criterionforum.org

I find it a little disconcerting that a review site would rank the Tati set so highly. I know there is a lot going for it, but I don't like the message that it sends. (I doubt the set would have ranked any higher if it had been flawless.) How many more corners can Criterion cut and still earn accolades for their work?

Some think that the Demy and the Tati sets are amongst the finest boxset Criterion ever produced, so...

Weren't many (a few) of the transfers in the The Werner Herzog Collection subpar?

(I never picked it up)

Not the BFI edition. It's really quite beautiful! The Shout edition is what you're thinking of.

tenia wrote:Some think that the Demy and the Tati sets are amongst the finest boxset Criterion ever produced, so...

I mean, I know that a lot of care went into the supplements on the Demy set and that it's packed with all-time classics, but how many more of the films could have had terrible transfers before the set would cease to be "among Criterion's finest"? (I don't even hold Lola against them much, as I suspect their hands were tied, but it certainly has to be taken into account when evaluating these kinds of things.)

As for the Tati set, isn't it basically just the StudioCanal set with better artwork but poorly thought out packaging?

It strikes me that Criterion has released any number of fine boxsets that didn't have basic transfer or packaging issues--Les Blank, Rossellini, Brakhage, Costa, WCF, Etaix, Qatsi, Three Colors, Trilogy of Life, etc. But why bother going to all that effort when your releases win awards either way?

swo17 wrote: As for the Tati set, isn't it basically just the StudioCanal set with better artwork but poorly thought out packaging?

Here is (I assume to be correct) the differences in extras between the two sets (Criterion + Studio Canal).

Most of Criterion's and other companies' best works do get overshadowed by some glitz and glam - but most of these polls do come out near the end of the year, thus I wonder what harm companies do to themselves with Nov/Dec releases if they want some accolades.

I don't think its too unfair to give the Tati set praise. It & the Studio Canal version finally give us the long-awaited 4k restoration of Playtime (something we've been bemoaning for a long time) + perfect transfers for all of the main features + a ton of supplements. As to the alternate films, who knows what their reasoning is, but I suspect Studio Canal is to blame. Personally, I voted it for best of year - as I absolutely love Tati, I love the idea of having a complete director's work easily accessible, I haven't had much interest in the alternate presentations other than curios - so I'll chiefly be watching the main features - even if the alternatives weren't fucked (although aren't only 2 out of the four alternative films atrocious? While the other two equal/better than the BFI editions? Not that that's any excuse). Warts and all, it is hard to still not be somewhat excited about a complete Tati set. (I suppose this is turning into a "why didn't they vote for what I want?" thread If we're going to get picky, Tooze says in his review for Les Blank "this is certainly the release of the year" and then he doesn't even end up voting for it.) + didn't the Shout/BFI Herzog sets add zero special features over those that came on the Anchor Bay editions years ago? All of the commentaries were certainly ported over.

The color version of Jour de fete and the original version of M. Hulot's Holiday are arguably the primary versions of those films. They certainly aren't mere curios. Of the other alternate versions, one is unique to the Criterion set (but presented in SD) and the other is inferior to the BFI presentation.

I don't know what the BFI might have added to their Herzog set. Even if it's nothing, that set is something of a gold standard for superior, efficient film presentation (especially for films that exist in multiple versions). Given that the purpose of the set was mainly to present as many films as possible, the only way it could have been bettered would have been to add more discs and more films.

Minkin wrote:didn't the Shout/BFI Herzog sets add zero special features over those that came on the Anchor Bay editions years ago? All of the commentaries were certainly ported over.

I can't speak for the Shout release, but the BFI added quite a few extras over and above previous Anchor Bay releases, notably Jack Bond's 56-minute South Bank Show documentary and an 83-minute onstage interview - not to mention Burden of Dreams and Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe. And even if you don't personally appreciate the commentaries, I believe the vast majority (if not all) were making their debuts on a UK release.

No votes for Mondo's Possession release?

Gary doesn't review Mondo Vision products. Granted, there was nothing to stop people voting for it, but there wouldn't have been much prompting from DVD Beaver.

swo17 wrote:The color version of Jour de fete and the original version of M. Hulot's Holiday are arguably the primary versions of those films...

The color version of JOUR DE FETE is a 90s reconstruction of the film that is missing some good footage since I believe they were trying to adhere to Tati's revisionist 60s re-edit when possible, not his original cut. Therefore, I don't consider this one the primary version. No argument with M. HULOT'S HOLIDAY, however; the 1953 edit should be considered the primary version.

It was only reconstructed in the '90s because the color process Tati used to shoot it in the '40s was dead in the water. The cameras shooting in color had primary position during filming, with the cameras shooting the B&W version to their side. This was to be the first French film ever made in color. Note also that the BFI presented the color version as the primary version on their release, where it looks marvelous (bearing the limitations of the color process in mind).

I can't argue with the BFI presenting the color version as the primary version or that Tati intended the film to be in color prior to the realization that the color process was unworkable. However, when reconstructing the color version in the 90s, Tati's original editing scheme was not followed. Maybe it was due to lost footage, but the edit more closely resembles how Tati re-edited the film in 1964 (missing any 60s-era footage, of course) so it is definitely a deviation from how Tati presented the film in 1949. As to camera placement, I tend to prefer the placement of the camera shooting the black-and-white footage for most of the exterior shots. Most of the interior shots, by the way, were printed from the color stock in black-and-white; the giveaway is the visible vertical lines from the special prism lens used on the camera shooting with the experimental color film.

Valid points. In any case, I would have been about equally disappointed if Criterion had presented the color version as the primary in 1080p with the 1949 version as an SD upscale.

Also, if Tati had been able to edit the colour version in 1949, he may have done so in a different manner to the 1949 B&W version anyway. Rather than the 1994 version being the original, it's more of a reconstruction a la Touch of Evil. Not the original (which Tati was never able to realise himself), but perhaps the cloest approximation we'll ever have to it. Either way, it deserves a lot more than a very crummy SD upscale (at least the Hulot's Holiday upscale looked half decent!)

MichaelB wrote:Gary doesn't review Mondo Vision products. Granted, there was nothing to stop people voting for it, but there wouldn't have been much prompting from DVD Beaver.

So why no Mondo Vision reviews on DVD Beaver?

Telstar wrote:So why no Mondo Vision reviews on DVD Beaver?

As far as I recall, there was a dispute about whether Gary's screengrabs accurately reflected what the discs looked like, and it ended in stalemate because he refused to change his methodology. So from then on he refused to review their discs.

The whole saga is actually here on the Mondo Vision thread in the "Boutique Labels" forum. At the time, DVDBeaver were posting blurred screen captures which acted like a glass ceiling for what the encodes (difficult to do on DVD) were like. I reached out to them and demonstrated this, but they didn't understand the problem. Mondo Vision themselves had harsher words, so there's bad blood between the two.

There's no such resolution issue with more recent DVDBeaver captures.

David M. wrote:There's no such resolution issue with more recent DVDBeaver captures.

So they quietly fixed the issue plaguing their screencaps but also wrote this load of rubbish calling out Mondo Vision? Classy.

EddieLarkin wrote:

David M. wrote:There's no such resolution issue with more recent DVDBeaver captures.

So they quietly fixed the issue plaguing their screencaps but also wrote this load of rubbish calling out Mondo Vision? Classy.

But I thought fixing their flawed image-capturing process would be "unethical"? I'm so confused. . .

I just went to the DVDBeaver home page for the first time in ages and I see this:



Clicking through...



It goes on and on.

Curse those fake celebrity photos, skewing the results of vital cultural archiving projects like the above.

Has this forum already made the joke that Gary Tooze really puts the beaver in DVDBeaver? He seems to have calmed down on the stills of nekkid ladies from the films he views.

The question is more when have we not made that joke

Gary finally gives us a screen grab of a giant cock in his Welcome Home Brother Charles review #progress