I didn't think they were as bad as most of Kino's PAL conversions. Still, I sent back the two I Netflixed unwatched (add that to the "weird rituals" thread: using Netflix mainly for audiovisual QCs) and for £32, I'll probably spring for the Artificial Eyes.domino harvey wrote:Hopefully with better transfers than the Kinos
Artificial Eye / Curzon Film World
-
Perkins Cobb
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:49 pm
Re: Artificial Eye
-
colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: Artificial Eye
I caught up with My Father, My Lord last night. Unfortunately the DVD appears to have some mastering problems as there are persistent white blocks along the widescreen border at the top left of the frame throughout the entire film which are a little distracting.
The film itself I thought was very good, though many of the reviews I have read have praised it as being a scathing indictment of ultra orthodox religious sects. I don't just want to single out Philip French on this as I've seen it described as such elsewhere, but I have a different take on the film. Spoilers will follow.
The film actually seems very ambiguous in making any comment on whether the ultra strict rabbi father has been complicit in 'destroying' his son or not. A lot of the film is quite touchingly shown from the point of view of the young boy of the family, and it is his perspective on the world around him that leads him to ask difficult questions of his Torah teachings. For example seeing a dog following its owner into an ambulance, seemingly wanting to stay by the side of its ill owner leads him to question his father on whether animals have souls like humans too, to which he gets an authoritative answer of "no", something which resonates with the comments the Rabbi makes to his students (again watched by his son) about how only God only controls the destiny of those who follow him, therefore just as animals are not considered to be 'watched over by God' therefore non-Jews, since they do not follow the teachings of the Torah, are not either.
This does make the father seem extreme, and if the film was entirely from the point of view of the young boy we could maybe see this as an example of how someone is taught the values of their, in this case very orthodox, community. However the film is a bit more complicated than that. There are very few moments that are outside of the boy's point of view in the first two thirds of the film but the few that there are involve the mother as the focus. This raises the idea that perhaps it is not about the boy at all, but maybe about the mother's role in the family. However it does not seem to be this either.
The description of the film on the back of the DVD case includes this quote "His son Menahem is of an age where he absorbs the world around him as a place of wonder. He does not resist but follows listlessly as his father leads him along the straight and narrow path that must be pursued by men of faith". Now, I have to take issue with this quote as I do not think that in any sense Menahem "follows listlessly" - he is one of the most engaging, and engaged, characters in the film, constantly asking questions, distracted watching nesting birds outside his schoolroom window, having a slight showdown with his father when told to tear up an 'idolatrous' picture, and constantly shown in a quiet awe of his father's position, both in society and as head of the household, learning lessons from him but still at the stage where he might question why a bird must be driven away from its nest, rather than just dutifully performing the action as a religious duty. The father himself is strict and bound to his own strict rules of behaviour but also loving, as is the mother.
Now we get to the central issue I have with reviews like the one I quoted above. I do not think that the film condemns the father's strict religious faith at all - at the most it suggests a certain slight ambivalence. The final sections of the film deal with the family trip to the Dead Sea, where the mother has to go to her own female only beach and the father and his son to their male only one. During a prayer session the boy breaks away to catch some fish and ends up drowning in the sea while his father is distracted.
While I think many have interpreted this as the father's unwavering religious devotion causing him to miss the plight of his own son, I think that the film is actually more condemnatory of the son - after all the boy has been questioning his father's teachings, ignoring his lessons (a rather too on the nose recital of the story of Abraham and Isaac) to watch the bird on the windowsill, and instead of going to pray with his father willfully ran off to collect the fish. I'm not suggesting that the filmmakers are saying that the child deserved his fate (there is enough screen time given over to his point of view earlier on in the film to suggest a certain amount of sympathy) but they are illustrating the result of someone straying off of the path and not adhering to their teachings, and most importantly not listening to their father, which only leads to trouble.
With the son gone, the focus then turns to the mother who, if we are still considering this to be a film simply condemning an ultra orthodox world, we might think would be our next important character. She does cry that this was the first time she had ever let her son out of her sight but importantly does not condemn the segregation of the beaches into the two sexes that led to that situation. And her final act, once the father has tried and failed to lead a sermon at the synagogue and is sitting at the table at the back of the room, is to drop the prayer books from the woman's gallery down onto him. This could be seen as a lashing out at her neglectful husband for causing the death of their son, but I think instead that it is more her condemnation of him being unable to properly perform the religious duties expected of him both to her and to the memory of their son.
So despite the time spent with him the film is not specifically in sympathy with the boy. Neither is it about the mother, who is able to express her grief freely. Instead it is more about the orthodox father. We see him preparing for the final sermon at the beginning of the film, tearfully grieving in private (unlike the mother, who can cry out in public), and the bulk of the film is told in flashback. There is no condemnation of religion, with the focus of the film on the rocking back and forth as the pupils and their teacher lose themselves in performing their prayers. The father is shown as all powerful from the boy's point of view and although their son is beginning to chafe at his parent's bonds, he still looks up to them - until the first time he actively disobeys and is then brutally punished with death. The film makes it very clear that the father is not in the wrong for not noticing his son has run off - the son is wrong for running off. And it suggests that the strict orthodox teachings are not a restrictive bond but a secure way of life, and even after a tragedy provides the framework for life to continue.
While I have my personal issues with this story, it is quite a powerfully persuasive film in putting forward its point of view with a surprising subtlety of handling (perhaps too subtle for the critics!), slightly ambiguous to suggest a condemnation of the father even though it really does seem very obvious that this is not really the filmmaker's intentions. Anyone going into it looking for a film condemning the activities of a repressive ultra orthodox religious sect is probably going to be annoyed and frustrated. Instead approach the film as an insight into a very religious society and how such a proscribed world provides the framework that gives everyone a role to play in day to day life, even during times of severe crisis.
The one area I would agree with the Philip French capsule review though is on the acting - all three main characters are sensitively played to perfection. Also the music throughout is nicely understated.
Here's the Artificial Eye trailer, which amusingly makes it look a lot more like an abusive husband/father drama than it really is!
The film itself I thought was very good, though many of the reviews I have read have praised it as being a scathing indictment of ultra orthodox religious sects. I don't just want to single out Philip French on this as I've seen it described as such elsewhere, but I have a different take on the film. Spoilers will follow.
The film actually seems very ambiguous in making any comment on whether the ultra strict rabbi father has been complicit in 'destroying' his son or not. A lot of the film is quite touchingly shown from the point of view of the young boy of the family, and it is his perspective on the world around him that leads him to ask difficult questions of his Torah teachings. For example seeing a dog following its owner into an ambulance, seemingly wanting to stay by the side of its ill owner leads him to question his father on whether animals have souls like humans too, to which he gets an authoritative answer of "no", something which resonates with the comments the Rabbi makes to his students (again watched by his son) about how only God only controls the destiny of those who follow him, therefore just as animals are not considered to be 'watched over by God' therefore non-Jews, since they do not follow the teachings of the Torah, are not either.
This does make the father seem extreme, and if the film was entirely from the point of view of the young boy we could maybe see this as an example of how someone is taught the values of their, in this case very orthodox, community. However the film is a bit more complicated than that. There are very few moments that are outside of the boy's point of view in the first two thirds of the film but the few that there are involve the mother as the focus. This raises the idea that perhaps it is not about the boy at all, but maybe about the mother's role in the family. However it does not seem to be this either.
The description of the film on the back of the DVD case includes this quote "His son Menahem is of an age where he absorbs the world around him as a place of wonder. He does not resist but follows listlessly as his father leads him along the straight and narrow path that must be pursued by men of faith". Now, I have to take issue with this quote as I do not think that in any sense Menahem "follows listlessly" - he is one of the most engaging, and engaged, characters in the film, constantly asking questions, distracted watching nesting birds outside his schoolroom window, having a slight showdown with his father when told to tear up an 'idolatrous' picture, and constantly shown in a quiet awe of his father's position, both in society and as head of the household, learning lessons from him but still at the stage where he might question why a bird must be driven away from its nest, rather than just dutifully performing the action as a religious duty. The father himself is strict and bound to his own strict rules of behaviour but also loving, as is the mother.
Now we get to the central issue I have with reviews like the one I quoted above. I do not think that the film condemns the father's strict religious faith at all - at the most it suggests a certain slight ambivalence. The final sections of the film deal with the family trip to the Dead Sea, where the mother has to go to her own female only beach and the father and his son to their male only one. During a prayer session the boy breaks away to catch some fish and ends up drowning in the sea while his father is distracted.
While I think many have interpreted this as the father's unwavering religious devotion causing him to miss the plight of his own son, I think that the film is actually more condemnatory of the son - after all the boy has been questioning his father's teachings, ignoring his lessons (a rather too on the nose recital of the story of Abraham and Isaac) to watch the bird on the windowsill, and instead of going to pray with his father willfully ran off to collect the fish. I'm not suggesting that the filmmakers are saying that the child deserved his fate (there is enough screen time given over to his point of view earlier on in the film to suggest a certain amount of sympathy) but they are illustrating the result of someone straying off of the path and not adhering to their teachings, and most importantly not listening to their father, which only leads to trouble.
With the son gone, the focus then turns to the mother who, if we are still considering this to be a film simply condemning an ultra orthodox world, we might think would be our next important character. She does cry that this was the first time she had ever let her son out of her sight but importantly does not condemn the segregation of the beaches into the two sexes that led to that situation. And her final act, once the father has tried and failed to lead a sermon at the synagogue and is sitting at the table at the back of the room, is to drop the prayer books from the woman's gallery down onto him. This could be seen as a lashing out at her neglectful husband for causing the death of their son, but I think instead that it is more her condemnation of him being unable to properly perform the religious duties expected of him both to her and to the memory of their son.
So despite the time spent with him the film is not specifically in sympathy with the boy. Neither is it about the mother, who is able to express her grief freely. Instead it is more about the orthodox father. We see him preparing for the final sermon at the beginning of the film, tearfully grieving in private (unlike the mother, who can cry out in public), and the bulk of the film is told in flashback. There is no condemnation of religion, with the focus of the film on the rocking back and forth as the pupils and their teacher lose themselves in performing their prayers. The father is shown as all powerful from the boy's point of view and although their son is beginning to chafe at his parent's bonds, he still looks up to them - until the first time he actively disobeys and is then brutally punished with death. The film makes it very clear that the father is not in the wrong for not noticing his son has run off - the son is wrong for running off. And it suggests that the strict orthodox teachings are not a restrictive bond but a secure way of life, and even after a tragedy provides the framework for life to continue.
While I have my personal issues with this story, it is quite a powerfully persuasive film in putting forward its point of view with a surprising subtlety of handling (perhaps too subtle for the critics!), slightly ambiguous to suggest a condemnation of the father even though it really does seem very obvious that this is not really the filmmaker's intentions. Anyone going into it looking for a film condemning the activities of a repressive ultra orthodox religious sect is probably going to be annoyed and frustrated. Instead approach the film as an insight into a very religious society and how such a proscribed world provides the framework that gives everyone a role to play in day to day life, even during times of severe crisis.
The one area I would agree with the Philip French capsule review though is on the acting - all three main characters are sensitively played to perfection. Also the music throughout is nicely understated.
Here's the Artificial Eye trailer, which amusingly makes it look a lot more like an abusive husband/father drama than it really is!
-
TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:01 pm
- Location: Greater Manchester
Re: Artificial Eye
Beaver on The White Ribbon
He gives it very high-praise in saying, "I can honestly say that this might be the best looking blu-ray that I've ever come across," and, "It's an absolute must own for anyone interested in cinema, and my current front runner for Blu-ray of the year. "
He gives it very high-praise in saying, "I can honestly say that this might be the best looking blu-ray that I've ever come across," and, "It's an absolute must own for anyone interested in cinema, and my current front runner for Blu-ray of the year. "
-
bigP
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:59 pm
- Location: Reading, UK
Re: Artificial Eye
Surprisingly, the release date is as early as July 12th. I assumed it would be the latter part of the year too.Mr Finch wrote:AE have bought the rights for Todd Solondz' new film Life During Wartime: theatrical release end of this month, DVD probably in September or October.
Also coming in July are a trio of films from Jessica Hausner:
Lovely Rita
Hotel
Lourdes
-
tojoed
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:47 pm
- Location: Cambridge, England
Re: Artificial Eye
In August on DVD - The Satyajit Ray Collection Vol 3, Deliverance, Home and the World, and Public Enemy.
-
manicsounds
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:58 am
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
Re: Artificial Eye
Awesome news! I'm really hoping for some extras this time, but I'm doubtful...tojoed wrote:In August on DVD - The Satyajit Ray Collection Vol 3, Deliverance, Home and the World, and Public Enemy.
-
rockysds
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 3:25 pm
- Location: Denmark
Re: Artificial Eye
I just received the new "The Essential Eric Rohmer" box, which is supposed to contain Rohmer's first film, "Le signe du lion".
Instead of simply being a port of the first disc in Artificial Eye's "The Early Works" box, it turned out to be a port of ... the second disc in that box, containing the two first "Moral Tales" and the shorts "Nadja à Paris" & "Charlotte et son steak". A reviewer on amazon.co.uk remarked the same thing. So buyer beware, I guess.
Instead of simply being a port of the first disc in Artificial Eye's "The Early Works" box, it turned out to be a port of ... the second disc in that box, containing the two first "Moral Tales" and the shorts "Nadja à Paris" & "Charlotte et son steak". A reviewer on amazon.co.uk remarked the same thing. So buyer beware, I guess.
-
bigP
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:59 pm
- Location: Reading, UK
Re: Artificial Eye
Also to be released in August:tojoed wrote:In August on DVD - The Satyajit Ray Collection Vol 3, Deliverance, Home and the World, and Public Enemy.
François Ozon's Ricky
Shirin Neshat & Shoja Azari's Women Without Men
Götz Spielmann's Revanche
-
Der Spieler
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:05 pm
Re: Artificial Eye
"Moral Tales" is now "Six Moral Tales". 'Love in the Afternoon' has been added. Good news.
Glad I preordered this a while ago. Price has gone up from 17.99 pounds to 28.99 pounds.
Glad I preordered this a while ago. Price has gone up from 17.99 pounds to 28.99 pounds.
-
Matango
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:19 am
- Location: Hong Kong
Re: Artificial Eye
Still no Calcutta Trilogymanicsounds wrote:Awesome news! I'm really hoping for some extras this time, but I'm doubtful...tojoed wrote:In August on DVD - The Satyajit Ray Collection Vol 3, Deliverance, Home and the World, and Public Enemy.
Well, anyway, here's hoping that AE can improve on Volume One at least be consistent with running times and dates on the outer packaging and the disc cases this time.-
MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Artificial Eye
Mr Bongo has the UK rights to The Adversary and Company Limited - their disc of the former is a disaster, but the latter is surprisingly good.Matango wrote:Still no Calcutta Trilogy
-
godardslave
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:44 pm
- Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.
Re: Artificial Eye
Whats the quality of "Devi" like?MichaelB wrote:Mr Bongo has the UK rights to The Adversary and Company Limited - their disc of the former is a disaster, but the latter is surprisingly good.Matango wrote:Still no Calcutta Trilogy
-
Ashirg
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:10 pm
- Location: Atlanta
Re: Artificial Eye
You might want to check out this review as posted in Mr. Bongo Films forum.
-
Gregory
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:07 pm
Re: Artificial Eye
Didn't Artificial Eye announce Days and Nights in the Forest a long time ago? I wonder if their plans for that fell through.
-
colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: Artificial Eye
Since Artificial Eye are releasing the film on DVD in the UK next week, here's Glenn Kenny's fascinating review of Life During Wartime (it's just coming out theatrically in the US).
-
Murdoch
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
- Location: Upstate NY
Re: Artificial Eye
Tarkovsky box coming this October containing all his features from Ivan to Sacrifice.
-
Svevan
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:49 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Re: Artificial Eye
I'd buy it, but I'm somewhat sensitive to PAL speed-up and would love a Blu-ray upgrade for at least a couple of these (whenever that happens). But if they create an ultimate SD version of Mirror, Stalker, and Rublev, then it'll be worth the (pretty low) price. It's odd that over 15 years no one was able to make definitive SD editions of any of these three (though the AE Stalker is pretty good).
edit: wait, is this just a re-release of all the old AE releases?
edit: wait, is this just a re-release of all the old AE releases?
-
Murdoch
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
- Location: Upstate NY
Re: Artificial Eye
It's a pretty low price tag for a 7-disc set so I think it is just a re-release, but both Nostalghia and Stalker are OOP and it's a good price for nearly his entire oeuvre.
-
goodguy
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:25 am
Re: Artificial Eye
Any infos on the quality, especially compared to Criterion's release? I wasn't able to find any reviews of the AE box yet.Der Spieler wrote:"Moral Tales" is now "Six Moral Tales". 'Love in the Afternoon' has been added. Good news.
Glad I preordered this a while ago. Price has gone up from 17.99 pounds to 28.99 pounds.
-
bamwc2
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Artificial Eye
I have the set and will review it for Beaver as soon as I can. Unfortunately, I recently switched computers and my new one is being very fussy when I try to play region locked discs that aren't for North American audiences. Stay tuned. I should have it the problem fixed soon and the review will be one of top priorities when I'm back up.goodguy wrote:Any infos on the quality, especially compared to Criterion's release? I wasn't able to find any reviews of the AE box yet.Der Spieler wrote:"Moral Tales" is now "Six Moral Tales". 'Love in the Afternoon' has been added. Good news.
Glad I preordered this a while ago. Price has gone up from 17.99 pounds to 28.99 pounds.
-
Dadapass
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:57 pm
Re: Artificial Eye
Anyone else have this problem? Has the set been fixed?rockysds wrote:I just received the new "The Essential Eric Rohmer" box, which is supposed to contain Rohmer's first film, "Le signe du lion".
Instead of simply being a port of the first disc in Artificial Eye's "The Early Works" box, it turned out to be a port of ... the second disc in that box, containing the two first "Moral Tales" and the shorts "Nadja à Paris" & "Charlotte et son steak". A reviewer on amazon.co.uk remarked the same thing. So buyer beware, I guess.
-
gyorgys
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:11 pm
- Location: Europe
Re: Artificial Eye
I received mine a week ago of Amazon.co.uk (with a delay of about 5 weeks or more after the release date) with the correct disc of Le Signe du Lion.
However, as the poster stated on Amazon UK, you have to watch/play the DVD to be sure, because the denomination of the disc doesn't give any guarantee that it is actually containing the film it promises on the label (and you could get instead the two first Moral Tales et al.).
However, as the poster stated on Amazon UK, you have to watch/play the DVD to be sure, because the denomination of the disc doesn't give any guarantee that it is actually containing the film it promises on the label (and you could get instead the two first Moral Tales et al.).
-
goodguy
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:25 am
Re: Artificial Eye
Six Moral Tales
Thanks. Looking forward to it.bamwc2 wrote:I have the set and will review it for Beaver as soon as I can. Unfortunately, I recently switched computers and my new one is being very fussy when I try to play region locked discs that aren't for North American audiences. Stay tuned. I should have it the problem fixed soon and the review will be one of top priorities when I'm back up.goodguy wrote:Any infos on the quality, especially compared to Criterion's release? I wasn't able to find any reviews of the AE box yet.
-
manicsounds
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:58 am
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
Re: Artificial Eye
For the Satyajit Ray collection, Although it kinda sucks that they could only work with masters with burned in subtitles, the picture looks pretty good, and there is now a documentary! That's a surprise.