criterionforum.org

Via Salvatore wrote:Epstein's Usher: where can I get it? None of online stores carries it.

I'm extremely fortunate that I already own the disc but out of curiosity, I emailed Image to ask if Usher's going OOP, etc. And here's their response: "It appears this film is no longer an active title with us. Outside of Amazon or Ebay, this product is not available." I think they mean Amazon marketplace, not the store itself.

Isn't it featured on the Treasures From American Film Archives set?

Gregor Samsa wrote:Isn't it featured on the Treasures From American Film Archives set?

No, that's a 13-minute American version.

I just found Epstein's Usher tonight in a record store that's closing soon and putting all their merch on a crazy sale. Grab it while you still can. Herr and Michael's rec's here and in the fave film of all time thread were enough for me to keep my eyes open for it. What a lucky find!

Hopscotch wrote:I just found Epstein's Usher tonight in a record store that's closing soon and putting all their merch on a crazy sale. Grab it while you still can. Herr and Michael's rec's here and in the fave film of all time thread were enough for me to keep my eyes open for it. What a lucky find!

Lucky find! How much did you pay for it? Curious.

I had never heard of Epstein till HerrSchreck poured out his love for this artist all over the forum so I thought it was time to check out Usher. Very recently, I talked to my coworker during a little coffee break, I brought up Usher and the images, the music, etc cracked open the dam in my mind and kept flooding and flooding. There are so many tiny details in Usher that stick to me, that little dog that refuses to respond to the old man walking through the wintry air, the mechanical owl being shrouded in cobwebs, the eerie bridal dress flying stuck between the shut-locked mausoleum door...the artist sitting waiting for his bride, the fireplace behind him so cavernous, the look on his face forever haunting. I read some reviews and some folks have issues with the music but I love it. Actually it's playing in my mind as I'm writing this.

It's still probably the film that most affects me on such a deep, profound level. The expression of interior turbulence pushing the bearer into the twilight world of madness and isolation are just incredible to me. A mind overloaded by both Itself as well as Need/Obsessive-love for another (due to inner turnmoil).. with the loved-one off-put and drained by the need of the lover's turnmoil.. its just sublime. The magic in every single one of the images is just relentless. I watched it last night after not having seen it in a good 5-6 months and it just knocks me out every time. It seems that in the 1920's Carl Dreyer profoundly affected by his film experiences in France; after seeing Potemkin-- which completely overwhelmed and cast a spell on him-- he went and made a film under the huge sense of inspiration gleaned from Eisensteins film: Joan of Arc, a film completely atypical not only in the rest of the Whole of Cinema, but for Dreye's canon as well. The spell wore off, and never again would he use such rapid cutting in his work.

My theory is he saw Epstein's Usher, and fell under the same electrified spell. Epstein so profoundly captures in every frame of his film this sense of there being something BETWEEN the lens/camera, and the scenes he is photographing. That something is the mood of not just Poe but a huge sense of a human being posessed by profound melancholia, sleepwalking thru an autumnal fog of depression-- an all-posessing gloominess really-- and the photography of Usher is quite special because of it. The "walk" that Roderick sends his friend on around the grounds, so he can be alone to paint, is so deeply & profoundly photographed to capture "the atmosphere of insufferable gloom"... the foggy still waters around the decrepit decaying mansion, the dead looking trees, the grey haze, the disposessed dog that runs the other way (one of my favorite shots ever, anywhere, period); the montage of Roderick expressing his frayed mental state by playing the guitar, hands touching the strings interspersed with swamps, rainy skies, fog, drifting water surfaces; the wind blowing thru the mansion, with all its candles and dead leaves along the floor, with roaming camera like the spirits of Ushers buried ancestors; the funeral procession (my god the superimpositions with the turning candles and drifting dead leaves, the loping pounding walk of the pallbearers and Roderick staring up at the dead treetops); Rodering crying while reading the old text of Magnetism next to his wife's corpse; and of course the utter confidence of Roderick at the end, completely unhinged while being read to with a spaced out smile on his face rocking back & forth on his chair, absolutely certain that his wife will rise again.

I'm convinced Dreyer saw this film and was hugely moved and impressed by his peer. He's stated on occassions what a wonderful "film laboratory" of creation and invention Paris was in the 20's and how thrilled he was to feel a part of it. Vampyr to me feels very much like his answer to Usher.. using the light leak in the camera, the mists and fog and the abandoned chateau, (not to mention the funerary procession of Gray which also catches him staring up from his coffin at the dead treetops just like Roderick while bearing his wife), the twilight world between death and life, etc.. the eerie disembodied moving camera-- it screams "Usher" to me.

And pardon my favoritism, but I think Vampyr falls short of the Epstein film, as much as I love Dreyer's film and the boldness-- and brave nature-- of it.

And I love the All-Day disc, I got over the narration by the second or third viewing, and the medieval music in the film is probably the most appropriate marriage of music and silent film I've ever heard!

What really surprises me is that there's no release of this film in France on dvd! (and Epstein in general!)

Got my copy today and watched the film right away. It's the first time I've seen it "properly" and I'm still digesting it. I'd call it eerie and haunting (and very melancholic) rather than terrifying although it does have individual moments or scenes that did send a chill down my spine, most notably the famous "coffin sequence" and the sinister smile on Leone's face as her sister recoils in terror. Superb use of shadow and light, and a great score by Wolfgang Zeller that adds to the constant feeling of dread. The film didn't quite have the same devastating impact that Passion of Joan of Arc had on first viewing but I suspect that could change after I've seen it a few more times.

I haven't watched any of the extras yet but I did read the booklet and found LeFanu's and Newman's contributions informative and illuminating, and look forward to reading the script and Camilla. Love the package design - one of Criterion's best.

Michael wrote:Lucky find! How much did you pay for it? Curious.

About $20. I think it would have been $30. Checking Amazon right now I see they've got some copies back in stock for $22 + shipping, so it wasn't a crazy great deal, but all signs point to this going out of print (other copies from elsewhere are selling for $30 to $50 already).

Hopscotch wrote: Checking Amazon right now I see they've got some copies back in stock for $22 + shipping, so it wasn't a crazy great deal, but all signs point to this going out of print (other copies from elsewhere are selling for $30 to $50 already).

I am not so sure as it is now showing as 2 to 4 weeks delivery which may mean it is gone from stock (hopefully readers of this forum...). It is not showing any signs of disappearing from the All Day website though so there is no excuse for anyone not getting a copy. It will go directly to the label as well, AND there is a nice looking Edgar Ulmer box there at a good price.

The ulmer box is a blast. Moon Over Harlem baby.. quite a rare and landmark z film.

Just looking at CC's VAMPYR very impressed and intrigued... How well rated is the Rudkin monograph - worth picking up?...

This is a technical question about the DVD release. I noticed two sound anomalies (where the sound abruptly cuts off), and wonder if my disc is either defective, or if this is present in all discs.

First starts around 41:47 with the music abruptly stopping just after the second doorbell ring, and then resuming 5 seconds later.

Second one occurs around 52:53 and lasts until 53:17. The music stops, starts, and then stops. This takes place just after the scuffle with the doctor and lasts until the nurse is heard praying. I also tried the disc on other dvd players and received the same result.

I wonder if complete and prolonged silence was really part of the film. The music soundtrack is usually present in the background (sometimes toned down to the point it's hardly noticeable), and in cases where music is absent; the bare ambient sounds, or dialogue always takes its place, never this complete silence for such a duration.

Coincidentally, the other criterion purchase I made with this one also has an issue, this relating to a picture drop. That observation is on the 386: "Sansho the Bailiff" thread. Please, if someone would take the time to reply, it will be greatly appreciated.

Is the French version still up for restoration and will Criterion consider releasing it at some point? It seems a shame to see the uncensored version rendered obscure in favour of the neutered German version

Oh, and this slight glitch appears on the UK DVD during the scene where the vampire attack is seen from the house. Is it on the Criterion?

Now I know what Bunel must have felt like.

Spoiler

I just watched this, first Dreyer, and I was along with it until his soul split. My main problem is to what purpose that detour had. There seems to be no reason for it. At the very least the other oddities seemed to have a reason for being in the movie but I can't understand this filler. I'm fin with his 'soul' splitting off. He returns after all, but what for the third body? Why is it being taken by the villains to be buried? Why is that the one thread to go no where and literally puff off? I really don't know what to take of the movie almost entirely because of that bit. It seems good, but why the coffin? I even immediately went to the Commentary to see if there was purpose to this besides great camera work. The Camera was all the commentator spoke of! I don't know if I should hate the thing or call it great. It's walking a fine line. I'm sure if I could just find some purpose beyond being weird I would like the film, but for now it is in limbo.

Seriously? That's the part you had trouble with? As far as I'm concerned, everything that comes before only exists to justify filming that set piece.

How is it justified though? It was a great moment on a technical and even atmospheric level, but seemed to mean nothing in context. I just can't make an opinion on it with out knowing the purpose of that detour.

This is a film that operates on dream logic, so trying to work out what everything 'means' is probably misguided - I'm also amazed, though, that you had trouble seeing the purpose of that scene, which I believe has always been the most celebrated part of the film, when the rest of it is if anything far less easy to interpret rationally. If you do want to 'understand' it, though, you might want to consider the film as a meditation on mortality, on the fear of the great, uncanny 'unknown' that is death. Consider, for example, that Allan wakes up just before his dream-self is to be buried, and that as soon as he does wake up he goes and

Spoiler

helps to stake the vampire.

Vampires often serve as a kind of locus for fears about death - think of Nosferatu - and you could see this as a story about the struggle to overcome those fears (that's a banal and simplistic interpretation, but you get the idea).

To some extent I sympathise with your confusion, but you have to bear in mind that Dreyer wasn't interested in telling an ordinary vampire story - he was exploring some quite profound themes, in a highly experimental (and I would say very alienating, even by Dreyer's standards) style. Maybe not the best Dreyer to start with!

You're definitely right on the last sentence. Maybe if I treat like Night on Earth or a serial I'll like it better. If any thing that bit makes for a great short film. Just not entirely sure why it was included. Thinking of it as one in a series of unrelated adventures on mortality does make the pill easier to swallow and I should say that outside of this confusion on purpose I very much enjoyed the film, Yeah, episodes may make me feel better about the movie.

denti alligator wrote:

stalker_ozu wrote:Wow by far the best release of July.

Correction: of the year so far (from Criterion, at least).

I know it's a little late, but with the year officially over, IMHO, this is the Criterion release of the year.

In other current news, Obama was the best presidential candidate and Michael Phelps was the best Olympian.

Tom Hagen wrote:In other current news, Obama was the best presidential candidate and Michael Phelps was the best Olympian.

=; Yeah, I saw that coming. Can't say I didn't deserve it.

But, hey, I'm a newbie here and if you couldn't guess from my screen name, I kinda like this flick. \:D/

Finally saw "Vampyr" on a library-loaned Criterion DVD over the weekend. Wow, considering its reputation and pedigree (especially as Dreyer's follow-up to "Joan of Arc") this one is a major disappointment to me. Thank God (if he/she/it exists) I didn't blind-buy this on previous Criterion sales (package looked tempting). "Spirit of the Beehive" I love as far as movies heavy on 'dream logic,' while almost anything Lynch has done after "Wild At Heart" I pretty much don't like or care for. Just because "Vampyr" seeks to recreate the atmosphere of a dream/nightmare though doesn't mean the camera angles have to be so disjointed, the performances so bland (Julian West looks like he was plucked from regional theater, thrown on the set and told to act without direction) and the narrative so innocuous. I wish this was at least boring as an excuse for me to tune out or fall asleep, but it just sits there plodding along (text, weird angle, bland acting, more text, shadows/fog, repeat) for the most interminable 73 minutes (times two) I've ever wasted on a Criterion since "The Honeymoon Killers" a few months ago. Apparently I'm not alone in that a lot of people have trouble with their first-viewing experiences with "Vampyr" (based on reviews I've read elsewhere) but, after two separate viewings (one late at night in a darkened room), "Vampyr" succeeds at nothing except pointing how far superior Browning's "Dracula" and Murnau's "Nosferatu" were at translating the vampire myths into more appealing/interesting cinematic language. Even after two viewings I'm still puzzled what anyone sees in "Vampyr" besides faded gothic B&W imagery seemingly thrown together at Dreyer's whim (musical score is OK though). Coppola's "Dracula" is also another take on vampire myths that just leaves me cold and disdainful no matter how many chances I give it (five so far). Eventually I'll give "Vampyr" another crack but for now I just want to get as far away from it as possible. I don't even want to hear Tony Rayns' commentary track, and I love to hear 'em all.

Criterion did the best they could with what they had (picture looks/sounds every one of its 79 years) but, unlike "M," this is a talkie in which 'artsy' sound can't save an incoherent mess of a movie. And I know Dreyer is worshipped around here and nothing in "Vampyr" is random or bad per se (Carl is a proven, gifted auteur after all) so this violent rejection of this movie must be a personal reaction to both my expectations and how profoundly lower the viewings came below what I expected.

I, too, just watched this for the first time the other night but had quite a different experience. The film struck a chord with me. I'll just be brief with my thoughts:

1) the fact that you don't actually see any vampiricism makes the film that much more haunting. I find that with scary movies, the more left to your imagination, the more horrifying they are. In The Shining, it's all about atmosphere. A few scary images and the right scenarios turn it into a terrifying masterpiece. The Haunting from 1963, is another example, where very few tangibly horrible things happen, thus increasing suspense and nervousness.
2) Vampyr not acting alone, and having others helping was fascinating. Even as the Dr with glasses (he was a doctor, right? supposedly?) is

Spoiler

buried in sand at the end

I felt a sense of nervousness and suspense.
3) I love when a film makes you feel a part of it. When you are watching Joan of Arc, you are thrust into the action/trial so directly and without warning (and with the lack of sound!), you can really feel Joan's anguish. The first time you watch it, I feel "why are all these fuckers yelling at me!?" in a way. The disjointedness and blurriness (of certain scenes) in Vampyr adds to the confusion. Feeling the main character's confusion adds to the enjoyment.
And lastly, though I'm not a huge horror fan, I can think of few images as creepy as the point at which the sick girl turns her head and stares with big eyes at the others in the room. Horrifying.

best vampire movie ever. then Let the Right One In. then Herzog's Nosferatu.