49-50 Judex & Nuits rouges

Discuss releases by Eureka and Masters of Cinema and the films on them.
Message
Author
User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

#51 Post by Yojimbo » Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:25 am

I've just received notification that my order is on the way.
Should be here today or tomorrow

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

#52 Post by Tommaso » Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:37 am

Have received the set now and started with "Judex", a film that I never forgot after seeing it on TV probably more than 20 years ago (and never again in between), with some of its images still having been completely vivid in my mind during all these years. So it was a joy to see it again and to be able to find out what precisely it was that fascinated me so way back then. Well, I still can't explain what it is precisely, but as has been variously pointed out, the film owes a lot to Cocteau, and probably what makes it so memorable is its completely dream-like logic and archetypal imagery. Sure, there is a clear narrative, but it has a lot of gaps in it; sometimes things seem to happen completely out-of-the-blue (how precisely did Favraux get out of his cell and the detective in?). I guess these things are clear to those who have seen the Feuillade version, but Franju plainly refuses to explain them. But this only heightens the air of mystery and enchantment, as does Franju's somewhat detached attitude to his characters. We learn little or nothing about who they are or what motivates them, but this also enhances the feeling of watching something ultimately inexplicable though rooted in reality.

The only letdown for me was Channing Pollock in the title role; he simply doesn't exude the charisma the role requires, and when he finally unmasks to Jacqueline and has blond hair for a moment, the comparison becomes unavoidable: the film simply cries out for this role to be played by Jean Marais (who played Fantomas a few years later, incidentally). Thankfully we get a very sexy Francine Bergé in an Irma-Vep-style costume and a very etherial Edith Scob (who also looks as if she came directly out of "La belle et la bete") instead. In short: wonderful, wonderful stuff indeed.

As the linked reviews above point out, the source materials are not in pristine shape; the audio is somewhat crackly and there's a little debris as well as very heavy grain occasionally, but the transfer itself is pretty flawless, as usual. Still, don't expect it to look as good as, say, "Silence de la mer" or "Rocco". The booklet is a very strong effort containing highly informative interviews with Franju. Still, what would I have given to get an audio commentary for that film. The on-screen interview with Champreux is great, but with only ten minutes it is far too short . That's something I always wonder about with many MoC discs: if you take the effort to interview someone as informed and engaging as Champreux or Tony Rayns, why not let them ramble on a little longer? In this case, I'm sure Champreux would have said (or even did say) a lot more of interest.

But don't let me appear to be more critical than I am: this is a marvellous package, of course, and now I'm looking very much forward to see "Nuits rouges".

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

#53 Post by MichaelB » Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:01 am

Tommaso wrote:That's something I always wonder about with many MoC discs: if you take the effort to interview someone as informed and engaging as Champreux or Tony Rayns, why not let them ramble on a little longer?
I'm sure this isn't the only reason, but the BBFC charges by the minute...

User avatar
foggy eyes
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
Location: UK

#54 Post by foggy eyes » Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:26 am

Tommaso wrote:Sure, there is a clear narrative, but it has a lot of gaps in it; sometimes things seem to happen completely out-of-the-blue (how precisely did Favraux get out of his cell and the detective in?). I guess these things are clear to those who have seen the Feuillade version, but Franju plainly refuses to explain them. But this only heightens the air of mystery and enchantment, as does Franju's somewhat detached attitude to his characters. We learn little or nothing about who they are or what motivates them, but this also enhances the feeling of watching something ultimately inexplicable though rooted in reality.
Totally agree about Judex, Tommaso. I loved the way Franju not only continues but refines Feuillade's technique of setting mysterious characters and incident against a concrete (almost everyday) reality - everything feels both totally organic and eerily strange at the same time. As the action unfolds at such a crisp, leisurely pace, all emphasis is placed on individual shots and their texture and meaning rather than coherent or 'realistic' narrative progression (as Rivette eloquently points out in the booklet).

I haven't seen Feuillade's serial (missed out on the Flicker Alley DVD), but Franju's 'remake' strikes me as a very broad homage - the references to Fantômas and Les Vampires are impossible to miss, from Cocantin's reading of the original pulp novel of Fantômas (certainly the right place to look for ideas within this milieu), right down to the similarity between his youthful accomplice (who of course proves to be a much more proficient detective) and Mazamette's son in Les Vampires.

I thought Nuits rouges was tremendously disappointing, though - gaudy, overlit and ugly in terms of cinematography, and a real drag in terms of narrative. The elusive, enigmatic quality of Judex is lost within a laboured, convoluted structure that I found a real struggle to get through - hopefully others will feel differently.

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

#55 Post by Tommaso » Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:46 am

foggy eyes wrote:I thought Nuits rouges was tremendously disappointing, though - gaudy, overlit and ugly in terms of cinematography, and a real drag in terms of narrative. The elusive, enigmatic quality of Judex is lost within a laboured, convoluted structure that I found a real struggle to get through - hopefully others will feel differently.
No, sadly I have to agree with you, at least as far as narrative is concerned. Unlike you I liked the look of the film, but everything else was a big letdown, especially in direct comparison with "Judex". The basic idea with the hunt for the Templar treasure sounds really interesting, though it might have worked far better in an Umberto Eco novel than in a 100 min. film. Nevertheless while watching this I almost constantly wondered what Rivette would have made from that plot and material. "Nuits rouges" had some good moments nevertheless, for instance the scene with the 'robot-men' attacking Paul. This curiously reminded me obliquely of the attack of the automatons in Bernard's "Chess Player", but I don't think that was Franju's intention.
Anyway, while I can see why MoC released this film together with "Judex" (it fits thematically), I wonder whether something more substantial from the early 60s wouldn't have been a better choice ("Thomas l'Imposteur"!!). But as some reviewer wrote: perhaps it's best to consider "Nuits rouges" as a freebee and only think of this release as an excellent edition of "Judex".

evillights
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: U.S.
Contact:

#56 Post by evillights » Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:01 pm

Tommaso wrote:Anyway, while I can see why MoC released this film together with "Judex" (it fits thematically), I wonder whether something more substantial from the early 60s wouldn't have been a better choice ("Thomas l'Imposteur"!!). But as some reviewer wrote: perhaps it's best to consider "Nuits rouges" as a freebee and only think of this release as an excellent edition of "Judex".
For me, Nuits rouges is the greater film, though of course they're both excellent. I would argue that not only does it have plenty of "substance," but that it's also the harsher nightmare. Toward which end, is the reason Franju shot it as he did.

craig.

User avatar
Awesome Welles
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:02 am
Location: London

#57 Post by Awesome Welles » Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:22 am

davidhare wrote:BTW isn't the little girl whom Edith is teaching piano in her first scene away from the Chateau played by the same actress that plays her daughter? (Whom we never see again of course.)
I thought that too, it did throw me for a moment!
davidhare wrote:Apart from all its other pleasures, the most delicious thing to me in Judex is the absolutely liberating freedom of the narrative dynamics, thus the Cirque Daisy turns up out of nowhere, with its acrobats, just as Cocantin and junior have need of such assistance, and in the great Feuillade tradition, Cocantin and his long lost love, Daisy are reunited!
I didn't find it to be the most delicious thing about the movie, as you put it David, but I did feel whilst watching the film as the events inexplicably unfolded that this is what movies are supposed to be like and I felt the same way as I watched Fantomas. Franju captures the magic, for want of a better word, of the movies and sews it all together in a wonderful package. The only really disappointing thing for me was that Channing Pollock lacked any real magnetism though the scene in which he walks through the ball pulling doves out all over the place was absolutely mesmerising, not to mention with Maurice Jarre's wonderful score, which I found too reminiscent of Les Yeux but loved it nonetheless.

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

#58 Post by Tommaso » Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:30 am

FSimeoni wrote: The only really disappointing thing for me was that Channing Pollock lacked any real magnetism though the scene in which he walks through the ball pulling doves out all over the place was absolutely mesmerising
Totally mesmerising, but to state the obvious: the scene works so well precisely because we don't see Pollock's face.

User avatar
Felix
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: A dark damp land where the men all wear skirts

#59 Post by Felix » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:16 pm

Having finally noticed the bit about picture framing at the end of the booklet I realise that I cannot do 1.66:1 anamorphic as my set just puts it to 16:9, with no black bars at the sides of the screen as detailed in the booklet.

Anybody got any way round this? The best I seem able is to do it as Smart (Sony Bravia setting/term?) and zoom out which gives me about 1.58:1, or set the DVD player for 4:3 letterbox and watch it on a far smaller size which kinda does away with the value of anamorphic.

Alternatively, if there isn't a way round it, is the problem with my DVD player or TV?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#60 Post by domino harvey » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:18 pm

Sounds like overscan

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

#61 Post by Tommaso » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:01 pm

Felix wrote:Alternatively, if there isn't a way round it, is the problem with my DVD player or TV?
I have the same problem with all 1.66 anamorphic discs, and as it's the same with three different players, I strongly suspect the TV set. For whatever unfathomable reason, it stretches the sides of the image so as to fill up the whole screen. It's not overscan in the strict sense of the term, but it's pretty annoying in any case (though admittedly, if I didn't know the film should be 1.66 I would hardly notice the slight stretching). No workaround that I'm aware of apart from setting the player to 4:3 and then zooming in, which probably should result in a less detailed image. I can't even zoom out with my set-up. :cry:

User avatar
Felix
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: A dark damp land where the men all wear skirts

#62 Post by Felix » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:06 pm

Tommaso wrote:I have the same problem with all 1.66 anamorphic discs, and as it's the same with three different players, I strongly suspect the TV set. For whatever unfathomable reason, it stretches the sides of the image so as to fill up the whole screen. It's not overscan in the strict sense of the term, but it's pretty annoying in any case (though admittedly, if I didn't know the film should be 1.66 I would hardly notice the slight stretching). No workaround that I'm aware of apart from setting the player to 4:3 and then zooming in, which probably should result in a less detailed image. I can't even zoom out with my set-up.
yup, that's what it does to mine, the previous set did the same I guess but like I say I had never noticed until I saw that bit in the booklet. Now I notice...

I can do it with the 4:3 and zoom as well, just a tad pissed as I upgraded my La Notte for the better image and it will have the same problem, damn and blast it.

BradStevens
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:39 pm
Location: UK

#63 Post by BradStevens » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:36 pm

Just compared MoC's disc of JUDEX with an ancient VHS edition released by Sinister Cinema. The MoC transfer looks gorgeous, but is heavily cut. The cuts are as follows:

1- 52m 58s. 33 seconds are missing; the end of the shot showing a man walking away from the camera; the whole of the following shot, showing the doctor walking behind a pair of children; the start of the next shot of the doctor.

2- 53m 11s. After the woman tells the childern "This isn't a sight for you", they walk away. In the MoC ediiton, the shot ends here; in Sinister's tape, it continues for an additional 5 seconds with the boy turning around and shouting at the woman.

3- 53m 23s. The whole scene (46s) showing the man getting into a car and talking to the nun has been cut.

4- 54m 37s. A 35s shot has been cut; this shows two men carrying a stretcher into a room and placing a woman on it.

5- 55m 8s. Shot slightly shortened.

6- 57m 20s. A 3s shot showing a man getting out of a car is missing.

7- 58m 1s. 4s of dialogue is missing after the man says "it's quite a walk you know".

User avatar
starmanof51
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:28 am
Location: Seattleish
Contact:

#64 Post by starmanof51 » Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:50 pm

BradStevens wrote:Just compared MoC's disc of JUDEX with an ancient VHS edition released by Sinister Cinema. The MoC transfer looks gorgeous, but is heavily cut.
Thanks for the effort, very interesting.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#65 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:13 pm

I wonder if the other current editions (there is a new edition from Sinister on dvd, and there is a Coffret Franju double feature edition-- w Nuits Rouges-- from Editions Cahiers du cinema) are similarly cut? (Taking Brad's assertions of the cuts as valid of course).

For links to the editions I'm talking about in R1 &2, see the Franju thread I created just a couple days ago in the Filmmakers Forum.

EDIT: checking the runtimes of the SInister dvd (99 min. at least on the amazon specs) vs the 1 hr 33 min runtime of the Beev for Judex, reveals a 6 minutes approx difference... but of course there's a PAL speedup to be taken into consideration?

BradStevens
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:39 pm
Location: UK

#66 Post by BradStevens » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:18 am

Sinister's tape runs 99m 24s, 30s of which consists of an English-language foreword added to the opening credits. Curiously, although the print has burned on English subtitles, the scenes unique to this edition are unsubtitled, suggesting that they have been edited in from another source (though there is no noticeable difference in quality or framing).

MoC's disc runs just over 93m at 25fps, which would translate to a 24 fps running time of 96 or 97m.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#67 Post by peerpee » Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:13 pm

All these anomalies appear within a 5 minute period of the film. None of them are for violence or nudity, so they don't really make much sense. If the film were to be tightened up to shave minutes, edits are normally made all over (see KWAIDAN, or LA NOTTE) -- not just within a 5 minute area.

The print MoC used is Jacques Champreux's personal print, and it is identical to the Cahiers/Why Not French DVD edition. I've asked Monsieur Champreux about this, and will report back when I hear something.

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

#68 Post by Yojimbo » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:20 am

I loved both films, 'Judex' probably marginally the better of two, and not just because of Francine Berge.
Although I haven't yet watched 'Fantomas' or seen any Feuillades, I suspect 'Judex' is well-in tune with the inspiration/source.
At no time, though, did I ever get the impression of pastiche, and the innocence and charm always struck me as genuine.

In 'Nuits' early stages I got the horrible feeling that it was nothing more than an 'Avengers/Mission Impossible' clone but Franju's inventiveness and Gallic charm gradually elevated it to a higher plane.

For sheer fun I think this release ranks right up there with Lang's 'Spionen' as one of the most wholly enjoyable of the MoC sets. :D

BradStevens
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:39 pm
Location: UK

#69 Post by BradStevens » Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:58 am

My guess is that JUDEX's negative was damaged at some point (which would explain why all the cuts appear within a few minutes of each other), and that any prints subsequently struck from it will be missing the material I mentioned. The damage must have occurred prior to 1992, when the film was shown on SBS. Sinister's tape was made from an ancient US release print.

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

#70 Post by What A Disgrace » Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:52 pm

I was very pleased to find that, non-anamorphic though it was, Nuits rouges's subtitles were still fully visible when I used my player's 'ZOOM' setting to view non-anamorphic widescreen films. This is something that doesn't happen on most of my other non-anamorphic releases, where the subtitles are cut off. Nick, had the subtitles on this disc been prepared for this? Or am I making a lot out of nothing?

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#71 Post by peerpee » Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:50 am

The subs placement on NUITS ROUGES was specifically set to account for viewing like that, yes.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#72 Post by peerpee » Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:41 pm

Mr. Champreux's response, reprinted here with his permission:
Dear Mr. Wrigley,

I'm very surprised by your mail. I've never heard about another version of « JUDEX » with a different cut like this.
I can affirm that the French DVD and MoC DVD is absolutely conformable to the original negative as cut by Georges Franju himself and Gilbert Natot and kept in the lab Eclair.
The version of « JUDEX » you can see in the DVD is exactly the same as the one that Franju approved and saw in 1963 at the Cinémathèque Française, at the time of the first official screening in the world of that film.
Since, nothing has been changed.
I suppose that, before this official screening, a print was normally established and next after seeing it, a refining out of the cutting of some sequences was decided. And then that refused print has been commercially exploited, without Franju's knowledge. There are no neglectable savings for the producers
It seems to me that the result of the cuts you indicate is to improve the rhythm of the concerned sequences.

With my best regards
Jacques CHAMPREUX

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

#73 Post by Narshty » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:09 am

I haven't seen Nuits rouges yet, but Judex is one of the two or three best films I've seen all year. Utterly exhilirating, it's film poetry of the highest order; that is, its very unfussiness is what allows the whole pulp world of elegant villainy mingled with the supernatural to be that much more vivid and enchanting. It's one of the year's totally essential releases. There's a lovely charcoal-sketch quality to the transfer too - a splendid presentation all round.

patricio00
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: 49-50 Judex and Nuits rouges

#74 Post by patricio00 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:08 pm

I started watching Nuits Rouges after having seen Judex and Les Yeux sans visage (I've also seen the Feuillade films). It started not really working for me. The sets just had something wrong about them, they seemed cheaply made, like mexican wrestling films from the 70s. So I did a weird thing... I turned the color off the tv and saw it in B&W. I guess it's not what the director intended but to me It looks so much better! The cheapness is stripped off, the relationship to the Feuillade films (and Judex) becomes stronger. Otherwise the color is just too distracting.

User avatar
tartarlamb
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 49-50 Judex and Nuits rouges

#75 Post by tartarlamb » Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm

I enjoyed the color, if only because it reminded me of the wonderful, campy world of late-60s and early 70s low-budget genre films, the stuff churned out by AIP, Hammer, etc. Aside from the cheap sets, bad 70s fashion, and piss-poor acting, I thought Nuits rouges was superb. The rooftop sequence is purest Franju magic. Its not Judex by any measure, but its worthy in its own way.

Post Reply