JonasEB

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001PIHH5M/ref=nosim?tag=dvdbeaver-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=B001PIHH5M&creative=373489&camp=211189 Warner really couldn't release The Magnificent Ambersons on Blu-ray??? Come on...

I won't be watching these but I certainly don't mind seeing them on the schedule. Plenty of people would love to see them - I can always do something else. I'd love to see a star of the month spot given to a great silent-era star but there are complexities; a lot of those films would have to be gathered from a tangle of different sources (as opposed to 2010's Kurosawa month, all from Janus Films.) The lack of scores for many films would be an obstacle and I suppose it really comes down to the number of films actually transferred to video for each star. But a month devoted to silent stars in general would be great, maybe 3 nights each week (at least!) In July, I'm perfectly happy just getting the back to back showings of Maborosi and The End of Summer, one film by today's greatest Japanese filmmaker, Hirokazu Koreeda, and one by the past master Yasujiro Ozu.

I actually credit a lot of my personal growth to my increasing interest in film through adolescence and into adulthood. My turning away from any kind of lifestyle and the fashions associated with it, to simply be myself, my aversion to dogma, to be more critical and discerning - all because of my interest in cinema. It isn't any one film that changed me, it's simply a byproduct of becoming engaged with art and culture and by connection to the world itself.

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote} > Even the indulgence in the themes for which Ford's now most renowned was de-emphasized; Zanuck demanded a subtlety that Ford was incapable of or, perhaps more accurately, disinclined to, muster when left to his own devices. I'd say the Will Rogers comedies are far more subtle than the Zanuck-era Fox films, particularly The Grapes of Wrath, which actually has the same level of severity as other serious minded Ford films (The Informer.) The variety of mood and expression is greater in the former films, the themes not so clearly defined, things communicated naturally and completely visually and sonically in the Rogers films as opposed to the expressionism of Grapes. And since the Rogers films are the chief blueprint for the rest of Ford's career, I'd say that The Searchers and The Quiet Man are also far subtler films. Young Mr. Lincoln is actually quite personal and a definite outgrowth of the Will Rogers films. Clementine, probably the best of Ford's "expressionist" films, actually has a lot in common with Fort Apache and Liberty Valance...and Young Mr. Lincoln. How Green Was My Valley is more restrained and certainly shaped by others but it's still quintessentially Fordian in its vignette style, it's attention to details and gestures, and it's focus on customs and traditions, particularly how the characters are affected by them but also in how they participate in their own village's undoing. If it lacks a Fordian hero in the manner of Ethan Edwards, Will Rogers, or Lincoln, it offers a suitable substitute in Gruffydd - an impotent leader, the opposite of the Will Rogers characters. Ford's sentimentality is rarely working on a simple level; it's usually more complicated. We're not supposed to simply identify with the family's situation in How Green Was My Valley. Huw's affectionate feelings for the past are undermined and instead of feeling sorry for him we see that he's wasted his better years on an illusion. I get the feeling if Wyler had done the film, the attitude towards these things would be similar to what's in Mrs. Miniver. Wyler is a wonderful dramatist but as far as cinematic invention goes he doesn't have as much on Ford. In Ford there's more grey, greater ambivalence, more complexity, greater variety.

> {quote:title=redriver wrote:}{quote} > I used to consider this a second tier Ford film. Now I see it as one of his best. I don't know what inspired the turnaround. But I'm glad it's happened. I've been "down on the valley" too long! It is one of Ford's greatest. But the film isn't simply sentimental, it's actually quite ambivalent and even cynical. The Academy received it the way they would Mrs. Miniver the next year and that more than anything wrongly damaged its reputation. Valley is just one of those films that captures so much of life in all of its rich details. > {quote:title=Ascotrudgeracer wrote:}{quote} >A prime example of a film that could not be made today. Remake would be a disaster. Oh, you can make a film like this...just not in America apparently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_to_Live_and_the_Time_to_Die http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Yi:_A_One_and_a_Two Stylistically, these are quite different from How Green Was My Valley but they all depict families who struggle with the past, present, and future, societal norms and traditions, and their selves. > {quote:title=MovieProfessorwrote:}{quote} >Whether we accept it or not, "How Green Was My Valley" is a classic in its own right; even if we feel another, more artistically based film, released that same year should have received more attention. But of course How Green Was My Valley is every bit as artistically focused as Citizen Kane is. Thankfully Ford's critical rehabilitation in the 1960s has placed his films where they deserve to be, although we still see the old opinions rear their heads; you can always tell a greenhorn on IMDB based on how they react to Valley winning over Kane. I would have been perfectly fine with the decision if Kane did win but there's certainly nothing wrong with How Green Was My Valley taking the top prize. In a competition of all Best Picture winners, it would be my top pick.

Edward Yang's A Brighter Summer Day (1991) That Criterion Blu-ray can't come soon enough.

> {quote:title=incredibull wrote:}{quote} > But history says otherwise. Although you may not have studied history, it teaches us that *vigorous* dissatisfaction with the status quo is the source of all progress. In the case of classic movies, "progress" is holding the line against an invasion of movies with a ripe old age of three or four years, etc. My guess is that TCM is testing the waters here and the levee will be breached permanently unless angry viewers (that's right--angry) stop this thing before it gets off the ground. This thread is a good example of why many laugh at this message board. Let's forget about the fact that TCM has done stuff like this throughout its history, let's forget about the fact that this is a clearly defined series, let's forget about the fact that there's nothing else like this in the next few months, let's forget about common sense - Do you really think that TCM is going to use THESE films, of all films, to initiate some change in programming??? I think you need to adjust that tinfoil hat of yours. Bull - that's exactly right.

They're showing a bunch of movies Roger Ebert is featuring or featured at his Ebertfest festival, movies that he thinks are undervalued or not seen as much as they should be. http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/382998%7C0/A-Salute-to-Ebertfest-5-2.html Christ, this isn't a big deal, calm down...

Dust in the Wind (1986) by Hou Hsiao-Hsien.

Sorry, it's not coming up again (at least through August.) It's a shame you didn't get to see the version TCM shows, the Photoplay Productions edition, it's the best restoration of the film - a fine print, excellent tinting, and a great orchestral rendition of the original score. This version unfortunately is not available on video. TCM has aired Birth of a Nation twice within the last year but prior to the November showing it hadn't aired for over half a decade. There's no telling when it might show up again.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > Sorry to get all earnest and start throwing around pretentious-sounding phrases like that, but it's because it's my main complaint about this King Vidor film. It's all message, and has forgotten that movies are about so much more than that. That's fine, I just think it's a better criticism of the book itself, or of the new Atlas Shrugged film, than of the Fountainhead film which I think is visually more than competent with concerns to the subject (which is why I call it great cinema.) It's all good, I just don't like seeing a film like this get dogpiled, I have to get a positive voice in.

Really? It's the only Sternberg-Dietrich I haven't seen. I hope that isn't the case; all of the distributor info on IMDB (not always reliable, I know) seems the same as it is for Morocco and the others.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > but not to be taken seriously as either a work of cinematic art nor a philosophical statement. But The Fountainhead is great cinema. Vidor rendered the film, a vision about the sheer power of individuality, exactly as it should have been regardless of what we think of the philosophy. That a lot of it is sexually charged is a simple fact of the book and Vidor's film is artistically true. I'm not sympathetic to Rand's philosophy but the film itself is beautiful, it's like one of Eisenstein's films. Vidor was quoted about the ending in this thread but it must be said that he changed his mind about it later on. The Fountainhead, with The Crowd and Our Daily Bread, ranked among his favorite of his own works. > For one thing, nobody talks like that. It's nothing but studied polemic speeches from beginning to end. The people of Elizabethan England didn't speak at all like what you hear or read in a Shakespeare play. Dialogue doesn't have to be realistic. "Realism" in cinema is arbitrarily defined and relative. I mean, many Italian Neo-Realist films are often extremely manipulative and melodramatic - very unrealistic. Realism shouldn't be the required goal, it's only one of many tools. This gets back to the entire idea that all cinema is supposed to do is tell a straight story - well, it's not. > {quote:title=Ascotrudgeracer wrote:}{quote} > I, for one, don't think so, but many cinephiles will say just that. Gary Cooper didn't ruin anything. In fact, he was the perfect actor for this role. ___________________________________________________ My friend just saw the new Atlas Shrugged film. Now that really seems like a waste of celluloid. I considered going to see it but I think I'll pass for now.

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote} > I notice some of the Blu Ray players are able to upscale the quality of DVDs, I wonder how much of an improvement that is? it claims near HD quality so it could be the DVDs are fine after all in a Blu Ray player. Actually, all of them do. It still doesn't look anything like HD. A DVD looking good on an HDTV (particularly the kinds with higher refresh rates) all depends on how good the DVD actually is - if the transfer has been noise reduced, edge enhanced, and full of artifacts due to a bad encode, it's going to look terrible (Blue Velvet is pretty bad.) Unmanipulated DVDs (like Winchester '73) look pretty good.

> {quote:title=danthemoviefan wrote:}{quote} > Marlene Dietrich is the honoree Aug. 31: > > http://www.tcm.com/schedule/index.html?tz=est&sdate=2011-08-31 Ah, I wish they picked Dishonored, it's not on DVD here.

Ah, Jean Gabin day...a lot of these are unavailable in the U.S. so this is a truly fantastic addition to the SUTS schedule. Edited by: JonasEB on Apr 27, 2011 12:44 AM

> {quote:title=incredibull wrote:}{quote} > > Although it was not my post that brought out this reply from you, I do question its accuracy. While you are correct about the issue of resolution, there are other factors which remain to plague many older (such as some classic) moves and contribute to their inferior viewing quality. For one thing, the tone quality (gray scale) may be poor. For another, the sound quality may be poor, due to the technological limitations of audio at the time that the movie was made. Etc., etc. Street Angel, one of many early Fox Film Corporation titles compromised by their vault fires in the 30s, still looks much better on Blu-ray than it does on DVD, 5th generation print and all. Better rendering of contrast, a fuller rendering of print qualities, richer audio, it's a superbly done Blu-ray. But tons of classic films are in perfectly fine condition. > For these reasons, the digital reproduction of these older movies cannot match the quality of first-class later movies, meaning that their reproduction in the "high definition" of which Blu-Ray technology is capable is not possible. It doesn't have to match anything, it only needs to be a faithful representation of what the source is. Actually, the difference between The Searchers on DVD and Blu-ray is as great as it is for a modern film like Inception. Ditto City Girl and The General from the silent era. > Of course, the economic issues will be paramount for some time to come, meaning that, even if the quality reproduced from a Blu-Ray disc is excellent, the cost of the reproduction equipment will be such as to severely limit the sale of this equipment. So the statement that the DVD discs will probably disappear in two more years is simply a wish--not a reality. Redriver was referring to physical media disappearing in favor of streaming and such, not Blu-ray getting rid of DVD. > In summary, score one for the high resolution quality of film, score zero for other inferior qualities of so-called "classic" films. No, a large number of classic films are clearly ready for Blu-ray - almost all of the heavy hitters on TCM obviously are. It has nothing to do with age it only has to do with the quality of the print - this isn't an issue only the older films deal with, films made in the last twenty years struggle with it. The Birth of a Nation, 4 years from turning 100, exists in 1st generation prints, struck from the negative, and is clearly acceptable for a beautiful Blu-ray transfer. And Blu-ray isn't just high resolution, it's fewer to zero video artifacts and uncompressed audio. Visually any older film can trump any newer one. It doesn't matter if audio recording equipment was inferior in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, it's still a leap over DVD.

I want to make note of TCM's increased On Demand activity over the past couple of months - more films (15 + per month,) many documentaries and original programming, and some very nice surprises (this morning's addition of Jeanne Dielman.) On Demand programming, free or not, is mostly unremarkable and uninspired, so it's great to see TCM expand this part of their brand to offer a superior alternative. Kudos!

TCM just placed Jeanne Dielman on their free On Demand slate this morning (for Comcast customers anyway, not sure about any other service.) I found that to be a shocking and very nice surprise.

> {quote:title=musikone wrote:}{quote} > *Don't bet on it!* > > What do you expect to replace it? > > Blu-Ray? This is a laugh :-) *Classic movies* (whatever this may currently mean) are generally of a video quality which gains little, if anything, from Blu-Ray, which was developed to handle the technological demands of preserving high-definition video on a disc which superficially resembles DVD but contains a great deal more information. My god, please stop typing. Have you ever seen an old film screened theatrically? Have you actually watched a Blu-ray? "Classic Movies" aren't shot on video, they are shot on film, which has a far greater capacity for "resolution" than most digital productions. Have you ever stretched a DVD size image to several times it proportions? It looks like crap. Do you actually think a film would look good on a theater screen if it was limited to what you see on DVD?

I don't actually watch TCM-HD (anything on cable less than genuine HD on a 120hz plus set looks like garbage) but I did check on it every once in a while and the aspect ratio seemed right - 1.66 would mean bars on the side of the screen which where there - and I didn't notice any subtitle problems (but then I wasn't paying too much attention - mostly to know when to stop my recording.) Not saying it didn't happen but perhaps it was a localized problem in your case? I know TCM-HD has had problems in the past showing some silent films cropped (which I took to be a malfunction of the upconversion process.) Apparently the same thing has happened with other subtitled films on TCM. Until TCM goes genuine HD, it's going to be a problem.

Just watched Camille...Alla Nazimova was unbearable.

Very excited to see Hirokazu Koreeda's Maborosi on the schedule, it's one of the best films of the 1990s. I assume all of the Arab world & Middle Eastern themed films are this year's Race in Hollywood. Glad to see more Ozu and Godard (End of Summer and Made in U.S.A.) and another showing of Abbas Kiarostami's Taste of Cherry. Looking forward to seeing Frank Borzage's Secrets, Anthony Mann's The Last Frontier, Kon Ichikawa's Tokyo Olympiad, and Howard Hawks' Land of the Pharoahs.

Hey, if you simply don't like him, that's fine, but to say that he isn't serious about his work when every piece of writing, interview, and debate featuring him indicates the opposite is only inflammatory. Even more so to say so to insult the people who do like him. That's completely unnecessary. If I were to state, in capsule form, what I think about Sergio Leone, it would be done this way: He gets credit for things he didn't do, "truth" in westerns he didn't reveal, "realism" that isn't realistic, a baroque sensibility that is purely sensational, "ambiguity" that was already present in the genre, "depth" that lacks depth, themes that have already been done to death, "criticism" that isn't new or very critical. Entertaining westerns, sure. Great art, no. Is Once Upon a Time in America great, yes. This provokes discussion and there's nothing in there denigrating the people who like him.

> {quote:title=Kinokima wrote:}{quote} > From what I've seen of Malle, Godard and Truffaut's films I actually feel Godard and Truffaut have much more in common. > > I also don't find Godard film's difficult to follow at all. But I still prefer Truffaut overall. It's not that Truffaut and Malle are similar, it's just that they mostly make films in which plot and character develop as they would in an ordinary film. Only a few Godard films resemble Truffaut's (Breathless, Band of Outsiders.) Une Femme Mariee, 2 or 3 Things...these are the types that get people complaining and then there are the Dziga Vertov Group films and the experimental video projects (Histoire(s) du Cinema - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire%28s%29_du_cinema) and much of what he did after the 60s. Kino will be releasing this soon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_Socialisme - This is the Godard people are mostly unfamiliar with (because no one shows post-60s Godard on US TV; beyond Breathless and then Band of Outsiders and Contempt you won't get much) but it makes up the bulk of his career. > {quote:title=cujas wrote:}{quote} > Also,--Truffaut's "biograpy" of Victor Hugo's daughter --Adele H" -semi-historical--Was that unusual for a New Wave director? I wouldn't say there's anything common among New Wave films. The goal was to completely personalize the filmmaking process. The New Wave is less an identifiable form of making movies than it is simply a name for the group of Cahiers du Cinema critics who started making movies. They were never against adapting novels (Rivette's La Religieuse) or making classical films; what they wanted was to apply the principles they wrote about in order to free cinema from the formulaic modes of production that Hollywood and the "Cinema du Papa" came to represent by 1960. > {quote:title=JefCostello wrote:}{quote} >Godard deliberately made stupid movies which I think even he didn't take seriously What? Considering the thematic and stylistic content of his body of work is absolutely consistent in its development over 50 years, I think that's a completely ludicrous thing to say. >But most of his 60's movies were garbage, and I think it amused him how critics and fans lauded these movies and even mistook them for art. I doubt he ever did himself. And you back this up how? This is nothing more than condescending trash. Thanks a lot.