Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932)

[HerrSchreck]

I come from a poor middle class family Dent, and from my understerstanding you-- like me-- are a het.

Seriously, hang on there. Are you telling me that you believe LEDOS more than MK2 diffusion? MK2 is one of the most monstrously excellent co's for transfers-- you're telling me they just flushed the whole restoration down the toilet for no reason? Ledos is (I think, it may be vogler) the same European kid who thought the "dupe" (upscaled) frames you saw when step-framing while watching (on pause) an interlaced film on a progressive player were "extra frames added in by the producer to make the film run at the proper speed." Second hand information from dubious unidentified internet sources citing undiclosed "correspondence" should never be the dealbreaker.

We are interested in the "truth about this important film", not some public ballbusting & competition. Let's get in touch with further sources possibly including Koerber directly, as well as MK2, and get to the bottom of this. If you "win" I'll gladly have the next good silent showing or something at moma or FForum be on me. Deal?

[denti alligator]

We are interested in the "truth about this important film", not some public ballbusting & competition. Let's get in touch with further sources possibly including Koerber directly, as well as MK2, and get to the bottom of this. If you "win" I'll gladly have the next good silent showing or something at moma or FForum be on me. Deal?

Sounds fair to me. A real deal, then.

Well, if Ledos can just "contact" Koerber like that, maybe he'll share his email and we can ask him, officially. Has MK2 done any 1.19 transfers? They fucked up Chaplin's City Lights, didn't they? Why not fuck up this one too?

[Ledos]

I did contact Koerber 'officially' - and provided his answer. I have no desire to quote from emails (especially not without permission) nor post his email address here just because of HerrSchreck's ridiculous insinuations, but you can pretty easily find Koerber's email yourself by Googling. He works at Fachhochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft.

[Ledos]

And really, what's the mystery here? Criterion provided a clip that's about 1.19:1. MK2 released it as 1.33:1 showing less information. Conclusion: MK2 cropped it to fit a standard TV screen. That's not unusual practice. It would, however, be unusual practice to present a clip in 1.19:1 if that wasn't its original format.

[vogler]

Ledos is (I think, it may be vogler) the same European kid who thought the "dupe" (upscaled) frames you saw when step-framing while watching (on pause) an interlaced film on a progressive player were "extra frames added in by the producer to make the film run at the proper speed."

Eh? Don't involve me in your tawdry little arguments.

[Ledos]

Also carldreyer.com shows the original theater program with stills from the film, and they are 1.33

Where exactly do you see this? I can only see the Danish program which shows some pictures at about 1.6:1.

[HerrSchreck]

HERE is the a title shot from the film, provided by the Laser Examiner arm of DVDScan, perhaps the most consistently technically authoritative journals on the web. For those who've seen the film beyond the Shepard abomination, I believe this is the opening where the title whips across the screen almost like spraypaint (I could be wrong, it'sbeen awhile). The screenshot is 530 x 387, which comes out to something like 1.3695XXXX (a perfect 1.37) to one AR. Here is the shot.



Here are the disc vs film specs (it contains a review that blasts the Shepard disc, and they also interview him and call him on it):

Region All (NTSC)
Single Layer / DVD 5
72 Minutes
B/W
AR: 1.33:1 / originally presented in 1.33 : 1 FF
1.0 Dolby Digital Mono in Ger
Subt: in Eng (non-optional)
Extras: 26-minute short "The Mascot" by Ladislas Starewicz
1932 UFA
Catalogue #'s: ID4308DS
Image Entertainment

And here's the review (go to http://dvdscan.com/ to find it under V):

Vampyr is even today one of the most influential films in the horror genre and derives its power from mere suggestion than from splatter. The key is - as with all other Dreyer films - the enormously expressionistic photography, which is filled with refined ideas of the early German masters, especially F.W. Murnau. The film is unfortunatly so far only available on DVD in the 1988 transfer made from very poor elements by David Shepard, who even went a step further in subtitling the few words spoken in German with a huge matte and a medieval font which fills to great a portion of the screen.

In other words, it is very distracting from the mood of the picture. All the original intertitles and title cards at the beginning have been removed or were not in the print, which is at times badly decomposed and often jumps out of the frame when reel gauge marks are missing to "guide" the print through the telecine. Because the elements are decomposed, desity and detail as well as gray scale are far from adequate. In many instances the photography is no longer represented in its original form as detail is simply gone.

The sound of the DVD is just as poor as the film is visually on this disc. But there is hope: there are much better elements available, restored in 2001. During a discussion on the net Criterion at first signaled a release, but Janus Films has no longer the title in their catalogue. That leaves the Shepard version on the market as the only version available, with the grandest film of Dreyer next to Passion of Joan Of Arc still waiting to be released in the restored form, which has yet to be shown on TV either. But, once it will be out there, it will be very much worth the wait ...

The reason it would be odd for MK2 to "crop" this disc is that they are not doing telecine-- they are presumably licensing a master tape from whoever holds the rights to and commisioned Koerbers resto. Cropping most notoriously occurs in the telecine gate, where the AR shape, and image borders are created. My guess is that this was the problem with the Chaplin resto, whereby they & WB (I don't know who did the resto ie if MK2 or they simply licensed a digibeta as they are doing here, in fact I believe LImagine Ritrovata was involved) had to deal with theAR that was on the tape. To have your image reshaped after it's been put on tape would be highly unusual, especially for a high quality group like MK2. The fact that WB stuck with that hemmed in 1.37 for their Chaplin tells me this was what was on the tape.

Ledos it's nothing to get furious about. If the whole of this site were looking to get to the bottom of a film as beloved, long-abused, and badly wanted as VAMPYR and it's notorious resto, I would hope that some unnamed soul on the internet-- who says he spoke to someone but will provide no proof of a claim which contradicts all public information-- wouldn't be the last word for you either. Not you I or Dent could solve this discussion with second or third hand information. I take it you're most upset about the silent film frames thing... You're a bright guy with good taste in film, but I think sometiimes your enthusiasm sees you getting a little ahead of yourself. But I can't help it that I can't let your unverified word be the deal-closer on this one. Too much visual and historical evidence (and present-release info) points the other way.

[denti alligator]

I don't think Ledos would lie about something like this. Seems unlikely, and there's plenty of evidence besides this "semi"-official confirmation from Koerber that the film is 1.19. Let's wait for the MoC edition to be certain! They'll get it right. In fact, peerpee, you might chime in here and tell us what the knowledgable people at MoC have to say about the AR. This of course would not be taken in any way as a sign that a DVD of the film would be forthcoming from your label.

[Tommaso]

All convincing points here, but again, how do you explain the 1.19 ratio on the Criterion if the film was shot in 1.33 and apparently nothing is missing on the sides in the CC screen grab? And whatever the ratio was, it is obvious that the MK2 is cropped in comparison to the CC. The question is just, how much, and whether a cropping to 1.37 for theatrical exposition was indeed perhaps intended in the framing (and I find David's argument quite convincing). In any case I think/hope, judging from other Dreyer works, that the framing wasn't as tight as in other films (e.g. Pabst's "Kameradschaft", whose misframed dvd edition is close to unwatchable because of the chopped heads). Even the completely misframed CC "Gertrud" remains watchable, surprisingly.

[peerpee]

Fascinating reading everyone. I hope to add some definitive information to this discussion in late April.

[Tommaso]

More and exciting words from the oracle (the MoC IS in the making, I guess). Please give us the info before we all order the MK2 on May 2nd...

[Ledos]

All convincing points here, but again, how do you explain the 1.19 ratio on the Criterion if the film was shot in 1.33 and apparently nothing is missing on the sides in the CC screen grab? And whatever the ratio was, it is obvious that the MK2 is cropped in comparison to the CC.

Exactly. We know that the MK2 is cropped. And if Vampyr was originally 1.33:1, why wouldn't MK2 just present it that way, instead of cropping it to a smaller 1.33:1 picture? But it appears that logical arguments do not bite.

Just for the record, I did not post Koerber's reply directly as I am of principle not quoting private emails in a public forum (it's not very quotable anyway - it's a short, one-line answer to a short question). Even if I posted it, it wouldn't make any difference to HerrSchreck - I could still have manufactured the text myself.

[HerrSchreck]

All convincing points here, but again, how do you explain the 1.19 ratio on the Criterion if the film was shot in 1.33 and apparently nothing is missing on the sides in the CC screen grab? And whatever the ratio was, it is obvious that the MK2 is cropped in comparison to the CC. The question is just, how much, and whether a cropping to 1.37 for theatrical exposition was indeed perhaps intended in the framing (and I find David's argument quite convincing). In any case I think/hope, judging from other Dreyer works, that the framing wasn't as tight as in other films (e.g. Pabst's "Kameradschaft", whose misframed dvd edition is close to unwatchable because of the chopped heads). Even the completely misframed CC "Gertrud" remains watchable, surprisingly.

First-- a correction to myself: my screenshot from DVDSCAN is not the opening shot. It must be a snap from the trailer or a lobby card. I forgot my girlfriend has the BRD Trilogy from CC so I threw it on to clear up these questions about a "1.19 cap from CC." (First off the they are not a neat & clean 1.19, they are 1.22, at least that was the allegation, which, if the rest of the cap is not cropped, cannot be 1.19 for simple reasons of geometry.. knowing CC and-- their notorious history of cropping-- it doesn't prove anything. And more importantly, that is a terrible grab, with a tremendous amount of screen border heightening the grab and distorting the OAR of the movie image-- take another look at it HERE, and observe all the dead blackness on the bottom making a calculation of the OAR completely unreliable. Watch the doc-- it's a 1.33 image.)

In DANCING WITH DEATH there is extensive footage from VAMPYR (there also is footage from VAMPYR in MY METIER in the CC Dreyer Box, and, although cropped on top & bottom to maintain the widescreen format of the rest of the film, there is no "air" on either side.. further evidence of a presumed 1.33 on this). This is what I've found:

The title screen (with the VAMPYR logo) has a thin black stripe running down the side-- I don't know why. Perhaps it is evidence of a 1.19 film. But all scenes of the film that follow (including the scene mentioned with Schmitz begging for deat, where the aperture marks were noted) it is a straight 1.33 transfer with the occasional appearance of a tiny line of a pixel or two on the left hand side. This may be the result of a very very very slight shrinking of the image to get a 1.37 to fit on a 1.33 screen.

VERY compelling to me is that on the CC transfer of TANZ/TODT two things are visible on the 1.33 image: aperture marks on the right side, lens hairs on the bottom (if they were hairs in the telecine gate they'd be visible for at least the rest of the reel in question, but they are not-- therefore they must be dirt/etc on the lens itself), showing us that we are at times seeing all of the top, all of the right side and all of the bottom. If those hairs on the bottom are on the lens, and we are seeing it simultaneously with an upper right aperture mark, and there is no "air" on the left side-- the case is quite simply closed. There's no way you could see all the way to the top, all the way to the righthand side, and all the way to the bottom, and not have a huge black stripe running down the leftside and have it be 1.19. Simple geometrical laws governing OAR's disallow it.

Just for the record, I did not post Koerber's reply directly as I am of principle not quoting private emails in a public forum (it's not very quotable anyway - it's a short, one-line answer to a short question).

You already quoted it, so I don't understand the reluctance over this completely impersonal & inocuous topic which you have already "betrayed" (!?) your correspondence over.

Even if I posted it, it wouldn't make any difference to HerrSchreck - I could still have manufactured the text myself.

This is precisely the emotional investment (& shoulder-chip) in dry fact that makes me leery of you from jump.

Eh? Don't involve me in your tawdry little arguments.

I thought this was a historically fascinating topic on an elusive & compelling subject.

"Tawdry"

[HerrSchreck]

From the German Film Institute (DIF)'s FilmPortal.de monograph on VAMPYR (created after 2005 along with the site itself which was launched with seed funds from the Murnau Stiftung... after Koerber's '01 resto-- note in the second quote that the heads of Kirchmedia, the FW Murnau Stiftung, the Deutsche Kinematek, Kinograph Montreal as well as Hamburg, and various other cultural and German University heads constitute the advisory council on the site's content):

The Specs:

VAMPYR
Frankreich / Deutschland 1931/1932, Spielfilm

Regie: Carl Theodor Dreyer
Regie-Assistenz: Eliane Tayard, Ralph Holm
Dialog-Regie: Paul Falkenberg (deutsche Fassung)
Drehbuch: Christen Jul, Carl Theodor Dreyer
Vorlage: Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu (Roman "In a Glass Darkly")
Kamera: Rudolph Maté, Louis Née (ungenannt)
Bauten: Hermann Warm, Cesare Silvagni (ungenannt)
Set Design: Hermann Warm (Künstlerischer Beirat)
Schnitt: Tonka Taldy
Ton-Schnitt: Paul Falkenberg (deutsche Fassung)
Ton: Hans Bittmann
Musik: Wolfgang Zeller

Darsteller

Baron Nicolas de Gunzburg: Allan Gray
Maurice Schutz: Schloßherr
Rena Mandel: Jüngere Tochter des Schloßherrn Gisèle
Sybille Schmitz: Ältere Tochter des Schloßherrn Léone
Jan Hieronimko: Dorfarzt Dr. Marc
Henriette Gérard: Marguerite Chopin
Albert Gras: Alter Diener
N. Babanini: Frau des alten Dieners
Jane Mora: Krankenschwester

Produktionsfirma: Carl Theodor Dreyer Film Production (Paris), Mafilm Objektív Stúdió (Budapest)
in Zusammenarbeit: Tobis-Melofilm GmbH (Berlin) mit Produzent Baron Nicolas de Gunzburg, Carl Theodor Dreyer
Produktionsleitung: Carl Theodor Dreyer
Erstverleih: Vereinigte Star-Film GmbH (Berlin)

Länge: 2271 m, 83 min
Format: 35mm, 1:1,33
Bild/Ton: s/w, Ton
Prüfung/Zensur: Zensur (DE): 02.05.1932, Nr. B.31508, Jugendverbot [E. keine FSK = ohne Jugendfreigabe]
Aufführung: Uraufführung: 06.05.1932, Berlin, U.T. kurfürstendamm

The Sources:

The Advisory Council

filmportal.de's advisory council was established on July 21st, 2003. The council members advise the Deutsche Filminstitut with constructing the portal. They bring in alternative points of view, help to identify the users' needs and participate in checking the possibilities for cooperating with producers, distributors, TV stations and publishers.

The Council's Members

Georgia Tornow: (Chairwoman) Secretary-general, film 20 - Interessensgemeinschaft Filmproduktion (film-production syndicate)
Friedemann Beyer: (Deputy Chairman) Executive Director, Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung
Christian Dorsch: Executive Director, German Films Service + Marketing GmbH
Dr. Elke Esser: Executive Director, Cineropa
Thomas Frickel: Executive Director, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Dokumentarfilm e.V. (The German Documentary Association)
Paul Leo Giani: Expert on media law and consultant at dctp
Prof. Dr. Norbert Grob: Film Studies, Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz
Wolfgang Jurgan: Executive Director, DEGETO-Film
Johannes Klingsporn: Executive Director, Association of Distributors
Prof. Karl Prümm: Institute for Contemporary German Literature and Media, Philipps-Universität Marburg
Paul Reichl: Head of film archive, KirchMedia GmbH & Co. KgaA
Dr. Rainer Rother: Artistic Director, Deutsche Kinemathek - Museum für Film und Fernsehen
Ulrike Schauz: Head of the Media and Film Policy Division at the Beauftragter der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien (BKM) (Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media)
Claudius Seidl: Editor feature pages, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung
Michael Töteberg: Member of the board, CineGraph, Hamburgisches Centrum fuer Filmforschung
Oliver Trettin: Deputy Chairman, Bundesverband audiovisuelle Medien (BVV) (Federal Associaton Audiovisual Media)
Frank Völkert: Director of administration, FFA - Filmfoerderungsanstalt (federal public institute for the promotion of film)
Christiane von Wahlert: Executive Director, Spitzenorganisation der Filmwirtschaft (SPIO) (leading organization of the film-industry)
Rudolf Worschech: Editor in chief, epd Film

More on this most complete, authoritative & up-to-date of online (or offline!) sources concerning German film and preservation/restoration HERE.

[vogler]

Eh? Don't involve me in your tawdry little arguments.

I thought this was a historically fascinating topic on an elusive & compelling subject.

"Tawdry"

There's nothing wrong with the subject - it's you that's tawdry with your internet bully persona (not quite as bad as usual here actually) . The point was that I don't want to be dragged into an argument with a quote/statement being erroneously attributed to me.

[HerrSchreck]

I don't want to be dragged into an argument

Put your hand on the bible and swear... with the needling you're actually doing a great imitation of an dude in the ring with gloves & trunks on raring to go.

[Ledos]

More on this most complete, authoritative & up-to-date of online (or offline!) sources concerning German film and preservation/restoration HERE

Your faith in the authoritativeness of online DVD reviews and film databases is cute, but for your information I'm well aware of filmportal.de. It is a comprehensive and usable database, but it is neither complete, authoritative nor error-free. It's a database in continuous progress, maintained by DIF and CineGraph. If you're researching information on film you'll find that these two honourable institutions are at times not in agreement on information (see John T. Soister's biography of Conrad Veidt for a number of examples), and even though CineGraph is involved (generally the most reliable source in cases of disagreements) the entries on filmportal.de are at times less complete and contradictory to the information found in CineGraph's own databases.

As for the authoritativeness of filmportal's information on aspect ratio, I suggest you immediately write to Criterion and ask them why they released Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse in the wrong format 1.19:1 when it should have been 1.37:1:

Länge 12 Akte, 3334 m, 122 min
Format 35mm, 1:1,37
Bild/Ton s/w, Tobis-Klangfilm

[HerrSchreck]

Do me a favor then and tell Vogler that I'm cute; he thinks I'm tawdry. (Though he so emphatically disassociated with your words, I dunno he'll come to the door..)

You uncovered a flaw in the portal-- it may mean genuinely mean something (at least about the portal for sure it means something pretty sad: they didn't edit the CD-ROM entry for this film-- though most of the others like LATALANTIDE & M & BLUE ANGEL etc are updated-- in their old film file from 2000). But there are no "CC caps" anywhere near 1.19. And my personal re-viewing of MY METIER & DANCER/DEATH shows me a title screen in somewhere between 1.19 & 1.3, and the rest of the footage in 1.33. I still don't have the answer on this. The lens hairs on the bottom and the aperture on the upper right, and no huge black stripe on the right screams the loudest so far to me.

EDIT: and this is the point right here (then I'm signing off of this subject until some personal research comes back to me in quotable form, because this attention to OT juvenile angst is so unwarranted getting embarassing.. and headed for it's own silly thread):

Your faith in the authoritativeness of online DVD reviews and film databases is cute

EXACTLY. You're ridiculing me for having faith in a joint effort between all the leading substantive archive/restoration houses in greater germany.... but are furious that I don't take the deliberately unproven word of some anonymous and internet poster-- you-- called Ledos.

This should drive home the point of my caution clearer than a cloudless sky on a pink Alaska morning.

[Ledos]

EXACTLY. You're ridiculing me for having faith in a joint effort between all the leading substantive archive/restoration houses in greater germany.... but are furious that I don't take the deliberately unproven word of some anonymous and internet poster-- you-- called Ledos.

Oh, I'm not furious at all. And I do realize that stating Koerber's opinion with no quotes given is not enough to settle a bet where entire DVD collections are at stake. It would require a more direct source. But I'm not part of the bet, and I don't have personal interest in what your believe is on the OAR. If your conviction was that important I would email Koerber again asking for his permission to post it publicly. I am, however, not going to bother him for something like that when he already answered my question.

I wrote it here because I thought the answer would be of interest to the participants of the forum. The non-believers can just as easily ask the same question if they want certainty, or something to post publicly.

This should drive home the point of my caution clearer than a cloudless sky on a pink Alaska morning.

Actually it rather demonstrates that your bullshit radar is not working properly. You're claiming that I might have made it all up. Reality check: it would be the silliest thing to lie about such a case; making up a fact about the OAR (with the risk of being wrong), then posting it to to make it look like the opinion of a film restorer. A named filmed restorer who anyone can contact themselves and ask the same question.

Your 'scepticism' is rooted in your personal prejudices, nothing else.

[der_Artur]

And the thread comes full circle back to where it came from... The differences and corrections on the page of the "Deutsches Film Institut" were already mentioned by steven H and me on page 2.
I open an other round!

[dadaistnun]

Website dedicated to Sybille Schmitz.

[ltfontaine]

Website dedicated to Sybille Schmitz.

Vampyr was no box office blockbuster, but it rankles to see the film characterized as a "flop" in which Schmitz was the lone redeeming feature. (Not that she isn't great in her limited role.)

[Tommaso]

I received my MK2 "Vampyr" yesterday, just two days after release from amazon.fr (these guys are REALLY fast), so a few comments seem appropriate:

In short, this restoration is close to GLORIOUS. It still doesn't look perfect, but that was to be expected as the original negatives don't exist and the Murnau-Stiftung had to patch this together from existing prints, but they did a great job. Very little damage, audio cleaned up, and a very good looking picture, with good but not overmuch grain. Contrast looks perfect (especially important for the increasing 'drift to white' in the course of the film), detail is good though limited because of the way the film was shot and also perhaps of the materials used (this wasn't an expensive production for 1932 standards). On the restored version, for the first time it's possible to actually see the difference between those images shot 'normally' and those intentionally blurred by Dreyer using over-exposition and a gauze filter, and especially the various degrees of blurryness (on the unrestored print I've seen years ago on German TV everything was equally blurred, scratchy and even patched together from different language versions, I guess that's the print used for the Shepard disc). Also, of course, the original intertitles are preserved here, much adding to the overall feel of the film. This has always been my favourite Dreyer, and I'm so happy that this edition now exists. It's almost like seeing the film for the first time.

Now to the aspect ratio question: well, I hate to say it, but I still can't make my mind up after seeing it. Nothing is cropped in the intertitles, and almost nothing in the shots that show the text from the book on vampires, both of which would indicate that 1.33 is correct. On the other hand, there are indeed some scenes where heads are slightly cut off. There is one scene which has a painting in the background showing a standing person, and on that painting the head is missing, which doesn't look intentional to me and thus would suggest 1.19. The framing looks rather tight in general, but if one thinks of "Jeanne d'Arc", this again is not unusual for Dreyer of course. So: I don't know, really. In any case, the cropping is NEVER disturbing (quite unlike, for instance, on the disc of Pabst's "Kameradschaft"), and even if doubts remain, this MK2 disc is a must have for anyone even only remotely interested in Dreyer's works. I was completely spellbound by the film again, and as usual wasn't able to really follow the story line because of the hypnotic power of those images...

As to extras: not much, despite this being a 2 disc-set. A brief 15 min. piece in French introducing the film, and two scenes in a longer version as an appendix (these scenes had been cut due to censorship in the German release version, but survived uncut in a French print. I'm sure I had seen them before in that horrible old version I had on VHS, and not much difference here anyway). Apart from this, "They caught the ferry" and on the whole of the second disc, "My metier" (this is the third time I have those two films now...) plus some interviews I'm sure are on the Criterion disc of that documentary. All subs are removable, but they're only in French. But still, if you don't absolutely need English subs (and "Vampyr" has very little dialogue, and it's not very relevant anyway), trash your Shepard disc and buy this one, unless MoC announce their version for immediate release. The best way to spend 20 Euros filmwise I can think of.

[BenCheshire]

I've ony seen it once but I adore this film, I'd love to see the restoration, the copy I saw was very atmospheric but hard to make out in places.

[Rich Malloy]

Fascinating reading everyone. I hope to add some definitive information to this discussion in late April.

Would this be a reference to an upcoming MoC release (and please forgive me if this is old news to everyone but myself)?

I'm just trying to determine if I can hold out on purchasing the Mk2 release any longer... re-reading Tommaso's post has agitated my Dreyer love, as well as all my deeply ingrained consumerist tendencies.