Hear hear! The only supplements I really watch are deleted scenes, outtakes, shorts, and supplemental films (though, if it's a doc it depends - I watched Tokyo Ga but wouldn't have watched a non-spined making of, in most cases). I have too many films to watch and to little time to do it to spend a ton of extra time watching them. I'll still purchase the film, but I too would rather pay less to just not have extras. Course, I'd rather pay the higher price and get the extras I won't watch if it means the transfer will be much better.ByMarkClark.com wrote:I'm also among those who'd much rather have more movies than supplements.
Eclipse Series 10: Silent Ozu—Three Family Comedies
- Morbii
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:38 am
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
For me, it depends entirely on the contents of the doc.
I'm not greatly enamoured of making-ofs (especially not if they consist of wall-to-wall talking heads), but I found pretty much everything on the triple-disc Battle of Algiers - much of which was produced in-house by Criterion - absolutely riveting.
But that's because that particular film was unusually rich in terms of background material worth exploring in depth, which certainly doesn't apply to most titles.
I'm not greatly enamoured of making-ofs (especially not if they consist of wall-to-wall talking heads), but I found pretty much everything on the triple-disc Battle of Algiers - much of which was produced in-house by Criterion - absolutely riveting.
But that's because that particular film was unusually rich in terms of background material worth exploring in depth, which certainly doesn't apply to most titles.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Morbii wrote:(though, if it's a doc it depends - I watched Tokyo Ga but wouldn't have watched a non-spined making of, in most cases).
I love supplements (and that is usually the deciding factor in whether to buy the DVD, unless the film is one I desperately want to see) but the problem with Late Spring was the inclusion of Tokyo-Ga which then came out in Anchor Bay's Wim Wenders Volume 2 collection - though I feel that overlap to be more Anchor Bay's fault than Criterion's since their release came out a few months after Late Spring.
- sidehacker
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Bowling Green, Ohio
- Contact:
In zedz's defense, this did make people go "what the hell is this?" but just in a different way.HerrSchreck wrote:almost a month ago to the day zedz wrote on the Delirious Fictions of William Klein thread:
zedz wrote:Now this is more like it. Eclipse releases should get people going "what the hell is this?" For the curious, I think these films have been out in Europe for a while and I'm sure they've been mentioned on the forum several times.
I don't think Ozu needs supplements anyway. A documentary or making-of feature is nice, but I think all the scholarly extras (i.e commentary, introductions, etc.) isn't really needed. Donald Richie's voice is nice to listen to but explaining Ozu's nuance sort of ruins it, ya know?
- Thomas J.
- Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Monticello
If a commentary or other special features ruins the experience for you, they're just badly executed features. In fact, they should do the opposite. I don't think the idea of special features are a bad thing; rather, the execution could be bad. Or the features might be intellectually lazy or regressive, as I mentioned earlier.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Well, right here:HerrSchreck wrote:Zedz, come on-- I don't expect this kind of stuff outa you. When in gods name did I articulate anything what vaguely had an aroma of
?that Criterion releasing French sound films of the thirties and forties (total number already in the collection: twenty) is inherently bolder, riskier and edgier than releasing Japanese silent films (total already in the collection: one; total already available in R1: one) - is demonstrably false
And in your repeated citation of Bernard as one of the only Eclipse releases that meets with your approval. My point is that, unless you're looking at the schedule exclusively from a narrow auteurist perspective, the Silent Ozu set is probably a much ballsier release (and by no stretch of the imagination "lesser work").Schreck wrote:I truly thought the aim of the line was to get out lesser known masterworks of capital C-cinema (Bernard, Grem, Rivette, Duviv et al), as well as eclectic avant or sci fi that ancient purists sniff down their nose. I truly didn't expect chunks of lesser works by well known directors.
In many respects the same ones you identify: releasing lesser works from big names (the "Leftover Bergman" and "Leftover Kurosawa" sets - Ozu, with only a handful of releases on Criterion, is hardly in their league, and these aren't lesser works) and the comparative paucity of genuinely challenging or innovative releases. The difference is that I see the first English-subtitled release anywhere of a box set of Japanese silent films as challenging or innovative, and I'm baffled that you don't.Schreck wrote:2) Last month (and prior) you articulated a problem with, how you say inna trade, the release material. What was the problem?
Last edited by zedz on Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- sidehacker
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Bowling Green, Ohio
- Contact:
It's not that it ruins it for me (despite that I actually said that in my previous post) but it's just not necessary. I mean, Richie has a nice relaxing old guy voice and I enjoy his commentaries but it's not that it enhances the Ozu experience. Pointing out the subtleties of a film kind of lessens their value.
- Steven H
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: NC
Schreck, would this set seem more appropriate if they hadn't released Late Ozu last year? At the time, it didn't really occur to me, but looking back *that* release seems a tad inappropriate for the line, especially compared to this. Also, if we hold up Silent Ozu in comparison to things some people are clamouring for Eclipse, like say Early Kobayashi or Silent Sternberg (*evil smile*) they seem even more "out there" and obscure.
As to the commentary discussion, again, Richie *knew* Ozu, interviewed him tons of times, has studied his films and writings in depth, and was instrumental in introducing him to the rest of the world. It's hard for me to knock his commentaries, which I generally find entertaining (despite clunky fact checking problems) unlike some of his early criticism which I have serious issues with. Also I don't recall reacting negatively to his discussion of "subtleties" in Ozu's work, but even if he does, it's preferable to long winded generalities and excruciatingly narrating the action on screen as so many others are prone to do (can you imagine a Bogdanovich Ozu commentary?)
As to the commentary discussion, again, Richie *knew* Ozu, interviewed him tons of times, has studied his films and writings in depth, and was instrumental in introducing him to the rest of the world. It's hard for me to knock his commentaries, which I generally find entertaining (despite clunky fact checking problems) unlike some of his early criticism which I have serious issues with. Also I don't recall reacting negatively to his discussion of "subtleties" in Ozu's work, but even if he does, it's preferable to long winded generalities and excruciatingly narrating the action on screen as so many others are prone to do (can you imagine a Bogdanovich Ozu commentary?)
- sidehacker
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Bowling Green, Ohio
- Contact:
Hmm, I mean they're informative and interesting with Richie but just generally speaking, I don't like commentaries. Perhaps I'm saying I can live without them. I'd rather have all of Ozu's film released in above average condition than only four of them with commentaries but I don't know if anyone would argue with that.
I like when Richie's commentaries mention things about Ozu the person and his methods and things like that. I prefer to assess the characters and their relationships by myself.
I like when Richie's commentaries mention things about Ozu the person and his methods and things like that. I prefer to assess the characters and their relationships by myself.
- the dancing kid
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:35 pm
I agree. His earlier work has some major issues, and I think Criterion tends to fall back on him for commentaries and other materials a little too often*, but I still appreciate his knowledge and the role he has played in shaping contemporary film studies. People are quick to dismiss Richie and Burch because of their troubled cultural analysis, but both are also excellent critics and have made considerable contributions to the field.Steven H wrote:As to the commentary discussion, again, Richie *knew* Ozu, interviewed him tons of times, has studied his films and writings in depth, and was instrumental in introducing him to the rest of the world. It's hard for me to knock his commentaries, which I generally find entertaining (despite clunky fact checking problems) unlike some of his early criticism which I have serious issues with.
I don't listen to commentaries or watch most supplementary materials that come packaged with DVDs, but I think Ozu's films would probably benefit from that sort of thing more than most. And even if we aren't talking about his films as artifacts, the way that contemporary film studies grew up around his work could make for an interesting piece. Mark Nornes' essay on Late Spring in "Japanese Cinema: Texts and Contexts" is good example of that sort of thing.
*In addition to this I think that Criterion favors the older generation of Japanese film specialists way too much. The most striking example is the commentary track on the re-issue of 'Seven Samurai'.
- sidehacker
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Bowling Green, Ohio
- Contact:
- Mr Pixies
- Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:03 pm
- Location: Fla
- Contact:
sidehacker wrote:I think I should mention that I wasn't actually addressing Richie's knowledge. He is one of the cinematic commentators that I like. I mean that, in general, the concept of an audio commentary can taint some of the film's 'magic' so to speak.
I think that's kinda true, don't listen to them unless you plan on being a filmmaker, or something like that. Some help to opening up and understanding the film, but if you don't need any of that, don't listen(?)
-
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:36 pm
I am not complaining that more Ozu films are being made available. However, as a student, historian and scholar of the moving image it seems to me that the constant reliance by Western viewers on insights from Bordwell and Richie do the films and the filmmakers an injustice.
First, too call Ozu the most Japanese of Japanese directors as Richie is wont to do is inaccurate and displays the willful arrogance of "Western" academics and viewers to try and "other" films and cultures. Ozu's work is masterful, without question, but it also demonstrates that he was a director who appreciated and in some cases attempted to duplicate the filmmaking practices of Hollywood directors like Ford, Hawks, Lubitsch, etc.
Another myth that Richie consistently sells in his book on Ozu and in his discussions of Ozu is that the low angles used by Ozu are from the level of a Japanese person sitting on a tatami mat. One of the primary reasons that Ozu adopted this angle was from necessity, especially when he was trying to create the line of sight for children as in his films I Was Born...But and Good Morning.
The final point which I would like to discuss is the idea of the "pillow shot" are empty space shot which Richie and other Westerners claim to be a strategy by Ozu to tap into a more "Japanese" or the overly offensive term "Oriental" mindset. It is true that both Chinese and Japanese art make use of negative space but in film this use of negative space to comment on the narrative and to unsettle the viewer was often used by German directors who were admirers or practicioners of "German Expressionism" such as Lang in "M" or Murnau in "Sunrise" and Nosferatu."
What makes Ozu's filmmaking resonate is his awareness of other film makers and styles of filmmaking. In addition the ways in which he uses cinema to critique and comment on the events and issues of his lifetime. Ozu understood that cinema could be mass entertainment, art, ideology, and a personal statement. And this is what makes Ozu an artist and one of the greatest film directors of all time.
First, too call Ozu the most Japanese of Japanese directors as Richie is wont to do is inaccurate and displays the willful arrogance of "Western" academics and viewers to try and "other" films and cultures. Ozu's work is masterful, without question, but it also demonstrates that he was a director who appreciated and in some cases attempted to duplicate the filmmaking practices of Hollywood directors like Ford, Hawks, Lubitsch, etc.
Another myth that Richie consistently sells in his book on Ozu and in his discussions of Ozu is that the low angles used by Ozu are from the level of a Japanese person sitting on a tatami mat. One of the primary reasons that Ozu adopted this angle was from necessity, especially when he was trying to create the line of sight for children as in his films I Was Born...But and Good Morning.
The final point which I would like to discuss is the idea of the "pillow shot" are empty space shot which Richie and other Westerners claim to be a strategy by Ozu to tap into a more "Japanese" or the overly offensive term "Oriental" mindset. It is true that both Chinese and Japanese art make use of negative space but in film this use of negative space to comment on the narrative and to unsettle the viewer was often used by German directors who were admirers or practicioners of "German Expressionism" such as Lang in "M" or Murnau in "Sunrise" and Nosferatu."
What makes Ozu's filmmaking resonate is his awareness of other film makers and styles of filmmaking. In addition the ways in which he uses cinema to critique and comment on the events and issues of his lifetime. Ozu understood that cinema could be mass entertainment, art, ideology, and a personal statement. And this is what makes Ozu an artist and one of the greatest film directors of all time.
- Steven H
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: NC
You definitely bring up a lot of the issues I have with his criticism, in regard to Richie's take on Ozu. But again, the three main aspects of his expertise, as situational and non-scholarly as they might be, are probably a massive factor in his being called upon for material, and I don't have a big problem with this. That being said, you do bring up Bordwell who seems to be generally absent from Criterion's Ozu releases, despite his important book on the director (who laid to rest a number of Richie's assumptions, I believe.) I don't understand lumping them together. To me they're like apples and oranges (with Yoshida and Sato as raddishes and carrots!) All staples of a well rounded Ozu diet.filmnoir1 wrote:I am not complaining that more Ozu films are being made available. However, as a student, historian and scholar of the moving image it seems to me that the constant reliance by Western viewers on insights from Bordwell and Richie do the films and the filmmakers an injustice.
I think "the dancing kid" and I feel pretty much the same about this, and I agree Nornes' essay would have made great material to supplement Late Spring with. After ten years, as much as they've done for the exposure of Japanese cinema, I think a lot could be brought up to date in the context department. Of course, there are all KINDS of details between licensors and interviewees and etc etc but booklets should come to the rescue in the Japanese supplements.
- the dancing kid
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:35 pm
I agree that there is an overreliance on those two scholars by non-Japanese speakers, but I also feel that their work has to be addressed in a lot cases because of how they've influenced the developed of Japanese film studies. Bordwell's book on Ozu was a pretty radical project at the time, and while it certainly lacks in terms of historically based research on Japan and the films being discussed, I also think that those things are outside of the scope of the neoformalist project.filmnoir1 wrote:I am not complaining that more Ozu films are being made available. However, as a student, historian and scholar of the moving image it seems to me that the constant reliance by Western viewers on insights from Bordwell and Richie do the films and the filmmakers an injustice.
I agree that the whole idea of “most Japanese” is Orientalist in nature, but I think that Richie has evolved beyond that position (the field of Japanese film studies in the English speaking world certainly has, even if DVD liner notes haven’t). Also remember that the idea of “Japaneseness/nihonjiron” was also very popular among the Japanese when Richie began writing and was still living in Japan, so we can’t really say that he was just an outsider using Japan as his anthropological “object,” because he was engaging in the same discourse that was fashionable amongst Japanese intellectuals. I don’t mean to excuse Richie’s work from that period or the essentialist ideas that he presents, but I think the idea of “Western” scholars being somehow boxed out of contributing to Japanese film studies in a positive way because of their cultural heritage is highly questionable (especially since Japanese scholars have often committed the same errors). Richie’s work wasn’t necessarily essentialist because just because he was an American; he was also a non-scholar at the time, and probably didn’t have the basis of knowledge to discuss films in the way we expect people to now. He was also there (at least originally) for military work during a period when there were basically no Japanese speakers or area specialists in America. He sort of had to make everything up as he went along, so it’s natural that a lot of what he produced was of conflicting value.First, too call Ozu the most Japanese of Japanese directors as Richie is wont to do is inaccurate and displays the willful arrogance of "Western" academics and viewers to try and "other" films and cultures.
The problem of becoming the “interpreter” of a particular nation or culture is something that specialists will always have to deal with. I have a pretty favorable opinion of the current situation though. A lot of Japanese film specialists are also interested in the history of film studies, which they believe evolved in the way it did in part because of the popularity of Japanese film, the bias toward art films and “grant old masters” in early writing on Japanese film, and the influence those things had on how we define “national cinemas” and value “auteur” filmmakers over popular cinema. There’s a very critical, introspective attitude about the state of the field and its history, and a high priority is placed on things like language skills, the use of original language materials for research, and the value of historically based, local area studies rather than broad theories that try to reduce everything to “this or that.”
The pillow shot is actually Burch’s term. His project is also Orientalist to a heavy degree, but I don’t think he’s using that idea in the way you describe. I think that ‘To the Distant Observer’ is really about Hollywood and the so-called “Classical Hollywood Style,” (Burch has another name for it, but I forget what it is) and Burch is using Japanese cinema as his “renewing agent” of sorts. In other words, he’s using Japanese cinema as an object through which he can reread Hollywood film and develop a critical argument against the cultural hegemony of Hollywood*. Other film scholars writing on Japanese film from the same period use similar tactics: Joan Mellen in ‘Waves at Genji’s Door’ is probably the most horrendous example. There was a lot of bad scholarship produced back then, but almost all of it was written by people without any significant knowledge of Japanese culture. That’s not the case now.The final point which I would like to discuss is the idea of the "pillow shot" are empty space shot which Richie and other Westerners claim to be a strategy by Ozu to tap into a more "Japanese" or the overly offensive term "Oriental" mindset.
*The irony of this is that his argument basically does the same thing by position Classical Hollywood cinema as normative and Japan as avant-garde. Whoops.
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
BLANG BLANG BLANG (those are alarm bells btw). That's called selective reading. I mentioned six possibilities two of which are whole categories containing thousands of films in sum. You went within a parenthetical aside, away from the primary vagueries of the Mission Statement, and into a few asides representing, how you say, a few personal examples which I would like to see. But be not misled, I'd probably love to see the avant or sci-fi stuff just as much and more than the Grem, which I probably wouldn't pull out as often.zedz wrote:Well, right here:HerrSchreck wrote:Zedz, come on-- I don't expect this kind of stuff outa you. When in gods name did I articulate anything what vaguely had an aroma of
that Criterion releasing French sound films of the thirties and forties (total number already in the collection: twenty) is inherently bolder, riskier and edgier than releasing Japanese silent films (total already in the collection: one; total already available in R1: one) - is demonstrably false
Schreck wrote:I truly thought the aim of the line was to get out lesser known masterworks of capital C-cinema (Bernard, Grem, Rivette, Duviv et al), as well as eclectic avant or sci fi that ancient purists sniff down their nose. I truly didn't expect chunks of lesser works by well known directors.
Well here's the crux of the biscuit: I don't give a sixteenth of a retard's dingleberry that you're baffled. It's my opinion-- Ozu is on the mission statement of the Criterion Brochure: "The foundation of the collection is the work of such masters of cinema as Renoir, Truffaut, Lang... Ozu.. etc"zedz wrote:And in your repeated citation of Bernard as one of the only Eclipse releases that meets with your approval. My point is that, unless you're looking at the schedule exclusively from a narrow auteurist perspective, the Silent Ozu set is probably a much ballsier release (and by no stretch of the imagination "lesser work").(...) The difference is that I see the first English-subtitled release anywhere of a box set of Japanese silent films as challenging or innovative, and I'm baffled that you don't.
Last month some fucking nuthead baffled because you didn't see the "risk" of releasing obscure Minor Early Bergman, could have jumped on your ass for being baffled by your Eclipse Blindness (haw haw haw). With six films in the CC and surely many more to come (less a handful than a Cinemateque), in my opinion (you're allowed yours, 'kay?), Ozu, like AK, Bergman, more Ozu, Malle, etc, is not my idea of what E would look like... at least a year ago. Now I see it as Criterion Junior with a few surprises sprinkled in.
Thank you. Our opinions merely differ, and I'd thank you (who so rampantly despises predictable Criterion Lists) to express yours without calling me "petty".zedz wrote:In many respects the same ones you identifySchreck wrote:]2) Last month (and prior) you articulated a problem with, how you say inna trade, the release material. What was the problem?
In preservation of space and friendship (we're both cracking wise and heading for The Pit), we've had equal stage time busting on one another-- if you're still disturbed and require more info, pm me.
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
- Location: LA CA
i.e. "You must play this game by my rules" and "I get the last public word".HerrSchreck wrote:In preservation of space and friendship (we're both cracking wise and heading for The Pit), we've had equal stage time busting on one another-- if you're still disturbed and require more info, pm me.
All Hail!
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I was just reading through some of Jonathan Rosenbaum's past Cinema Scope articles and found this quote:
So at least there is someone completely happy with this set!Similarly, grateful as I am for the bare-bones box set of late Ozu films recently issued on Criterion’s invaluable Eclipse series—Early Spring (1956), Tokyo Twilight (1957), Equinox Flower (1958), Late Autumn (1960), and The End of Summer (1961)—I’d be happier still if Eclipse would issue an early Ozu box set with such silent masterpieces as Tokyo Chorus (1931), I Was Born, But… (1932), and Passing Fancy (1933), which I much prefer.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Is that what this is all about? It's several leaps of inference to see this comment as directed specifically at you.HerrSchreck wrote:Thank you. Our opinions merely differ, and I'd thank you (who so rampantly despises predictable Criterion Lists) to express yours without calling me "petty".
I've never had quite the same 'vision' for this line as you have (we've been over this before), but neither of our 'visions' is the point, is it? Eclipse has always been, and has been signalled as being 'Criterion Jr.'
This so-called argument boils down to you seeing the Ozu set as safe and boring and me seeing it as exciting and unprecedented (a position I've backed up with evidence). So, from my point of view all of this hand-wringing about mission statements etc. is completely beside the point in this instance. It's nothing to do with my personal like or dislike for the films. If the next Eclipse set were hitherto undiscovered hard-core porn directed by Ingmar Bergman, I'd still acknowledge that as a bold departure for the company rather than "just another Bergman release," however little interest I'd have in actually buying it.
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
It's Official! YOSHI HAS FOUND MEANING! Because what would a hot discussion be without yoshi to come in at the tail end for some Late Foot Stamping? (Trying to HALT A FIGHT to preserve a behind the scenes friendship is now Evil.) Friend yoshi, I'm not looking for the last word, I'm looking for a discussion away from capitalizing sourpusses like YOU.yoshimori wrote:i.e. "You must play this game by my rules" and "I get the last public word".
All Hail!
Dude. Stop.zedz wrote:This so-called argument boils down to you seeing the Ozu set as safe and boring and me seeing it as exciting and unprecedented
This is getting embarrassing. I will state my point (let me state mine, and you stick to stating yours-- deal?) One. More. Time.
I said many times over the past week (bullhord in zedz ear): "I LOVE THIS RELEASE. I AM EXCITED ABOUT IT. I DO NOT SEE IT AS BORING. ARE YOU WITH US ON TERRA FIRMA ZEDZ?"
Eclipse vs. CC to me is about Overlooked Filmmakers... NOT ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS SOUND OR NO SOUND. Can you understand now at least "why" I see this as out of sync with my original hopes? This is why Bernard and Klein "fit the bill", and AKuro, Ozu/Ozu, Bergman, do not. WHILE OZU IS GETTING HIS UMPTEENTH REPRESENTATION IN R1 FROM THIS COMPANY BETWEEN BOTH LINES, many other makers of equally fantastic films keep getting pushed aside.
In other words (deep breath).. and this really is it in a nutshell: before we get to Release number 13, 14, & 15 on Ozu, lets do the Eclipse Thing and get to Release Number One from someone who's never stood on deck.
Get the idea? You don't hafta agree with it-- just signal to me somehow that you understand it-- get your head way up over the horizon line so I can see you in NYC and nod, fire up a penny rocket with the words spelled out in sparklers, hire a hundred folks to spell it out in placards in the stands at the Super Bowl, leave a Z origami by my door, etc. BUT SEND US A SIGN.
And now I'm going to say something Really-- really-- funny:
Weren't you the one who got fed up and Launched?Is that what this is all about?
- toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Incidentally this would by far be the best selling title between CC and Eclipse combined! Talk about risk-free!zedz wrote:If the next Eclipse set were hitherto undiscovered hard-core porn directed by Ingmar Bergman, I'd still acknowledge that as a bold departure for the company rather than "just another Bergman release," however little interest I'd have in actually buying it.
So let's get "the vision thing" (hey I tributed a Bush!) straight: okay for zedz to complain Bergman doesn't belong in Eclipse, not ok for schreck to complain about Ozu. Because Ozu's... Ozu.toiletduck! wrote:[timid intereference]This seems kind of important.[/timid interference]zedz wrote:...but neither of our 'visions' is the point, is it?
T'ankya kindsly..
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
In fact, it's a shame Bergman never took full advantage of the Swedish government edict that his films were never to be censored in his home country. Just imagine if someone like Walerian Borowczyk had had that kind of privilege!HerrSchreck wrote:Incidentally this would by far be the best selling title between CC and Eclipse combined! Talk about risk-free!zedz wrote:If the next Eclipse set were hitherto undiscovered hard-core porn directed by Ingmar Bergman, I'd still acknowledge that as a bold departure for the company rather than "just another Bergman release," however little interest I'd have in actually buying it.
- toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
I was just thinking more along the lines of okay for both of you to complain about whatever, but a little less okay to extend the complaint to a thread-clogging hairball of eight posts (and these are eight Schreck posts, the equivalent of something like 37 regular posts [that's me being cheeky Herr Herr, don't wig out, 'k?]) that mostly boil down to you explaining how we don't understand the point you're trying to make, when for the most part we do understand, we just either a) don't agree, b) don't think it's as big of a deal as you're making it, or c) both.HerrSchreck wrote:So let's get "the vision thing" (hey I tributed a Bush!) straight: okay for zedz to complain Bergman doesn't belong in Eclipse, not ok for schreck to complain about Ozu. Because Ozu's... Ozu.
T'ankya kindsly..
Granted, your thread-clogging hairballs are an entertaining read, but this is one instance where I prefer zedz' Bergman complaint. Because a hairball's... a hairball.
-Toilet Dcuk
Agree with HerrSchreck, certainy is a great opportunity to be able to finally see some silent era Ozu, but this isn't what I'd hope Eclipse would be doing, Kino and Second Run being my idea of companies exposing unsung heroes and heroines of cinema.
Perhaps if Criterion didn't worry so much about making films look acceptable to the DVDBeaver brats, contrast boosting them beyond recognition if needs be, they'd have released these films on the Criterion range.
I think this is the message we need to get across to those in charge at Criterion, especially with the HD formats looming, there is nothing wrong with releasing merely 'decent' transfers on the main label as the quality of the materials available shouldn't be what decides whether or not a film is a Criterion or Eclipse candidate.
Anyway its all a moot point, in the run up to the release, I'm interested in hearing more about these films from those fortunate enough to have seen them, starting with the obvious, what is Ozu's overall approach to directing silent films?
Perhaps if Criterion didn't worry so much about making films look acceptable to the DVDBeaver brats, contrast boosting them beyond recognition if needs be, they'd have released these films on the Criterion range.
I think this is the message we need to get across to those in charge at Criterion, especially with the HD formats looming, there is nothing wrong with releasing merely 'decent' transfers on the main label as the quality of the materials available shouldn't be what decides whether or not a film is a Criterion or Eclipse candidate.
Anyway its all a moot point, in the run up to the release, I'm interested in hearing more about these films from those fortunate enough to have seen them, starting with the obvious, what is Ozu's overall approach to directing silent films?