wrote:I must confess, as a fan of the BFI transfers and their work on Pasolini (SALO is SO much better, and accurate to the original version, than the Criterion edition I find myself baffled how anybody could claim the Criterion better), but... this looks not too good. :-s
The colors seem altered a bit from the other versions (a lot browner where, before, you could clearly see blue light reflecting) and not very detailed overall (it almost looks like a SD-transfer). I may buy this if only to see with my own eyes if this is actually better than the previous DVD, but as a Pasolini fan, I will get this either way, so no kidding myself.
Other opinions?
I was avoiding the English dub because I dislike dubbing in general, and I didn't realise I was actually watching the Italian dubbed version! I never noticed. I'll have to watch the English version now. Thanks for the info.charal wrote:I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before but for those who don't know it MEDEA was filmed in English (as was TEOREMA), Terzieff probably spoke his part in French. If you listen to the English dub you will notice that the actors did a very good lip sync for the most part. What I am not sure of is whether Callas herself dubbed her part. The actor used has a decidedly Greek accent.
Sure. I still regard the Italian as the definitive version of the film. I'll try and watch the English version today because I'm also interested to know whether Callas dubbed her part in English.charal wrote:Don't get me wrong: the English track is an English-spoken dub of the original Italian work print. The dubbers speak in time with the actors for most of the film either out of consideration or by accident. (If Callas did her part than it must be the former.)
Yes, the booklet really is terrific: one of the best recent BFI efforts in a very strong field. Great colour stills, too, including a reproduction of the Academy Cinema woodcut-style poster.zedz wrote:Just received this yesterday, and even though the disc is practically bare bones (a couple of trailers and a couple of minutes of 'international version' footage), the interview with Callas in the booklet is a corker, and a far more valuable 'extra' than a lot of on-disc fluff tends to be. She's remarkably astute about the challenges of film acting (on her first outing) and offers valuable information about her working relationship with Pasolini.