DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Martin (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

No, I'm asking you regarding MARTIN. It was shot 4:3, projected incorrectly in theatres, and this mistake shouldn't be duplicated on DVD. It's that simple, really.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm sorry but you're missing the point. It was projected correctly. They did not send this film out to be seen 4:3. They knew while filming that this would have to be shown 1.85. They knew this on THE CRAZIES, SEASON OF THE WITCH and DAWN OF THE DEAD as well. If theaters could show these 4:3 then more director would have been using this ratio the past 40+ years.

Borrow the disc from a friend and listen to the commentary. They discuss this issue and many other things. Someone said this was seen by very few people, well, not according to Romero or the producer.

Again, since Romero doesn't mind, what's the problem? There are two versions and you can get either one.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

But isn't the OAR version now (or soon to be) largely Out of Print? Then it won't be just as available. That's why I'm about to go to my Used Video Store in a few minutes and see if I can snag a trade-in.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

Stepping out of the fray of the OAR argument. Both sides have equated themselves quite well, without getting nasty...quite a rarity.

Anyway, I do know that this film was quite a sizable cult hit in the, now sorrowfully missed, pre-video '70s heyday of films just like this one. Co-produced by midnight movie pioneer/indie champion Ben Barenholtz and released by his Libra Films, Martin did good box office (for the small release that it was). It had a long-running engagement at either NYC's the Waverly or the Elgin (both sadly shuttered)--can't recall which. Danny Peary talks about this in his excellent Cult Movies II, which Martin is included in.

Barenholtz later founded Circle Films, which produced Blood Simple.

 

[Michael Elliott]

That's what I would ask Romero. Since he knew while filming that this would have to be 1.85, why did he frame it so tightly? The two guys I talked to had no ideas but again, I'm going to try and have them get me in contact with him or someone who could find out.

THE CRAZIES is just as bad if I'm not mistaken. Kinda like A HARD DAY'S NIGHT where we're supposed to be able to read something but words are missing. As for the screenshots, you know how much value I put in them but the one death scene is the only major thing. This is talked about in the commentary. I'll give it a re-listen to see if I missed anything else.

Finally off for four days in a row.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes, but didn't Richard Lester know his film was also going to be matted in theaters (using your same example with Romero, I mean)?

 

[JeffMc]

Interesting, although we need to keep this in perspective as to what "successful" meant back in the midnight-movie late 70's era compared to today. MARTIN may have done pretty well in large metropolitan areas for small one-cinema engagements, but we're probably not talking multi-million dollar runs, by any means. The film never even opened in the city I lived in at the time. I'm sure it played decently in New York, L.A., Chicago, (and maybe Pittsburgh???), etc., but beyond that, it was not a huge hit. Maybe Barenholtz, Rubinstein and Romero were happy with the returns for such a small film at the time, but we have to remember this was a tiny film handled by a tiny distributor in a time where small films could stay afloat amongst all sorts of competition due to an abundance of independent theatrical outlets. Even if it had long-running engagements at a theater in NYC and LA, we're not talking millions of dollars here. Considering the budget of the film, even a hundred thousand in profit would be considered "successful" for the producers. How many people outside of NY and LA on this forum saw it theatrically in 1977? Just curious. Speak up!

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

Absolutely...I tried to make that clear in my initial statement about this being a small film with a limited release. There were lots of films like this, in the days before the advent of straight-to-video and s-t-cable. However, considering the cost of the film, it's quite possible that it made a decent return for its investors.

As far as the aspect ratio question goes, I am for its continued availability in 4:3 and, unfortunately, this is not currently the case (save for the lucky out-of-print find).

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I came home empty-handed in my search for a used AB copy at my local store.

 

[Mattias_ka]

OT; will the new SEASON OF THE WITCH DVD also be in 1.85:1? If so, I'm lucky that I got the Japanese LD a couple of month ago.

 

[JeffMc]

That sucks, Joe. It seems that the mad rush to get the Anchor Bay version is more widespread than I thought. Just a couple of weeks ago, there seemed to have been a lot more copies of it out there. Now, the prices for the AB version on Amazon Marketplace seem to be creeping up a bit and there aren't as many available on ebay. You can probably still snatch a copy for around $15-$20 at the moment, but that may not last for very long.

If this new Lion's Gate release is good for anything, it's that it has helped sales for the old Anchor Bay release. The Anchor Bay version is now more collectible than ever and its value has definitely increased in just a couple of weeks. Funny, it's been OOP for quite a while, but only now that fans realize the new 'super-duper' version is botched (OK, I'm not trying to start the whole debate again so let's just say "not the director's preferred version") has the AB version suddenly become a MUST HAVE. Hope you find one at a decent price. Good luck!

 

[Kevin M]

Did you guys not see my links?

I can't speak for the auctions but THIS LINK is still valid.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'd say this is selling better than you guys think. From the local stores in my neck of the woods, the disc has been flying off the shelf. If you check various "collection" sites, it appear quite a few have this.

Someone is sending me the AB and R2 disc to compare so later next week I'll update the review with all three versions.



No details have been announced other than it will be a double feature with THERE'S ALWAYS VANILLA. It was supposed to have been released this year but got bumped back to next.

Joe, search around. You can find a sealed Anchor Bay MARTIN for around $40, which is only $10 above the original retail price. I'll keep an eye open in my used shops.

 

[JeffMc]

Kevin:

Yes, your links were appreciated.

However, at this moment, there is only one AB copy on ebay (at least via your "Romero Martin" link) and that one is an ex-rental without the chapter card. It's got one $10 bid with three days left.

On Amazon, a lot of those lower priced copies don't indicate what version it is and they don't even have any sort of description. Send an e-mail to the seller BEFORE buying any of those. One of those looks like it may be the old VHS tape because the seller indicates it's on HBO-Cannon Video! Buyer beware. Besides all the questionable ones there and the ones missing the insert, it looks like the lowest really nice condition copy of the AB disc is nudging toward $30 on Amazon.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Want a relevant example? When Frank Henenlotter shot Basket Case at 4x3, he had no idea that theatres would matte the film to 1.85:1. When he attended various midnight screenings of the film upon its release, he was disappointed to find see how it was projected. So, yes, Basket Case ran theatrically at 1.85:1. Does that make it "right"? Does it mean that it really holds any value such that it should be presented that way on DVD?

It's a matter of from whence artistic value emanates. When the options are an inanimate movie theatre and a filmmaker, the choice should be obvious. Theatres don't make movies. Thus, they should have no say later on when a filmmaker chooses the way in which he or she wants to present his or her film. The facts of past theatrical presentation may make for highly interesting trivia, but put up against the artistic desires of the filmmakers, theatrical trivia holds little meaning. When filmmakers and theatrical trivia disagree, the filmmaker should win every time.

And surely the out of print AB disc of Martin isn't a meaningful option for consumers. Its availability is limited and can only continue to dwindle. If such a disc was in print, it would be a valid point, but in the current and forseeable market, it isn't a sufficient enough option to give Lions Gate a pass.

DJ

 

[Vincent_P]

:: Want a relevant example? When Frank Henenlotter shot Basket Case at 4x3, he had no idea that theatres would matte the film to 1.85:1.

Damin:

Thanks for the great example of another 16mm movie that was incorrectly shown theatrically when blown up to 35mm. Another example is THE DEADLY SPAWN, recently issued by Synapse Films in a full-frame, "windowboxed" DVD transfer. DEADLY SPAWN was blown up to 35mm and shown theatrically at 1.85:1, too, but the filmmakers made it clear to Don May at Synpase that this was NOT the prefered way to see the film, so Don released it full-frame as the filmmakers requested, even though it wasn't shown full-frame in theaters when released in 35mm.

As I pointed out in my first post in this thread and Michael doesn't seem to understand, 16mm cameras do not normally have 1.85:1 markings on the camera ground glass. Thus, it's really a crap-shoot to try and frame the shots "loose enough" during filmmaking to accomadate a potential 35mm blow-up, and these films ARE comparable to older 1.33:1 films when it comes to releasing them matted. Sometimes, the filmmakers are able to get it right on the fly by "eye-balling" it and the 35mm blow-up looks OK at 1.85:1( or in some rare cases the filmmakers might have their own camera ground markings made for their 16mm feature)- other times, the results aren't so good and you end up with poorly framed shots when the film is matted. Also, there's no guarantee that an independently-shot 16mm feature will get a 35mm release at all, so even if the filmmakers HOPE for that possibility, they might not be actively framing for 1.85:1 on set because, quite frankly, it's a long shot that the film will ever get picked up. In filmmaking, time is money, and if you're shooting on a shoestring in 16mm, you gotta do lots of stuff on the fly, and reshooting shots to give some extra headroom for some phantom possible future 35mm blow-up release is not often an option...

The answer to all this is simple- if the filmmaker approves and prefers a 1.85:1 transfer of their 16mm-shot feature and the film looks good that way (i.e., CLERKS, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE), then absolutely release it that way. However, if the film simply ends up looking bad when matted (SLACKER, MARTIN, BASKET CASE), then it most certainly should be released on video full-frame, utilizing the entire 16mm frame, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Vincent

 

[Mattias_ka]

I'm with Damin J Toell and Vincent_P on this.

But, I think that it should not be a big problem for people wanting to see Martin as it should be, in 1.33:1. Just get the UK DVD, that cost really low and is in 1.33:1. If someone, in 2004, does not have a region free player, then he/she can really be in shame! NO reason to missout great DVD's just because not having regionfree.

http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page...7549&p=57&g=72

 

[Michael Elliott]

I understand what you said in your first post and every post that followed. I believe I replied each time saying I agreed with you. We've gone through this topic enough but the bottom line is the film was shown 1.85 and that's how it is here. It's like that here with the director's blessing so what do we do? We have the option of the 4:3 version so again, what's the big fuss? Are we also going to boycott the Anchor Bay and Blue Underground releases since Romoero prefers them 4:3? If he prefers one thing but is fine with the other I say just let the buyer pick which one he wants.

To add to your examples, just check out Elite's version of ATTACK OF THE GIANT LEECHES. I know you're not a fan but nearly any Jess Franco film would work even though he was probably asleep behind the camera most of the time. I'm sure you've seen screenshots of the Image vs Synapse VAMPYROS. This debate is endless and will continue for however long this format is around. I think the matted Kubrick films look bad but some enjoy them more. I've even seen his 1.66 matted at 1.85 and the damage is certainly clear to my eye. Even with those good examples you gave (Clerks, Hills, even Last House), some still prefer them unmatted. Again, I guess it comes down to who's buying.

Damin, you sound like I did in that WAXWORKS review. Only back then I think I was more on Vincent's side of things.

Since I've actually seen the LG disc, I have no problems giving it a pass even if people don't like the matte. It would seem most fans would buy this for the commentary and other extras. The commentary goes through some of this stuff we're all talking about.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

As others have said, it's not like the 4:3 MARTIN is just sitting on your local store shelf as a viable option for all time. It's OOP and soon to be extinct.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Romero doesn't mind so what's the beef? Why's it relevant? True, let's forget going widescreen and offer up more discs like this. With that in mind, let's hand HTF's Studio of the Year to Artisan/Lions Gate for their constant release of films like this (wrong). I guess since they release a lot of "small" films they shouldn't bother giving them a release as if they were shown in theaters. I guess this makes it okay for what they did with SLEEPLESS. No one saw this in theaters so let's pretend it was made for television and 4:3.

Where's the backlash against Anchor Bay and Blue Underground? The "correct" 4:3 versions of those films are available overseas so again, region free is the key my friend. It's all about region free.