19 Knights Of The Teutonic Order

Discuss releases by Second Run and the films on them.
Message
Author
User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

#26 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:22 pm

Admittedly it was perhaps unfair to expect Danielson to add a whole paragraph on Cockfighter on what he otherwise intended as a flowing and modulated (self) eulogy upon his departure.
However it was also perhaps unnecessary to adamantly affirm that they would 'never never pull a film' given those recent circumstances. It was my own precis of the speech that added the "political and economic" reasons but they rarely go without the back up of the "law of the land" as you put it anyway.

You and Gropius are right to point to a bigger issue here which is the use of the act to allegedly counter cruelty to animals in film.

I am also one of the opinion that' for animals it is always Treblinka', and would add that they don't get SAG or Equity rates either.

Both positions on this are easy to satirise. I don't expect anyone seriously envisaged a rampant post screening Edinburgh audience combing the streets whooping for chicken on chicken violence, but it also doesn't have to be a plea through parliament for ' real slaughter please.'

Isn't there more an insidious danger of the denial of barbarity??
Having said all this I anxiously await the eradication of all evidence of the song 'Simon Smith and his Amazing dancing bear' that will usher in a new world of understanding and harmony with the lower mammals.

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

#27 Post by MichaelB » Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:14 pm

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:It was my own precis of the speech that added the "political and economic" reasons but they rarely go without the back up of the "law of the land" as you put it anyway.
Actually, I'd argue otherwise - although there are often a great many legal threats made in the course of such protests, they very very rarely have any substance behind them and can easily be ignored. Indeed, one of the reasons such protests get so vociferous (the Satanic Verses and Jerry Springer: The Opera demonstrations spring to mind) is because the protesters aren't backed up by the law, and would very much like to be.

But here, it's about as clear-cut as it gets. A public screening of Cockfighter in a UK cinema would unarguably break the law, and a successful prosecution would equally unquestionably jeopardise that cinema's operating licence, with repercussions well beyond a one-off screening. I'm a former cinema manager, and it was drummed into me at a very early stage of my employment that you don't mess with the Animals Act or the 1978 Protection of Children Act, as they provide very little in the way of get-out clauses if you get caught! (By contrast, the 1959 Obscene Publications Act is riddled with escape routes, the "artistic merit" defence being one that's noticeably absent from the other two).
I don't expect anyone seriously envisaged a rampant post screening Edinburgh audience combing the streets whooping for chicken on chicken violence, but it also doesn't have to be a plea through parliament for ' real slaughter please.'
But wouldn't you agree that that's how such a plea would be characterised by animal rights campaigners, no matter how carefully it was worded?

This is the problem with the Animals Act - it's drafted in such a way as to make it seem the epitome of reasonableness, not least by offering two clear exemptions. Which I imagine is why no-one's sought to modify it in nearly 70 years - it may even be the oldest piece of explicitly film-related legislation that's still on the statute book in its original form.
Isn't there more an insidious danger of the denial of barbarity??
But this is where the Act was very cleverly worded. There's actually nothing to stop you making a hard-hitting documentary about the barbaric treatment of animals, with graphic examples - provided that you can prove that all this would have happened regardless of the presence of your cameras. And a cynic might argue that this is a good thing, as it compels such documentaries to be honest in their reporting!

(A good example here - this film is about as horrific as it gets, being entirely about animal cruelty, yet the BBFC not only passed it uncut but gave it a comparatively lenient classification)

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

#28 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:43 pm

[quote="MichaelB"]But wouldn't you agree that that's how such a plea would be characterised by animal rights campaigners, no matter how carefully it was worded?

Not necessarily. As in any lobby group there are different strands of opinion. There are no doubt hardliners that wish to see no use of animals in film whatsoever and indeed view any depiction of them as indicative of "symbolic power relationships."
If however in the context of the film the (mis)use of animals is seen as degrading and dehumanising to society as a whole then this may well be applauded. Here of course, as you remind us, we would presumably enter into arguments of 'artistic merit'. Which in turn offers no real conclusion other than potential loopholes.

I am unclear whether this act is more concerned with the depiction of violence as opposed to the conditions suffered by animals during actual
filming. Does this for example extend to CGI animals???

Incidentally,and I'll fire this one in before we get bumped off this thread,can we expect re-cuts on some of Mr.Peckinpah's work???

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

#29 Post by MichaelB » Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:41 pm

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:Not necessarily. As in any lobby group there are different strands of opinion. There are no doubt hardliners that wish to see no use of animals in film whatsoever and indeed view any depiction of them as indicative of "symbolic power relationships."
The law isn't concerned with symbolic power relationships - it's concerned with actual power relationships. Symbolic stuff is fine!
If however in the context of the film the (mis)use of animals is seen as degrading and dehumanising to society as a whole then this may well be applauded.
We're going round in circles to a certain extent, as I've already covered this - it's perfectly acceptable to use footage of animals being degraded for whatever purpose provided that such degradation was not carried out specifically for the film. So people who want to make hard-hitting documentaries about animal cruelty can go right ahead - and I cited The Animals Film as an example. (Mind you, that said, they presumably wouldn't be able to use footage from Cannibal Ferox even in a condemnatory context...)
Here of course, as you remind us, we would presumably enter into arguments of 'artistic merit'. Which in turn offers no real conclusion other than potential loopholes.
Actually, the annoying thing about the Animals Act is that there are no loopholes if the film contains genuine animal cruelty staged specifically for the cameras. It's one of the few content-related pieces of legislation where artistic merit does not provide a legal defence, potential or otherwise. Which is why it's a very tough piece of legislation to deal with if you're a distributor or exhibitor.
I am unclear whether this act is more concerned with the depiction of violence as opposed to the conditions suffered by animals during actual filming. Does this for example extend to CGI animals???
No - if it's faked, it's fine: the Act is only concerned with recordings of actual cruelty that was staged specifically for the cameras.

The producer might have to prove that it was faked (Amores Perros was only passed uncut after extensive frame-by-frame analysis of the contentious shots in the presence of an RSPCA official), but if such proof is forthcoming, there should be no problem. I was involved with an Australian film called Celia that included a close-up of a rabbit apparently being branded with a red-hot poker - the BBFC flagged this up as an area of concern, but the producers had anticipated that they might have difficulties with that shot and had made sure the shooting was thoroughly documented (and the actual close-up involved a fake rabbit).
Incidentally,and I'll fire this one in before we get bumped off this thread,can we expect re-cuts on some of Mr.Peckinpah's work???
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid has had a few seconds removed on all four occasions that it's been submitted to the BBFC. The latest submission (for the current DVD release) produced a confirmation that the cuts were all for animal cruelty reasons. (Which underscores my "artistic merit" point above!)

User avatar
Bikey
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:09 am

#30 Post by Bikey » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:30 pm

Knights Of The Teutonic Order page has been updated at the Second Run website:

http://www.secondrundvd.com/release_kotto.php

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#31 Post by Gordon » Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:25 pm

Oh, I'm not happy - cropping from 2.35:1 to 1.77:1 is something that really bothers me. Very disappointing. Was the creation of a new transfer financially prohibitive? I can imagine such a film as this suffering from cropping.

rollotomassi
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:23 pm
Location: Kendal

#32 Post by rollotomassi » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:08 pm

Very, very disappointing. I might cancel my order. A nice quality print is one thing, but butchering the image ratio is unforgiveable sacrilege. The Polish DVD is 1.77 scanned from 2.35 and not just the print quality but the mise-en-scene is absolutely obliterared, whole characters removed from frame. It almost brought tears to the eyes.

I can only assume Second Run have just bought up the Polish print and touched up the picture and done nothing about getting the ratio right. This makes me comcerned for their release of Marketa Lazarova in the future. I'd rather watch an average print in the right format than a decent one in the wrong format.

I hope Bikey or someone gets back and tells us it's a mistake...to wait six months and then to be told this...

User avatar
What A Disgrace
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:34 pm
Contact:

#33 Post by What A Disgrace » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:26 pm

Yeah, mine is cancelled too. Until further notice. I'm sorry, but.

I repeat: you should secure decent (which is what this is not) materials to the films before you release them.

BrightEyes23
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:46 am

#34 Post by BrightEyes23 » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 am

rollotomassi wrote: It almost brought tears to the eyes.
c'mon...you were seriously at the brink of tears because of this? i don't buy it...while it is unfortunate, you guys (and gals) on this forum tend to go waaaaaaaaay overboard on issues...

yeah yeah, if it is cropped, it does suck bigtime, but if thats the case your likely to NEVER see this film pop up on dvd in a new transfer...sometimes you just gotta play the hand thats been dealt you.

rollotomassi
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:23 pm
Location: Kendal

#35 Post by rollotomassi » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:45 pm

I was kind of hoping that that the "almost brought tears to the eyes" would be taken as a turn of phrase. Guess I was wrong.

The complaint here is that we only found out about this at the time when the orders were already being processed. You're not telling me that Second Run didn't know this a week ago and couldn't have updated their site accordingly. I know they haven't done this for ulterior motives, but if an established company did this, we could be accusing them of misleading information and only setting the facts straight when it was too late for some people would have cancelled to do so.

I will still get Passenger as it is the only one out there, but there is an irony that a film cut short before its time by Andrzej Munk's untimely death is now suffering further unkind cuts.

I have cancelled Teutonic Order - and though I will still get future Second Runs, I shall wait until the exact ratio info has been either released by them or reviewed on dvd beaver, so we don't get caught out again. It'll be worth waiting an extra week to avoid any disappointment.

I repeat, I'm sure Second Run have learnt their lesson the hard way and will not announce any film for future release unless they are guaranteed by the supplier that their print is the proper film, not some inferior version.

It seems not having ingrained subtitles is more important to them than having a full ratio. Non-ingrained subs is a bonus, the proper ratio is far more important.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

#36 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:06 am

Moviemail are now showing this as 20th.December.
Normal production hiatus or has recent criticism hit home?????

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

#37 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:35 am

Well here's the answer -


From Moviemail - " you ordered "Knights Of The Teutonic Order" (cat SECONDRUN019) from us. Unfortunately we are not yet in a position to supply this title. Our Stock Controller's notes indicate that:

Due to the BBFC having to approve a re-edit of a scene they requested, this release has to be moved back.
The label passes on its full apologies to those that are waiting for this title. We have not yet been given a definite date".

User avatar
Bikey
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:09 am

#38 Post by Bikey » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:52 am

Err... I would guess this is an administrative error at Moviemail. This title is set for a Nov 6 release. I have a finished copy in front of me. Thanks for letting us know. I will speak to Movie Mail and get it corrected.

" Recent criticism has hit home ":

We have taken on board everything that has been posted regarding the recent OAR issues with Passenger/KOTTO. If these issues arise in the future I will post a notice here as soon as I know. Incidentally, Michael B's post at the Passenger thread regarding these situations is a fairly accurate one.

We could hold off the release of KOTTO until 2020 but I'm afraid it would still be unlikely that we would be able to source a workable print in the OAR.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

#39 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:18 am

Just for the record I didn't mean the comment about 'criticism hitting home' to be either acidic or reflecting my own stance on the matter. For what it's worth I am on the side of the 'wets' who would rather see a title released in a compromised state rather than the 'tankists' who seem to want any aberrant copies confined to a digital gulag.
Please take this as a token of almost unqualified support.
Regards.

User avatar
Bikey
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:09 am

#40 Post by Bikey » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:26 am

The comment wasn't taken as negative. I'd just realised that while I'd posted in response on the Passenger thread I hadn't on this one.

'a digital gulag'? So you've seen our office then?

I'm also rather taken by the idea of a 'wets/tankist' schism.

anton_es
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:04 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

#41 Post by anton_es » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:57 pm

i just received the dvd. on the back there is a disclaimer informing that this is indeed NOT the correct aspect ratio.
so second run seem to have learned since Passenger (which had no disclaimer) and now informs us at least of this alterations.

well, the movie is brilliant and since i did not know it before i am glad i watched it. so many movies of my past i discovered on TV in 4:3 and gladly rediscovered them in the cinema or on video in the correct aspect ratio. considering the friendly price I would say I'm not disappointed.

but like you all said here before, I, personally would either watch a very, very bad copy in the correct aspect than a nice cleaned up but butchered.

apart from that: thanks, 2ndRun

rollotomassi
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:23 pm
Location: Kendal

#42 Post by rollotomassi » Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:01 pm

What disappoints most is that it's such an awful print.

This film has been out in Poland for several years with English subtitles, without any of the cuts ordered by the BBFC. That print was terrible, too, and was 1.78 not 2.35. Furthermore, it's the worse kind of 1.78, where they cut off the top or bottom of the screen, rather than anything from the sides.

I mentioend myself earlier on the forum that it would at least be nice to have a sharp print of the butchery than a shoddy one. Frankly, this is no better than the Polish version, in fact worse because no restoration was done on it inspite of several delays and all in all it's 2nd Run's worst release so far. However, I'm sure their next afforts will put this travesty behind them. Everyone's entitled to one failure. I'll give this one to a friend and keep the Polish version.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

#43 Post by Nothing » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:32 am

An unrestored one-light telecine on an Ursa from a 35mm print would have cost a few hundred quid at most - still far from ideal, but preferable to this monstrosity that should never have been released. Not only is it in the wrong OAR, but cropped on all four sides - completely unwatchable. And to think they marketed this pre-release as a "new restored digital transfer" without mention of the OAR problem...

unclehulot
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: here and there

#44 Post by unclehulot » Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:29 pm

If anyone is curious, for better or worse, Netflix rents the older Polish dvd of this. Pretty awful, but it sounds like I'm not missing much compared to this particular Second Run release. At first I thought it was a 4:3 cropping job (!), but (apparently) the anamorphic flag is missing, so I had to set the dvd player to force it to 16:9.

The good news is that I remembered that I bought (but hadn't yet read) the very good (and complete) English translation of this Hippocrene Books released around the time of their superb English versions of the Sienkiewicz "triology", and I'm enjoying the heck out of it. It's a shame that all of these seem to be OOP now, although there are some used copies from Amazon Marketplace.

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

#45 Post by jsteffe » Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:50 pm

Bikey, could you tell us more about the situation with the materials for Knights of the Teutonic Order? I'm curious from a preservation standpoint.

The disclaimer on the disc reads "The film's producers and Film Polski have confirmed that the only accessible source master [...] is the one we are releasing here."

What kind of source print was used, and why is it not possible to access better materials? Is it due to chemical decay/fading of film stock? Was the negative ruined by too much use? Were materials destroyed because Ford fell out of favor with the Polish government? Or do the materials exist but require a restoration that isn't feasible for the time being?

I hope I don't sound like I'm grilling you--I'd just like to learn more.

Oh well, at least the film is on DVD. I've been wanting to see it for ages, and now I get a chance.

User avatar
eltopo
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:33 am

Re: 19 Knights Of The Teutonic Order

#46 Post by eltopo » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:03 am

Screenshots DVD TVP SA (Poland): http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassun ... &vid=91823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image
Image
Image
Image

Aberrations:
Image
Image
Image
Image

Can someone please make the screenshots of the DVD from Second Run?

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 19 Knights Of The Teutonic Order

#47 Post by knives » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:19 pm

I understand that the problems with the transfer were not solvable at the time, but has anyone brought all the problems with the booklet which I would think doesn't have the same problems with fixing. It's near unreadable with incorrect dates, misspelled words and the like.

Post Reply