141 Children of Paradise

[Max von Mayerling]

The article in SamLowry's link is also interesting in terms of restoration cost and market for restored films. It throws out some numbers with respect to a few recently restored titles.

[kinjitsu]

A demonstration of Pathé's 4K digital restoration, plus a new trailer.

[jbeall]

Andrew O'Hehir raves about the new restoration.

[dad1153]

Saw this last night at Film Forum (packed house), third viewing after seeing it before on Criterion and TCM. Terrific work on the restoration, which helps you get even more completely lost in the movie's drama/comedy and in the character's lives. Even with digital projection (which frankly doesn't do Arletty any favors; never seen what every male character in the movie that falls in love sees in her, especially now that we can more clearly see Arletty's face! :() you still get the full theatrical 'you are there' feel you're watching a timeless French classic. Like seeing "The Godfather" in theaters as repertory, scenes/moments from "Children of Paradise" that in the privacy of one's home are OK or just dramatic become audience-pleasing laughs or delightful crowd-pleasing moments in a movie theater. Pierre Brasseur's Frédérick Lemaître character becomes an even more lovable/likable dude when an entire theater audience is laughing along at his actor antics; I couldn't help but think of Robert Downey Jr. in "Tropic Thunder" during the "Othello" intermission scene when black-faced Frédérick and Lacenaire (my favorite character; Marcel Herrand rulz!) have their little argument with Garance's rich suitor.

It's not coming out on home video for a while (the theatrical tour has a long ways to go; shoot, we still don't even have a street date for Truffaut's "The Soft Skin" and that came out in theaters ages ago) but, when it does, a "Children of Paradise" Blu-ray upgrade is a no-brainer.

[HistoryProf]

As expected with the theatrical release, the NYT confirms Children of Paradise will be upgraded to blu ray (and it appears a re-release of the dvd at $29.95) in "mid-september." Huzzah!

[feihong]

That will be awesome!

[Tom Hagen]

Theatrical playdates

[Drucker]

Blu Ray coming September 18

Besides the old commentary, looks like a 2010 documentary on the making of the film and a 1967 German documentary are getting added. For me, that confirms its must buy status. Can't wait.

[Adam]

What is being dropped from the previous edition? Here is tje old description:
New digital transfer; Commentary by film scholars Brian Stonehill and Charles Affron; Video introduction by director Terry Gilliam; Restoration demonstration; New and improved English subtitle translation; Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition; Jacques Prévert's film treatment; Production designs by Alexandre Trauner; Production stills gallery; Filmographies for Marcel Carné and Jacques Prévert; U.S. theatrical trailer; 26-page booklet, including transcribed excerpts from Brian Stonehill's 1990 interview with Marcel Carné, cast biographies, and an essay by film historian Peter Cowie.
Is Prévert's treatment remaining?

[Paul Moran]

I see that the features also include a "New English subtitle translation". I recall reading (somewhere) that the old edition left too much dialogue untranslated. If so, I hope the new edition will do better.

[perkizitore]

DVDBeaver

[Peacock]

Very sad that major restorations are still using heavy DNR; the blacks look grey and the image looks similar to Gaumont's A Man Escaped - which I now imagine will be ported for the Criterion. Depressing first world we live in.

[zedz]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the black levels on this. It's not a film noir, and the other transfers it's compared with obliterate an awful lot of shadow detail. I've seen various prints of this film over the years, and they've all been silvery-grey (at best), not high contrast black-and-white.

[med]

Indeed, and judging from those caps, this is a rare time where Criterion didn't go in and artifically boost the contrast to fit their house style.

[MichaelB]

Indeed, and judging from those caps, this is a rare time where Criterion didn't go in and artifically boost the contrast to fit their house style.

Yes, this is a long-term niggle that I've had with Criterion: often people like the Beev praise their transfers over rivals (BFI, MOC) even when it's pretty clear that it's the Criterion picture that's been tampered with more, and not necessarily to the film's advantage.

There seems to be a widespread assumption that "black and white" means "strong blacks and brilliant whites", but that may not have been the original cinematographer's intention at all - and I agree that the BD captures look fine. (In any case, I suspect their greyness is exaggerated by being displayed alongside grabs from more contrasty editions).

[Peacock]

Fair enough. I still maintain this is a heavy DNR job. The Blu review of the Second Sight disk (which appears to be identical) mentions banding and if you watch Janus' youtube 1080p upload of the restoration comparison you'll see zero banding on the prerestored version and incredibly awful banding on the restored (whenever there's camera or object movement)... it's possible that's just the way they compressed that version for youtube but I find it hard to believe when the Second Sight disk has banding. Same deal with the DNR'd A Man Escaped.

[Finch]

Youtube's compression is horrible. Never ever rely on youtube clips as a guide to how a disc might look. Have to say though that while I have no problem at all with the grey/silver tones, I hope that the actors' faces look a lot less waxy in motion than they do on the Beaver and BR Definition caps.

[hearthesilence]

Indeed, and judging from those caps, this is a rare time where Criterion didn't go in and artifically boost the contrast to fit their house style.

Yes, this is a long-term niggle that I've had with Criterion: often people like the Beev praise their transfers over rivals (BFI, MOC) even when it's pretty clear that it's the Criterion picture that's been tampered with more, and not necessarily to the film's advantage.

There seems to be a widespread assumption that "black and white" means "strong blacks and brilliant whites", but that may not have been the original cinematographer's intention at all - and I agree that the BD captures look fine. (In any case, I suspect their greyness is exaggerated by being displayed alongside grabs from more contrasty editions).

FWIW, I recall wondering if they went too far with the last Blu-Ray reissue of M, especially compared to a later MoC reissue. But this interview with Torsten Kaiser (who produced the spectacular Universum Blu-Ray reissue of M that edges out the Criterion) says that he contacted Criterion and told them that their previous DVD reissue was actually way too bright and helped guide the new transfer for the Blu-Ray.

I'd have to check again, but I got the feeling that around the time they began issuing Blu-Rays, the contrast was becoming more 'natural' on their releases, with richer greys instead of pushing things further into the opposite sites of the scale.

[Peacock]

Sure Finchy, I was just pointing out that the youtube compression hadn't caused banding in the prerestored clips they included and that the Blu-ray Definition review of the Second Sight mentioned banding as well. Something which seems to be present a lot with noticeably DNR'd black and white films.

[triodelover]

FWIW, I recall wondering if they went too far with the last Blu-Ray reissue of M, especially compared to a later MoC reissue.

IIRC, the MoC came out first, was warmly received all round and much gnashing of teeth ensued when the Crit accompanied by Herr Kaiser's interview hit the streets.

FWIW, I own all three - the MoC, the Crit, and the German Universum which contains the restoration supervised by Herr Kaiser. The Universum is the one to own, but it's not nearly as dark as the Crit and leans in detail more toward the MoC (which does look a tad "light" in comparison). The only reason I'm currently holding on to the Crit is the Chabrol extra. If space becomes a premium, it's gone.

As for Les Enfants, I want to see it in motion. I agree with MichaelB about the black levels. Some of Gary's caps lean toward a waxiness suggestive of too much DNR (the crowd watching Baptiste, for example) and parts of the cap of Casares (although the increased detail in her dress argues the other way), but others seem to display both grain and detail. The cap of Jean-Loiuis Barrault and Gaston Modot and the stage scene with Barrault and Arletty seem fine, as do several of the caps showing the individual players - Barrault again in street clothes, Arletty and Pierre Brasseur. YMMV.

Can anyone comment on the film stock(s) available during the Occupation? Could the 4K restro be bringing out deficiencies in the various stocks he had to make do with?

[Adam]

Can anyone comment on the film stock(s) available during the Occupation? Could the 4K restro be bringing out deficiencies in the various stocks he had to make do with?

I can't really, but I do have vague recollections of a discussion regarding film stock and processing issues during the Occupation. I'd have to hunt for where I read about it.

[Matt]

Colin Crisp's The Classic French Cinema, 1930-1960 has a lot on the paltry resources filmmakers had to make do with during wartime (and before and after). I don't remember anything specific about film stocks, but I am a lot more forgiving of the shallow focus of many French films of this era after learning about the antiquated lenses filmmakers had to use. You can see evidence of that in several of DVD Beaver's caps, for example, Laçenaire's shirt ruffles are in sharp focus, but his curls are slightly blurry.

The previous posters are right that there's nothing wrong with the black levels in this. Where blacks are supposed to be black, they are black. This is not a high-contrast film.

[triodelover]

Colin Crisp's The Classic French Cinema, 1930-1960 has a lot on the paltry resources filmmakers had to make do with during wartime (and before and after). I don't remember anything specific about film stocks, but I am a lot more forgiving of the shallow focus of many French films of this era after learning about the antiquated lenses filmmakers had to use. You can see evidence of that in several of DVD Beaver's caps, for example, Laçenaire's shirt ruffles are in sharp focus, but his curls are slightly blurry.

The previous posters are right that there's nothing wrong with the black levels in this. Where blacks are supposed to be black, they are black. This is not a high-contrast film.

Thanks, Matt. I think that may explain quite a bit. In several of those caps there's inconsistency in sharpness and detail between what is in the near field and what is in longer focus. I doubt that noise reduction could be applied that selectively.

[Matt]

Of course, grain should be consistent across the image, and I'm a little concerned that the grain in these images is not very sharp at all. At the same time, it looks much better than I would ever expect given the generally miserable conditions under which it was made and subsequently kept through the decades. Though the restorers worked mainly from original film elements (the negative and a couple of nitrate dupe positives), this was a strictly digital restoration, and there may have been some grain smoothing and noise reduction performed at that stage that Criterion had no control over.

[movielocke]

There seems to be a widespread assumption that "black and white" means "strong blacks and brilliant whites", but that may not have been the original cinematographer's intention at all - and I agree that the BD captures look fine. (In any case, I suspect their greyness is exaggerated by being displayed alongside grabs from more contrasty editions).

There also seems to be a widespread assumption that one-light low contrast is how a release print (or home video) is supposed to look. A transfer that pushes contrast down to reveal extremes of shadow detail may be no more accurate than a transfer that pushes contrast up to extremes. Just because there's more detail doesn't mean it's right and just because it's contrasty doesn't mean its wrong. It varies from film to film despite the assumption that everything is supposed to be low contrast to reveal every iota of shadow detail.