criterionforum.org

davidhare wrote:The day Paramount starts releasing silents like Docks of New York we'll all be in heaven playing harps in bad angel drag.

It'll never happen. Damn my pessimism!

I wish MOMA would start a bloody DVD line and release some of its old nitrate collection (if they still exist.)

MOMA? Remind me, please!

As in Museum of Modern Art in New York? And Gordon, you should turn your switch up - pessimism is so demode, young man!

I'm a cheerful pessimist - like Schopenhauer; except that I'm alive and he's not. He returned to what he was before his birth - lucky bastard.

Nick
Why is this no longer available?

Our DVD rights for the UK territory are being contested. Due to confusion over who has those rights and who has the authority to award those rights, we have decided to withdraw the title immediately.

There are not many copies in distribution channels. Consider this a headsup!

Guess I got this just in the nick of time... anything else in a similar predicament?

Thanks for the heads up, Nick. Much appreciated.

Sorry to hear about the rights issue. It's funny how people want in on the action after someone like MoC has done all the groundwork...

I'm sure you'd prefer the disc to stay in print, Nick, but congratulations on your first Salo-style OOP frenzy.

I only posted in here because of the discussion of it going out of print or MOC saying it's no longer available. I happen to like Nicholas Ray. The first time I found out about this film was when I saw Permanent Vacation. There was poster of it displayed in a movie theatre lobby in the film. I guess Jarmusch digs it.

Looky here...

Yes, I was searching for the MoC disc today and came across this rerelease. Its listed on cdwow and amazon among others, but this is NOT an MoC reissue.

The budget-priced reissue, sure to be lining petrol station bargain bins up and down the country, will be pan-and-scan (which is what Amazon lists and the BBFC confirms).

It's an amazing film if you've not seen it. I was surprised at how well the whole thing hung together and refused to sanitise or shy away the Eskimo behaviour for western audiences, no matter how alien and unusual it becomes (Anthony Quinn's wife licking her newborn baby clean is not a sight I'll forget in a hurry). A real oddity and fascinating rediscovery.

I got this from CD-Wow this week and it's my first MOC release, are all their booklets as cool as this one? I loved all the press book-style inclusions, real shame they got hosed and won't be able to release this disc anymore

domino harvey wrote:I got this from CD-Wow this week and it's my first MOC release, are all their booklets as cool as this one?

In terms of picture/ sound quality, film choices and extras, I don't think there's much to choose between MoC and CC but the area that MoC is light-years ahead is the booklets.

They are not all in the same style as the Savage Innocents one but they are all fantastic. Well put-together, well written and more often than not quite weighty (in fact, a few would more accurately be called books than booklets).
I can't think of any of the 20-odd MoC's that I have that have less than a dozen pages of essays, interviews etc.

I just got this, having no idea of the oop situation. Thought the second half of the film-- the clash of cultures and the wonderful statements being made via the contrast-- far more engaging than the first... though those wonderful kayaking location shots were fabulous.

Beginning any film with the painful wounding of a beautiful snow white polar bear leisurely swimming through his natural paradise medium, has, one must say, balls.

Does anyone know WHY O'Toole was dubbed? Jesus (who he sorta looks like in this film) did this cat have a fuckin badass face when he was young.

Kudos to Ehrenstein for mouthing one of the all time home runs in commentaryland: "...delivering breasts to a grateful public" (re the first touches of nudity in Hollywood features).

Okay I'm quite the dweeb. Over all these years I never knew THE MIGHTY QUINN by Manfred Mann was
a) written by Dylan,

and

b) about Quinn in INNOCENTS. Thanks to Ehrenstein & Krohn at the very end of the comentary track for throwing that superfascinating little tidbit in there. Good old Dylan strikes again.

Schreck, don't tell me that you have never heard Dylan sing The Mighty Quinn.

I guess you're distinguishing between me not knowing that Dylan wrote it and not having heard the Dylan version. If I have heard it (I'm sure I did somewhere along the line) I probably just never gave it a second thought. The Mann version was "in the air" around the time I was born in '67.. about a year later I think. When something gets hammered by proxy into your head when you're 1 year old it becomes by default the "official" version of it, unless you wind up paying it some non-passive mind, which I never did on this song.

In fact I never even clarified for myself the words I was hearing to put two & two together. And as the last "oldies" station (i e CBS FM which used to play 50's-70's pop classics) shut down in NYC about 2 yrs ago, I rarely even hear the song anymore.

Thanks to youtube and users who create playlists of this stuff, you can actually hear songs like this without signing up for satellite radio. From vintage captain crunch commercials to "Quinn", youtube has turned into quite the road to shambala. Which is a good thing. I been reliving my whole late 60's early 70's youthiest youth over there lately.

In addition to the rendition of "Quinn" on Self Portrait, mentioned by kinjitsu, there's another great version, recorded by Dylan and The Band in 1967, available on Biograph and The Essential Bob Dylan.

Nick, can you tell us if this is back in print again please? I'm sure we'd all raise a glass if it is (except those who bought up multiple speculative copies, I suppose). Thanks

It remains out-of-print.

and I'm pretty sure spanish harlem incident is about golden earrings.

I had to shut this movie off because of the scenes involving animals being hunted. I always put my beliefs and politics aside when viewing any sort of art including movies or art galleries. But I couldn't take this anymore. I don't agree with animals with being killed for art. I doubt the scenes were faked in this movie, however, I could be wrong. It took me out of the film and found myself quite shocked that no review ever mentioned it.

It wasn't quite as bad as the giraffe being shot in Sans Soleil, while graphic, I at least felt that the animal's death had a purpose other than for the film.

Luke M wrote: I don't agree with animals with being killed for art. I doubt the scenes were faked in this movie, however, I could be wrong.

If the animals were genuinely "killed for art", then the BBFC would legally not have been allowed to pass the scenes for British video release - their hands being tied by the 1937 Animals Act, which explicitly prevents such things from being distributed.

There are only two get-out clauses: if the killings were simulated (and the distributor can prove this), or if the deaths would have happened regardless of the presence of the cameras. The BBFC is most assiduous about making sure that one or the other applies - I'm guessing (2) is most likely in this case.

MichaelB wrote:

Luke M wrote: I don't agree with animals with being killed for art. I doubt the scenes were faked in this movie, however, I could be wrong.

If the animals were genuinely "killed for art", then the BBFC would legally not have been allowed to pass the scenes for British video release (their hands being tied by the 1937 Animals Act).

There are only two get-out clauses: if the killings were simulated, or if the deaths would have happened regardless of the presence of the cameras. The BBFC is most assiduous about making sure that one or the other applies.

Thanks for that info. I may give the disc another spin.