criterionforum.org

BOUT DE SOUFFLE/BREATHLESS Blu...

Public:
Tous publics
Format vidéo:
1.33

Zone: n/a
Spécificités produit:
Digipack
Suppléments:
Introduction de Colin MacCabe, producteur et écrivain (3'15")
3 documentaires :
- "Chambre 12, Hôtel de Suède" réalisé par Claude Ventura (auteurs : Claude Ventura et Xavier Villetard - 1993 - 78')
- "Jean-Luc selon Luc" de Luc Moullet (7')
- "Godard, Made In USA" de Luc Lagier (48')
Bande-annonce (2'05")
Affiches (2)
Galerie photos de plateau de Raymond Cauchetier (77)
Accès BD-Live

And PIERROT LE FOU Blu...

Livret rédigé par Roland-François Lack, conférencier à l'Université de Londres et spécialiste de Jean-Luc Godard (20 pages)
Public:
Tous publics
Format vidéo:
2.35 (16/9)

Zone: n/a
Spécificités produit:
Digipack
Couleurs
Suppléments:
Introduction de Colin McCabe (4')
Analyse du film par Jean-Bernard Pouy (écrivain et scénariste)
Bande-annonce (2')
Posters (2)
Documentaire : "Godard, l'amour, la poésie" de Luc Lagier (52')
Accès BD-Live

I own the region B version of Studio Canal's Contempt and I thought it looked gorgeous. It's not clear to me why it is talked about in such a negative way. I can hardly imagine a better version being released ever.

And I don't own Ran, but if it's transfer is based on the old HD DVD-version (which I do own) then it should be avoided at all costs. It is really hardly HD.

Any reviews out there for The Ladykillers yet? That's the one I'm most interested in.

Found one:

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/ladykille ... u-ray/7790" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The biggest reveal of the review: 1.33:1 instead of 1.66:1. Someone is gonna have to get to the bottom of this. If it was theatrically the latter this could be a real problem.

captveg wrote:The biggest reveal of the review: 1.33:1 instead of 1.66:1. Someone is gonna have to get to the bottom of this. If it was theatrically the latter this could be a real problem.

I'm unconvinced that this would be shot in 1.66:1 in Britain in 1955 - much more likely that this would have been shot in 1.33:1 and possibly matted for 1:66 as required. But I don't want to start another multi thread discussion about aspect ratios a la Magnificent Obsession...

Has anyone had a chance to watch Optimum's release of the Red Riding Trilogy? I'm wondering whether I should get that version for $29 at CDwow or wait until IFC releases it's own version later this year.

Tribe, wait to see if they announce it on blu-ray first, if they don't then go for the Optimum.

IMDb, for what it's worth, show 1.66 also...

perkizitore wrote:Tribe, wait to see if they announce it on blu-ray first, if they don't then go for the Optimum.

I'm not BluRay yet....but I take it that's a vote of confidence for the Optimum?

I picked up the Optimum release and am very happy with it. I got mine for around 25 on Amazon with shipping

ZizouJuve wrote:I picked up the Optimum release and am very happy with it. I got mine for around 25 on Amazon with shipping

Amazon UK doesn't have it in stock, only through third party vendors. And the cheapest of those who will ship internationally comes out to $35. Same price pretty much on eBay.

Everything I've read about the film was that it was theatrically 1.66:1. So I'll pass on this one and keep my Anchor Bay DVD.

Just like I'm passing on Ran and keeping my Criterion DVD.

That's 0/2 so far for me, Studio Canal.

So, the first batch (for US customers) of three titles include:

- A poor transfer of Ran that is barely better than the Criterion DVD
- An OK transfer of Contempt. Serviceable but not great.
- A wrong OAR release in The Ladykillers

Shameful.

captveg wrote:So, the first batch (for US customers) of three titles include:

Are US customers unable to import like cinephiles do in every other region or something? If you choose to cut off your nose to spite your face then that's your problem.

captveg wrote:Everything I've read about the film was that it was theatrically 1.66:1. So I'll pass on this one and keep my Anchor Bay DVD.

Just like I'm passing on Ran and keeping my Criterion DVD.

That's 0/2 so far for me, Studio Canal.

So, the first batch (for US customers) of three titles include:

- A poor transfer of Ran that is barely better than the Criterion DVD
- An OK transfer of Contempt. Serviceable but not great.
- A wrong OAR release in The Ladykillers

Shameful.

It is hardly as shameful as you suggested (here and elsewhere). Dr. Amicus actually makes a very good point, as a number of films from the era were matted in 1.66:1 for theatrical release.

Pro-B

pro-bassoonist wrote:It is hardly as shameful as you suggested (here and elsewhere). Dr. Amicus actually makes a very good point, as a number of films from the era were matted in 1.66:1 for theatrical release.

Pro-B

The purpose of Home Theater is to recreate the theater experience. Many films are shot to be "safe" when opening up the mattes. That doesn't make it true to the intended theatrical representation.

If the filmmakers make the decision themselves, then fine. But otherwise the BD should represent the theatrical presentation.

In the case of Kubrick, his comments were in regard to 4:3 TVs that were standard definition. Now that those are no longer the industry norm, his estate went back to the theatrical aspect ratios.

With Mackendrick no longer with us, StudioCanal should have gone with the theatrical 1.66:1, as they didn't have anyone to ask if the open matted non-theatrical presentation was preferred. At least to my knowledge.

TMDaines wrote:

captveg wrote:So, the first batch (for US customers) of three titles include:

Are US customers unable to import like cinephiles do in every other region or something? If you choose to cut off your nose to spite your face then that's your problem.

Despite what message boards may indicate, 99.99% of US customers will never import a DVD/BD. Not because of their pride or a "problem" that you suggest, but because they simply don't look in that direction, either out of lack of awareness or preference.

Personally, I rarely import, mostly because there are hundreds of US releases of DVDs/BDs that I still haven't got around to picking up.

So, it's not so much a problem, as it was a statement of plainness - for the vast majority of US customers the US introduction to the Studio Canal Collection is less than ideal.

Tribe wrote:

ZizouJuve wrote:I picked up the Optimum release and am very happy with it. I got mine for around 25 on Amazon with shipping

Amazon UK doesn't have it in stock, only through third party vendors. And the cheapest of those who will ship internationally comes out to $35. Same price pretty much on eBay.

Tribe:

Here is a good review of the optimum set.
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/70 ... ilogy.html

ZizouJuve wrote: Here is a good review of the optimum set.
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/70 ... ilogy.html

Thanks. Too bad that Optimum set doesn't have subtitles...I have a hard time getting around the accents from the Old Country...and sometimes that "Yorkshire" accent in the 1974 movie was impenetrable! ](*,)

Funny that 99.9% of my collection is made of imports! (Just because Japan is always more expensive and months or years late!)

Most of the StudioCanal releases come with Japanese options, yet strangely, no Japanese distributor has picked these up for domestic sales. I know the market might be smaller than the other subtitle options, but am grateful for SC for including them.

Although strangely, I don't have a single one in my collection so far, so who am I speaking for?

Dr Amicus wrote:

captveg wrote:The biggest reveal of the review: 1.33:1 instead of 1.66:1. Someone is gonna have to get to the bottom of this. If it was theatrically the latter this could be a real problem.

I'm unconvinced that this would be shot in 1.66:1 in Britain in 1955 - much more likely that this would have been shot in 1.33:1 and possibly matted for 1:66 as required. But I don't want to start another multi thread discussion about aspect ratios a la Magnificent Obsession...

For what it's worth, I've just checked the aspect ratio of the clips on Screenonline, which were sourced from the BFI National Archive's viewing print - and the OAR would have been requested at the time of telecine, which I imagine the operator would have sourced from the markings on the cans...

...and it's 1.33:1.

Which isn't a definitive answer, of course, but it does support your contention that it was certainly shot in 1.33:1, regardless of the ultimate framing intentions. Looking at the clip, it's clear that enough headroom has been allowed for masking to 1.66:1, but this absolutely wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was projected in 1.33:1 when I saw it in the cinema - it may well have been the same print!

Oh, and as you acknowledge, the IMDB is not a reliable source for aspect ratio information - in my experience, that's the IMDB data field that's most likely to be inaccurate, especially where older films are concerned. And with a British film from 1955 (i.e. a time of flux in this particular field), there's every likelihood that both aspect ratios would have been allowed for at the time of filming, as many cinemas would probably only have been able to show 1.33:1 back then.

The Breathless Blu-ray that was supposed to come out next week is no longer shown as having a release date on Amazon. Has it been canceled so they could come up with any other cover than the one they went with?

Europe was far slower on the widescreen uptake than the US, so it would come as no surprise to learn that it was shot with both ratios in mind - at 1.66:1, though it's okay, it's always looked a tad tight to me on DVD.

Yes, looking at the 1.33:1 framing it's clear that it might well look a bit tight if cropped.

Based on what I've just watched (plus the absolute certainty that I'm looking at the full 35mm negative area, since I know that these clips were 35mm-sourced), I'd probably favour 1.33:1, if only because it gives you a choice of how best to frame it - assuming your player/TV is able to zoom appropriately.

captveg wrote:

pro-bassoonist wrote:It is hardly as shameful as you suggested (here and elsewhere). Dr. Amicus actually makes a very good point, as a number of films from the era were matted in 1.66:1 for theatrical release.

Pro-B

The purpose of Home Theater is to recreate the theater experience. Many films are shot to be "safe" when opening up the mattes. That doesn't make it true to the intended theatrical representation.

If the filmmakers make the decision themselves, then fine. But otherwise the BD should represent the theatrical presentation.

In the case of Kubrick, his comments were in regard to 4:3 TVs that were standard definition. Now that those are no longer the industry norm, his estate went back to the theatrical aspect ratios.

With Mackendrick no longer with us, StudioCanal should have gone with the theatrical 1.66:1, as they didn't have anyone to ask if the open matted non-theatrical presentation was preferred. At least to my knowledge.

(The same post I left for you elsewhere):

This is certainly an interesting observation, but not something I could agree with.

The theater experience, as you refer to it, isn't a standard, it is a preference. For example, during the 60s, a number of European directors shot in 1.66:1, yet their films were shown in America - theatrically - in different ratios. Some were even reshot -- take a look at La Piscine - with entirely new audio tracks.

Out of curiosity -- do you know how Godard's Éloge de l'amour was shot, how it was screened in Europe, how it was screened in the U.S., and with what aspect ratios the film appeared on SDVD in France/UK and the U.S.?

Now, in this case, The Ladykillers was shot in 1.33:1 and matted to 1.66:1 due to technical limitations. With other words, precisely because Mr. Mackendrick is no longer with us, I find comments such as shameful to be unjustified.

Pro-B

Just took a look at the Region A Contempt. What's with the awful disco music that plays during the Studio Canal Collection's equivalent to the CC's spinning Wacky C? And the similarly terrible tune that plays over the disc menu? Is it the same music for every SCC release?