JonasEB

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > from digitalbits.com: > > And for the ?ber-collector, Fox has set a massive Fox 75th Anniversary Giftset for DVD release on 12/7 (SRP $499.98), containing 3 volumes of discs (broken by time period: 1935-1960, 1961-1985 and 1986-2010) and a total 75 films in all, representing (nearly) every significant film or franchise released in the history of the studio. It also includes a pretty elaborate book and a slipcase. Here's the complete list of films, for those who may be interested... > > http://www.digitalbits.com/#mytwocents "(Nearly) every significant film or franchise released in the history of the studio"? Oh, come on, a cursory glance at the first set doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what Fox has. Cavalcade and Steamboat aren't even "20th Century Fox" films, it was still Fox Film Corporation at the time, so if they're going to break a 75th anniversary rule and not include even Sunrise among their many great silents... Instead of this pointless set they should be releasing more classics on Blu-ray.

Underrated: Opening Night by John Cassavetes Overrated: The Sting by George Roy Hill

When Encore shows Touch of Evil, they show the open matte version which looks more appropriate than the 1.85:1 release on DVD. Hopefully when Universal gives it the eventual Blu-ray it's kept open matte. I didn't know AMC ever showed films letterboxed. I never got to experience the old AMC, my interest in movies started to grow the year AMC changed, 2002, or so I've read. I only watched one film on the channel and it made me swear off movies with commercial interruption for life.

I wouldn't say it's intentionally camp at all, a large number of things in this film are simply and pointedly funny and it can still be completely serious. You can find all kinds of examples of dialogue in westerns taken seriously that are as "campy" as that found in Johnny Guitar but no one ever says anything about it. Johnny Guitar is simply completely unorthodox and its approach to its characters lacks much of the heroism traditionally found in westerns, so its characters are sardonic and sarcastic. By this point, Nicholas Ray was entering a new period in his career, one marked by a distinct shift away from any realism or "believability" that a Hollywood film is supposedly creating. Rebel Without a Cause and Bigger Than Life share this same quality in spades. Seriously, why single out Joan's makeup or clothes, particularly when these things have specific meaning in the film and Ray's films in general, when every Hollywood movie suffers from the over-glamorized thing? Do you really think women looked as neat and well kept in the old west as Jean Arthur or Grace Kelly or Barbara Stanwyck? I've never actually noticed the disappearing body or the disappearing shotgun and really it doesn't matter. In any case, Republic wasn't exactly MGM or Fox and this film had a troubled shoot. All of this camp business has essentially ruined any potential opportunity I'll have to see and enjoy this in a theater in America. From what I've heard, people act like they're watching The Rocky Horror Picture Show. In Japan apparently they don't laugh at Douglas Sirk's films the way we do, maybe I'll have to go halfway around the world to get a respectable theatrical viewing of Johnny Guitar. I think we take our ideas of "Camp" too far sometimes (I like this Chris Fujiwara article - http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/tears-without-laughter-20080818).

I would've expected to see Nicholas Ray's Party Girl (perhaps it was #16, 17, 18, 19, or 20.) Coming from Marty, it's a fine list.

> {quote:title=JefCostello wrote:}{quote} > Him and Rohmer both died this year, and both should get more recognition than what they've gotten. Yeah, I was disappointed that TCM never scheduled a Rohmer film earlier this year or even mentioned him at all. I imagine Chabrol would be even easier for them to ignore. I hope they schedule something in January for the both of them.

This article (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2053173) says that a photo-chemical restoration can cost upwards of $80,000 for a black and white film and $100,000 for a color film. Further down it says that the restoration of How the West Was Won cost some $200,000. I haven't heard of any cases in which during a restoration a negative was ruined or destroyed. The original version of The Gold Rush was apparently once public domain but is now part of the Chaplin Estate again.

Letterbox is only used when a film has an aspect ratio wider than the shape of the TV screen. The vast majority of films worldwide prior to 1953 are in either 1:33:1 or 1:37:1, the latter called academy ratio, the standard of all Hollywood films throughout the 30s and 40s. There are some exceptions, like Raoul Walsh's The Big Trail, made on a 70mm widescreen process at Fox called Grandeur, but widescreen did not take off until 1953 when Fox released The Robe, the very first CinemaScope feature. At this point, Hollywood begins shooting films in a variety of anamorphic processes which compress a wide image onto the standard 35mm frame, special film types like VistaVision, or shooting open matte, using the full 35mm frame shape and matting the picture to a specified ratio (usually 1:85:1.) 1:85:1 becomes something of a "standard" aspect ratio but there really is no conventional standard to shoot a film in today. Even academy ratio is still used to this day - many of Jean-Luc Godard's films over the last 30 years or Gus Van Sant's Elephant (2003) and Paranoid Park (2007) are a few examples. The television screen was originally designed back in the 1920s with the shape of 35mm film in mind. It was actually the rising popularity of television in the late 40s/early 50s that prompted Hollywood to go widescreen, offering a presentation television could not. The favoring of letterboxing films for TV screens began in the 1980s when the home video company Criterion began releasing laserdiscs of widescreen films in their native aspect ratio rather than cropping or using pan & scan. This tradition became the favored method of viewing films by cinephiles at home. Television stations would not letterbox widescreen films until TCM came around in 1994. Today even that's a rare case. Of course, now we have HDTVs, with a shape of 1:78:1, which has created a host of problems for showing a variety of films (now not only do we still have pan & scan...we have tilt & scan!...wonderful!)

Of course they wouldn't have released the film that way but MGM made some bad decisions, we lost all of the hours of footage Stroheim shot, and the stills and Stroheim's continuity writings are all we have left of the rest of the film. I think the problem here is TCM choosing to show the restorations more often than the theatrical cuts rather than these restorations/reconstructions actually existing. Given the choice, I would prefer to watch the theatrical cut of Greed and I think that's the first version everyone should see but I still find a lot of value in the restoration. When repertory theaters show Greed they often play both versions of the film (when Rick Schmidlin presents it he shows both - a real film print of the theatrical version and a video source for his reconstruction - I think that's a good indication of how these people feel about the pecking order.) If you dislike the alterations that's completely fine but I just don't like any mis-characterizations of what these people do when they restore/reconstruct a film because there really is no desire to rub out any other version of the film or mandate one particular version as "THE one."

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > Neither Stroheim nor his studio ever released the version that TCM now shows. There never was such a version until the modern experts butchered his film. Stroheim would have never released a film that was half-movie and half-slide show. The old studios never released films that were half movie and half still photos. Stroheim's 8 hour version was exhibited for the press. His 4 hour version was exhibited publicly once before MGM threw Stroheim off of the project and decided to hack it down some more. These things did exist. The reconstruction isn't meant to replace the theatrical release or fully replicate Stroheim's original cuts of the film. > I saw the 2-1/4 hour version of the film at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1965, and it was all movie, no still photos, and it was fine. And that version still exists and will continue to exist. When Greed shows up on DVD, it will certainly contain both versions of the film. > Its absurd for someone to re-edit a classic film and add still photos to it and then falsely claim that thats what Stroheim intended. That is a lie. TCM is showing a fake version of the film that neither Stroheim nor his studio ever made or released. Again, the point of that restoration was to provide insight into what Stroheim's structure for the film was and give us some feel for the greater proportions of the film that are lost forever. No one ever said that it was intended to replace the theatrical version. > These restorers who alter films like this are just trying to add their name to the credits and pretend they worked with Stroheim. They are butchering movies like that for their own ego. So they can falsely claim to have saved Stroheims film so they can put their name up in the opening credits along with his and build their careers around his fame. Yeah...that makes perfect sense. > And I dont want to see some modern persons interpretation of what Welles and his studio should have edited. I want to see the same film I have watched for years, the original theatrical version, not the modern altered version. I already pointed out that you can get the original version, the preview cut, and the 1998 version in the same package. The original theatrical cut isn't going anywhere and no one has ever suggested getting rid of it. It has aired countless times on Encore. > 20 years from now, new restorers will be trying to un-butcher these films and restore them to the original versions that the studios released, and future film restorers will talk about the era in which idiots got their hands on these classic films and chopped them up and re-edited them in a way the directors and the studios never intended. They don't have to "un-butcher" them because the original theatrical cuts still exist and are being used everyday.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > > Recently I watched TOUCH OF EVIL and it did not hold up well for me. > > There is an odd thing that happened to this film. TCM originally showed the standard theatrical print of the movie, the print everyone had been viewing for years. But then in the ?90s, some film professors got their hands on it and re-edited some of it. They changed around the scenes and the editing. In a documentary TCM aired about it, nearly 10 years ago, they claimed that the original theatrical film wasn?t quite right, and it wasn?t what Welles wanted. They said they found ?some of Welles original notes? about the film, and they re-edited it to the specifications of those ?notes?. > > The version that TCM has been advertising this past week is the New Improved Version, as re-edited by the Film Professors. > > The same thing has been done to TCM?s copy of ?The Big Sleep? and ?Greed?. > > Seems that our film history is being re-written, some of our classic films are being re-edited, and in the future I presume that Film Professors will have the ultimate say over which version we get to see. They will probably turn into the Government Office of Official Film Re-Editing, and we taxpayers will have to pay for their work. No, that's silly... Touch of Evil, like most of Welles' films, was taken out of his hands during the editing process. Welles left a 58 page memo for Universal's head of production Edward Muhl, included in the deluxe DVD edition of Touch of Evil (which includes three versions of the film,) that specifies what changes he would have made to the studio's cut. This is what film preservationist/scholar Rick Schmidlin, editor Walter Murch, and critic/Welles scholar & expert Jonathan Rosenbaum used to create the 1998 version. They do not believe that only their version should be available and both the original theatrical version and the 1998 reconstruction are seen on TV (Encore Movies shows both.) Neither do they consider their reconstruction the "director's cut" as Welles pointed out his suggestions only pertained to the studio's version, not what he would have done if he had complete control over the film. Also worth mentioning: Universal had already released another version of Touch of Evil in the 1970s, the preview cut - erroneously referred to as "complete, uncut, and restored" - so in this light the 1998 edition was a reasonable and worthy venture. (Here's a link to Welles' memo: http://wellesnet.com/touch_memo1.htm) Criterion's box set for Welles' Mr. Arkadin, which Welles was never close to finishing to his satisfaction, features three different versions: One of the several English world cuts called the "Corinth" version, the European version titled "Confidential Report," and a new "Comprehensive Edit" assembled from the different versions. They make it clear that the latter in no way represents a "director's cut." None are claimed to be definitive. Macbeth was also altered during its time (two reels cut, soundtrack redone) and later restored. In this case, it was a definite return to Welles' original version. Erich von Stroheim was willing to cut Greed down to four hours from his original eight-plus hour version. MGM stripped it down to the familiar 2 1/4 hour theatrical release version. The late 90s restoration, also by Rick Schmidlin, only seeks to give us an idea of what Stroheim had prepared for the film. It's not meant to be the "preferred' version and although TCM seems to prefer showing the four hour restoration, that's their prerogative and has nothing to do with the intent of the guy behind it. These "professors" you speak of aren't trying to rewrite or suppress film history. In fact, the above examples all help enrich our understanding of those films, the history of those films, and the filmmakers. Edited by: JonasEB on Sep 7, 2010 3:50 AM

When the French elevated Citizen Kane I would say it had less to do with it being the "BIG NO. 1, unquestionable, all time masterpiece" and more to do with an ideal; this film embodies what we want the cinema to be. In the late 50s, Cahiers du Cinema named Mr. Arkadin, a Welles film the average film goer would likely have a tough time with, one of the 12 best films of all time...those critics would soon start making their own films...Arkadin isn't usually considered among Welles' best films (I myself like it very much) but placing it on a list the way those young critics did could/should be understood more as a statement, a way to promote their ideal vision of the cinema. Citizen Kane is seen as a significant moment in film modernism. The late 30s is considered the maturation of the sound film, the perfection of classical form. In the 1940s, we begin to see a shift away from this. Kane is often fingered as the break-point; there had been examples of this before (Renoir, Ford, Wyler) but not with the mastery and clarity of expression and intent. In the 1940s, Andre Bazin wrote his influential theories on film. He rejected montage, a manipulation of space and POV, in favor of the long take and deep focus (sound familiar?,) elements that he believed created a purity of image and maintained ambiguity. The term mise-en-scene starts to show up in film theory at this time. Throughout the rest of the 40s and 50s the impact of Bazin's theories are at the heart of film studies. You can see it in the preferences of the Cahiers critics; Kenji Mizoguchi was favored over Akira Kurosawa for instance or Robert Bresson over the "tradition of quality." Although film theory would continue to change (and particularly with the arrival of the New Wave and Breathless by Bazin disciple Jean-Luc Godard) Citizen Kane still holds a central place in film history and theory. Kane will always represent the crucial shift in attitude. I cringe every time I see something like the AFI list, which I think is responsible for overcooking Kane for a lot of people, because it only places Kane in the context of Hollywood films, most of which are in the classical style. They make note of the technique but never tell the viewers/readers WHY that mattered (it's the same thing with a film like Breathless or Rome, Open City.) It's not important that Citizen Kane be considered the greatest film of all time but we should never forget that it is indeed a great film.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > Tom Waits -just fantastic. Sometimes I think this guy is the walking spirit of film noir. Or his music, anyway. Here is just one of many great songs by him, from the very fine album, Rain Dogs. This is "Hang Down Your Head" : > > Tom Waits is like Woody Allen for me: I love Woody Allen but I always forget how great he is until I by chance watch a bit of Hannah and Her Sisters or Bananas on TV. This was a great reminder to get some Tom Waits back into my rotation.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > Here is a beautiful "Sundayish" song from the soundtrack to "O Brother, Where Art Thou?". Lovely faith-filled lyrics, and a very pretty melody. "I'll Fly Away" : > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6JspmVyzVw That's my favorite song from the movie! _________________________________________________________________________________ Big Star - September Gurls: Big Star - Way Out West: Bob Dylan - Boots of Spanish Leather: I believe this is far superior to the very similar and better known Girl From the North Country and I steadfastly believe The Times They Are a Changin' is the best of the first three albums. Dylan started as a mimic in general, then of Woody Guthrie. By this point, he's beginning to do his own thing and his personal/emotional involvement with the material is much greater. The European influence on songs like The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol is a great advancement during this period. This is less a "protest album" than it is an abstract picture of Dylan's isolation and pessimism that would mark his move away from the folk culture of the early 60s. I love the references to Francois Truffaut's Shoot the Piano Player in the liner notes - that's how Dylan felt at the time and it's reflected in this album. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFpXeA7b3dc Talking Heads - Listening Wind: This was a very perceptive song in 1980. I can't think of any other song, at least in the western world, that dared to take the point of view of a terrorist. Not an endorsement of violence but a portrait of desperation and conviction. That it's at the end of an album about the effect of the modern world makes it that much more effective. There's an excellent recent film from the U.K./Ireland called Hunger, about IRA prisoners, that is similar to this song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXUpKmYwnEE Julee Cruise - The World Spins: I have to return to Julee Cruise. I just watched Twin Peaks in its entirety again and the use of this song at the end of the pivotal episode in which we find out who killed Laura Palmer is powerful. The sense of loss, being lost, inevitability, and sorrow is extraordinary. Completely overpowering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNgo-ppXZt0

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > I agree that instead of getting three editions of THE MATRIX or BACK TO THE FUTURE, it would be nice if the art-house crowd was treated to an epic, multi-part series of films that did actual justice to lengthier, more absorbing novels. I agree, the extended narrative is fertile territory that more filmmakers really should take advantage of. We do have Berlin Alexanderplatz, Rainer Werner Fassbinder's 14 part series based on Alfred Doblin's novel. It's superior to the book and worth seeing at least once in its entirety (it's one of my favorite films.) Ingmar Bergman contributed Scenes From a Marriage and Fanny & Alexander. All three began as TV films but showings in theaters have become increasingly prevalent (and in the cases of Bergman, almost standardized.) Krzysztof Kieslowski's Decalogue is like a filmed collection of short stories. It's also from the TV domain but it has been considered on lists of the "greatest films." I'll accept TV movies or series if they are on the level of the best films. On that token, I'll throw David Lynch and Mark Frost's Twin Peaks out there, even if the latter half of season 2 is utterly terrible (due to Lynch and Frost's lack of involvement after the series' raison d'etre was resolved.) No American TV drama can touch the 18 episodes that are fully in the true spirit of the show. And Lynch later made the film Fire Walk With Me, which was intended to get Twin Peaks back to the pitch black heart of the concept the series had amazingly lost in the blink of an eye. Then there's Satyajit Ray's Apu Trilogy and Truffaut's Antoine Doinel films. It's good that The Last Emperor came up in this thread because there has been controversy over the "proper" length of that film. Bernardo Bertolucci considers the original, shorter theatrical cut the "director's cut." As for the original subject: Longer isn't necessarily better but I don't mind length in general. It's all about what you do with what you have. If a shorter length is necessary, don't try to extend it but if the material warrants four hours, it's a must. If it needs to be even longer, I say go for it. Edited by: JonasEB on Aug 29, 2010 3:09 AM

Mikio Naruse really does need some light. Were his films ever distributed in America during the 50s and 60s? I know Ozu didn't really take off here until a large number of his films were finally screened in the early 70s. I can't find any info on whether Naruse ever received similar exposure. I'd guess probably not. A shame. I've been petitioning TCM to show one of several Naruse films.

I'm not offended by anything anyone says here so I don't feel the need to use the ignore option. Big Bopper can say whatever he wants to say in any way he wishes to, however... > {quote:title=Big_Bopper wrote:}{quote} > Cant you see THAT? You are too stupid to know the difference. Are you? > > Nobody is twisting their arm to show fake letterbox. ignorance is not bliss ... except for some of you dreamers. ...If Big Bopper wants to respond this way, anyone has the right to point out the flaws (various) in his reasoning and if they're a bit harsh, I don't care. Civility is a good thing but you don't have to point it out every single time. Nothing was out of control about the discussion and I'm sure no one's going to suffer hurt feelings over a disagreement about TCM showing movies you can get on DVD. You're taking it far too seriously, don't be so sensitive.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > Thanks for not getting upset with me. I don't exactly agree with all the original poster's comments, either. But I do think that we should allow people their opinions. No one is preventing anyone from stating their opinion. Where do you get these ideas? Big Bopper is asking for sarcastic and snide remarks for repeatedly typing things that are demonstrably wrong or misinformed in a demeaning manner. If you're going to police politeness, why haven't you said anything about the insulting comments he has made about others in this thread?

If you think that's bad listen to this: MGM, that famously cash strapped, troubled company that is struggling to get anyone to buy them right now, is releasing Troll 2 on Blu-ray in October.

Hmm, I guess I'll try but it's a tentative list, Nicholas Ray is the definite number one. Nicholas Ray (In a Lonely Place, Johnny Guitar, Rebel Without a Cause, Bigger Than Life) King Vidor (The Crowd, Street Scene, Duel in the Sun) Orson Welles (The Magnificent Ambersons, F For Fake) Yasujiro Ozu (Early Summer, Late Spring) Jean-Luc Godard (Vivre sa Vie, Two or Three Things I Know About Her) David Lynch (Twin Peaks, Inland Empire) Kenji Mizoguchi (Sansho the Bailiff, Street of Shame) Carl Theodor Dreyer (The Passion of Joan of Arc, Ordet) Ingmar Bergman (The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries) Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Age of Innocence)

The Velvet Underground - Candy Says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEVyf6y_-Y4 The Velvet Underground - I'm Set Free: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HS7wXdHSTk Rolling Stones - Backstreet Girl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhLdRwQVBt4 Rolling Stones - She Smiled Sweetly: Rolling Stones - Take it or Leave it:

Quand le film est triste by Sylvie Vartan from Jean-Luc Godard's Une Femme Mariee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjDa1Kx4Tp0

Fantastic. You are aware that True Grit was based on a novel, right?

TCM paid tribute to Hayao Miyazaki in January of 2006 with a month of his films and other Studio Ghibli works. Grave of the Fireflies aired sometime later that year. I don't see TCM doing Japanese animation in general; Miyazaki and Ghibli are on a totally different plain of quality that Japanese animation, and animation in general, very rarely reaches anymore. I liked Akira when I was younger but the most recent time I watched it (I think in 2007) it was unbearable at times (TETSUO! KANEDA! TETSUO! KANEDA!) I think as far as mature, sci-fi animation goes, Ghost in the Shell is far superior; the economy of a good short story, none of the histrionics, fewer cliches, a better visual and general aesthetic sensibility. I'm not saying it definitely shouldn't happen or that it could never happen but I do think that there would be trouble finding enough genuinely good films to show. I think it might be more plausible for TCM to do a month of "Animation From Around the World" and feature Japan in that context.

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > I read your post from 3:28, but it's so full of nitpicking and it would require me to be even more nitpicking to write a detailed response to each of those points. I may be in the mood later to hash over some of this, but not now. Sorry. > > And I definitely refuse to get into a debate about abortion, immigration and wars. This is a forum about classic films. The banning of films is a relevant topic in my book, but political issues that cannot possibly be solved in one day are not relevant to this discussion at all. ClassicViewer, no one suggested that we actually talk in depth about the many potentially extraneous things mentioned in this thread. I said, "Morals and ethics are a contentious issue in this country" in relation to censorship. You responded with, "I don't think moral and ethical standards are contentious among like-minded individuals who belong to groups with the same societal objectives." I listed a variety of things this country has problems with across social, religious, economic boundaries to support my original statement. That doesn't mean we have to start talking about those things in depth, nor was it intended to. If we're going to have a discussion on censorship, we have to discuss the potential uses of negative and positive material, your comment about what I said about communists reading only The Communist Manifesto or Capital (a comment I made in relation to the historical properties of those texts) requires me to explain why I would think that way. > {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > You talk about freedom of speech, but it seems that anyone who advocates something you disagree with, something where you might feel threatened, that is not okay...so you would probably want to silent that viewpoint and go against your own principles. It's impossible to have a conversation or debate if we don't support stances and opinions. Just because there are a lot of anti-censorship people here and you're the only person supporting censorship doesn't mean we're somehow censoring you. No one here has remotely suggested that you have no right to voice your opinion. If you feel that way, I'm sorry. Jamesjazzguitar's request that we refresh the thread starting with a clarifying of your basic opinion is completely reasonable, how can we discuss the topic if we don't know what to discuss? At this point we're only going in circles.