criterionforum.org

D50 wrote:Did the 5 set DVD Jacques Tati Collection ever come without a booklet?... The rear disc and set description makes no mention of a booklet. The ebay ad mentions the booklet. This OP mentions the booklet.

Sloper wrote:

D50 wrote:Did the 5 set DVD Jacques Tati Collection ever come without a booklet?... The rear disc and set description makes no mention of a booklet. The ebay ad mentions the booklet. This OP mentions the booklet.

For what it's worth, I emailed the BFI yesterday and got this explanation just now:

'Due to knowing that the rights were soon to expire and the fact that we had no more booklets available we took the decision that the last run we manufactured of the 5-disc Jacques Tati collection would be packaged without the booklet. We regret to say that due to the expiration of rights on these titles, no more booklets are available.'

A shame - but the guy who responded has been very helpful, so kudos to the BFI's customer service.

Jonathan S wrote:The highlights of the forthcoming StudioCanal set (discussion of which should perhaps be removed to a non-BFI thread) appear to be the two earliest shorts - On demande une brute will be new to me - and the original 1949 black & white release of Jour de fête. This apparently runs 10 minutes longer than the "restored" colour version that circulated in recent decades (I've always thought that looks awful, authentic colour or not). The set also presumably contains the French-language 1964 edit - which is how I first saw and owned the film in the UK - where as the BFI's Dual Format included an English-language 1964 version, I gather.

Incidentally a parallel DVD release of the StudioCanal set is scheduled for France but not the UK. According to the Amazon.fr specs, this will contain only one version of the first three features - and it's interesting they opted for the 1949 black & white Jour but the 1978 edition of Les vacances, presumably for quality reasons.

1967′s “Play Time"

D50 wrote: lol from variety's article:

1967′s “Play Time"

Les Films de Mon Oncle handles Gallic theatrical, festivals.

Perkins Cobb wrote: Along with being amazed that a "lol" has escaped Matt's notice for going on five hours now, I'm also not getting the source of the lols here.

PfR73 wrote: He's not trolling. What exactly do you find funny about:

1967′s “Play Time"

?

And I mean the phrase or article, not the actual film. I know what's funny about that.

jonah.77 wrote:Kristin Thompson has been arguing for the Play Time orthography for a while. She notes that it gently highlights the two concepts that make up the compound word: "play" and "time." "Play" in its broadest sense is absolutely central to Tati's work, and among other things Play Time is an experiment in duration: an entire day and night passes without obvious ellipsis in the course of about two hours.

Matt wrote:And the title card itself has it as two distinct words.

Gregory wrote:Looks like a pretty big space there if anyone really wanted it to be "PlayTime." And in the '60s, it would have been really strange to have a capital letter in the middle of a word like that. Virtually no one back then tried to pull any shit like "YouTube" and "DreamWorks."

Gregory wrote:Looks like a pretty big space there if anyone really wanted it to be "PlayTime." And in the '60s, it would have been really strange to have a capital letter in the middle of a word like that. Virtually no one back then tried to pull any shit like "YouTube" and "DreamWorks."

D50 wrote:

Matt wrote:And the title card itself has it as two distinct words.

To me, that could be PlayTime, or Play Time.

MichaelB wrote:

D50 wrote:

Matt wrote:And the title card itself has it as two distinct words.

To me, that could be PlayTime, or Play Time.

To me, it's unambiguously Play Time - obvious space between the two words, which are presented in different colours.

Let's face it, the only reason you're arguing that it's PlayTime (given that even you now recognise that Playtime is no longer tenable) is because you decided to go all Nelson Muntz at some poor Variety hack who was reporting in perfectly good faith. Even if it had been a mistake, it wouldn't have been as hee-larious as you originally made out - although I can certainly see a funny side to this now!

(Especially your recent attempt to come over all scholarly, as though the internal evidence of the film's own title card was either irrelevant or just an equivalent of "just one man's opinion".)

RossyG wrote:No, I don't.