I wasn't referring to these. Just the ones I remember.The current ones I remember are:
When a Woman Ascends the Stairs
Repast
When a Woman Ascends the Stairs. © Janus Films
Critic's Choice: Susan Sontag on Japanese Film, Part II
<http://info.japansociety.org/site/R?i=N ... ckg..>When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (Onna ga kaidan o noboru toki)
6:30 pm
Wednesday, December 1
Hope that I don't get banned because I don't think that Suzuki is even among the top 10 Japanese directors of all time. Just don't understand this wave of Suzuki craze from Criterion and HVE. BTW, I own the French Mizuguchi boxes and the Spanish Naruse box. They are both fine with quality transfer on the majority of the movies. "Floating clouds" is just about the most beautiful Japanese movie I have ever seen, slightly behind "Tokyo story".Jun-Dai wrote:So we can agree that there are six Suzukis and zero Mizoguchis and Naruses in the collection for one or more of the following reasons:
* They hate us.
* They hate Naruse and Mizoguchi.
* Sex and violence sells better.
* Old (pre-60s) movies are dumb.
* Suzuki sells better.
* Someone there has a fetish for Suzuki.
* They like Naruse and Mizoguchi too much to release them casually.
* The timing of the projects and the people they have to work with just worked out that way.
* The prints/rights issues have delayed the Naruse and Mizuguchi films.
* Suzuki's still making films and they want to be in a good position to make money off of any interest that those films generate (if any of his recent films ever get distributed in the U.S.)
* Suzuki's old and they want to be in a good position to make money when he dies.
* Someone (e.g., Jim Jarmusch, Seijun Suzuki, or the president of Nikkatsu) told them to, and they couldn't say no.
Did I miss any?
sorry, i am sure this has already been mentioned somewhere, but i cant find it. do either/both of these boxes have english subtitles?kieslowski_67 wrote:Hope that I don't get banned because I don't think that Suzuki is even among the top 10 Japanese directors of all time. Just don't understand this wave of Suzuki craze from Criterion and HVE. BTW, I own the French Mizuguchi boxes and the Spanish Naruse box. They are both fine with quality transfer on the majority of the movies. "Floating wind" is just about the most beautiful Japanese movie I have ever seen, slightly behind "Tokyo story".
No. None of them has English subtitles. Sorry!sorry, i am sure this has already been mentioned somewhere, but i cant find it. do either/both of these boxes have english subtitles?
I second that! The hype that´s goin´ on since the Rotterdam retro a couple of years ago is ridiculous IMHO.Hope that I don't get banned because I don't think that Suzuki is even among the top 10 Japanese directors of all time.
You asked for it:have to ask: What ten (or more) Japanese directors do you think are better?
According to my personal taste:goofbutton wrote:I have to ask: What ten (or more) Japanese directors do you think are better?kieslowski_67 wrote:Hope that I don't get banned because I don't think that Suzuki is even among the top 10 Japanese directors of all time...
So many on this forum have expressed this view or some similar that I wonder if it has something to do with the stigma of so-called genre films and the fact that Suzuki's style gradually emerged from a studio generally committed to making predictable, assembly-line movies. If this is the case, hundreds of great films from Hollywood's classic era can be ignored on the same grounds. Speaking personally, even thought I accept that most sex-and-violence films are vapid, I consistently find in Suzuki's best work lots of interesting characterizations, moral and social subtext, humor, and striking visual appeal. It's an idle question whether Suzuki achievements bested Ozu's (et al.); that's not what he was trying to do. Ozu has more personal importance to me, as well, but when talking about who was "better," I think we need to ask whether the same criteria can even be applied.I do have to admit that Suzuki's movies offer a nice mix of violence and sex, and that's about it.
I personally think that the Japanese Ozu box set provides better transfer for "Tokyo story" than that of Criterion's. The French release of the Mizoguchi movies feature decent transfers (although not restored), which are very comparable to some of those from CC ('diary of a country priest', etc). If CC releases "Ugestu" with a transfer similar to that from the French release, I think most people on this board will be fine with it.unclehulot wrote:SOME of those Mizoguchi's may only exist in rough condition.....there are limited options on a number of the 30s and 40s films. The question as to what "restored" consists of then, is how to maximize what you've got with video restoration tools. I'm not sure I would call this restoration.....I reserve that for working from the closest film sources to the original and as many secondary (i.e. positive print) sources as possible, and that's where I think we have a problem with these films. It's probably the same situation with the earlier films in the Ozu canon. So, they won't look like the "typical" Criterion product. I hope this doesn't stop them, but I'm sure they will cringe when the reviews pour in criticizing the lack of restoration and the "transfer" problems! So, I do hope those spine numbers appear when they have done the most exhaustive search for the best materials, but not AFTER hell freezes over, because I'd love to hold the buggers in my grubby hands before then, please!Annie Mall wrote:
As for the Mizoguchi titles - although they have been released both in France, Spain and the UK, let's not forget that they are yet to come out on DVD in Japan. And if you look at the Beaver's reviews for those titles, it's quite clear that they have not been restored.
Criterion always strives for the best materials and maybe that's why we still haven't seen a single Mizoguchi title with a spine number.
Just my two cents.
I believe so. And the numerous assumptions that go hand in hand with it: f.e. that film as art is bound to "real authors", who have to be independent to be free to express themselves, etc. Hence the theory of auteurs from the 60´s, which tried to upvalue a lot of american genre directors like Nick Ray et. al. by stressing the genre bending (originality) of these directors, and diminishing the genre aspect (stereotype) at the same time.I wonder if it has something to do with the stigma of so-called genre films
He sure is a very good craftsman, and his films are perfect entertainment, with some striking narrative twists and turns, an interesting elliptical editing technique, and popart-influenced colour experiments. All this makes for his originality. But when he´s evaluated as the big anarchist with political insights, expressed in carefully hidden subtexts, I would say: overinterpretation, myth-building. Social comment wasn´t his concern. The content side of his films is his weakest point. But on the other hand, he had to deal with run of the mill scripts, and was bound to make utterly boring scripts visually interesting, in which he succeeded IMO.I consistently find in Suzuki's best work lots of interesting characterizations, moral and social subtext, humor, and striking visual appeal
Absolutely! I have the feeling, that one has to protect Suzuki against his fans, who want to make him something, that he never wanted to be, and, perhaps couldn´t be, and he´s the first one to stress this in interview after interview. In sum there´s an over-stressing of the formal aspects of his films.It's an idle question whether Suzuki achievements bested Ozu's (et al.); that's not what he was trying to do
No, I personally think, that this is unfair. But the starting point of this thread was the overrepresentation of Suzuki by Criterion. And I believe it is not unfair to say, that he´s overrepresented in the context of the Criterion catalogue. The only additional Suzuki film I want to see in the CC would be Zigeunerweisen, because I feel that this film would really open new perspectives on Suzuki.I think we need to ask whether the same criteria can even be applied.
When you say that in the context of auteurist analysis, are you damning him with faint praise (i.e., a mere craftsman who made mere entertainment)?shirobamba wrote:He sure is a very good craftsman, and his films are perfect entertainment, with some striking narrative twists and turns, an interesting elliptical editing technique, and popart-influenced colour experiments.
I'm interested in these claims but would need some argument and evidence before I'd find them at all convincing.But when he´s evaluated as the big anarchist with political insights, expressed in carefully hidden subtexts, I would say: overinterpretation, myth-building. Social comment wasn´t his concern. The content side of his films is his weakest point.
You dislike all the scripts, or just most of them? I find that some of them (such as Shindo's Fighting Elegy screenplay) shine brilliantly, while others were likely neither outstanding nor a hindrance to begin with.But on the other hand, he had to deal with run of the mill scripts, and was bound to make utterly boring scripts visually interesting, in which he succeeded IMO.
But it seems like "overrepresentation" is meant by most people as a function of the director's relative greatness, which introduces the apples-and-oranges problem.But the starting point of this thread was the overrepresentation of Suzuki by Criterion. And I believe it is not unfair to say, that he´s overrepresented in the context of the Criterion catalogue.
