84-85 Phantom & Die Finanzen des Großherzogs

Discuss releases by Eureka and Masters of Cinema and the films on them.
Message
Author
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 84 Phantom

#51 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:01 pm

Tommaso wrote:Too bad that I cannot watch the divisa disc for a comparison anymore (already sold via ebay), but looking at those caps, and the size-reduced ones from the divisa I once posted in the Silent Film thread, it seems to me that the MoC is far closer to the divisa than to the Kino in terms of colour intensity, and I actually prefer the stronger colours here. Which one is more correct is everyone's guess of course, but I would assume that divisa and MoC used the same transfer, whereas Kino didn't. Or Kino manipulated it a bit in the process; they had to change it anyway for getting their intertitle translations into it.

Inserting intertitles doesn't mean you undo the work of the telecine colorist, Tom. There's no reason to jump from the task of intertitle translation to modifying the palette of the film. I'd add that the intertitles on the German language discs appear to be electronically recreated, just as the English language one have been (I could be wrong but they have that perfect look without the image deterioration present in vintage print intertitles), so it's a matter in both cases of transferring/correcting the film elements, then inserting the electronic intertitles in whatever language the encode's market is going to correspond to.

As for which is better, it's kind of like the Michael scenario-- they both have their ups and downs. Sometimes the MoC looks like a newer, crisper, tighter print because of the boost, and then it in some shots seems to create garish phenomena; look at the sixth set of caps down, where you see Al Abel sitting at the outdoor cafe table at night. Look at the background details, particularly things like the vertical pillar, and the lights to the left of it, over the old womans head. You're getting some unwanted mottled effects/artifacts there, via the boosting seeming to interact with the grain structure and the chroma that seems to lightly touch both discs. The Kino looks smooth and filmic and the MoC looks chunky. Look at the word "Cinema" spelled in lights in the background between the two. The MoC almost looks like it says CIMEMA because of the mottling effect.

But then you have caps where the MoC looks better too, nice a crisp and tight. So go figure.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: 84 Phantom

#52 Post by Tommaso » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:30 pm

Ah, do you mean the English titles might have already been provided by FWMS/Transit when they sent the transfer to Kino? Might well be, I didn't think about this possibility at all. And the German titles almost certainly are recreated, too, as you say. Also, you're of course right about the "CINEMA"-logo et al. Perhaps it's because I've only seen the divisa so far that I assumed the stronger colours are the way this film or at least this resto should look. But I see your points about artefacting etc, though I simply wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't pointed them out (and I surely didn't notice anything wrong in this respect when watching the Spanish disc, but probably only because I followed the film...).

Of course, it's no real indication, but how does the Flicker Alley "Phantom" compare to the MoC in terms of colour/contrast? The MoC also seems to have very vivid tintings, but so had the arte broadcast (and the resto is newer and looked probably superior to "Finanzen" from the beginning).

zone_resident
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:33 pm

Re: 84 Phantom

#53 Post by zone_resident » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:21 pm

DVD Times on Phantom & Die Finanzen des Groβherzogs

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: 84 Phantom

#54 Post by Der Spieler » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:28 pm

How did this get 2/10 for extras? It has a 40-pages booklet and a commentary track.

I guess some people just don't understand the importance and difficulty of the work that is done by MoC.

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

Re: 84 Phantom

#55 Post by MichaelB » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:06 am

Der Spieler wrote:How did this get 2/10 for extras? It has a 40-pages booklet and a commentary track.
Yes, I'm equally baffled by this, especially since I thought Gary was being pretty stingy giving just 3/10 to Second Run's Celia, with its three booklet pieces, stills gallery and video interview with the director.

Although I think the Celia booklet was pretty good for its near-nonexistent production budget (full disclosure: I wrote some of it), it certainly falls short of MoC's sterling effort - Janet Bergstrom offers more detail, as well as illustrations that are explicitly linked to the text, not just plonked in as space fillers. So I think we can say that MoC fully matches the Celia booklet and stills gallery at the very least.

And when you compare the Ann Turner interview with David Kalat's commentary, it just gets silly - there's nothing wrong with the former, but it's only around thirteen minutes of reminiscences versus vastly more detail (both anecdotal and analytical) in the latter. And it's not as though Kalat wastes that space with waffling: this is one of the more informative commentaries I've heard of late.

I really hope Gary's system isn't quite as crudely quantitative as it appears to be (i.e. Second Run booklet+gallery+interview = 3, MoC booklet+commentary = 2), but I'm hard pushed to think of an alternative explanation.

User avatar
GaryC
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: 84 Phantom

#56 Post by GaryC » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:38 pm

I've now replied in the review comments.

Incidentally, the PDF of the booklet I received is 21 pages long (presumably 24 including covers). Maybe PDF pages don't correspond to printed pages, but looking at the layout they seem to do.

User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: 84 Phantom

#57 Post by perkizitore » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:42 pm

If the information that is given in the commentary, was provided by video essays and featurettes, would you be satisfied? :lol:

User avatar
GaryC
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: 84 Phantom

#58 Post by GaryC » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:54 pm

perkizitore wrote:If the information that is given in the commentary, was provided by video essays and featurettes, would you be satisfied? :lol:
That would depend on the video essays or featurettes themselves.

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

Re: 84 Phantom

#59 Post by MichaelB » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:36 pm

GaryC wrote:Incidentally, the PDF of the booklet I received is 21 pages long (presumably 24 including covers). Maybe PDF pages don't correspond to printed pages, but looking at the layout they seem to do.
This is baffling, unless you have a different PDF file from the one MoC sent me - which seems wildly unlikely.

I have it open right now, and it's very obvious that pages 1 and 21 consist of the front and back cover, while pages 2-20 inclusive are double-page spreads. If you don't believe me, have a look at the bottom of, say, page 20 - you'll see the numbers '38' and '39'.

User avatar
GaryC
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: 84 Phantom

#60 Post by GaryC » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:14 pm

Okay, fair enough. Very small on my PC monitor, or else I need stronger glasses. :)

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: 84 Phantom

#61 Post by Der Spieler » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:50 pm

How about getting your shit together before writing a review next time?

cinemartin

Re: 84 Phantom

#62 Post by cinemartin » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:25 pm

Woa. Too bad you can't bare knuckle brawl over the internet.

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: 84 Phantom

#63 Post by Der Spieler » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:36 pm

It just seems to me that giving a bad note to a product without having properly looked at it is kind of lame.

You can fight me all you want, it won't really matter...

User avatar
GaryC
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: 84 Phantom

#64 Post by GaryC » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:44 am

Der Spieler wrote:It just seems to me that giving a bad note to a product without having properly looked at it is kind of lame.

You can fight me all you want, it won't really matter...
I never mentioned the page-count in the review, so your criticism is irrelevant. I'm quite capable of reading the text of the booklet, and I did, and I covered it in the review more than adequately I believe. You'll find I'm complimentary about it, as I have been about the contents of the booklet of just about every other MoC DVD I've reviewed. There are also MoC DVDs (and Second Run DVDs and for that matter BFI and Criterion DVDs) I own which I didn't review and bought with my own money. If I had more disposable income I would have more of them. To suggest that I'm not appreciative of these distributors's efforts (and no, I'm not professionally connected to any of them) is absurd.

My comment Very small on my PC monitor, or else I need stronger glasses. was meant ironically (I do wear glasses, but don't need them for PC viewing) and I suspect that even with a smiley attached irony doesn't always come across on the Internet. If you have never made a minor oversight like that, then you are a better man/woman than I - those on this board who also write reviews that I've read are certainly not without sin in that regard.

This was an argument about the score I gave to extras. As you will see from the review, I have reconsidered and revised it.

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

Re: 84 Phantom

#65 Post by MichaelB » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:27 am

Der Spieler wrote:It just seems to me that giving a bad note to a product without having properly looked at it is kind of lame.

You can fight me all you want, it won't really matter...
In Gary's defence, it's worth noting that reviewers don't necessarily get what the general public will get.

When I'm given MoC discs to review, I get checkdiscs plus a single-sheet press release. Because the booklet is the last thing to be produced, it's usually not ready when the checkdiscs go out - so I email Nick and tell him my deadline, and he usually gets a PDF to me in time. So a reviewer does have to make a certain imaginative leap regarding visualising what the final package will look like, and I appreciate that it's harder for someone writing a DVD-Times style in-depth review (Gary) than for someone only knocking out a 175-word capsule with just 25 words covering the presentation (me, typically).

On the other hand, a page count is pretty fundamental - and to me it's obvious just looking at the PDF that most of the pages are double-page spreads. Either that or Nick's experimenting with a weird elongated format, and while I know he's been having problems with Blu-ray case compatibility, I'm not sure that's the perfect solution...

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: 84 Phantom

#66 Post by Sloper » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:51 am

The '2' for the extras was obviously an oversight, but I don't really understand why people get so hung up on these ratings. The review itself was pretty good I thought, and gave more information about the extras (especially the commentary) than the Beaver did. Also, unless I missed something, Mr. Tooze did not (and usually doesn't) mention the musical scores in his review, which is genuinely annoying. This is something that actual fans of silent films would want to know about, and (again, unless I've missed something...) the info doesn't seem to be on Amazon or even the MoC website. That's the kind of thing I really appreciate about these more in-depth reviews, because if I'm going to have to put up with Donald Sosin I want to brace myself in advance.

Fair enough to point out the mistake, but there's no cause for Der Spieler to be spoiling for a fight over this, or saying this reviewer needs to 'get his shit together'.

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

Re: 84 Phantom

#67 Post by MichaelB » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:18 am

A major part of the problem is that Gary, like me, despises star ratings and quantitative scores in general.

It's not the main reason I don't write for DVD Times much any more (the fact that they don't pay their contributors looms rather larger), but it's comfortably the least enjoyable aspect of writing a review, not least because I know people will fixate on that as though it was in some way meaningful instead of concentrating on the review's substance.

Someone asked me if I'd seen a particular film the other day, and I said that I didn't fancy it. She said "But it got four stars!", as if that made all the difference - needless to say, she couldn't tell me who awarded these stars, what they were out of (four? five? ten? fifty?) or the publication. I suspect she just got it off one of those ghastly posters that prints a thicket of stars and digits in lieu of actual comments.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 84 Phantom

#68 Post by swo17 » Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:44 am

MichaelB wrote:what they were out of (four? five? ten? fifty?)
This is a key distinction. In disdain of the rating system, I once awarded something for my college paper eight stars out of five.

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: 84 Phantom

#69 Post by Der Spieler » Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:49 am

Sloper wrote: Fair enough to point out the mistake, but there's no cause for Der Spieler to be spoiling for a fight over this, or saying this reviewer needs to 'get his shit together'.
Yeah, maybe I was a little rude, I apologize for that.

I get protective when it comes to MoC for some reason. 8-)

User avatar
GaryC
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: 84 Phantom

#70 Post by GaryC » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:44 pm

Apology accepted. Let's move on.

User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: 84 Phantom

#71 Post by perkizitore » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:21 pm

GaryC wrote:Apology accepted. Let's move on.
Yes, to more 3-4 star ratings! :P

User avatar
skuhn8
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: 84 Phantom

#72 Post by skuhn8 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:08 am

Wow, gotta say: this Gary certainly takes it a lot better than our other Gary. Kudos Mr. Couzens.

HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: 84 Phantom

#73 Post by HarryLong » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:39 am

because if I'm going to have to put up with Donald Sosin I want to brace myself in advance
And, uh, sloper, what do you do if it's Alloy Orchestra ...?

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: 84 Phantom

#74 Post by Sloper » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:58 pm

I ask nurse to tighten the straps and break out the sedatives. I do that most evenings, though.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

Re: 84 Phantom

#75 Post by Yojimbo » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:53 pm

Tommaso wrote:Phew...difficult question. I'd say that in a way it's more in the mainstream of Weimar cinema than "Nosferatu" and certainly less visually inventive than "Der letzte Mann"; in other words: it is less 'conspicuous' in Murnau's canon than these films, but it still has so much atmosphere, good acting, wonderful camerawork and a story to think about that I would say that the purchase of this disc should be a no-brainer unless you have the Flicker Alley edition already. "Großherzog" is more minor, but still a quite entertaining, slightly Lubitschian film. "Sunrise" probably can't be beaten, and "Faust" and "Tabu" should certainly have priority, too. But I'm sure that in the long run you'd want to see them all. You simply can't go wrong with Murnau.
Just placed my order, - before I read your comments, ...but.
'Nosferatu' is my favourite Murnau :I have all of the MoC issues to date, although I haven't yet watched 'Tabu', but, though I tend to have reservations about Murnau, dramatically, his poetic visuals and the Amazon synopsis was enough to sway me

Post Reply