281 Jules and Jim

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Criterion and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here. Threads may contain spoilers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
ellipsis7
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin

#101 Post by ellipsis7 » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:42 am

Looks like there will be a second printing soon
For that the correct negative will have to be sourced... Note MK2 seem to have the same problem sequence, which bodes badly...

BWilson
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:06 pm

#102 Post by BWilson » Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:43 pm

I'm no expert but I believe these few flipped shots could be unflipped in the digital realm without having to go back to the elements.

User avatar
Richard
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:41 pm
Location: Nederland

#103 Post by Richard » Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:44 pm

I noticed that the fragment (WITH the flipped shot) can also be seen during the interview with Raoul Coutard. It's incredible that no one noticed during the editing of that particular piece. :?

solent

#104 Post by solent » Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:00 pm

What interests me is that if there is a reprint will there also be a recall? If not, will the incorrect DVD be a collector's item [as in stamps] and be worth more?

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#105 Post by zedz » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:49 pm

solent wrote:What interests me is that if there is a reprint will there also be a recall? If not, will the incorrect DVD be a collector's item [as in stamps] and be worth more?
Given the nature of collectors, and the nature of this particular collection, I believe the answer would be, idiotically enough, yes. I think we proved that conclusively with the 'Jimmy Crack Corn' incident. (And, yes, I don't care).

User avatar
editman
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:13 pm

#106 Post by editman » Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:06 pm

That is presumably Criterion will regard that as a mistake and fix it in the reprint. Or it could be something to live with like the international cut of Kwaidan and the 1.85:1 a.r. of Gertrud.

Until JM gets back to us, we shouldn't jump to any conclusion.

User avatar
hammock
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: www.criteriondungeon.com
Contact:

#107 Post by hammock » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:10 am

If TOHO could have Criterion reprint Seven Samurai because of the restoration demo, I think there are many people/companies that could demand a reprint in this incident. I think Criterion should do a re-print no matter what, as you can't just flip scenes in a movie, that is too big a mistake for me to swallow at least... (phew - my English sucks in the morning - sorry)!

User avatar
editman
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:13 pm

#108 Post by editman » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:38 am

hammock wrote:If TOHO could have Criterion reprint Seven Samurai because of the restoration demo, I think there are many people/companies that could demand a reprint in this incident.
Still (AFAIK) MK2, as of today, hasn't acknowledged the flipping problem themselves. And the same problem has occured on other Region's versions* too and no one has made a fuss about it before. (Don't think Panorama has fixed their DVD yet.) So the demand for a reprint are pretty much coming only from the end users' side.

And that's my only concern cos Criterion usually do a fixed reprint when there's a technical glitch on a DVD title. We are talking about an entire remastering here (don't think it can easily be fixed by branching the correct framings into the movie :P ). I don't think there's ever been another Criterion DVD title with a similar problem (or dare I say, such a screw-up) before?

*I wonder if there's anyone who owns the French or Japanese DVD and if the same flipping problem occurs on them?

Ted Todorov
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:00 pm

#109 Post by Ted Todorov » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:46 pm

Yes the same flipping occurs on the French MK2 DVD. Which leads me to questions: Does that mean that the actual 35mm camera negative that MK2 & Criterion used had some frames spliced in backwards? Or did that somehow happen when the master positive was printed?
Director of photography Raoul Coutard supervised this new high-definition digital transfer, created on a Spirit Datacine from a 35mm fine-grain master positive made from the original camera negative.
This implies to me that they did NOT use the MK2 telecine (which was presumably done direct to PAL).

User avatar
ellipsis7
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin

#110 Post by ellipsis7 » Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:46 am

Yes, I suggested this some posts back... It is likely that at some stage in the 1990's the negative got damaged at this point... In reconstructing it/restoring it, dupes were taken from existing prints, framing them tighter and inadvertently editing them on 'flipped'... The confusion would be exacerbated in the duping process moving from internegative to interpositive etc. where the orientatiuon of images will get moved around...
I wonder if possibly the negative got damaged at this point, and in duping these shots off existing prints, the shots were accidentally flipped by the lab...
I still think it is likely to have arisen during repair of a short damaged section of the negative...

kevyip1
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:07 pm

#111 Post by kevyip1 » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:30 pm

Another odd thing about this DVD is that it has burned-in *French* subtitles in a couple of scenes -- the early scene where Jules says to Jim, "But not this time, Jim", and the scene where Jules writes a letter home during the war. They were not on the Criterion LD and Fox Lorber DVD.

Narshty
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#112 Post by Narshty » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:45 am

I could well be totally missing something here, but what on earth happens to Sabine, Jules and Catherine's daughter?

Napoleon
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#113 Post by Napoleon » Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:58 am

Narshty wrote:I could well be totally missing something here, but what on earth happens to Sabine, Jules and Catherine's daughter?
Jules, Jim and Catherine couldn't care less about her, so why should you?

I thought that she was just a plot device to make us understand the selfishness of our trio of 'heroes'.

User avatar
editman
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:13 pm

#114 Post by editman » Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:16 am

Sabine's probably living with Jules after Jim and Catherine are gone. - Just because she hasn't showed up at the funeral doesn't mean she's out of Jules' life as well.

(This assumption is based on the film, not the movel or the Roché's real-life affair with the Hessels. :P )

Narshty
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#115 Post by Narshty » Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:37 am

N. Wilson wrote:
Narshty wrote:I could well be totally missing something here, but what on earth happens to Sabine, Jules and Catherine's daughter?
Jules, Jim and Catherine couldn't care less about her, so why should you?

I thought that she was just a plot device to make us understand the selfishness of our trio of 'heroes'.
That's what I thought. I knew there was something that left a bad taste in my mouth, but that nails the essential dislikeability of the film for me. The whole cascade of petit-bourgeois narcissicism just did my head in.

User avatar
Steven H
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: NC

#116 Post by Steven H » Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:01 pm

N. Wilson wrote:Jules, Jim and Catherine couldn't care less about her, so why should you?

I thought that she was just a plot device to make us understand the selfishness of our trio of 'heroes'.
Narshty wrote:That's what I thought. I knew there was something that left a bad taste in my mouth, but that nails the essential disikeability of the film for me. The whole cascade of petit-bourgeois narcissism just did my head in.
While I was watching The Key to Jules and Jim something struck me as incredibly interesting about Roche's reductive writing style. It brings up how in his original manuscript there are whole pages marked out with only a few words, or a sentence, left. With that kind of backbone, it's amazing we got to know Sabine at all. With such a near total negation of sub-plot (and probably plot), to not just concentrate on the three main characters wouldn't have fit the film (not that this makes it likeable, or takes away the narcissism). I want to read the book.

User avatar
Theodore R. Stockton
script girl
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:55 pm
Location: Where Streams Of Whiskey Are Flowing

#117 Post by Theodore R. Stockton » Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:37 pm

I think Sabine was in the trunk with Sprittle and Chim-Chim.

User avatar
jorencain
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:45 am

#118 Post by jorencain » Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:15 pm

I'm watching my Criterion disc of "Jules and Jim" for the second time, and I just realized that there isn't a chapter list in the booklet. Very strange! Is this the only Criterion release that doesn't have them listed?

Wittsdream
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: Chicago

#119 Post by Wittsdream » Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:16 pm

Just wanted to weigh in on the Criterion Jules et Jim reverse frame controversy. I have two earlier non-DVD editions of J&J, both on laserdisc. The earlier Criterion LD of Jules et Jim and the very early CBS/FOX LD of Jules et Jim are exactly the same as the Fox Lorber DVD edition of Jules et Jim in terms of preserving the "correct" visual bearings on the aforementioned scenes that were compared by those on this forum.

The new Criterion DVD is definitely in error! But, oh mammy, what a collector's item it'll be one day, me hopes.

scotty
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:04 pm

#120 Post by scotty » Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:18 am

So no word yet from Criterion? I'm fighting the very strong temptation to purchase, even though I already own the Fox Lorber.

User avatar
lord_clyde
No. 33 Killer
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#121 Post by lord_clyde » Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:54 am

scotty wrote:So no word yet from Criterion? I'm fighting the very strong temptation to purchase, even though I already own the Fox Lorber.
Don't fight it. The dvd is incredible.

User avatar
justeleblanc
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Connecticut

#122 Post by justeleblanc » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:15 pm

I haven't purchased this DVD yet but it's on my gift list so I'm probably going to get it in a few days. But all the talk of it being the most dissapointing release is worrying me. How bad is the flipped frames? How many seconds in total? Did Criterion say they would fix it? Do you think Criterion will actually fix it?

User avatar
Napier
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:48 am
Location: The Shire

#123 Post by Napier » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:20 pm

Don't let this stop you from getting J&J.Minus the little flipping error it is a great transfer and a great film.The extras are bountiful on this must own package from Criterion.

Narshty
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#124 Post by Narshty » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:36 pm

They're two really quick shots that are simply flipped. Frankly, Truffaut's camera is so all over the place I doubt I'd ever have noticed had I not been a member of this forum. And even now I don't care. It's an absolutely amazing package, ramjammed with goodies. Don't miss it.

Cinéslob
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:31 pm

#125 Post by Cinéslob » Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:04 pm

JusteLeblanc wrote:I haven't purchased this DVD yet but it's on my gift list so I'm probably going to get it in a few days. But all the talk of it being the most dissapointing release is worrying me. How bad is the flipped frames? How many seconds in total? Did Criterion say they would fix it? Do you think Criterion will actually fix it?
Whether you'll appreciate Jules et Jim depends upon your threshold for irritating niggles, which is all that this problem amounts to. As Narshty said, the error itself is almost unnoticeable, but even so, knowing that this 'flipping' occurs at all is, to me, an annoyance in and of itself.

As for Criterion rectifying this problem in the future, well, I wouldn't hold your breath, blind as Criterion are to perfectly legitimate criticism of their transfers (see Gertrud and Kwaidan).

Post Reply