Kino

[zedz]

While I do see your point, Schreck, this still doesn't answer why Criterion consistently gets away with presenting foreign films with either original intertitles or, probably even more demanding for a 'general' audience, sound films in foreign languages with subtitles. I thought Kino (especially with their silents) were catering more or less to the same or even a smaller audience than Criterion, i.e. the hardcore film enthusiasts.

I suspect that Criterion is a very different kettle of fish from most other art-house labels, with a comfy cushion of brand loyalists to fall back on, who will pick up marginal releases on their label where they wouldn't do so for the equivalent release on another label. (Is there even such a thing as a Kino Completist?)

I wouldn't be surprised if The Phantom Carriage has already far outstripped the sales of Kino's The Outlaw and His Wife. But that was a sparkling HD transfer stacked with extras, and Outlaw was sort of dodgy, quality-wise, I hear you cry! But there's the rub: if Criterion (or BFI, or MoC, or Filmmuseum) release a film I'm interested in, I'll happily order it immediately; if it's Kino, I'll wait for a review (and often pull the trigger anyway, but I'll also shop around and see if there's a better release available elsewhere). Unless I'm completely alone in this, that kind of thing will add up to quite a different financial picture for Kino compared with Criterion.

[Minkin]

A quick aside from intertitles..

Here's Kino's April slate
or

KINO LORBER label:
4/3 - THE GETTING OF WISDOM (1978, Bruce Beresford, DVD only)
4/10 - LITTLEROCK (2011, Mike Ott, Blu-ray & DVD)
4/10 - CHARLOTTE RAMPLING: THE LOOK (2011, Angelina Maccarone, Blu-ray & DVD)

ALIVE MIND CINEMA label:
4/3 - GRIEFWALKER (2008, Tim Wilson, DVD only)

REDEMPTION label:
4/17 - THE ASPHYX (1973, Peter Newbrook, Blu-ray & DVD) - first time on Blu-ray!
4/24 - GIRL ON A MOTORCYCLE (1968, Jack Cardiff, Blu-ray & DVD) - first time on Blu-ray!
4/24 - PRIMITIVE LONDON + LONDON IN THE RAW (1967/1965, Arnold L. Miller, DVD only) - double feature!
4/24 - JUSTINE (1977, Chris Boger, Blu-ray & DVD) - first time on Blu-ray!

[swo17]

I wouldn't be surprised if The Phantom Carriage has already far outstripped the sales of Kino's The Outlaw and His Wife. But that was a sparkling HD transfer stacked with extras, and Outlaw was sort of dodgy, quality-wise, I hear you cry!

Outlaw plays fine though if you simply hook a computer up to your TV so you can watch it on an obscure downloadable player that will work at less than full speed, and then stuff your ears with enough cotton that you can't quite notice the pitch modulation but not so much that you can't hear the score at all.

Unless by "dodgy" you're referring to how they replaced the original intertitles...

[HerrSchreck]

Not to mention that Criterion only very lightly dabble in silents, and when they do its only with the best known classics out there. What is for the Criterion collection a very small side show, is for Kino their core business model, Iahuge central chunk of their catalog.

As for your elucidation of the history of intertitle replacing and it's supposed responsibility for films failure, I'm afraid Tom this is all avery hypothetical supposition and in fact a little bit strange. As far as silent films are concerned the only ones I can think of that come close to your example are perhaps Metropolis, Nibelungen, and a very small number of others. This has less to do with the replacement of title cards then the extraordinary length of the films and no different than what happened to Erich von Stroheim in his own country. You make it sound like the films in every case of the silent era saw thier originators pass their copies over to unknown quantities who raped these films according to their own whimsies, whereas in reality,one can see from so many export prints which survive (of for example german films) that the cutting continuity was followed faithfully along with the script.

[matrixschmatrix]

While I do see your point, Schreck, this still doesn't answer why Criterion consistently gets away with presenting foreign films with either original intertitles or, probably even more demanding for a 'general' audience, sound films in foreign languages with subtitles. I thought Kino (especially with their silents) were catering more or less to the same or even a smaller audience than Criterion, i.e. the hardcore film enthusiasts.

I suspect that Criterion is a very different kettle of fish from most other art-house labels, with a comfy cushion of brand loyalists to fall back on, who will pick up marginal releases on their label where they wouldn't do so for the equivalent release on another label. (Is there even such a thing as a Kino Completist?)

I wouldn't be surprised if The Phantom Carriage has already far outstripped the sales of Kino's The Outlaw and His Wife. But that was a sparkling HD transfer stacked with extras, and Outlaw was sort of dodgy, quality-wise, I hear you cry! But there's the rub: if Criterion (or BFI, or MoC, or Filmmuseum) release a film I'm interested in, I'll happily order it immediately; if it's Kino, I'll wait for a review (and often pull the trigger anyway, but I'll also shop around and see if there's a better release available elsewhere). Unless I'm completely alone in this, that kind of thing will add up to quite a different financial picture for Kino compared with Criterion.

That was true for me up until the Blu era, but I've actually been picking up nearly every silent movie they've put out on blu- their quality control has been hugely better, and I think with facebook and so on they're trying to build up some Criterion style brand loyalty. And good for them.

[Tommaso]

Not to mention that Criterion only very lightly dabble in silents, and when they do its only with the best known classics out there. What is for the Criterion collection a very small side show, is for Kino their core business model, Iahuge central chunk of their catalog.

As for your elucidation of the history of intertitle replacing and it's supposed responsibility for films failure, I'm afraid Tom this is all avery hypothetical supposition and in fact a little bit strange. As far as silent films are concerned the only ones I can think of that come close to your example are perhaps Metropolis, Nibelungen, and a very small number of others. This has less to do with the replacement of title cards then the extraordinary length of the films and no different than what happened to Erich von Stroheim in his own country. You make it sound like the films in every case of the silent era saw thier originators pass their copies over to unknown quantities who raped these films according to their own whimsies, whereas in reality,one can see from so many export prints which survive (of for example german films) that the cutting continuity was followed faithfully along with the script.

Yes, but if the silents are Kino's core business, all the more strange it seems that they apply to them business procedures that would make sense if the films were mainstream cinema, but in fact they have a very limited audience. I mean, if you can't stand to watch a film with subtitles, would you even consider to watch a film without spoken dialogue?

As to the treatment of silents in foreign countries (and admittedly even in their home country, "Metropolis" is a prime example), the Kalat audiocommentary on "Finanzen des Großherzogs" was a real eye-opener for me. He details so impressively why the film -not excessively long -doesn't survive entirely: the idea of presenting 'a night at the movies', complete with newsreels, a short film or whatever it was in this case, and that this was the reason why films were shortened because they didn't fit into this neat and timewise limited scheme. I assume that this was general practice at the time and later on. The only surviving, English hard-subbed print (66 min. only) of Wysbar's "Anna und Elisabeth", made in 1933, is 20 minutes shorter than the German original (lost), and there must be a reaason for this. I can't prove it, but it must have had to with either programming considerations or with an attempt to cater to the supposed taste of foreign audiences. They did exactly that with the aforementioned English language version of "Der Kongress tanzt", shortening it by about 15 mins. in the hope to improve on audience acceptance. It didn't help, but it throws a light on how far companies were willing to go to help the financial success of a film. Integrity of the artist's vision didn't have a large part in it. But that's the difference between 1930 and 2012. Film aficionados simply seem to be much more interested in having the work in its original, 'non-improved' form nowadays. I mean, why is everyone craving to see the impossible: the 8-hour cut of "Greed"? Why aren't they content with the 2 hour release-version, and not even with the 4-hour reconstruction?

[knives]

I mean, if you can't stand to watch a film with subtitles, would you even consider to watch a film without spoken dialogue?

Yes, I have had many experiences with people who like silents, foreign cinema, what have you and are very into dubbing and english intertitles. I'd also like to reiterate again the value of the blind buy market which I imagine Kino depends on nearly as much as a company like Second Run.

[Tommaso]

Hmmm... someone blind-buying "Secrets of a soul", "The holy mountain" or "Asphalt"? I can't really imagine that. If the names of Lang and Murnau are printed large enough on the cover, perhaps. But not with Joe May and the like.

[knives]

You seem to be thinking of this from a cinephile point of view rather than a casual viewer point of view. I remember one of my sisters who doesn't even like movies unless they promise to be romance novels buying some obscure John Barrymore film Kino put out because she thought the cover was pretty about two months ago.

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha, yeah, but at that point they're probably going to be disappointed as soon as they realize it's a silent- sub vs. intertitles hardly seem relevant

[knives]

When I looked it up for her and told her it was a silent she said whatever and I think has stuffed it in a draw since. You never know though she might actually watch the thing some day. Though I think in a situation like that, but with children should yield better results.

[HerrSchreck]

Tom your desire to make a valid point is running away with common sense. If a foriegn distributor wants to shorten a film to -, in its mind- make it more palatable for its market, what difference on the outcome whether they sub the intertitles with their translation or put their translation into new english title cards? Film butchering for runtime is one thing, and is in no wise relevant to whether the english language is delivered to the US market via subtitles or english intertitles. That market is going to read the film in english one way or another. You are blending and creating a connection between 2 completely separate issues and practices.

The fact is that the directors themselves created a vast majority of the international edits themselves, not daemonoid foreign distributors with scissors in their hands. The primary reason is that original negatives could not stand up to continuous duping for all markets across the globe. Thus the lovely prints that remain of the faithful export versions of such "arty films" like FAUST , LETZTE MANN, TARTUFFE,etc.

You can raise the issue of disastrously edited films in foreign markets if you'd like, but to me this connecting this to the subtitles versus translated intertitle issue has the same kind of logical leap as the following; " I once knew a British man who was abusive to his pet dog; therefore alll British men must be kept under observation when they acquire canine pets."

The fact is that most production companies had long standing working relationships with their fortiegn distributors who had a vested interest in maintaining that relationship by carefully choosing the right titles and marketing them properly and in the right venues.

[triodelover]

Hmmm... someone blind-buying "Secrets of a soul", "The holy mountain" or "Asphalt"? I can't really imagine that. If the names of Lang and Murnau are printed large enough on the cover, perhaps. But not with Joe May and the like.

Imagine it. For most of the population the opportunity to see any silent film, let alone an obscure film lacking "names" as you put it, was somewhere between slim and non-existent before the advent of DVD. Even now it's not particularly easy but silents are becoming more prevalent on cable channels and in revival houses, even in small burgs like mine. But I think that's a follow-on to the appearance of so many on DVD and the many sites one can access on the Internet to research these films.

(FWIW, I had never seen any of your examples before purchase but wandering around the Internet provide enough information to make the blind buy not quite so blind, though I actually bought MoC's Holy Mountain primarily for the Riefenstahl doc.)

[Tommaso]

Then we have not the same definition of 'blind buy'. I was much more thinking along the lines of knives' example with the Barrymore film. Looking around the internet to find information is already a sign of cinephilia, and in that respect most of my purchases were 'blind buys', then. But imagine someone in a big dvd shop (as long as these still exist) who might have seen "Metropolis" or "Sunrise", but otherwise isn't perhaps a great fan of silent films and is perhaps just in the mood to buy something. I would imagine that another Lang or Murnau is likelier to be picked up than something by Fanck. Which might be one of the reasons why companies present us with many a relatively insignificant film from Lang or Murnau rather than with one of the great and important works which have the unfortunate shortcoming of having been directed by someone many people haven't heard of. Say, Gerlach.

[triodelover]

But imagine someone in a big dvd shop (as long as these still exist) who might have seen "Metropolis" or "Sunrise", but otherwise isn't perhaps a great fan of silent films and is perhaps just in the mood to buy something.

You mean there are people who actually go into stores and, you know, buy stuff? I'm shocked.

[knives]

Then we have not the same definition of 'blind buy'. I was much more thinking along the lines of knives' example with the Barrymore film. Looking around the internet to find information is already a sign of cinephilia, and in that respect most of my purchases were 'blind buys', then. But imagine someone in a big dvd shop (as long as these still exist) who might have seen "Metropolis" or "Sunrise", but otherwise isn't perhaps a great fan of silent films and is perhaps just in the mood to buy something. I would imagine that another Lang or Murnau is likelier to be picked up than something by Fanck. Which might be one of the reasons why companies present us with many a relatively insignificant film from Lang or Murnau rather than with one of the great and important works which have the unfortunate shortcoming of having been directed by someone many people haven't heard of. Say, Gerlach.

You're still approaching this cinephilicly though. Most people don't care or even know what a director does. That same sister I mentioned before I tried to convince to see more Eastwood films after she absolutely love his Iwo Jima one, but she was still more concerned with the actor. So in this case a sell of Veidt, Jannings, and the like is going to work more than Lang, Murnau, or whomever. Actually she got such a kick out of Different from the Others when I showed it to her some years ago she for a short time became quite the Conrad junky picking up the most random films he was in. If there is going to be a selling point beyond great artwork, and never underestimate great artwork, it's going to be the actor.

[Peacock]

What does the blind buy market have to do with this conversation?

If someone sees the cover of Sunrise in a store and isn't a cinephile, or hears Nosferatu being named lots and decides to order it... well I strongly doubt they'll be checking the back cover for notes on the intertitles/subtitles situation.

So they buy it and bam, Kino have made money.

Now they could watch the film and recoil in horror when their intertitles aren't in english and have subtitles at the bottom; and demand a refund.... but it seems pretty unlikely that the placement of the english translation would be the tipping point in this case.

Again to restate what I said earlier, the problem with replacing intertitles with english language ones is that you are reliant on a subtitling company being perfect; something we've seen time and time again isn't the case. But unlike with sound films you can't enjoy the original dialogue; they have been replaced.

I mean, am I the only person who reads reviews on the translation of a book before I buy it?
And does nobody speak any French in the United States so that they might want to read the original words pre-translated by someone who may or may not have used artistic license when translating?

[MichaelB]

My attitude has always been "do I understand enough of the original language for it to make a difference?"

My Swedish is pretty much limited to Ingmar Bergman titles, so it makes not one iota of difference to me if the intertitles are in the original language or not. On the other hand, I'm a reasonably competent reader of French and Italian and have enough German for me to be able to appreciate the original with a subtitle crib, so I do generally prefer films in those languages to have the original intertitles.

But it largely depends on the individual film. I'm not remotely purist about something like Turksib, because John Grierson's English titles were conceived in association with the film's director - and I understand they're superior to the Russian intertitles in terms of visual immediacy. But I do much prefer the original Russian titles for Strike because they were so clearly part of Eisenstein's visual conception, so I won't be replacing my Ruscico DVD any time soon.

[TMDaines]

I was reading the linear notes for Potemkin today after watching it and it's amusing to see how much the writer emphasises the design and placement of the original Russian intertitles when Kino disregards them in almost every instance. As I understand it, for Potemkin one of the key points of the last restoration was to get the intertitling right in order to be able to view the film as it was originally meant to be seen. Presumably for this reason Kino were "generous" enough to provide us with a second version with the original intertitles (not the default choice I might add) as not giving the option may have been a PR fuck up. It's strange then after then acknowledging how key the intertitles were to Eisenstein that we then got that bastardised mongrel of Strike, which does look otherwise beautiful.

Schreck mentioned them being generous with "dual" editions and then reverting back, but aren't the only two "dual" editions Nosferatu and Potemkin, which were released three years apart? I think Kino's widely inconsistant output over the years, both in terms of quality and consistency of practice, has shown that they don't know really know what they're doing, especially in regards to what they're customers want and expect. Potemkin is good but it's the one and only Kino silent I own and will probably remain that way because of their intertitling practice and the overall quality of their releases, which are usually hugely trumped by the alternatives, if any, anyway.

[knives]

They release American and British silents too. Your last statement comes across as really silent with that consideration.

[HerrSchreck]

Huh? Both releases- NOSFERATU & POTEMKIN- are from the year 2007. And quite frankly their treatment of silents is no different from Milestone or Flicker Alley or Image Entertainment so I don't see why they are continuasly singled out for the practice when it comes to overseas titles

Comparing literature and silent films. . . or even silent films and sound films, denies the extremely unique quality of silent films as truly international art form. Its a characteristic of films that died when the sound era put silent films into their permanent grave.

Any actor or actress could appear in any film in any country across the globe, and those films could appear in any market across the globe with very little fuss by preparing new title cards. Silent films were truly a visual medium, and by and large the title cards were designed to be translated relatively easily to get across the action with a minimum of fuss.

while I'm not going to argue with the desire to have the original title cards of the extant print, I couldn't for the life of me imagine denying my self of Kinos wonderful catalog for any reason. This is truly like deciding to starve to death while on vacation in a foreign country owing to their lack of organic food. There are plenty of fine silent films in the Kino catalog with no global equivalency. The volume of what you're depriving yourself off is breathtaking. . EDISON, GRIFFITH, FAIRBANKS, JEANNE NEY, MAN WHO LAHHS, WAXWORKS, WARNING SHADOWS, SEX IN CHAINS, 1 could go on and on.

I'd also like to point something out that should be quite evident, and is in fact the elephant in the room.

This idea this Daines mentions, also hinted at by Tom, that Kino dont know their audience, or "what theyre doing," should have the lie given it by the simple fact.that the comp any prospers, thank god, despite the almost total boycott of guys (mostly Europeans for some reason) like Daines.

This shows that their life blood of cash comes not from us hardcore purists, but from elsewhere.

[Gregory]

The volume of what you're depriving yourself off is breathtaking. . . WARNING SHADOWS . . .

Yeah, anyone passing this one over due to perceived subtitling practices is being especially silly.

[carax09]

...I couldn't for the life of me imagine denying my self of Kinos wonderful catalog for any reason. This is truly like deciding to starve to death while on vacation in a foreign country owing to their lack of organic food.

Excellent metaphor, Schreck! I know my own occasional dissatisfaction with Kino product is always tempered with an over-arching goodwill toward the company, for exposing me to all these Silent Gems, in the first place. A world where The Man Who Laughs isn't on my shelf? No Thanks.

[TMDaines]

They release American and British silents too. Your last statement comes across as really silent with that consideration.

Substitute "silents" with "foreign silents" then if you found it difficult to make that logic leap. If that's all you took from me my post then so be it.

while I'm not going to argue with the desire to have the original title cards of the extant print, I couldn't for the life of me imagine denying my self of Kinos wonderful catalog for any reason. This is truly like deciding to starve to death while on vacation in a foreign country owing to their lack of organic food. There are plenty of fine silent films in the Kino catalog with no global equivalency. The volume of what you're depriving yourself off is breathtaking. . EDISON, GRIFFITH, FAIRBANKS, JEANNE NEY, MAN WHO LAHHS, WAXWORKS, WARNING SHADOWS, SEX IN CHAINS, 1 could go on and on.

A lot of Kino's FOREIGN (just for Knives) catalogue is available elsewhere with the original intertitles, even if not on DVD. Not all of course, but a lot. I'm not going to put my money down for something that I don't think is worth it and doesn't treat the film the way I believe it should be treated. If, sadly, the only way to see the film is with replaced intertitles then I'll just borrow it from my library or watch by other means.

There's always the alternative of watching something else also.

[Tommaso]

A lot of Kino's FOREIGN (just for Knives) catalogue is available elsewhere with the original intertitles, even if not on DVD.

Well, almost always even on DVD. Only that in many cases Kino were the first to release some particular titles like "Secrets of a soul" which took a while to get released elsewhere on dvd (same for FA's "Phantom", for instance). I'm convinced that the same will go for the forthcoming early Langs, so one only has to wait (which I'll do). As due to the necessity of saving costs there seems to be a need for international cooperation to prepare a release of a particular film, this practice will most likely continue and so the 'problem' is not as bad as it first seems to appear. So most likely our whole discussion is more about the general 'way these things should be done' and doesn't really touch the question of 'seeing' or 'starving', or even only Kino's sales.

In this respect, I would also say that Kino's really great efforts lay in the release of American silents, examples for which have been mentioned, and these are all worth having and they don't even suffer from PAL/NTSC-conversion issues, of course. Unfortunately, very little came from Kino in this respect in the last one or two years, apart from the Keaton films and the inevitable Blu version of "Birth of a nation". I'd much rather have seen a third Griffith box or more Constance Talmadge than those upgrades, but that's the same point I'd make about MoC's release schedule or that of Criterion.