criterionforum.org

zedz wrote:

swo17 wrote:I'm very much looking forward to this release, but have to ask re: the claim that Underworld "is widely considered the film that launched the American gangster genre," is this accurate? From doing my pre-1920s list homework, it seems like either Griffith's The Musketeers of Pig Alley, Tourneur's Alias Jimmy Valentine, or Walsh's Regeneration hold claim to that title.

That attribution for Underworld is pretty standard, and I think the distinction is that those earlier gangster films (let's add The Penalty too), which did indeed set up a lot of the ideas and tropes of the genre, didn't kickstart the genre as a genre - i.e. there wasn't a flood of imitators. Whereas Underworld was swiftly followed by so many features in the same vein that a recognizable genre developed.

That's not really sustainable, either... the gangster picture was well up and running by this time with gobs of archtypical entries in the well-established genre. The men who irrefutably created the archtype by having hits that they kept imitating, hammering the ingredients home that spawned the host of imitators beyond all doubt was Browning along with Chaney... The attribution about Underworld is essentially wrong from any angle. Gangster films by 1927 were nothing new.

Browning's resume pre-27, beginning with the Wicked D is filled with stuff like The Blackbird, The Unholy Three, Outside The Law, Dollar Down, Man Under Cover, Silk Stocking Sal (allegedly a crime film, but lost), White Tiger, etc. Then you get Chaney's which is filled with pre-'27, non Browning crime/gangster films, running most notably from the already mentioned Wicked D, to the blazing Penalty, and onward.

Not to mention global entries from Germany, France (hell, what was Louis Feuillade doing in the teens?), etc.

Matt wrote:I can't imagine Universal is clutching the Blu-ray rights for these films tightly to their chest.

Being silents, they are still owned by Paramount (who released them on VHS), I believe.

Schreck, what could be possibly wrong about Israel's scores for the two Gances or for "Phantom"? Agreed on Sosin, of course.

This is incredible. Main line release! I wouldn't have bet on that.

The response to this release here (a cross section of Criterion nuts) should get Criterion to start thinking seriously about releasing more silents.

EDIT: It's coming out the day before my birthday. What a gift!

denti alligator wrote:The response to this release here (a cross section of Criterion nuts) should get Criterion to start thinking seriously about releasing more silents.

Which would be the only reason to make me a Criterion nut again

HerrSchreck wrote:That's not really sustainable, either... the gangster picture was well up and running by this time with gobs of archtypical entries in the well-established genre.

Oh, I agree, but those terms are the ones on which I've seen Underworld hailed as the progenitor. I suspect early critics looking at the flood of gangster films in the early thirties and trying to account for it simply looked backwards until they found Underworld and stopped looking further. And it may have been that earlier films like The Penalty and Regeneration simply weren't readily accessible at the time. Film history is such a messy and contingent business.

I've never seen Underworld, so I don't know whether or not it has any specific attributes that align it more strongly with what came after than what came before, which is obviously another consideration.

denti alligator wrote:The response to this release here (a cross section of Criterion nuts) should get Criterion to start thinking seriously about releasing more silents.

The Big Parade and The Crowd [-o<

Tommaso wrote:Schreck, what could be possibly wrong about Israel's scores for the two Gances or for "Phantom"? Agreed on Sosin, of course.

Nothing particularly much, though they don't move me along the lines of, say, Brock and the Olympia Orch's work on some of the Image titles.

That said, I don't want this to sound like it's about my taste in particular. Because a man does Reasonably Acceptable Work versus a Heap of Aggregate Failure, doesn't mean that the possibility for variety--not to mention opportunity for others to work, from genre to genra and from label to label-- should end because you've found a single source provider of product which is Merely Inoffensive. I've said it unnumerable times... I really give lots of credit to WB in their giving young composers a chance on sets like the TCM Chaney vol1. They breathed new life into a medium which badly needs it-- too bad it was a briefest flicker.

david hare wrote:Should we all perhaps be lobbying Crit to reconsider the Blu option?

I'm always up for it. But what can we do if they're claiming they don't have the rights for a Blu release?

These are new high-definition transfers, so that's not the issue. They licensed these from Paramount back in 2007, when Blu-ray wasn't really a consideration, and they currently have DVD rights only. They didn't get the Blu-ray rights for any of the 14 titles they licensed from Paramount. So far, the only title that Criterion has gone back to Paramount about and renegotiated for the Blu-ray rights was Days of Heaven, and I understand that took some convincing. Obviously the legendary cinematography on that particular film makes it a special case worth spending extra time and money on. I'd like to see a Blu-ray Sternberg set (as well as Ace in the Hole, The Naked Prey, and other Paramount titles), but right now it just ain't in the cards.

That's discouraging. I remember celebrating the Days of Heaven BR as a sign that Paramount would be flexible with Blu rights.

Regardless, I sent Criterion an email pleading for a Blu release.

Wait, what happened to Thunderbolt?

How do we know that the original film treatment for Underworld won't comprise most of the booklet?

david hare wrote:Can someone advise the best person to email? Peter Becker? Or should we be thinking about a petition? Im going to bring this up at DaveK's blog and the BluRay forum. It just seems like a totally lost opportunity.

Facebook seems to work pretty well for this kind of thing, especially for it's visibility. Maybe a dual-pronged facebook-Becker attack. The Internet's so easy going facebook-Becker-Mulvaney-Paramount would probably be worth it.

david hare wrote:Lube, don't give up hope on Wedding March.
"rescue" is the operative word when you're talking about Paramount.

Coming from you with your inside knowledge, I guess there's some solid reason for hope.
Paramount released some of their silents on tape, beyond the three Sternbergs there was Covered Wagon, Old Ironsides, Running Wild and Wings as well as The Sheik and The Ten Commandments which are in PD now and have found their way on DVD. Assuming they will tackle Wings themselves, we can only hope for the other trio.

I took "we don't have the right to BD for the Sternbergs" to simply translate as "we didn't ask/pay for them."

Not that they "asked and were denied" them.

I'm frankly a little shocked myself. I thought for sure that earlier wind re BLU on these was authentic. But I kept mum.

Still, versus what we've been getting-- hey, when was the last time we've gotten a non-Kino silent SET in R1?

david hare wrote:I can now safely report (I think) that when both Tag and Janet B mentioned further Archival vault masters including Salvation Hunters and Thunderbolt The Crit people just blinked. There are some other things I won't talk about but the point with Crit is you need to get in as early as possible when a project is in the works and work it up to idealization.

Wait wait, this bit is really hard to take. Because Criterion only ever planned to release three silent Sternbergs, even though they had access to two more silent Sternbergs, they passed up the chance to release them? Did they have their hearts set on the number 3? I don't get it. Those other two may never see the light of day. Why would they do that? Criterion is never going to release a Sternberg silent box again, and neither is Universal. I just don't get it.

Obviously I'm excited beyond belief for this release. I'll have it day and date, but the myriad "could've beens" floating around here are depressing.

Jeff wrote:These are new high-definition transfers, so that's not the issue. They licensed these from Paramount back in 2007, when Blu-ray wasn't really a consideration, and they currently have DVD rights only. They didn't get the Blu-ray rights for any of the 14 titles they licensed from Paramount. So far, the only title that Criterion has gone back to Paramount about and renegotiated for the Blu-ray rights was Days of Heaven, and I understand that took some convincing. Obviously the legendary cinematography on that particular film makes it a special case worth spending extra time and money on. I'd like to see a Blu-ray Sternberg set (as well as Ace in the Hole, The Naked Prey, and other Paramount titles), but right now it just ain't in the cards.

Makes sense.

I've seen the Alloy Orchestra perform with The Last Command at Telluride, and it was a pretty fantastic score. I'm very pleased that they are including this one.

What I don't get is why a three-disc set is assigned four spine numbers: 529 is Underworld, 530 The Last Command, 531 Docks of New York, so 528 must be the box. Could someone shed light on this please?

Hofmeister wrote:What I don't get is why a three-disc set is assigned four spine numbers: 529 is Underworld, 530 The Last Command, 531 Docks of New York, so 528 must be the box. Could someone shed light on this please?

They've been doing this since their first multi-film boxset, Carl Th Dryer.

Thanks for the swift reply Ashirg, it's quite true that this is being done; I just thought there was a rationale behind it.

Absolutely GREAT news! What a shock from Criterion! I just kind of assumed they held nightly drinking sessions where they did nothing but hoot and holler about how they'd never release another decent silent film ever again, casually throwing celluloid into a big bonfire and making prank phone calls to tell random Criterionforum people it'll be a cold day in hell before they put out another Sternberg. Good of them to prove me wrong.

I hope the scores are good. My sad-sack nerdy life tends to skip from one disappointment in silent film score to another.

In all honesty I really don't feel very strongly about THUNDERBOLT, despite some interesting uses of early sound. The film for me was close to a complete flop-- is has its moments, especially early on... but the vast bulk of it is just clumsy and so silly (and monotonous in the jailhouse scenes) it borders on the more embarassing end of camp.

That said I always thought viewing it in a sparkling print might cause it to recover some qualities which are not apparent when viewing these back channel, ropey dupes full of video noise, dupe grain, and blown contrast. But still and all, one can watch dupey, ropey copies of UNDERWORD and DOCKS and immediately see that you are watching a masterpiece. Far from the case with THUNDERBOLT.

david hare wrote:I don't know if you're familiar with these films but they represent the apex of visual Beauty in American silent cinema, and in the case of Docks of NY possibly all world cinema.

This just took me from "I'll buy this later" to "I'll buy this now!" Having only seen Sternberg's sound work, this box set should be a treat.