Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:44 pm
Perhaps not coincidentally, Faust is the latest addition to Slant Magazine's 100 Essential Films list. An appreciation of the film by Slant's Fernando Croce is here.
Gary's mood drifts depending on who he's reviewing. You know that Dent. What's unforgivable today is perfectly understandable the next.denti alligator wrote:One thing I found interesting in light of the Criterion debate on windowboxing is that this DVD is windowboxed. Strange that Gary's screen captures at the Beaver don't show this, nor does he mention it, even though he makes a point of stressing it every time Criterion uses windowboxing..
Amen brother.Scharphedin2 wrote:It the kind of impact a film like this must have had on people back in 1926. Imagine one of those huge theatres back then, packed with literally thousands of people, watching this on a gigantic screen, with live music. It must have been overwhelming... remember, feature films as such were only really a decade old. No amount of present day CGI and dolby surround effects could even come close to matching something like that.
I can't stop watching this film. I keep popping it right back in the player. Beautiful in framing, motion, lighting, you name it, just beautiful. One of my favorite moments is right before Faust is about to take the Parmesan Princess, Mephisto blows a hanging candle into existence (not really, of course, but the lighting tricks induced to get this effect) and as the camera pulls back, the space in the rear ground, the bed, is illuminated by the swaying "candle". Mephisto exits right as the princess and Faust enter bottom left and make their way through cinematic space and depth, all the while light, staging, and camera movement produce such a resounding effect.HerrSchreck wrote:Back then, along with plenty of slop, film also consistently operated as a fine, fine, fine, high art; and Murnau composed images and rendered an art fully on a par with Rembrandt and Michaleangelo. Nothing even remotely similar exists today.
Geez, for someone who considers himself to be pretty well-informed, I feel like an idiot. (That's what I get for not reading the DVD Trades, Bragains, and Stores section, I guess.) I had no idea that CD WOW! USA was stocking MoC titles. Goodbye, Amazon UK. Thanks, Nick.peerpee wrote:from the Cheapest Prices thread:
No problem Nick (I love that you post on these boards), no problem at all - to have Faust in such a deluxe treatment with the bonus of a booklet is more than enough.peerpee wrote:It was gonna be 40-page until the last minute. The stickers were already printed. Sorry!
We've since done two 40-pagers that were advertised as 28-pagers (FUNERAL PARADE and FANTASTIC PLANET), so I hope that makes up in some small way!
The Oppo is pretty highly regarded for around $200 and it also upscales and comes shipped with a DVI cable or a DVI-HDMI one depending on what you specify. I've heard their customer service is very good also. One complaint I've heard is that the remote is "cheap".blindside8zao wrote:I think it's time for me to buy a Region Free player... Any suggestions?
And where is the cheapest and/or best place for an American to purchase MOCs.
Your dvd player have a film/video/automatic setting? Put it on video or automatic, and the interlacing jaggies should disapear.Darth Lavender wrote: - Second viewing, on my new LCD television, properly calibrated, etc. was even worse. classics (and some of the early cinerama) is that the viewer is not just presented with a series of images, but with a series of immense tableux which he is free to explore. Studying every detail of the frame is the fun of these movies
I think a lot of us try to watch the film rather than the transfer. It is possible to study every detail of the film frame (as created my Murnau) without looking for flaws in the transfer - the two are very separate things as far as I'm concerned. I don't go out of my way to look for flaws and so I rarely notice them. Some people may notice them more than others I suppose. Personally I find there to be little wrong with this transfer (and Spione looks great to me) but if I examine it with the intention of finding faults I could certainly find a few but I don't see the point in doing that.Darth Lavender wrote:Post Scriptum - For those who suggest "not looking at the transfer flaws," I'd suggest that you've kind of missed the whole point of silent-movies. Certainly, what I love about the expressionist classics (and some of the early cinerama) is that the viewer is not just presented with a series of images, but with a series of immense tableux which he is free to explore. Studying every detail of the frame is the fun of these movies
I think it's safe to say that the best thing to do if you don't understand something you see or hear in a film, or in it's scholarly extras, is explore further with outside sources. A scholarly commentary on a masterpiece of this high pedigree sort of assumes you know certain basic things about the general world (film) in which it exists. Exploring in the world beyond the film is the joy of discovery. The dvd is there to further your education regarding the film-- not make you an educated man (not meant in an insulting way, but in a very general way) prior to digesting the contents of the dvd. Where does it end-- how are the guys who put it together supposed to guage a mean average of "known/not known"?Darth Lavender wrote:Having . Engaging and informative, but in future DVD releases it might be nice to have an onscreen glossary (in the form of a subtitle track,) just ten or fifteen subtitles over the course of the film should do it; enough to clarify terms like 'chiaroscuro' or, more importantly, to clarify the names of the various foreign films which are mentioned (titles from a foreign language are easy enough to recognise when written, but a bit of a problem to understand when only spoken.)
That said, the primary inspiration for the Quay Brothers Dictionary that makes up most of the booklet accompanying the BFI release (and, as far as I can see, the Zeitgeist one too) was the fact that the Quays namedropped so many obscure Central and Eastern European artists in the commentaries and interviews that I thought it would be useful supplying mini-biographies - and the dictionary took off from there.HerrSchreck wrote:I think it's safe to say that the best thing to do if you don't understand something you see or hear in a film, or in it's scholarly extras, is explore further with outside sources. A scholarly commentary on a masterpiece of this high pedigree sort of assumes you know certain basic things about the general world (film) in which it exists. Exploring in the world beyond the film is the joy of discovery.
Actually, that's kind of the reason I was suggesting some kind of a glossary. The most obvious problem I encountered was when the commentators rattled off the names of a few interesting sounding foreign films which are going to be difficult for me to check up on simply because I haven't even the remotest idea how to spell them.HerrSchreck wrote:By mentioning films you may never have heard of, they are leading you to the well. Take a sip-- and dive in if you like the taste! Explore, man.