Film Forum (NYC)

[HerrSchreck]

Yeah I think it's the first time CC hiked off the 2004 REGLE digital restoration to older brother Janus, and struck a positive print to go on the road with it for the first time in that superpristine state. Many times you'll see Janus editions of films that have been released on CC disc, and the Janus tour prints' intertitles are not as up to date, and the image hasn't been MTI'd etc, & sound is not as meticulously cleaned up. In other words the CC resto teams take the material the extra step beyond the film labs, and works on resto in purely digital format to give it that extra bit of lustre & sparkle. Many times the Janus libraries have material that's been lab restored, but hasn't been restored beyond telecine with the full CC digitreatment. Here, the film being what it is, they obviously created reels from their final digibetas & went out on the road with them for the first time.

Don't mind my snide tone inna first posts here.. at work running on 2 hrs sleep with one eye half open. Morning monsterville.

[HerrSchreck]

[quote]And its exhibition history is a drama in itself: trimmed from Renoir's ideal cut to 94 minutes, it was shortened another 13 minutes after a disastrous premiere (one enraged patron reportedly tried to torch the theater). Two months later, it was banned as “demoralizingâ€

[Anonymous]

Don't mind my snide tone inna first posts here.. at work running on 2 hrs sleep with one eye half open. Morning monsterville.

Hey, no problem man. I am just confused by all this wild advertising. You seem to be right, this is the theatrical premier of CC's Rules restoration. As I don't live in the United States, I thought the restoration already premiered theatrically, maybe even before the CC DVD was released. So I just wondered. But I guess we can close the case now.

[zedz]

I was just surprised to read that they're showing a new print at Film Forum as a kind of very special occassion.

A new print of Rules of the Game IS a very special occasion! Gorgeous as the Criterion disc is, nothing compares to seeing it in best-possible condition on the big screen.

[atcolomb]

nothing compares to seeing it in best-possible condition on the big screen.

I agree with that, i saw the re-release of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA on the big screen in Chicago in 1989 and seeing the special edition dvd i am glad that i saw it in a theater which was to me one of the best movie going experiences ever!!

[Anonymous]

I was just surprised to read that they're showing a new print at Film Forum as a kind of very special occassion.

A new print of Rules of the Game IS a very special occasion! Gorgeous as the Criterion disc is, nothing compares to seeing it in best-possible condition on the big screen.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant, that's the purpose of this thread. With the sentence you cited I wasn't denying the importance of the event, but rather arguing against HerrSchreck's claims. Because as great as a DVD can be, nothing beats a theatrical presentation.

[Matt]

Because as great as a DVD can be, nothing beats a theatrical presentation.

or at least a proper theatrical presentation. If it's like half the films I've seen in a theater lately, it will be slightly out of focus, misframed, and the sound will drop to a just-about-audible level for about a third of the picture.

[atcolomb]

....I once saw CITIZEN KANE at my local theater some few years ago and what ruined the experience was that the projectionist showed the movie letterboxed instead of full screen and the top and the bottom of the film was gone and the picture distorted!! I was pissed and told the theater manager who said he was sorry and would look into it but it still made the whole experience of seeing Kane on the big screen very disappointing!...

[Matt]

According to a former projectionist I know (Hi, sweetie!), most modern projection equipment makes projecting Academy ratio very difficult. You actually have to partially disassemble one of the lenses to do it. At least your movie was only cropped. I saw Eyes Without a Face at the Wisconsin Film Festival (with people like David Bordwell and Michael Wilmington in the audience - hold on, I'm not just name-dropping) and the entire film was shown with the wrong lens on the projector, making everyone appear squat and very fat. The worst part is that NO ONE COMPLAINED, not even these people who would know what the problem was. I would have, but I was wedged in the front row and would not have been able to get out easily.

[atcolomb]

I think every projectionist should know what is the correct aspect ratio to the film they are showing and if they don't then they are not doing their job and the audience suffers!!....

[zedz]

According to a former projectionist I know (Hi, sweetie!), most modern projection equipment makes projecting Academy ratio very difficult. You actually have to partially disassemble one of the lenses to do it. At least your movie was only cropped. I saw Eyes Without a Face at the Wisconsin Film Festival (with people like David Bordwell and Michael Wilmington in the audience - hold on, I'm not just name-dropping) and the entire film was shown with the wrong lens on the projector, making everyone appear squat and very fat. The worst part is that NO ONE COMPLAINED, not even these people who would know what the problem was. I would have, but I was wedged in the front row and would not have been able to get out easily.

Since this has morphed into projecting gripes (cathartic AND timely): you're right about the difficulty of getting modern equipment to project academy ratio, plus there are a lot of projectionists who are a law unto themselves and will proclaim the superiority of their framing over the directors' (especially when 'their framing' happens to coincide with whatever's easiest to deliver).

The old bugbear used to be European widescreen (1.66), which was routinely misprojected as 1.85. Once, after a misframed screening of Shadow of Our Forgotten Ancestors, the projectionist responsible justified the missing hats and eyebrows by claiming that "everything looks better in 1.85 - it gives you a really spacious, epic feeling."

Worst experience has to be a 16mm screening of The Profound Desire of the Gods in anamorphic Academy ratio! (i.e. the projectionist couldn't get hold of an anamorphic lens for a compressed print, so we had to watch all 3 hours of it squashed horizontally).

[Anonymous]

Well, new reviews are coming in and I think this excerpt from Andrew O'Hehir's review (click here) is interesting and proves my reasons for starting this very thread to be correct:

The new, digitally restored 35mm print of "Rules of the Game" is now playing at Film Forum in New York, with a national rollout to follow. There is also a restored version available on DVD from Criterion Collection, but the new print is of superior quality.

[Matt]

The new, digitally restored 35mm print of "Rules of the Game" is now playing at Film Forum in New York, with a national rollout to follow. There is also a restored version available on DVD from Criterion Collection, but the new print is of superior quality.

You can't compare a projected 35mm image with a DVD. They're not the same animal. Of course the film print is going to look better, but you can't exactly show it in your living room, can you?

[Anonymous]

The new, digitally restored 35mm print of "Rules of the Game" is now playing at Film Forum in New York, with a national rollout to follow. There is also a restored version available on DVD from Criterion Collection, but the new print is of superior quality.

You can't compare a projected 35mm image with a DVD. They're not the same animal. Of course the film print is going to look better, but you can't exactly show it in your living room, can you?

Of course projected 35mm films always look better than DVDs, but would a critic emphasize it in his review as O'Hehir did? Critics are not supposed to spread well known technical facts, because then every reviewer would have to say that the print looks better than the DVD.

[Matt]

Of course projected 35mm films always look better than DVDs, but would a critic emphasize it in his review as O'Hehir did? Critics are not supposed to spread well known technical facts, because then every reviewer would have to say that the print looks better than the DVD.

I'm not going to get into what critics are "supposed" and "not supposed" to do, but the statement you quoted above is really the only "emphasis" O'Hehir puts on the print itself aside from saying earlier in the review that the film is "a digitally restored print of amazing clarity that comes as close to Renoir's lost 1939 original as we're ever going to get. You should see it." It's not really all that uncommon for a critic to say something along the lines of "see this one on the big screen while you can." Just doing a quick Google search on phrases like that, I see it applied to Spirited Away, Femme Fatale, Renaissance, Johnny English, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Teacher's Pet, and Pearl Harbor. That's just from the first page.

Naturally, everyone should see Rules of the Game in 35mm if they have the opportunity, especially if the only way they've ever seen it before is on video or DVD. It doesn't take a lot of critical fortitude to say that. But there's not going to be a new Criterion DVD of this that's not in a hi-def format. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

[toiletduck!]

Johnny English

Actually, in this case, the critic had best have some fortitude. Like, "pushing a wheelbarrow around to carry all the overflowing fortitude" type fortitude.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Anonymous]

Naturally, everyone should see Rules of the Game in 35mm if they have the opportunity, especially if the only way they've ever seen it before is on video or DVD. It doesn't take a lot of critical fortitude to say that. But there's not going to be a new Criterion DVD of this that's not in a hi-def format. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

I think there's a difference between saying that one should use the opportunity to see a film on the big screen and saying that a theatrical print is far better than the DVD version. I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here, but I pay close attention to what is written and said about releases of films as important as this one.

[dad1153]

Plus the Film Forum isn't worth spending a dime on, so if you still have any money in that budget, you can divert it towards your multi-region player.

What's wrong with Film Forum? I love the place except it's a little crammed and, unless you sit in the first five or six rows, a 1:33:1 or 2:35:1 movie is too small to convey the 'big screen' effect. I took my folks to see "The Complete Metropolis" at Film Forum almost a year ago and they're still talking about it (as in 'if you ever drag us to watch a silent 1920's German movie again we'll disown you'... yes, they're kidding and really liked the movie, bought the recent Kino version of "TCM"). I'm going there in a couple of weeks to watch a screening of W.C. Fields' never-released-anywhere silent 'So's Your Old Man' with live piano accompaniment. Also it's because of Film Forum that I just became a Naruse whore that is importing R2 discs from across the pond even though I've never done it before (for me) or have a freakin' player to put them on. I'm insane, but I don't see anything wrong with the Forum if you truly love the movies we talk about here.

Thanks for all the new region free player suggestions. I have an all-region non-HDMI player at the office that I guess the bosses wouldn't mind me borrowing a few nights to take home and hook to my flat panel. I'd rather not get a new player though (my small studio apartment is cramped enough as it is) but I don't want to hack my two DVD players either (a Toshiba HD-DVD A20 and a Panasonic DVD recorder from 2002). I mostly watch movies using the high-def playback of my XBox 360 (HD-DVD & DVD) and PS3 (Blu-ray) so adding a fifth player to the equation would be a huge change. Not sure I'm ready for that yet.

And yes, eventually I'll get to the MOC Naruse Box Set when I can get as screaming a good deal as I got with this BFI Naruse one. I mean, $16 with shipping for three unseen-by-me acknowledged classics from a new-to-me director that blew me away three times in a row with new-to-me movies caught on the big screen? This could be the beginning of a beautiful (and expensive) cinematic addiction... or not. :-(

[Perkins Cobb]

dad, you answered your own question about the theater being too much of a shoebox to get the big-screen effect (or see anything, given the lousy sightlines). Plus, Bruce Goldstein's programming is really tame. Given that there are a half-dozen better retro film venues in NYC, I don't know how the Forum continues to thrive. Location? Hipster cred? Actually, I probably answered my own question viz. the tameness; Film Forum is cannily programmed to be the ideal venue for people who think they're film buffs even as their curiosity begins and ends with the Criterion label.

Anyway, sorry for dragging this off-topic -- now back to the discussion of which season The Simpsons jumped the shark in.

[domino harvey]

Given that there are a half-dozen better retro film venues in NYC, I don't know how the Forum continues to thrive. Location? Hipster cred? .

Lime popcorn

[Perkins Cobb]

Really? Well, that's not nothing. I should buy some and walk over to Anthology with it.

[dad1153]

Given that there are a half-dozen better retro film venues in NYC, I don't know how the Forum continues to thrive. Location? Hipster cred? Actually, I probably answered my own question viz. the tameness; Film Forum is cannily programmed to be the ideal venue for people who think they're film buffs even as their curiosity begins and ends with the Criterion label.

I assume IFC Center is one of those other half-dozen places that you consider better than the Forum. Then explain to me, why does Film Forum show many of the same Ozu's that IFC Center had on their Ozu Weekends late last year (and some that were not shown at IFC like "Dragnet Girl" with live piano)? Why has Bill Cunningham's New York moved from its hugely succesfully run at the Forum (every time I was there recently for the '5 Japanese Divas' movies the 'Bill Cunningham' showings/lines were all sold out crowds) a couple of blocks uptown to IFC Center where it's still packing 'em in? And why is Anthology Film Archives showing Antonioni's "L'Avventura" next weekend (which I'll attend because I haven't seen it yet) even though it's already been at the Forum many times before?

Answer: all the local retro/international/obscure cinema houses (Landmark Sunshine, Angelika, Lincoln Plaza, BAM, MOMA, etc.) cater to us, people who still give a shit about seeing great non-mainstream movies, plopping $12-13 (typical NYC ticket prices) to see them in a projection theater. I don't understand why Film Forum is any less a retro venue than the Quad Cinemas or IFC Center just because a huge part of the catalogue they have access to is from Janus/Criterion (you know, the stuff that attracts us to this site to begin with). Shouldn't we be thrilled there are places (any places) that show in 35mm prints (the way they're supposed to be seen) great motion pictures that 99% of other venues don't bother with because they're already available on home video (or not likely to sell if they are)? Anywhere that bothers to show a Naruse, W.C. Fields or movies older than the year we're in should be celebrated and, if possible, catered to when they show the one-out-of-18 movies we really want to see but can't. I make it a point to try to see movies in theaters that aren't available of R1 DVD (I'm not flush with $$$ so I have to pick my theater-bound movies carefully), and the Forum is as good a place as the Landmark Sunshine weekend midnight $10 features or Angelika's best-of-the-world schedule. Why make it an 'us versus them' with 'them' NOT being the people that go to the mall and randomly select which movie to watch while looking at the box office listing?

We're not better or superior to the MUBI or Film Forum crowd, just a different edge of the little corner of the movie world we've all gathered at to collectively draw our land in the sand about what we like versus the shit everyone else seems to have settled for as their cinematic entertainment. OK, rant over. Back to 'greatest stuff amazon sells at ridiculously low prices'. :)

[TMDaines]

$12-13 (typical NYC ticket prices)

Jesus Christ, no wonder piracy is rampant. I think €6.50 is too much on the student night here at my Arthouse/Retro cinema here in Konstanz.

[perkizitore]

Student titckets must be less than 10$, which is roughly 7 quid, so actually NYC is more student friendly than London.

[hearthesilence]

I don't think Film Forum has student discounts. IFC, BAM, Lincoln Center, Anthology and MoMA do, usually ranging between $6 to 8 (depending on the venue), but Film Forum (and Angelika, which I loathe) remains the priciest.

Re: the cramped space, that's the thing that bothers me the most about Film Forum. They're pretty reliable about securing good 35mm prints, but I wish the screens and leg room were bigger. Music Box in Chicago has the same problem too.

Anthology has BIG comfy seats, MoMA is friggin' awesome (except for the occasional rumbling of the E train that can be heard in Theater 1, but it's not too bad), Lincoln Center is great and will be greater with the new theaters, Alice Tully Hall is GREAT and BAM's larger theaters are excellent, but Film Forum is comparatively a letdown. Better than Angelika, though. And the smaller theaters at IFC completely suck.