criterionforum.org

It said 4K when the specs were first posted.

Ashirg wrote:

Audio commentary from 2005 featuring film scholar Adrian Martin

What edition is that from?

He was one of my university lecturers.

giovannii84 wrote:

Ashirg wrote:

Audio commentary from 2005 featuring film scholar Adrian Martin

What edition is that from?

He was one of my university lecturers.

There was a Madman DVD in Australia, long out of print, where that commentary comes from, I think.

feihong wrote:

Audio commentary from 2005 featuring film scholar Adrian Martin

There was a Madman DVD in Australia, long out of print, where that commentary comes from, I think.

That's right. I have the out-of-print Madman disc, although it's from 2010. Perhaps the Martin commentary was done earlier for another version, or it sat in Madman's vault for a while until they released it.

And the press email confirms both Chimes and Immortal story are from 4k restorations.

Ribs wrote:I know that but it's still an odd statement. Maybe "capstone" or something is more what they were going for?

Not at all. It's a tremendous film. Like Drucker said, every facet of the film resonates. There's a rich balance on multiple levels that Citizen Kane simply doesn't have. Even Welles's acting resonates on a deeper level, unlike with CK where it felt like he was relying more on joie de vivre than on deeper emotional truth.

Numero Trois wrote:

Ribs wrote:I know that but it's still an odd statement. Maybe "capstone" or something is more what they were going for?

Not at all. It's a tremendous film. Like Drucker said, every facet of the film resonates. There's a rich balance on multiple levels that Citizen Kane simply doesn't have. Even Welles's acting resonates on a deeper level, unlike with CK where it felt like he was relying more on joie de vivre than on deeper emotional truth.

I know. I love The Immortal Story, too.

I think "crowning achievement" to describe Chimes was partly chosen to be apposite for the subject of the film.

Interesting, The Immortal Story has as good a supplement package as Chimes if not better.

Was The Immortal Story initially intended for television?

FrauBlucher wrote: Was The Immortal Story initially intended for television?

It was, but a 1.66:1 ratio works fine for it...just not the framing that has previously appeared on DVD or on TCM. My main hope is that this issue was handled carefully (astonishingly, when this film was screened as part of a Welles retrospective at Indiana University last year, it was shown in approximately 2.40:1 which was completely inappropriate!).

EDIT: Looking at the excerpt found on the Criterion page for this film, the framing looks more accurate than the old Madman DVD (and the TCM broadcast version). The additional information found on all four sides certainly helps.

Just think, Jess Franco enters the Collection...

Actually he is already in thanks to Death of a Cyclist.

Something that I'm curious about in a general wider Shakespeare sense is whether there is any consensus on a particular ordering of where The Merry Wives of Windsor might fall in terms of the Falstaff character? Are there any theories on whether Shakespeare intended the character to be pre-Prince Hal, or post-abandonment? Or is it better to just see the Merry Wives of Windsor as a side adventure somewhat out of time, so it could potentially be placed anywhere, with different resonances for the character in that movement?

And following on from that, how does Welles fold the Merry Wives of Windsor material into the wider Falstaff character?

I'm not sure what the critical consensus is, but Merry Wives seems to be a kind of 'side adventure', aimed at audiences who enjoyed 2 Henry IV (since it features Pistol and Shallow in major roles) and maybe Henry V, but who are probably being asked to imagine the action taking place between the two Henry IV plays.

Welles' film doesn't really use any of the plot of Merry Wives, just isolated lines here and there. The most substantial borrowing that I remember is the scene when Falstaff says, 'I must turn away some of my followers', which takes on a much more melancholy tone in this new context.

By the way, if anyone is really interested in Welles' weaving together of Shakespeare plays, the 'Rutgers Films in Print' volume edited by Bridget Gellert Lyons has very detailed marginal notes identifying the source of every line, and identifying those lines written by Welles himself.

And yes, much as I love Citizen Kane, I definitely think of Chimes as Welles' crowning achievement. It's wonderful that it will finally get the home video treatment it deserves.

Merry Wives is believed to have been commissioned for an occasion by Queen Elizabeth, who wanted to see the Falstaff character again. My understanding is Shakespeare outright resurrected a dead character. I don't think Merry Wives can be made to fit the chronology of the Henriad. In 2 Henry IV, Falstaff hasn't seen Shallow in a very long time, so the appearance of Shallow in Merry Wives places Merry Wives after 2 Henry IV. Henry V begins very soon after the coronation ending 2 Henry IV. So I think we have to imagine Merry Wives as taking place after Henry V, simply ignoring the death of Falstaff.

Merry Wives definitely doesn't fit into any Henriad chronology. In my head, the brilliant Verdi/Boito opera Falstaff, which is essentially the plot of Merry Wives but with added pathos/dialogue/etc from the Henriad (brilliantly interwoven) exists in some sort of purgatory, out of time, using these characters. RE: the play (which is a weak one), if the QE story is to be believed, then it's possible that you can say Merry Wives is a fictional repurposing of the characters while the Henriad represents the historical chronology in which folks would watch the comedy.

In ancient, every dramatic trilogy required an accompanying satyr play, right?

Another vote for the wonderful Boito/Verdi adaptation -- certainly one of the greatest operas ever...

Chimes...Beaver Looks amazing. Love the menu.

I figured it would have optional english subtitles, but I'm glad to see it confirmed. Given that it is Shakespeare + the variable quality of the audio, this strikes me as almost a special feature in itself.

I saw the restoration a few weeks ago and there's definitely still parts where the dialogue sounds muffled and tinny.

I can say with near certainty Immortal Story looked nothing like that when I saw a 35mm screening theatrically two years ago. It closely resembled the TCM broadcast I had seen. That's not to say it was right, but the colors were not this rich and did not pop like this. It had a strong yellow haze over a lot of it.

With that said, there's no telling that was correct. I've been meaning to ask some of the people here more knowledgeable about film stocks why and how the fade to yellow is so common. That could have very well been the case here. It very much looks "restored."

For what it's worth, the blu-ray of F For Fake looked very similar to the 35mm print I saw.

This image I found on Google resembles what I've seen

Just finished The Immortal Story about an hour ago. Can't say it's necessarily anything to write home about but it should be of interest to Welles aficionados like myself. It's short and sweet and to the point. No filler. I can't say it's worth the price unless you really want to complete Welles' filmography. Pick it up at a sale.

DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, DECEMBER 19th

Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.

This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.

As I'm sure I've said many times, I don't have much use for Shakespeare adaptations (or performances, but that's really where I go off the rails of acceptable opinions), but a creative mishmash like this seems the best use of an ill-fit. The history plays on the whole are my least favorite Shakespeare works, though Falstaff is indisputably one of Shakespeare's greatest characters (and Shakespeare knew damn well it was so, since he wrote an bawdy cash-in around him, the Merry Wives of Windsor, one of the earliest examples of fan service). Here the narrative is more fully wrapped to Falstaff's service, and it works. Welles' bluster and bravado and quick wit comes across in spades, and Welles makes the most of his rearrangement to craft the social mobility tragedy already present in Shakespeare to a more concise and conventionally satisfying conclusion. I don't know that it's better than the plays it borrows from (even if it basically the two Henry IVs with the boring parts excised), but it's an interesting and worthy companion piece.

And wow, this release is incredibly stacked with hours of bonus materials and 100% Criterion at their best. I hope everyone remembers this title when we start casting year-end ballots next week. I'm still working through the extras but I love the sad revelation in the McBride interview about Charlton Heston and Anne Baxter wanting Welles to make movies he already made.

Since conversation is already lacking, here's a question anyone reading can answer without even having to have seen this film: What for you is the best Shakespeare performance in film? It's a testament to Welles' film and performance that I cannot remember how I pictured Falstaff when working through Shakespeare in college, as after watching this Welles just is Falstaff. Bryce Dallas Howard's Rosalind is the only other Shakespeare performance I can think of where the depiction is so dead-on as to forever alter my perception of the character.