criterionforum.org

With that they only set a precedent to releasing the director's preferred version.

knives wrote:With that they only set a precedent to releasing the director's preferred version.

That's a little misleading. They released both cuts SD and I am sure Bertolucci was fine with that.

aox wrote:

knives wrote:With that they only set a precedent to releasing the director's preferred version.

That's a little misleading. They released both cuts SD and I am sure Bertolucci was fine with that.

That's one instance where the extended cut doesn't really add anything to the film, anyway.

denti alligator wrote:They would be stupid to only release the theatrical version [of Fanny and Alexander]. I'm not worried about that. Who watches anything but the television version, anyway?

Rosenbaum, for one; I didn't get the impression that Ebert watched the longer version when he added it to his Great Movies list.

I would of course love to see F&A in Blu, but I don't want to re-purchase it and all the other Crits in my collection. I've put a moratorium on older Criterion purchases thanks to the transition; in a way, the Studio Canal OOP announcement was good news, pointing me towards older catalog titles that won't be re-released.

I question the authenticity of older TV shows in HD. F&A the series was never expected to be viewed as such. If you want to be honest, you would drag the old Zenith out of the garage and enjoy it in all it's hazy analog glory, with mono sound of course.

the F&A blu edition in Europe looks wonderful (minus some light DNR). The Europeans did an excellent job cleaning it up, but they only did the theatrical cut. I hope Criterion releases both cuts.

Zot! wrote:I question the authenticity of older TV shows in HD. F&A the series was never expected to be viewed as such. If you want to be honest, you would drag the old Zenith out of the garage and enjoy it in all it's hazy analog glory, with mono sound of course.

I'm going to question your premise here, as it relates to F&A. Bergman shot on film and intended all 5+ hours to be released in theatres. My understanding is that no one wanted to release it at that length, so he compromised with a Swedish television broadcast and a truncated American release (which I assume was also released internationally; not sure about Sweden). So no, hazy + analog +mono =/= Fanny and Alexander.

edit: Was there ever any discussion on the differences in color palette between the Blu and the Criterion? The Svensk disc has moderately warmer color. If Criterion does release their transfer on Blu, I doubt that it will look much different than their current SD transfer as regards color-temp.

Why even watch a movie on a fancy 30 year old analog/mono Zenith from the garage? The way I prefer to watch movies is to rip the audio to a 128 MP3, close my eyes, and listen with my headphones.. that way, I am able to use my imagination on how a movie might look from the audio alone.

I'm holding off upgrading to TV or VHS as long as I can.

I'm holding off upgrading to TV or VHS as long as I can.

Me, too. But in my case I like to watch my Castle 8mm Home Editions and imagine the dialogue... and the rest of the movie.

quote="Svevan"]

Zot! wrote:I question the authenticity of older TV shows in HD. F&A the series was never expected to be viewed as such. If you want to be honest, you would drag the old Zenith out of the garage and enjoy it in all it's hazy analog glory, with mono sound of course.

I'm going to question your premise here, as it relates to F&A. Bergman shot on film and intended all 5+ hours to be released in theatres. My understanding is that no one wanted to release it at that length, so he compromised with a Swedish television broadcast and a truncated American release (which I assume was also released internationally; not sure about Sweden). So no, hazy + analog +mono =/= Fanny and Alexander.
quote]

I'm going to question your questioning of my premise. I would be really surprised if Bergman intended the TV series for the big screen. The almighty wikipedia is on my side, but let me know if you have evidence otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_and_Alexander All his later works were direct to TV, so it doesn't seem strange to me that F&A was also.

Zot! wrote:

I'm going to question your questioning of my premise. I would be really surprised if Bergman intended the TV series for the big screen. The almighty wikipedia is on my side, but let me know if you have evidence otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_and_Alexander All his later works were direct to TV, so it doesn't seem strange to me that F&A was also.

If he intended it only for television, why would he shoot it in an AR of 1.66:1 in 1982? If it originally was shot open matte and then formatted for TV (and to 1.66:1 at a later date), wouldn't that also indicate that Bergman at least hoped for a theater run? Finally, if it was shot on film, why wouldn't you want to see something as gorgeous as Fanny och Alexander in Blu - and I say this as a guy who reveres the analogue LP, turntables, pre-WWII receiving triodes and an exceedingly dry martini.

Zot! wrote:

quote="Svevan"]

I'm going to question your premise here, as it relates to F&A. Bergman shot on film and intended all 5+ hours to be released in theatres. My understanding is that no one wanted to release it at that length, so he compromised with a Swedish television broadcast and a truncated American release (which I assume was also released internationally; not sure about Sweden). So no, hazy + analog +mono =/= Fanny and Alexander.
quote]

I'm going to question your questioning of my premise. I would be really surprised if Bergman intended the TV series for the big screen. The almighty wikipedia is on my side, but let me know if you have evidence otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_and_Alexander All his later works were direct to TV, so it doesn't seem strange to me that F&A was also.

The Wikipedia entry is actually contradictory.

Fanny and Alexander (Swedish: Fanny och Alexander) is a 1982 Swedish film written and directed by Ingmar Bergman. It was originally conceived as a four part TV movie and cut in that version, spanning 312 minutes. A 178 minute version was created later for cinematic release, although this version was in fact the one to be released first. The TV version has since been released as a one-part film; both the long and the short version have been shown in theatres throughout the world.

Bergman intended the film to be his last feature, although he wrote several screenplays afterward and directed a number of TV specials.

The first part works in your favor, the last line doesn't. I am not saying you are right or wrong, just posing a problem.

The theatrical version is fine, but feels incredibly fragmented next to the TV version. This was definitely one of those rare occasions where 'more is more.'

And didn't Fanny and Alexander notoriously mop up the entirety of SFI's film production budget for that year, thus pissing off an entire generation of Swedish filmmakers (and possibly obliging Bergman to 'retire' into television works). (Don't take this as gospel - it may just be the gossip of disgruntled Swedes.)

Anyway, this was always a big-budget, big-deal 35mm production by Bergman and Sweden's standards (and Europe's - it was an international co-production intended for cinema release in its various territories). Why wouldn't it look as good as any other similarly scaled production of the era?

I'm sort of joking about watching in a crippled format, it is obviously is a handsome film. Please prove me wrong, but common sense would have it that the extended cut was always intended for TV in Sweden, while an intentionally edited version was made for theatrical release for the whole world. He already did this with Scenes from a Marriage, so there was a precedent, and I'm convinced Bergman planned it this way. Similarly Berlin Alexanderplatz was not meant to be screened theatrically. It's a foreign concept to today's generation, but TV was not always a toilet, especially state owned TV. What I don't know, and would be curious of, is if the original TV broadcast of F&A was letterboxed or panned&scanned, or what.

The difference between the visual styles of Scenes and Fanny & Alexander is vast, though. Scenes to me actually feels like it was shot for TV. Fanny does not.

Zot! wrote:Similarly Berlin Alexanderplatz was not meant to be screened theatrically.

I suggest you read up on the background of both these projects. Berlin Alexanderplatz was absolutely shot theatrically. It was Fassbinder's dream project. Television was the only means of funding something on that scale, but he made no compromises for the format - it was his biggest, most ambitious production. In fact, the original television broadcasts attracted public criticism because of his lack of concessions to the television format, with many scenes too dark to register properly on TV.

There's no comparison between the technical means behind these films and random episodes of Diff'rent Strokes: the technical means, scale and artistic vision were identical or superior to most of these filmmakers' other feature film productions. Shortchanging their presentation because of who funded them (lavishly!) would be insane.

Too bad Berlin Alexanderplatz wasn't shot in 35mm, though.

Ummm...no, you are wrong, Fassbinder did not expect people to sit in theatres for 15 hours. That is the domain of Andy Warhol and Bela Tarr. In fact, you only have to go as far as Wikipedia to learn that he wanted to make a sepreate theatrical version of BA as well. The way it is shot has nothing to do with anything. Lots things on TV look pretty good and are shot on film. Next you're going to tell me that David Lynch wanted us to watch all of Twin Peaks in the theater, that's pretty dark too.

Twin Peaks, at the least the pilot, was released in theaters with all of Lynch's typical particulars.

I take zedz's word over wikipedia any day of the week.

You should reconsider, as that bit from Wiki was also on the Criterion supplements for Alexanderplatz. Yeah the pilot of TP was released as a film in Europe for some sort of contractual reasons with a tacked on ending. But I think you guys are missing my point. Which is that all of these projects were made for TV willingly, not under gun-point. If you don't believe that, please offer up some kind of evidence showing otherwise. Why would making a TV series be considered a negative anyways?

Zot! wrote:Why would making a TV series be considered a negative anyways?

Perhaps because a few posts back you lobbed a small grenade into the discussion with:

I question the authenticity of older TV shows in HD. F&A the series was never expected to be viewed as such. If you want to be honest, you would drag the old Zenith out of the garage and enjoy it in all it's hazy analog glory, with mono sound of course.

and offered that as an objection to expending the effort to render F&A in HD.

Ok, sorry that was just a lame joke about being a "purist". You are right, F&A is definately very deserving of seeing in HD. It's actually quite lucky that it was filmed in widescreen and 35mm. Though I still maintain that it was never Bergmans original expectation to have the series shown as such and can't imagine he anticipated the new home video standards. So the joke was supposed to be that if you wanted to be "true" to the directors intention you would watch it in the old format. Not very funny I admit.

One last ditch attempt to offer correction, then I'm bailing:

Nobody is disputing that these films were made with a television audience in mind. What we're all taking issue with is your asinine starting point:

I question the authenticity of older TV shows in HD

The technical specs of the films you're questioning are exactly the same as or superior to theatrical films by the same directors.

They were shot - in Bergman's case with the assurance and in Fassbinder's case with the apparent hope - that the footage would be shown theatrically.

In the decades since their release, both films have been shown primarily as films, in theatrical contexts, not as television serials. The overwhelming (as far as I know, unanimous) critical consensus is that these works succeed as films, and benefit greatly from the enhanced visual dimension of film projection.

Both films are central works by major directors.

They were shot on film. 16mm and 35mm film have greater resolution than even HD can offer. HD can therefore offer a better representation of what the directors shot. This is not the case with television shot on videotape or SD. Your 'older TV shows' caveat suggests that you have some dim understanding of the difference between SD and HD when it comes to shooting modern TV shows, and understand that it would make sense to present a TV show shot in HD on an HD BluRay. Well, guess what: 35mm is even better than HD! Imagine that!

Hail and farewell!