10 Francesco giullare di Dio

[Doctor Sunshine]

Mr. Tooze also indicated that it is the sharpness of the Criterion what brings out the damage. Want to see even less damage? Blur your eyes while you watch it.

Here's another quote which indicates that there is no clear winner: "Our advice is to purchase the one that is easiest to buy in your geographical region." Please read that quote two, maybe three times for emphases.

[Bleddyn Williams]

Picking between the MoC and Criterion isn't easy for me. On the one hand, I've really enjoyed the MoCs I've collected to date, but the Beaver's comparison really makes the Criterion look more detailed - look at the texture of the robe in the 5th shot!

I know that screenshots don't tell all the story. I wonder if anyone has actually been able to compare the discs. On the other hand, the MoC can be had for under ten bones from CDwow. That's a great price to try a film you're unfamiliar with, and the MoC package sounds awesome. Criterion's is regular price, and to be honest, there are a lot of films out there and I just might never get around to it.

I'll probably buy the MoC because I've deeply enjoyed the ones I have, and otherwise I might just never see this film. In a way I just wish I hadn't seen the comparison!

[Lino]

I recently watched this one for the very first time (the MoC version) on Easter Saturday and it proved to be the perfect film to play on such a season. Such pure feelings, such tender moments, such inspiring words on such a simple and naked film are very rare. Definitely one that I will watch again and again. Oh, and Nick: top marks for the booklet!

[skuhn8]

Definitely one that I will watch again and again. Oh, and Nick: top marks for the booklet!

I thought about (re)watching this one for Easter. Truth be told I watched La Ricotta [sic] (Pasolini's short passion fracas) the day before Easter on accident and became curious about what would make good Easter viewing if one were inclined to program according to calender events. I contemplated Passolini's Passion of Matthew as well but then tossed the whole notion aside, opting instead for a fine bottle of Christ's blood (ouch, sorry) and Sideways to raise the spirits.

[reaky]

Today's Independent On Sunday is advertising this (MoC cover and all) as a giveaway DVD in next Saturday's Independent.

In the past The Indie has had a deal with Arrow Films that resulted in some excellent free non-English language DVDs. Is this the beginning of a similar arrangement with Eureka/MoC, Nick?

[Subbuteo]

Ditto! a friend rang me this afternoon with such news. Can it be so?

[peerpee]

No others planned at the moment. The Independent version of FRANCESCO will not come with any of the many extras on the MoC edition.

[MichaelB]

No others planned at the moment. The Independent version of FRANCESCO will not come with any of the many extras on the MoC edition.

Will it be the same transfer? Quite a few of these newspaper giveaways are very conspicuously inferior in terms of bitrate to the commercial releases - not too surprisingly, I suppose, since they're invariably DVD-5s produced as cheaply as possible.

[peerpee]

Almost definitely compressed to DVD5 (as the MoC transfer alone requires a DVD9), but same origin.

[akaten]

Sight & Sound has an interesting feature on this film, which can be read on the BFI page(see below). They've opt for the title Francis, God's Jester and there also appears to be a retrospective of Rossellini films throughout May:

Roberto Rossellini: 6 - 31 May 2007

You Must Be Joking

[MichaelB]

They've opt for the title Francis, God's Jester

That's always been the UK release title - MoC was the one breaking with convention.

[peerpee]

Not true. We thought very hard about this. The UK theatrical release title, according to the bbfc, was "SAINT FRANCIS GOD'S JESTER" (no comma).

The film is widely known in the West as "THE FLOWERS OF ST. FRANCIS", and this title is most associated with the cut, American version of the film.

The BFI have referred to the film as "FRANCIS, GOD'S JESTER" in various retrospectives over the years, and still do, but as far as MoC are concerned, the original Italian title is always preferable to whatever English translation was chosen on release. Criterion's choice of title as "THE FLOWERS OF ST. FRANCIS" is neither a correct translation nor a historically accurate representation of the cut that was always known by that name in America (as their version, like the MoC edition, is the complete, director's Italian cut).

Just as we wouldn't refer to EUROPA '51 as "NO GREATER LOVE" (it's UK release title) --- or VIAGGIO IN ITALIA as "JOURNEY TO ITALY" - (the title chosen by the BFI in the UK for its DVD release).

The forthcoming MoC editions of "THE LAST LAUGH" and "WOMAN IN THE MOON" will be titled, "DER LETZTE MANN" and "FRAU IM MOND" respectively, in respect of their native language, and as a flick of the fingers to the dumbing down of foreign culture in the English-speaking West.

[MichaelB]

Not true. We thought very hard about this. The UK theatrical release title, according to the bbfc, was "SAINT FRANCIS GOD'S JESTER" (no comma).

I wouldn't rely on the BBFC of the 1950s as the most reliable arbiter - not least because titles sometimes get changed between vetting and release. And I also note that this title doesn't appear in the BFI's SIFT filmographic database, which suggests that it was in fact released and reviewed under a different title (presumably Francis, God's Jester, though it also lists The Flowers of St Francis, Francis God's Fool and The Adventures of St Francis).

The BFI have referred to the film as "FRANCIS, GOD'S JESTER" in various retrospectives over the years, and still do, but as far as MoC are concerned, the original Italian title is always preferable to whatever English translation was chosen on release.

In this case, I'd probably agree with you (not least because of multiple English versions), but what about a situation where the English title is infinitely better known than the original? For example, were you to release a certain Belgian black comedy from 1993, would you call it Man Bites Dog or C'est arrivé près de chez vous?

The forthcoming MoC editions of "THE LAST LAUGH" and "WOMAN IN THE MOON" will be titled, "DER LETZTE MANN" and "FRAU IM MOND" respectively, in respect of their native language, and as a flick of the fingers to the dumbing down of foreign culture in the English-speaking West.

My attitude has always been to refer to films by the title by which the film is best known in the country in which it's being released - so La Dolce Vita and Belle de Jour, but also The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and Betty Blue. And indeed The Last Laugh.

The "dumbing down" argument only really works if you're prepared to apply consistency across the board - i.e. list non-Western European films by their original title, which you don't. (Second Run is just about the only UK label I can think of that presents the original title alongside an English one in the same size of typeface).

I do sympathise, though - when putting the BFI's upcoming Å vankmajer set together, there was clearly no question that the original titles would appear somewhere in the package other than on the actual films themselves (and correctly spelt with the appropriate diacritics), but putting them on the packaging and menus just wasn't practical. It was hard enough fitting 26 titles (plus half a dozen extras) on the box in the first place!

[denti alligator]

I want to bring up the issue of MoC vs Criterion (again). I own the MoC and I have to say I'm slightly disappointed. It seems to suffer from artifical tampering of the image. I doubt this was MoC's doing (in fact I'm sure it wasn't), but it's quite noticeable and makes the Criterion a clear winner in terms of crispness and clarity of image. I'm still keeping the MoC for extras, booklet, and far superior cover art.

[peerpee]

In this case, I'd probably agree with you (not least because of multiple English versions), but what about a situation where the English title is infinitely better known than the original? For example, were you to release a certain Belgian black comedy from 1993, would you call it Man Bites Dog or C'est arrivé près de chez vous?

Well, there's always an exception to the best intentions

My attitude has always been to refer to films by the title by which the film is best known in the country in which it's being released - so La Dolce Vita and Belle de Jour, but also The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and Betty Blue. And indeed The Last Laugh.

I agree with you on all of those, except THE LAST LAUGH, which is one of the worst examples of 'badly-named English title' there is. DER LETZTE MANN translating as THE LAST MAN, of course. It was named THE LAST LAUGH here because that's the name the US distributor gave it. We're just trying to undo things like this, instead of perpetuating poor decisions that were nothing to do with the director. In a few hundred years, it might pay off.

The "dumbing down" argument only really works if you're prepared to apply consistency across the board - i.e. list non-Western European films by their original title, which you don't. (Second Run is just about the only UK label I can think of that presents the original title alongside an English one in the same size of typeface).

We did put the text "FRANCIS, GOD'S JESTER" on the front cover of our FRANCESCO, GIULLARE DI DIO. Admittedly, not in the same fontsize that Second Run do though.

I want to bring up the issue of MoC vs Criterion (again). I own the MoC and I have to say I'm slightly disappointed. It seems to suffer from artifical tampering of the image. I doubt this was MoC's doing (in fact I'm sure it wasn't), but it's quite noticeable and makes the Criterion a clear winner in terms of crispness and clarity of image. I'm still keeping the MoC for extras, booklet, and far superior cover art.

Denti, I'm sorry you don't like the MoC edition. We think it's pretty darn good. At the time we worked on this it was this or nothing. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to throw another £20,000 at a film to raise it from "pretty darn good" to "stunning", we'd rather spend that extra money on another film. It's a constant juggling act.

[denti alligator]

I understand completely and don't slight you for it one bit. It's a darn good edition, and worth holding on to. Fans should get both editions. I just think the picture is better on the Criterion.

You guys are still the better company in my book!! Keep it up!
(Plus you outdid them with Vengeance is Mine in terms of picture by what looks to be a long shot.)

[a.khan]

The forthcoming MoC editions of "THE LAST LAUGH" and "WOMAN IN THE MOON" will be titled, "DER LETZTE MANN" and "FRAU IM MOND" respectively, in respect of their native language, and as a flick of the fingers to the dumbing down of foreign culture in the English-speaking West.

Your intentions are noble; I commend the thought. But by the same token, should we then also NOT have English subtitles on the feature itself -- you know, in respect of the native language, and to avoid dumbing down of foreign culture? (Sure, we can switch the subs on/off as need be; though this is not possible with printed words on DVD artworks.)

There are two forces at play here: (1) Appeasing the cinephile by using the original title only, as is; and (2) Introducing new people to the film. I understand English perfectly, so if I see the title “Woman in the Moonâ€

[MichaelB]

We're just trying to undo things like this, instead of perpetuating poor decisions that were nothing to do with the director. In a few hundred years, it might pay off.

When drawing up the menus for the BFI's Å vankmajer set, given that we'd already decided that including the original Czech titles would be absurdly anal (and a design nightmare, given that there are 26 shorts across four menus), our next challenge was to decide which English titles to use.

In most cases this was easy, since there's a single official English title valid on both sides of the Atlantic. In the case of the occasional discrepancy - Mužné hry is Virile Games in the UK and Manly Games in the US, both perfectly acceptable translations - I generally went with the UK version (which in this case I preferred anyway).

But there were three more contentious titles. Don Å ajn was released under that title by the BFI in 1988, but since most Å vankmajer critical commentary since then has referred to it as Don Juan, I thought it was more appropriate to make that change. (Which is stylistically consistent, since his other literary adaptations are given English titles).

Možnosti dialogu translates literally as Possibilities of Dialogue, which I think is closer to what Švankmajer intended - but as it's by far his best-known short, I thought it would be rocking the boat altogether too much if I changed the title from Dimensions of Dialogue.

The one I thought longest and hardest about was RakviÄ

[evillights]

I don't think there's a problem with including the exact title, along with a small "Released in the Past as ________" somewhere on the package, just to allay any confusion.

Personally, I view the "translation" of a human being's given name into another form as a moral obscenity. i.e., "Jeanne" => "Joan" // "Francesco" => "Francis" // "Piotr" => "Peter" // "Aleksandr" => "Alexander / Alexandre" and so on. It's extremely upsetting, grandly arrogant, and a move toward effacing identity from a person "real" or "fictional."

In the case of the two forthcoming MoC titles (and those two specifically), the thinking goes something like this:

(1) The title 'The Last Laugh' has never been representative of the German title; it's a meaningless, distributor-chosen title, which corresponds to an English-language "idiom" -- "oh, who'll have the last laugh?? oh, he'll have the last laugh!!!" The German title, 'Der letzte Mann,' -- or, "The Last Man" -- carries with it a tragic connotation that is absent from the English title, which, if anything, seems to emphasize "melodramatic gestures." Not that Emil Jannings is without his melodramatic gestures -- but he's one of the actors one can call a "ham (but in a non-pejorative sense!!!!)." He's nothing if not a product of his great directors, who knew how to play his extraordinary talents extraordinarily well.

(2) The title 'Frau im Mond' has, in the past, been served word-for-word by the English translation. (And I would argue that as "common" as it is for someone who knows the film to "know it" by 'Woman in the Moon,' this knowing-it would likely be non-exclusive, as that same-someone would also probably be the sort of person who has encountered its mention many many times in books, magazines, and so on, and therefore also knows that for every time it's been referred to in an English-language work as 'Woman in the Moon' it has also been referred to -- either variously, or in parens near the English title -- as 'Frau im Mond.' As is the case, just grabbing a book sitting within arm's length, inside the English translation of Lotte Eisner's 'Fritz Lang,' wherein the German title has been presented as the main title, with the English in parens. Not like we need to look to Eisner to provide anything definitive, ever, but as long as we're talking "precedents"...)

That (all that) said, and Nick and I have discussed this, there is something inherently mysterious within Lang's (and Harbou's) title, that I don't believe is particularly "well"-served by that word-for-word English translation. Yes, "Frau im Mond" means "Woman in the Moon" -- but what does "Woman in the Moon" -mean- exactly? Is it a reference to one of the characters among the many on the ship happening to be a woman, and, in the company of the others, landing 'on' the moon? Is it a wry permutation of the ages-old notion of "the man in the moon"? Are either of these aforementioned possibilities being possibly-emphasized by the title because the woman happens to be the center of the love conflict that runs parallel to the hijacking-the-mission-for-moon-gold conflict? Is it also possibly an echo of the title of Méliès's film, which is not simply a "Trip TO the Moon" as is often cited, but rather 'Le Voyage dans la lune' -- a "Trip Inside the Moon"? (And taking that into consideration, we note that only a couple of the characters penetrate the actual 'interior' of the moon in Lang's film.)

Well, I would say: possibly all of the above; and/or, as I believe, the title is a cipher (meaning+breakdown-of-meaning, within the best [and often sensational, and certainly inimitable] Lang tradition) -- and that being the case (in my view), the English title, 'Woman in the Moon,' rings dead to the ears. In a way that the German, 'Frau im Mond,' does not. Three monosyllables, muffled staccato, dipping stress in the middle. Muted incantation. Small suggestion of dread. Soaring warning. So: 'Frau im Mond' it is.

As a P.S. -- I have always been of the belief that no matter what title the domestic distributor or producers ever place on a title card, it's the title-intended-by-the-director that counts, and is the TRUE title of the film. The only hindrance is that the title optical would have to be changed for the negative, prints, transfers, and so on -- however, a subtitle could, and should, always be added, with the true author's title, when new opticals can't be drummed up or digital work done for the title card.

The fact that it's the "money-men" who have contributed the common titles of films like 'Blind Husbands,' 'The Devil Is a Woman,' 'Forty Guns,' or 'Hard Eight' to our culture seems to me not just absurd but manifestly vulgar. You can bet if MoC ever release any of these films, at some point in the future (that's not a hint, it's a hypothetical), they'll be titled: 'The Pinnacle' (which is actually, nevertheless, mentioned on one of the opening cards as the title of Stroheim's novel from which he's adapted his film!), 'Caprice Espagnole' (a phrase actually uttered within the film itself!), 'The Woman with a Whip,' and 'Sydney,' respectively. The word of the author/artist must override the decree of the studio, producer, money-men. . . every, single, time. Or there is no point to anything.

craig.

[skuhn8]

Well-stated, Craig. I, for one, wholeheartedly agree with the effort to right the wrongs of the dummy-down money-men of the past. Especially with a title like "Last Laugh"; sounds like a Lubitsch throwaway title. I don't think any of us are going to miss out on one of these titles solely due to punching in the wrong title in a e-tailer web site. Perhaps MOC will lose a few sales due to consumer confusion....but to put it bluntly: that's their affair and I'm sure they've weighed the potential costs. In short, if they're willing to sacrifice a few sales for a greater good I applaud their efforts. [pulls wallet from pocket; checks contents; frowns] And I'll be kicking down some Washingtons to back up that applause.

[Tommaso]

It's interesting to see how Japanese titles are handled by both Criterion and MoC. Why, for instance with MoC, "Kuroneko" and "Onibaba", but not "Ansatsu" (replaced by "Assassination" instead)? Or the forthcoming Shinoda film, "Chinmoku", as "Silence"? I assume because the latter titles are direct translations from the Japanese, so that they don't fall into the "Der letzte Mann" category?

Or take Criterion: It's perhaps understandable that no-one would release a well known film like "Throne of Blood" with its original title, but that original title means "Spider-Web Castle", and it would have been great to have the original meaning reinstated. "Ikiru" was released as just that, although "To live" (reversing the argument) would have been as short and as memorable. But worst of all: Why replace the Japanese title of Kobayashi's "Seppuku" with another Japanese word meaning the same (but apparently for Japanese audiences, sounding somewhat plebeian), "Harakiri"?

[Tommaso]

I don't think there's a problem with including the exact title, along with a small "Released in the Past as ________" somewhere on the package, just to allay any confusion.

That's certainly the best idea, especially with films in non-European languages, where most people cannot easily find out the meaning of the original title (although imdb is sometimes helpful). To be fair to Criterion, in many cases they point out the original title and its meaning somewhere in the whole package (if only in the booklet or in the audio commentary). I'm pretty sure they did this with "Throne of Blood" and "Samurai Rebellion", otherwise I wouldn't have known. But your translation of the Japanese title of "Double Suicide" is rather illuminating, and I'm sure Criterion kept quiet about it...

[zedz]

That's certainly the best idea, especially with films in non-European languages, where most people cannot easily find out the meaning of the original title (although imdb is sometimes helpful).

Well, that's certainly the best idea for the tiny group of people represented on this site, but the commercial reality is that Criterion et al. tends to use the titles by which the majority of their audience already know the film (hence Onibaba and Harakiri, for example). Kurosawa's film is universally known in English-speaking regions as Throne of Blood, and that's the title which most of the target market (e.g. people who saw the film in a cinema years ago, people who are trying to track down the Kurosawa films they've read about in general texts, students looking for famous adaptations of Shakespeare) will be looking for on the shelves of their local Borders or video store. Relegating the best-known title to a footnote will likely cost a sale.

I applaud any attempt to use a more accurate translation (as was the case with Bicycle Thieves, though in that case there's only a short distance between the two titles), and the correct meaning of the original title should definitely be acknowledged in the supporting materials, but in many cases the release title, however wonky, is so ingrained that it's unrealistic to expect a change.

[MichaelB]

Personally, I view the "translation" of a human being's given name into another form as a moral obscenity. i.e., "Jeanne" => "Joan" // "Francesco" => "Francis" // "Piotr" => "Peter" // "Aleksandr" => "Alexander / Alexandre" and so on. It's extremely upsetting, grandly arrogant, and a move toward effacing identity from a person "real" or "fictional."

Well, if it's "extremely upsetting" and a "moral obscenity", then surely it's incumbent on us to go even further and only use the appropriate writing system?

After all, 'Aleksandr' and 'Piotr' are merely transliterations of the Cyrillic using whatever system you deem to be appropriate. (Not even widely-recognised spellings are necessarily sacrosanct: I have a sneaking admiration for the way the musicologist Richard Taruskin insists on spelling a certain famous Russian 19th-century composer's surname as 'Chaikovsky'). And Chinese transliteration systems offer even more extreme divergences from the original - not to mention frequent Anglicisation.

So where does a "moral obscenity" end and a practical solution to an otherwise insurmountable problem begin? I imagine MoC isn't about to release a Jackie Chan film any time soon, but if you were, what would you call him? Chen Long? Sing Lung? 陈港生? Or even 陳æˆ

[Dr Amicus]

When I were a wee lad, long before the days of distinguished doctor-dom, one of my undergrad film courses was on Rossellini, taken by Michael Grant and an Italian colleague, whose name has long since vanished into the depths of my memory never to return. Anyway, the point of all this is that in their, and specifically the guy whose name escapes me, opinion, the most accurate translation is Francis, God's Troubadour.

Now, just waiting to see if this sets up a discussion as to the differences between a Troubadour and a Jester.