criterionforum.org

Oedipax wrote:Imagine a commentary where the commentator had the ability to pause the image, or to go back and play again a certain shot or cut that had particular importance.

Britain's Channel 4 did this in the 1980s with its short-lived Movie Masterclass series - you'd basically get Terence Davies, a load of film students and a Steenbeck running Cries and Whispers, and they'd discuss it at length, pausing and repeating where necessary.

MichaelB wrote:

Oedipax wrote:Imagine a commentary where the commentator had the ability to pause the image, or to go back and play again a certain shot or cut that had particular importance.

Britain's Channel 4 did this in the 1980s with its short-lived Movie Masterclass series - you'd basically get Terence Davies, a load of film students and a Steenbeck running Cries and Whispers, and they'd discuss it at length, pausing and repeating where necessary.

WOW! Truly a shame that such forward-thinking programming is indeed usually 'short-lived.' Terence Davies doing a frame-by-frame (so to speak) analysis of Cries and Whispers is something I might've made up on a list of fantasy commentaries...

Great post, Oedipax. And thanks for the link - I wish I understood french better than my single semester. (It would be interesting if Criterion commentators could use clips from other films in the collection to put together video essay extras, although I doubt the licensing arrangements that they have would permit it.)

While I personally prefer video essays to commentaries, the last thing I would want to suggest is that there is anything wrong with wanting a commentary. My film professor in undergrad used to essentially provide "edited" commentaries in class by re-projecting parts of the film and discussing what was going on, mostly in terms of composition, visual & editing relationships, etc., and I learned a great deal in that class. So there's no doubt in my mind that commentaries can be an very powerful way of exploring a film.

I guess that goes to my (again, just personal) frustration with most of the commentaries that I've listened to. I think it is often limiting to lock someone into having to talk over the entire length of a film in real time - I think I might find commentaries more interesting if they were structured differently, so the commentator could skip over passages, repeat certain passages, and insert other related material, which, I guess, is more like the video essay format.

MichaelB wrote:

Cronenfly wrote:(and if you've seen the film already, then focusing on the comments is very feasible).

That "if" implies that there are people out there who don't watch the film properly before switching on the commentary!

In all seriousness, has anyone actually done this? And why?

I actually have, but only in a few specific circumstances. First, if I'm having trouble getting into a movie, then I'll sometimes start it again with the commentary to see if it'll get me more in the mood to watch the film proper. Second, if there are participants on a commentary that interest me more than the film itself (which happens every so often). Third, if a movie's so well-ingrained into pop culture that I know a great deal of the movie before I've seen it (case in point: The Graduate, which I watched the first time with Nichols/Soderbergh commentary, only somewhat paying attention to the movie). So I don't do it too often, but on occasion I'll listen to the commentary in whole or in part first, but usually at a remove from the experience of watching of the film itself (i.e. if the commentary is more of a discussion/not screen-specific).

I know that there are many reasons for not doing this even with the above stipulations (i.e. spoilers, tainting the film), but it hasn't caused me any grief thus far.

Abbey Lustgarten on the new Anna Karina interview for the DVD.

Beaver

Anyone have any explanation for the green?

kaujot wrote:Anyone have any explanation for the green?

I just popped in the UK Studio Canal edition (not used in the DVDBeaver comparison)-- the scene immediately before it is filmed with a red filter but no green filter on the Fuller shot pictured-- next shot is filtered yellow and the next blue and so on... I think Criterion is right, as the surrounding shots are filtered but the Fuller isn't. However, Criterion appears to be the ONLY release to filter that shot green.

I have the Hungarian edition, which is probably the same print as the StudioCanal R2 discs....I'll pop it in when I get the chance.

I hope that the Pierrot Primer is good. The Rosenbaum feature on Breathless was a little too light for me. I'm looking forward to that interview with Karina, but my goodness has she changed. At least she seems alive and well. I'm surprised that they didn't talk to Coutard as well.

Glenn Kenny is doing a bibliography of the books featured in the film.

colinr0380 wrote:Glenn Kenny is doing a bibliography of the books featured in the film.

This is great, thanks for the link!

Sam Fuller in green is new to me. All the prints I've seen show this scene in relatively clear colour with the shadows standing out in the backround. Since Coutard supervised this transfer then it should be an acceptable decision. Whether the debut print in 1965 was like this or not is unclear to me. Perhaps the DP is now rectifying something originally overlooked?

Thanks for the info Beaver. I will stick to my superb R4 PAL version making this the first Criterion Godard I will pass on.

domino harvey wrote:I just popped in the UK Studio Canal edition (not used in the DVDBeaver comparison)-- the scene immediately before it is filmed with a red filter but no green filter on the Fuller shot pictured-- next shot is filtered yellow and the next blue and so on... I think Criterion is right, as the surrounding shots are filtered but the Fuller isn't. However, Criterion appears to be the ONLY release to filter that shot green.

Yes, I think all the shots of this scene were meant to be filtered, a very Godardian colour code... And indeed in white light you can see the shot is essentially monochrome excepting red dress, red tie and green dress, and maybe a little gold/yellow picture frame and flesh tones... Fuller appears altogether on the gray scale!.... That's all there for a reason and it figures when you see the CC version...

I was overwhelmed by the breadth of response to the AVClub review. It almost belongs in the 'Rediculous Reviews" thread for the comments it elicited. My favorite is the guy who trys to call everyone out as poseurs, for pretending to have ever heard of this director before. Of course, the comments largely revolve around one woman's claim that the reviewer is pretentious for referencing "pulpy noir" which she defines as an obscure genre from 1910s Germany. Classic stuff.

The thing is, looking at the R2 DVD at least, the picture is so clearly natural, that what's been applied to get THAT green isn't color-manipulation with the existing film but an addition of a green filter manually to the film-- it seems like no print has this, perhaps Coutard chimed in and said it was like that in the original print and somewhere along the way the newer prints of the film missed the memo? Just a guess as the whole thing is tres bizarre!

A couple on the DVD Beaver listserv have confirmed seeing the green tint in theatrical screenings. So I'm sure this isn't a fuck-up.

It's worth noting that there is a second (only?) green filtered shot within the same sequence which IS in the Studio Canal R2.

Here is the complete sequence from the Studio Canal R2:

1) 2)
3) 4)
5) 6)
7) < < overlapping cut
8) 9)

The overall effect seems to be an (approximate) trip through the colour spectrum from long to short wavelengths, followed by a sort of "rainbow" effect in shot 9 (note the different colour dresses, orange on left, green on right). But this is disrupted by the white light of shots 2 and 5, and shot 6 (blue too "early"). Making shot 2 green would add another "impurity", but perhaps there was never a system to be disrupted in the first place! It would certainly be interesting to hear what Coutard/Criterion has to say about this.

The green filtering was definitely present in the British 35mm revival of the early 1990s - I remember it vividly.

Michael, do you remember green filtering specifically on the shot with Fuller?

David, what the hell were you doing in Croydon in 1967?!?

otis wrote:Michael, do you remember green filtering specifically on the shot with Fuller?

David, what the hell were you doing in Croydon in 1967?!?

Perhaps more to the point - HOW the hell can you remember ANYTHING from 1967??

I'm quite sure I that remember specifically Fuller in green from a couple of years ago in the cinema -- not sure enough to bet my life on it, but perhaps a toe or something.

I watched the print that toured this past summer and I remember the Fuller scene was tinted green, but only slightly. I remember thinking that it was a little strange and certainly different from what I had seen before (I used the "flooded-white" Fuller shot as my old avatar).

Geez, Pierrot le fou has to be one of the most terrible films in the whole Criterion collection. Another reason why I still don't like Godard. I just don't get him I guess. Pierrot starts off very strong - with the color lens, and the nice shot sweeping through Marianne's apartment as her husband gets killed.. but then afterward, it falls into one long blah. No feelings, just plain nothing. The lovers died, I didn't care and couldn't even wait for the dynamite to explode.

I'm sorry, domino harvey, to be shitting on Pierrot, your favorite movie of all time. I simply don't see what's so special about it so I'd say to be able to appreciate the film, you have to be a Godard fan. And I know I'm not one. I rented Pierrot simply because I like to keep up with the CC

After Pierrot ended last night, I decided to give Le Bonheur another spin, the fourth spin in two weeks. Whoa, that was a blow of fresh air after enduring the Godard dullness.

Quoted from jbeall regarding to Bonheur:

... while Taubin may get some details wrong in her essay, I agree with her assessment of the subjective artificiality of all the kitsch, which Varda calls attention to with the colorful fades. I thought it was a much more effective and relevant baring of the artifice than Godard ever managed, and in a way that's far less condescending to the viewer.

I couldn't agree more.

Michael wrote:Geez, Pierrot le fou has to be one of the most terrible films in the whole Criterion collection. Another reason why I still don't like Godard. I just don't get him I guess. Pierrot starts off very strong - with the color lens, and the nice shot sweeping through Marianne's apartment as her husband gets killed.. but then afterward, it falls into one long blah. No feelings, just plain nothing. The lovers died, I didn't care and couldn't even wait for the dynamite to explode.

I'm sorry, domino harvey, to be shitting on Pierrot, your favorite movie of all time. I simply don't see what's so special about it so I'd say to be able to appreciate the film, you have to be a Godard fan. And I know I'm not one.

I do believe Pierrot le fou to be the greatest of all films, and all I can say regarding your post in defense of the film is that if you were watching it with hopes of caring about the "characters" then you were doomed to hate it. Although if you never liked Godard before, this movie was never ever gonna change your mind.