criterionforum.org

I get your point but who in the world considers Coeurs transcendent

Not more so than the others, but I adore it, and certainly feel there is a spiritual quality to the shots of snow, a feeling that becomes stronger once you've seen the similar shots in Love Unto Death, a more explicitly metaphysical film. But, yeah, it's not aiming for the same otherworldly experience as Marienbad or even Wild Grass.

I see. And for the record, I do like the film, it's just pretty far down on the spectrum (though it is one of the few I can think of where the changed English title is wayyy better-- Private Fears in Public Places)

Numero Trois wrote:

rrenault wrote:Why is Resnais out of fashion at the moment?

Who do you think considers him out of fashion? Maybe they're judging him by his career as a whole, which seems to amount to one especially transcendent film accompanied by many good to excellent ones. Not that it would be a knock on him in any way.

It's just rather odd since Breathless, The 400 Blows, and Hiroshima Mon Amour rounded out the trio of French films that dropped like bombs back in 1959. The first two still seem to be going strong in terms of their respective reputations, yet Hiroshima doesn't appear to be held in quite the same regard these days. It's seemingly treated as more of a museum piece whereas Breathless still seems "alive".

The other two have far clearer youth appeals beyond the art house circuit, which drives new generations of viewers to discover and fawn over them in a larger number

domino harvey wrote:The other two have far clearer youth appeals beyond the art house circuit, which drives new generations of viewers to discover and fawn over them in a larger number

Simplistic and easy answer and offensive to those that are fans of the "other two" films.

I guess Domino didn't read your syllabus close enough to realize there was a 5 page requirement for the assignment?

How old are you if I may ask? I can think of two separate houses where I have college-aged friends who have a Breathless poster. Some directors are cool. You hear about them in art school. People not into film who are into art/cinema/cool stuff (e.g. The Velvet Underground or Kerouac) will find Godard.

I'm 25, which is young but not quite 'youth' young. And I agree Godard attracts people into 'cool stuff' but so would Last Year at Marienbad. Anything that screams "high modernism" would flatter the art student types you seem to be preferring to, but with respect to Godard I don't know how many would dig more deeply than Breathless. Are they actually going to sit through Weekend or In Praise of Love?

FerdinandGriffon wrote:What's the one especially transcendent film?

For me, its the subject of this thread. I think most people would agree that the rest of the films you listed are good to excellent but not quite on that level. Again, no knock on the director. Or on his other films for that matter.

rrenault wrote: It's seemingly treated as more of a museum piece

Some specific examples of what you're talking about are needed here. I would agree that the film isn't talked about as frequently as 400 Blows or Breathless, but like Domino says that might be due to basic general audience appeal rather than its aesthetic worth. Perhaps Last Year in Marienbad would be more applicable to your point.

Because having youth appeal is offensive.

I posted in the AV Club article about Resnais's modernism vs. postmodernism, but that's just part of it. Resnais is in general a much less accessible filmmaker than the other two, and Hiroshima a much less accessible film. Breathless is built on still radical editing (jump cuts are common, but not quite in the same way), a catchy jazz score, and "a girl and a gun" plot that's easy to get into. The 400 Blows captures a fairly universal feeling of alienated adolescence. They're also, among other things, fun, which isn't a word that would really describe Hiroshima. The other films grow out of and reflect cinephilia, whereas Hiroshima is very much its own beast. It's themes are memory and trauma, which are both things more likely to be appreciated with age. It's response to these issues also involves a lot more intellectualizing and distancing rather than the stronger emotional elements of 400 Blows and Breathless (this is not an insult against those films, before you accuse me of that).

As to the director's other films, Godard's filmography post-Weekend is probably in a far worse critical state than Resnais. I think it's improved a bit recently, but you still have plenty of critics casually dismissing it (hello forum villain of the week Mike D'Angelo), and I think a majority of casual Godard fans don't bother to explore beyond the 60s. On the other hand, the late Resnais films were usually met an attempt to engage (if also with bafflement). Access is also a problem.

Last Year is probably the best candidate for an accessible Resnais film, particularly for young people. The style and structure is more radical and has been less successfully integrated into later films than that of Hiroshima. However, it will always be a bit infuriating to people who need clear solutions to "puzzlebox" films or clear narratives, so it's going to be more divisive.

Well that's just it I think, the 'high modernist' films of directors such as Resnais and Antonioni along with other works such as Persona don't easily fit into the 'auteurist' narrative and polemic, so they get discarded for being clunky. A lot of cinephiles don't enjoy having to deal with clunky figures like Bergman, Antonioni, Resnais, Kieslowski, etc. who don't grow out of and reflect cinephilia the way Godard and Rossellini for instance do. In certain circles, but not in all circles mind you, I sense filmmakers are primarily judged by how easily they fit into the secular humanist/materialist polemic of Cahiers du Cinema as if cinema by definition equaled 'realism'. I'm thinking of people like Farber, Sarris, Hoberman, and so on.

As far as "distancing" is concerned though, I'd say Godard's cinema was all about "distancing", far more so than Hiroshima, since the latter, if only by comparison, hits the viewer over the head with its 'artistry'.

Shrew wrote:As to the director's other films, Godard's filmography post-Weekend is probably in a far worse critical state than Resnais. I think it's improved a bit recently, but you still have plenty of critics casually dismissing it (hello forum villain of the week Mike D'Angelo), and I think a majority of casual Godard fans don't bother to explore beyond the 60s. On the other hand, the late Resnais films were usually met an attempt to engage (if also with bafflement).

That's about right. Though one distinction to make would be between regular film critics and critics with a more academic background. The latter of course are far more likely to favorably view his later work. Though granted they're not as numerous (or influential) as the former.

Hiroshima Mon Amour received a 4K restoration by Cineteca Bologna in 2012 or 2013.
So far, Tamasa Distribution (holder of the StudioCanal and Argos Films catalogs) has released it on a Blu-Ray in France.
The Blu-Ray has NO SUBTITLES! other than French.
This is a prime candidate for a 2015 Criterion release.

I've been really looking forward to this Blu-ray release. I don't know whether it's just my computer monitor or what, the image of the Blu-ray doesn't seem to improve upon that of the DVD that much. Per Gary's review of the Blu-ray: "... the video presentation is still flat and a bit soft ..." I wonder why?

The blu-ray is a knockout. Rialto supplied my local cinematheque with a blu-ray for a screening back in February. I was informed by the cinematheque's director that the blu-ray would likely be the same used by Criterion.

I think the those Beaver caps look fine. The detail and color is noticeably improved but as with a lot of films you won't really notice the big difference until you see it in motion.

One of the members on this board posted a comment on the image having great depth on the French Blu-ray. So, I was hoping for a similar result on the Criterion Blu-ray. I was surprised that Gary mentioned the image flatness in his review. I'll be getting it anyway. I guess I'll find out for sure in a few weeks.

I have the French bluray, and the image does have great depth of field. It's also crisp, and exceptionally well balanced in terms of contrast. It looks really fantastic. If the Criterion is the same as the French disc, it will look marvelous.

Some of the footage sourced from older material, such as the newsreel footage and the footage from older Japanese films that furnishes the rubble and fire scenes have some pops and scratches, but I found on the French disc that there was very little in terms of pops and scratches on the scenes shot by the two cinematographers.

Honestly though, the disc doesn't look flat or soft in the captures at DVDbeaver. The closeups of Riva amongst the screencaps have quite a bit of sharpness and depth when you look at them close-up. Having seen this a few times in 35mm, the picture didn't to me look appreciably sharper. It's a film that uses quite a bit of very soft lighting. Those shots in the screencaps that appear softer, like the one of Riva and Okada lying next to each other and facing the camera, are lit with that idea in mind, I believe. There was a bit of dissonance for me between reading Tooze's comments and looking at the screencaps below those comments.

Does the French blu have English subs, Feihong? Edit: reading above, I see that it hasn't. Shame.

There are some subs floating around the internet that match up to the French edition exactly.

From what I've seen so far it's fine. Haven't seen the French disc, though, so can't compare.

Now that I've watched the Criterion Blu-ray ... I see why Gary mentioned in his review that "the video presentation is still flat and a bit soft." For some reason, some of the scenes do look the way he described while some other scenes look very sharp and with great depth. But there's no denying that overall, this new release looks very nice!

artfilmfan wrote:Now that I've watched the Criterion Blu-ray ... I see why Gary mentioned in his review that "the video presentation is still flat and a bit soft." For some reason, some of the scenes do look the way he described while some other scenes look very sharp and with great depth. But there's no denying that overall, this new release looks very nice!

I think it's important to point out that footage which was duped to create dissolves and fade ins/outs loses a bit more clarity than you'd expect for a film of this vintage (I imagine this is an issue that occurred in the lab in 1959 and is inherent in the original film). Since Resnais uses quite a few long takes which begin and/or end in a transition effect, this loss in resolution is noticeable. However, the non-duped footage (which makes up the majority of the film, of course) looks spectacular and I believe this restoration (and Criterion's transfer) deserves the highest marks.