criterionforum.org

Thrilling news. I'm sure the timing here is partly capitalizing on Samsara, but I hope it also might be used to build hype for Reggio's The Holy See, which I haven't heard much about for some time but had one of the most striking trailers of recent memory.

jsteffe wrote:

zedz wrote:Back in the 80s when I saw it a few times, it was always projected in widescreen. Considering the film was all about visual impact, I can't imagine it was ever intended to be seen in academy - it's not like it was shot in IMAX. In conventional projection, open matte would mean shrinking the size of the image, not opening it up.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. You have a good point re: visual impact. One of my friends who knows the film well feels that the compositions are better balanced in the open matte version, as does Gary Tooze in his review. I'm an agnostic on that issue, but the fact that the new Criterion transfer is approved by Reggio lends more weight to the widescreen presentation.

I wonder if this was a Herostratus situation - i.e. where the film started production unambiguously in Academy, but when the possibility of theatrical distribution raised its head they decided to reframe to widescreen, possibly before production had been completed?

Anyway, when I saw it on the big screen (the late lamented Lumiere Cinema in central London, possibly the perfect venue for a film like this), it was definitely widescreen of some kind.

Foam wrote:I hope it also might be used to build hype for Reggio's The Holy See, which I haven't heard much about for some time but had one of the most striking trailers of recent memory.

*SPOILERS*

MichaelB wrote:I wonder if this was a Herostratus situation - i.e. where the film started production unambiguously in Academy, but when the possibility of theatrical distribution raised its head they decided to reframe to widescreen, possibly before production had been completed?

Naqoyqatsi producer Joe Beirne claimed that it was more a case of Reggio & Fricke wanting to ensure the film also looked good in Academy so that it wouldn't have to be cropped for TV broadcasts. Having watched both versions I can easily imagine some shots having been composed with Academy more in mind than widescreen, but for the most part the widescreen framing is almost always substantially better. There are only a couple of shots where I feel the more open framing is a notable improvement, and in those cases I would say the improvement is merely cosmetic; e.g., a shot of workers on the Twinkie assembly line where there's not really enough head room in the widescreen version. On the other hand, there are a few cases where I think the open matte framing actually changes the content of the shot in a meaningfully harmful way. For example, the shot that opens the "slow people" sequence, showing a lot of hustle and bustle in what I believe is a train station: in the widescreen version, the shot is very chaotic and confusing, but in Academy, there's a very strong focal point on the horizon that tempers and mellows the chaos and brings too much compositional order to a shot that, at least to my way of thinking, is all about disorder.

And it's probably worth recalling that the original DVD release came out at a time when 4:3 sets probably would still have been in the majority.

Still, the fact that the Blu-ray is framed at 1.85:1 (i.e. not a screen-filling 16:9) suggests that this really is completely official.

I'm hoping for a full-frame (4:3).

Below is a comparison of two full camera frames with the German blu-ray disc:



And I also hope to release the Evidence!

It's clear from the framegrabs on Criterion's website that it'll be 1.85:1.

But since this is director-approved, and also the ratio I've seen it in most frequently (I had a 1.33:1-framed VHS once upon a time), I'm happy.

Not least because I much prefer the widescreen framing of your two examples - there's far too much headroom in the full-frame version (especially the right-hand picture).

MichaelB wrote:It's clear from the framegrabs on Criterion's website that it'll be 1.85:1.

Frame grabs on Criterion's site are always fit to that ratio. For example. Still, there's no reason to doubt that Koyaanisqatsi will be presented in 1.85:1, or that Reggio would want it any other way.

Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi are listed as 1.85:1 and Naqoyqatsi is listed as 1.78:1.

Well, leave it to my clarification to muddle things up further!

I have not seen these films, so please pardon my ignorance, but how much in common do these share with Baraka? Additionally, is there a noticeable difference in quality between the three films?

In a general sense, they share a similar approach to the use of cinema to Baraka. No dialogue; themes conveyed purely by visuals and editing. I find the qatsi films are a bit more explicit in their themes than Baraka or Samsara, but sometimes the images create meaning which isn't as explicit but is more, hmm, instinctual, or affective on a primal level, in some way.

Difference in quality is subjective, of course.. I find Koyaanisqatsi to be brilliant; I found Naqoyqatsi to be not so essential on my one viewing. Been too long since I've seen Powaqquatsi. I'd say they are all technically at a high level. I would say that all should be seen in as big a venue and screen as possible, if possible.

Yeah, I think the Qatsi trilogy has much more thematic focus than Fricke's solo material, as well as the added benefit of the most effective scoring of Glass' career. But on the other hand I could see how fans of Chronos/Baraka/Samsara could find Reggio's work tendentious in comparison.

Considering Baraka has that eye-rolling "underground commuters are just like battery hens" montage, you said a mouthful, Foam!

I've actually always thought that Reggio's messages are a bit muddled, or else compromised by the form of the film (which manages to make the industrial world look pretty damn interesting, and reinforces similarities rather than highlighting contrasts), and I've always thought that was a strength of the films (though I haven't seen the last one) rather than a liability, as it leaves more interpretive breathing space.

Anyone else surprised at the lack of Evidence which I believe is the only Reggio film missing from the set? Here is the whole thing for those curious.

Zedz puts the appeal of all these films rather nicely. The way I see it, the Qatsi trilogy and Fricke's films are nothing so much as latter day mutations of the city symphony genre. They’re all like kind of like world symphonies for the globalized era. With the huge ambition of showing us nothing less than the rhythms of life in the city of mankind on earth. And just as city symphonies show us idiosyncratic landmarks and bits of unique local culture, so do these films. And just as city symphonies find poetry in daily routines, so do these films. And just as the city symphonies secret agenda is to show us not so much what makes each city or each neighborhood unique and different as it is to weave together the disparate strands of life into a wholeness and a suchness common to all... Yeah, so too with these films.

I do think that the latest one, Samsara manages to integrate Fricke's Nat Geo traveler's eye-candy sensibility with a bit more of a critical/political edge from the Reggio films.

I found Baraka very repetitive, hammering you over the head with its concerns. I don't plan on watching any other Fricke films. Koyannisqatsi, on the other hand, is magnificent. While there are plenty of similarities between the two films, the editing is the key difference.

Matt wrote:I found Baraka very repetitive, hammering you over the head with its concerns.

Ditto, though I might have been even more annoyed than you were. (I think it's an absolutely dreadful film.)

Where these filmed on 65mm? If so, were the masters scanned in 8K?

Seems like some of the posts from this thread could usefully be moved into the current one.

zedz wrote:

Matt wrote:I found Baraka very repetitive, hammering you over the head with its concerns.

Ditto, though I might have been even more annoyed than you were. (I think it's an absolutely dreadful film.)

I always assumed that Baraka was from the point of view of the monkey daydreaming in the hot springs at the beginning of the film (itself a problematic over-personalisation and projection onto a scene from the get go), which helps explain some of the simplistic thinking on display! Although I suppose these kinds of films do lend themselves to simplistic philosophising of the "Aren't we are all just monkeys daydreaming in hot springs of our minds?" type of statement.

I mostly just like the pretty pictures in all these films! Although these kinds of films are most interesting for the way in which the choice of where and how to edit and what speed to film at becomes as key to trying to understand the filmmaker's particular thought processes/biases towards the material that they are capturing as what they are choosing to film, (Baraka feels to me a bit more problematic than the Qatsi films because the emphasis moves a bit too much towards the importance of the material in front of the camera to make facile points, as well as in the way the camera often seems to be taking a more active role in the action and imposing a point of view on the action more than the generally locked off shots of something like Koyaanisqatsi).

That's the thing that makes Naqoyqatsi with its (presumably extremely daunting) departure into virtual spaces and manipulating images of real things such a radical movement from 'observational' to the more obviously polemic, since these virtual images have to be created rather than simply captured (even if in the earlier films there are still elements of authorship in the choices made about what and how long to hold on images, as well as how to juxtapose them against each other). In a sense Naqoyqatsi is admitting that any act of understanding the world depends about how a hypothetical observer figure takes in and processes information, and how they find significance and meaning (If any! It all depends on the individual!) in what they are shown.

Rather than outside landscapes acting as a blank canvas for the easily quantifiable impact of human activity, Naqoyqatsi is an internal film, philosophically mulling over what information that those 'exterior' images that we receive through our senses might mean in the mind's eye to a hypothetical 'observer' figure - whether that is the filmmaker themselves trying to analyse their particular foibles or the expectations of the perceived audience they are creating the film for.

imhotep wrote:Where these filmed on 65mm? If so, were the masters scanned in 8K?

Koyaanisqatsi is mostly 35mm with a small handful of 16mm, Powaqqatsi as far as I recall is entirely 35mm, and Naqoyqatsi is mostly digital with a little 35mm.

Kirkinson wrote:

imhotep wrote:Where these filmed on 65mm? If so, were the masters scanned in 8K?

Koyaanisqatsi is mostly 35mm with a small handful of 16mm, Powaqqatsi as far as I recall is entirely 35mm, and Naqoyqatsi is mostly digital with a little 35mm.

Thanks for the info. I don't know why I suspected 65mm. They were all scanned in 4K then I guess.

Ron Fricke's own projects were sometimes filmed in 65mm and/or IMAX.

MichaelB wrote:Ron Fricke's own projects were sometimes filmed in 65mm and/or IMAX.

Yeah. I've got Baraka already. Was hoping for something similar quality wise.