criterionforum.org

Caps are up on caps-a-holic. Looked worryingly contrast boosted so I did a random zoom. I want the extras, but the picture isn't an improvement to the Russian BD. Too much manipulation has meant loss of information. https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x=64 ... 0&i=9&go=1

I'm wondering instead if the russian disc has a gamma issue.

At least it has pixels. Where Criterion has gray squares. I'm holding on to my Russian disc.

All the time it took to upgrade the DVD, and it's a compression fail. Really not good up close, especially since the Russian BD is there for comparison.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x=50 ... 0&i=0&go=1

RobertB wrote: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:03 pm At least it has pixels. Where Criterion has gray squares. I'm holding on to my Russian disc.

What's the best source for getting Russian BDs shipped to the US?


EDIT: whoops, quoted the wrong post

senseabove wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:08 am
What's the best source for getting Russian BDs shipped to the US?

The last I checked, the Russian Blu-ray in question is out of print and has been for some time. In any case, because of Russian restrictions on exporting DVDs/Blu-rays, it's difficult to order them online from Russian sources such as Ozon. Some of the vendors sell bootlegs.

Personally, I'm happy with the Criterion edition. I've long felt that the image was too light on the Russian Blu-ray & I think Tenia may be right that it's a problem with the gamma levels. The Criterion looks fine in playback, even if the encoding doesn't look perfect when you blow up still frames.

EDIT: The other thing I should add is that the Russian Digital Elements/Mosfilm Blu-ray has fairly sparse subtitles. It could potentially make for a frustrating viewing experience if you do not understand spoken Russian. The Criterion is clearly superior in that respect. Everything considered, including the longer cut of the film now in HD, you can make a strong case for the Criterion edition as definitive for some time to come.

I was asking more in general, not specifically for Rublev. I've a Russian-speaking friend who said he's not found a good way to import, and all I could suggest was a forwarding service. But thanks for the reply!

My experience is the same as jsteffe's. I bought my Rublev when it was still in print, but I couldn't find anybody selling it from Russia. I checked Amazon many times until I found a seller who had it.

The Criterion screencaps look fine when viewed at 100% (rather than zooming in beyond that), so I'm not sure I'd be that quick to dismiss it.

You know, it looks to me from those caps-a-holic screenshots like the Criterion and Russian discs are exactly the same transfer (with the obvious framing difference) - I can see the same artefacts on both versions. I think the Criterion makes them a bit more obvious because they've bumped up the contrast a bit.

Does anyone know the status of the Criterion blu ray reg 2 release? Has it been postponed, or withdrawn completely?

I'm assuming "withdrawn completely". The longer cut won't get through the BBFC thanks to the 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act, so they'd have to break their rule about UK and US releases being identical.

Disappointing, but thanks for the response.

Just viewed the 205 minute version and am quite disappointed. Is this the best we can ever expect for this version? Would Mosfilm perhaps have a better quality negative or other materials that would allow a better quality release?

It's very unlikely that pre-print materials for this version of the film exist any more - Tarkovsky would have cut the original neg down to make the final version, with the offcuts most likely discarded as per usual practice. And since the longer cut never had any kind of release (even the final cut took years to emerge), it's very likely that the number of prints struck was in low single figures, and possibly even just the one.

Of course, it might be possible to create a hybrid version using footage from the shorter cut, but I suspect such a thing would be more irritating than otherwise. With something like, say, Mario Bava's Rabid Dogs it's unavoidable as the only surviving copy of Bava's original cut appears to be on poor-quality standard-definition video, but this is a slightly different case.

Yeah, wasn't it suggested elsewhere in this thread that the print of the 205 minute version that sometimes screens in rep cinemas is the same one Scorsese originally smuggled out of Russia? The rough shape of the long cut is almost certainly why Criterion took so long to release this. But the fact that better materials were probably never going to surface, along with the growing consensus that the shorter cut was Tarkovsky's preferred version, meant they finally gave up waiting and released it.

The liner notes on the new Blu actually mention the Passion print was loaned by Scorsese to Criterion for the edition.

Shrew wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:20 pm ...But the fact that better materials were probably never going to surface, along with the growing consensus that the shorter cut was Tarkovsky's preferred version, meant they finally gave up waiting and released it.

I think it was just a matter of signing a deal with Mosfilm once that company did its own restoration on the shorter cut to put this film on Criterion's release schedule. I doubt there was much hope that better materials were going to surface for the initial long cut. I was about to go into more detail about that lone 35mm print of the 205 min. version that's been making the rounds in the U.S. for 15 years or more, but now realize I've been saying the same thing in multiple posts for the past six years! I'll stand by what I said Sept. 18th, 2012:

Roger Ryan wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:10 pm ...that one existing 205 min. print is of poor enough quality that I imagine a Blu-ray release would be criticized unless the cleaner 185 min. edit was included as well...

So, is the Scorsese print the same as the one Soviet film archivists found in 1987?

Last night I watched the longer cut, after having watched most of the excellent extra's. Yes, it's not a spotless restoration (I'm kidding), however, it is a vast improvement on the old DVD and I am happy to own this cut in HD, looking as if I am watching a beat up film print. And I do like the flow of this cut a lot.

ari101 wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:41 pm So, is the Scorsese print the same as the one Soviet film archivists found in 1987?

Per the liner notes: "Source print for The Passion According to Andrei provided by Martin Scorsese"

MichaelB wrote: Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:33 pm

furbicide wrote:It’s not the fault of UK distributors, of course, but why would anyone buy their edition of this film when an uncensored version is available?

Because they don’t want to watch a horse being mutilated for real? I assume every copy I’ve ever watched or owned bar the old Criterion DVD is missing this shot (and I’ve seen the film many, many times), but I can’t say it’s ever bothered me.

I've been avoiding this film actually due to this scene, which sounds pretty horrifying. Is it included in the 185 minute cut?

connor wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:44 pm

MichaelB wrote: Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:33 pm

furbicide wrote:It’s not the fault of UK distributors, of course, but why would anyone buy their edition of this film when an uncensored version is available?

Because they don’t want to watch a horse being mutilated for real? I assume every copy I’ve ever watched or owned bar the old Criterion DVD is missing this shot (and I’ve seen the film many, many times), but I can’t say it’s ever bothered me.

I've been avoiding this film actually due to this scene, which sounds pretty horrifying. Is it included in the 185 minute cut?

The first half of the shot is in the current Director's Cut version, showing the horse falling off a flight of stairs. The horse is bleeding very badly, clearly gravely wounded. The full length shot, in THE PASSION OF ANDREI, continues after the fall, and goes on to a much more graphic picture of the horse's actual demise. It's not for the faint of heart. It's easily skipped, if you know what to watch out for.

Roscoe wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:58 pm

connor wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:44 pm

MichaelB wrote: Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:33 pm

Because they don’t want to watch a horse being mutilated for real? I assume every copy I’ve ever watched or owned bar the old Criterion DVD is missing this shot (and I’ve seen the film many, many times), but I can’t say it’s ever bothered me.

I've been avoiding this film actually due to this scene, which sounds pretty horrifying. Is it included in the 185 minute cut?

The first half of the shot is in the current Director's Cut version, showing the horse falling off a flight of stairs. The horse is bleeding very badly, clearly gravely wounded. The full length shot, in THE PASSION OF ANDREI, continues after the fall, and goes on to a much more graphic picture of the horse's actual demise. It's not for the faint of heart. It's easily skipped, if you know what to watch out for.

Ironically, scenes like that just serve to take me out of the film, imaginatively speaking. The opposite of the intended effect.

Here's a weird question, and apologies if this has been answered in the preceding years of this thread:

So, I recently picked up the new Criterion Blu-ray, and am listening to the selected scene commentaries by Vlada Petric (these were recorded in 1998 for the old edition, but I never listened to them very attentively on that disc). In the scene where we see the crucifixion/passion play in the snow, Petric repeatedly refers to Christ in this scene as "Kirill." Are we supposed to infer that this is a passion play where Jesus is played by the ex-monk Kirill (Ivan Lapikov)!? If so, that changes the meaning of this scene pretty drastically, but I don't think that's right. The actor on screen has similarly styled hair and beard to Kirill, but it doesn't look like Lapikov to me. Also, IMDb lists the actor Igor Donskoy as playing "Khristos" (Christ), and I can't think of anyone that could refer to other than the Christ in the crucifixion/passion play. Is Petric just wrong here? Or am I misunderstanding what he's saying?