If a movie only exists on film but no one is around to distribute it, does it still exist?
February 24, 2009 10:54 AM Subscribe
New Yorker Films, the only US distributor of many of the films of Jean-Luc Godard, Ousmane Sèmbene, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, and many others closed operations yesterday. Many of the films they distributed remain unavailable on DVD, and thus completely unavailable to Americans for the foreseeable future. Coming on the heels of the eviction of Film-Maker's Co-Op, New York's venerable distributor and archive of avant-garde film, New Yorker's closing raises questions not only about the symbiotic importance of repertory film exhibition for film preservation efforts, but about the future of film culture and the possible role of the arts in the future economy.
This sucks, but, these guys should just have gotten some sort of digital distribution deal going a long time ago. This sort of niche product is exactly what would work online, with basically no distribution costs and a low price to customers.
Of course, in the "unavailable" link, it's explained that some filmmakers won't allow their work to be released on "video" (I assume VHS, since this article is from 1994), which is idiotic, I suppose, but it's up to them, and they've essentially allowed their movies to die. However, it also describes how the VHS releases from New Yorker film had such heavy anticopying bullshit that they were hard to watch on a normal player, which probably mean that digital distribution didn't even cross their minds.
In essence, this is death by choice. It's a distributor that's made its living from renting 35mm copies, and reluctantly putting some films out on video, and its time has obviously come. I'm hoping someone more progressive and open-minded buys their distribution catalog.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:11 AM on February 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
Of course, in the "unavailable" link, it's explained that some filmmakers won't allow their work to be released on "video" (I assume VHS, since this article is from 1994), which is idiotic, I suppose, but it's up to them, and they've essentially allowed their movies to die. However, it also describes how the VHS releases from New Yorker film had such heavy anticopying bullshit that they were hard to watch on a normal player, which probably mean that digital distribution didn't even cross their minds.
In essence, this is death by choice. It's a distributor that's made its living from renting 35mm copies, and reluctantly putting some films out on video, and its time has obviously come. I'm hoping someone more progressive and open-minded buys their distribution catalog.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:11 AM on February 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
What happened to the internet? Archive.org?
Ubu.com?
posted by mattbucher at 11:11 AM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]
Ubu.com?
posted by mattbucher at 11:11 AM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]
Third link, to Ousmane Sèmbene, isn't correct. Need hope, stat!
posted by fijiwriter at 11:22 AM on February 24, 2009
posted by fijiwriter at 11:22 AM on February 24, 2009
This seems to be a stunning example of the world gone awry.
posted by ND¢ at 11:32 AM on February 24, 2009
posted by ND¢ at 11:32 AM on February 24, 2009
it's explained that some filmmakers won't allow their work to be released on "video" (I assume VHS, since this article is from 1994), which is idiotic, I suppose, but it's up to them,
I think you can make a strong case that it's a bad decision, but I'm not sure wanting to preserve the way your films are shown counts as idiotic. Quixotic, perhaps, but idiotic is a strong word to describe something that arguably seeks to prevent the degradation of the images that a director worked hard to commit to film. Surely it isn't idiotic for a director to not want to shoot in DV, even though DV is cheaper, easier and more widely available than film stock. Artistic choices are artistic choices.
posted by OmieWise at 11:33 AM on February 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think you can make a strong case that it's a bad decision, but I'm not sure wanting to preserve the way your films are shown counts as idiotic. Quixotic, perhaps, but idiotic is a strong word to describe something that arguably seeks to prevent the degradation of the images that a director worked hard to commit to film. Surely it isn't idiotic for a director to not want to shoot in DV, even though DV is cheaper, easier and more widely available than film stock. Artistic choices are artistic choices.
posted by OmieWise at 11:33 AM on February 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
maybe they'll find a home abroad?
re: repertory film exhibition
i'd say either in a museum or straight to internet, cf. facets...
posted by kliuless at 11:49 AM on February 24, 2009
re: repertory film exhibition
i'd say either in a museum or straight to internet, cf. facets...
posted by kliuless at 11:49 AM on February 24, 2009
OmieWise: This is sort of the old "the movie version ruined the book" argument. It didn't, the book is still right there on the shelf.
In this case, the 35mm interpositives and internegatives are still right there on the shelf, as are the release prints, but all of them are probably slowly decaying. Even modern 35mm film doesn't archive all that well without special considerations, and Sèmbene was mostly active in the 60s and 70s. Films that are this important should at least be digitized in the highest quality possible, if not distributed on video.
But I work with this stuff, and I hear these kinds of arguments every day, people who talk about things "looking digital" because they've been through digital intermediate, or believing that film does something magical that is somehow lost in the creation of a digital copy, no matter how high quality. In the meantime, their original camera negatives, interpositives and internegatives slowly rot, or are soiled and scratched through excessive lab handling and copies made.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:24 PM on February 24, 2009
In this case, the 35mm interpositives and internegatives are still right there on the shelf, as are the release prints, but all of them are probably slowly decaying. Even modern 35mm film doesn't archive all that well without special considerations, and Sèmbene was mostly active in the 60s and 70s. Films that are this important should at least be digitized in the highest quality possible, if not distributed on video.
But I work with this stuff, and I hear these kinds of arguments every day, people who talk about things "looking digital" because they've been through digital intermediate, or believing that film does something magical that is somehow lost in the creation of a digital copy, no matter how high quality. In the meantime, their original camera negatives, interpositives and internegatives slowly rot, or are soiled and scratched through excessive lab handling and copies made.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:24 PM on February 24, 2009
Shit, that's terrible. I hope someone comes along to pick up the baton.
which is idiotic
No it's not. Not everything is about money/fame. Or, what OmieWise said.
posted by languagehat at 12:24 PM on February 24, 2009
which is idiotic
No it's not. Not everything is about money/fame. Or, what OmieWise said.
posted by languagehat at 12:24 PM on February 24, 2009
On non-preview: OK, you have a point about film degrading, and something should be done to preserve it, but don't pretend there's zero difference between digital and film; it doesn't help your case.
posted by languagehat at 12:26 PM on February 24, 2009
posted by languagehat at 12:26 PM on February 24, 2009
languagehat: There's probably not much difference between films shot in the 60s and 70s and digital today. Film has come a long way since then. I watched the Blu-Ray transfer of Blade Runner recently, and at least in terms of resolution, the 1080 transfer surpasses that of the original film. You can clearly see that lots of resolution is spent on faithfully reproducing film grain, with no additional detail.
And no, not everything is about money and fame, but I'm a firm believer in making film (or any other art, for that matter) for it to be seen, not as a private exercise. In fact, from my point of view, this goes double for film, since it's so resource intensive. Making even a modest independent film requires a crew of at least tens of people, probably many more and hundreds of thousands of dollars as an absolute minimum.
If you're going to do that, I think it's important to make something that people will see, and distributing in a convenient medium is part of that process. This actually goes double for art films and so on, they're so hard to see in the theater, receiving only limited distribution and short theatrical runs. Add to that that these aren't even new films, they're made decades ago. Even if you live in New York City or Los Angeles, you probably don't have many opportunities to see them, and if you're in Mexico City, like me, or in small-town Norway, where I'm originally from, or any other place that happens to not collectively care much about film, you're not going to get the chance, period.
Digital distribution, DVD, Blu-Ray, or even VHS back in the day, was a way to fix this. You see an inferior copy, sure, but you see something. I think you have to be very much a purist to think that something is not better than nothing.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:36 PM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]
And no, not everything is about money and fame, but I'm a firm believer in making film (or any other art, for that matter) for it to be seen, not as a private exercise. In fact, from my point of view, this goes double for film, since it's so resource intensive. Making even a modest independent film requires a crew of at least tens of people, probably many more and hundreds of thousands of dollars as an absolute minimum.
If you're going to do that, I think it's important to make something that people will see, and distributing in a convenient medium is part of that process. This actually goes double for art films and so on, they're so hard to see in the theater, receiving only limited distribution and short theatrical runs. Add to that that these aren't even new films, they're made decades ago. Even if you live in New York City or Los Angeles, you probably don't have many opportunities to see them, and if you're in Mexico City, like me, or in small-town Norway, where I'm originally from, or any other place that happens to not collectively care much about film, you're not going to get the chance, period.
Digital distribution, DVD, Blu-Ray, or even VHS back in the day, was a way to fix this. You see an inferior copy, sure, but you see something. I think you have to be very much a purist to think that something is not better than nothing.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:36 PM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, just one more thought, again, people in New York City and Los Angeles are probably not aware of it, but distribution prints in most of the world are of absolutely horrible quality. This especially holds true for smaller and independent movies, and even more so outside of the US/Canada and Western Europe.
Basically, when a small art film gets to Mexico City, it's usually a year or two after its general release, and we get a print that's been in use for all that time. It's brought down here, possibly cleaned somewhat, and laser subtitled. Usually, it's very scratched and still quite dirty.
On the other hand, larger releases, especially with the trend towards simultaneous international release, are show from speed-copied release prints that are made from an internegative that's made from an interpositivee that's made from the internegative that was shipped to Mexico, which was made from the interpositive made from the original camera negative (or the negative that was printed after DI, more likely). That's a lot of generations.
There's no doubt that a good quality Blu-Ray transfer looks a lot better than this kind of copy, both in resolution, sharpness, and color reproduction.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:52 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
Basically, when a small art film gets to Mexico City, it's usually a year or two after its general release, and we get a print that's been in use for all that time. It's brought down here, possibly cleaned somewhat, and laser subtitled. Usually, it's very scratched and still quite dirty.
On the other hand, larger releases, especially with the trend towards simultaneous international release, are show from speed-copied release prints that are made from an internegative that's made from an interpositivee that's made from the internegative that was shipped to Mexico, which was made from the interpositive made from the original camera negative (or the negative that was printed after DI, more likely). That's a lot of generations.
There's no doubt that a good quality Blu-Ray transfer looks a lot better than this kind of copy, both in resolution, sharpness, and color reproduction.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:52 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
OmieWise: This is sort of the old "the movie version ruined the book" argument. It didn't, the book is still right there on the shelf.
In this case, the 35mm interpositives and internegatives are still right there on the shelf, as are the release prints, but all of them are probably slowly decaying. Even modern 35mm film doesn't archive all that well without special considerations, and Sèmbene was mostly active in the 60s and 70s. Films that are this important should at least be digitized in the highest quality possible, if not distributed on video.
As I said, you can make a good argument for why this is a stupid decision, and you have. As someone who devoured all of Sembene's movies on the crappy print owned by my school library, before there was anything on video in the US at all, I both really want to be able to see this stuff and understand that there isn't necessarily anything mystical about film per se. This is not the same as the "movie version" argument, as it's an argument that artists should be able to control (or at least express preference about) the way their work is presented. I would also wish these films to be digitized, but I still think idiotic is the wrong word to use.
This is, of course, part of a larger discussion about the role of art and what constitutes art (see, eg, As Slow As Possible), that goes round and round. Isn't it ok that there are some musical pieces that don't lend themselves to reproduction?
posted by OmieWise at 1:15 PM on February 24, 2009
In this case, the 35mm interpositives and internegatives are still right there on the shelf, as are the release prints, but all of them are probably slowly decaying. Even modern 35mm film doesn't archive all that well without special considerations, and Sèmbene was mostly active in the 60s and 70s. Films that are this important should at least be digitized in the highest quality possible, if not distributed on video.
As I said, you can make a good argument for why this is a stupid decision, and you have. As someone who devoured all of Sembene's movies on the crappy print owned by my school library, before there was anything on video in the US at all, I both really want to be able to see this stuff and understand that there isn't necessarily anything mystical about film per se. This is not the same as the "movie version" argument, as it's an argument that artists should be able to control (or at least express preference about) the way their work is presented. I would also wish these films to be digitized, but I still think idiotic is the wrong word to use.
This is, of course, part of a larger discussion about the role of art and what constitutes art (see, eg, As Slow As Possible), that goes round and round. Isn't it ok that there are some musical pieces that don't lend themselves to reproduction?
posted by OmieWise at 1:15 PM on February 24, 2009
Joakim, as a consumer I agree with you, and I was delighted to snag a videotape of Godard's Deux ou trois choses that doesn't begin to reproduce the experience of seeing a good print in a theater once I learned that there were essentially no good prints available for theatrical distribution. But artists do not think like consumers, nor should they—if they did, they wouldn't be artists. While I don't like the results of directors refusing to allow their movies to be reproduced in ways they disapprove of, I respect their right to do so and would never dream of calling them "idiotic." Artists (good ones) are purists by nature.
posted by languagehat at 1:20 PM on February 24, 2009
posted by languagehat at 1:20 PM on February 24, 2009
Or, again, what Omie said.
posted by languagehat at 1:20 PM on February 24, 2009
posted by languagehat at 1:20 PM on February 24, 2009
In an ideal world we could all go see these films on screen at regular opportunities. Since that isn't ever going to happen, it seems like having them available in a digital format is important--even with the awareness that for some people (possibly including the filmmaker) they are only an adjunct to the "real article."
I have simulacrum anxiety too--but it's awfully nice to be able to own Two or Three Things... by buying a digital copy on disc as we can today, rather than having to "disappear" a Blockbuster VHS copy that's been so worn out that the decks tracking fix knob might as well have been connected to the room's light dimmer for all the good it did. Which is much much worse (but, I suppose, doesn't foster the illusion of having seen it in all of its glory.)
Reticence to accept "video" distribution made a lot more sense with VHS and 480i TVs (SDTV.) With proliferation of wide screen HDTV, it seems like the calculus should have changed.
Um. Anyway, I like having the digital option--but lets hope some entity steps forward to fill in for NYF just the same.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:37 PM on February 24, 2009
I have simulacrum anxiety too--but it's awfully nice to be able to own Two or Three Things... by buying a digital copy on disc as we can today, rather than having to "disappear" a Blockbuster VHS copy that's been so worn out that the decks tracking fix knob might as well have been connected to the room's light dimmer for all the good it did. Which is much much worse (but, I suppose, doesn't foster the illusion of having seen it in all of its glory.)
Reticence to accept "video" distribution made a lot more sense with VHS and 480i TVs (SDTV.) With proliferation of wide screen HDTV, it seems like the calculus should have changed.
Um. Anyway, I like having the digital option--but lets hope some entity steps forward to fill in for NYF just the same.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:37 PM on February 24, 2009
Also, I seem to recall seeing a LOT of Godard material on Laserdisc in high school ('94-'98) FWIW.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:41 PM on February 24, 2009
The first thing I bought with my very first paycheck was their VHS tape of Eric Rohmer's Pauline at the Beach. Later I would treasure my copy of Jacques Rivette's La Belle Noiseuse.
I'm really sorry to hear this.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:49 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm really sorry to hear this.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:49 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
I should have chosen my words better. "Idiotic" was disrespectful and didn't even correctly describe my feelings about the matter. "Very frustrating" or "very detrimental to people who want to see his films" or "old-fashioned" or even "stubborn" would have been better.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:03 PM on February 24, 2009
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:03 PM on February 24, 2009
yeah, Omiewise is really hitting the nail on the head, here. People who say things like "There's very little difference between modern digital projection quality video and older generation film" (and Joakim isn't the first person I've heard say it) are being a little disingenuous. There really is a tremendous difference, in some ways to the advantage of video, even. But there is a difference. As minor as some people believe the difference is, there is a difference in feel when seeing projected film and projected video. Part of it is the organic grain, and even the scratches. Part of it is the every-so-slightly discernible flicker (which happens at a slower rate than the typical 30fps that the human eye is said to be able to discern frame rate changes at), and most importantly the definite lack of discernible pixels at any distance or magnification. It's certainly a different quality of visual experience. Whether it's better or worse is entirely subjective, but if an artist prefers one to another for his work, it's not idiotic, it's simply a preference.
As a for instance, someone who did not cotton very much to video was Stan Brakhage. Much of his work has been transferred to DVD post-mortem, thanks to the Criterion folks, but when you're talking about a man whose worked involved painting directly on the transparent medium of film and taping moths' wings to film, surely you can understand why he might not think video totally captures the effect.
posted by shmegegge at 2:06 PM on February 24, 2009
As a for instance, someone who did not cotton very much to video was Stan Brakhage. Much of his work has been transferred to DVD post-mortem, thanks to the Criterion folks, but when you're talking about a man whose worked involved painting directly on the transparent medium of film and taping moths' wings to film, surely you can understand why he might not think video totally captures the effect.
posted by shmegegge at 2:06 PM on February 24, 2009
shmegegge: Actually, projected 35mm film flickers at 48 fps, the lamp flashes twice per frame, exactly to compensate for the fact that 24 Hz is too slow, and looks very flickery. You might be talking about the way motion looks different on film than on 60 Hz interlaced video, and this is certainly true, but digital projection today is 24 fps, just like film.
I also think it's important to consider that I'm not talking about stuff that's been captured on video here. Images that have been shot on film and then digitized and projected digitally have most of same grain structure as something that's shot, cut, and copied on film, because the vast majority of the grain comes from the camera negative. Camera negative needs to be fast in many cases, and thus is coarse-grained, while intermediate film stocks have the luxury of being exposed by a high-powered, controlled lamp, and thus can be relatively slow and very fine-grained, which they are, since this reduces quality loss through the generations.
And I'm sure Brakhage would project just fine digitally, preferably on a good 4k projector. After all, if the light reflected from the screen is the same, it doesn't matter what it's gone through to get there. Brakhage didn't, as far as I know, project the film he'd been painting on and taping things to, amongst other reasons because no projector would tolerate it, so you're essentially talking about a copy anyway, it's just a question of whether that copy is on film or digital, but it's still a (degraded, inferior) copy of the original camera negative.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:40 PM on February 24, 2009
I also think it's important to consider that I'm not talking about stuff that's been captured on video here. Images that have been shot on film and then digitized and projected digitally have most of same grain structure as something that's shot, cut, and copied on film, because the vast majority of the grain comes from the camera negative. Camera negative needs to be fast in many cases, and thus is coarse-grained, while intermediate film stocks have the luxury of being exposed by a high-powered, controlled lamp, and thus can be relatively slow and very fine-grained, which they are, since this reduces quality loss through the generations.
And I'm sure Brakhage would project just fine digitally, preferably on a good 4k projector. After all, if the light reflected from the screen is the same, it doesn't matter what it's gone through to get there. Brakhage didn't, as far as I know, project the film he'd been painting on and taping things to, amongst other reasons because no projector would tolerate it, so you're essentially talking about a copy anyway, it's just a question of whether that copy is on film or digital, but it's still a (degraded, inferior) copy of the original camera negative.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:40 PM on February 24, 2009
Perhaps you like not seeing movies at all, or seeing scratched-up, crappy copies years behind the rest of the world, but it does nothing for my experience of film. Fetishing flaws in the design of a medium - scratches in film - is just silly. It's one thing for an artist to want to see their work put on a screen at the "right" size in the "right" environment, but I seriously doubt any of these directors think the "right" way to see their work is a crappy, low quality print.
Otherwise they'd be just as happy with VHS.
posted by rodgerd at 2:42 PM on February 24, 2009
Otherwise they'd be just as happy with VHS.
posted by rodgerd at 2:42 PM on February 24, 2009
And I'm sure Brakhage would project just fine digitally, preferably on a good 4k projector. After all, if the light reflected from the screen is the same, it doesn't matter what it's gone through to get there.
yes, but again, the point is that you can perhaps see why an artist might prefer film projection for his own purely subjective reasons, and that as the artist it is his right to do so. yes no?
Images that have been shot on film and then digitized and projected digitally have most of same grain structure as something that's shot, cut, and copied on film, because the vast majority of the grain comes from the camera negative.
the operative words in that sentence being "most" and "majority," though. believe me, you don't have to defend digital projections, or even consumer grade digital video (just to encompass the spectrum of video all the way to the pretty low quality) to me. as I said, I'm talking about subjective preferences and respecting them, which can (as you said earlier) be frustrating for the viewer, which is why I mentioned that I should perhaps have previewed.
posted by shmegegge at 2:50 PM on February 24, 2009
yes, but again, the point is that you can perhaps see why an artist might prefer film projection for his own purely subjective reasons, and that as the artist it is his right to do so. yes no?
Images that have been shot on film and then digitized and projected digitally have most of same grain structure as something that's shot, cut, and copied on film, because the vast majority of the grain comes from the camera negative.
the operative words in that sentence being "most" and "majority," though. believe me, you don't have to defend digital projections, or even consumer grade digital video (just to encompass the spectrum of video all the way to the pretty low quality) to me. as I said, I'm talking about subjective preferences and respecting them, which can (as you said earlier) be frustrating for the viewer, which is why I mentioned that I should perhaps have previewed.
posted by shmegegge at 2:50 PM on February 24, 2009
My reaction to this news is total ambivalence. Or perhaps I should say that I'm deeply sad to see New Yorker Films go, while I am hoping to dance on the grave of New Yorker Video. As a film distributor they labored (like Hercules) to bring a huge variety of great stuff to US theaters, and anyone who likes seeing something other than the usual 24-plex fare owes them a huge debt of thanks. But the video versions of their vast library have been ridiculously slow to trickle out (I'm sure anyone posting in this thread can easily name ten or twenty titles New Yorker owns the rights to that have never seen home-video release and a hundred more that are still only available in the few remaining VHS copies), and were often really poorly produced. The bulk of their DVD releases that I've seen are hideous dubs of VHS, including subtitles burned into the frame, raising the obvious question – with five-minute production values like this, how did so much of their VHS catalogue still not make it to DVD?
I just hope that some company or group that gets it will buy the video rights to the library and make the digital transition pay off in long-tail dollars. (Facets? Criterion? Or, hell, Netflix or Blockbuster or Apple could make a serious exclusive-content coup of it.)
posted by RogerB at 3:01 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
I just hope that some company or group that gets it will buy the video rights to the library and make the digital transition pay off in long-tail dollars. (Facets? Criterion? Or, hell, Netflix or Blockbuster or Apple could make a serious exclusive-content coup of it.)
posted by RogerB at 3:01 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
shmegegge: I don't think we're really disagreeing that much. My main point was really that more flexible attitudes towards modes of reproduction and distribution from the directors and distributors would lead to these films being much more easily accessible to a very large amount of people, in many cases people who would otherwise have zero chance of seeing them.
And I think that when a director says, in effect, "you have to go to New York to see my movie during one of its brief and occasional runs there, I'm not going to allow you to see it in any other way", that's his right, but it's also kind of arrogant and a dick move, and to the detriment of the medium in general.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:15 PM on February 24, 2009
And I think that when a director says, in effect, "you have to go to New York to see my movie during one of its brief and occasional runs there, I'm not going to allow you to see it in any other way", that's his right, but it's also kind of arrogant and a dick move, and to the detriment of the medium in general.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:15 PM on February 24, 2009
This is too bad. From a theatrical point of view I'll be sorry to see them go because I felt they had good taste and chose movies that were often the best I'd seen in any given year. From the DVD point of view I think their library will get picked up by someone who will sell the rights to other DVD companies. We'll see some of these films again.
But the larger issue is how are other small distrubutors doing? Will we see more of them go under? If so this will be bad for foreign and independent filmmakers as well, which in turn means fewer films for we film buffs too.
posted by Rashomon at 5:19 PM on February 24, 2009
But the larger issue is how are other small distrubutors doing? Will we see more of them go under? If so this will be bad for foreign and independent filmmakers as well, which in turn means fewer films for we film buffs too.
posted by Rashomon at 5:19 PM on February 24, 2009
The truth is that New Yorker's rights had expired on many great titles and will expire completely in just a few years - which is a good thing for cinephiles in the long run. The prints housed at New Yorker are not archival materials - they are simply exhibition prints. Nothing unique has been lost to the world.
New Yorker's dvd's were some of the worst transfers available (not as bad as those pressed by Facets - but close) from a legitimate company and the last couple of film prints I saw from their library looked were severely worn. Bresson's L'ARGENT literally fell apart in the projector (and the frame melted - it was just like PERSONA or TWO-LANE BLACKTOP.) Criterion and Kino will grab most of these films and give us some excellent versions on disc - some of the major studios will grab the remainder for distribution deals... (I hope facets stays well away!)
Something else will rise in the place of New Yorker and provide an excellent service to American cinephiles - and then it will die too.
posted by cinemafiend at 6:34 PM on February 24, 2009
New Yorker's dvd's were some of the worst transfers available (not as bad as those pressed by Facets - but close) from a legitimate company and the last couple of film prints I saw from their library looked were severely worn. Bresson's L'ARGENT literally fell apart in the projector (and the frame melted - it was just like PERSONA or TWO-LANE BLACKTOP.) Criterion and Kino will grab most of these films and give us some excellent versions on disc - some of the major studios will grab the remainder for distribution deals... (I hope facets stays well away!)
Something else will rise in the place of New Yorker and provide an excellent service to American cinephiles - and then it will die too.
posted by cinemafiend at 6:34 PM on February 24, 2009
A far more saddening thing happened at the Library of Congress years ago. A non-film loving
bog-wig didn't know about remote storage so thousands of films were cataloged then destroyed. These were the only prints known to man because they were copyright deposits.
posted by doctorschlock at 10:59 PM on February 24, 2009
bog-wig didn't know about remote storage so thousands of films were cataloged then destroyed. These were the only prints known to man because they were copyright deposits.
posted by doctorschlock at 10:59 PM on February 24, 2009
doctorschlock: What a horrible thing. Do you have a source for that story? Good thing the moving image division is getting better treatment these days.
posted by bubukaba at 11:23 PM on February 24, 2009
posted by bubukaba at 11:23 PM on February 24, 2009
« Older Cooperate by oneself! Again! | Lovely, Beautiful Transparent Fish! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Terrible news, especially as regards rights to their films on DVD. You just knew that a movie was going to be good when it was preceded by that bright red New Yorker screen.
posted by Bromius at 11:03 AM on February 24, 2009