criterionforum.org

Ivy Mike wrote:Is there a clear victor in the visual and aural dept on any of these?

No. The Optimum looks slightly more natural in the skin tones, the Criterion is slightly sharper. And I have my doubts about the 1.78 aspect ratio of both, it looks too tight for my taste. Optimum however is the clear winner in the extras for me. Ian Christie can't be beat as an audio commentator of Powell's works.

I just also want to add to the praise of this film, probably the best solo effort on Powell's part and one of my favorite film performances from Boehm (and superb character part from the immortal Moira Shearer). Sublimely creepy.

I'm on a bit of a Powell and Pressburger kick, and I decided to revisit this film (hadn't seen it in a few years after purchasing the dvd). The comparisons to "Psycho" on this thread are very interesting, and I'm in the camp of people who think that Mark kills out of shame; his latent obsession with cinema springs from his decidedly lurid relationship with his father (bad psychology in the real world, but it works for the purposes of the film, I think). To me, this feels obvious.

One thing I noticed this time around is the way the art of cinema, or at least art in general, finds its way into all aspects of Mark's life. He aestheticizes everything (the way he lays out the newspapers bearing the picture of his latest victim, the way he organizes his screening room so that a stranger inside is clearly the center of attention, and not the film) fascinated me. I haven't listened to Mulvey's commentary yet; does she mention this?

There was also one thing that troubled me a little, however: as good as the performance is, did anyone else feel Anna Massey's character felt far more like a plot device than a person naturally attracted to Mark? It bothered me slightly this time around. She just stood out more. The scene in which she watches Mark's home videos felt a little... false? I feel like this woman wouldn't dare watch more than ten seconds of this guy's stuff.I'm just going by my interpretation of the character.

Also, how hilarious was Shirley Anne Field in this? Her breakdown is hysterical.

As to which release is the best i would personally advise BOTH the criterion and the optimum, while they both are pretty equal on the transfers imo its the range and uniqueness of their respective extras on this excellent film that make both a must own.

The Criterion aside its commentary has the channel 4 doc which runs a solid 50mins and covers alot of ground. The optimum has a Scorsese intro, a different commentary (like the previous post i also prefer this one) and three seperate featurettes (about 60 odd mins total) that look at the film from different angles that the Channel 4 doc. If there was one disc with all these things on then that would be the one to own! If your a fan then youll probably end up with both (oh and the booklet with the Optimum is pretty nice to, 20 or so pages)

If your a UK buyer start with the Optimum as you can probably find it pretty cheap (got mine new for about £4) if the film wows then splash out on the more expensive criterion

I saw this over the weekend, and I thought it was pretty entertaining. I didn't think it was a masterpiece or anything and at times found it a little slow. What I did find absolutely delicious is the score and I was surprised by the lack of mention it received in this thread.

I also found this while perusing the wikipedia entry:

Martin Scorsese wrote:"I have always felt that Peeping Tom and 8½ say everything that can be said about film-making, about the process of dealing with film, the objectivity and subjectivity of it and the confusion between the two. 8½ captures the glamour and enjoyment of film-making, while Peeping Tom shows the aggression of it, how the camera violates... From studying them you can discover everything about people who make films, or at least people who express themselves through films."
SOURCE: David Thompson and Ian Christie (eds). Scorsese on Scorsese. London: Faber & Faber. 1989

I found that very curious; especially since 8 1/2 is my favorite film.

If you're tired of your glorious Criterion transfer, Michael Powell's PEEPING TOM is at Film Forum this week in NYC: Sept 2/3.

Le Voyeur aka Peeping Tom eclipses any other previously released version in regard to sharpness, contrast & color fidelity - AND it can be watched without subs in its original language. Get it while you can - it's The Version to get! http://tinyurl.com/yf6uydo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Going Out of Print by the End of March.

dad1153 wrote:Going Out of Print by the End of March.

Put a smile on your face - this is no loss - the French edition, I repeat, is the one to get!

Is that French release even better than the UK 2-discer? I'd hate to miss the Ian Christie commentary on that one.

Tommaso wrote:Is that French release even better than the UK 2-discer? I'd hate to miss the Ian Christie commentary on that one.

I'm sorry, but yes, much better. You'd have to double-dip.
Expensively, too, as it's OOP.

Can you post captures then? Because there'd have to be a considerable improvement in picture quality to warrant buying that one, especially as there will be some Blu release for sure? For now I think the 2-Disc UK SE is the best package out there and incredibly cheap. 6.49€ shipped at play.com right now.

jbaart wrote:Could you please post some captures then?

I'm sorry, I don't have a program on my computer that allows me to do it. You'd either have to take my word for it or wait for a potential Blu-ray release.

VLC Player is freeware and can be downloaded at videolan.org. It can take captures. But you're right, I can live with the UK til a Blu-ray surfaces.

I found a review of the French disc on this French site. They included two screencaps, and they indeed look very fine, but without a direct comparison it's hard to tell how much the image is improved over the R2. Colours seem to be better than the Crit in any case.

Tommaso wrote:I found a review of the French disc on this French site. They included two screencaps, and they indeed look very fine, but without a direct comparison it's hard to tell how much the image is improved over the R2. Colours seem to be better than the Crit in any case.

It is the same collection as for other Powell / Pressburger, as Colonel Blimp, Black Narcisse or The Red Shoes, and yes, they are really good restorations, english friendly (for the movie AND the extras, ALL of them) and as (but only in French) about 60p booklets.
The collection's president is Bertrand Tavernier.

DVD Beaver comparing the Criterion with the French disc.

The Criterion looks like a colorized film, excessive grain with the wrong colours create this feeling. I prefer the Studio CAnal disc, although i wish that the softness of the transfer will not be present on the upcoming blu-ray.

I have two UK editions (both StudioCanal-derived of course) and the earlier 2000 Warner edition is notably sharper than the Optimum on a large screen. The latter is cleaned up and has much better extras of course.

I own the Optimum DVD and it is an excellent presentation of the film. I saw the movie only once in a theater and I don't remember the cinematography as being the sharpest, so the slight softness visible (to varying degrees) in the captures from the various DVD editions is probably simply faithful to the original film. The Optimum is certainly more focused than the Criterion, which I watched a few years ago, and the colors looked more true. And it is loaded with interesting and relevant extras.

If you regret missing the Laura Mulvey commentary from the CC, you'll find it adapted almost verbatim for her contribution to "Michael Powell: International Perspectives on an English Film-maker", edited by Ian Christie, a very fine book which amazon.ca usually stocks (probably the same for amazon.com).

Usually not very expensive on amazon.co.uk, at the present price (5 £, less for North-American orders since the VAT is deducted for us), this DVD is truly a steal.

And contrary to what the DVDBeaver site states, this is a single-disc edition.

I've long been intrigued by this title, though I only recently caught up with it. Somewhere along the way--perhaps because of mis-remembered stories about how this destroyed Michael Powell's career--I had come under the impression that this was an explicit, stomach churning take on voyeurism, potentially as bad as Salo in challenging audiences.

Suffice to say, I was rather surprised to find out that this is a methodical and reserved little film about a budding serial killer who uses his camera to photograph and kill his victims. I can see where it would have been shocking for its era (prior to watching, I also thought the film was late sixties, for some reason), but it doesn't retain the same ability in this day and age. I loved the central performance, a great bit of acting that treads a fine edge of someone trying to pretend to be 'sane' which often doesn't work, but here comes across perfectly. I particularly liked how some things were kept backgrounded, like the repeated motif of women with red-hair, which goes unmentioned within the text of the film. I was also particularly taken by the scene when he hands his camera over to the investigator in an attempt to appear casually unconcerned about the investigation, only to realize soon after letting the camera out of his touch triggered major anxiety; combined with the scenes of his onanistic fondling of the camera lens, Powell did a great job establishing what the camera means to him, which is much more than what women mean to him. He's taken the camera as his lover, metaphorically, and it is a harsh and jealous taskmaster.

It's not Powell's best effort, but it's certainly not his worst (graf spree, ugh), and there is certainly more depth to the film than you usually find in the genre, I can definitely see this being a film that gets better and better with repeated viewings.

movielocke wrote:It's not Powell's best effort, but it's certainly not his worst (graf spree, ugh)

Is that the heist film where a bunch of old codgers try to steal a battleship?

I'm pretty sure that's an alt for The Battle of River Plate. It's an alright movie though I agree that it's basically the bottom of the Archer barrel.

knives wrote:It's an alright movie though I agree that it's basically the bottom of the Archer barrel.

As far as The Archers are concerned, yes. But wait till you've seen Powell's 1961 solo effort "The Queen's Guards", released after "Peeping Tom", btw. "Guards" understandably sank like a stone, and was the real cause for Powell becoming unable to find work in England, even though the scandal around "Peeping Tom" certainly wasn't helpful, either.

knives wrote:I'm pretty sure that's an alt for The Battle of River Plate. It's an alright movie though I agree that it's basically the bottom of the Archer barrel.

I was kidding about the typo.

Tommaso wrote:But wait till you've seen Powell's 1961 solo effort "The Queen's Guards", released after "Peeping Tom", btw. "Guards" understandably sank like a stone, and was the real cause for Powell becoming unable to find work in England, even though the scandal around "Peeping Tom" certainly wasn't helpful, either.

Wait till you see Age of Consent, which Powell made in 1969 when he came to Australia after his 'banishment' from England. Man-o-man that is a steaming pile of crap of a movie. English actors attempting - and failing - to do Aussie accents is cringe-making. It's hard to believe it's the same Powell who made Colonel Blimp and The Red Shoes.