Essential Art House: 50 Years of Janus Films

[hammock]

Found this review on Amazon with an extensive discription of the packing and other details:

This is certainly the most remarkable collection of films to come out in one DVD package. And I would really like to thank Criterion for overpricing their DVDs so much that I had very little overlap with my existing library, having passed on most of their editions of these films. Here are a few observations that might be of use to potential buyers:
1) the widescreen movies are anamorphic
2) Haxen is 104 min, substantially longer than the 77 min version that has shown on premium cable.
3) I compared the Janus versions of two films, Wages of Fear and Seven Samurai, with the Criterion versions I had. I expected them to be identical (figuring that Criterion probably did the work for Janus) but they were considerably different. In both cases, the Janus copies were amazingly superior: much better (and louder)sound, crisper images with fewer defects, much better definition in shadowy areas, and a much more stable image. I never realized how poor the Criterion prints were until I saw the comparison. It's amazing the psychological effect of all that. In both cases, I was strongly tempted to continue watching the whole film with Janus, and found the Criterion copy 'tiring'. The translations also differed, with Janus having fewer errors (e.g. Samurai's "the rice we're eating now" v.s. "the rice we're eating, how"). I cannot wait to watch the rest of these films.
3. I could detect no difference between Anchor Bay's and Janus's Kind Hearts and Coronets.
4. The print of Lady Vanishes is the clearest I've seen. The el cheapo Brentwood print, in their Hitchcock collection, is unwatchable.
5. The one really bad aspect of the collection is that the DVDs are wedged tightly into paper slots. Every single disc was covered with tiny flecks of paper, and every disc was scratched, sometimes quite badly (but not enough to affect playback, I think). Whether this occurred putting the disc in, or taking it out, I can't say. However, repeating this process would rapidly damage the surface. I put all the discs into individual cases, and I STRONGLY recommend doing so. Some of the discs felt like they were glued to the page, the packaging was so tight. If you are a real fanatic about surface defects, and don't plan on reselling the set, you might even want to use a razor to cut the paper and LIFT the disc out. Whatever you do, don't rotate the disc as you try to unstick it or you may get a spiralling defect.
Despite that caveat, this is an incredible bargain - less than $12 per film instead of $30 for Criterion's. That makes those commentaries pretty bloody expensive.
One can only hope Janus will put out another 50 movies (hopefully in individual cases, though).

[Ashirg]

He cleary compared to old versions of Wages of Fear and Seven Samurai.

[miless]

He cleary compared to old versions of Wages of Fear and Seven Samurai.

and he is obviously not aware of the Criterion version of The Lady Vanishes

[Nothing]

Eclipse isn't for cult films anymore.

Well okay... Fires on the Plain is neither cult nor second tier.

Btw, there has been a decent English-subtitled DVD of Le Jour se lève out in France for years. The film itself is pretty minor, anyway.

[Matt]

Btw, there has been a decent English-subtitled DVD of Le Jour se Leve out in France for years. The film itself is pretty minor, anyway.

oooooookay....

[kinjitsu]

Btw, there has been a decent English-subtitled DVD of Le Jour se lève out in France for years. The film itself is pretty minor, anyway.

oooooookay....

Oh, and that lead actor is second-rate, too.

[Nothing]

By that rationale, MEET THE FOCKERS is an instant classic...

But really, if it wasn't Carne/Gabin, would anyone care? It's a pretty ludicrous, overwrought film, especially in comparison to Renoir's work of the period.

[kinjitsu]

By that rationale, MEET THE FOCKERS is an instant classic...

Have you actually seen Jour se lève?

Meet the Fockers is a masterpiece, so don't even go there...

[Tribe]

From today's NY Times:

New DVDs: Formidable 50: A DVD Collection Drawn From the Janus Vaults

In 1909 P. F. Collier & Son published a 50-volume set of the world's great literature as chosen by Charles William Eliot, the president of Harvard. For the ambitious, go-getting Americans of the time, always eager to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the collection became an immediate success, and Mr. Eliot's “five-foot shelfâ€

[Cinesimilitude]

youre the new choice dick

He's no TechNoir.

[Nothing]

That was, erm, coherent

[Mr Sausage]

Balls!

If youre going to make broad sweeping statements back them up with argument.

Or doesnt that count on this forum anymore?

Well, I think part of the problem may be that the severity of your response doesn't really seem warranted by Nothing's tame, if misguided, posts. People are going to look for something far more provoking to match your response and, not finding much, might be confused, as though some post were left out.

Actually I was pretty confused too, back before some nice person put all of your posts together.

[tryavna]

I've found that, like most forums, this one has lulls every now and again. Remember, it was really only a few weeks ago that the Abel Gance thread was humming, and there have been some interesting posts in the Boutique section lately -- not to mention the conversation John Cope and Gregory have been carrying on in the Oliveira thread. Perhaps the Eclipse news and things like the general Warner announcement for '07 have made a larger number of recent posts about speculation rather than anything else.

Sorry, I don't mean to turn this into a "state-of-the-forum" thread, but there are still some nice nuggets to be found throughout the forum.

[Mr Sausage]

So we dont care that posters just make broad statements, never choose to argue their points and swan off to the next subject or target.

Where did I, or anyone else, say that? Nowhere that I can see.

And the "severity" of my responses I suppose is in proportion to the simple mindedness of others' "harmless" baiting.

Hostility can be no less simple-minded, whatever side you are on. Matt handled this issue reasonably some posts ago, there is no reason why you cannot do the same. Nothing was not pulling a Barmy; his "baiting" was merely an off-the-cuff remark, ill-advised as I said, but for the most part harmless.

Thus it's preferable to politely ignore the silliness and forget about any sort of response. God forbid any real passion for the subject might color the tone of the reply (not to mention a couple of stiff ones.)

You do like to invent arguments to justify your actions. The problem with this argument is it assumes there are only two ways to handle this: to ignore it, or to become rude and harsh. That is not so, and other board members have demonstrated it.

If this were Barmy I could understand your rage, but frankly it just seems excessive here.

I really dont care any more. I used to get a lot out of the forum, and I hope I put a fair bit in. These days, actually since Matt relinquished the proprietorship, the whole place seems to be largely swimming in generalizations and cover art tragedies. While the forum was never solely intended as a cinephile haven it certainly became one of the best and most interesting places on the web for securing and engaging in serious film discussion - a nice take off from the basic brief it began with. There are still people here I read with great dedication and affection. But there's just too much twaddle .

I've never found it convincing when a clearly angry, impassioned person says that they do not care.

It's too bad you're dissapointed in the forum; you are one of the better posters on this thing. But forums fluctuate, and there was an equal if not greater amount of generalizations and cover-art tragedies in Matt's day as there are now. Matt didn't hand over the forum for no reason.

[HerrSchreck]

Just let it blow over Dave (I recall how you'd publicly appeal to my more civilzed side from time to time when some wonk would get under my skin and my brain would start shortcircuiting sparks & frying pan splats, so maybe can do the same for you here). So the kid thinks Carne is blah & JOUR SE LEVE is overrated. You been thru worse (someone say "bourgoise fans of Malle"?) & come out unvarnished, so let this little bubble pop pop. Aint worth it my friend. And watch the spirits' response to grain spirits.

[HerrSchreck]

Even me, a cut & dry hetero, knows that you probably like a stiff drink while sticking your pipe inta crack Dave.

[Nothing]

Hmm... it's been 5 years since I saw the film and I remember being disappointed. It is hard to go in-depth, since I currently have no desire to watch the film again - and none of the supporters of the film have given me any reason or argument for why I should do so, either. Not sure what 40s and 50s French cinema has to do with this, btw.

Personally, I cannot help but view this in light of the Red Desert thread in which Mr. Hare was proved categorically wrong by myself, after having accused me of all sorts of bizarre agendas. Fine - "block out" my posts and continue to believe that you're always right.

[Nothing]

La Bete Humaine and Toni, now those are classics...

Mists of Regret looks kind of interesting anyway, may check that out.

[Andre Jurieu]

I should of course choose the very wise Andre option and simply block out people like Nothing, or simply choose not to acknowledge their posts ... Perhaps you could offer instruction on this "third path" to handle stupid posts, perhaps the "gently admonishing" form? Or maybe the "studied weariness" pose. No these dont really work for me. I prefer the Andre option.

I'm confused. So what exactly is the "Andre option" now?

I'll be honest. I was kind of puzzled by your response to Nothing as well. I'm not exactly sure what "fair Frenchie pervert movies" or A Prairie Home Companion have to do with Nothing's overly reductive dismissal of Le Jour se lève, or why he has to prove he's an expert in Gabin, Carne, and/or France of the 40s and 50s in order to state his opinion of the film. We aren't requiring everyone who has a positive opinion on Grand Illusion to state their academic qualifications regarding their knowledge of WWI, Renoir, and Erich von Stroheim. Unlike a_film_by, where everyone is comparing their credentials instead of discussing films, we usually just let that kind of posturing go. Could you at least expand upon your own position, because I'm kind of intrigued as to what a A Prairie Home Companion has to do with this situation and where the whole "fair Frenchie pervert" categorization came from?

[toiletduck!]

I'm confused. So what exactly is the "Andre option" now?

It would appear to be stirring up shit just as it starts to settle. Good God, man, duck!

-Toilet Dcuk

[Andre Jurieu]

It would appear to be stirring up shit just as it starts to settle. Good God, man, duck!

Don't you mean, "dcuk?"

Yeah, this might not be the best course of action on my part (yet another addition to my long list of ill-advised actions), but I'm kind of interested as to the Altman connection and the "fair Frenchie perverts" thing.

[Mr Sausage]

You're tacitly endorsing this, by virtue of your light dismissal of Nothing's post as "off the cuff", when in fact the forum has - obviously unenforecable - guidleines about blanket statements including the need to argue your point.

Oh that's nonsense. I called it "off the cuff" because it wasn't even the focus of his post, it was a mere side comment. Since I clearly endorse the reprimand he received from Matt, Toiletduck, ect., I fail to see how I could also be "tacitly endorsing" reductive and generalized comments by saying you were over harsh in your response. Perhaps you're not a fan of dealing with issues according to their context and as the individual event requires. I, on the other hand, am, and will criticize over-reactions as much as I will silly generalizations.

And you're right, the forum does have guidelines about blanket statements (unenforced as it is). But it also has rules about rudeness and insults--both of which are themselves poor substitutes for argument.

I prefer the Andre option.

Don't you mean the JaimeChristely option?

[Nothing]

my memory of Monsieur Lange is sketchier than my memory of Le Jour se Leve, so I'll have to sit that one out for the time being fwiw, in perhaps somewhat unadventurous fashion, La Regle du Jeu and Partie de campagne are the Renoirs I find myself returning to time and again.

humhum, which of you is JaimeChristely?

[Gregory]

humhum, which of you is JaimeChristely?

His name is spelled Christley, just for the record, and he was banished a couple of years ago. He was hotheaded but was also probably the only banned member in the forum's history whose comments about film were often worth taking seriously. The others haven't been at all a loss, if memory serves.

[arsonfilms]

Just to um... get back on topic, how many people invested in 50 Years, and of those who did, is it worth investing in the book alone? The whole box isn't worthwhile for me because I have a lot of the titles and I'm a bit of an extras hound, but I'm pretty seriously considering the book by itself. Thing is though, even in college I never would have spent $65 on a book, and I was hoping more people would weigh in. How extensive is the information/lavish are the photos? Is it something you'd find yourself going back to repeatedly?