Too bad for you, it's an interesting 6 minutes.

Don't we sometimes have a certain fetishistic prejudice in favour of more footage, as if longer is always better? Wasn't the shorter edit of La Ronde the final preferred version of Max's? And isn't Marcel just being mindful of the author's wishes? It's not quite like Letter From an Unknown Woman where he did not have control over the numerous "adjustments" made by the studio.

I can sympathize with the yearning to "judge for oneself", but ultimately, the director made a choice, and this is the one that stands today.

As for the supposed softness of the image on the Criterion, I have sampled the disc and it does not seem as bad as others have hinted. I can't compare to my initial viewing in a theater since this goes back to about 30 years ago (and the print probably was not in pristine condition).

I certainly wouldn't say "longer is always better". I do say "longer is always interesting" if it's a worthwhile film.

Few people would argue that the original cut of The Big Sleep is better with the extra reel of plot explanation etc. but I should think every serious admirer of the film welcomes the opportunity to see that version on DVD and compare it with the released edit. If anything it increases our appreciation of the latter (and not only because of the added footage).

If Ophuls cut La Ronde because it went down badly with preview audiences (according to the DVD review on this site, it "was met with boo") he was at least partly responding to the wishes of others nearly 60 years ago. Maybe the original cut would get a better reaction today and he'd feel differently. Maybe he wouldn't. But for many people one of the main reasons to buy DVDs - especially on a label like Criterion - is to gain a fuller understanding of how a particular film was created. Often this can only be assisted through commentaries and interviews that can be tenuous in the extreme. A film of this vintage seldom survives in any kind of preview version, and to deny access to it - alongside the final one - seems to me very misguided.

As for Marcel being "mindful of the author's wishes," it's surely just as possible that Max wouldn't have approved of his film having the option of being viewed with a commentary replacing the original soundtrack. I think it highly unlikely he'd have wished Madame de... to be released with an interview from the source author opining that he'd made a "boring" film! Perhaps he'd only ever have wanted his films to be seen in 35mm theatrical projection. But we live in a different world now, and I think all the available materials should be allowed entry to that world, so that all of us (not just a privileged few scholars) can - as you say - judge for ourselves.

Has anybody listened to the PT Anderson "introduction" on the Earrings disc? It's downright embarrassing... I sincerely hope he was stoned, because that's the only real explanation for some of his observations and insights he has on the film.

Maybe he was hanging out with Luiz Guzman right before filming

Or maybe his favorite working actor, John C. Reilly.

Yes, it's really terrible. Easily one of the worst Criterion "supplements" ever. It's clear he just turned on a tape recorder and rambled for fifteen minutes without even so much as watching the film beforehand as preparation.

I think I agree with Chris' assumption that this was a failed commentary track that Criterion salvaged as an "introduction." I didn't hate it though.

I must say I did not find it to be the total wipe-out others have said it was. True, it is disjointed because he is jumping between scenes far apart in the movie; it may have been designed that way, or be indeed the salvageable bits from a failed commentary. But he brings a specific perspective, that of a filmmaker looking at another one's work. and some of his insights and observations are indeed quite relevant or interesting.

BUT, it certainly should not have been labeled an "introduction" to the movie; ""various thoughts" might have been a better choice. Am I wrong in remembering it was not part part of the first announcement for extras on this DVD (or I may be confusing it with another of their Ophüls titles).

One observation about the Madame de... packaging: I find my copy of the cardboard case is just a bit too tall for the booklet and DVD digipack to fit snugly into it and they keep trying to fall out whenever I pick it up. Is that a common experience? If so, a small black mark for Criterion. The fit is better on their editions of similarly packaged The Furies and Mr Arkadin.

Just finished the Criterion. It's amazing how much more I love this film now than when I watched the rotten R2 transfer. It's all in the image. I can't even remember a single line of dialogue in the film, because the images tell everything.

Tag Gallagher's visual essay is fabulous. I hope they use him over and over again.

And Orson Welles could only dream of such virtuostic camera work.

Have just watched "Madame de...". I have to agree that the Anderson 'introduction' is about the worst supplement I ever encountered on a CC disc. If this was intended as an audiocommentary originally, I guess the final result would have easily outdone the commentaries on the MGM Bergmans for sheer atrociousness. I wonder how people can find anything worthwhile in this; I mean more or less the only thing he says is "OH MAN, this is TERRIFIC" without explaining why he finds it terrific. That it's terrific should be the most obvious thing to see for anyone watching this marvel of a film. And labelling something as 'Introduction' that basically gives away all the major sequences in the film is a crime against anyone who hasn't seen the film before.
But apart from Anderson, this indeed is a TERRIFIC package (and transfer!). I'm happy to have decided to read the Vilmorin story before watching the film, and I was amazed how much the changes that Ophuls introduced altered the feel of it, even though I quite liked the story itself. Whereas the story is a nicely constructed and very formalistic ironic take on aristocratic society (a little like Cocteau without the magic) without much depth to it, the Ophuls version is a wonderful and touching social and character study for the most part. That Vilmorin so completely dismisses it is lamentable, but I can somehow understand it, as it almost reverses her original satirical intentions.
The funniest thing about the Vilmorin interview, however, is how she constantly fiddles around with that twig in her hands, as if it was some makeshift cane with which she'd love to punish Ophuls for his crimes. I wonder what she did with Malraux when she was his mistress....

I haven't watched Earrings, but the supplements on La Ronde are nice, esp. the Alan Williams interview. He gives a ton of context and some good technical info as well. It was probably the best supplement I've seen this year.

I've just watched the CC "La Ronde", and have the feeling that I should speak up a bit for this somewhat heavily criticized transfer. Obviously, the image is indeed inferior compared to "Madame de...", but it's equally obvious that the problems are due to the source materials and have also been somewhat exagerrated in my view. I didn't find the occasional vertical lines immensely distracting, for instance, though the digitallyobsessed review would suggest otherwise. They are thin, non-intrusive and often barely noticeable. Perhaps I've grown soft over the years and got used to such damage from all those silents I watch...
The image, while sometimes soft, is almost constantly very detailed and contrast appears to be surprisingly unmanipulated for a CC disc (this also helped to make my decision to buy the CC "Plaisir" rather than the Second Sight soon). Sure, it's on the dark side, but remember that most of the film is actually supposed to play at night, and in the few scenes brightly lit, well, it looks bright without being blown out. I hope Nick won't get angry should he be among those who don't like this transfer, but I'd say: in it's film-like appearance this looks more like an MoC disc than a CC, and I mean that as a compliment.

As to the film itself: wonderful wonderful wonderful. I guess I liked it even better than "Madame de...", probably because Ophuls style is less self-conscious here and always completely serves the film and its construction, while in the famous dance sequence in "Madame" (for instance), the virtuosity draws attention to itself very conspicuously. "La Ronde" greatest asset for me is Walbrook, though. I didn't imagine he could top his performances in "Blimp" and "Red Shoes", but he actually even refined both his dandyish appearance as Lermontov and the extreme likeability of Kretzschmar-Schuldorff and brings these aspects together in this film to marvellous effect. Even though he is the master of ceremonies, he exudes a constant feeling for his 'puppets', and while one might describe the film's world-view as cynical, there is a sense of acceptance of the blind erotic urge that motivates the characters, and thus a lot of compassion and humanity here, too. Magnificent visuals, music and acting all around. A perfect and very endearing film.

Can anyone comment on La Ronde's picture quality compared to the Second Run release?I am waiting for a Beaver comparison,but until then i would appreciate any help.

Although not a comparison, you might be interested in this DVD Times review if you haven't seen it already.

According to this review - and contrary to indications earlier in this thread - the Second Sight release has optional subtitles and contains the Gélin interview also on the Criterion.

Here a screenshot comparison between the Criterion NTSC-DVD and the version aired on the german-french ARTE-television channel this year.

Well, I can't help but finding that TV cap contrast-boosted, even though arte normally don't seem to do such things. From the dvdtimes review I'd assume that image quality of the Second Sight is pretty similar to the CC, as the reviewer finds it too dark (which for the CC I would refute, as said before).

Been waltzing through the CC Ophuls and probably once more again this New Years. What luxurious films! Never thought this would happen but Le plaisir is growing to become the favorite.

For those of you who have seen Madame de..., I'm curious to know what your initial reaction to its final frame was.

Yes, I think that's what happens beyond the final scene.

When I saw a screening of Letter From An Unknown Woman earlier this year, I noticed that the ending was quite similar:

Returning to the Ophuls again and again ..and again since I received the discs. Does anyone find La ronde a bit slight? It feels more like an overture to what's next: the most sublime Le plaisir.

There's a ravishing, maybe the most ravishing ever!, romance in Madame de... Madame's journey from being a selfish woman to completely resigned to passion, I find so incredibly moving. It is really heartbreaking that Criterion didn't give it a diamond treatment it so well deserves - cheap packaging, worthless introduction, embarrassing commentary, etc. What was Criterion thinking?!

Le plaisir is growing to be my favorite Ophuls. I'd like to know what you think of the last piece, I still don't know what to make of it. It feels a bit rushed, whittling away character developments, almost feeling like a generic love story. Not my favorite piece but the pieces before that are among the greatest things I've seen in all universe. I'm hoping someone will shed a new light on this last piece.

Most of the time when a Criterion has an "Introduction", I always watch it last because it always gives away something. I think Scorsese's introduction gives away the ending to La Strada, and there's another one out there that's pretty spoilery.

But the Gallagher essay, interviews and source story are all stellar. Plus, it's the only acceptable transfer of the film out there.


Plaisir has also become my favorite Ophuls. I think the last piece suffers coming after the middle piece, which standing on its own is the greatest short film or featurette I've ever seen. Try what I did- which is watch the last piece by itself some tiime. I appreciated it a lot more.

Also, on the last piece of Le Plaisir - check out the special features on the dvd. I think they do a pretty good job of explaining why it feels the way it does. (If only he had made the third portion he originally intended...) And the special features also heightened my appreciation for the technical aspects of the last story.

I share the excitement about this film. I'm also really haunted by the first story. I find it very frightening, very bleak, very fairy-tale like ... and yet it is also totally real to me. Amazing. And, of course, amazing images.

The three Ophüls titles each have their own personality and offer specific plesaures; from the delicate charm of Plaisir to the tragedy of Madame de... , with the ironic distance of La Ronde in-between, they are a film-lover feast.

Regarding La Plaisir, Ophüls wished initially to use another story by Maupassant, La Femme de Paul, but it was abandoned for budget reasons; the story takes place in a riverside brasserie that is lavishly decorated for a celebration of some sort. Le Modèle is on a much smaller scale. It was to star also Gélin and Simon.

As for the Madame de... edition, I don't feel the commentary is embarrassing; on the contrary, I quite liked the insights from Susan White and her colleague. I have already expressed in this thread my opinions regarding the physical packaging and the meandering "introduction".

I thought the commentary was kind of tiring and pretentious but GringoTex just reminded me here that the visual analysis of Madame de... is really fantastic.

Further on the abandoned third segment of Le Plaisir: If you do a Web search , you'll find that the unfilmed Maupassant story is available online, in French. It looks complete, following a quick comparison to the book version. If you can read French, it will give you an idea of what might have been if the money had been available for Ophüls to film it. It later became a distant basis for Godard's Masculin-Féminin, mixed with other Maupassant sources and Godard's very personal take, of course.


Just like with the movies themselves, we each have different reactions and opinions to commentaries; you obviously won't change my mind and I won't change yours (although we do agree regarding the Gallagher essay).