Kino

[HerrSchreck]

Makes me really sad to hear that... at least among those friends I have here, there's a wide variety of second languages that they know at least a little; some speak French, others a little or even quite good Russian, one even a little Japanese; and they all speak English, and none of them has immigrant parents or so. Basically similar to what Sloper just wrote. Believe me, I'm not mentioning this to indicate any sort of European superiority or something, but this apparent difference is quite striking and surprising to me.

It shouldn't be-- you can't travel more than a day in any direction in Europe without bumping into a new language-- it's pretty much a matter of practical neccessity (even moreso with the EU). The size of your countries is the size of our states. We don't bump into new languages as we travel the breadth of this huge continent-- we just bump into more bad regional accents, strip malls, trailer parks, and toothless people panhandling for crystal meth money.

Believe me, the lack of cultural imposition here is nothing to brag about. But you can see the reasons for it in this vast homogenous land vs the rich cultural diversity of Europe, where, if you don't want to be a nationalist homebody staying with the confines of your country, you pretty much have to learn a language and at least DEAL with the fact of life that is English.

[HarryLong]

I guess I'm missing some subtle point but given that during the silent era all exported films had new intertitles made for each country they were shipped to, Kin's substituting translated ones for the US market strikes me as silly hair-splitting. Isn't there something important about Kino's business practices that can be discussed?

[Michael Kerpan]

I guess I'm missing some subtle point but given that during the silent era all exported films had new intertitles made for each country they were shipped to, Kin's substituting translated ones for the US market strikes me as silly hair-splitting. Isn't there something important about Kino's business practices that can be discussed?

Query -- did the intertitles made for varying countries try to replicate the essential features of the original inter-titles (bolding, size changes, font changes, etc.)?

[ptmd]

Query -- did the intertitles made for varying countries try to replicate the essential features of the original inter-titles (bolding, size changes, font changes, etc.)?

Not generally, no, that's a recent development. All the old 1920s/30s prints I've seen for films like Caligari or Potemkin have completely banal intertitles that make no attempt to simulate the effect of the originals, yet another reason complaints about Kino replacing intertitles (but still trying to get the tone right) seem a bit overblown to me.

[Michael Kerpan]

Just because the contemporary practice (in the silent era) was to make bland translated intertitles (while discarding all features of interest in the original intertitles), this does not mean it was a "best practice" -- to be emulated now. (Not criticizing Kino -- but am suggesting that this particuular commercial (not artistic) "tradition" is not one that needs perpetuating).

[ptmd]

Totally agreed, but my point was that Kino do generally try to capture the spirit (font, placement, etc.) of the original intertitles when they replace them, which is a huge step forward from silent-era practice. Potemkin is definitely like this and I can't think of any significant counter-examples (although it's entirely possible there are a few).

[Michael Kerpan]

I was also quite happy with Kino's Potemkin set -- and its "ultimate" Nosferatu one. ;~}

[Der Spieler]

I'm interested in seeing movies in the best possible form. Some of Kino's transfers are extremely weak (Liliom anyone?) and their weaknesses are even more apparent on an HD TV. I don't own a Blu-Ray player nor an HD TV but I know I'll have to make the switch someday so I try to pick up the best editions available. Does that mean I'm not a film lover to you?

[tojoed]

^ I'm sure you are, but if you don't know what these look like on an HDTV, why are you criticising Kino? There's too much of this nonsense attacking Kino around here lately. If you want to watch Stiller, Sjostrom, Pabst, Von Stroheim then Kino's DVDs look fine upconverted, despite some faults.

Anyhow, back to the topic.

[nsps]

Isn't there something important about Kino's business practices that can be discussed?

Well, their encoding machines are fueled by puppy blood, but as long the PQ is acceptable, I don't see an issue there.

Aren't there some releases (Kino or not) that included stills of the original intertitles as extras (or maybe flashed a frame of them) for reference, while using translated ones to please the masses? I can't seem to find any examples as I quickly look over my collection, but I could swear it's been done. Anyhow, that's a nice sort of compromise.

[Gregory]

Isn't there something important about Kino's business practices that can be discussed?

Well, I brought up a couple of fairly recent examples that had nothing to do with intertitles, such as Ingeborg Holm being so zoomed in that Hilda Borgström, the lead, drifts outside the frame at several moments when we should be able to see her, and at other times male characters' heads are cut off at or below the eyes while they're performing in the foreground of the frame. But perhaps this is not considered important around here.

[Tribe]

Isn't there something important about Kino's business practices that can be discussed?

There's always the excitement caused by the printing of their forthcoming new catalog!

[Der Spieler]

I just assumed that while some of the shoddy transfers are watchable on a normal TV, they'd look pretty bad on a big HD screen.

I didn't mean to trash Kino. I own a few of their DVDs myself.

[knives]

I was also quite happy with Kino's Potemkin set -- and its "ultimate" Nosferatu one. ;~}

Really all of their 'ultimate' discs produced these last few years are really good. At least their consistently reasonable on silents. I can't think of a single other American company to which that could be applied.

[Tommaso]

Well, I brought up a couple of fairly recent examples that had nothing to do with intertitles, such as Ingeborg Holm being so zoomed in that Hilda Borgström, the lead, drifts outside the frame at several moments when we should be able to see her, and at other times male characters' heads are cut off at or below the eyes while they're performing in the foreground of the frame. But perhaps this is not considered important around here.

It surely is important, but as Kino only receive their masters for European silents from other sources, in this case I suppose the SFI, it's hardly their fault I would assume. The cropping might have occured at any stage in the long history of the film, perhaps even on the source copy the SFI used; always assuming the negative is lost and they had to work with prints made far later than 1914. There's no excuse for "The outlaw and his wife", of course; but apart from the cropping and the intertitle situation, "Ingeborg" has a pretty flawless transfer (and it's a gorgeous film, so there's no way around it).

Likewise, the praise for "Potemkin" and "Nosferatu" must go to Transit who made these wonderful restos in the first place; you can only thank Kino as far as not messing them up. The same goes, of course, for many an MoC disc; just to put things into perspective; all these labels regularly (though not always) use masters provided by other companies and then do their own encoding; at least that's one difference to CC, who often (though not always) do their own transfers.

[HerrSchreck]

There are exceptions to the intertitle design situation. But first and foremost I'd say that most intertitles ARE banal even in the home country vintage edition. Something like Caligari is an exception, meaning to be a riff on the extraordinary visual design of the film, which blew minds and turned the film into a totally phantasmagorical experience.

As far as export editions' font, every here and there you'll get something like The Man Who Laughs, where the Italian title cards are hand painted and gorgeous, and more impressive than the American cards.

And illustrated cards are truly gorgeous, like Nanook.

In most of Kino's silent releases, when cards are electronically recreated, they do indeed duplicate the fonts used in the (especially the German films) original edition.

On this issue of "home language" cards being the 'official' edition, with all others being pale imitations, I think this is somehwat an exaggeration to play a bit of the purist. We're not talking about Shakespeare here-- except for some truly literary intertitles, most cards were not pieces of high art-- intertitles were written to be flexible and easily translated, to boil action and verbiage down to simplistic summation, these were films that were meant to play around the world, and for which each edition was intended to be every bit as legitimate as the home market release... especially when you're talking about an export to America, where the director really wanted to kick ass. Something like Gab. D'Annunz.'s cards for Cabiria, very literary and verbose, are the extreme exception.

Take a release like Sunrise. What's the "official" language of those intertitles? Since Carl Mayer's script was in German, as was the director, is the "official" US release of the film a compromise? Should Fox be slammed for not releasing a German edition of the film so that the script's intertitles don't have to be translated for the "authoritative edition"? What about Paul Leni's films made in America? One could go on and on with emigrant directors.

My only beef is the removal of vintage intertitles when they exist, because it breaks the spell of antiquity. I love looking at old grotty intertitles, regardless of the language.

[HarryLong]

Isn't there something important about Kino's business practices that can be discussed?

Well, I brought up a couple of fairly recent examples that had nothing to do with intertitles, such as Ingeborg Holm being so zoomed in that Hilda Borgström, the lead, drifts outside the frame at several moments when we should be able to see her, and at other times male characters' heads are cut off at or below the eyes while they're performing in the foreground of the frame. But perhaps this is not considered important around here.

No, that would be something less silly that the intertitles tsimmis in a teapot. If we're going to condemn a company it ought to be for something truly egregious.
Heck, in a good many cases we don't even have a print of a silent film from the country of origin but only an import print with that country's created title cards (Is it SORROWS OF SATAN or 7 FOOTPRINTS TO SATAN that only exists in an Italian print? I'm having a brain fart). And as Herr Schreck notes sometimes they're a far cry from the original & even an improvement.
And what are we to make of something such as the 1925 Phantom of the Opera which has something like 3 or 4 different styles of title cards - no doubt the result of new ones being prepared as the studio tinkered with the film after is several disaterous previews...
And don't even get me started on how different countries tinted exported films differently based on their own preferences for such things ...

My only beef is the removal of vintage intertitles when they exist, because it breaks the spell of antiquity. I love looking at old grotty intertitles, regardless of the language.

The key phrase being "when they exist." We really need to face the fact that in the majority of silent films we no longer possess anything like a definitive version.

[hangman]

I'm interested in seeing movies in the best possible form. Some of Kino's transfers are extremely weak (Liliom anyone?) and their weaknesses are even more apparent on an HD TV. I don't own a Blu-Ray player nor an HD TV but I know I'll have to make the switch someday so I try to pick up the best editions available. Does that mean I'm not a film lover to you?

This just goes back to the Blu-Ray criterion thread. Which in the end boils down to whether you actually put priority on your screening the quality of the film or the quality of the transfer, of course it would be nice to have both but face it thats not always entirely possible so a "best edition" in terms of transfer for many films are just pipe dreams so to speak (ruling out the exceptions of transfers completely unservicable). Especially with a lot of Kino titles which only Kino have touched and have done a great service, as noted have improved over the last few years with their transfer though extras could improve more still transfer wise its gone up a notch. Their major releases like the Paradjnov, Potmekin, Nosferatu, and Murnau set to name a few good examples. Weaknesses may become more pronounced on an HD-TV but thats just the trade off you'd have to pay to watch the films. Its only a shame when you only focus on the transfer to the point of being a technophile rather than a cinephile.

[Ben Cheshire]

Its only a shame when you only focus on the transfer to the point of being a technophile rather than a cinephile.

I don't think anyone here only cares about the transfer, but I agree as an extreme case scenario, sure, that would be bad.

[Tribe]

Its only a shame when you only focus on the transfer to the point of being a technophile rather than a cinephile.

I don't think anyone here only cares about the transfer...

You'd be surprised.

[Ben Cheshire]

You'd be surprised.

I'd be disappointed, but okay not surprised.

[nsps]

I care about the transfer insofar as I want it to preserve the integrity of the original film as accurately as possible. Granted, I'll watch a fuzzy, decayed VHS if that's all that's available and I want to attack people who complain about grain or blown-out windows or the family reunion scene from Bonnie and Clyde. But I definitely prefer the best available quality (which is why I go to as many 35-mm screenings as possible), so long as no one changed the color palette or the AR or something.

[Gregory]

...Ingeborg Holm...

It surely is important, but as Kino only receive their masters for European silents from other sources, in this case I suppose the SFI, it's hardly their fault I would assume. The cropping might have occured at any stage in the long history of the film, perhaps even on the source copy the SFI used; always assuming the negative is lost and they had to work with prints made far later than 1914. There's no excuse for "The outlaw and his wife", of course; but apart from the cropping and the intertitle situation, "Ingeborg" has a pretty flawless transfer (and it's a gorgeous film, so there's no way around it).
Likewise, the praise for "Potemkin" and "Nosferatu" must go to Transit who made these wonderful restos in the first place; you can only thank Kino as far as not messing them up. The same goes, of course, for many an MoC disc; just to put things into perspective; all these labels regularly (though not always) use masters provided by other companies and then do their own encoding; at least that's one difference to CC, who often (though not always) do their own transfers.

That's a fair point that I should have acknowledged at the outset. My point was not to place all the blame on Kino but mainly just to say that even though they've improved I still encounter big problems with some of their newer releases. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that it was either a heavily cropped Ingeborg Holm or none at all, they could provide a warning or notice on the box (as one should expect if it was not in OAR), or at the very least reply to customer emails expressing concern. Answering polite emails they receive would be a minimum, and if they really wanted to improve the company's image they could have someone visit this forum to respond to complaints and technical questions. Nick explains many of the little decisions that go into each MoC realease, allaying many potential concerns in the process, and as far as I can see it's been a win-win situation. MoC would probably have a sky-high reputation even if there were complaints and criticisms going completely unanswered on the forum. Kino's reputation, in comparison, could use some care and attention. For example, a lot of people on Amazon have written really bad reviews of older Kino releases, and it's likely that many of these folks are totally unaware that Kino's products have gotten better in the last few years.

[Tribe]

Kino's reputation, in comparison, could use some care and attention. For example, a lot of people on Amazon have written really bad reviews of older Kino releases, and it's likely that many of these folks are totally unaware that Kino's products have gotten better in the last few years.

Yes, they have improved in some areas, but they are still not out of the woods. Releasing a non-anamorphic release as they did with The Quare Fellow, in 2009 nonetheless, is inexcusable. Or releasing Ferran's Lady Chatterley in 2007, then, almost a year later releasing an extended cut of the same movie without giving any notice when it released the original version that an extended version would be coming later. So yeah, Kino has gotten better....but it's only when you consider its often abysmal record. I don't like to rag too much on them...as many have mentioned, Kino has taken risks no other DVD publisher in the US has by releasing important silent features. I also understand they don't have the dough to go hog wild on an elements hunt or commissioning new transfers. But there are other little things they could do...and giving notice of things would go a long way.

[Jonathan S]

Is it SORROWS OF SATAN or 7 FOOTPRINTS TO SATAN that only exists in an Italian print?.

7 FOOTPRINTS TO SATAN - at least that's the only way I've ever seen it. TCM scheduled it a year or two ago then replaced it with another film long before the date, and I don't think it was ever broadcast.