German Filmmuseum Edition

[MichaelB]

It's such a shame that Nothing is no longer around - you and he would get on like the proverbial house on fire.

[Tommaso]

Don't forget that Second Run, as far as I can see, license their transfers whereas Filmmuseum in many cases have to make brand new transfers from the archive materials they have at hand (talking of silents only here, as I really don't know anything about Benning). Sure, they sometimes get some extra money via collaborations with TV stations or other institutions, as is the case with the forthcoming "Student von Prag" disc, but generally there goes much more effort into these releases than Second Run would ever have to do. Thus the higher price which I think is absolutely justified given how small the market for such releases it. And if I think of the fact that you often had (or have) to pay roughly the same for a barebones disc from Kino with replaced intertitles, sloppy PAL-NTSC conversions, and zero extras...

[TMDaines]

I'm not expecting a restoration, I think Benning considers the imperfections of a film print to be part of the experience, but a decent new telecine released on blu-ray would be nice. And I think it bizarre that labels like Twilight Time and Olive get ripped to shreds on this forum, despite their commitment to blu-ray, yet Filmmuseum get a free pass releasing old beta transfers on DVD at similar prices.

You don't get it, do you, bdlover? I think the overwhelming majority here care less about the format for rare films, especially when Blu-ray wouldn't make financial sense for the labels releasing them, than they do the films themselves. People want to see the label making a reasonable effort and doing the best with what they have available. EF, for the most part, go above and beyond that. Their video transfers are frequently stunning and are often a revelation compared to the VHS/Betamax/God-knows-what transfers that we had been making do with. Their extras are some of the best out there at times, especially the additional documents they often provide. The vast majority of their catalogue will never ever be able to justify the additional expense that releasing on Blu-ray requires. I would absolutely love to buy all these silents, certain Kluges and other such films on Blu-ray, but it is never going to happen. EF aren't doing and no-one else is even touching these films with a bargepole.

TT get shat on as they just release studio titles at a grossly inflated price and don't even bother to distribute them properly, meaning the customer picks up the tab for their half-arsed business model. They add virtually no value to their releases. Olive seem to be loved here, as they release titles barebones on Blu-ray at a fair price that reflects their content. Not sure what you were going on about with that comment.

Now if we travel back five years then of course, something like the Ruttman was a good release, but in the current market the closest comparison to Filmmuseum is Second Run. The crucial difference being that Second Run charge a budget price for their discs to compensate for the aging format, sometimes-wonky transfers and the blind-buy obscurity of much of their catalogue.

You're talking out of your backside here. EF releases are always friendly for multiple languages and are often two disc sets loaded with extras, extra films and a ROM section. Second Run are always (usually?) using existing transfers, whereas EF are often working from archive materials. I like both labels but a comparison doesn't do either justice.

[MichaelB]

I can't think of a single Second Run disc that isn't from an existing transfer - they just don't have the budget to create their own, and neither is their market big enough to support such a thing. Which is why their discs are comparatively barebones (a booklet plus one video extra - more is rare, less is common) and charge a very low RRP as a business necessity thanks to their reliance on their customers' willingness to blind-buy.

I don't have behind-the-scenes contacts at Edition Filmmuseum, but it's clear just from the discs alone (or at least the half-dozen that I've seen) that they must have been much more expensive to put together, so the Second Run pricing model simply wouldn't work. (Indeed, Second Run themselves still haven't worked out how to transfer their business model into supporting Blu-ray releases - early last year, they crunched the numbers every conceivable way but just couldn't get things to break even).

And I also get the impression that Olive has plenty of fans round here - if I remember rightly, the only real flare-up occurred when someone strongly suspected to be an Olive staffer came onto the forums and said some rather unprofessional things about us, most of which weren't actually supported by the evidence.

[bdlover]

Filmmuseum in many cases have to make brand new transfers from the archive materials they have at hand

But in that case, if they DO have money and even access to state funding, isn't their poor treatment of the Benning and their lack of commitment to blu-ray even more inexcusable? A blu-ray edition of the California Trilogy would be at least as commercial as Criterion's Frampton set or the BFI's Keen. Or take the Schroeter discs, you suggest that a blu-ray couldn't possibly be justified, yet Concorde video have already released a blu-ray of Malina which also sells for half the price. The idea that niche titles can't possibly be released on blu-ray has already been blown out of the water by many other labels.

[AlexHansen]

at least as commercial [...] the BFI's Keen.

There's a reason the BFI didn't repress the Blu edition.

[bdlover]

One pressing was enough? And Benning's profile is light years ahead of Keen.

[warren oates]

I don't know where you're getting your ideas of the respective Q ratings of dueling (in your head only?) experimental filmmakers. But, yeah, if Benning were a British filmmaker he'd certainly be getting this kind of treatment from the BFI. But he's not. And unfortunately there's nothing like the BFI in America. And, like I said above, Benning's really not interested in spending his remaining time looking backward. To the extent that he seems to care about archiving/video at all, it was more or less to have a good-enough place for all of his work, not the best possible place for the most popular titles. The case you should really be arguing is for an eventual Criterion release of a Benning BD box. If Criterion were interested and could ever work things out with EF, all of his great landscape films from the last decade or so would be worthy of such a set.

[Tommaso]

Filmmuseum in many cases have to make brand new transfers from the archive materials they have at hand

But in that case, if they DO have money and even access to state funding [...]

As far as I can see, they don't have a lot of money. A few years ago I talked to someone involved with the Filmmuseum Munich and he told me that the people behind EF very often have to do these releases more or less in their 'spare time', which (I hope) doesn't mean they're working on it after working hours, but still only when other work commitments allow it. Might be an explanation why it often takes so long before anything gets released. State/TV funding/cooperation will most likely only apply to (classical) German films, preferably silents from the Weimar era. Benning, being an American, probably isn't in the focus of any German institution devoted to film.

[zedz]

All of them would look a hell of a lot better were they released on Blu-ray after having been given a $100,000 restoration...

I'm not expecting a restoration, I think Benning considers the imperfections of a film print to be part of the experience, but a decent new telecine released on blu-ray would be nice. And I think it bizarre that labels like Twilight Time and Olive get ripped to shreds on this forum, despite their commitment to blu-ray, yet Filmmuseum get a free pass releasing old beta transfers on DVD at similar prices.

And, since the potential audience for Sleepless in Seattle is practically identical to the potential audience for Benning's plotless structural films, this analogy is not in the least ridiculous.

I repeat: Idiot.

[TMDaines]

Also, how on earth is Malina comparable to the Schroeters we've had so far? Just because an obscure auteur has one comparable hit, with an international cast, it does not mean his more lesser-known works have the same appeal. I for one am absolutely delighted that EF are dealing with much of Schroeter's backcatalogue. If they release a number of packages like the first and give them a similar level of treatment as to the Kluges then we're in for a treat.

I can't believe I'm sitting here defending EF. Their upcoming schedule is a silent film enthusiast's wet dream - nevermind their other titles. No-one shows more commitment to continually releasing excellent editions of new titles.

[bdlover]

As far as I can see, they don't have a lot of money.

Well you can't have it both ways! If what you say is true then they have a bit more money for their German silents but for everything else the available resources are very much comparable to Second Run. And to be clear I wasn't criticising Second Run since their business model makes sense. They understand that you can't charge premium prices for a 10+ year old transfer and not alienate your customers. They also understand that niche titles on DVD should be moderately priced to encourage blind buys.

I don't know where you're getting your ideas of the respective Q ratings of dueling (in your head only?) experimental filmmakers.

We were talking about the commercial potential of a Benning blu-ray set in comparison others on the market, therefore an assessment of the respective directors' visibility doesn't seem unreasonable. Taking the recent BFI Greatest Films of All Time Poll as a rough measure, one may note that Benning received 7 votes, which is 7 more than Keen. Frampton received 8 votes and Brakhage 22, both having the advantage of recent Criterion editions.

As to a Criterion or BFI set of the Benning, whilst the above comparison suggests to me the viability of such a cause, the existence of the EF discs sadly makes this more unlikely since the potential audience has now been reduced and they would also have to negotiate with a third party.

Anyway, whatever one's position on EF's output overall (imho Masters of Cinema have shown that blu-ray releases of German slients are perfectly viable), it is a clear fact of day that the California Trilogy release is shoddily produced and therefore over priced. I wouldn't call anyone who won't admit this an 'idiot' but a blinkered fanboy quite possibly.

[knives]

Anyway, whatever one's position on EF's output overall (imho Masters of Cinema have shown that blu-ray releases of German slients are perfectly viable), it is a clear fact of day that the California Trilogy release is shoddily produced and therefore over priced. I wouldn't call anyone who won't admit this an 'idiot' but a blinkered fanboy quite possibly.

To compare the commercial viability of Lang and Murnau to something like their soccer set or even Der student von Prag is absurd in the worst way. Do you not hear what you are typing you format fetishist.

[MichaelB]

I also recall MoC saying that the more obscure Murnaus like Phantom and The Finances of the Grand Duke didn't exactly race up the sales charts, despite being generously double-billed.

[Tommaso]

Probably with those two Murnaus sales were lower because both of them had already been released elsewhere. Silent film enthusiasts are a very small but dedicated group of people and aren't afraid of importing from the USA (Flicker Alley) and Spain (divisa) in this case. Still I'm sure many are waiting for MoC or divisa to release those early Langs which Kino chose to only release with replaced intertitles. Admittedly, the FA "Phantom" had replaced titles, too, so I may be contradicting myself already.

[bdlover]

They could always have paired these with better known titles as with their Mizoguchi double bills. Or something like the Ruttman has enough of a reputation to stand on its own merits. Again, I'm not against low tech DVD releases of more obscure titles, but these releases should be priced accordingly.

[Gregory]

I love how you've judged an entire label, but the only example you can discuss (having ignored a request for other examples to back up your broad criticisms of EF) is the California Trilogy.

Bottom line, if they can't afford to create new transfers then they should release them at a budget price ala. Second Run.

It's three films, the kind that have no chance of making any real profits for the label, for €23. That is a budget price.

it is a clear fact of day that the California Trilogy release is shoddily produced and therefore over priced

Those aren't facts. No one else has even bothered to release it, and EF came along and did it the best way they could, as a labor of love using people's spare time and a shoestring budget. Yet you're demanding a blu-ray release and, when you don't get it, demanding that already uncommercial DVDs be given away for low prices. That's not how the business works, and it seems pretty despicable to use one shoestring label as a stick to beat another type of shoestring label into Rolling Back Prices (©Walmart).
Your silly apples-and-oranges comparisons of releases by different filmmakers on different labels in different parts of the world don't help your case any.

[foggy eyes]

It's three films, the kind that have no chance of making any real profits for the label, for €23. That is a budget price.

That's what I've been thinking too. Three previously unavailable (well, sort of, but the rips from the 3sat screenings that circulated were dreadful) major films for €19.99 at JPC. That's easily equivalent to a Second Run price. Blu-rays would be nice and everything, but I'm very thankful to have this release.

[bdlover]

It's three films, the kind that have no chance of making any real profits for the label, for €23. That is a budget price.

They're three parts of the same film to all intents and purposes. 2 DVDs, but would fit on a single blu-ray. No distributor in their right mind wound think of selling these as three separate films. You want facts, let's break down exactly what was involved in the release:

1/ Acquisition of rights directly from producer: Little-to-no other competition involved, no sales agent. MG therefore either low or non-existent.

2/ Acquisition of old betaSP telecines from producer. Cost = postage, if that.

3/ Basic mastering of betaSP telecines onto DVD. Anyone with a home computer and a second hand beta deck could do this for no cost.

4/ Extras: none at all on the discs. A couple of brief essays, little or no cost there.

5/ DVD and packaging production = approx. €2-3 per set.

Amazon retail price of DVDs in 2013 = €23.

Which part of cheap, lazy 'rip-off' do you have trouble understanding?

As to the wider picture, I'd like you to point to another 'major label' that hasn't at least partially committed to blu-ray. When New Wave pull out the commercial excuses they rightly get torn to shreds - and even New Wave are now making more of an effort to commit to the format. As for territory, there's actually greater commitment to blu-ray in Germany than probably anywhere else in the world. Tons of unique, niche blu-ray titles coming out, I import from there quite regularly.

the rips from the 3sat screenings that circulated were dreadful

And from exactly the same source as the EF release... I should add that the particular problem with watching these films in this condition is that you are left to feel / contemplate each static shot and each location in intense detail for an extended period of time with no narrative or performance or other distraction. When the image that you're looking at is soft, blown out and riddled with analogue tape static this dramatically downgrades the experience. This is the very reason Benning held off on home video releases for so long, and its really quite sad that EF have treated the films with so little care and attention and in doing so proved this initial instinct to be correct.

[swo17]

All you have proven, if you have proven anything, is that one release by EF could be improved upon. Please do tell how this argument extends to EF in general being "one of the worst labels out there."

[MichaelB]

I think if someone is minded to slag off a label as a whole, they're pretty much honour-bound to tell us what they've actually watched, so that the rest of us can judge the validity of their criticism.

I remember when Nothing was dismissing Second Run in similarly sweeping and hyperbolic terms a few years back, it eventually turned out under cross-examination that he'd only actually seen three of their releases, all of which came out very early in the label's life, and two of which were atypically poor (The Red and the White and Knights of the Teutonic Order, the last of which is arguably the worst release in SR's entire catalogue).

Personally, I've only seen five or six EF releases, which wouldn't remotely qualify me to make sweeping statements about the label's entire catalogue - so at the very least I'd expect bdlover to have seen substantially more than that. But I'm willing to bet that he hasn't.

[TMDaines]

I still don't see how exactly three previously unreleased films for €20 or so is bad value. And I'm the one who will usually take labels to town over price.

[MichaelB]

I still don't see how exactly three previously unreleased films for €20 or so is bad value. And I'm the one who will usually take labels to town over price.

Indeed - it's not at all like you to be on the label's side when it comes to pricing arguments!

[bdlover]

Michael, I disagree. I've seen public domain releases from the like of Alpha Video that look better than the California Trilogy - it is literally the worst-looking DVD or blu-ray I have bought in the last five years. If a label wants to compete in the upper echelons, and therefore justify the kind of prices EF charge, they need to extend quality control over their entire range of products. Their name should be synonymous with quality to the extent that you can blind buy a product and know that it will meet a certain technical standard. It's utterly irrelevant whether or not the films have been released before. In 2013, a commitment to blu-ray is also a must.

[TMDaines]

Judging by all the comments here, however, a commitment to Blu-ray quite clearly isn't a must. It would be ideal and desirable for certain, but not at the same expence of a label having financial difficulties and being unable to be adventurous with their curation. I don't get why you are so obsessed with Blu-ray. The Blu-ray market is still miniscule on a global basis, in comparison to DVD, especially outside certain countries like Britain and America.

I have no idea about the quality of this release, but it got a very positive review here on DVDTalk, even for video content. What's so terrible about them that it harms the DVD label? Criterion still retails many releases that have far worse video content than this.