Hitchcock Coming from Mill Creek September 25th (2 Viewers)

[Jon Martin]

Yes, as I stated, they are one of the best of the bunch. They also release licensed products of their own as well.

 

[Robert Harris]

As far as I understand the laws, Criterion DOES distribute public domain titles, and why not?

There is no problem trading in PD titles. Nor is there a problem in licensing quality elements from those who control them.

If a film such as Godfrey can be licensed from Universal in order to offer a quality release to their customers, why would one not?

Having seen original prints of titles such as The Man Who Knew Too Much in original 35mm nitrate derived from the OCN, I can assure this readership that the difference between what might be a Criterion release and that from any other vendor as a "public domain" title, which in reality is NOT, is night and day.

Support those entities which license product, and steer clear of public domain vendors, no matter what the quality of their fodder might be.

RAH

 

[Michael Elliott]

That's a very good point on a lot of PD titles but I've always been curious as to which titles people would be willing to pay $20-$40 for instead of $1 or less. From the original list of Hitchcock films, I'd probably pay $20 for SEs of four of them. The rest are ones that I probably wouldn't own unless I got them very cheap. I'm a die hard horror fan and love Lugosi's Monogram films like THE DEVIL BAT, THE CORPSE VANISHES and I even have a soft spot for BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA but I wouldn't pay over $6 for any of these titles.

Not that Criterion would release any of them but one company did try to put out SEs of a couple of those titles and the releases bombed. I'm not sure if it was because people could find them cheaper or if people just didn't like the films enough to pay top dollar no matter what the picture looked like.

 

[Patrick McCart]

There's a wonderful site with comparisons for all of Hitchcock's films on DVD: http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/hitchcock/wiki/Main_Page People don't know what they're missing! The Lodger looks so crisp and fresh on the R2 DVDs, yet it's unwatchable here.

 

[John Hodson]

It's why God invented multi-region players; folks can yell all they like about PAL speedup, but when it's a choice between that, and an appalling, unlicensed, unwatchable transfer...

 

[george kaplan]

God didn't invent multi-region players - if he had, he'd eliminate PAL speedup, which you can defend all you like, but if the only option for watching a film is to have it play 4% too fast, then that is every bit as appalling and unacceptable as watching a PD transfer.

 

[Simon Howson]

I find this utter contempt for PAL transfers somewhat amusing, surely getting access to the film is more important than the video format? Each to there own I guess.

I mainly own U.S. NTSC DVDs, but if something is available in PAL, or if it is substantially cheaper, but with similar extra features, then I have no problem getting the PAL version. There are already a lot of compromises made converting any film to video, PAL speed up is only one of them.

PAL also has advantages, such as better colour encoding, and slightly increased resolution. There is probably some group of DVD watchers that holds NTSC in contempt for only having 480 lines!

Plus, many DVD players can take a PAL signal and convert it to NTSC. Or you could take the DVD and convert it using a computer. Why exactly you'd want to bother doing this I don't know, surely just watching a legit version of a film is more important?

 

[Dick]

Simon, in my case at least, it is not merely the 4% speed-up. Artifacting also occurs when running PAL through an NTSC system. This is more noticeable with anamorphic widescreen than with 1.33:1 transfers, but it is there in any case. It shows up as distracting horizontal aliasing, or as the "repeated frames" effect, wherein every second or so the action appears to freeze momentarily. Only the purchase of a t.v. that can properly play back the PAL
format (along with, of course, a multi-region player) will eliminate this anomaly, and most of us haven't the budget for that sort of thing.

 

[John Hodson]

I don't 'defend' it, it's simply exists, and I suppose that I'm lucky that, unlike a small percentage of viewers, I'm not sensitive to it. Like Simon, though I live in the UK, I own a large collection, and they're predominently R1 releases; I choose the best releases, at the best price, from whatever region they're marketed.

 

[Jon Martin]

But isn't the Criterion set of the early Hitchcock set out of print? According to Amazon, it went out of print in 2003 and is going for $100 used. So, I guess they no longer have the rights. Or they just gave up since every other company was releasing versions.

I am all for having the best transfers of films available, but once a film falls into the public domain (if it truly does), I guess I am confused by the issue, but doesn't that mean no one owns the rights and anyone can release it? How can someone license it when no one owns it officially?

 

[Pete York]

Correct, Jon. The Criterion set featured two PD (misspoke, possibly thinking of those editions w/ Tony Curtis-this has been settled up thread) titles, The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes in addition to Rebecca, Notorious and Spellbound. The rights to the latter three have presumably gone back to Disney (which owns ABC which bought the Selznick library years ago). There was word of an MGM set of the five Criterion titles plus The Paradine Case (another Disney property via Selznick I believe), Sabotage and Young and Innocent. This never happened (nor did another MGM box announced at that time, this of David Lean films).

I think 'licensing' of a PD film in this context refers to a specific print in cooperation with the studio, such as MGM/20th Century Fox recently did with The Stranger.

 

[PaulP]

Ugh you just reminded me of that Hitchcock boxset that never materialized. So sad. I'd love to see all these early films properly restored and released! Can't Criterion do this via their Eclipse line?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Here's how the rights are for Hitchcock's British films:

The Pleasure Garden (1925) - no idea (the only DVD worldwide is a bootleg)
The Mountain Eagle (1926) - lost film
The Lodger (1927) - Carlton
The Ring (1927) - StudioCanal/Lionsgate (R1)*
Downhill (1927) - Carlton
Champagne (1928) - StudioCanal
Easy Virtue (1928) - Carlton (not sure)
The Farmer's Wife (1928) - StudioCanal
The Manxman (1929) - StudioCanal/Lionsgate (R1)*
Blackmail (1929) - StudioCanal
Juno and the Paycock (1930) - StudioCanal (not sure)
Murder! (1930) - StudioCanal/Lionsgate (R1)*
The Skin Game (1931) - StudioCanal/Lionsgate (R1)*
Rich and Strange (1931) - StudioCanal/Lionsgate (R1)*
Number Seventeen (1932) - StudioCanal
Waltzes from Vienna (1934) - Carlton
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) - Carlton
The 39 Steps (1935) - Carlton/Criterion (R1)*
Secret Agent (1936) - Carlton
Sabotage (1936) - Carlton
Young and Innocent (1937) - Carlton
The Lady Vanishes (1938) - Carlton/Criterion (R1)*
Jamaica Inn (1939) - Carlton (not sure)

* R1 DVD is fully authorized.

Basically, we can probably expect Lionsgate to issue the rest of the StudioCanal films: Champagne, The Farmer's Wife, Blackmail, Juno and the Paycock (if it's SC), and Number Seventeen. It would be another 5-film set. Or a six-film if they were to properly include both the silent and sound cuts of Blackmail. Then, there's 7-9 Carlton films (unsure if they hold Jamaica Inn and Easy Virtue). MGM might have the rights to them since I think The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Secret Agent, Sabotage, and Young & Innocent were to be in their Hitchcock box set (along with the Selznick films). Either way, an Eclipse set for the Carlton films wouldn't be a bad idea. Isn't Blackmail the only unreleased British film that really needs a full on 2-disc edition?

 

[Robert Harris]

The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes are NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN!

Why is this not understood?

RAH

 

[John Hodson]

It's not 'Carlton' these days, following a takeover, those films are now in the 'Granada Ventures' catalogue - Jamaica Inn is definitely in that catalogue, as is The Pleasure Garden, Easy Virtue is not.

 

[george kaplan]

I can only speak for myself, but I never thought they were. My comments were only about films such as Murder!, Number 17, Young & Innocent, etc.

I have Criterion versions of 39 Steps and Lady Vanishes (indeed, upgrades from my original Criterions).

 

[Robert Harris]

Murder, Number 17 and Young and Innocent are also NOT in the public domain.

They were recaptured under copyright by virtue of the GATT Treaty on August 21, 1998. This is enough time for vendors to take appropriate action if they wish to stay within the law.

RAH

 

[PaulP]

So what happened to that MGM set? What was the reason it never came out, or will it be out at some point?

 

[Patrick McCart]

When was this? The Concorde Hitchcock discs all have the Carlton logo.

Does StudioCanal have Easy Virtue? It seems to have no official releases even in R2.

 

[John Hodson]

It's about five years ago now, Granada Ventures holds the rights, in their 'Granada International' catalogue, their own label is now 'ITV DVD' but they have a licensing arrangement with, among others, UK distributors Optimum (owned by Studio Canal) and Network.

You might find this useful; their catalogue in PDF format here. Park Circus, BTW, is currently offering films from the catalogue for theatrical showing, some in a digital format. No idea who has Easy Virtue, but I wouldn't bet against Studio Canal.