criterionforum.org

Film Forum also screened a pretty rough 35mm print of "Forbidden Games" a few months ago, one that skipped/didn't show the final musical notes and hand closing the book that's present on the Criterion DVD (and to me personally marred an otherwise perfect and personality-filled screening). In this day and age I guess Film Forum will take 35mm prints where they can take them. Based on the descriptions above (and having seen the Criterion DVD multiple times) I would have been furious to have to settle for such an underwhelming print and missing subtitled dialogue for "Testament of Dr. Mabuse."

Apparently what we saw may actually have been a Janus print, albeit an elderly one- I emailed David Kalat about it, and he said

Not having seen it, it sounds a lot like the 1960s era print struck by Janus, which was used for the first VHS edition. The overt Nazi references were added to the English-dubbed edition, and wouldn't have been in a subtitled version. I'm a bit puzzled by the English language insert shots, which aren't in the Janus print I've seen, though.

Curioser and curioser said Alice.

I don't want to get us too far off-topic, but how much of a right to folks like us have to complain? Surely we're a major demographic that they're trying to market such obscure repertory screenings to. I'm a Film Forum member and considered raising a fuss, but I couldn't bring myself to explain to a non-profit theater that the print of the obscure, 1933 foreign film print that they showed was not good enough. I felt a pre-emptive embarrassment at the thought. Would my complaint be justified? Do I deserve my 7 dollars back? I heard some young people (probably older than I am, but under 30) leaving the theater excitedly discussing the plot, so it seemed the screening was effective at least to some extent. My complaints were probably not widespread.

Based on Kalat's response, it sounds like there isn't total quality control over what prints they grab (I'm sure this 1933 retrospective has been a bit of a headache for them). As a member, maybe they'd be happy to hear my comments and concerns, but the days where we even have prints to complain about are numbered. Does the film snob keep his mouth shut or demand prints that meet today's standards and perspectives of quality? In order to compete with people able to stream Criterion/Janus titles online in HD and with generally good translations, don't these art house theaters have to provide the best possible product to convince those on the fence that the theatrical print experience is worth the price of a monthly Hulu membership? The theater has been selling out screenings of Amour for months now, so they probably don't heavily consider the loss of business from dejected Fritz Lang fans, unsatisfied with the prints being screened. I assume that their print of M next month (far more than just the one screening they gave Testament) will (not by coincidence) bring in an audience and will be of a high quality.

It's not like repertory cinemas have a catalogue of available prints of different films to select from. They request a print from the appropriate source and are sent one - maybe the only one the distributor owns. If you're holding out for pristine, freshly subtitled prints of classic films, you will die long before you get to see most things.

In short, the "best possible product" you are talking about either doesn't exist in physical form, or if it does, it's held in an archive, quite likely on another continent, and is completely inaccessible to your local repertory cinema.

teddyleevin wrote:I don't want to get us too far off-topic, but how much of a right to folks like us have to complain? Surely we're a major demographic that they're trying to market such obscure repertory screenings to. I'm a Film Forum member and considered raising a fuss, but I couldn't bring myself to explain to a non-profit theater that the print of the obscure, 1933 foreign film print that they showed was not good enough. I felt a pre-emptive embarrassment at the thought. Would my complaint be justified? Do I deserve my 7 dollars back? I heard some young people (probably older than I am, but under 30) leaving the theater excitedly discussing the plot, so it seemed the screening was effective at least to some extent. My complaints were probably not widespread.

Haha, there's maybe a 50/50 shot that was my friend and I, since we arrived late and there was a bit of plotting in the beginning she'd missed.

Based on Kalat's response, it sounds like there isn't total quality control over what prints they grab (I'm sure this 1933 retrospective has been a bit of a headache for them). As a member, maybe they'd be happy to hear my comments and concerns, but the days where we even have prints to complain about are numbered. Does the film snob keep his mouth shut or demand prints that meet today's standards and perspectives of quality? In order to compete with people able to stream Criterion/Janus titles online in HD and with generally good translations, don't these art house theaters have to provide the best possible product to convince those on the fence that the theatrical print experience is worth the price of a monthly Hulu membership? The theater has been selling out screenings of Amour for months now, so they probably don't heavily consider the loss of business from dejected Fritz Lang fans, unsatisfied with the prints being screened. I assume that their print of M next month (far more than just the one screening they gave Testament) will (not by coincidence) bring in an audience and will be of a high quality.

Well, as I said, I'd happily take a run down print over a pristine digital projection, and my worry would be that they'd figure that people just won't be satisfied with anything that shows obvious signs of degradation or age- I mean, I literally drove three hours to get to see that screening, and I was happy that I did. If it were a matter of shoddy presentation on the theater's part, absolutely I'd complain, but I think this fits into the 'best available elements' category, and that's always something I can live with.

zedz wrote:It's not like repertory cinemas have a catalogue of available prints of different films to select from. They request a print from the appropriate source and are sent one - maybe the only one the distributor owns. If you're holding out for pristine, freshly subtitled prints of classic films, you will die long before you get to see most things.

In short, the "best possible product" you are talking about either doesn't exist in physical form, or if it does, it's held in an archive, quite likely on another continent, and is completely inaccessible to your local repertory cinema.

Speaking as a former repertory cinema manager of several years' standing, I can confirm that this is absolutely correct. Many distributors do indeed only have one print of particular titles available for commercial bookings, and it's simply not cost-effective to strike any more just to service very occasional repertory outings. (This was true enough twenty years ago when there was still a viable repertory sector, so the situation will only have got worse in the meantime).

We used to keep a detailed record of print quality, and if it dropped below a certain level we simply wouldn't book that film again - but that's pretty much all you can do. This is actually a major reason why I'm not at all averse to digital screenings, since at least they banish that particular bugbear.

In the UK at least, I suspect screenings of older films were always a big gamble. I recall a school outing in the mid-1970s to see Olivier's Richard III - a special one day showing at the local Odeon. The 35mm print was - to use a now apt metaphor - little more than a skeleton of the original film, with missing lines and jump-cuts galore (is this sort of experience what inspired deliberate jump-cuts?) But I don't recall anyone complained much as it was expected then of "an old film". With anything that wasn't first-run, I felt a sense of trepidation every time the first end-of-reel cue mark appeared and a mild elation if we started the next reel without an obviously missing chunk of the movie. I do miss cue marks on most digital transfers.

Of course, many famous films were not available at all, even when they weren't so old. By 1982, when I came to programme Ryan's Daughter for a Lean season, we were informed all the UK 35mm prints had been junked - though the older and much more popular Doctor Zhivago had recently been revived in mainstream cinemas. At university a few years earlier it was such a treat when we got to see a 35mm print (e.g. The Savage Innocents) that nobody minded how beat-up it was. Most films had to be studied in 16mm - Written on the Wind was analysed for weeks using a 4:3 black & white copy!

As for The Testament of Dr Mabuse, in 1978 I hired a nice - for its time - 16mm copy for the school film society. But it proved to be caviar to the general; within twenty minutes, the audience of teenagers was restless and by the hour-mark - rather than just leave - they were shooting paper planes at each other (made from my carefully written programme note!)

There's very little question that repertory cinemas could get away with a lot more in the 1980s and 90s, because their audiences tacitly (or explicitly) understood that that was the best they were likely to get without a proper revival. There's no way a current cinema could get away with showing, say, the 16mm print of Wild Strawberries that was all we had access to in the early 90s (not too bad visually, but the subtitles were sometimes very hard to read).

It's obviously a good thing that the average viewer has become much fussier over the last decade or so, not least because it forces distributors to up their game - but the downside is that prints that were considered showable before then may well not pass muster now. And if they're the only bookable 35mm (or 16mm) copies, then effectively they end up being taken out of big-screen circulation - either that or the cinema has to make the unappetising choice between a duff print and a projected DVD or Blu-ray (I'm assuming a DCP wouldn't be available in such circumstances).

DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, September 18th

Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.

This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.

As the winner of the Fritz Lang Auteur List, M, has already been discussed here, the runner up is our topic for discussion. Have at it!

So, this is silly, but I've always wondered- does the presence here of inspector Lohmann mean that M exists in a world where hypnotism, super science, and literal ghosts all exist? It's a strange linkage, particularly given that Lohmann is a far more heroic character here than he is in his origin, where he borders on fascistic in his methods- do y'all feel like the movie benefits from his presence?

I mostly take it as an excuse to work with the actor again. A bit like a reverse of the Leone trilogy.