Second Sight: Max Ophuls Collection

Message

FilmFanSea · #1 Post by **FilmFanSea** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:15 pm

There is a two-post, un-stickied thread for Second Sight in the Boutique Labels forum, but I thought this major news deserved its own thread.

On September 18th, 2006 Second Sight Films Ltd in the UK is releasing four of Max Ophuls' films on DVD under the rubric The Max Ophuls Collection. It appears they are only available separately (i.e., no box set), at a retail price of Â£19.99 each. Links are to the listings at Play.com.

Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948)

Video essay by film historian Tag Gallagher

The Reckless Moment (1949)

Introduction by film director Todd Haynes
Commentary by Lutz Bacher, author of `Max Ophuls in The Hollywood Studios'
Region 0 (PAL)

Le Plaisir (1952)

Introduction by film director Todd Haynes
'Les Chemins du Plaisir': documentary feature
'Moments from Le Plaisir': a photographic short story
'From script to screen': featurette

Madame deâ€¦ (The Earrings of Madame de...) (1953)

Video essay by film historian Tag Gallagher
'Working with Max Ophuls': by film director Alain Jessua

Absolutely brilliant news since Ophuls is terribly underrepresented on DVD outside of France (the sole exception in the US is Fox Lorber's crappy non-anamorphic 1998 release of Lola Montès). None of these has been released yet in Region 1, though Criterion holds the rights to Le Plaisir and The Earrings of Madame de... (as well as the 1951 film, La Ronde). Paramount had originally scheduled Letter from an Unknown Woman* for a May 16th release, but it was cancelled and has yet to be rescheduled. AFAIK, Sony should own the rights to The Reckless Moment , which was made for Columbia.

* Wild Side Vidéo in France has released a decent DVD of Letter from an Unknown Woman (R2 PAL) under the title Lettre d'une inconnue

BrightEyes23 · #2 Post by **BrightEyes23** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:23 pm

I'm praying the American dollar will strengthen by then, cause this looks to be a MUST OWN! Excellent news!

HerrSchreck · #3 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:14 am

Fucking ditto.. heliumized camera. ...hopefully someone will use their noggin & license these here. We need Leibelei too-- eventually the Kino VHS can be chucked into the coal oven. Better elements must exist for this film.

Fucking Brian man-- this dude is Herr graf Good News lately.

Gordon · #4 Post by **Gordon** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:12 pm

Agh! Brilliant! Spectacular news.

Narshty · #5 Post by **Narshty** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:29 pm

Manna.

Gordon · #6 Post by **Gordon** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:58 am

There are no online reviews of these yet, but has anyone here acquired any of the four discs?

Tom Peeping · #7 Post by **Tom Peeping** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:29 am

Madame de is on its way. I should get it today or tomorrow & will post a short review of the DVD.

Gordon · #8 Post by **Gordon** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:38 am

Thanks, Tom!

Don Lope de Aguirre · #9 Post by **Don Lope de Aguirre** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:12 am

I received 'The Reckless Moment' yesterday... unfortunately I have only had time to watch the Todd Haynes intro which is superb, in depth and very lengthy (at around 20 minutes).

From the very little I saw of the film itself the pic looked strong and detailed (maybe some black boosting)... nothing to complain about though.

I should be receiving the others tomorrow

Tom Peeping · #10 Post by **Tom Peeping** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:59 am

Just received Madame de... and here are my first impressions:

Image : Globally good but... Very decent transfer with some slight b/w contrast boosting (does it come from a video source, I do have some doubts...). A few scratches and white dots but nothing serious. But the image has been cropped on 4 sides. It is clearly visible on the opening credits where the drawn border is cut by the frame. It is not the case on the same border when it appears in extra #2 (Gallagher essay). The very last image of the film looses some of its power because of that.

Sound : Very good up to the last ten minutes or so when a annoying noise suddenly appears on the soundtrack (like a blow/scratch of wind).

Extra Features : Interview in French of Alain Jessua (Ophuls's assistant on the movie). Subtitles. / Video essay by Tad Gallagher. Watched a couple of minutes, they seem to be both very informative.

The big disappointment though (but I'm franÃ§ais and this does only concern me) is that the english subtitles are not optional on the movie. I wish they would have been removable.

Conclusion : for Ophuls or Madame de... fans, you can go for the Second Sight DVD before a better edition appears on the market. This one is very acceptable indeed.

PS : About the spelling of "Ophuls". In his remarkable study on Ophuls that he published in 1963 (Collection Cinéma d'Aujourd'hui), Claude Beylie devotes a whole chapter to the question of the way the name "Ophuls" should be spelled. He was born Oppenheimer in Germany, took the pseudonym "Ophuls" and then became french. He always considered himself as french with a french name and did not want the german "umlaut" to appear in the spelling of his name. Beylie says he even had it erased from the opening credits of Le Plaisir, where the ghost trace of the "umlaut" is still visible. So, it should by spelled "Ophuls" and not "Ophüls", once and for all. If it doesn't make such a difference to us, to him, apparently it did.

lubitsch · #11 Post by **lubitsch** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:35 am

Tom Peeping wrote:About the spelling of "Ophuls". In his remarkable study on Ophuls that he published in 1963 (Collection Cinéma d'Aujourd'hui), Claude Beylie devotes a whole chapter to the question of the way the name "Ophuls" should be spelled. He was born Oppenheimer in Germany, took the pseudonym "Ophuls" and then became french. He always considered himself as french with a french name and did not want the german "umlaut" to appear in the spelling of his name. Beylie says he even had it erased from the opening credits of Le Plaisir, where the ghost trace of the "umlaut" is still visible. So, it should by spelled "Ophuls" and not "Ophüls", once and for all. If it doesn't make such a difference to us, to him, apparently it did.

So Ophüls considered himself always French even though he was born in Germany and lived there the first thirty years?
I find the French nationalistic attitude genuinely unpleasent, all the more since the German refugees from Hitler were viewied with hostilitiy and in the 50's most French critics jumped at LE PLAISIR because it was too Germanic for a Maupassant film.
Ophüls got his pseudonym at the theater by his coach and it's Ophüls with an "umlaut". Obviously the "umlaute" are not very practical in countries where such letters don't exist, elminiating in French the umlaut leads to the same phonetic result as in German and in the USA he called himself therefore only "Opuls" which also results roughly in the same sound.
I find phonetic name changes silly if the person's other name is well established, nobody uses "Seastrom" instead of "Sjöström", so why "Ophuls" instead of "Ophüls". There are plenty of documents reading "Ophüls" in the fifties and in Germany only Ophüls is used.
I guess it's the usual trouble with the umlaut letters, take an English language book about film with German names and the results are mostly abominable. Is it really that hard to look after the correct spelling?

OK, end of rant, I don't want to sound as silly as Beylie.
BTW, are there accidentally English subtitles on RECKLESS MOMENT and LETTER?

#12 Post by **Matt** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:07 am

Amazon.co.uk seems not to have received Le Plaisir. They have it available for rent, available through "Amazon Jersey," and available from third-party sellers, but the shipment of all four discs is waiting on this one.

Sorry about that - I normally hate when people clutter up a thread with their "I didn't get mine yet!" whining.

MichaelB · #13 Post by **MichaelB** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:21 pm

lubitsch wrote:Is it really that hard to look after the correct spelling?

Speaking as someone who regularly writes about Eastern European cinema for both print and online publications...

...yes!

For the record, I ALWAYS submit the correct spellings, regardless of the number and exoticism of the various diacritical markings, but in my experience it's a complete lottery as to whether or not this is respected in the final versions. My own Czech cinema blog* is the only medium over which I have complete control, and even then I'm reliant on the PC at the other end being set up with the right text encoding!

(* - please don't get too excited: "early days" is a bit of an understatement)

Tom Peeping · #14 Post by **Tom Peeping** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:35 pm

lubitsch wrote:So Ophüls considered himself always French even though he was born in Germany and lived there the first thirty years?... Ophüls got his pseudonym at the theater by his coach and it's Ophüls with an "umlaut"... There are plenty of documents reading "Ophüls" in the fifties and in Germany only Ophüls is used.

Ophuls was born in Saar (Germany in 1902), a land that became an independent province attached to the Society of Nations by the Treaty of Versailles in 1918 and remained so until 1938. Then Saar became german again. Ophuls become french citizen and lost his german citizenship in 1938. His french papers read Ophuls (without "umlaut") and his son is Marcel Ophuls. Marcel told Claude Beylie in his 1963 book : "We need no more "umlaut" than Alexandre Astruc". If german scholars want to write "Ophüls", it is acceptable (and quite understandable), but incorrect all the same. Anyway, it's not big deal and I don't want to ignite a new franco-german war.

lubitsch · #15 Post by **lubitsch** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:42 am

Tom Peeping wrote: Ophuls was born in Saar (Germany in 1902), a land that became an independent province attached to the Society of Nations by the Treaty of Versailles in 1918 and remained so until 1938.

Whatever the Saar region later became is completely uninteresting. Ophüls was born in Germany, spoke German, lived and worked in Germany until 1933.

Tom Peeping wrote:Ophuls become french citizen and lost his german citizenship in 1938. His french papers read Ophuls (without "umlaut") and his son is Marcel Ophuls.

Bloody obvious that it's more convenient for the French to spell without umlaut as is Seastrom instead of Sjöström and Opuls in USA.

Tom Peeping wrote:Marcel told Claude Beylie in his 1963 book : "We need no more "umlaut" than Alexandre Astruc". If german scholars want to write "Ophüls", it is acceptable (and quite understandable), but incorrect all the same.

Marcel should stop blocking the release of Lola Montez instead of fighting his father's umlaut. Ophüls is regularly billed with umlaut in all theater and radio productions and articles by himself in Germany in the 50s, so obviously he himself wasn't as fanatic as his son. Helmut Asper who wrote a 700 page biography on Ophüls which surely surpasses Beylie's earlier effort also writes Ophüls.

Tom Peeping wrote:Anyway, it's not big deal and I don't want to ignite a new franco-german war.

Absolutely it's ridiculous to fight for an umlaut. But then why did Beylie devote a whole chapter for such a trifle??? Obviously to grab Ophüls for the glory of the French cinema history and for France alone. And that I find unpleasantly nationalistic as I find it e.g. also hair-raising that Romy Schneider is considered a French actress.

Anyone for my subtitle question above? That's rather more important for me

.

mbowmanh · #16 Post by **mbowmanh** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:19 am

How do you spell the American rendition "OPULS".

O'Fools!!!

Tom Peeping · #17 Post by **Tom Peeping** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:19 am

lubitsch wrote:Marcel should stop blocking the release of Lola Montez instead of fighting his father's umlaut... Absolutely it's ridiculous to fight for an umlaut. But then why did Beylie devote a whole chapter for such a trifle??? Obviously to grab Ophüls for the glory of the French cinema history and for France alone. And that I find unpleasantly nationalistic as I find it e.g. also hair-raising that Romy Schneider is considered a French actress. Anyone for my subtitle question above? That's rather more important for me .

This is a long debate... Like, does Picasso belong to the Spanish School? You know, I think that "to fight for an umlaut" is, in a way, very Madame de... style.
I do not know about the subtitles yet but I am ordering The Reckless Moment.
Oh, BTW, it is Lola Montès with a "s" : you must be mixing up with Maria and I really do appreciate. Olé!

Davidh : I haven't got the French Scarlett Empress DVD so I can't tell about the cropping.

lubitsch · #18 Post by **lubitsch** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:43 am

Tom Peeping wrote: I do not know about the subtitles yet but I am ordering The Reckless Moment.

Please be so kind and tell me then, then this fight has at least a certain sense

.

Tom Peeping wrote:And BTW, it is Lola Montes with a "s" : you must be mixing up with Maria and I really do appreciate. olé !

Oh my god, the next debate is raging on the horizon

!!!
According to all available sources the name is Montez, even in French.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Montez
The German title also goes eith a "z", but I see that the French one is with "s".
Now you should really recognise that you French have no feeling for individual letters

.

tryavna · #19 Post by **tryavna** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:44 pm

davidhare wrote:But at least French is a gorgeous language for song.

"Quand j m'Promene au bord de l'eau..."

And German isn't?

"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles..."

Tom Peeping · #20 Post by **Tom Peeping** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:41 pm

lubitsch wrote:According to all available sources the name is Montez, even in French.

You're right, the real Lola was "Montez". Ophuls, when he started thinking about his film, had in mind not to draw an exact portrait of the woman but rather create a fictional character, a transformed image of the real one. That's why he chose the spelling "Montès" with an "s". It sounds almost alike but it's not alike, there's this whisper of a difference. Ophuls was a perfectionist (I'd even say a control freak), up to the last letter on the title of a film. If the story of the "umlaut" is not big deal really, this "z" changed into an "s" is.
And then, we could also talk about the three dots that appear or not in the title Madame de / Madame de...

Tom Peeping · #21 Post by **Tom Peeping** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:00 am

Yes, her name is the title. The viewer needs to know no more during the film because all is there in the title. Isn't it a brilliant idea?

I always liked a little bit more Madame de... than Letter even if Letter might be a more emotional story. Watching again Madame de... the other day, I think I found why: it's about the use of so many natural sets in Madame de...(Paris streets & buildings, St Etienne du Mont church, beach, hill, field) and the exclusive use of built sets in Letter. The use of naturals sets reinforces by contrast the filmic artificiality of the construction of Madame de..., the amazing work on camera movements, the waltzing motto (that unforgetable Straus / van Parys waltzing theme is truly used to perfection), etc... In Letter, the built sets, as good are they are, always bring us back to the world of theatrical illusion. In Madame de..., because of the natural sets, the worlds of reality and fantasy collide in a way that couldn't be better conveyed. On the cover of the Madame de... DVD, there's this quote from Andrew Sarris "the most perfect film ever made". I usually don't care about this kind of one-liner. In the case of Madame de..., Sarris could be not so far from being right.

Anonymous · #22 Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:02 pm

I received Letter and Madame de... already and watched both films as well as the Gallagher essays and am extremely happy with the quality. The transfers look very crisp, sharp and detailed with a very pleasent amount of film grain. Madame de... is one of my favorite films of all time, so it's a major event and reason to celebrate for me to finally have it on DVD in fine quality.

#23 Post by **Matt** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:14 pm

For those who have been waiting on the edge of their seats: my discs shipped yesterday. I'll post caps when I get them if no one beats me to it.

Anonymous · #24 Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:14 am

davidhare wrote:Any caps Mr B?

With great delight, yet I don't own webspace. I could send them to you for posting them here.

HerrSchreck · #25 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:42 am

Ah, Lube, the things that fire you up... Silent but ever lurking in the background then-- unexpectedly-- FLOOMP! Like a burning lion falling onto the quiet dinnertable during a convo about the credibility of Cindy Crawford's mole.

So now.. has anybody received any other of these discs yet? Speak to the cropping issues & perhaps list comparative caps? Surprised in this day & age subs are burned in on the disc (if not player removable, are they a result of using a subbed print, or were they added post telecine?).

Me wants Libelei also (I know it's not part of the set).