Moment of Truth

email this story
read comments (22)
post a comment

You'd never know it from the jacket art, but this is Criterion's Bluray edition of Henri-Georges Clouzot's The Wages of Fear -- originally released in 1953, due in stores on 4.21.09. Haven't read any reviews; catching it later tonight. If Criterion has applied the Third Man grainstorm treatment, all bets are off.

Underground<< previous | next >>Slowpokes

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM

comment #1

actionman says ...

A masterpiece.

I have the original Criterion release. Such a sweet film.

When is Sorcerer coming out?

Posted by actionman at April 7, 2009 8:00 PM

comment #2

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Criterion should have re-released WoF with Sorceror as a double-film set -- they've occasionally done this kind of thing in the past.

Real missed opportunity here, damn.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at April 7, 2009 8:07 PM

comment #3

Glenn Kenny says ...

Easier said than done, CKFCG. Pay to icense the "Sorceror" rights from Paramount AND Universal, THEN deal with Friedkin...lotta money, lotta trouble. Nice to know there are a few people who aren't knee-jerk "Sorceror" haters out there, though.

I'm kind of frightened about Jeff's "all bets are off" pronouncement. What's he gonna do if he doesn't like the Blu-ray? Firebomb Criterion? Shoot off an angry letter to the Times? Go out and kill a monk?

Posted by Glenn Kenny at April 7, 2009 9:04 PM

comment #4

BurmaShave says ...

This is my ultimate close but no cigar movie. Seen it three times. Want to love it so badly, but the ending just does not work for me. I feel terrible.

Posted by BurmaShave at April 7, 2009 9:20 PM

comment #5

Glenn Kenny says ...

That's funny, Burma. I feel the same way about the ending. Kind of...well, pat in its (spoiler alert!) pessimism. Feh.

The rest, though...awesome. And the Blu-ray looks mighty fine to this monk...

Posted by Glenn Kenny at April 7, 2009 9:26 PM

comment #6

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I understand that, Glenn. But as a selfish consumer, there's few things that would delight me more on my shelf than a Wages of Fear/Sorceror Criterion.

Ah well...

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at April 7, 2009 9:37 PM

comment #7

Jason says ...

I like how the Criterion cover doesn't shout "Blu-ray!" With HD DVD dead, there's no need to advertise Sony's format so prominently all the time. The size/shape difference of Blu-ray cases is enough to distinguish them from ordinary DVDs.

Posted by Jason at April 7, 2009 9:45 PM

comment #8

BurmaShave says ...

Glenn it heartens me to see that someone such as yourself has a similar issue. I don't feel quite as foolish now. It really is almost like a parody of the end of a French film. Everything else, well, I won't say dynamite.

Posted by BurmaShave at April 7, 2009 11:19 PM

comment #9

Cde. says ...

Criterion doesn't give films 'grainstorm' treatment.
Films give Criterion grain.
And Criterion accepts, rather than trying to scrub away the look of film from decades past with a digital smear.

Posted by Cde. at April 8, 2009 3:42 AM

comment #10

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Cde.: For the 81st time in the last six months, I understand that grain originates on film. What YOU need to understand is that grain is/was an unfortunate, aesthetically undesirable monkey on the backs of filmmakers in past decades. It's NOT some beautiful and essential element in age-old film composition. Grainstorms are/were acne on the face of classic cinema, and if there had been some first-rate acne medication back in the day we wouldn't be talking about it today. Grain has been sentimentalized out of all proportion by the monks. And Criterion, to go by its Third Man Bluray disc, is one of the monk institutions that worships grain as something that bestows authenticity upon classic film restorations. Which it does, in a way. Except it doesn't add anything to the artistic intentions of the filmmakers. Nothing except a kind of smothering sandstorm effect to the final product, I mean. Do you honestly think that dps of the '30s through the '70s said to their director-collaborators, "We have a chance to get some really wonderful grain elements out of this scene if we light it right"? Criterion didn't "accept" grain in its Third Man Bluray disc -- it fetishized it. You could almost imagine the Criterion technicians experiencing erotic arousal as they lovingly retained the grain from Carol Reed's 1949 classic. As I've said many, many times, there are several shades of digital degranulating that can be applied. Grain purists are always saying "do you want the real thing as it was rendered back in the '30s, '40s or '50s, or some digitally arid smearing of what the original directors and dps intended?" John Lowry of Lowry Digital has shown time and again that the grain levels can be taken down in a very delicate and considerate manner without creating a video-game effect.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at April 8, 2009 5:03 AM

comment #11

Cde. says ...

I suppose this boils down to a philosophical difference. It may well be the case that directors and DPs did not intend to have their compositions filled with grain. Nonetheless, they used what was available to them and the film is what it is. I believe that what the filmmakers might have used if they had shot today is totally irrelevant. The film should be preserved as it is. If this makes me a monk, so be it.
Obviously this is a different issue, but I don't think grain removal is so far removed from George Lucas deciding that he needs to throw CG all over his earlier films. To him, practical effects that obviously look like puppets were an unfortunate, aesthetically undesirable monkey on his back in past decades, which only CGI can fix. This is a bad idea for the same reason that grain removal is (though to an infinitely more extreme extent): the film should be looked at as a completed work of art from a past time and left alone. In some ways what George Lucas is doing is better though, since he is the actual creator of the work and probably thinks of Star Wars as being like a huge painting that he continues to add strokes to over the years. In grain removal cases, people removed from the time and place and mindset that created the works in question are taking it upon themselves to decide what's best for the work and what the original creators would prefer be done to it. How are we to know? This may seem crazy, but isn't it possible that in some cases, directors and DPs acknowledged the existence of grain and the lack of a workaround and so chose to work with it, making grain an important part of the film's aesthetic?

Posted by Cde. at April 8, 2009 7:07 AM

comment #12

Ponderer says ...

Why do Americans have so much problem with texture? It's part of the frigging MEDIUM. It's like saying, let's make sure we digitally remove all signs of brushstrokes or canvas from a painting.

I was reading a fantastic book called Shark's Fin and Sichuan Pepper, about culinary travels in China. And the one thing that separates Western and Eastern palates from ours is the appreciation for texture on its own merits. We're just focused on taste and don't want anything else competing with that experience. I think about that when I hear for people calling for the removal of film grain. Let's not have anything interfere with the sacrosanct temple of absolute clarity. Let's not see the canvas. Pretty pictures only, please.

I say this as someone who came to this argument pretty much agreeing with Wells, especially after the very luminous Blu-Ray of Casablanca. But after having watched The Third Man on BR again, it clicked, it felt right. Down with cultural barbarism and glossy paint sensibilities and knee-jerk screeds against complexity. Down with flat. Viva texture!

Posted by Ponderer at April 8, 2009 7:19 AM

comment #13

Chase Kahn says ...

Hmm...that's the packaging for a standard DVD Criterion release, no slip-cover, no short and squatty BD standardized size -- that's very strange.

And I actually like the ending to "Wages of Fear" -- the guy is so wreckless throughout the journey there and it's ultimately his un-doing on the way back. Sure, it probably would have been better if it ended with the shot of the oil rig lit ablaze a la "There Will Be Blood"...

Posted by Chase Kahn at April 8, 2009 7:37 AM

comment #14

Krazy Eyes says ...

The problem with Wells' position on grain is that it can be equally applied to black & white vs. color filmming.

Surely there were filmmakers who would have *loved* to film in glorious color but couldn't for either access or budget reasons. Hypothetically, If there was a biography where Carol Reed said he wished ho could have filmed THE THIN MAN in color but the studio wouldn't pay for it would you advocate for digital coloring?

I've gotta say I agree with Cde. I'd much rather watch something with grain than some of the smear jobs I've watched where they try to remove it and over clean the image.

Posted by Krazy Eyes at April 8, 2009 7:39 AM

comment #15

Chase Kahn says ...

By the way, has Jeff not viewed the "400 Blows" BD? It looks fantastic.

Posted by Chase Kahn at April 8, 2009 7:40 AM

comment #16

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Krazy Eyes: Of course I wouldn't advocate colorizing. That's insane. The lighting scheme for black and white ilms were glorious in, of and for themselves. They don't apply to color, which is whole 'nother way of shooting and lighting.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at April 8, 2009 8:10 AM

comment #17

Glenn Kenny says ...

Watched in order of the historical periods treated rather than the times they were made, here is the great oil-fire triple feature: "There Will Be Blood," "Wages of Fear," and Herzog's "Lessons of Darkness."

Posted by Glenn Kenny at April 8, 2009 8:10 AM

comment #18

ZayTonday says ...

Damn you Wells I hate how you get all your Blu-ray movies so early

Posted by ZayTonday at April 8, 2009 9:00 AM

comment #19

actionman says ...

Lessons of Darkness is incredible. Had a chance to see that at the Aero in Santa Monica a few years ago and it was stunning to look at on the big screen, even after one has seen it multiple times on DVD.

Posted by actionman at April 8, 2009 9:01 AM

comment #20

ZayTonday says ...

Oh and having watched The Third Man recently on BD I thought the transfer was GREAT for a movie so old. I'll take that over the DNR-fest that is Casablanca any day.

Posted by ZayTonday at April 8, 2009 1:18 PM

comment #21