Random question, was the MGM of Thief of Baghdad single or dual layered (there a website that lists that sort of information for DVDs, i.e. how much disc space is being used, etc.)?
Nice to see the CC package is impressive, regardless of further developments in the image quality comparison with the MGM.
431 The Thief of Bagdad
-
Gary Tooze
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:07 am
- Contact:
-
CSM126
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:22 pm
- Location: The Room
- Contact:
-
Shrew
- The Untamed One
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:22 am
My guess is that they didn't picturebox certain titles with an eye toward a Blu-Ray release. I'm assuming Blu-Ray players don't really have overhead problems.
That or the transfer of this was done a long time ago, before pictureboxing became routine, and there were just waiting to get some supplements like the Commentary.
That or the transfer of this was done a long time ago, before pictureboxing became routine, and there were just waiting to get some supplements like the Commentary.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
It seems far more likely that the longer Criterion's been sitting on a title, the better it's chances are of not being pictureboxed.CSM126 wrote:It's getting to be comedy the way beaver triumphantly states "Criterion have finally abandoned pictureboxing" only to be proven wrong like a month later. Maybe we should just realize they're completely schizophrenic with it.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
That's disappointing. I was looking forward to hearing what their interaction would be like. As long as the commentary edits aren't too choppy it should still be fascinating.domino harvey wrote:Beaver
Looks like Coppola and Scorsese were recorded separately
-
Narshty
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:27 pm
- Location: London, UK
-
Narshty
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:27 pm
- Location: London, UK
From that DVDTalk review:
What is he talking about? The transfer is still a benchmark (and I believe made it over to Network's UK disc, which looks deliriously gorgeous).MGM released a bargain basement DVD of the film years ago [...] which was fine for its day, though the transfer was obviously off a somewhat damaged print.
-
Cronenfly
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:04 pm
DVD Savant on the Criterion disc; as far as A/V goes, Erickson has this to say:
Criterion's 2-disc The Thief of Bagdad is an improvement over MGM's 2002 budget-priced release. That disc had a good-looking picture but its track was heavily compressed and distorted. A few isolated shots in this new encoding have Technicolor registration problems, and the same light grain is visible overall, but this is still the first really satisfying home video presentation of this title.
-
HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
I disagree-- the colors look too FOXy to me. If the mgm wasn't truly satisfying, then Glenn's Technicolor Receptors have been worn down as dulldesensitized as a bus station pay toilet ho's mo.
Kidding Glenn. They look close, but the CC looks too monochromatic and blunts the lushness of Perinals eyepoppingly vibrant photography.
Kidding Glenn. They look close, but the CC looks too monochromatic and blunts the lushness of Perinals eyepoppingly vibrant photography.
-
Cronenfly
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:04 pm
It was indeed the audio Erickson took offence with; from his MGM disc review:
The audio isn't as fine as I had hoped. It's a bit distorted overall, with slightly heavier distortion in the louder base section. There was an earlier laser disc that I thought had a clearer track, but it's possible the offending strata were just rolled off. The American 35mm prints I've seen, and the 16mm prints, were distorted as well. Let me stress that this flaw is minor one. MGM apparently didn't have access to an audio element to match its good picture.
-
Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 2:09 pm
I have just received my set and popped in the first disc to see how it fares compared to the MGM. I also perceive a very slight difference in vibrancy (with the MGM looking actually a little more intriguing), but I have the feeling that this difference doesn't come so much from colour registration but rather from brightness levels and/or contrast settings (with the MGM having a little bit more contrast perhaps). Skin tones seem to look more natural on the CC on the other hand, but there's definitely more grain visible on the CC.
It's too bad that Gary seems to have changed his caps after Schreck "stole his bandwith", so that the caps that Schreck posted above don't correspond to those at the Beaver at the moment. The Beaver also posted a commentary by someone claiming that the primary colours which are so strong on the MGM are not quite fitting for an ENGLISH technicolor film. I have no idea whether that statement is accurate (at least for this film).
So, I'm actually somewhat at a loss and might keep the MGM in addition to the CC (though I normally hate to have more than one disc of a particular film), but I think I have to watch the whole of the film (not likely to happen any time soon, probably) to make up my mind. The CC looks great by any standards, but the MGM might look better or at least looks even more pleasing. The difference isn't huge, though, and considering the extras on the CC, it's probably the better choice. But still I wonder whether this might not be another example of CC missing ever so slightly when it comes to rendering older colour films correctly.
It's too bad that Gary seems to have changed his caps after Schreck "stole his bandwith", so that the caps that Schreck posted above don't correspond to those at the Beaver at the moment. The Beaver also posted a commentary by someone claiming that the primary colours which are so strong on the MGM are not quite fitting for an ENGLISH technicolor film. I have no idea whether that statement is accurate (at least for this film).
So, I'm actually somewhat at a loss and might keep the MGM in addition to the CC (though I normally hate to have more than one disc of a particular film), but I think I have to watch the whole of the film (not likely to happen any time soon, probably) to make up my mind. The CC looks great by any standards, but the MGM might look better or at least looks even more pleasing. The difference isn't huge, though, and considering the extras on the CC, it's probably the better choice. But still I wonder whether this might not be another example of CC missing ever so slightly when it comes to rendering older colour films correctly.
-
Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 2:09 pm
You make a strong case for the Criterion BN, David, though it's hard to look only at the colours, considering all the other intrusive weaknesses of the CC transfer. I don't have the Nouveaux, but the Network, and I never felt it was too dark or not vibrant enough, though.
Apart from fully agreeing about "The River" (probably the most gorgeous Technicolor transfer I've ever seen anywhere, and that includes the MGM "Thief"), I would speak up for another much maligned CC disc, the Cardiff transfer of "The Red Shoes". While the print is in obvious need of restoration, I always thought that what you said about BN also applies there: it has all the wonderful light and shade plus the vibrancy (though not 'naturalness') that is sorely missing in the Carlton disc of that film. The Carlton lets you enjoy the ballet sequence, but the CC makes it a psychedelic experience. And Moira of course looks even more stunning with her hair being REALLY red.
Apart from fully agreeing about "The River" (probably the most gorgeous Technicolor transfer I've ever seen anywhere, and that includes the MGM "Thief"), I would speak up for another much maligned CC disc, the Cardiff transfer of "The Red Shoes". While the print is in obvious need of restoration, I always thought that what you said about BN also applies there: it has all the wonderful light and shade plus the vibrancy (though not 'naturalness') that is sorely missing in the Carlton disc of that film. The Carlton lets you enjoy the ballet sequence, but the CC makes it a psychedelic experience. And Moira of course looks even more stunning with her hair being REALLY red.
-
HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
Well this is a legendary issue regarding technicolor in the digital era. Memories are fading among non-archive employees what imbibition technicolor actually looked like back inna day. And idiotic tropes like "British techniclor was more restrained than it's american counterpart" thrives in deaf brains... (notwithstanding the film was shot by a journeyman Frenchman master cinematographer, finished production in Hollywood/labs, etc, is photographed deliberately , and with sets painted deliberately as a lush fanstasmic orgasm of color-overload, etc), as though they all said to themselves "yes we could amp up our color to register the deep hues we painted our sets with, and yes even though the technology is here and in fact rote now for the medium, and even though it would correspond to the fantastic nature of the film, we must first and foremost remember we are Brits who Do Not Not Restrain Ourselves When Engaging The Medium of Techniclor". Absurd.
Over on the House of Wax/Mystery Wax Museum thread for the wonderful WB flipper, I wrote,
As I havent seen the CC Thief in motion I'd of course reserve final judgement, but the images look very colorized-monochrome-ish, like the Fox Tyrone Power Collection. To keep the thread title from becoming Thief of Bandwidth, I'll post a link instead of dropping a cap: caps here.
But I'd take the true high volume of genuine nitrate IB techni over the tendency of modern day telecine operators to subdue further the huge loss of color temperature and depth in modern safety prints of older IB's. Too many supervisors are going for naturalism, or the look of modern color or say late 50's-70's eastmancolor. The River is indeed a triumph, as is The Red Shoes.. I absolutely agree with Tom. I find Blimp exiliarating as well in terms of transfer-- this in the zone of CC timing and volumizing IB era technicolor source materials. But they can be very hit or miss. Generally, as time goes on, I'm finding myself more impressed with the work of Maria Palazzola over Lee "Dig My Life" Kline (who learned the ropes under her tutelage anyhow). But Palazzola supvervised/Greg Garvin operated transfers tend to be in complete respect of the source materials' pedigree, while Kline tends to here and there stake radical claims in questionable territories to call attention to his decision making process-- resulting in visual overhauls where they are unnecc.
Naturalism in Techniclor, while clearly approached in post 1953 cases, simply didnt happen during the classic 3-strip years. When 3 strip was toned down, and gradients and secondaries were attempted in stabs at "real life", color breathing became all the more apparent, timing issues screamed and flesh tones and yellows and green/browns became vomitous, especially in the wrong hands. I always think of Henri Rousseau's tripped out jungles of color when I think of techniclor at it's best. It seemed, back then during the 40's & fifties as huge budget films revolved around 3-strip epics determined to get IB "right", the process involved rendering backgrounds with massive swaths of primary (and secondaries in the blue/red zones) colors amped up to huge magnitudes... and by contrast the softer pinks & reds of flesh hues came off-- by contrast, the softness registered appropriately soft. Much physiology of the eye involved there, the way makeup/fashion folks play hair/makeup/dresses/eye-color off one another with each color element critical, in terms of interplay between elements, of the overall success of the endeavor. SO much of techniclor, of making it work, of having it resgister psychologically pleasing to the eye, relied on getting one half-ass color to play off of a blazing primary or secondary. Look at a film like Dr Cyclops. The flesh hues in this film are weak as grandmother's ass-- but thrown against the raging greens, incredibly deep, vibrating, lush, iradiated greens-- the flesh hue works. Isolated on it's own its a pale vomitous yellow/buff.
This interplay is the triumph of The River-- incredibly, never having worked with color film before, Renoir simply knew the rules before coming in... either that or he learned it fast on the scene and instinctuall in his head. His rushes when they did come were simple b&w. He could not see what he was doing on any significant basis, if at all. Painting lawns deep green to make the greens register greener. Throwing up primary color linens to dry, against which weaker-registering colors comprising the action in the forefront (pale faces vs the vibrant browns of the natives, pale white/light blue housdresses) would play brilliantly. This brilliant visceral understanding between Jean & Claude no doubt led the labs receiving the rushes to exclaim that this was the finest techni work they'd yet seen. You'd swear it was a film on which Natalie Kalmus consulted on with heaviest psychological-aesthetic involvement-- but the boys winged it alone with crappola budget and on sheer intelligence and understanding not only the functionality of color, but the pitfalls and glories of technicolor itself. And in the vintage era, the greatest pitfall would be to go subdued, to go for naturalism.
This deep, lush, often gaudy temp of The Red Shoes, makes the faithful rendition on the CC absolutely the superior transfer in my opinion... at least as it stands now until new photochem treatment is in evidence.
Over on the House of Wax/Mystery Wax Museum thread for the wonderful WB flipper, I wrote,
A very frightening comment (Color balance on this 65 year old release is a bit tenuous. For the most part it looks agreeable but has moments of intense vibrancy that don't really resemble reality. ), coming as it does from one perceieved by many the gold star arbiter of transfer quality...I wrote: (...) On one hand (I have the flipper double feature, the only way to go.. on a good hi res tube screen you get a duplication of the 3D effect of HOUSE) I think the MYSTERY transfer is good, on another hand it's blue & pinked till the cows come home. I always thought restoration of THE BLACK PIRATE on dvd a nice example of what the 2-strip process can do in hinting at other colors besides blue & red.
On the artificiality of early technicolor I just read the most hilarious quote from Gary for his review of MOON OVER MIAMI:
beev wrote:: Color balance on this 65 year old release is a bit tenuous. For the most part it looks agreeable but has moments of intense vibrancy that don't really resemble reality.
1940 3 strip, and he's expecting resemblance of reality?
This is what I'm talking about viz dvd transfers nowadays no longer looking like film. This man wants the charm of ancient technicolor to be manipulated out of itself. God forbid Powell & Pressberger. Reality? STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN? THE RED SHOES???
As I havent seen the CC Thief in motion I'd of course reserve final judgement, but the images look very colorized-monochrome-ish, like the Fox Tyrone Power Collection. To keep the thread title from becoming Thief of Bandwidth, I'll post a link instead of dropping a cap: caps here.
But I'd take the true high volume of genuine nitrate IB techni over the tendency of modern day telecine operators to subdue further the huge loss of color temperature and depth in modern safety prints of older IB's. Too many supervisors are going for naturalism, or the look of modern color or say late 50's-70's eastmancolor. The River is indeed a triumph, as is The Red Shoes.. I absolutely agree with Tom. I find Blimp exiliarating as well in terms of transfer-- this in the zone of CC timing and volumizing IB era technicolor source materials. But they can be very hit or miss. Generally, as time goes on, I'm finding myself more impressed with the work of Maria Palazzola over Lee "Dig My Life" Kline (who learned the ropes under her tutelage anyhow). But Palazzola supvervised/Greg Garvin operated transfers tend to be in complete respect of the source materials' pedigree, while Kline tends to here and there stake radical claims in questionable territories to call attention to his decision making process-- resulting in visual overhauls where they are unnecc.
Naturalism in Techniclor, while clearly approached in post 1953 cases, simply didnt happen during the classic 3-strip years. When 3 strip was toned down, and gradients and secondaries were attempted in stabs at "real life", color breathing became all the more apparent, timing issues screamed and flesh tones and yellows and green/browns became vomitous, especially in the wrong hands. I always think of Henri Rousseau's tripped out jungles of color when I think of techniclor at it's best. It seemed, back then during the 40's & fifties as huge budget films revolved around 3-strip epics determined to get IB "right", the process involved rendering backgrounds with massive swaths of primary (and secondaries in the blue/red zones) colors amped up to huge magnitudes... and by contrast the softer pinks & reds of flesh hues came off-- by contrast, the softness registered appropriately soft. Much physiology of the eye involved there, the way makeup/fashion folks play hair/makeup/dresses/eye-color off one another with each color element critical, in terms of interplay between elements, of the overall success of the endeavor. SO much of techniclor, of making it work, of having it resgister psychologically pleasing to the eye, relied on getting one half-ass color to play off of a blazing primary or secondary. Look at a film like Dr Cyclops. The flesh hues in this film are weak as grandmother's ass-- but thrown against the raging greens, incredibly deep, vibrating, lush, iradiated greens-- the flesh hue works. Isolated on it's own its a pale vomitous yellow/buff.
This interplay is the triumph of The River-- incredibly, never having worked with color film before, Renoir simply knew the rules before coming in... either that or he learned it fast on the scene and instinctuall in his head. His rushes when they did come were simple b&w. He could not see what he was doing on any significant basis, if at all. Painting lawns deep green to make the greens register greener. Throwing up primary color linens to dry, against which weaker-registering colors comprising the action in the forefront (pale faces vs the vibrant browns of the natives, pale white/light blue housdresses) would play brilliantly. This brilliant visceral understanding between Jean & Claude no doubt led the labs receiving the rushes to exclaim that this was the finest techni work they'd yet seen. You'd swear it was a film on which Natalie Kalmus consulted on with heaviest psychological-aesthetic involvement-- but the boys winged it alone with crappola budget and on sheer intelligence and understanding not only the functionality of color, but the pitfalls and glories of technicolor itself. And in the vintage era, the greatest pitfall would be to go subdued, to go for naturalism.
This deep, lush, often gaudy temp of The Red Shoes, makes the faithful rendition on the CC absolutely the superior transfer in my opinion... at least as it stands now until new photochem treatment is in evidence.
-
Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 2:09 pm
Great post, Schreck. Well, it's surprising how misleading a comparison based on screen caps alone can be. Look at Gary's Red Shoes caps. Only based on 'realism' of skin tones, the Institut Lumiere disc would be deemed the best, Carlton quite good and CC completely off. I haven't seen the Lumiere, but in motion poor Moira frequently looks anemic even in the Carlton version (and I don't want to see the Lumiere...), but is pure sparkling wonder on the CC.
Yesterday evening I quickly watched the Harryhausen et al. interviews on the special effects of "Thief" (not an overly significant docu, but nice), and based on the excerpts from the film there (without side-by-side comparison to MGM) I had no quibbles at all about the CC version. It surely didn't look monochromatic, and had great clarity and detail. Of course this doesn't signify much, because the actual transfer might be different to those excerpts. Ahmm... perhaps I'll watch "Thief" sooner than I planned to come to conclusions. I'll report back.
Yesterday evening I quickly watched the Harryhausen et al. interviews on the special effects of "Thief" (not an overly significant docu, but nice), and based on the excerpts from the film there (without side-by-side comparison to MGM) I had no quibbles at all about the CC version. It surely didn't look monochromatic, and had great clarity and detail. Of course this doesn't signify much, because the actual transfer might be different to those excerpts. Ahmm... perhaps I'll watch "Thief" sooner than I planned to come to conclusions. I'll report back.
-
MadJack
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:21 pm
Pardon my ignorance (if applicable), but as to the 'restrained' nature of Brit technicolour films compared with the US, I remember reading somewhere (Freddie Young's, or Jack Cardiff's book?) that the air made a big difference. Like the air density affected the light etc, thus making the colours muted, less bright (?).
To me it kinda makes sense, as the P&P's and others of that era look noticeable different, but that might just be due to their preferences, the DPs, hell, even the restoration process.
To me it kinda makes sense, as the P&P's and others of that era look noticeable different, but that might just be due to their preferences, the DPs, hell, even the restoration process.
-
HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
I can't see how anyone could view a vintage print of Stairway to Heaven, The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, Thief of Bagdhad, Colonel Blimp, etc, and say that this was muted, delicate technicolor. This stuff is pure tour de force execution in rich technicolor.
The Ladykillers, Summertime, The Four Feathers, etc, not to mention "Dufaycolor" before it petered out. But these are by no means bland and watered down films.. between the P&P's & Lean et al, this is some of the most glorious and influential, candycolored Technicolor ever lensed.
The Ladykillers, Summertime, The Four Feathers, etc, not to mention "Dufaycolor" before it petered out. But these are by no means bland and watered down films.. between the P&P's & Lean et al, this is some of the most glorious and influential, candycolored Technicolor ever lensed.
-
Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 2:09 pm
Okay, so I treated myself to a nice Powell/Korda double bill, starting with "The Lion has wings" of course. This is well worth seeing and cleverly done, but certainly not exciting and not in the same league as, say, "The Volunteer". Its main drawback is the voice-over narration, making sure that even the dumbest viewer gets the propaganda message (all good vs bad here, without the subtleties of "49th parallel", let alone "Canterbury") right. The fictional scenes directed by Powell fare quite well, as expected, though the dialogue occasionally borders on the ridiculous and acting can be quite stiff in some moments. The main interest lies in seeing Powell preparing himself for visually similar aircraft scenes in "One of our aircraft is missing" or even AMOLAD. The pictureboxed transfer is great, although not cleaned up. But it has CC's usual clarity and razor-sharpness with nearly perfect contrast levels on top of it. Well done!
Then on to "Thief"; now that I've seen the whole of the film, my initial assumption still stands up: the colour timing seems to be identical, and the very slight difference in vibrancy is due to the MGM having a slightly higher contrast. I was able to basically recreate the MGM look by raising the contrast level by around 10%. I have no idea which one is correct, and in any case, the CC simply looks gorgeous. It isn't an improvement, but it's also not weaker. The one moment with Desprez/Veidt where the colour goes off hasn't been addressed, though, but it's really not a problem in my view.
I have no proof for this, but could it be that this is exactly the same telecine that MGM used, with just a very tiny little bit of extra work on the contrast and perhaps scratches by CC? That there seems perhaps to be very little more grain visible might simply be due to higher bitrate (and it's still very little grain compared to other CC releases).The fact that this is NOT picture-boxed might be an indication, and it would also explain why they wrote " New Digital Transfer" instead of "New HD Transfer". And of course, there was nothing much to improve in the MGM in the first place. How Kehr can think this transfer looks significantly better (which means: different) is beyond me. I actually think making points for one being better than the other would be picking very very tiny nits. I can't imagine anyone could be unhappy with any of the two discs.
After viewing, I even took time to listen to bits and pieces of the Coppola/Scorsese commentary, and was surprised that it is actually quite informative. Especially Scorsese made some good observations about how this relates to Powell's later works, and actually he confirmed that some scenes I always thought were directed by Powell actually were. He made a good observation, for instance, about the significance of the painted eye on the ship's brow right at the beginning; and of course related the Silver Lady scene to "Red Shoes" and "Hoffmann" in its balletic aspect. Something he didn't observe but which I have been thinking about for a long time is that the Silver Lady scene is typical for Powell in another respect, too: the obsession with art as opposed to reality (after all, she's an automaton, and seems to come straight out of "Metropolis"), the hypnosis created by art and its possible deadly consequences. Think Colpeper's lecture, "Red Shoes" and even "Peeping Tom" here. In this respect, "Thief" is straight and 100% Powell, and I wonder why the film is relatively little commented on in the existing books on Powell.
Watching this again I'm still surprised how the magic of this film doesn't diminish, and how inventive it is. In this respect, perhaps not an overly significant addition to the CC catalogue if you only consider previous non-availabity or previous weak transfer quality, but it's certainly the best film that CC has released this year so far (and apart from "Vampyr", it's unlikely anything will come close, not even "Small back room"). And as the extras are significant, I think no-one who hasn't got the film already should miss it. Just mindblowingly wonderful and great fun on top of it.
Then on to "Thief"; now that I've seen the whole of the film, my initial assumption still stands up: the colour timing seems to be identical, and the very slight difference in vibrancy is due to the MGM having a slightly higher contrast. I was able to basically recreate the MGM look by raising the contrast level by around 10%. I have no idea which one is correct, and in any case, the CC simply looks gorgeous. It isn't an improvement, but it's also not weaker. The one moment with Desprez/Veidt where the colour goes off hasn't been addressed, though, but it's really not a problem in my view.
I have no proof for this, but could it be that this is exactly the same telecine that MGM used, with just a very tiny little bit of extra work on the contrast and perhaps scratches by CC? That there seems perhaps to be very little more grain visible might simply be due to higher bitrate (and it's still very little grain compared to other CC releases).The fact that this is NOT picture-boxed might be an indication, and it would also explain why they wrote " New Digital Transfer" instead of "New HD Transfer". And of course, there was nothing much to improve in the MGM in the first place. How Kehr can think this transfer looks significantly better (which means: different) is beyond me. I actually think making points for one being better than the other would be picking very very tiny nits. I can't imagine anyone could be unhappy with any of the two discs.
After viewing, I even took time to listen to bits and pieces of the Coppola/Scorsese commentary, and was surprised that it is actually quite informative. Especially Scorsese made some good observations about how this relates to Powell's later works, and actually he confirmed that some scenes I always thought were directed by Powell actually were. He made a good observation, for instance, about the significance of the painted eye on the ship's brow right at the beginning; and of course related the Silver Lady scene to "Red Shoes" and "Hoffmann" in its balletic aspect. Something he didn't observe but which I have been thinking about for a long time is that the Silver Lady scene is typical for Powell in another respect, too: the obsession with art as opposed to reality (after all, she's an automaton, and seems to come straight out of "Metropolis"), the hypnosis created by art and its possible deadly consequences. Think Colpeper's lecture, "Red Shoes" and even "Peeping Tom" here. In this respect, "Thief" is straight and 100% Powell, and I wonder why the film is relatively little commented on in the existing books on Powell.
Watching this again I'm still surprised how the magic of this film doesn't diminish, and how inventive it is. In this respect, perhaps not an overly significant addition to the CC catalogue if you only consider previous non-availabity or previous weak transfer quality, but it's certainly the best film that CC has released this year so far (and apart from "Vampyr", it's unlikely anything will come close, not even "Small back room"). And as the extras are significant, I think no-one who hasn't got the film already should miss it. Just mindblowingly wonderful and great fun on top of it.
-
tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Many thanks for the thoughtful and informative post. I'm looking forward to finally picking this up -- probably in the upcoming 20%-off sale. I'm particularly happy to know that the extras will be addressing the following information:
I, too, have always been surprised at how this title seems to slip through discussions of Powell's career, and I've also had quite a bit of curiosity about which scenes precisely Powell did and did not direct. Looks like we might have something close to a definitive answer now.Tommaso wrote:Especially Scorsese made some good observations about how this relates to Powell's later works, and actually he confirmed that some scenes I always thought were directed by Powell actually were.
-
Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 2:09 pm
Well, after having listened to most of the Eder commentary now, the situation seems to be roughly like this: basically none or very little of the footage in the finished film was shot by Berger (thus making his first billing for directorial credit completely misleading), and it seems to be very hard to determine which scenes were shot by whom of the other five (!) directors. For Powell it seems to be easiest: apparently he shot most, if not all the footage with Veidt (which are of course the most intriguing parts); but for example in the sequence right at the end when the Prince is magically transferred back to the Palace and is about to engage in the fight, the fight itself was shot in Hollywood (probably by Korda), whereas the intercut shots of Veidt/Duprez then were probably made by Powell, but about one year earlier. So its not just that individual sequences or scenes were made by different directors, but in some cases this is true for the various bits and shots in the scene or sequence itself. So if Powell shot Veidt, that doesn't necessarily mean he was responsible for all of the rest that was just happening 'around the corner' in a particular moment.tryavna wrote:I, too, have always been surprised at how this title seems to slip through discussions of Powell's career, and I've also had quite a bit of curiosity about which scenes precisely Powell did and did not direct. Looks like we might have something close to a definitive answer now.
Last edited by Tommaso on Wed May 28, 2008 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.