criterionforum.org

I wish they had more info on the Battleship Potemkin restoration beyond a simple "coming soon."

While Criterion has spoiled me regarding picture quality, Kino's a decent enough second-tier dvd boutique that I feel comfortable buying their stuff (unlike, say, Facets). But yeah, I'm a little bummed that the likelihood of Criterion releasing Potemkin just disappeared.

Does anyone know if Kino (or anyone else) has any plans to release new versions of Strike and October as well, or will the Tartan set be the best option? I already have the Films sans frontiers discs but I really wouldn't mind upgrading if the Ruscico-licensed transfers are better.

Has anyone picked up Avant-Garde 2? I'm waiting to hear from you fine folks if this volume is as essential as the first.

jbeall wrote:While Criterion has spoiled me regarding picture quality, Kino's a decent enough second-tier dvd boutique that I feel comfortable buying their stuff (unlike, say, Facets). But yeah, I'm a little bummed that the likelihood of Criterion releasing Potemkin just disappeared.

Kino may be "second tier," but their prices sure aren't.

Greathinker wrote:Has anyone picked up Avant-Garde 2? I'm waiting to hear from you fine folks if this volume is as essential as the first.

I just finished watching this this weekend. No, I don't think it's as "essential" as the first volume...but there are plenty of fine experiments I hadn't seen. If anything, I found this set a bit "edgier" than the first volume with some intriguing material more overtly sexual than are present in the first set...primarily the pieces by Willard Maas and Gregory Markopoulos. The very early Brakhage films are in many ways much more interesting than Desistfilm (which, if I remember correctly, was the earliest film on the Criterion Brakhage release). Not a bad release at all...if you purchase lots of DVDs each month like I do, you could certainly do much worse.

Tribe

Any comments about the transfer quality of the new Kino release, "Five"?

kaujot wrote:

jbeall wrote:While Criterion has spoiled me regarding picture quality, Kino's a decent enough second-tier dvd boutique that I feel comfortable buying their stuff (unlike, say, Facets). But yeah, I'm a little bummed that the likelihood of Criterion releasing Potemkin just disappeared.

Kino may be "second tier," but their prices sure aren't.

True dat. But they release good films that otherwise wouldn't be released (except in public domain prints). And you can get their release of Scarlet Street for around $11 on dvdplanet.

And while Kino may not have the pockets to sport perfect transfers, I would rather have many companies like Kino working to release plenty of films that are unavailable, then have to wait for Criterion to release all of them.

Beaver on Five.

(Stick with the MK2.)

foggy eyes wrote:Beaver on Five.

(Stick with the MK2.)

The print looks fine. The combing is barely visible. No offense to Gary, but he's an absolute brat sometimes. This case being no exception.

You don't need deep pockets to make a progressive encode. Kino and New Yorker can't seem to manage it, but companies like Project X, Koch Lorber, and Milestone have managed to sort it out.

There's no excuse really, and I think it's only right that Gary points it out where it exists. Of course, if you're viewing on a CRT, it won't matter much to you.

Marcel Pagnol's The Fanny Trilogyis schedule for a September 25 re-release. Does anyone know if these will be new transfers or just the nasty old ones from 2004?

Gigi M. wrote:Marcel Pagnol's The Fanny Trilogyis schedule for a September 25 re-release. Does anyone know if these will be new transfers or just the nasty old ones from 2004?

Dunno. I've been meaning to watch these, but I have this built-in distaste for Pagnol ever since hearing about his spat with Rene Clair about cinema and art. Pagnol kinda seemed like an ass so I never bothered watching the films. Anyone?

justeleblanc wrote:The print looks fine. The combing is barely visible. No offense to Gary, but he's an absolute brat sometimes. This case being no exception.

True, but for a film as minimal and "undramatic" as Five, such distractions may feel more frustratingly intrusive than usual (particularly during the fourth segment, Ducks, which is full of horizontal motion). Still great that Kino have brought it to R1 - the MK2 isn't cheap, and both the film and documentary are essential Kiarostami.

I love Pagnol's films, especially FANNY (the second installment of the trilogy) and THE BAKER'S WIFE. Maybe he was an ass, personally. So what?

ByMarkClark.com wrote:Maybe he was an ass, personally. So what?

I believe Richard Wagner had a few personal shortcomings too...

ByMarkClark.com wrote:I love Pagnol's films, especially FANNY (the second installment of the trilogy) and THE BAKER'S WIFE. Maybe he was an ass, personally. So what?

This was more along the lines of what cinema should be. I believe Pagnol was a firm believer that cinema should only be there to film a play, nothing more. Whereas Clair was obviously more interested in film's capabilities.

justeleblanc wrote:This was more along the lines of what cinema should be. I believe Pagnol was a firm believer that cinema should only be there to film a play, nothing more. Whereas Clair was obviously more interested in film's capabilities.

If this philosophy is true it's blatantly obvious from his garish, cinematically boring films. Harvest was a big ol' mess, and The Baker's Wife was almost as unbearable. While Welles liked it, he basically concluded that it was a filmed play that just happened to be above-average because of the central performances (even these I didn't like).

peerpee wrote:You don't need deep pockets to make a progressive encode. Kino and New Yorker can't seem to manage it, but companies like Project X, Koch Lorber, and Milestone have managed to sort it out.

There's no excuse really, and I think it's only right that Gary points it out where it exists. Of course, if you're viewing on a CRT, it won't matter much to you.

I really don't want to knock Kino too much...for all the reasons expressed. But they so often do infuriating things that I think are entirely under their control. For example, I just bought Youngman Kim's One Third. Now, regardless of the merits of the film, this is a 2006 release...is it too fucking much to ask for at the very least an anamorphic transfer?

Tribe

I've always wondered just how much the company is worth. Anyone know?

kaujot wrote:I've always wondered just how much the company is worth. Anyone know?

I've wondered this for many companies. Kino, Koch, New Yorker, Wellspring especially. But a better question may be how expensive is the proper equipment to transfer film to DVD? My guess is that Criterion has shelled out for the highest quality of programs/machines, where as the others don't see it as a cost effective investment.

Tribe wrote:I really don't want to knock Kino too much...for all the reasons expressed. But they so often do infuriating things that I think are entirely under their control. For example, I just bought Youngman Kim's One Third. Now, regardless of the merits of the film, this is a 2006 release...is it too fucking much to ask for at the very least an anamorphic transfer?

You'd be surprised as to how often these things aren't under the distributor's control. I know of loads of instances where people were only granted access to existing Digibeta transfers that were non-anamorphic or in a different video standard to the one intended for the final release - and the rightsholder's attitude was "take it or leave it".

Fortunately, the one time I've personally had to sanction a non-anamorphic widescreen title it was merely a 17-minute extra on the BFI's Å vankmajer box - but believe me, it wasn't through choice, or stinginess on my part: I'd happily have paid for a new one, but was told that I could only use the existing master. (To make matters worse, the DVD screener they sent me was horrendously cropped, so I nearly dropped it altogether, but fortunately the actual master was in the OAR, even if it was non-anamorphic).

MichaelB wrote:You'd be surprised as to how often these things aren't under the distributor's control. I know of loads of instances where people were only granted access to existing Digibeta transfers that were non-anamorphic or in a different video standard to the one intended for the final release - and the rightsholder's attitude was "take it or leave it".

Thanks for the info, Michael. I just assumed that it would have been taken as a given.

Tribe

Via_Chicago wrote:

justeleblanc wrote:This was more along the lines of what cinema should be. I believe Pagnol was a firm believer that cinema should only be there to film a play, nothing more. Whereas Clair was obviously more interested in film's capabilities.

If this philosophy is true it's blatantly obvious from his garish, cinematically boring films. Harvest was a big ol' mess, and The Baker's Wife was almost as unbearable. While Welles liked it, he basically concluded that it was a filmed play that just happened to be above-average because of the central performances (even these I didn't like).

Jean Renoir: "I consider Marcel Pagnol the greatest contemporary cinematic author."