criterionforum.org

It begs the question whether the old SD master used by MoC has the correct color. The case seems similar to CC's Kes to me. When new HD scans are made they have quite different color schemes from old home video masters. I wouldn't worry too much as the filmmaker must have been closely involved in creating the new preservation elements.

I hadn't actually got around to watching the MoC transfer, but my memory of the original 35mm print I saw on release was that the colours were quite cold, much more like the Criterion transfer than the MoC one.

I think the second grab is the most telling one: the MoC is jaundiced and unnatural.

The color balance on this film has always been very cool, I remember being struck by that the first time I saw it. You could artificially compensate by boosting the yellow (which is what gave previous editions their greenish tinge) or you could leave it alone and get what you see in the Criterion caps. The skin tones in the Criterion caps all look pretty natural, so I don't think there's been a lot of manipulation of the color here.

Also, not trying to say this settles it by any means, but Gary points out that Caroline Champetier, Lanzmann's assistant camera person, supervised the color timing for this restoration. Maybe she says something about it in her interview (although I'm obviously not counting on that).

For myself, I wasn't expecting this much improvement in the image. I think it looks great. (Not having any idea what it is supposed to look like, having only previously seen it on dvd (once with the New Yorker, once with the MOC).)

I'm with Zedz - that second grab comparison is quite striking.

I'm excited that the "new conversation between Lanzmann and critic Serge Toubiana" in the Criterion description turns out to be an hour long.

Bear in mind also that Lanzmann shot SHOAH on 16mm negative. The theatrical releases were a 35mm blowup. The MoC edition used a PAL digibeta derived from 35mm materials.

Cropping may have occurred on the MoC edition from a 1980s era 16mm > 35mm blowup, as well as during SD telecine. Colours also probably fubar-ed during both processes.

antnield wrote:

antnield wrote:IMDb lists US (503 mins) and UK (566 mins) versions - anyone know the difference between the two?

The Criterion page suggests this release will be the US version, whilst the Masters of Cinema set conforms to the UK version.

The page has been updated - now gives a running time of 550 minutes.

The MoC DVD set, which I've owned since April 2008, has a run time of 541m 09s (DVD Beaver has 541m 19s), in 25fps PAL. This is equivalent to 563m 42s at 24fps.

The Criterion set, if I've added DVD Beaver's times correctly, has a run time of 567m 36s at 24fps. (DVD Beaver shows the run times as 2:33:52.765 + 2:00:42.235 + 2:26:59.185 + 2:26:03.588, presumably the individual run times for First Era, pts 1 & 2, and Second Era, pts 1 & 2).

I hadn't planned on watching Shoah again so soon, but if my figures are correct, and the Criterion version is actually slightly longer than the MoC, I will be getting it in the forthcoming sale.

Packaging presented by Sam Smith himself:

https://vine.co/v/blLpQxMquQY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Moran wrote:I hadn't planned on watching Shoah again so soon, but if my figures are correct, and the Criterion version is actually slightly longer than the MoC, I will be getting it in the forthcoming sale.

I'd be surprised if the difference isn't just due to different company logos and added restoration credits, though the idea of an extended cut of Shoah is amusing, especially one that's only four minutes longer! (Lanzmann commentary track: "the producers made us cut this scene because they thought the film was too long".)

I'll check for logo and credit differences when my copy arrives, but it hasn't shipped yet.

ola t wrote:I'll check for logo and credit differences when my copy arrives...

That would be very helpful. Even if I order mine on the first day of the sale (July 9?), it's unlikely to arrive in UK before August.

What I found comforting in the DVD Beaver figures was that the Criterion edition would be at least as long as the MoC, whereas previous posts had suggested it might be significantly shorter.

Couldn't the difference in run times noted above be the result of PAL speedup in the MOC release?

Max von Mayerling wrote:Couldn't the difference in run times noted above be the result of PAL speedup in the MOC release?

That's already been factored in.

Ah, yes. I should have read that a bit more closely.

From what it looks with Chris's review, Criterion low bitrate compression issues strike again. #-o

Starting to pick through my reaction to SHOAH here... and here... and (finally) here.

Does anyone know if in this edition during the Polish interviews if the Polish dialogue is also subtitled or if only the French? The reason I ask is because this brings up some interesting points on that front that a good set of subs could help with.

You only get the subs for the translator

That's unfortunate.

knives wrote:That's unfortunate.

Yeah... I mentioned it in my review. I'm assuming it's a stylistic choice. Like Lanzmann wants us to experience the interview unfolding in the same way he did.

ptatler wrote:

knives wrote:That's unfortunate.

Yeah... I mentioned it in my review. I'm assuming it's a stylistic choice. Like Lanzmann wants us to experience the interview unfolding in the same way he did.

Agreed. Criterion is never one to cut corners with subtitles. They're to best around, often employing all new translations in their efforts to be the best. So if there are some lacking, I have to believe it is at the behest of Mr. Lanzmann

Brianruns10 wrote:I have to believe it is at the behest of Mr. Lanzmann

Interesting link that knives posted though, which suggests it's a polemical (and not an aesthetic) choice.

At first I thought the poster was a Holocaust revisionist but he seems to be coming from a position of good faith (he's a professor of Holocaust studies and the son of a survivor).

I'd heard rumors of Lanzmann's proof-texting before. Regardless of "agenda", there's too much in SHOAH that plays out within context that justifies Lanzmann's label of an oral history.

Brianruns10 wrote:Agreed. Criterion is never one to cut corners with subtitles. They're to best around, often employing all new translations in their efforts to be the best.

They're by no means the only label to commission new translations, and they're just as prone to making mistakes as anyone else (the reference to the then-unknown Audrey Hepburn in the Early Summer* subtitles, for instance). So on what grounds do you call them "the best"?

(*Whoops - thanks, Gregory!)

Am I wrong in believing that subtitling everything would lead you to rereading the same lines over and over for 9 hours? I'm sure some information is lost with the translator translating himself, but I would assume who ever is translating for the release is making the whole of the information available.

This strikes me as a pretty interesting issue, especially given that my understanding is that some in Poland have been pretty critical of the film and Lanzmann. The Yiddish/Jew translation issue noted in the link struck me as at least worth some attention. On a purely technical level, my recollection (which could be wrong) is that the translator is sometimes speaking at the same time as the subject ... which would make for some messy multiple translations. (It reminds me of the challenges of presenting a fully subtitled & annotated version of Godard's Histoire(s).) At a minimum, it makes me wish there were some kind of special feature addressing this issue.

This is particularly interesting because SHOAH deals a lot with subtle shifts in language can change the value of the subject. Politicized word choice was a big part of the architecture of the Final Solution.

A quick off-topic correction:

MichaelB wrote:They're by no means the only label to commission new translations, and they're just as prone to making mistakes as anyone else (the reference to the then-unknown Audrey Hepburn in the Early Summer subtitles, for instance). So on what grounds do you call them "the best"?