231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
lubitsch
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm

#101 Post by lubitsch » Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:54 am

Film is lies, standpoint, manipulation, subjectivity [...] If you can only handle material that Reinforces Your Own Subjectivity
Oh boy, is there any chance that you understand that BIRTH's racism is not a subjective affair? To reduce every argument about film to a merely subjective comment is nonsense especially if the propagandistic aspect is so obvious it can't be missed.
I can dig Pudovkin, you know why? Because He was a fabulous artist and made fabulous films about stuff I neither believe or even confront in my own time. Dovzhenko? Same thing.
The fabulous films happen to advertise a more and more taotalitarian rule and in the case of EARTH or THE GENERAL LINE a collectivization which was deadly for millions. It's remaerkably dumb to overlook this while you're watching the film.
You could have saved lots of time with lubitsch by reading his views on Godard in his THIRD post on the forum,
Well I'm not alone about this. It's the same game, stylistic excercises without much meaning. To quote Wyler, most of it belongs on the floor of the cutting room.
Another aspect of this - regards the "sentimentality" of the Maria figure and those aspects of Meropolis that Lube doesn't like - the same elements occur not only in Sunrise (perhaps their last gasp) but certainly in Murnau's Faust and Dreyer's Michael. The point is they were part of a Weimar period taste for heightened emotionalism which can and did give rise to quite kitsch depictions in the movies. [...] but the movies and their period require a modern viewer to view them contextually,
A really good movie doesn't need any excuses and there are films from the silent time which avoid this misogynistic nonsense.
Art is too personal. This is why as experience develops, the appreciator of mutual humanity tends to refuse to debate "taste", "good", bad" "intellectual". Lube is looking for, it seems, a universal disqualification process based on his own individual experience-- and this is the problem.
You might have occasionally heard that human rights are universal. If a film opposes this notion being racist, fascist or misogynic, it's not a matter of personal taste to attack it.
I can't help but care deeply for The Village Lad, because despite the political context/goal for the film (promote the spread of/sympathy for communism), the human story is rendered in a way where the tale of human struggle, strife and survival are presented in a universal way where I relate.
Which is exactly the problem. Instead of analyzing what it's all about, you reduce films to your limited point of view.
I also see the road of enemy/rejection-hatred, rife in Lube's posts, to be a source of nothing but further misery-- blindness & more disagreement. It creates nothing but additional hatred and atrophies the mind of the hater. If we're discussing Hitler & Nazi Germany, for example, I think it imperative, if one wants to insure That Sort of Thing Never Happens Again, to take a significant chunk of one's mind and try get inside the mind of Hitler, and the average German of the time.
And what exactly has this to do with the point that I still dislike dubious Third Reich films. After all you do the analysis first and then lash out on the film.
folks of Lube's kind tend to get into trouble for contradiction. First he attacks one of the finest films ever made (SUNRISE) because of the presence of a sexually agressive woman portrayed as a dangerous vamp... then promotes PANDORAS BOX... which portrays what is what out doubt, literally the deadliest sexually agressive vamp of the era... whose sexuality literally destroys men AND helpless well-meaning lesbians alike.
Why am I not the least surprised that you missed the point of PANDORA's BOX completely? SUNRISE and METROPOLIS promote a reactionary stereotyping of sexually active predatory beast and passive housewife/mother. PANDORAS BOX of Pabst who was a much more intelligent filmmaker and not only caring about pictorial aspects is about a catalysator figure who is essentially a innocent child and provoking men's passions by her pure existence. And by these passions she is driven to destructions. The ideological idea is the exact opposite.
Btw it is far from certain that in NIBEL scholarship Alberich is universally seen as rendered by Lang to be beheld by spectators as a Jew.)
Yes it is certain and acknowledged by every serious writer about this film. Alberich is small, hairy, cunning, greedy, treacherous and has a Jewish nose. It's bloody obvious if you know at least a bit about the stereotypization of Jews.
If it is possible to walk into a store and purchase video of attractive runaways & single mothers in desperate need of cash screaming while getting fucked in the ass then drinking from a beaker then swallowing the cum of 6 dudes in sum,[...] Some guy might see a beautiful woman, ascertain that he can nail her, then take her home and fuck her forthwith and pronto. [...] If I was full enough of jizz I might doink an absolutely mind-bendingly beautiful woman
I think all these comments in one post reflect your intellectual level quite well and need no further comment.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#102 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:54 am

lubitsch wrote:....
Whoever it is keeps putting on those press-on nails just to rake em down the chalkboard... from now on I'm going to give that screech the attention it deserves: ignore it.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#103 Post by Gregory » Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:13 pm

Something for all to consider: there's more to discussion than extracting a series of quotes (often out of context and without attribution), firing back retorts, and ignoring the rest of what the person has said. Lubitsch, Schreck, and David all have some potentially vital and convincing arguments here but nothing will come of them because there's not enough willingness to develop them through respectful discussion, to resolve wrong impressions, or to try to thoughtful consider and understand everything the other person is trying to argue. The name of the game seems to be quickly finding a few targets for riposte and racking up points. Sorry for finger-wagging but I do see a lot of wasted potential predominating.

viciousliar
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:12 am

#104 Post by viciousliar » Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:00 pm

You're sweet, Gregory - but lubitsch had it coming. It's hard to take his misguided attempts at self-aggrandizement seriously, if you're asking me(not that you actually did). :roll:
Last edited by viciousliar on Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#105 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:33 am

Gregory wrote:Something for all to consider: there's more to discussion than extracting a series of quotes (often out of context and without attribution), firing back retorts, and ignoring the rest of what the person has said. Lubitsch, Schreck, and David all have some potentially vital and convincing arguments here but nothing will come of them because there's not enough willingness to develop them through respectful discussion, to resolve wrong impressions, or to try to thoughtful consider and understand everything the other person is trying to argue. The name of the game seems to be quickly finding a few targets for riposte and racking up points. Sorry for finger-wagging but I do see a lot of wasted potential predominating.
You're smart enough to know when something is hopeless, Greg-- I admire your politeness, but your intelligence should be telling you more than just "appeal to fairness & goodwill". If I thought the individual on the other side there was a mere agent provocateur, I'd bat the ball around for a little longer having ballsy fun with bull nipples & Georgia Hog Mulch. But this is not the case... first off they are not being honest about their basic identity... and the whole thing is manifesting the kind of off-putting tension you feel when visiting an angry, pissed off cripple or dying person.

User avatar
Max von Mayerling
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:02 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

#106 Post by Max von Mayerling » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:16 pm

Hey, I know it's a little late to say this, but I, for one, would really appreciate it if this thread were actually about the Mabuse dvd rather than the wide ranging Lang/film theory discussion that it has become. I'm all for those kind of discussions, I'd just rather see them in threads of their own rather than overtaking what seems to me should be a relatively narrowly focused thread.

User avatar
The Invunche
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#107 Post by The Invunche » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:25 pm

Oh for god's sake.

viciousliar
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:12 am

#108 Post by viciousliar » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:23 pm

The Invunche wrote:Oh for god's sake.
I have to second The Invunche's *sigh* on this one. If it annoys you, read another thread, please. There are plenty to choose from. :-s

User avatar
Donald Trampoline
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

#109 Post by Donald Trampoline » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:31 pm

Did anyone else sit through the entire French version on this Criterion set?

I find it hard to do right after watching the first one (although it would seem best to do it soon after for comparison purposes), and this seems to be a more frequent practice now, with the same deal on BFI's Threepenny Opera DVD (and there's one other floating out there, isn't there?).

After having sat through the whole French version for Testament, I only hopped around the Threepenny Opera one. It seems kind of boring somehow. Like, "Oh, it's basically the same movie but slightly different." (Of course, there are bigger differences, usually elisions, but usually most everything that remains has its counterpart in the longer original. Not that it would be that much more exciting if it had a few extra scenes.)

I suppose it doesn't help the exercise that the alternate versions are usually of a much poorer film quality.

But I guess it is an excellent resource to have these alternate versions released to the public on commercial DVDs. But just wondering how much everyone out there is really getting out of them.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#110 Post by HerrSchreck » Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:47 am

Donald Trampoline wrote:Did anyone else sit through the entire French version on this Criterion set?
I've owned the DVD since the streeting date and still haven't gotten all the way thru it. Not quite as useless, though, as the inclusion of the "bad" version of KING OF KINGS... I mean I understand that this is the version of KOK that people saw for years, but why in god's name would anyone watch it vs the restored DVD? "Now, for the first time since you just bought this film on DVD, cineastes of all ages can see the same film they just saw on disc one, only in a lower resolution, completely unrestored, totally incomplete print." I mean, to my best knowledge, there's not even any alternate takes on the roadshow print-- it's all the same stuff.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#111 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:32 pm

this might be up there with the Straw Dogs commentary for best Criterion commentary I've ever heard. I wish Kalat was an expert on everything so I could hear more from him, I see he's done a lot of other Lang commentaries, has he done any others worth checking out?

Dr. Mabuse
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:37 pm

#112 Post by Dr. Mabuse » Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:08 pm

Glad you liked his style. Most people I have seen post on the subject, rates Kalat as one of the best. I think his enthusiastic style combined with his incredible knowledge on the subject makes him nr. 1 in my book.

I think he did a commentary track on a Edgar Ulmer release from his own company. (Edit: Strange Woman that is included in Edgar G. Ulmer: Archive)

His commentary on the old Image release of Dr. Mabuse - The Gambler (5 hours +) is a gem. Check out his own label, "All Day Entertainment", he released two of the best Mabuse films from the 60s with commentary (The 1000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse).

Kino's Scarlet Street is also good. He also wrote an essay for the Eyes without a Face DVD. He recently released a book on J-horror movies and is an expert on Godzilla. Check out his commentary on Ghidrah 1964 (included in Classic Media Godzilla box set.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#113 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:39 pm

Wow, thank you for all those tips!

djali999
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 am
Location: Florie-dah

#114 Post by djali999 » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:21 am

He's also about to appear on Classic Media's release of Ghidorah, The Three-Headed Monster. Stuart Galbraith IV will be appearing on Invasion of the Astro-Monsters, too. June 5th I think.

User avatar
teddyleevin
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

#115 Post by teddyleevin » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:28 pm

I wish that Testament got more credit. It's one of my favorite films of all time, and it's definitely one of my favorite Criterion releases. One of my favorite things to do is to study censorship and changes in media. The visual comparison between the film's three versions was breathtaking. It also has one of the best Criterion commentaries I've ever listened to.

User avatar
agnamaracs
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:13 am

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#116 Post by agnamaracs » Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:23 am

The DVD already has the French version... maybe (in light of the recent M release) the Blu-Ray can include the English version, only excerpted on the DVD (and included in full on the OOP Allday disc of the '62 remake)...

Just throwing ideas out there.

User avatar
teddyleevin
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#117 Post by teddyleevin » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:00 am

Film Forum screened this tonight, my first time seeing it in a few years. The 35mm print they used was incredibly worn, tattered, with missing frames throughout. It was preceded by a British film board card. For all closeups of German text, it faded to a shot of the same document with English text.

The subtitles were obviously an old translation (due to vernacular and the typeface used), and one could make out the same text written under the titles in a white chalk (a placeholder before the titles proper were layered in, I assume). Roughly 50% of the dialogue was subtitled. 10% of the remainder consisted of things that probably didn't need translation. But I was lost the other 40% of the time, and it greatly and negatively affected my enjoyment of the film.

My assumption is that a print like this is pretty normal, condition-wise for a film like this. I considered complaining about the subtitles issue. Having that much of the film without subtitles is incredibly frustrating. It was like getting a Wikipedia synopsis of each scene. How old must this print have been? Does this happen often with films like this?

The film had just one screening, so maybe they got a cheap print and didn't bother to make sure it was up to today's standard for the average audience. There's no circulating print that uses the same restoration and titles as the Criterion DVD is there?

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#118 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:30 am

Ha, I was at that same screening- did you hear the old man who kept making odd noises at inappropriate times?

I was wondering when that print was struck myself, as the impression I got from Kalat's commentaries is that a full version of the movie wasn't available in any English language markets until at least the 50s. The subtitling was mildly frustrating, but I'm familiar enough with the film that I didn't feel as though I was missing much, and it was interesting to piece things together from the visual clues- though the Empire of Crime speech was badly hurt by the amount left untranslated. I was more bothered by the missing frames between shots, as they often destroyed Lang's question and answer montage. Still, I brought along a friend who had never seen it and who isn't a huge film person in general, and she was very impressed- and I'd rather see a shoddy 35mm print than a blow up of a perfect blu ray that I can already watch at home. Say what you like, but that print had personality.

User avatar
teddyleevin
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#119 Post by teddyleevin » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:10 am

matrixschmatrix wrote:Ha, I was at that same screening- did you hear the old man who kept making odd noises at inappropriate times?

I was wondering when that print was struck myself, as the impression I got from Kalat's commentaries is that a full version of the movie wasn't available in any English language markets until at least the 50s. The subtitling was mildly frustrating, but I'm familiar enough with the film that I didn't feel as though I was missing much, and it was interesting to piece things together from the visual clues- though the Empire of Crime speech was badly hurt by the amount left untranslated. I was more bothered by the missing frames between shots, as they often destroyed Lang's question and answer montage. Still, I brought along a friend who had never seen it and who isn't a huge film person in general, and she was very impressed- and I'd rather see a shoddy 35mm print than a blow up of a perfect blu ray that I can already watch at home. Say what you like, but that print had personality.
I did hear that man. Very odd. Ran into him on the way out. Just as odd. Almost as distracting, the man snoring next to me the whole film.

I'll agree that that print had personality, and that it was preferable to a digital screening. I'm just surprised that in these day and age, a place like Film Forum would settle for a print like that (still mainly talking about subtitling). The overall print quality definitely added an element of history to the event, and added a thrill and immediacy that a restored DVD would never provide. If there's some Janus print they could have gotten their hands on, I guess it wasn't worth it for one night. Watching that print certainly made me feel transported back to what it must have been like to view that film a decade or several ago.

User avatar
dad1153
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#120 Post by dad1153 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:20 am

Film Forum also screened a pretty rough 35mm print of "Forbidden Games" a few months ago, one that skipped/didn't show the final musical notes and hand closing the book that's present on the Criterion DVD (and to me personally marred an otherwise perfect and personality-filled screening). In this day and age I guess Film Forum will take 35mm prints where they can take them. Based on the descriptions above (and having seen the Criterion DVD multiple times) I would have been furious to have to settle for such an underwhelming print and missing subtitled dialogue for "Testament of Dr. Mabuse."

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#121 Post by matrixschmatrix » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:30 pm

Apparently what we saw may actually have been a Janus print, albeit an elderly one- I emailed David Kalat about it, and he said
Not having seen it, it sounds a lot like the 1960s era print struck by Janus, which was used for the first VHS edition. The overt Nazi references were added to the English-dubbed edition, and wouldn't have been in a subtitled version. I'm a bit puzzled by the English language insert shots, which aren't in the Janus print I've seen, though.

Curioser and curioser said Alice.

User avatar
teddyleevin
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#122 Post by teddyleevin » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:56 pm

I don't want to get us too far off-topic, but how much of a right to folks like us have to complain? Surely we're a major demographic that they're trying to market such obscure repertory screenings to. I'm a Film Forum member and considered raising a fuss, but I couldn't bring myself to explain to a non-profit theater that the print of the obscure, 1933 foreign film print that they showed was not good enough. I felt a pre-emptive embarrassment at the thought. Would my complaint be justified? Do I deserve my 7 dollars back? I heard some young people (probably older than I am, but under 30) leaving the theater excitedly discussing the plot, so it seemed the screening was effective at least to some extent. My complaints were probably not widespread.

Based on Kalat's response, it sounds like there isn't total quality control over what prints they grab (I'm sure this 1933 retrospective has been a bit of a headache for them). As a member, maybe they'd be happy to hear my comments and concerns, but the days where we even have prints to complain about are numbered. Does the film snob keep his mouth shut or demand prints that meet today's standards and perspectives of quality? In order to compete with people able to stream Criterion/Janus titles online in HD and with generally good translations, don't these art house theaters have to provide the best possible product to convince those on the fence that the theatrical print experience is worth the price of a monthly Hulu membership? The theater has been selling out screenings of Amour for months now, so they probably don't heavily consider the loss of business from dejected Fritz Lang fans, unsatisfied with the prints being screened. I assume that their print of M next month (far more than just the one screening they gave Testament) will (not by coincidence) bring in an audience and will be of a high quality.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#123 Post by zedz » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:05 pm

It's not like repertory cinemas have a catalogue of available prints of different films to select from. They request a print from the appropriate source and are sent one - maybe the only one the distributor owns. If you're holding out for pristine, freshly subtitled prints of classic films, you will die long before you get to see most things.

In short, the "best possible product" you are talking about either doesn't exist in physical form, or if it does, it's held in an archive, quite likely on another continent, and is completely inaccessible to your local repertory cinema.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#124 Post by matrixschmatrix » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:37 pm

teddyleevin wrote:I don't want to get us too far off-topic, but how much of a right to folks like us have to complain? Surely we're a major demographic that they're trying to market such obscure repertory screenings to. I'm a Film Forum member and considered raising a fuss, but I couldn't bring myself to explain to a non-profit theater that the print of the obscure, 1933 foreign film print that they showed was not good enough. I felt a pre-emptive embarrassment at the thought. Would my complaint be justified? Do I deserve my 7 dollars back? I heard some young people (probably older than I am, but under 30) leaving the theater excitedly discussing the plot, so it seemed the screening was effective at least to some extent. My complaints were probably not widespread.
Haha, there's maybe a 50/50 shot that was my friend and I, since we arrived late and there was a bit of plotting in the beginning she'd missed.
Based on Kalat's response, it sounds like there isn't total quality control over what prints they grab (I'm sure this 1933 retrospective has been a bit of a headache for them). As a member, maybe they'd be happy to hear my comments and concerns, but the days where we even have prints to complain about are numbered. Does the film snob keep his mouth shut or demand prints that meet today's standards and perspectives of quality? In order to compete with people able to stream Criterion/Janus titles online in HD and with generally good translations, don't these art house theaters have to provide the best possible product to convince those on the fence that the theatrical print experience is worth the price of a monthly Hulu membership? The theater has been selling out screenings of Amour for months now, so they probably don't heavily consider the loss of business from dejected Fritz Lang fans, unsatisfied with the prints being screened. I assume that their print of M next month (far more than just the one screening they gave Testament) will (not by coincidence) bring in an audience and will be of a high quality.
Well, as I said, I'd happily take a run down print over a pristine digital projection, and my worry would be that they'd figure that people just won't be satisfied with anything that shows obvious signs of degradation or age- I mean, I literally drove three hours to get to see that screening, and I was happy that I did. If it were a matter of shoddy presentation on the theater's part, absolutely I'd complain, but I think this fits into the 'best available elements' category, and that's always something I can live with.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 231 The Testament of Dr. Mabuse

#125 Post by MichaelB » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:03 am

zedz wrote:It's not like repertory cinemas have a catalogue of available prints of different films to select from. They request a print from the appropriate source and are sent one - maybe the only one the distributor owns. If you're holding out for pristine, freshly subtitled prints of classic films, you will die long before you get to see most things.

In short, the "best possible product" you are talking about either doesn't exist in physical form, or if it does, it's held in an archive, quite likely on another continent, and is completely inaccessible to your local repertory cinema.
Speaking as a former repertory cinema manager of several years' standing, I can confirm that this is absolutely correct. Many distributors do indeed only have one print of particular titles available for commercial bookings, and it's simply not cost-effective to strike any more just to service very occasional repertory outings. (This was true enough twenty years ago when there was still a viable repertory sector, so the situation will only have got worse in the meantime).

We used to keep a detailed record of print quality, and if it dropped below a certain level we simply wouldn't book that film again - but that's pretty much all you can do. This is actually a major reason why I'm not at all averse to digital screenings, since at least they banish that particular bugbear.

Post Reply