criterionforum.org

Some of will you will probably know this already, but I'm not on Facebook. On October 6, 2009, on Criterion's Facebook a question was asked:

I'm wondering how the Andrei Rublev re-release is coming along... The ideal set, I think, would include the recent Vadim Yusov restoration, the 205 minute cut (as in the old release), and the 185 minute cut (simply because it's been said th...at Tarkovsky preferred that one). But that would be a big set... I wouldn't mind the 185 min. cut being left out, but I think the other two are essential.

To which Criterion replied on October 7, 2009:

Thanks for the advice. This is very complicated and from a film materials perspective, it's provoing to be even more difficult now than it was 15 years ago when we were working on the original laserdisc...

Sounds like it's actually being worked on after all.

I had a 'persuasive friend' contact the Society. Response was that the recent films belong to Warner, The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau was with Fox and:

We are in current discussions to have released The Silent World, World Without Sun and Voyage to the Edge of the World. Please keep an eye out for announcement of their release on http://www.cousteau.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Flike wrote:

Cinephrenic wrote:I remember The Silent World being quite brutal to animals, similarily to The Savage Innocents. Would cause quite a stir if filmed today.

Yeah, I'm wondering if the Cousteau Society/estate/whatever is preventing release as to not mar Cousteau's image as an eco-warrior.

It's definitely a release that'll need some contextual extras. With Criterion's adoration of Malle and their recent interest in nature films (a la the Painleve set), I would love to see them release this.

This might be a impossible task (rights wise) for Criterion. I'm sure they tried to take a shot at this a while back, but couldn't add it on the Eclipse set or a single release. Like you guys said, the Cousteau estate probably controls these things. I just think it should be released, Criterion or not on DVD.

They're asking on Facebook (a ways down though, in a comment to someone else's post) if people prefer the title Vivre sa vie or My Life to Live. Which makes it sound like a) you can help determine now in which half of your DVD library this will eventually reside (my vote is under V), and b) this is probably in the finishing stages. =D>

Vivre.

Just thought this deserved mention: when asked whether any Satyajit Ray films were coming in the near future (someone else added "or future at all"), Criterion responded simply "Yes".

Smells like Eclipse. Better than nothing, though.

Surprise the Rublyov Not A Hint-hint has just drifted over this page without a note.

That would be stupendous.

HerrSchreck wrote:Surprise the Rublyov Not A Hint-hint has just drifted over this page without a note.

That would be stupendous.

I like what you are saying, but what are you talking about?

swo17 wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Surprise the Rublyov Not A Hint-hint has just drifted over this page without a note.

That would be stupendous.

I like what you are saying, but what are you talking about?

Criterion implied they are working on Andrei Rublev.

Oh, are you just talking about this quote here?

Criterion re: Andrei Rublev wrote:Thanks for the advice. This is very complicated and from a film materials perspective, it's provoing to be even more difficult now than it was 15 years ago when we were working on the original laserdisc...

I hate to be a pessimist about this, as this is one of my most anticipated titles, but it sounds just as likely that the project is on indefinite hiatus. I mean, we've known for a few years that they were working on redoing Rublev. This explains why it still hasn't come out yet, but it seems like it could still be a while.

Izo wrote:

Flike wrote:

Cinephrenic wrote:I remember The Silent World being quite brutal to animals, similarily to The Savage Innocents. Would cause quite a stir if filmed today.

Yeah, I'm wondering if the Cousteau Society/estate/whatever is preventing release as to not mar Cousteau's image as an eco-warrior.

It's definitely a release that'll need some contextual extras. With Criterion's adoration of Malle and their recent interest in nature films (a la the Painleve set), I would love to see them release this.

I saw the first two Cousteau films (that both won Oscars) at Cinefamily a couple of months ago. The second Cousteau film might well be fine to release, with its underwater labs.

The first one, however, is unbelievable, from the crew killing a baby sperm whale that their ship runs over while chasing a herd of whales, to brutally killing a bunch of sharks that start feeding on the whale, to using dynamite to blow up a lagoon to collect all the fish in it. I can totally see why the Cousteau Estate would want it to be forgotten about, as I think almost no one today could accept it, no matter how much contextual explanation you add. But that explanation, and the understanding that would come by letting people see how far we've come since the late 1950s, would be very valuable. The first film really is a bunch of French guys having fun on the high seas, with some beautiful underwater photography that must have blown people away at the time (and is still wonderful today, if not as unique). Yes, there are scuba and sops thrown to "doing science," but it's really about a pack of French guys (divers, sailers, and a couple of scientists) having a great time.

Did you enjoy despite the negatives you listed or was it offensive? It actually sounds interesting.

Adam wrote:I saw the first two Cousteau films (that both won Oscars) at Cinefamily a couple of months ago. The second Cousteau film might well be fine to release, with its underwater labs.

The first one, however, is unbelievable, from the crew killing a baby sperm whale that their ship runs over while chasing a herd of whales, to brutally killing a bunch of sharks that start feeding on the whale, to using dynamite to blow up a lagoon to collect all the fish in it. I can totally see why the Cousteau Estate would want it to be forgotten about, as I think almost no one today could accept it, no matter how much contextual explanation you add. But that explanation, and the understanding that would come by letting people see how far we've come since the late 1950s, would be very valuable. The first film really is a bunch of French guys having fun on the high seas, with some beautiful underwater photography that must have blown people away at the time (and is still wonderful today, if not as unique). Yes, there are scuba and sops thrown to "doing science," but it's really about a pack of French guys (divers, sailers, and a couple of scientists) having a great time.

How did they kill the sharks? I know it was an old whaling practise to jab harpoons into the heads of the sharks when they tried to eat the boat's catch as it hung from the side, so it sounds like an example of extinct whaling techniques.

Some of Criterion's recent responses indicate that there should be more Naruse on the way, more Clouzot (on the mainline), M on Blu, and no Joe Swanberg (for now anyway).

Manon, La verite, The Murderer Lives at Number 21?

I didn't see any of these, so what you guys think will be the next Clouzot?

^ Something like "Les Espions", I should think.

La Verite has been screening at the American Cinematheque and a few other places recently. I emailed Sony and they said it will be out next year. Could possibly be a title they licensed to Criterion.

Mr_sausage wrote:

Adam wrote:I saw the first two Cousteau films (that both won Oscars) at Cinefamily a couple of months ago. The second Cousteau film might well be fine to release, with its underwater labs.

The first one, however, is unbelievable, from the crew killing a baby sperm whale that their ship runs over while chasing a herd of whales, to brutally killing a bunch of sharks that start feeding on the whale, to using dynamite to blow up a lagoon to collect all the fish in it. I can totally see why the Cousteau Estate would want it to be forgotten about, as I think almost no one today could accept it, no matter how much contextual explanation you add. But that explanation, and the understanding that would come by letting people see how far we've come since the late 1950s, would be very valuable. The first film really is a bunch of French guys having fun on the high seas, with some beautiful underwater photography that must have blown people away at the time (and is still wonderful today, if not as unique). Yes, there are scuba and sops thrown to "doing science," but it's really about a pack of French guys (divers, sailers, and a couple of scientists) having a great time.

How did they kill the sharks? I know it was an old whaling practise to jab harpoons into the heads of the sharks when they tried to eat the boat's catch as it hung from the side, so it sounds like an example of extinct whaling techniques.

Yeah, pretty much, stick a hooked spear or harpoon into them, drag them out of teh water and onto the deck and chop with an axe or harpoon them more. They killed the whale by shooting it in the head with a rifle, which they show.

In answer to the previous, yes I "enjoyed" it despite these negatives. But do I think of those as negatives, or do I think they give the film greater value as a historical document? Complicated, and probably both. And of course events like blowing up the lagoon cause great laughter in the audience (from discomfort and disbelief, I imagine).
I'm also deeply interested in both history and the history of documentaries, and I also once wrote & produced a show for the History Channel on the whaleship Essex that was stove by a sperm whale in 1820 (and was one of many influences on Melville for Moby-Dick). ("History's Mysteries: The True Story of Moby Dick"). So to see this pack of sperm whales was also very moving to me, and the unnecessary death of one even more tragic. But I've also already seen footage of whales being killed, etc., and I also am familiar with the history of whale hunting. The Save the Whales movement didn't arise until the 1970s, and there were no laws against any killing prior to then.
Anyway, I think the movie is well worth seeing, and I can also imagine lots of people being disgusted by it, but I think they should work on understanding the source of the disgust, and the sources of the behavior of Cousteau & his men.

ianungstad wrote:La Verite has been screening at the American Cinematheque and a few other places recently. I emailed Sony and they said it will be out next year. Could possibly be a title they licensed to Criterion.

FYI, those screenings have nothing to do with an impending Criterion release, though I'm not saying it's impossible. As I think I've said here before, we've had a beautiful restoration of LA VERITE for awhile at Sony. It's a great, great film that can stand proud with some of Clouzot's best.

Personally, I'm praying Criterion has more than one Clouzot in the works. And it's too bad Criterion ignored the Facebook question about how the DIABOLIQUE redo is coming along...

Blood Pie wrote:

Adam wrote:

Izo wrote: It's definitely a release that'll need some contextual extras. With Criterion's adoration of Malle and their recent interest in nature films (a la the Painleve set), I would love to see them release this.

I saw the first two Cousteau films (that both won Oscars) at Cinefamily a couple of months ago. The second Cousteau film might well be fine to release, with its underwater labs.

The first one, however, is unbelievable, from the crew killing a baby sperm whale that their ship runs over while chasing a herd of whales, to brutally killing a bunch of sharks that start feeding on the whale, to using dynamite to blow up a lagoon to collect all the fish in it. I can totally see why the Cousteau Estate would want it to be forgotten about, as I think almost no one today could accept it, no matter how much contextual explanation you add. But that explanation, and the understanding that would come by letting people see how far we've come since the late 1950s, would be very valuable. The first film really is a bunch of French guys having fun on the high seas, with some beautiful underwater photography that must have blown people away at the time (and is still wonderful today, if not as unique). Yes, there are scuba and sops thrown to "doing science," but it's really about a pack of French guys (divers, sailers, and a couple of scientists) having a great time.

Did you enjoy despite the negatives you listed or was it offensive? It actually sounds interesting.

It is definitely interesting and is some what offensive for today's standards. But we've seen Blood of the Beasts and a horse being ready for slaughter in the collection, so not that bad. At least they didn't do what Edison did (electrocuted an elephant).

Jared, I didn't mean to imply that the screenings meant a dvd is coming out, Michael at Sony told me in a personal email that it was on the 2010 slate. Personally, I had thought Sony was releasing it themselves just bringing up the idea it might be one of the titles they've licensed out. It's the only Clouzot home video release that I'm even aware of for the near future. As you say, hopefully there's multiple titles on the horizon from Criterion and other companies.

Cinephrenic wrote:At least they didn't do what Edison did (electrocuted an elephant).

As nasty as that short silent film is, it's worth pointing out that Edison didn't electrocute the elephant solely for his camera. "Topsy," the condemned circus elephant, was actually executed after certain authorities determined she was "a threat to humans" after killing three over the course of a year (although one of the dead was her loathsome and abusive trainer). The choice of electric current was only chosen after the ASPCA protested the original idea of (believe it or not) hanging the elephant, which led Edison to suggest the method of electrocution. Everything about this grisly incident is pretty depressing, but it wasn't quite the same thing as simply killing an animal for cinematic enjoyment (however many people may have eventually viewed the film across the country).

And of course Edison used his competitor's electrical system to execute the animal