I think they're in the other box. Easter Parade comes with The Band Wagon - a must-have for anyone with any interest in film - and, in declining order of worth: Bells are Ringing, Brigadoon and Finian's Rainbow. I'd say only the last is a complete dog, though I'm no great fan of Brigadoon.davidhare wrote:Alexei here yer Imperial Maj - think twice about the classic Musicals box. Those gorgeous IB caps are from the Easter Parade single disc extras (and my opinion of the movie is not high.Ann Miller notwithstanding.) As for the box, two titles, Till the Clouds Roll By and Three Little Words are complete dogs.
29 / BD 228 Kwaidan
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
- manicsounds
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
- nick
- grace thought I was a failure
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:42 am
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Scharphedin2
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
- Location: Denmark/Sweden
I just logged on here to write more or less the same thing. This is an extraordinarily fine looking DVD. The book alone is worth the purchase!
I noticed in the booklet that apparently the film premiered at Cannes back in 1964 with only three of the four stories -- "The Woman of the Snow" having been excised. Was this simply for reasons of duration? While it is difficult to say that one story is a better segment of the film than any other, I would certainly say that "The Woman of the Snow" story stands out very strongly in memory. I am really surprised that this story would have been left out originally.
I noticed in the booklet that apparently the film premiered at Cannes back in 1964 with only three of the four stories -- "The Woman of the Snow" having been excised. Was this simply for reasons of duration? While it is difficult to say that one story is a better segment of the film than any other, I would certainly say that "The Woman of the Snow" story stands out very strongly in memory. I am really surprised that this story would have been left out originally.
- manicsounds
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
That is amazing. I would go so far as to say that the film unquestionably hinges on HOICHI & WOMAN/SNOW. Not to mention that the sequence stars Tatsuya Nakadai, probably the films biggest star aside from Shimura's little cameo in HOICHI. The other two scenes are virtual bookends to these 2 tours de force. Beautiful, stunning, mindblowing bookends... BLACK HAIR probably more so than CUP TEA... but bookends nontheless.Scharphedin2 wrote:I noticed in the booklet that apparently the film premiered at Cannes back in 1964 with only three of the four stories -- "The Woman of the Snow" having been excised. Was this simply for reasons of duration? While it is difficult to say that one story is a better segment of the film than any other, I would certainly say that "The Woman of the Snow" story stands out very strongly in memory. I am really surprised that this story would have been left out originally.
I think you may be misinterpreting something. The CC is the international print, and all four sequences are intact. The booklet may have said (I havent grabbed the MoC yet tho I of course will) that SNOW WOMAN was edited for release... meaning not edited out of the whole picture, but edited, meaning parts were snipped out. For instance I know there's lovemaking scenes between Nakadai and the human incarnation of the Woman that didn't appear in the Cannes/Int'l cut.
Reminds me a little bit of DAS WACHSFIGURENKABINETT, another omnibus-style film that was originally slated to have four horror tales but for alleged reasons of budget was sliced down to three, the Rinaldo Rinaldini segment being excised during production, but with the wax figure in evidence on the set. The bizarre thing is that the Douris Group claims to have a print with the Rinaldini sequence in there.
- Scharphedin2
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
- Location: Denmark/Sweden
I completely agree with you! However, this is the exact quote (following a list of the members of the jury of the Cannes festival anno 1965): "Only three of the four episodes appeared in the version of the film screened at the festival; The Woman of the Snow was excised." (MoC's italics).HerrSchreck wrote:That is amazing. I would go so far as to say that the film unquestionably hinges on HOICHI & WOMAN/SNOW. Not to mention that the sequence stars Tatsuya Nakadai, probably the films biggest star...
I wonder what the sequence of the stories would then have been? 'Black Hair'/'Hoichi'/'Cup of Tea'?
-
- not perpee
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm
This information was taken from the Cannes Festival report in Cahiers at the time.Scharphedin2 wrote:I completely agree with you! However, this is the exact quote (following a list of the members of the jury of the Cannes festival anno 1965): "Only three of the four episodes appeared in the version of the film screened at the festival; The Woman of the Snow was excised." (MoC's italics).
Craig writes: "When it got a French release, the episode was put back in (as "the international version'). So when it came out in French theatres later in the year, and came time to review it, they only discussed 'Woman of the Snow' -- because it was the episode the earlier festival-report review wasn't able to cover, and also because neither writer liked the film, so they felt there was no use devoting much space to it again. I guess it would be more accurate to say that they don't like it, but it's not quite a "pan" -- they're both just kind of indifferent to it. And they both remark upon its "academicism," which isn't meant complimentarily.
(one of those "boy did they get it wrong" moments in CdC history -- but not as big as when they panned 'The Searchers')"
Here are the pieces. The first one is by Jean-André Fieschi, and the second one is by Michel Mardore.
- denti alligator
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
- Dorian Gray
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:38 am
- Contact:
I think this is getting usual.denti alligator wrote:Perhaps you can explain something that bears on the discussing going on in the windowboxing thread. The opening title sequence of this film is windowboxed. Is that a part of the original negative or is that something that MoC chose to do? If the former, is this usual?
My opinion is that it enables credits to be read even when the common watcher's TV set suffers from overscan. Then he won't complain "Framing is wrong ! Give me my money back !". But the film is presented using the whole width available, so that the hardcore watcher won't complain "It reduces the full potential resolution of the image ! Give me my money back !".
- kinjitsu
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Uffa!
Midnight Eye's Dean Bowman on the film
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Kerpanned!
First Dreyers Joan, then Renoirs Regle now this-- Mike you are your own man. (Admirably, fearlessly so...) But if you lie to yourself you'll never know the truth so... stay fearless Mike.
Matter of fact I'm just getting coincidentally ready to squat down for another pass thru the great Black River, subbed via back channels and graciously forwarded from Our Man Down South...
First Dreyers Joan, then Renoirs Regle now this-- Mike you are your own man. (Admirably, fearlessly so...) But if you lie to yourself you'll never know the truth so... stay fearless Mike.
Matter of fact I'm just getting coincidentally ready to squat down for another pass thru the great Black River, subbed via back channels and graciously forwarded from Our Man Down South...
- souvenir
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:20 pm
Shreck, Black River is playing at Film Forum on July 4th. I take it you'd recommend the film?HerrSchreck wrote:Matter of fact I'm just getting coincidentally ready to squat down for another pass thru the great Black River, subbed via back channels and graciously forwarded from Our Man Down South...
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Without question-- just don't expect the meticulous formal pictorialism on display in Kobayashi's more classic works like Kwaidan, or Rebellion, or Seppu-ku (Hara-K). It's a loose, jazzy (one bitching opening jazz score featuring one of the coolest title sequences led into by the smokinest drum roll intro to the titles) noir of a picture focusing on the squalid conditions endured by the urban poor living in the shadows of the Occupation bases, and the vice operations conducted by the japanese to service the GI's, which basically screwed the locals and chucked them the bones of life. Identifiably Kobayashi because of the conscience and fearless angry theme of speaking truth to power..
Notable also because this was Nakadai's first starring role. You'd never know it though.. the man (already solid in the theater) was totally on point from jump.
Notable also because this was Nakadai's first starring role. You'd never know it though.. the man (already solid in the theater) was totally on point from jump.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
I don't doubt that Joan is a "great film" -- I just personally dislike it for a combination of reasons (both cinematic and not). Similarly, I don't doubt the bona fides of Rules -- it just don't have any affinity with most of its characters (or the story).HerrSchreck wrote:Kerpanned!
First Dreyers Joan, then Renoirs Regle now this-- Mike you are your own man. (Admirably, fearlessly so...) But if you lie to yourself you'll never know the truth so... stay fearless Mike.
Kobayashi is different -- I just don't like the way he directs. I don't like his handling of the performers, I don't like the way he handles the camera, I don't like the way he edits. I do have Black River on tap (and may eventually take a look at it) -- but, for now, I think I can safely say I would rather watch my very least favorite Mizoguchi films than anything by Kobayashi. I now class Kobayashi with my other much-unloved Japanese K directors (Kinugasa and Kinoshita).
Anyone having problems with the "light-weight" nature of Yokihi needs to watch this in order to appreciate the (comparativelu immense) M film's cinematic virtues.
- Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
As I'm a big "Kwaidan" fan, please explain. What about the handling of the performers that you don't like, for instance? From your dislike of "Jeanne" and "Regle" I have the feeling that you object to the extreme artificiality of the film (also apparent to a lesser degree in "Seppuku"), the almost complete anti-realism of the acting and staging, the purely pictorial quality of the film (like paintings set in motion all the time, and sometimes without much motion, on top of it). I don't think "Kwaidan" is light -weight, it just refrains from referring to anything outside itself (no social or other sort of message I believe), a purely 'self-contented' work of art. One of my problems with "Yokihi" is that it can't decide whether it wants to be a similar 'art for art's sake" kind of film or whether it wants to tell a story and tell us about the plight of women in addition.Michael Kerpan wrote:Anyone having problems with the "light-weight" nature of Yokihi needs to watch this in order to appreciate the (comparativelu immense) M film's cinematic virtues.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
I probably don't like the "artificiality" of the acting -- but I was more shocked by just how crude much of it seemed. For example, I've never seen worse performances by Haruko Sugimura and Ganjiro Nakamura -- and Kanemon Nakamura's performance descended pretty low before all was said and done (a far cry from his superb work for Yamanaka and Mizoguchi).
Kwaidan is the opposite of light-weight -- about as plodding and ponderous a film as I've ever sat through.
(BTW --My dislike of Dreyer's Joan has many facets -- but two of the major ones are -- I just can't take ultra-close-ups on such a sustained basis -- and -- I don't like his treatment of the Joan story/legend, she is too much a generic sufferer here). But this belongs on another thread (except for the fact that I have no intent to persuade anyone else that my idiosyncratic reaction should be adopted by them -- and so don't want to prolong discussion here).
Yokihi has always seemed to me to be a pretty (and reasonably affectionate) recounting of an old chestnut story (one that everyone in Japan would have known -- thus there would have been little need to provide a full background).
I felt that in Kwaidan, Kobayashi went overboard in over-explaining everything. It very much seemed like a film made largely for western consumption.
I am a big fan of Yoko Mizuki's script writing -- and found this the first disappointment ever by a script she wrote (though I'm not sure the fault is ultimately hers in this case).
Kobayashi may well have virtues that are invisible to me. But I seriously doubt I am ever likely to find them. His way of "seeing" is just too uncongenial to me.
Kwaidan is the opposite of light-weight -- about as plodding and ponderous a film as I've ever sat through.
(BTW --My dislike of Dreyer's Joan has many facets -- but two of the major ones are -- I just can't take ultra-close-ups on such a sustained basis -- and -- I don't like his treatment of the Joan story/legend, she is too much a generic sufferer here). But this belongs on another thread (except for the fact that I have no intent to persuade anyone else that my idiosyncratic reaction should be adopted by them -- and so don't want to prolong discussion here).
Yokihi has always seemed to me to be a pretty (and reasonably affectionate) recounting of an old chestnut story (one that everyone in Japan would have known -- thus there would have been little need to provide a full background).
I felt that in Kwaidan, Kobayashi went overboard in over-explaining everything. It very much seemed like a film made largely for western consumption.
I am a big fan of Yoko Mizuki's script writing -- and found this the first disappointment ever by a script she wrote (though I'm not sure the fault is ultimately hers in this case).
Kobayashi may well have virtues that are invisible to me. But I seriously doubt I am ever likely to find them. His way of "seeing" is just too uncongenial to me.
- Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
You may have a very good point there, on both films. Obviously, not being as immersed into Japanese culture as you or a Japanese person are, the old chestnut story of "Yokihi" was completely unknown to me, and so I couldn't fill in the gaps in the background. I guess with an intimate knowledge of the times and the historical events my reaction might have been perhaps a different one . On the other hand, I don't know anything of the backgrounds that inform "Ugetsu" or "Chikamatsu" either, and I love those films.Michael Kerpan wrote:Yokihi has always seemed to me to be a pretty (and reasonably affectionate) recounting of an old chestnut story (one that everyone in Japan would have known -- thus there would have been little need to provide a full background).
I felt that in Kwaidan, Kobayashi went overboard in over-explaining everything. It very much seemed like a film made largely for western consumption.
As to "Kwaidan" being made for western consumption, you may be right, too, but can that really be an argument against the film, or any other film? Furthermore, the stories that the film is based on were written by a westerner, Lafcadio Hearn, and they were written in English, too. In a way, the 'Japaneseness' then is 'filtered' from the beginning, is 'artificial'. The fact that there are so many explanations (especially in the third episode) is probably due to Kobayashi's often surprising closeness to Hearn's original texts. At least he didn't add very much to the original narratives, just broadened them, and made them more ciontemplative. Of course it may be surprising that a Japanese director used texts written by an American on Japanese themes (even though Hearn claimed that these were all stories he had 'collected', and seems to have been well versed in Japanese culture). But I believe that Kobayashi didn't care too much about this and was just interested in highlighting the visual and artistic possibilities these rather unassuming stories provide.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Lafcadio Hearn's stories seemed far more "Japanese" than Kobayashi's adaptation of them. His stories are like traditional ink sketches.
I feel that Kobayashi departed pretty far from the spirit and the feel of Hearn's evocative little tales.
I've always suspected that Run Run Shaw funded Yokihi hoping to get some good play in Chinese markets, I wonder whether this had any success in Asia outside Japan? (Presumably Chinese audiences might also have been familiar with the background of the story). I think all kids had to learn about Tale of the Genji in school (at least back then) -- whereas Mori's stories and Chikamatsu's plays may not have been required reading for all students.
I feel that Kobayashi departed pretty far from the spirit and the feel of Hearn's evocative little tales.
I've always suspected that Run Run Shaw funded Yokihi hoping to get some good play in Chinese markets, I wonder whether this had any success in Asia outside Japan? (Presumably Chinese audiences might also have been familiar with the background of the story). I think all kids had to learn about Tale of the Genji in school (at least back then) -- whereas Mori's stories and Chikamatsu's plays may not have been required reading for all students.
- tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Actually, I agree with MK here. The stories and the film are tonally quite different from each other -- even though Kobayashi sticks very close to the original plots. One of Hearn's greatest gifts as a writer was his brevity/concision, and that's very much on display in the four stories. Kobayashi goes in a very different direction, lengthening their "run-time" about as far as they can go just to see if he can sustain them on atmosphere alone.Michael Kerpan wrote:I feel that Kobayashi departed pretty far from the spirit and the feel of Hearn's evocative little tales.
Of course, I think that Kobayashi's re-interpretation works. (I suspect people know I'm a huge apologist for this director.)
At the same time, however, there's absolutely no doubt that Hearn was writing for American readers. (Nearly all of his short writings from about 1898 onwards appeared in Atlantic Monthly or a similar magazine before being collected into book-form afterwards.) So I'm not sure that I totally understand MK's objection on that ground. Hearn was very much a part of the "local color" movement in American literature, whose members typically accentuated idiosyncrasies of an exotic (sub)culture for mainstream American readers.
BTW, just to slip into total pedant mode, Hearn never naturalized while he was living in the United States. He did become a Japanese citizen, though.Tommaso wrote:it may be surprising that a Japanese director used texts written by an American on Japanese themes