criterionforum.org

EDIT: Just (against my better judgment) dropped in on the MO ratio thread and read who billy feldman is. Good lord, I could be clipping my nails instead!

Antoine Doinel wrote:EDIT: Just (against my better judgment) dropped in on the MO ratio thread and read who billy feldman is. Good lord, I could be clipping my nails instead!

I'll tell you who Billy Feldman is - Billy Feldman is someone who's actually seen an IB Technicolor print of the film in question. But you go clip your nails and enjoy the Carlton yellow/orange DVD. You deserve it.

I'll tell you who Bob Dole is... Bob Dole...

billy feldman wrote:Those who sit here and believe people like Herr Schreck are depriving themselves of a very nice and pretty accurate transfer from Columbia. The caps don't really do it justice, just as caps never do, but it's lots more fun to get on the old high horse and say "fuckin'" a lot, isn't it? But someone's got to speak up and it may as well be me.

First, research the board and discover what the discussion actually turned out to be, which was the differences between the caps (I think we're all pretty happy now with the look of the disc).

Secondly, it'd probably be a good idea to stop trying to infect other people with the rage you've obviously arrived here with. I suspect as soon as one of us is provoked, you'll immediately calm down and grow dreamily sedate. If you've come here on a Vengeance Mission, state your gripe-- and think a little deeper before you post. Because I daresay all you've imagined to do so far is deliver some wonderful comedy to the board.

I have moved all the caps from this release back into this thread. I don't know why they were moved initially, because I thought the screen caps thread was mainly for caps from DVDs that we don't already have threads for.

Recent interview with Thelma Schoonmaker on the the Sony DVD release as well as the films of Powell in general. Click on "Open in your default player" to listen.

I've got the set now, and while I took only a brief look at AMOLAD yet and so won't say anything about the transfer at this stage, I watched the "Age of Consent" disc in its entirety.

First about the transfer: I'm surprised how good it actually looks given that it is indeed single-layered with only 3,5 gigs for the film itself and its two audio tracks, and thus has an appallingly low bit rate. But it really seldom shows: detail is mostly very good, very little visible edge enhancement, no obvious compression issues, colours are mind-blowing. There is, however, a slight blurryness in some moments which I'm sure is caused by the low bitrate, and I really wonder why Sony put this on a single-layered disc given that they obviously put some effort into getting the transfer itself right. And yes, as David said before, the grain clearly looks faux, but it's never really distracting from the over-all experience. All in all, this is much better than expected after looking at Gary's caps only. And commentary and extras are all very worthwhile (especially the Mirren interview) and thoroughly cover every conceivable aspect of the film, which makes this almost like a Criterion in the extras department

But I really want to say something about the film itself. I didn't have too high expectations, despite it being a Powell film, and perhaps that wasn't the worst frame of mind for watching it. I don't know if others know that kind of experience: you watch a film totally unknown to you and immediately notice its many flaws, but while being constantly aware that what you're watching isn't exactly great, you simply can't help loving every minute of it and have a tremendous film experience. So it is with "Age of Consent". It's very easy to show why it isn't good: the overall rather badly written dialogue (a good proof how essential Emeric was for Powell's genius to really take off), its frequent plunges into what almost feels like family entertainment (that dog!), the rather broad comedy that Powell handled far better in "They're a weird mob". But nevertheless, even from the first moments, the film exudes what I can only describe as the typical Powell magic: his trademark wit in doing the titles and the opening shot is there (here the joke was apparently suggested by Mason), and there are similar witty moments strewn all over the film. I won't give them away here, but the scene when Mason first enters his shack is as priceless as the later one when MacGowran disposes of his cigarette ashes in a quite...ahm..disturbing way. And my God: those images, those colours, that atmosphere! You might argue that it doesn't need someone like Powell to make that glorious island scenery appear beautiful, but as usual there's his typical inventiveness at work everywhere. That nightly scene where Mirren is flashing the torches in the water knocked me off my chair as much as that moment inside when she becomes aware of her own growing-up and sexuality. This is all filmed so lovingly, without over-doing the sexual innuendo, and the camera so subtly expressing what is going on inside her. Truly, truly beautiful. And don't get me started on Mirren's acting and looks in the first place.... Finally, I really liked the Peter Sculthorpe score, which I believe greatly enhances the character of the film as a pure mood piece.

Ah well... Like practically every Powell film (even the thematically darker ones), this left me in a completely joyful mood and with a positive regard of life. And I can't say that about many films I like. And dammit, I even loved that dog.

Just watched the flick on the new DVD, and have to say that the Beaver caps aren't inaccurate necessarily, though they do seem to pile evidence up against the transfer which is as warm as the new caps from reaky suggest. The Beaver does show some blue skin tones, and I don't think the faces are supposed to be as blue as they are in the transfer, especially the lips, but thanks to color breathing no cap will ever show what the transfer truly looks like (I found it fluctuating between too blue and too red often). I was able to fully enjoy the film either way, and I think the Carlton caps on Beaver are a bit too rich (just a first-time viewer's perspective). I'm so glad and grateful that this film is on DVD in the States finally; I'll leave it to everyone else to decide whether it needs a re-do or not.

david hare wrote:The fucking dog is the best thing in the fucking FILM!!!

Ahm... not even Helen Mirren? C'mon Dave!!

But I must admit it's only the second time I actually loved a dog in a film (the other one is, very obviously, "Umberto D.").

You didnt even dig the dog in POrt of Shadows tom?

Ahm, I forgot that one. I've only seen the Carné once, what a shame.

I'm so happy to be able to type this sentence:

If you guys want to discuss dogs in films, we already have a thread for that.

I know the thread well-- don't even hafta hit the link to know it's name "Flike and other film dogs.." Just a quick aside, no harm intended.

But Tom, Quai is magnifique! I couldn't imagine not owning this film.. the height of POetic Realism yadda.

I can't comment on the AOC canines, as I never even knew the film existed prior to this release.

Yes, the dog in "Age of Consent" is great, no doubt. But whenever I see dogs in films (especially partly fluffy ones like this, the film I mean), I always associate Lassie in a way. I don't remember that chapter in Powell's autobiography, but thanks for the reminder, David. I wanted to re-read the bits on the film anyway. The audiocommentary for the film also tells us quite a few details about who trained the dog and how he got him to do the trick with the leash.

And Schreck: I would love to recommend "Age of Consent" to you, but I know that David completely disagrees with me about the film, and as I still haven't seen AMOLAD and thus am not sure about the transfer, the package might be a disappointment for you. But as you're interested in Powell generally, perhaps you might take the plunge anyway.

As to "Quai de Brumes": surely a film I should re-visit any time soon, especially after having recently seen "Les portes de la nuit" on TV, which reminded me of Carné again. But, you know, I suffer from a terrible disease which I still try to fight: it's called Kevyipomania....

Heh, you aint the only one pal.

david hare wrote:I am clearly insane..

GET the hell outa here-- you messing with us or what? Tu? Feu?

Nawwwwwwwwww!

I'm not at 200 but definitely not too short of that ballpark.. I've got some good will that getting on in YEARS, god bless the world. This is why I hesitated on That Trading Site. I'd drown like OBrien in the kevyip of Margaret Livingston.

david hare wrote: But the dog, and Helen, and Dunk Island! The ocean literally IS that color. And global warming hadn't yet started to destory the Great Barrier Reef.

Looks like we're not so far apart in our opinions of the film after all! The dog, Helen, and the sights of Dunk Island are what really attracted me to this film, quite apart from Powell's stunning way of having them photographed and setting up some particular scenes. As a non-native speaker, I didn't bother too much about Mason's accent, of course, and was actually happy that I understood him much better than most of the Australian-born actors

I have a dvd of "Mob", though not that one you mention with the documentary. I definitely recommend the film, too, even though it's not as visually dazzling as "Age of Consent". But as you note, the script was basically written by Pressburger (called in by Powell after he found some original treatment lacking in quality), and yes, it shows! So much better than the entirely dull dialogue in "Age", though perhaps still not as perfectly crafted as some of the 'classical' P&P work.

Which brings me to the new AMOLAD, which I couldn't resist doing a very late night watching of yesterday. This is a tough and somewhat deplorable case. As seen in the various screen caps in this thread, there is a very great difference in the two editions. Watching the Sony, I was stunned how sharp and free of damage the image was, even if the grain seemed faux again. Not mentioned yet, I believe, is the dramatic improvement in the audio department. While I sometimes wished the Carlton had some optional subs for understanding the dialogue better, the Sony is crystal-clear with every single word understandable without problems, far less hiss and better frequency range. I actually found the Sony quite convincing in all respects...before I put on some key scenes again from the Carlton disc. I hate to say it: it's not a matter of life and death perhaps, but a difference of day and night as far as colours are concerned. You only hear Conductor 71 talking about being starved for Technicolor in the Sony, but in the Carlton you can experience it. What wonderful deep and technicoloresque blue in the night skies, what beautiful reds on the petals in the Carlton! Or Dr. Reeves' first motorbike ride: it's an explosion of warm, sunny colours on the Carlton, perfectly expressing the joys of living on earth as opposed to being in bureaucratic heaven (the whole point of the film of course). On the Sony, it's nothing more than a good outing, really. Many other examples can be found, of course.

I don't know; I've seen each and every one of Powell's colour films available on disc somewhere, and all these films have strong, vivid colours and a generally joyful 'look' at all things from nature. The "Age of Consent" transfer is a good example for that. The difference in skin and lips tones is not even important, but I just don't see these sunny colours, so important for the Powell magic, in the new Sony AMOLAD. It may be an entirely subjective thing, but despite its obvious deficiencies, the Carlton simply feels right, in the same way that the Network "Black Narcissus" and the CC "Red Shoes" or the MoC "Kwaidan" feels right to me.

Man, what a shame. I guess, the only way at the moment is to have both editions. You need the Sony for the Christie commentary and of course "Age of Consent", but you also need the Carlton to really get the deep emotional experience that AMOLAD can offer when it looks right.
I guess the only thing we can hope for is that Carlton for some reason will get out of business so that the BFI or anyone else can pick up the British rights and do the darn thing right. Or we should all collectively petition Carlton to give us a re-mastered special edition of their disc to deal with the sharpness and edge enhancement issues. The rest of the world will probably hang on to Sony for a new disc in R2 or R4 territory; or perhaps (very little hope) the French Institut Lumière will surprise us....

P.S.: I had totally forgotten that the first spectators exposed to Dr. Reeves' new camera obscura thingy are two dogs....

Tommaso wrote:P.S.: I had totally forgotten that the first spectators exposed to Dr. Reeves' new camera obscura thingy are two dogs....

They're the same two dogs as in Blimp. Powell's own.

Arent they in IKWIG too? Not the bigguns, but in the scene w little Petula Clark?

Speaking of... see her amid Pure UK Camp (and some of the purest camp in general) in this Top of the Pops performance of her Downtown. Those dancers-- Oi!. You practically can't believe your own eyes!

I'd love to hear some more opinions about Age Of... This film was completely unknown to me prior to this release and am curious what if any the consensus is around here on it.

Age of Consent has grown on me. Thinking it of it as an absurd Tempest adaptation may help. Helen Mirren makes everything worthwhile.

david hare wrote:If you wanna see Helen Mirren at approx 22 stark bonkers nude standing in the sea holding a makeshift spear while the surf gently laps aound her public hair...

then you'll find something to enjoy Im surel

=P~

HerrSchreck wrote:Speaking of... see her amid Pure UK Camp (and some of the purest camp in general) in this Top of the Pops performance of her Downtown. Those dancers-- Oi!. You practically can't believe your own eyes!

Word. The geezer at the back right is actually ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair's uncle, Peter Fawlse, now a "banker" and higher 39th-degree Freemason.

Svevan wrote:Just watched the flick on the new DVD, and have to say that the Beaver caps aren't inaccurate necessarily, though they do seem to pile evidence up against the transfer which is as warm as the new caps from reaky suggest. The Beaver does show some blue skin tones, and I don't think the faces are supposed to be as blue as they are in the transfer, especially the lips, but thanks to color breathing no cap will ever show what the transfer truly looks like (I found it fluctuating between too blue and too red often). I was able to fully enjoy the film either way, and I think the Carlton caps on Beaver are a bit too rich (just a first-time viewer's perspective). I'm so glad and grateful that this film is on DVD in the States finally; I'll leave it to everyone else to decide whether it needs a re-do or not.

I picked up the set and did a quick run-through of some of the the capped scenes and I noticed the same thing. The color "breathing" is quite noticeable if you're looking out for it, and the fluctuations could distract you if you get too obsessed with it. I just find it odd that Beaver seems to have caps that ONLY show the "blue" fluctuations.

stereo wrote:Age of Consent has grown on me. Thinking it of it as an absurd Tempest adaptation may help. Helen Mirren makes everything worthwhile.

I agree with Stereo. I first caught AoC on TCM a year or so ago, and it left me a little cold. Rewatching it via the new DVD, I now find I have considerably more time for it. It's no masterpiece; I agree with David that TaWM is far superior. But the connection to The Tempest is pretty clear (with both an Ariel and a Caliban), and some of the scenes are drop-dead beautiful: the torchlit sequence, the scene with Mason painting Mirren emerging from the sea, etc. One thing that Jones points out in his commentary that directly addresses David's point about Mason's questionable accent: Jones suggests that it's possible Mason's character has lost his Australian accent from spending so many years in New York. (Not sure that everyone will buy that, but maybe it will work for some.) Sadly, MacGowran's character is still an incredibly weak point in the film, and I definitely agree with Jones that Powell's lack of interest in the broader comedy sequences is apparent. Nevertheless, I derived a great deal of pleasure from a second run-through.

I also found myself liking AMoLaD much more this time, too. Elsewhere on this board, I've explained why I think the climactic heavenly-courtroom sequence doesn't work for me, but it seemed less significant to the overall film this time. I'd like to think, a la Jones' commentary for AoC, that P&P simply weren't all that interested in the pro-U.S. aspect of the story and tried to crunch it all into a 15-minute fantasy sequence that appears about as late into the film as is possible. That whole section still seems absurd to me; I wish Pressburger had somehow set us up for it (perhaps by having Niven's character reading a book about the American Revolution or something). But overall, it doesn't detract or negate the brilliance of the rest of the film for me -- as it has occasionally in the past.

Funny, I have the reverse reaction every time I re-visit AMOLAD. When I first saw the film, I didn't think too much about the courtrooom sequence's plausibility, being too much taken by the whole look of the sets and the general inventiveness of the whole of the film. But now I find it more and more the weak point of an otherwise marvellous film, for exactly the reasons you describe. It's just not really prepared in the script, it feels odd and unnecessary to load the trial sequence with these seemingly absurd historical considerations (at least from today's point-of-view, it may have been different in 1946, of course).

But after all, David Niven is not causing a stir in heaven because he's an Englishman in the film, but because he has through some mistake escaped death, and now that he's fallen in love, the rules are altered (or must be altered). THAT's the original argument of the film, and the transatlantic relations have nothing to do with it. Quite apart from the fact that P&P had already tackled these questions in a wholly successful way in the perfectly written "Canterbury Tale". But I agree: even though the courtroom sequence is somehow unconvincing, it doesn't take much away from the brilliance of the film itself. It may just be the reason why I always thought that AMOLAD never quite rises to the heights of the very, very best of P&P's works.

As to "Age of Consent": while I also see the connection to "The Tempest", I wonder where exactly the parts of Ariel and Caliban are placed. You might argue that Mirren has the Ariel part whereas her mother is supposed to be Caliban, but that doesn't really work out, as Mirren's role is far too 'earthy' and she shares a lot of the 'calibanesque' features, too (providing food for the islanders, for instance). Perhaps the dog is Ariel?