Mathew2468 wrote:HJackson, yes I have a hard time meeting these films halfway. I didn't like If... either. But Loneliness really bothered me because I found it incredibly predictable and thought the boy was just a blind sheep. If it takes so little for him to change it'll take just as little for him to change back. I can't watch those films.
And I think class issues are very shallow and uninteresting in films.
I'm not sure to what extent Colin does change during the film. I haven't seen it in a while, but his final statement appears to me to be a rejection of the Conservative, establishment values that the Governor has been trying to impose on him (resulting in a race against a public - here meaning exclusive and fee paying - school), and a restatement of the working class identity that he's being punished for in the first place. He accepts his punishment, and hates the manual labout he's forced to do, but chooses it (and the retention of his identity) over deference to an establishment that hates his class and hates who he is. It's not about changing or being a 'blind sheep', it's the reality that in Britain the class into which you're born informs how you see yourself, something which a Canadian(?) may not fully appreciate.
I guess my point is that I don't think it's particularly useful to refer to certain films as 'shallow' when they're actually very robust and sophisticated responses to the society in which they're produced. I don't think the foreignness of a topic such as class to a reader should inform qualitative statements about the text.
Cash Flagg wrote:I never imagined we'd see My Son John on Blu-ray.
If you had told me this was ever going to happen I'd have laughed and laughed. Hey other stupid studios, look what Olive does. If these guys can do it, why are you still boning us with $20 DVD-Rs?
I've seen My Son John a few times through the years and like many find it both dreadful and fascinating. So many strange choices, especially Helen Hayes' performance. I'm really looking forward to the blu-ray though,if only for the amazing Harry Stradling's (Streetcar, A Face in the Crowd) b/w cinematography. I recall the interiors being very dark which certainly fit the tone. I think it's the only film he shot for McCarey.
david hare wrote:In any case I think we could profitably leave a discussion of this film in detail to the release date when more people can see it and make their own conclusions, waddya think?
For those who would like a preview of My Son John, there is an instant-view version on Netflix. Even in this format, it might make a good sales pitch for those who haven't seen it; it's such a fascinating film.
I really didn't know there was this much interest in it, so I retract my earlier comment when I linked the IMBd thread. No offense meant to anyone here.
Not sure if it's been posted here or not but I just found and pre-ordered Olive's releases of Numero Deux and Ici et Ailleurs. I am so excited to get these dvds.
hearthesilence wrote:Wonderful news, I was wondering if this would be re-issued soon. The Bresson retrospectives of the past year used a nice (and I think newly struck) 35mm print, and Richard Hell of the Voidoids was at one of its screenings at BAM just last month. Wonderful introduction, some bits were taken from past writings/talks but much of it was newly worded and I hope he publishes it soon.
Not sure if you have seen this but just in case and for the benefit of those who haven't... http://www.mastersofcinema.org/bresson/ ... esson.html
I am sure I have seen him writing extensively about another Bresson but can't find it on Bresson.com or his own site.
Does anyone know whatever happened to The Savage Innocents? That was the one title I was excited about when this operation started up...it never seems to have been released...anyone know where the rights lay?
i suppose i'm the only one excited about The Boogens....but my best friend and I watched it many times in 7th grade and thought it was awesome. pure nostalgia buy for me but i've waited many years to see it on a shiny disc, and i'm shocked it's going to be a blu ray.
HistoryProf wrote:i suppose i'm the only one excited about The Boogens....but my best friend and I watched it many times in 7th grade and thought it was awesome. pure nostalgia buy for me but i've waited many years to see it on a shiny disc, and i'm shocked it's going to be a blu ray.
Oh no, you're not alone. I caught this on TCM a while back and really enjoyed it. I'll definitely be picking up a copy of The Boogens.
HistoryProf wrote:Does anyone know whatever happened to The Savage Innocents? That was the one title I was excited about when this operation started up...it never seems to have been released...anyone know where the rights lay?
When Olive announced it, it was supposed to be one of the titles licensed from Paramount. They were the original U.S. theatrical distributors. It was actually produced by a consortium of companies in France, Italy, and the U.K. though, and I believe Pathe is claiming all worldwide media rights. I think this dispute between Pathe and Paramount is where the problem lies, what caused the MoC disc to go out of print, and what's been holding up the Olive/Paramount release. This is all just speculation on my part.
HistoryProf wrote:Does anyone know whatever happened to The Savage Innocents? That was the one title I was excited about when this operation started up...it never seems to have been released...anyone know where the rights lay?
When Olive announced it, it was supposed to be one of the titles licensed from Paramount. They were the original U.S. theatrical distributors. It was actually produced by a consortium of companies in France, Italy, and the U.K. though, and I believe Pathe is claiming all worldwide media rights. I think this dispute between Pathe and Paramount is where the problem lies, what caused the MoC disc to go out of print, and what's been holding up the Olive/Paramount release. This is all just speculation on my part.
Paramount owns the North American rights for SAVAGE INNOCENTS. There's no dispute, so please stop creating false rumors. The reason this film was dropped twice by Olive is no acceptable film element. They looked here and in Europe was not happy with what they saw and didn't want to release a standard version from the same master as the previously released UK DVD. Which would've been their best option.
misterlime wrote:Paramount owns the North American rights for SAVAGE INNOCENTS. There's no dispute, so please stop creating false rumors. The reason this film was dropped twice by Olive is no acceptable film element. They looked here and in Europe was not happy with what they saw and didn't want to release a standard version from the same master as the previously released UK DVD. Which would've been their best option.
I thought saying that "this is all just speculation on my part" made it pretty clear that it was simply a guess, and not an attempt to "create false rumors." Masters of Cinema stated that their disc went out of print due to a rights dispute, so my guess was hardly unreasonable.
I certainly think that a region one port of the transfer MoC used would be better than nothing (which is what is currently available with the MoC out of print).
misterlime wrote:Paramount owns the North American rights for SAVAGE INNOCENTS. There's no dispute, so please stop creating false rumors. The reason this film was dropped twice by Olive is no acceptable film element. They looked here and in Europe was not happy with what they saw and didn't want to release a standard version from the same master as the previously released UK DVD. Which would've been their best option.
Are you saying Olive had a problem with this? Olive has settled for similar "lesser" materials before (the theatrical version of Face to Face only on DVD), so if you're going to take such a curt tone over an understandable assumption (the original UK Savage Innocents DVD WAS forced OOP for exactly the reason being discussed here) I think you should clarify the subject more than you have.
That DVD was uncut and in the correct aspect ratio - anyone would have jumped at it if a Blu-ray wasn't feasible. In fact, Olive has released DVDs and subsequently published Blu-rays several months later without informing the consumer that they would be doing so, so again, nothing unreasonable about the above speculation under this consideration. So what, is Paramount making a new HD telecine for Olive?
Was Olive given the cut pan & scan version that replaced the original UK DVD and which is on Netflix right now? Which master are we talking about here?
The master that MoC used was non-anamorphic. Once they'd uprezzed it to 16:9, it looked surprisingly good, but the Beev was right to note that it was "a notch below MoC's other releases in image quality".
JonasEB wrote:Are you saying Olive had a problem with this? Olive has settled for similar "lesser" materials before (the theatrical version of Face to Face only on DVD), so if you're going to take such a curt tone over an understandable assumption (the original UK Savage Innocents DVD WAS forced OOP for exactly the reason being discussed here) I think you should clarify the subject more than you have.
That DVD was uncut and in the correct aspect ratio - anyone would have jumped at it if a Blu-ray wasn't feasible. In fact, Olive has released DVDs and subsequently published Blu-rays several months later without informing the consumer that they would be doing so, so again, nothing unreasonable about the above speculation under this consideration. So what, is Paramount making a new HD telecine for Olive?
Was Olive given the cut pan & scan version that replaced the original UK DVD and which is on Netflix right now? Which master are we talking about here?
I don't know why I replied to this, I just wanted to clarify things a bit. They decided to release the standard FACE TO FACE because that was their best option. The master which was created from Paramount prints was in horrible condition and no negative was available to them. They didn't want to repeat the fiasco and have some crappy so called critics rip them a new one again. What they received from Paramount was a widescreen HD master created from surviving prints and they were not happy with it. It has nothing to do with uncut, they didn't want to release a BD or DVD of film where the material went from great, to good and sometime bad. They tried to get material from PATHE, but there elements was just as bad. The rest of the world rights is owned by an Italian company and they were the ones that told Pathe to remove the UK DVD from the market. I'm sorry to say, but I don't think you'll see a beautiful version of SAVAGE INNOCENTS released in the US anytime soon.
i'd happily take a "notch below" in quality to own the film...can't believe a company that releases 90% of their films with zero features and some of the worst cover art in the industry would be that picky.
HistoryProf wrote:can't believe a company that releases 90% of their films with zero features and some of the worst cover art in the industry would be that picky.
I didn't know Artificial Eye was releasing Savage Innocents.
HistoryProf wrote:i'd happily take a "notch below" in quality to own the film...can't believe a company that releases 90% of their films with zero features and some of the worst cover art in the industry would be that picky.
They're about releasing the best possible product with the best possible available art. Creating features for classics is not easy, especially when most of the key talent is usually dead. Audio commentaries by some loser critic or so called historians or the guy who swept the floor, is not something they care about or want to waste their money on. A "notch below" release might be OK with you, but they tried that once and got burnt. Most of their cover art is original posters, so I don't understand what you're talking about. There releases in 2012 has had some amazing art.
No, just a fan. I'm involved with the press and get their announcements early. I've discussed these complaints with KEY fellow critics and laugh at the fact that people are being critical of a new great company that's releasing films that people have been waiting for years. Instead of giving them the respect they deserve, they're going out of their way to talk crap about them. They're doing a service for the film community and people should support labels like this.
Considering there's been many compliments and enthusiasm for the company since it was first heard of here I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. That said they really should start putting subtitles on their discs. I'm deaf in a ear so going without subs is very difficult for me.
1900 cover looked good online but in person it looks incredibly low resolution and I'm not sure what happened to the spine. You would have thought they could have used the same pattern as on the front cover but instead it just says 1900 at the top in a small font and the rest of it is completely bare. It looks very strange.
