criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:lol @ DVDBeaver's "If it's director approved, it must be okay" statement.

Didn't make that statement. Nothing like it. What aren't you getting about this?

I never said it must be okay because the director approved it. or did I? Read again.

8-[

Looks like there's going to be a fight after school by the bike racks!

This may not be progressive of me, but I'm gonna interlace his tires

He only said it would be "hard" to critique, not "impossible" to critique.

Why can't you kids understand the difference?

Frankly, I would have more confidence in Resnais' judgment than a lot of other directors. Doesn't he usually pay a certain degree of attention to the "look" of his films? Also, I don't see any evidence of him happily butchering his older films the way Chaplin did or Lucas continues to do.

There's a big difference between Resnais working with Criterion, watching the film with them, and asking them to tweak the contrast, and Tarr "working" with Facets. The problems with the Sátántangó DVD aren't so much to do with the look of the film itself, but rather with Facets' inability to produce a DVD competently. As Gary himself puts it:

Gary Tooze wrote:The term 'director approved' seems to get thrown around a lot these past few years. What is can mean is the director endorses the print that the digital transfer is made from. It, very infrequently, means he/she approves the final encode - where anything can happen - from cropping to incorrect standard conversion. The fact that this Facet's package is labeled as 'director approved' is fairly meaningless.

Granted, we are all aware that directors can make poor decisions at this stage (Friedkin anyone?) but it's still an objective fact that people can consider when weighing which transfer they prefer.

Hey! William Friedkin is infallible! He should be the next Pope!

swo17 wrote:When Chris does the packaging photos, he will have to do a nipple shot from the feet with the DVD lying flat on its back.

When I get it I'll do my best

domino harvey wrote:lol @ DVDBeaver's "If it's director approved, it must be okay" statement. I guess that Facets Satantango is now the one to get, eh

I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying.

He says it's hard to critique the image when it is approved by the director. He then reserves judgment on grading the DVD's image quality until he sees the Blu-ray, a viewing of which will somehow retroactively effect the quality of the DVD already in his possession

Tooze didn't say that the image was good or bad because of the director's approval. I can see how the statement can be interpreted but it is ambiguous.

Since Blu-ray is supposedly better quality than regular dvd I can see where he is reserving judgment of the image to see whether the haze is uniform or something specific to the DVD and not the Blu-ray. I'm sure it may help if Gary clears up his statement.

Whether the haze is present on the Blu-ray or not, it still is present on the DVD and should be considered

As far as I understand, Gary says that the image has to look like this, because "it is director approved," while a number of people (including myself) think/thought differently. Some captures looks very "un Marienbadish" for me, in fact all this haziness looks that way

And I always thought that DVDBeaver is meant for the comparisons of the actual DVDs, it doesn't matter how the restored print looks, what matters is what the customer gets when buying a DVD. Btw, why we have to wait for a Blu-ray to compare two (ok in this case 3) SD DVDs? Of course if I were in Gary's position (and received free DVDs for these activities) I guess I would wait for all the upgrades too. O:)

Spoiler

Don't want to stretch this thing, but it's not so rare that from the same screen captures posted on DVDBeaver, Gary and i make completely different verdicts,- and believe it or not, usually criterion DVDs are involved

Gary does consider the haze just by mentioning it. He says there is haze but the film is director approved. It's kind of like saying that it's kind of up to the viewer to determine whether the image is up to snuff or not. It sounds stupid, but....

I think the viewer can determine the "rightness" if he has seen the film on it's initial release. (ok, probably the initial release wasn't exactly what the director wanted, but director can also see some things differently after some time,- or still want to make some adjustments )

I haven't seen Marienbad on it's initial release, so i do not want to argue,- maybe my Optimum DVD which I love so much, made too much impact on my perception how this film must look like.

Still, the 2nd argument stands.

oldsheperd wrote:Gary does consider the haze just by mentioning it. He says there is haze but the film is director approved. It's kind of like saying that it's kind of up to the viewer to determine whether the image is up to snuff or not. It sounds stupid, but....

His website exists to review the quality of DVDs. He has the DVD and the haze is noticeable and I find it hard to believe anyone thinks it's an acceptable choice over a clear picture unless they think Resnais is trying to bring back the smoke-filled movie theatre experience. What the director approves/supervises/gently carresses is meaningless, the DVD exists for the consumer and if it looks terrible, why do I care that the director likes it? As Swo said, uttering "Friedkin" pretty much ends all of those arguments

Thanks to Johnny Carson for being the voice of reason

Couldn't you say the same thing about the red flesh tones in some of the P&P releases? A viewer might like the color of the character's skin tones on these releases, but why would you want to watch a film where the colors are technically "incorrect." Although attenuated, the same goes for the length of films; you may like an extended cut of a film, but why would you want to watch it when it is not the intent of the director to have such a long film.

I much rather watch a version of a film that the director approves rather than a film that looks "superficially" superior. I feel like I am cheating myself out of the experience of watching the film when the presentation of the film is contrary to the intent of the director.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat...

domino harvey wrote:Thanks to Johnny Carson for being the voice of reason

How many times was that sentence uttered on Sum Total Planet Earth?

Dr. Snaut wrote: I feel like I am cheating myself out of the experience of watching the film when the presentation of the film is contrary to the intent of the director.

I think this is where the trouble lies. Certainly, when I see that Milos Forman's Czech films are 'Director Approved' I find some small additional comfort in my purchase. When they pull the director into the room it is inevitably with the intent to get the end product as close to original release quality as possible. But sadly a director's original intent may not be the same as that director's current intent. Supervising a 40 year old color telecine after just arriving from the set of his latest film where he was pushing autumnal color tones may result in a conflict of interest. Who knows what Resnais wants to be remembered for? Last chance to tweak the scribes of auteur theory.

But in all honesty, I rather have the director tweak the presentation of his film than a DVD production studio. The production studio's changes will probably be arbitrary, while the director's changes, even if post hoc, will at least go to some part of his vision of the film, whether past or present.

Like I said before, there is a level of comfort knowing a director sat down, made changes, and gave a DVD the two thumbs up.

Dr. Snaut wrote:But in all honesty, I rather have the director tweak the presentation of his film than a DVD production studio. The production studio's changes will probably be arbitrary, while the director's changes, even if post hoc, will at least go to some part of his vision of the film, whether past or present.

Like I said before, there is a level of comfort knowing a director sat down, made changes, and gave a DVD the two thumbs up.

Oh certainly, probably the most obvious element is the approach to skin tones. A studio will typically 'correct' to ensure an appearance of health and vigor regardless of a director's more pasty intent.

jsteffe wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Is it just me or the do the black levels on the Optimum seem more, uh, black? The Criterion looks very grey.

Here's what the Criterion blog says about the transfer:

Lee Kline wrote:We watched the whole film together in HD, and he definitely wanted it to be brighter and less contrasty. Before he came in, I had been going in the other direction, since the print I viewed appeared to have a fair amount of contrast. But Resnais was clear that it should not be a very cold-looking film, and he liked going from dark to light very dramatically. The added contrast was only taking away from the needed warmth. As for the overexposed footage, we nailed that one right on the head.

I don't necessarily see the black in the CC transfer as less black, but as…errr…having less black. The blackest parts of the CC screen look every bit as black as the blacks in the Optimum (just look at the ol' Lorber for real grey blacks). But there's a lot of detail you lose in the name of contrasty pictures. Look at the plant in the lower-left of the first capture or especially the dark side of the bush in the second-to-last one for examples. That's not meant to say that detail was visible or meant to be visible in the original presentation, but I don't quite understand the negative reaction to these captures.

They don't look hazy to me—if anything, you're getting more visual information. If you don't like it or it is in fact not loyal to the original film (anyone with a good memory see a print during the original release?), you can probably get fairly close just by pumping up your TV's contrast a little.

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the poster from the beaver review that shows only Delphine Seyrig standing on the square platform? That poster is gorgeous.

Murdoch wrote:Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the poster from the beaver review that shows only Delphine Seyrig standing on the square platform? That poster is gorgeous.

At the Polish Poster Gallery

Never seen this. Looking forward to it.

Odds are, I won't like it.