criterionforum.org

His commentary on The Set-Up is shocking.

It's crap.

Narshty wrote:It's crap.

have to agree with you there. Watched the dvd for the first time a month back and couldn't wait to watch again with commentary. Hard to believe they could put together such a sparse commentary on a film that is little over an hour long.

. . . getting back to Tales of Hoffmann, I had the opportunity to see this recently in a gorgeous print, and while it's a constantly astonishing feat of filmmaking, it's also one of my least favourite Powell / Pressburgers (which makes me miss the missing 49th Parallel and Canterbury Tale even more keenly).

The film seems to me to play to the strengths of the Archers' collaborators far more than it plays to their own (e.g. storytelling, idiosyncratic but compelling characterization), so it's a dazzling display of set design, cinematography, special effects and music, but ultimately rather soulless and lacking in dimension.

That said, it's still a must-see, with regular brilliant moments, and the Criterion specs seem exemplary.

It's the epitome of their ideal of a totally 'composed' film...

The Scorsese commentary on The Set-up is strange because it sounds like he is not actually watching the movie and commenting on it. He had viewed it recently (perhaps a few nights before) and then appears to be talking about it later. Maybe on break during a shoot. He's straining to remember details that are in front of us on the screen. So Warners has something to answer for there.

There's far less of Scorsese on The Red Shoes than on The Set-up, so I don't know what all the fuss is. Aside from about 3-4 breaks in the Set-up commentary, it's all Scorsese and the director.

There's a nice George A. Romero piece in the October ish of Sight and Sound about TALES OF HOFFMANN.. I'm sure he'll be saying much the same in his i/v on the CC disc...

davidhare wrote: dull musical reading of what I consider to be a brilliant score;

No love for Beecham's affectionate shaping of the score? Sure it's a bit laid-back, but I'll take it over most of the competition. I'm NOT a fan of the Sutherland/Bonynge recording....I do like the older (40's) Cluytens EMI. So, who do you like?

davidhare wrote:Maybe other folks will see the wide shots as soft, rather than misregistered. They certainly look the latter to me. Yet I DO like the very strident reds, and tonalities upwards like purples and scarlets.

But overall disappointed. I am stuck ideally with memories of a dazzling Technicolor print which screened briefly in NYC in the 80s (which I sat through successively twice, at one point arguing with the projectionist about misfocus during the second screening! It was a corker.)

The Criterion transfer was very true to the BFI print I saw earlier this year (which it should be, as it was based on that source!), instances of slight misregistration included. It is disconcerting when the image goes from razor sharp to soft from shot to shot. I think there might be instances of simple softness in there, but there's definitely some misregistration as well.

I didn't question the colour scheme in either presentation, with those alarming reds and greens leaping out from the more muted blue-green backgrounds, but these have been my only encounters with the film.

So how is the interview with George Romero? Does it go in depth? Is it surprising? Thanks...

I found the Romero interview to be excellent. This guy really loves this movie! His story about his frequent difficulty in renting the sole 16mm print of the film in NY is quite amusing and painted a wonderful image in my mind.

I honestly thought that we'd never see this on DVD from Criterion, so any niggly aspect of the transfer should be passed over in silence. No, seriously, the transfer looks great but the misregistration is a bit annoying and if certain colours aren't quite accurate then I personally am not that bothered. Inaccurate colour in transfers is something that bothers me, but only when the overall colour scheme is botched. (An alternate spelling of colour is also available)

The commentary remains one of the jewels in the crown of Criterion's store room. Priceless stuff; I thought I'd never get to hear it - just like the Roeg-Bowie-Buck commentary on The Who Fell to Earth. The Schrader-Scorsese Taxi Driver DAT must be feeling neglected by now.

The Tales of Hoffmann is an amazing, one-off masterpiece that never fails to enthrall me. Brilliant ideas abound and the sheer audacity of the film earns it a place in the pantheon in the greatest moments in Cinema!

Bring on A Canterbury Tale and 49th Parallel .

Gordon McMurphy wrote:I found the Romero interview to be excellent. This guy really loves this movie! His story about his frequent difficulty in renting the sole 16mm print of the film in NY is quite amusing and painted a wonderful image in my mind.

I am looking forward to sitting down with this over Christmas. I'm not sure why many people found it a surprise that Romero's favourite film was Tales of Hoffman, he mentioned it at the beginning of the new documentary on the Anchor Bay Dawn of the Dead set and there was even a quick clip. It will be interesting to hear him now that he has the chance to go more in depth into his favourite film!

Does anyone else's disc freeze about five minutes in when the guy opens the stage door and then skip to the next chapter? So, Am I the only one with a fucked up disc?

Theodore R. Stockton wrote:So, Am I the onlyone with a fucked up disc?

No problems here - sorry! However, I do rip all my movies to a Lacie 80 GB Silverscreen so maybe my +1 does not count...

You prefer the LD, David?

I haven't seen the film prior to the Criterion release, but it might be that you just gotten used to the way it looks in the Laserdisc and now you find it hard to appreciate the changes. I personally think it looks better now and it is not the first time that colors look different after restoration - thinking about Vertigo, for instance.

How did it look in theatrical prints?

What kind of film stock was used for this film in particular? That might explain the reason behind the striking color difference.

I prefer the DVD transfer. Maybe the colours are not 100% spot on but the image looks so much sharper.

There is no doubt that the DVD image is sharper, the issue is with the colours. I think that the more garish LD colour scheme is likely to be the more accurate.

And if those annoying misregistration problems inherant in P & P & JC criterion DVD releases don't apply to the LD, then I would say the LD is the superior image.

An interview with Romero where he reminisces about the movie

davidhare wrote:Of course the LD isn't as sharp as the DVD (This its ONLY advantage) but the movie was shot in three strip and originally printed IB. The LD was produced from a new internegative taken from the three strip neg originals, and they (Criterion and Scorsese) derived a brand new interpositive for it. The Studio Canal has obviously been manipulated to largely remove blue, and has obviously been brightness boosted. The result isn't horrible, it's just WRONG.

Thanks David - this is stunning. The colour it is quite clearly wrong. So why did Criterion go for the Studio Canal over their own work for the LD? You would think someone would have noticed the glaring difference. It shouldn't be left to a kindly Sydney gent to point this out after release. Scorsese and Romero must have noticed (if they were given preview copies). A sad situation, especially when you think how long this one was in the works.

Finally, a voice of reason!! I'm deeply embarrassed by Criterion's efforts, David. ](*,) Do you think you could make a screencap comparison of Fox's LD and DVD of Leave Her to Heaven? I would assume that the DVD is way too dark and undersaturated. BTW, I'll e-mail you very soon - hope 2006 turns out better for you than 2005, even if Sydney escaped the raging fires...

davidhare wrote:(Two more badly wrong Studio Canal color titles - Chabrols Leda, a pale shadow of its old Eastman self, and Criterion's Ran which looks like a lolly shop.)

What the hell? You mean not one dvd is the correct version of this, no matter what the region? I haven't heard anyone else complain about the criterion version...