Looks to be Maurice Pialat day over at The Auteurs’ Notebook; first, my man Daniel Kasman has a paean to the U.K.-based Eureka!/Masters of Cinema label, which recently launched what I understand will be a fairly comprehensive series of Pialat films, beginning with his feature debut L’Enfance Nue (Naked Childhood) and now including his 1985 not-quite-genre-exercise Police; then, my “Tuesday Morning Foreign Region DVD Report” zooms in on Police, which looks amazing and has a ton of good extras. (Not to mention that it’ll make you think: “How can Sophie Marceau be so great in this and be so dreadful in that Bond film?”)
It’s interesting; Danny’s perspective sees the MOC releases as pretty much introducing Pialat’s cinematically subtle, emotionally raw work to English-language cinema; for myself, as I am unbelievably old, I’m perceiving a revival of interest in the man. From 1980’s Loulou to 1991’s van Gogh, Pialat’s pictures got pretty reliable arthouse distribution (at least in my neck of the woods, what they call the “tri-state area”) and received fairly rapturous reviews (at least from the smarter critics)—they were a part of the cinematic conversation, and a big one. By 1995 conditions had changed to the point that what would turn out to be Pialat’s final picture, Le Garcu, could only get a stateside screening at the New York Film Festival. (Next time some journal decides to publish another “What good is the New York Film Festival” thumbsucker, keep this fact—and believe me, there are dozens if not hundreds more like it—in mind.) And when Pialat died in 2003, as far as the English-speaking film world was concerned…well, it seemed his work had disappeared well before he did. And now, he’s back, and for some he’s new, and those some will be hit with a force of revelation…
So rejoice. Even though we still are far from living full-time in the garden of cinematic delights we dream of (anybody wanna talk about the new box set of Touch of Evil that refuses to even countenance the idea that it might have been composed for a 1.33 ratio, despite all the evidence pointing to that? Nah, didn’t think so…), good things do continue to happen.
I sat that damn “Touch of Evil” box-set for $19.99 the other day, and I didn’t get it. Why? Because I bought the last edition, and I hate re-buying anything. Same with that new “Psycho” double disc. Oh, I’ll get them both. But still.
I’m seriously thinking of NOT getting the new TOE, Bill—go here to find out why:
http://www.davekehr.com/?p=127
Come for the debates on aspect ratios, stay for the enthusiastic exchanges on (relatively obscure) jazz…
Well, but…so what’s a (compared to you and Dave Kehr) regular know-nothin’ Joe like myself supposed to do? I get all excited about these new sets, and then one of you comes along to tell me it’s been butchered. I’m not saying you’re wrong, mind you, but you sure know how to rain on a guy’s parade.
And aren’t there three different versions of the film in this new set? Are the ratios wrong for all three?
ToE works beautifully–nay, plays better–in 1.85:1, Scout’s honour. (And yes, they’re all 1.85:1, presumably to discourage this kind of debate.)
For some reason a number of posts are missing on Dave’s blog. Some friends of mine were posting scans of documentation regarding Universal’s aspect ratio policy (which went all wide screen in mid-1953).
I’ve run Touch of Evil in 35mm (twice, once the 1958 version and once the 1998 version) and it was very clear to me that 1.85 is the correct aspect ratio for theatrical screening. Remember that you can’t necessarily trust a full-frame video transfer as most, if not all, of them exhibit a degree of zoom-in. A 35mm print is the best way to compare. For Touch of Evil (and other ‘controversial’ aspect ratio pictures such as Glenn Miller Story and The Shining), I would always run a couple of reels for myself without the 1.85 aperture plate and in every case, the excess head and foot room was obvious.
You know how in the early days of DVD they used to put both “widescreen” and “full-frame” versions of a film on one disc? Maybe they should start doing that again with these kinds of sets, for the academic comparison, and to satisfy all parties.
So, wait, they put out a set with the “Universal” cut and the “As Close To Welles As We’re Gonna Get” cut, and it’s STILL no good? Yeesh! Where’s Criterion when you need ’em?
Whoa. Concerned about aspect ratios doesn’t necessarily translate into “no good.” I’m getting the set tomorrow and will weigh in with my considered opinion in short order.…
I have _A Nos Amours_ at the top of the Q thanks to this recent Eustache series I’ve been attending. Speaking of which, GK, did you catch _Le cochon_ at Alliances Françaises? That, my friend, is a film.
And, the real Q is: do you reckon _A Nos Amours_ a fine place to start? I think it should be, right?
@RWK: “Amours” is as good a place to start as any, I’d reckon. So great.
Wasn’t able to catch “Cochon,” alas. How’s it stack up against the how-your-sausage-gets-made sequence in “1900?”
I wish I could answer. I’ve not seen _1900_. However, since I’m a nut, I’ll venture this: it blows that Italo out the water. Where’s Pinkerton to back me up?
Pialat is incredible. Just incredible. I hope he gets rediscovered.
I saw Le Garcu at the Walter Reade a few years back, and it’s some kind of late-in-life masterpiece.
When’s Criterion getting on this? (Beyond A Nos Amours, that is…)
John M: No word yet on any Criterion action. But Eureka!/MOC has quite a bit more Pialat on tap…