321 The Virgin Spring

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
mbalson
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: Toronto,Canada
Contact:

#51 Post by mbalson » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:13 am

I don't know why they don't have a simple policy of not cropping and not window-boxing. This is not rocket science.
How does overscanning sacrifice vertical resolution? It's still the same pixels per screen inch, no?
No, part of the image is encoded as black area (when they windowbox) instead of picture information.

viciousliar
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:12 am

#52 Post by viciousliar » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:46 am

I HATE what Criterion did with the black border, diminishing our little screen! :evil: FYI, Tartan's version is easily the best-looking of all of their Bergman entries, followed closely by their transfer of The Magician - the image is spotless and appears almost 3-dimensional. I doubt I'll secure Criterion's edition, even if the extras are tempting... WHY, Criterion, WHY belittle(quite literallly) the apparent screen-size??? #-o

User avatar
Matango
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Hong Kong

#53 Post by Matango » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:09 am

Anyone else find the commentary a bit on the dry side?

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#54 Post by Gordon » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:39 am

rb173 wrote:Also, the bit rate for this seems a little low? Beaver indicates the average is about 4. I know bit rate isn't everything, but Criterion do try and go for as high a bit rate as possible eg. around 7 or so. Even major studio releases are on average at least around 5. I wonder what this release looks like when front projected on a large screen?
Hmm, odd. Does the "About the Transfer" in the booklet not state: "To maintain optimal image quality through the compression process, the picture on this dual-layer DVD-9 was encoded at the highest-possible bit rate for the quantity of material included."

This seems to have been stated in every "About the Transfer" statement for at least the last 12 months' releases.

Narshty
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#55 Post by Narshty » Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:47 am

Well, the bitrate chart on Beaver's review shows it to be significantly higher than 4 mbps.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#56 Post by Lino » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:06 am

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=19718

Image

"There, there - don't worry! You won't notice the heavily blocked image on your TV screen. It will be alright, girl!"

viciousliar
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:12 am

#57 Post by viciousliar » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:14 am

Annie Mall wrote:"There, there - don't worry! You won't notice the heavily blocked image on your TV screen. It will be alright, girl!"
ROFL, Annie! What delicious, absurd display of humor! :lol:

User avatar
King of Kong
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#58 Post by King of Kong » Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:00 am

Genius =D>

Narshty
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#59 Post by Narshty » Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:02 pm

Back cover

That booklet looks luscious. Also nice to see Ingmar's given it the thumbs up again.

Napoleon
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#60 Post by Napoleon » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:24 am

The black borders were not apparent when running on my aging set-up.

The transfer itself is distractingly good with no noticable damage at all. I would put it on a par with Balthazar.

Cowies essay in the booklet is imo of a very high quality. He points out numerous aspects that I missed completely (my knowledge of middle ages Swedish history is non-existent), particularly the implications of paganism vs christianity in relation to the time period when the film is set.

User avatar
bjeggert82
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: www.deepfocusreview.com
Contact:

#61 Post by bjeggert82 » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:53 pm

n. w. wrote:The black borders were not apparent when running on my aging set-up.
I have a new home theater set up, with large Sony flatscreen recently purchased at the end of 2005... I didn't notice any cropping or black borders either.

The disc was superb, I thought. Having never viewed this film before, I was especially awed at the poetic story arc, though I suppose that can be attributed to the 13th Century ballad it was based on. For a topic teeter-tottering on the grotesque, a topic that Wes Craven made wholly unpoetic and disgusting with his remake, I thought Bergman handled the story with beauty and sensitivity.

This was one of Bergman's best in my mind... and one of the best Criterion Bergman's to boot.

stroszeck
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:42 pm

#62 Post by stroszeck » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:17 pm

Have we become SO spoiled that we need to bitch and whine about bit rates and borders? For gods sake people, please try to remember the next time you stick in your digitally remastered and restored as per-aspect-ratio-recommendations-DVDs that we have come, within a short period of time, to an era where we don't have to lug around giant rectangular tapes whose washed-out-full-screen-images decompose every time you rewind the film.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#63 Post by denti alligator » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:01 pm

stroszeck wrote:Have we become SO spoiled that we need to bitch and whine about bit rates and borders? For gods sake people, please try to remember the next time you stick in your digitally remastered and restored as per-aspect-ratio-recommendations-DVDs that we have come, within a short period of time, to an era where we don't have to lug around giant rectangular tapes whose washed-out-full-screen-images decompose every time you rewind the film.
When a push of the button is all it takes to remove such a border, I feel it is something worth bitching about. We've come so far that we should bitch, I believe.

The black border is plain to see on a display that doesn't overscan or otherwise crop the image that's stored on the DVD.

User avatar
Matango
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Hong Kong

#64 Post by Matango » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:03 am

I have a DVD player (Toshiba SD-2950; cheap) that zooms out by around 10% so the whole frame shows. I always use it on stuff like Ozu and Kurosawa, as of course the whole frame demands viewing for these directors and some others. This obviously creates a black border around the edge, but with lights out, it's barely noticeable. And the quality if anything is improved. (I think so anyway, I'm not DVD Beaver).

User avatar
bunuelian
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:49 am
Location: San Diego

#65 Post by bunuelian » Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:22 am

The windowboxing is nowhere near as extreme as the dvdbeaver scans would suggest on my system, although it's clear that the full screen potential isn't being used. It's a relatively insignificant problem. The transfer is otherwise very nice.

The film itself has been something of a disappointment for me. The supposed commentary on the tension between Christianity and Paganism is grossly over stated in the literature: there's absolutely no tension at all! Christianity is clearly the superior choice, and Paganism is just a weird, impotent, and gross thing for the perpetually dirty characters who live on the fringes of the story (except when they're raping someone). The film doesn't waste any time in saying, "Thank God there's no more Paganism!" And of course, the audience probably leaves thinking that Christians would never, ever rape a woman - and the sexual violence continues unabated. That one of the Pagans can't speak doesn't help matters. The history of this supposed tension has been written by the Christian victors, who have done all they can to conceal the suffering of sexually abused women by denying the sexuality of women altogether.

Gunnel Lindblom gives a pretty bad performance for a Bergman actor. And some other moments in the film fall fall too far back into the realm of theater (i.e. the diabolic picnic). As the first Bergman-Nykvist, it's an important film, but it's clear that they needed another film to perfect their visual style.

On the other hand, the film takes on an undeniable intensity beginning with the rape and climaxing with Von Sydow's bitter remorse. The psychological violence of rape is depicted in remarkabaly honest fashion given the film's date and Bergman's sex. This is not a film I would lightly share with any woman who has survived sexual abuse. Unfortunately, it fails to really force questions on the audience which it could have asked.

User avatar
tartarlamb
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

#66 Post by tartarlamb » Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:53 am

I could be wrong, but I thought Sawdust and Tinsel was the first Bergman-Nykvist.

I agree that the film falls a little far back into theater or relying on theatrical devices at points, but I think thats a common problem in a lot of Bergman films, especially the early ones (ex, The Magician). I don't think its necessarily a bad thing for the most part, although some films are ridiculously marred by it (The Devil's Eye). Gunnel Lindbolm is apparently an enormously talented actress, but it rarely comes across in her work with Bergman, in my opinion. Her best role, in The Silence, is easily dwarfed by Ingrid Thulin's performance.

I'll have to rewatch it, but I remember this as being very good, if maybe a little different than most of Bergman's other films, probably because he didn't write it.

User avatar
Morbii
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:38 am

#67 Post by Morbii » Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:31 am

bunuelian wrote:The film itself has been something of a disappointment for me. The supposed commentary on the tension between Christianity and Paganism is grossly over stated in the literature: there's absolutely no tension at all! Christianity is clearly the superior choice, and Paganism is just a weird, impotent, and gross thing for the perpetually dirty characters who live on the fringes of the story (except when they're raping someone). The film doesn't waste any time in saying, "Thank God there's no more Paganism!" And of course, the audience probably leaves thinking that Christians would never, ever rape a woman - and the sexual violence continues unabated. That one of the Pagans can't speak doesn't help matters. The history of this supposed tension has been written by the Christian victors, who have done all they can to conceal the suffering of sexually abused women by denying the sexuality of women altogether.
I rather felt that the film wasn't championing Christianity, but merely offering an explanation as to why people would believe, or continue to believe, in it even though bad things are happening all around (or any religion for that matter, I don't think the religion of the family even really mattered that much). It took a hit on paganism, but I think it was only incidental (and given the time period and setting, it makes sense). At the end of the film, I felt that it was clear that Bergman was comparing God with the pagan girl in a way; Sydow's character talks to God and says something to the effect of "you just sat there and watched it happen and didn't do anything about it", which is exactly what the pagan girl did as well. But Sydow decided to stick with God anyhow. And the family has obviously stuck with the pagan girl. And so there was the explanation: he hasn't kicked out God, just like he never kicked out the pagan girl for being different and following a different path; she was family.

User avatar
King of Kong
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#68 Post by King of Kong » Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:32 am

Morbii wrote:
bunuelian wrote:The film itself has been something of a disappointment for me. The supposed commentary on the tension between Christianity and Paganism is grossly over stated in the literature: there's absolutely no tension at all! Christianity is clearly the superior choice, and Paganism is just a weird, impotent, and gross thing for the perpetually dirty characters who live on the fringes of the story (except when they're raping someone). The film doesn't waste any time in saying, "Thank God there's no more Paganism!" And of course, the audience probably leaves thinking that Christians would never, ever rape a woman - and the sexual violence continues unabated. That one of the Pagans can't speak doesn't help matters. The history of this supposed tension has been written by the Christian victors, who have done all they can to conceal the suffering of sexually abused women by denying the sexuality of women altogether.
I rather felt that the film wasn't championing Christianity, but merely offering an explanation as to why people would believe, or continue to believe, in it even though bad things are happening all around (or any religion for that matter, I don't think the religion of the family even really mattered that much). It took a hit on paganism, but I think it was only incidental (and given the time period and setting, it makes sense). At the end of the film, I felt that it was clear that Bergman was comparing God with the pagan girl in a way; Sydow's character talks to God and says something to the effect of "you just sat there and watched it happen and didn't do anything about it", which is exactly what the pagan girl did as well. But Sydow decided to stick with God anyhow. And the family has obviously stuck with the pagan girl. And so there was the explanation: he hasn't kicked out God, just like he never kicked out the pagan girl for being different and following a different path; she was family.
There is a great deal of moral ambiguity in this work. Take Sydow's revenge on the herdsmen - it's presented as quite a brutal scene, though the viewer is inclined to feel him justified before
SpoilerShow
he kills the boy
. This final act seems to suggest that no matter how seemingly "civilised" one becomes after leaving paganism for Christianity, the bestial side of human nature cannot be easily overcome.

As it happens, my DVD has recently arrived. I haven't viewed it all the way through yet, but I can say the window-boxing doesn't appear on my TV screen, thank heaven.

scotty
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:04 pm

#69 Post by scotty » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:25 am

On borders: watch it in the dark, as in a theater.

User avatar
Morbii
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:38 am

#70 Post by Morbii » Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:33 pm

King of Kong wrote:There is a great deal of moral ambiguity in this work. Take Sydow's revenge on the herdsmen - it's presented as quite a brutal scene, though the viewer is inclined to feel him justified before
SpoilerShow
he kills the boy
. This final act seems to suggest that no matter how seemingly "civilised" one becomes after leaving paganism for Christianity, the bestial side of human nature cannot be easily overcome.
A little bit off the subject (but not completely): were the herdsmen actually pagan, or do we just assume that because the other characters that were a bit off-kilter were as well (I don't remember them being pagan, butI might be wrong).

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#71 Post by Tommaso » Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:41 am

Have seen it only yesterday, and must say: fantastic dvd all around, great commentary track and nice audio interview with Bergman (I could have gone without Ang Lee, though). And I'm happy to have been able to watch it uncropped on my heavily overscanning tube (don't shoot me, folks) :-)

Interesting discussion about paganism vs christianity I'd like to revive . The end is really ambiguous in my view. Töre says he wants to build his God a church made of 'brick and stone' as a sign of atonement. What happens immediately after this is the welling-up of the spring. How is this 'answer' to be understood? Is it an acknowledgement of Töre's vow, or is it a comment contradicting it? After all, water in its 'flowing', natural state is the exact opposite of the 'static' stone building that Töre wants to represent religion. Together with the fire and earth symbolism that goes through the film and is associated with paganism, isn't it possible to interpret this as a favourable nod towards paganism instead of christianity? This would also fit with Bergman's biography (in the sense of his difficulties with his Puritanist upbringing and his later avowed atheism). It would also underline the essential sameness of behaviour (cruelty, or at least raging passion) in both the murderers and in Töre when he kills the child. In that respect Töre has remained pagan. Even if Ingeri is indeed 'cleansed' or 'baptized' by the water in the end, is it possible to read this as a reconciliation of both creeds?

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

#72 Post by aox » Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:22 pm

Just a heads up for those around the NYC area, this is playing at 11am Friday-Sunday this weekend at IFC.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#73 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:08 pm

A wonderful film... still to this day it remains the provider of one of the most disturbing rape/murder scenes in the whole of the cinema. A sublime piece of medieval filmmaking.

Narshty
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#74 Post by Narshty » Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:18 pm

Or, alternatively, Bergman at his most stodgy and leaden. The film's attempt to portray some measure of brutal reality before flipping out into fairytale land in the final minutes falls flat on its arse. The titular event is the kind of sledgehammer symbolism that practically has an asterisk on the screen next to it, and unfortunately exactly the sort of thing that Bergman in his worst moments can't resist.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#75 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:25 pm

Yeah but did you like it Narsho? Express yourself without verbal drift.

Post Reply