Recent Film Restorations

[rde]

Maybe "constraints" are not what surrealism is about....

Sure, but the film's ailing from something, and that's the best shorthand I could come up with.

I like surrealists, even though I think cinema is not the strongest medium for them (no clue why; you'd expect it to be perfect for them). And I've no problem with films whose plots are barely there, or are constructed around one big joke.

But I generally want surrealists to show me something new, very new, something that's unique to dreams or memory or consciousness, or impossible combinations of things made plausible. And that film did not do that. It was a strange form of surrealism, played very straight, almost like surrealist realism. Maybe deadpan surrealism would be a good way to put it.

Nothing inherently wrong with that approach either. In that case, where it's like surrealism sans fantasy, then boy, it better be funny. And I don't think that movie was funny at all; it seems more like a chance to nod along with Buñuel if you share his distaste for polite society, religion, the army, the government. And even there, as social satire, he revealed nothing new, or even true. Satire has to have a certain resemblance to the real thing, and his does not.

I found it to be petty, and a mess. The best parts were small jokes, like the couple having sex while their guests wait, then flee, or waiter coming back to the table again and again to tell them that they're out of wine, coffee, tea, water. Alright bits, they made me smile... but that's a pretty petite offering.

[Michael Kerpan]

Well, humor is totally subjective -- and I found the humor in this (and in most of Bunuel's films) quite effective. On the other hand, there are films others find hilarious that have no (or worse) positive impact on me (looking at you, Jerry Lewis). I guess I just don't consider that because something isn't funny for ME that it must be worthless.

[rde]

Well, humor is totally subjective -- and I found the humor in this (and in most of Bunuel's films) quite effective. On the other hand, there are films others find hilarious that have no (or worse) positive impact on me (looking at you, Jerry Lewis). I guess I just don't consider that because something isn't funny for ME that it must be worthless.

The subjectivity argument can be pushed too far. If humor were 'totally' subjective, some people would be laughing wildly at tragedies, no one could agree on which films are the funniest, etc. But we don't laugh at tragedies and we can agree on the greats. Even if every member of the audience is unique, we're all human, and we all see the same film, so there's usually a convergence.

Never seen a Jerry Lewis movie, to be honest. Though I'm sure we've got an overlapping taste in comedy elsewhere.

I'm not that picky with comedy. But I really think this movie, like a lot of contemporary 'satires' of the rich, has less to do with observing human folly, and more with putting down a social group the artist doesn't care for by, essentially, making them up, drawing phony caricatures that rarely ever trigger a sense of recognition. There's nothing real about his characters (besides the adultery, lol), and you need a dose of reality to make satire work. That's part of what I meant by constraint-less. It's untethered in multiple ways.

I didn't say worthless (though I did say 'pointless'). I'd call it a failed experiment. There's plenty wrong with the construction, etc. The film is shot well (and the restoration is good), but that can't redeem the dullness and the wandering and the lack of almost anything arresting or new.

[therewillbeblus]

I don't know, I think Freddy Got Fingered, Billy Madison, Hot Rod, and a sizable chunk of the middle seasons of South Park are not just funny juvenile humor but intelligently-constructed comedic gags elusively masquerading as random asinine bits, and I doubt most of this board agrees with me. I think when someone says humor is subjective, they mean within the wheelhouse of broad comedic signifiers. You are correct that our brains are similar enough to recognize drama as drama and comedy as comedy and horror as horror, etc., but I don't see why that's a novel statement that discounts the value in subjectivity within these categorizations. It feels like a misplayed trump card that's suggesting human minds categorize emotions somewhat similarly, which is true, but I don't think the point of the argument

[Michael Kerpan]

I think there is far less convergence on what people find funny than you seem to feel is the case. And lots of people DO find acclaimed tragedies ludicrous rather than moving.

[rde]

I don't know, I think Freddy Got Fingered, Billy Madison, Hot Rod, and a sizable chunk of the middle seasons of South Park are not just funny juvenile humor but intelligently-constructed comedic gags elusively masquerading as random asinine bits, and I doubt most of this board agrees with me. I think when someone says humor is subjective, they mean within the wheelhouse of broad comedic signifiers. You are correct that our brains are similar enough to recognize drama as drama and comedy as comedy and horror as horror, etc., but I don't see why that's a novel statement that discounts the value in subjectivity within these categorizations. It feels like a misplayed trump card that's suggesting human minds categorize emotions somewhat similarly, which is true, but I don't think the point of the argument

I'm in total agreement about South Park.

So far as the best low brow comedy from the 90s/2000s, FGF and BM are mentioned all the time. Why are they blown off? Snobbishness, squeamishness, both?

I can list wildly popular TV shows that are just not fucking funny (Big Bang Theory). So, who's right? Millions of people, or... me? And yet I find there are a lot of 'comedies' that people watch without actually laughing much; just as there are highbrow high art 'satires' that critics describe as 'uproarious', but when you go to a screening, no one's roaring. I'd attribute the first to bad taste and the second to, well, political self-congratulation.

'Convergence' seems more right than 'total' subjectivity. People's taste in comedy is (for some reason) less convergent than taste in art generally. But I can't give up the ground entirely. We can't give up standards or canons (they exist!).

The subjectivity argument is brought out as a trump card too; it's supposed to broaden the discussion, but it usually ends it. That's a bummer. Normally, we could defend our points, but comedy is very hard to talk about. But our experience of art is not subjective in the way most people use the word.

[beamish14]

I don't know, I think Freddy Got Fingered, Billy Madison, Hot Rod, and a sizable chunk of the middle seasons of South Park are not just funny juvenile humor but intelligently-constructed comedic gags elusively masquerading as random asinine bits, and I doubt most of this board agrees with me. I think when someone says humor is subjective, they mean within the wheelhouse of broad comedic signifiers. You are correct that our brains are similar enough to recognize drama as drama and comedy as comedy and horror as horror, etc., but I don't see why that's a novel statement that discounts the value in subjectivity within these categorizations. It feels like a misplayed trump card that's suggesting human minds categorize emotions somewhat similarly, which is true, but I don't think the point of the argument

I will vigorously defend Freddy and Hot Rod to the death. Seeing the former during its opening weekend was a truly unforgettable experience. It was fun to count the number of walk-outs and see which scenes were the final straw for people (I think it was the umbilical cord but that really pushed people over). The interplay between Green and Rip Torn is incredible. It’s a film with so many absurd and yet wholly original ideas, and it just clicks for me.

Hot Rod is an incredibly endearing work, and I think the Lonely Island Troupe is far and away the only great thing to happen to the often painfully subpar and doomed (often as a result of its topicality and limitations to what can be prepared within a limited studio space) Saturday Night Live since Eddie Murphy’s tenure. There are so many seemingly throwaway bits in Hot Rod that made me laugh harder than few films before or since, particularly the parking lot dance set to Stacey Q’s “Two of Hearts” and the incredible parade-turned-riot. Chip & Dale is comfortably on my top 5 for this year, too

[therewillbeblus]

One of the great jokes from Hot Rod, that's far more intelligent than it lets on, is when we cut to McBride slapping two of the group members hands over and over with high fives before exclaiming, "And that's how it's done" - not because they sit there impressed (which would be fine, a random performance stimulating idiots) but because there is absolutely no conceivable prompt for that nonsensical demonstration to exist, so the only way the scene could possibly function is by bringing us in media res, and Lonely Island know it and issue the trick with a reflexively subtle gag in structure

[Michael Kerpan]

So, rde, you seem to assume that some (lots) of people pretend to like things for false/bad faith reasons. I personally find this attitude incredibly arrogant. Then again, I have grown increasingly resistant to canonizing as I age. There are far too many wonderful things that get ignored when one obsesses over paying attention only to the certified "bests of all time". I guess I revel in subjectivity.

[tenia]

I love Holy Grail. My GF absolutely can't stand it. Same goes for Casablanca.
We're both totally in good faith about both movies.
Then, I often stumble on somethong way less popular and/or canonical and we give it a shot. Sometimes we like it sometimes we don't, sometimes only one of us likes it.
It happens.
It's fine.

[Michael Kerpan]

It happens.
It's fine.

Indeed.

[rde]

So, rde, you seem to assume that some (lots) of people pretend to like things for false/bad faith reasons. I personally find this attitude incredibly arrogant. Then again, I have grown increasingly resistant to canonizing as I age. There are far too many wonderful things that get ignored when one obsesses over paying attention only to the certified "bests of all time". I guess I revel in subjectivity.

When people say a movie is hilarious, and you watch it with them, and they're not laughing much, isn't it fair to say they're not describing it properly?

One commenter above was saying 'these three films are hilarious but most don't agree', and yet look at all the agreement. Plenty of consensuses are hiding in plain sight. Why? Snobbishness is a thing, so is squeamishness, and neither are examples of bad faith. Borat, that's a crazily funny movie, but plenty will think it's crude and rude and just not right to laugh about. They're not in bad faith, just a little uptight. Others might be embarassed to admit that they like Adam Sandler. Comedy has always had a low reputation, and low brow comedians get the worst treatment from 'serious' people.

These partial explanations are more compelling to me than the 'subjectivity' argument. Take humor out of it. There's
something about '2001' that compels a reliable response from viewers. Awe, amazement, etc. And the word 'best'.

If taste were really, meaningfully subjective, such unified responses wouldn't make sense, they wouldn't happen.

If I had to hurl an accusation, in general, it'd be bad taste, not bad faith. Though of course bad faith exists too.

Canons aren't a matter of certification, in the sense of a license bureau. It's just what comes out on top over time, when fashion and other trends pass away. Hype is another factor (which canons help correct for) that can be completely free of bad faith.

There's still room for disagreement. I love justified disagreement, but don't like argument from subjectivity when it ends the discussion, which, you gotta admit, it does more often than not.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The 46th HKIFF just announced six restorations

Obviously, we already knew about the Infernal Affairs trilogy and Boat People that were acquired by Janus. Interestingly, Millennium Mambo and Suzhou River are listed alongside them. I wonder if they’re available/have been snapped up by Janus as well?

there is a WEB 1080 "Millenium Mambo" "around" and I'm not sure if it is the French restoration which has a theatrical release with a slightly longer scene (the "snow" scene). I have to check it out.

From what I can gleam, Metrograph got the rights to Millennium Mambo in the US, so that shuts down any chance of a Blu-ray over here. Fingers crossed for Suzhou River, which is with Strand Releasing and getting a re-release sometime in February [-o<

The trailer of "Suzhou River" looks like it will be an upgrade in comparison to the previous Blu-Ray which looks palish in comparison.
Has the release date been confirmed on blu-ray ? I can not see it on blu-ray.com database.

[Michael Kerpan]

When people say a movie is hilarious, and you watch it with them, and they're not laughing much, isn't it fair to say they're not describing it properly?

Perhaps they are misusing "hilarious". There are many shows I find quite enjoyably humorous that do not make me laugh out loud, however.

I am afraid the issue of "subjectivity" is one on which we are almost certain to find no real agreement.

You seem to think that because some things get wide consensus that means such consensus view is somehow objectively correct -- and that those who don't share that view are somehow deficient (snobbish, squeamish, any other thing that interferes with their ability to see the "truth"). I don't share this view. And I am much too old to be convinced otherwise.

[rde]

When people say a movie is hilarious, and you watch it with them, and they're not laughing much, isn't it fair to say they're not describing it properly?

Perhaps they are misusing "hilarious". There are many shows I find quite enjoyably humorous that do not make me laugh out loud, however.

I am afraid the issue of "subjectivity" is one on which we are almost certain to find no real agreement.

You seem to think that because some things get wide consensus that means such consensus view is somehow objectively correct -- and that those who don't share that view are somehow deficient (snobbish, squeamish, any other thing that interferes with their ability to see the "truth"). I don't share this view. And I am much too old to be convinced otherwise.

Approaches objectivity — yep.

Some films and artworks fail to get their due, of course. But I think the ones that get raised up, and stay there (the canon), overwhelmingly deserve to be there. Canons are accurate, but not exhaustive.

Comedy's a special case. I'm not calling them deficient — I'm saying they're probably not getting into the spirit of the event. You ever watch the Ali G show? Remember when he has on professors, and says things that are completely sacrilegious in their fields, and even the good sports try to suppress their laughter? Because it's socially 'inappropriate' for them to laugh, even though they know it's funny. Comedies break taboos, and certain people are more attached to taboos than others. You need to be in a receptive mood for comedy to work. It's a kind of pact to suspend the normal rules of good taste, even if that sounds weird to say.

And a comment above mentioned gross-out humor — some people just get up and leave, because they 'can't take it'. But it can still be funny. Squeamishness is a good word for all that. Oh, and propriety.

And snobbishness is absolutely a thing. When Sandler starred in Uncut Gems, people said things like 'oh, turns out he's a real actor' — subtext: we're allowed to like him now, because drama is superior to comedy, especially low comedy. It's an ancient bias. Same thing happens to countless comedic actors, to the point that they feel they've got to 'transition' to drama to prove their worth. Dumb old bias, that is.

[L.A.]

Just a few days left! Thanks to Nemzeti Filmintézet - Filmarchívum / National Film Institute - Film Archive, Orpheus and Eurydice (1985) is available to view online until 1 January 2023.

Working alongside cinematographer Sándor Sára in 1985, István Gaál created a breathtaking reimagination of Gluck’s iconic opera about this ancient and heartbreaking legend.

→ Link to watch

The restoration and presentation were carried out by the Hungarian National Film Institute (NFI) as part of the #ASeasonOfClassicFilms programme with support from Creative Europe Desk - MEDIA

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

Potemkine is promoting the new 4K restoration of F for Fake that will be showing in French cinemas from Feb. 8 along with the already released restoration of the The Trial. Criterion will probably pick this one up, no? Potemkine posted a trailer, too.

[Stefan Andersson]

Va savoir+ was restored in 2021 by Hiventy. Scroll down for relevant screen capture here:
https://www.dvdclassik.com/forum/viewto ... 6&start=90

[Stefan Andersson]

Berlinale Classics 2023:
https://www.berlinale.de/en/2023/news-p ... 25739.html

[soundchaser]

Va savoir+ was restored in 2021 by Hiventy. Scroll down for relevant screen capture here:
https://www.dvdclassik.com/forum/viewto ... 6&start=90

Also tucked away on this page: L'amour fou has "just been restored" and will be released on DVD/Blu-Ray this year.

[criterionsnob]

And (gasp!), a 4K restoration of György Fehér’s Szürkület. There were some recommendations for that on the Radiance Discord. That’s a major dream release.

[ryannichols7]

Berlinale Classics 2023:
https://www.berlinale.de/en/2023/news-p ... 25739.html

physical release speculation...

13 years into slowly rolling out Chaplins, I hope Criterion does A Woman of Paris from this restoration. wouldn't be shocked to see Sony do Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? as a Columbia Classics title. Szürkület could be Second Run, Radiance, or Kino. Naked Lunch is an Arrow shoe-in (they've already confirmed it previously), but the title I'm most curious about is Yoru no Kawa, which I'm sure won't see a disc release in the west at all, since it seems only Japanese films with bloodshed get released anymore. Third Window surprised me with the Obayashi set this past year, but Eureka and Radiance have sort of made it clear this is the only kind of thing they'll be going for. Arrow is the dark horse, putting out To Sleep as So as to Dream and A Fugitive From the Past in 2022, and both of those seemed very...different for them. I'd love one of these labels to prove me wrong, but I'm guessing we'll just see it dumped on a nice looking Bluray from Kadokawa themselves but without English subtitles...which is usually how it goes for Japanese restorations nowadays.

anyone have any insight on the other titles?

[Calvin]

Many, many restorations that screen at festivals never get home video releases (or at least haven't yet) so I think you're being overly optimistic trying to match them up like it's a done deal!

[swo17]

And (gasp!), a 4K restoration of György Fehér’s Szürkület. There were some recommendations for that on the Radiance Discord. That’s a major dream release.

Incredible film. Just call it Twilight and you can retire on the profits from people buying it by mistake

[ryannichols7]

Many, many restorations that screen at festivals never get home video releases (or at least haven't yet) so I think you're being overly optimistic trying to match them up like it's a done deal!

well of course they don't, but what's the fun in that? isn't it exciting to hope for something?