Criterion please! Edgar G. Ulmer's Detour

dana martin · 09-06-2007, 07:21 AM

You were good enough to give us ace in the hole, but this is a film that need your special treatment, i hope that others agree

Richard--W · 04-05-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dana martin

You were good enough to give us ace in the hole, but this is a film that need your special treatment, i hope that others agree

I agree. I'll gladly pay for a Criterion edition. TCM continues to air the best quality print of DETOUR, but even that leaves a lot to be desired. There's no decent print on home video unless you count the Image DVD, which was okay. All the public domain copies are extremely poor quality. Every film noir buff wants a decent print of Edgar G. Ulmer's DETOUR. A Criterion edition would sell very well.

Jon Martin · 04-05-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W

A Criterion edition would sell very well.

I might question that. While it is a good film, since it is in the public domain, I don't know how many people would pay Criterion prices for it, when the film isn't all that popular (except among serious film fans).

Richard--W · 04-05-2008, 09:35 PM

It must be popular to some degree, or there wouldn't be a dozen different public domain editions on the market. Somebody is buying them.

For examples, The Most Dangerous Game, The Lady Vanishes, and The 39 Steps proliferate in public domain editions, but that did not prevent Criterion from going back to the elements, cleaning them up, and releasing pricier editions that people want to own.

Jean-Michel · 04-06-2008, 02:55 AM

Who has the original elements for this one? I doubt Criterion would bother with a PD title unless they could get their hands on those, or at least something of similarly high quality -- The Lady Vanishes and The 39 Steps are both PD, but Criterion still licensed them from Granada/Rank so as to have access to the best-quality materials. I think The Most Dangerous Game is the only Criterion that didn't have a licensor, and it looks pretty poor by their usual standards.

FWIW, Wikipedia says Detour's production company was eventually bought out by Pathé, but that was nearly 60 years ago, so god knows what's happened since then.

**HTF Ads**

Mark Edward Heuck · 04-06-2008, 08:18 AM

FWIW, I believe Wade Williams controls what are the best surviving materials on DETOUR - I think he made some sort of copyright claim on the screenplay or something when he made his little-seen remake of the film. If so, I don't think Wade has ever worked with Criterion, which doesn't mean never, but does make the prospect seem unlikely.

Jonathan-S · 04-06-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Edward Heuck

FWIW, I believe Wade Williams controls what are the best surviving materials on DETOUR - I think he made some sort of copyright claim on the screenplay or something when he made his little-seen remake of the film. If so, I don't think Wade has ever worked with Criterion, which doesn't mean never, but does make the prospect seem unlikely.

I see Wade Williams is credited with the comments on the back of the Image Entertainment DVD, licensed from Corinth Films, so I presume he supplied the material for that release. He says it is "beautifully restored from the original 35mm nitrate masters" but the print(s) used is quite battered with small amounts of missing footage (including lost dialogue) in several places.

When the film was broadcast by the BBC, they filled the gaps in the 35mm material with sections from a much inferior 16mm print. I wonder if a really good 35mm print exists anywhere? If not, I doubt (sadly) that Criterion would touch it.

Jeff Newcomb · 04-06-2008, 11:44 PM

This was added as an addendum to Glenn Erickson's 2000 review of the Image disc:

Quote:

SPECIAL REVISION
- A LETTER FROM DAVID KALAT, OF
ALL DAY ENTERTAINMENT, 10/12/00

Glenn, I just read your review of Image/Wade Williams' Detour DVD and laughed out loud--you really hit the nail on the head! But get this: Yes, PRC did make trailers and the Detour trailer still exists. Wade Williams owns it. He chose simply not to bother including it on his DVD.

You see, Wade Williams is an ardent foe of public domain, and he believes that because he bought the materials from a legitimate chain linking back to the original makers, that that grants him some special copyright. I approached him in 1997 to do a Detour DVD and he was reluctant ever to release the film on DVD out of piracy fears. He overcame that fear, clearly, but his reluctance to include the trailer stems from a fear that it would be pirated off the DVD to appear on other, in his view illegitimate, releases too.

There have been efforts to properly restore Detour from various sources. Kino recently mastered a nice 35mm nitrate restored by the UCLA Film Archives but abandoned their project when Image's DVD came out. It is NOT a case where Williams' ability to fix Detour is hampered by other PD companies unwilling to part with prints. It is the other way around. Other film preservationists interested in restoring Detour to the best it can now look are hampered by Williams' unwillingness to cooperate. Without access to his print, the flaws in the Kino/UCLA master cannot be fixed. Williams is himself the obstruction.

Didn't you find it funny that he started the DVD with a huge anti-piracy warning about how it was only licensed for home viewing? It's a public domain movie, for godssake! He can put whatever warning page he wants there but it won't change the fact that he doesn't have any legal right to "license" it for limited home use! -- David Kalat, All Day Entertainment

Detour will supposedly be shown in a 35mm print at The Denver Art Museum on May 2. I'll be there to check it out for sure.

Susan Nunes · 04-06-2008, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Martin

I might question that. While it is a good film, since it is in the public domain, I don't know how many people would pay Criterion prices for it, when the film isn't all that popular (except among serious film fans).

No way will I buy a Criterion release. Alpha Video's version wasn't bad for the most part, and I will not pay $40 bucks for a film readily available.