criterionforum.org

Amazon.com wrote:Red Desert (1946) [Blu-ray]

They seem to have more than one thing wrong. Are they allowed to list this on the US site? They don't list Criterions on the UK except from marketplace sellers.

MichaelB wrote: I'm just going to have to reiterate the point I made that many companies are both distributors AND licensors and therefore have interests in both sides of the argument.

In some instances, but there is no such conflict of interest in regards to the BFI/Red Desert Blu-Ray (or BFI/Salo Blu-Ray).

MichaelB wrote: And that's how it works in the real world - or at least the world outside huge multinational corporations like Warner Bros who can afford not to region-code because it doesn't affect their bottom line.

In the real world, Blu-Ray sales make up a tiny proportion of the market share and, on DVD, region choding is utterly meaningless. So if these companies really are relying on RC to protect their bottom line they're not going to last very long.

Yes, of course, there are many licensors and licensees who nevertheless insist on Region Coding, but a rational case (and insistence) can be made against this as Nick's stance demonstrates. And the BFI should follow suit.

Nothing wrote:In some instances, but there is no such conflict of interest in regards to the BFI/Red Desert Blu-Ray (or BFI/Salo Blu-Ray).

You're forgetting the fact that both releases contain proprietary extras, which can be licensed in turn to other distributors.

And since the question of extras has come up, I might as well expand on the example I quoted in my previous post, as the real situation was rather more complicated than I originally made out.

While Company B planned to license all its extras from Company A (which either created them outright or could pull them off the shelf), Company C had an exclusive extra of its own that it was prepared to offer Company A in a straight swap for one of Company A's in-house extras. Company C then got in touch with Company B and did a deal for the same extra, for which Company B was prepared to pay, as they wanted to make sure their release had all of Company A's extras.

In other words, both Company A and Company C ended up combining distributor/licensor roles - and Company B might well have done too if they hadn't chosen to rely on the extras that Company A put together.

True, some releases are more straightforward than that, in that the distributor licenses everything from a single source, and it really is the one-way process that you're making out. But this doesn't apply to any of the examples we've been discussing, where a scenario along the lines I quoted above is far more likely to apply.

Or indeed a vastly more convoluted one - one of my projects involved licensing 33 video items from twelve separate rightsholders based in five different countries, and one was in turn sold back to the original rightsholder after I created an English-friendly version. Just you try negotiating all that lot while avoiding a commitment to region-code along the way - it only takes one of the twelve to insist, and you're faced with the unenviable choice between region-coding or dropping something you've set your heart on. Some of the rightsholders were small, independent and malleable, but others were big multinational corporations - and with those, the "rational case (and insistence)" you're advocating is a complete waste of time: they couldn't have cared less if the deal fell through.

In the real world, Blu-Ray sales make up a tiny proportion of the market share and, on DVD, region choding is utterly meaningless. So if these companies really are relying on RC to protect their bottom line they're not going to last very long.

Region coding is utterly meaningless with some groups, but not others. For instance, the average American DVD purchaser isn't multi-region, and even quite a few US-based posters here aren't either. And you wouldn't be so exercised about this particular case if Blu-ray region coding wasn't a fair bit more effective.

And just to flip your argument on its head, it's precisely because Blu-ray sales make up a tiny proportion of the market share that licensors are keen on region coding - the last thing they want is for a title to be released in one territory and everyone to import the disc before they've had a chance to conclude a deal with distributors elsewhere.

(Simultaneous releases generally aren't a viable option, as each company will have its own schedule tailored to its own particular market - quite aside from situations like the one I mentioned above where they're deliberately staggered).

Yes, of course, there are many licensors and licensees who nevertheless insist on Region Coding, but a rational case (and insistence) can be made against this as Nick's stance demonstrates. And the BFI should follow suit.

As I said before, there's little point discussing "Nick's stance" until we've had a chance to see if it's borne any fruit. You know as well as I do that a great many MoC DVDs ended up being region-coded, so I'll be very surprised indeed if he manages to keep his Blu-ray line-up region-free.

And you still seem to be ignoring the main point I was making in my previous post, which is that these deals usually aren't a simple two-party us-against-them arrangement: they often involve several companies haggling over the master. Given the significantly higher manufacturing costs of Blu-ray discs, from the HD transfer through to the authoring and encoding, coupled with the significantly smaller market (at least for now), it's likely that we'll see a greater number of these co-production deals - and region coding will be an inescapable part of the equation. It's not the only bargaining tool in the armoury, but it's a pretty convenient one, especially since it appears to be a lot more effective with Blu-ray releases.

It's also worth noting that I've had a project in limbo for a good couple of years because I can't find anyone prepared to go halves on the cost of an HD transfer and restoration (it's a niche title, to put it mildly). Do you seriously think I'm going to make region-coding a deal-breaker if someone finally offers to come up with the funds?

MichaelB wrote: You're forgetting the fact that both releases contain proprietory extras, which can be licensed in turn to other distributors.... etc... these deals usually aren't a simple two-party us-against-them arrangement

No amount of detail can correct the flawed assumption that region coding is essential to the successful exploitation of the rights by these separate distributors in their individual territories. As you've pointed out, there are some licensees who insist on region coding, just as there are non-Hollywood licensors who were quite happy to release region-free material on HD-DVD. There's no exact logic to it, it's not really about the interests of one party against another but, rather, about enlightened companies making an effort to promote a pro-consumer understanding of the situation. Nick, as far as we know, is intending to do this, whereas the BFI have failed to do so and it now seems you want to spin this any way you can to justify that position.

I don't want to bang on, but it is not an insignificant move by the BFI here: these Blu-Rays set a precendent, being amongst the first region coded catalog titles on Blu Ray anywhere in the world. It makes it easier for Criterion to region code next month (a decision they have not yet confirmed) and you say "let's see what happens with Nick", but you have not done anything to aid his cause, in fact quite the opposite.

Some more arguments against region coding, to add to those put forward previously:

1/ Surely it would be even more cost effective for the parties in the negotiations you describe above to wait until all the extras are ready and then create a single DVD with multiple language options, dramatically reducing their encoding, mastering and manufacturing costs. Pan-European DVD production is quite a frequent occurance already, not only from major studios, and it doesn't seem to hit the bottom lines of the companies involved in anything but a positive way. As long as the product is of identical or similar quality, and as long as the pricing remains competitive, there is no reason for consumers to increase their shipping costs / carbon footprint / lead time by importing. In this scenario, it would also be easier to co-ordinate the release schedules.

2/ If you stick with the notion of individual masterings / release dates for whatever reason, it is stilll arguable that effective region coding is going to limit the profits of the licensees in both territories and, by default, the amount of money that feeds back to the licensor. Let's say that a region-free Red Desert from the BFI is bought by everyone in the world who is in the market for a Red Desert Blu-Ray - that immediately means a hell of a lot more money for the BFI, money that will be passed on to the licensor, either as a receipts, or in terms of the sort of MG they can demand next time around. And then let's say that, a year later, Criterion releases a region-free disc with different extras and/or improved transfer: the same group of international consumers are likely to repurchase the improved version of the disc as well and so you've created a double-dip and created more profits all round.

But, of course, this is not really how it works. The majority view importation as a hassle, what with shipping charges, waiting times and possible customs duties. They'd rather wander down to their local HMV and grab whatever is on the shelf in the 'sale' section. How else would Tartan have gotten away with a UK DVD of A Ma Soeur! that censors the entire climax to the film? And, of course, there is no RC on books or CDs or anything else, but this has never caused a problem.

4/ Where music (and, increasingly, film) distributors do have a problem is with internet piracy. RC encourages piracy: if consumers can't play the official release without importing expensive new hardware, they're far more likely to download a torrent rip with the RC removed.

MichaelB wrote: Region coding is utterly meaningless with some groups, but not others. For instance, the average American DVD purchaser isn't multi-region, and even quite a few US-based posters here aren't either.

It isn't region-coding that hinders US DVD purchasers but, rather, NTSC-PAL standards conversion. Obviously, this isn't a problem on Blu-Ray - an argument you could use in support of stronger RC, but this is to argue for American protectionism. In any case, inherent nationalism means that most Americans are even less likely to import goods from 'yer'rup' on principal.

It makes it easier for Criterion to region code next month (a decision they have not yet confirmed)

Criterion confirmed Blu-ray region coding over a month ago. I doubt they are in a wait and see position regarding the BFI or MOC or any other publisher.

Nothing wrote:Nick, as far as we know, is intending to do this, whereas the BFI have failed to do so and it now seems you want to spin this any way you can to justify that position.

OK, just to get things absolutely clear, I'm not "spinning" or even speaking for the BFI's position: I'm writing as a freelance DVD producer who's spent nearly twenty years either working directly for, closely liaising with, and being personal friends of a great many rightsholders and distributors. It just so happened that you posted your original diatribe in a BFI thread, but I'd have said the same thing if you'd posted it elsewhere (and I've already suggested to the mods that they move this discussion).

In any case, "that position" is held by far more distributors than just the BFI. Criterion, for instance, have said that they're going to region-code their Blu-rays - and I think we can be pretty sure they're going to follow through on that promise, since they've region-coded pretty much all their DVD releases for the past two or three years. (There's also no reason for them to lie about this, any more than there's a reason for a distributor voluntarily region-coding their product if they hadn't been compelled to do so by others).

This is pure guesswork (albeit educated), but I suspect a key motive behind Criterion's decision is that having gone to the considerable expense of creating new HD masters, they'd quite like the option of being able to licence them elsewhere - so there's a lot to be said for strategic pre-emptive region-coding, regardless of whether their original rightsholder asked for it. (Just to deflect the obvious riposte, this is not - to my knowledge, anyway - what's happened with Red Desert, where the region coding was imposed by the rightsholder)

As for your individual numbered points:

1) The kind of pan-European co-operation you're talking about usually involves a single company creating the master, at considerable expense to themselves, which they then either license to others or (more likely) distribute themselves because they're big enough to have outlets in multiple territories. In a situation involving, say, Warner Bros or Disney, the economies-of-scale argument works beautifully, because they don't have the contractual complications faced by an independent.

However, when you deal with an independent release, you're immediately faced with a double problem. First of all, who's going to pay for this all-singing all-dancing multilingual master and all the associated extra costs? It's a classic chicken-and-egg situation: do you try to licence the distribution rights upfront, and get less money because the distributors will expect a lower fee in exchange for gambling on not seeing the end product in advance, or do you create it anyway in the hope that it will be so wonderful that people will be falling over themselves to licence it? And if the rightsholder and distributor are separate entities, as is usually the case, who takes on the role of coordinating all this?

Secondly, and more fundamentally, many projects will have multiple rights holders at source. In order to create a genuinely pan-European disc, all these rightsholders are going to have to be in a position to licence their content across multiple territories for the same period. If an item has been licenced anywhere else within the projected release area, you either have to wait for the contract(s) to expire or, more likely, drop it - which isn't especially constructive if the release is intended to be definitive and completist. To complicate matters further, the producer may have licenced the item to several rightsholders, so a distributor in a second territory will have to negotiate independently to find out whether the pan-European master is distributable. (I'm writing from experience here: a planned Anglo-French deal I was involved with collapsed for that reason, as a handful of items that I was able to licence were locked into a different French deal).

And even in situations where there is a genuine multilingual master, you'll often find its owner insisting on regional modifications to prevent distributors encroaching onto their own territory. When I was sent review copies of Nouveaux' DVDs of various Soviet war films, I immediately spotted that the masters came from Ruscico - yet my Ruscico discs had trilingual menus and a dozen subtitle options, but Nouveaux's discs featured just English and Russian, and if you selected spoken Russian you got forced English subtitles. I somehow doubt that this was Nouveaux's decision.

2) Unfortunately, this argument ignores (or evades) several crucial factors. First of all, unless the film is a surprise blockbuster, licensors generally make most of their money upfront, so expecting them to allow (even tacitly) a single distributor to market their film internationally while only charging them the licensing fee for their own territory... well, hopefully you can see the problem here. Secondly, if they increase their minimum guarantee for the reasons you suggest, surely their other potential distributors are going to say "Hang on a minute - why are you asking us to pay more when you've already allowed these people to encroach on our territory and cream off potential customers?" And thirdly, don't you think that a model that seems to be reliant on double-dipping is just a tad optimistic?

You don't actually provide a number (3), but I'm guessing it's the paragraph beginning "But, of course, this is not really how it works." - which helpfully raises another point that complicates the creation of a pan-European master - namely, local factors. In Britain, A Ma Soeur! had to be cut for legal reasons (context doesn't provide a defence in law when dealing with unsimulated sexual material involving people under age) - neither Tartan nor indeed the BBFC could have done much about this (since the BBFC is statutorily required to ensure that video releases don't contain illegal material).

4) Well, this is the time-honoured blackmail argument: "you won't give us what we want, so we're going to take it anyway!". But what exactly are you proposing? That the rightsholder and associated distributors go to the considerable extra expense of creating a universal master and co-ordinating a simultaneous release, on the off-chance that the extra costs incurred might be offset by less piracy?

As for your final paragraph, your comment about "American protectionism" highlights an issue that we haven't yet raised - which is that the US market is vastly bigger than the British one. Which, I suspect, is a key reason why European rightsholders are often minded to insist on region coding, because the last thing they want is for a US distributor to use it as an excuse for either not going ahead with the deal at all or trying to negotiate a lower fee.

And I'll conclude with another point. You seem to be arguing that distributors should try to screw rightsholders to the wall, but this ignores the fact that any distributor worth its salt will have a longstanding and ongoing relationship with particular rightsholders - it's why some companies effectively get first refusal on lucrative titles. Why would they want to potentially jeopardise a good working relationship by being unreasonable over region coding? (Bearing in mind that it is clearly not unreasonable in a commercial context for the rightsholder to insist that a distributor take demonstrable steps to stick within its own territory)

MichaelB wrote: In Britain, A Ma Soeur! had to be cut for legal reasons (context doesn't provide a defence in law when dealing with unsimulated sexual material involving people under age) - neither Tartan nor indeed the BBFC could have done much about this (since the BBFC is statutorily required to ensure that video releases don't contain illegal material).

Not really wanting to drag this further off topic, but just to nit-pick - A Ma Soeur was not cut for unsimulated sexual material featuring a minor otherwise I suspect that the film would have been cut during its cinema release. According to the BBFC website, it was cut under the Video Recordings Act as a possible causer of harm as it could be seen to {SPOILER}justify rape.

Back on topic - this looks a top notch release and will probably be one of my first blu-ray purchases. I've had a player since December last year, but Mrs Amicus won't let me buy any discs for it! (something to do with a mortgage and a young baby...)

Dr Amicus wrote:Not really wanting to drag this further off topic, but just to nit-pick - A Ma Soeur was not cut for unsimulated sexual material featuring a minor otherwise I suspect that the film would have been cut during its cinema release. According to the BBFC website, it was cut under the Video Recordings Act as a possible causer of harm as it could be seen to {SPOILER}justify rape.

Fair enough - I'm happy to stand corrected. (My basic point about local issues is still valid, in any case).

MichaelB wrote: (My basic point about local issues is still valid, in any case).

Absolutely - and I'll resist the temptation to start another diatribe about the BBFC. (1 minute 28 secs out of A Ma Soeur!!!!)

Pardon me, everybody, for changing the topic.

MichaelB wrote:Most people reading this will know already, but the new BFI SD-DVD is identical to the Blu-ray in every respect save the 1080p picture.

(It's presumably 576p, but was sourced from the same new HD master)

That's what I was wanting to know, thanks.
¿Has anyone here actually seen BFI's standard DVD version?

RobertAltman wrote:

Perkins Cobb wrote:This is the first release to make me really want to run out and get a BluRay player ... even though I guess I'd have to have it shipped from overseas, and wouldn't be able to play much else on it.

Or you could buy a regionfree player. The LG HDDVD/Blu-ray combo player for instance (LG BH100 or BH200).

A region free BR player? Now that is useful to know.
What about the AC / DC current difference?
Could I plug it in in the USA without shorting the house?

Richard

Richard--W wrote:

RobertAltman wrote:

Perkins Cobb wrote:This is the first release to make me really want to run out and get a BluRay player ... even though I guess I'd have to have it shipped from overseas, and wouldn't be able to play much else on it.

Or you could buy a regionfree player. The LG HDDVD/Blu-ray combo player for instance (LG BH100 or BH200).

A region free BR player? Now that is useful to know.
What about the AC / DC current difference?
Could I plug it in in the USA without shorting the house?

Don´t think the current difference will be a problem for you, it´s an american player. Check out these threads.

Richard--W wrote:A region free BR player? Now that is useful to know.
What about the AC / DC current difference?
Could I plug it in in the USA without shorting the house?

Yes, the player would do the adjustment automatically. The PS3 does the same thing.

Pro-B

DVD Times

"In short, the High Definition presentation of Red Desert is magnificent."

Ahhhhh... Where's Mr. Hare when you need him? :-s

I don't have the energy to argue this any further. But, in closing, I would like to note: I was an early adopter of HD-DVD, however I have no intention of buying into Bluray until an inexpensive, reliable multiregion set-top player is available. I doubt I am alone in this. Until then, the BFI, Sony and everyone else loses out.

On a different note, this has me deeply concerned:

DVD TIMES: "The original Italian audio track... with no trace of any background noise, hiss or distortion... Background noises and sound effects also seem fine, but perhaps are slightly more muffled through noise reduction."

Analog 60s film soundtracks should have hiss. Preserving the quality of the original audio is just as important as preserving the image. The absence of hiss implies heavy digital noise reduction. Is this the same ghastly audio track that plagued the Madman disc?

Nothing wrote:On a different note, this has me deeply concerned:

DVD TIMES: "The original Italian audio track... with no trace of any background noise, hiss or distortion... Background noises and sound effects also seem fine, but perhaps are slightly more muffled through noise reduction."

Analog 60s film soundtracks should have hiss. Preserving the quality of the original audio is just as important as preserving the image. The absence of hiss implies heavy digital noise reduction. Is this the same ghastly audio track that plagued the Madman disc?

I ran this by the person responsible for the Red Desert transfer, who replied:

No, the audio used on the BFI Blu-Ray and DVD of RED DESERT is not the audio track used on the Madman release. As the picture was transferred from the original negatives held in Rome, the audio was transferred from a rarely used 35mm print held at the BFI National Archive. We were well familiar with the drawbacks of the Madman version of RED DESERT beforehand, and our plan was to create something superior and definitive for our release.

While there was is almost always some minor filtering done to improve overall sound on DVD releases of archival titles, this is done to improve overall audio by removing noticeable pops, clicks, etc and improving overall consistency. This is not done to remove the overall ambience, which we view as an integral part of the original film. The lion's share of the audio for "Red Desert" was recorded post-synch and in mono and therefore exhibits the limitations of that process and format. No attempts have been made to "modernize" or disort the soundtrack digitally to make it sound in any way other than how it always did.

On a personal note, I should add that I was specifically listening out for examples of the electronic distortion that have been highlighted as occurring on the Madman disc (though I haven't heard that specific disc for myself), and so I was pretty convinced that it was from a different source even before the formal confirmation.

My copy is on its way, and will arrive in the next couple of days... It's clear the BFI disc audio will be a vast improvement on the Madman audio which was so compressed it cut off high and low frequences and sometimes sounds like it was remixed in a toilet bowl.... I'll also be able to compare with relevant music + fx tracks from RED DESERT on the CD 'I Film di Antonioni, Le Musiche de Fusco', as well as the French Carlotta disc which uses yet another audio track...

That's good to know Michael, thanks. I was guessing that the poor audio on the Madman came from the Italians (the R1 DVD of Story of a Love Affair restoration has an identical problem) so that's very good that the BFI spotted this and created their own track. I agree that audio restoration/NR can be beneficial when applied with tact and restraint. On a personal note, I've seen that print, it looks/sounds wonderful

So - it looks like you have another customer... if/when said multiregion player comes out...

The blu ray region free player is here.

Mine is on order

That's not cheap, though. I paid the equivalent of $200 for my HD-DVD player (including 6 free discs).

For $650 that region-free Blu-ray player better come with a time machine ticket and gift certificate for one hour of making out with Monica Vitti circa Red Desert

No it isn't cheap and the the gift certificate is only for making out with Monica Vitti now... [/quote]

Just to say I've got the BFI SD DVD and it really is a thing of beauty - an especially good transfer, the hi-def quality shows in the great picture detail and sharpness, the colours are also very authentically and emphatically rendered - while the audio is near perfect, crisp, clean and clear revealing lots of dimension and detail (it's running at 320 kbps says the box specs)... This is a quantum leap from the various Image, Madman, and indeed Carlotta offerings, and must be the near definitive version... It really is an incredibly vivid cinematic experience to watch and listen to this wonderful BFI RED DESERT DVD...

DVD Times (Gary Couzens this time) on the SD-DVD.

As Forgacs mentions the connection, it may be worth suggesting visiting the current late (1958-1970) Rothko exhibition at the Tate Modern and then watching RED DESERT to look at the use of colour in both's work...

Jeffrey Weiss' paper 'Temps Mort: Rothko and Antonioni' including MA's 1962 letter to Rothko can be found in 'Rothko' ed. Oliver Wick, Skira Editore, Milan, 2007. English language edition...

My Blu-ray arrived yesterday. Not had time to watch it yet though. It's great to finally have this film in a worthy release.

My Godfather trilogy arrived at the same time so it seems like a good time for Blu-ray.