DVD Times review.

That's the film. Very little of the sound was recorded on set. You can pay close attention and find moments of glaring mis-synching throughout, having nothing to do with the transfer.

Just wait until you see and hear the unbelievably bad soundtrack to film in Roma Citta Aperta and Pasia. If you havent already.

Is this the beginning of the Italian compulsion for bad post synching? The very few thirties Italian movies I've seen are impeccable in comparison (but by 35 they were all using Tobis Klangfilm for sound recording.)

The review on DVD Talk mentioned that the Italian tendency to record audio and picture apart from each other is explained in the documentary on neorealism. Sadly though, the reviewer doesn't explain it himself and I haven't watched the doc, so I can't be much help, but Orson Welles was a fan of the technique as it allowed him to re-write whole scenes after he'd filmed them, and then perform every damn character in a movie. I think I mentioned once when Mr. Arkadin came out that you can tell the scenes Welles approved of if the supporting characters are out of sync and don't sound like the actors you see.

Dubbing in Italian Cinema Thread

Come on, let's be reasonable here, who cares about a fucking commentary? This is the finest transfer of this masterpiece available in the world, and yet, there are still complaints...

I'm just very glad to own this beautiful dvd with a very accurate translation. I'm willing to bet this movie won't look any better for at least a decade.

We could have said that about the Image release a month ago.
That's part of the reason we're here, to push for better releases.

Then, don't push it too hard. You might not get shit the next time. This is an excellent release all around. Don't like it, don't buy it.

I have to agree. We really seem to be getting into equine oral analysis on this release, and judging by the quality of what we got, I'm having a hard time figuring out why. I like commentaries as much as the next guy, but I'm amazed by the degree to which they seem to be fetishized around here. If the commentary is a good one, I'm thrilled to have it, but if they couldn't really find anyone they liked, I'd rather Criterion not try to force the issue. Has anyone read the book? It's great! The image is great! The features seem great! So what are we all complaining about?

uh...I believe a total of three people (myself being one) commented either this isn't a vast improvement imagewise over the Image edition and/or the extras aren't entirely specific to the film and thus fall short of enthusiastic expectations. Then everyone and their mother came on board either rebutting or quoting these posts giving the impression that there is much complaining when there isn't. This isn't a fanboy site; we're allowed to express less-than-enthusiastic comments.

This film is in the top ten all time films for many of us and I personally had hoped that this would have received the attention given to Seven Samurai. No, commentaries aren't the beginning and end of special features, but god knows there are some folks out there who have a lot of insight into this film who could've justified a viewing between viewings if you know what I mean.

I make my living as a filmmaker and love when commentaries dig into how and why things were done on a particular film (the "pointing out the obvious" for two hours or "social history" lessons usually bore me to tears) but also understand the business side of things and there could be many reasons there are no commentaries on the film. Cost or a reputable enough person being just two of the reasons. I know if one is not supplied that it was a thought through decision on CC's part. They're not stupid. And they are certainly not required now to attach a commentary to every film release. It has gotten to this place now where many feel it just ain't a movie without someone talking about it on track 2.

Like I said, I love a good one (Thank God for the recent release of Seven Samurai) but it is just an added bonus and am glad to get THE FILM first and foremost.

The Guardian discusses the restoration of the film.

So last semester I watched Bicycle Thieves, the CC edition on a huge screen at the front of the class, and yesterday we watched Bicycle Thieves in a class that just started, only it was the other DVD edition, and holy crap it was night and day in the audio/visual and even subtitles between the two versions, makes me glad Criterion did such a nice job restoring this great film. Really disappointed to be shown this crappy version, my eyes wanted to look away from all of the technical issues.

the only sadness derived from this edition is the lack of commentary, and I feel it is a huge slight.

Can't wait to see this on Blu-Ray.

That's interesting-- I always thought that one thing the CC made clear was that the Image disc (I take it that's what you watched?) wasn't anywhere near as bad as people made it out to be, and that the subs on the Image are far more effective at capturing the flavor of the wildly gesticulatory ballbusting that's resident in this (and so many other) Italian films. I find the CC sub job very dry.

I love this film..

I have rarely heard that Criterion has done an inferior job with their subtitles. You may think that Images' subtitles are "wildly gesticulatory ballbusting" but they are not as accurate as Criterion's subtitle translations.

The picture is significantly better on Criterion's disc. If some of you are relying on DVDBeaver's screen caps, they are not always 100% in indicating how good or poor the picture image really is.

The extra's are marvelous, regardless of what any of you have to say.

And a commentary would be nice, but I would have been really pissed off if Criterion put in some filler, bullshit commentary for this amazing film. They have done things like this in the past (kind of like PT Anderson's into to The Earrings...) and an extra interview is better to me in this particular case.

How not to start posting here lol...

Regardless of what any of us have to say it's a conversation filled with opinion about a notoriously tricky enterprise for which there is no settled answer-- never can be--, on this issue of subtitle translation the issue of nuance and characterization goes beyond the factual and into the zone of flavor and personality. Without question or exception the scenes for example in the market where at approx 34:00 the stall vendors are arguing "Stay away from me I'm poison this morning," on the Image v the CC which says "I'm in no mood for this,".. all the sardonic muttering and regional flavor-- the poetics of the dialog, particular a very specific type of Italian lower/middle class street speech-- is lost in certain instances on the CC. Zavvatini's script is a wonder of lively conversationalism, of impatient individuals on the edge of complete destitution banging elbows with each other and cursing rotten luck. The script is filled with it: even a totally inocuous moment like Ricci bringing his bike when reporting to duty for the first time on his new job... the old manager looks up from his desk and observes Ricci holding his bike in his arms and wryly tells him to put the thing down. After departing, Ricci hoists Maria up to the window to peek at the glory of his new job-- WHOOM, the window shutters slam in her face. Moments like this throughout the film, patently Italian moments of outspoken impatience and humor, are at times flattened by CC in an effort to be efficient and precise.

Of course the image has been cleaned up on the CC vs the Image-- and trust me my good man, I own the Image and did for years prior to the CC so as for my comparisons I am not "some of you (who) are relying on DVDBeaver's screen caps." My point is that the difference between the two-- and this should be immediately evident to anyone who has owned both editions-- was not anywhere near as astounding as was hoped. It looks to me that Image and CC started with essentially the same print, and Image's transfer, sans MTI'ing and boosting-- and considering it is in SDef-- doesn't look that far off from CC's. My point isn't to slap down CC's efforts, but to point out the state of the elements and the nature of the Pancro stock used for the film, which can only be taken so far. Those who knocked the Image disc for years were the ones who were underwhelmed by the CC.

A similar situation as something like the difference between the Image Dassins (Brute Force, Naked City) vs the CC's.

When I fell in love with this film, my favourite scene was the one in the restaurant, and my favourite moment in that scene was when Antonio, suddenly stricken with remorse, says to Bruno, ‘You have to earn a fantastic salary to eat here.’ Bruno starts to put down his sandwich, but Antonio gestures him to finish it; there are few more poignant scenes in cinema.

In the Criterion edition, Antonio says, ‘You have to earn a million lire a month to eat here’, which is more ‘accurate’ in the sense that it directly translates what Antonio says – if memory serves, something like ‘millione per mese’ (pardon if mis-spelt) – but makes the line long and laboured (which it isn’t in Italian), and seriously depletes the emotional impact of this simple moment. I feel the same way about the subs in Sansho the Bailiff; they seem more accurate (not that I understand Japanese), and yet the film is far less moving than the one I first saw. I guess Criterion subs are good for students and scholars, though.

If there is no settled answer to this argument, then why are you entertaining the topic? Seems a bit hypocritical...

What sound reasoning. They should deploy you to the Middle East.

I fail to see how that diminishes the moment since it's a reasonably accurate and succinct translation of the Italian, however, Schreck is correct regarding much of the lost-in-translation Roman dialect.

It's called a Discussion, without presentation of Opinion on interpretive aesthetics as Factual Absolute-- but if you'd prefer acting like a straight up knucklehead we can do that too. I'm down for just about anything.

I really disagree, and if you watch the scene and listen to what Antonio actually says, I think you’ll see why. The phrase is something like ‘gagna un million a mese’. Those last three words come out in about a second and a half. There is a world of difference between that and Criterion’s ‘a million lire a month’, even if the latter is a technically accurate translation. I don’t have the dvd to hand, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Criterion specify ‘lire’ – necessarily, because ‘a million a month’ sounds, to a Brit or an American, like an absurd amount of money. So it’s accurate yes, but not succinct. ‘You have to earn a fantastic salary’ is still ‘longer’, so to speak, than the Italian, but it trips off the tongue more easily, and it captures the line’s wistful poignancy, which is lost when you have to do a currency conversion in your head. My subjective reaction, for what it’s worth.

To give an illustrative example from Sansho – at the beginning of the BFI vhs, the text in the prologue says, ‘most of the population were considered less than human’; in the Criterion and MoC editions, it’s something like ‘people had not yet awakened as human beings’. I’d love for a Japanese-speaker to step in here, but the latter sounds like a much more accurate, literal translation. However, the only way I can make sense of it in the context of the film is to translate it a bit more – it can only refer, I think, to the human tendency, prevalent in the Middle Ages, to oppress, enslave and kill each other (behaviour which is 'contrary to humanity', if you like). In other words, the text is saying that this was a period when people were treated as ‘less than human’. So although you have the 'letter' in the subtitles, you have to do some work to get back to the spirit, and if you don't know the language or are seeing the film for the first time, that really isn't what you need. As I said before, though, I think Criterion are catering more to students, or people who already know the film well, for whom a literal translation is of course more useful.

My reaction to the film had always been lukewarm ever since my junior high school teacher showed it. A few visits more over the decades, still lukewarm. I saw it again today after kicking off my work shoes and reheating my leftover ravioli. BOOM! I was transformed into a giant mess. This very simple film somehow punched me so hard this time, maybe its because I've gotten older and more weary of life. I don't know. When I was younger, my taste vroomed more for ambitious films with so much cool stuff (Lynch, Fellini, Greenway, etc), ignoring more simple-looking films. The very simplicity of the film itself became so magnificently, magically complex to me for the first time.. wait a min, that sounds stupid. I really can't put a finger on what it is that makes me feel this certain way. It's like polishing a very simple ordinary rock with dirt and once you get to the heart, it shines - a blue pearl. (Of course pearls dont come from rocks but I say this to emphasize the rarity of this beauty coming from unexpected places). The whole package of the film feels so perfect. It's really THE perfect film in every sense.
More later.