Under Capricorn (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Film elements are not a problem.

Go here:

http://orion-1.library.ucla.edu/web2...m_source=5ucla

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I am relieved and disappointed, but mostly relieved. Thanks, RAH.

Regards,

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Was it on this forum that I read that Hitchcock wished he used Burt Lancaster in place of Joseph Cotton for this film?

The Burt Lancaster comment was from the Hitchcock/Truffaut interview book.

Regards,

 

[AlanP]

How are the LASERLIGHT treatments of the HITCHOCK
films? 39 Steps and Lady Vanishes ??
Thanks

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The Laserlight "39 Steps" and "Lady Vanishes" are not so hot, but look better than the DVDs from other companies specializing in PD releases. The Tony Curtis introductions are excruciating to watch. The Criterion versions of those two films are glorious and worth every penny.

Regards,

 

[Robert Harris]

The Laserlight versions, as well as any others, with the exception of Criterion product, which might currently be in print, are also illegal and in contraventiion international copyright laws.

 

[Bill Burns]

The Criterion versions of those two films are glorious and worth every penny.

Seconded. The Lady Vanishes was an early Criterion title and seems to have a bit of compression trouble here and there (of an odd variety that looks like horizontal line jitter, almost the sort of error I'd associate with some sort of frequency fluctuation, but I'm sure it's something else, perhaps related to the video master), but it's still far and away the best copy of the film out there. It offers an audio commentary and (if memory serves, though this is a fair bet for Criterion) liner notes. The 39 Steps was a later title and includes a number of supplements, among them the Lux Radio dramatization of the story, which (I'm running for the hills as soon as this posts) I actually prefer to the movie for its lean narrative thrust. I'd have bought the disc just for the radio program; getting a quality edition of the film in the bargain makes the DVD a truly great value, and they've happily continued to support Lux Radio supplements on a number of subsequent releases.

I saw the Laserlight of The 39 Steps not knowing it was illegal (Laserlight titles continue to pop up in major retailers and e-tailers), and before the Criterion disc was announced -- and noticed a Janus Films water mark in one of the corners during a brief sequence, which should have been a dead give away. I tossed my copy when the Criterion was announced, and am now doubly glad I did. Avoid these like the plague, given Robert Harris' clarification. Companies that engage in such copyright infringement should be ostracized by any serious film enthusiast as soon as their crime is known, because they harm the entire industry, and a deep respect for the filmmakers and their industry should remain an intrinsic part of any film collector's (or budding filmmaker's) ethic.

Incidentally, on the good label/bad label issue, many here have inquired about public domain companies such as Alpha, Laserlight, and others for film quality. I do my best to avoid all of the dedicated PD companies, because I'm never been happy with the quality of what they release, a lesson first learned in the VHS days. Image, Artisan, and Roan occasionally put out a true PD title (I believe; correct me if this isn't so), but most of their material, if I'm not mistaken, is copyrighted and specifically licensed for distribution (I'm unsure if this is true of Roan, but it is of the others, and Criterion never does PD; I'm by no means an expert on such things, so if any of these companies have failings within their history where copyright is concerned, please say so), and it is to these companies I'd suggest turning in the search for obscure titles (I'm usually thrilled with what I find from Image and Criterion in particular, though there are always exceptions to every rule; Roan's DVD work has been rather shoddy, but then their laserdisc work was never great -- it was the rarity of their titles, and the occasional nifty bonus -- gold colored discs for the laser of Welles' The Trial! -- that kept folks happy; their DVDs have been a relatively poor lot, but among the ten or fifteen I've seen, The Dick Tracy Collection is a true gem and a great find, and their double feature disc of The Stranger and Cause for Alarm, corrected after first runs omitted a brief segment of the latter film, is very pleasing as well, though it lacks any meaningful supplements ... does anyone know what, exactly, happened to Roan, incidentally? They merged with Troma at some point, and the seemingly hundreds of classic releases they were promising back in 1997 or 1998 would roll out in the coming years have more or less gone up in smoke after an enthusiastic start, with a set for Mr. Wong, a few lackluster westerns -- I've only seen one, a Randolph Scott picture, but it offered a really quite hideous quality of picture -- a series of truly "grade-Z" classic horror that kicked off with an "okay" edition of the nearly grade-A White Zombie that often looks quite good, but is ultimately spoiled by a few motion blur anomalies ... is the company still actively acquiring titles for release? Their last few "interesting" releases of which I'm aware, such as Barrymore's Svengali and the Pre-Code entries Behind Office Doors and Lonely Wives, and the Lubitsch film That Uncertain Feeling, have all looked even poorer than usual, with flat, gray contrasts and lacking in detail, though I only consider Lonely Wives a truly terrible disc production effort, with its glaring video glitches; most of these were released something like two or more years ago ... a bit off topic, but I'd love to know just what Cary Roan and his company are doing these days, and where they plan to go in the future of the format). If any of these, again, very respected independent companies have failed to properly license a copyrighted title before issuing it, I hope that will be swiftly brought to the attention of those inquiring about the quality of the release, so an informed (i.e. "no sale") buying decision may be made.

And back to Hitch ... for my money, B&W just doesn't get more seductive than Criterion's Rebecca. What a release! My partiality for the exceptionally beautiful Joan Fontaine may compromise the objectivity of my opinion ever so slightly. I have yet to see their Spellbound, but indications are that it's absolutely stellar, as well.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I said:

The Laserlight versions, as well as any others, with the exception of Criterion product, which might currently be in print, are also illegal and in contraventiion international copyright laws.

I Respond:
Hmmm? In that case, I guess they are "hot" after all.
[insert rimshot]
Thank you ladies & germs, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress, and let's have a hand for the band.

Regards,

 

[Dave Pattern]

I'm curious as to why the Laserlight's are illegal? I'm sure that I've read several times that the early Hitchcock's are now essentially public domain, plus many of the major e-vendors are happy to sell them.

The comparison at DVD Beaver doesn't seem to indicate that the Laserlight release is a copy of the Criterion.

Having said that, all discs featuring an intro by Tony Curtis should be burnt at the stake or reclassified as a video nasty

 

[Damin J Toell]

The comparison at DVD Beaver doesn't seem to indicate that the Laserlight release is a copy of the Criterion.

Because it isn't. It's probably a copy of an old VHS tape that was available during the film's days in the public domain.

DJ

 

[Reagan]

Damin,

Is this how "It's a Wonderful Life" went out of the Public Domain? I know it seems obvious, but it was produced here, thus according to it's home country's copyright laws, it's PD.

-Reagan

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I think It's a Wonderful Life was never really in the public domain. People just thought it was. IMDB says this was due to a clerical error.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

"It's a Wonderful Life" exited the public domain when the copyright on its music was re-asserted, IIRC. I can't remember the particulars beyond that, though.

Regards,

 

[Reagan]

Dan,

The story I heard about "It's a Wonderful Life" was that due to a clerical error, it's copyright wasn't renewed. At the time (early 1970s), copyrights had the option to be renewed one time for an additional x number of years (I think 24 years). The law was revised in 1976 and again in 1998 and the renewal option isn't part of the law anymore. Just a simple 90 (or 95 - can't remember which) years from the date of production (or it release?).

I just don't understand how it could be taken out of PD. If it's a music issue (thanks Ken), then a version with different music would be PD - I'm surprised some cable channel hasn't done this - not that I think it would be a good idea.

-Reagan

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Perhaps the biggest thing going for "It's a Wonderful Life" in terms of it no longer being in the public domain is that Republic is willing to aggressively contest any use of it by others. IIRC, Comedy Central was planning to air a parody version of it some time ago where they completely replaced the soundtrack a la "What's Up Tiger Lily", thereby not using any of the music, but Republic threatened legal action and Comedy Central decided not to air it.

Even if they would have prevailed in the suit (which they may very well have done), they did not want to commit the resources to it, and most PD releasing companies would be even less willing or capable to sustain a protracted legal battle over it.

Regards,

 

[Reagan]

Thanks, Ken. That explains it.

Of course I don't understand how the copyright for a soundtrack can not be PD while the film itself is PD, but that's one for the books, I guess.

-Reagan

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Doesn't this interact with the anti-colorization laws that declare certain films national treasures and prevent tampering like colorizing or playing with the soundtrack? If Wonderful Life is on that list, that would explain why it doesn't get rescored....

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Thanks, Ken. That explains it.

Of course I don't understand how the copyright for a soundtrack can not be PD while the film itself is PD, but that's one for the books, I guess.

To tell you the truth, I find it a bit befuddling, too. Contracts usually exist that allow the use of a film's score inside the film for perpetuity. It's possible there was some quirk of a particular contract exploited, or maybe some loophole for new media, but I certainly do not know or fully understand the particulars.

Regards,

 

[Damin J Toell]

Of course I don't understand how the copyright for a soundtrack can not be PD while the film itself is PD, but that's one for the books, I guess.

It's because the score of a film is a separately copyrightable work from the film in which it is being used. Each element, the film and the score, can have their own separate copyrights whose statuses are not dependant on one another. If I license a score to be used in my film, and my film falls into the public domain for some reason (say, because I failed to renew it as was required until 1978), this has no effect on the copyright status of the score; my film doesn't bring the score into the public domain with it. In such a case, as with It's a Wonderful Life, copying the film and the score together would still violate the existing copyright of the score, even though the film is no longer copyrighted. The same would be true if I licensed a novel and made a film based on that novel; if my film fell into the public domain, the copyright status of the novel itself would be unaffected.

Scary little copyright quirks like this happen all the time (or, at least, they used to more often under the older 1909 Copyright Act). For example, take an HTF favorite: Rear Window. This problem, too, centers around the separate copyrightability of a film and a literary work that it's based on. The author of the original story on which the film is based is "It Had to Be Murder" by Cornell Woolrich. Although Woolrich licensed the story (indirectly) to Jimmy Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock for use in Rear Window and promised to re-license the rights to the story again during its renewal term (that is, after 28 years had passed and renewal was required for a second 28-year term (aka "the renewal term")), Woolrich died before time came to renew the copyright. Woolrich left the copyright in trust to Chase Manhattan Bank (who eventually renewed the copyright and assigned the renewal rights to someone else). The Supreme Court held that Woolrich could not give Stewart/Hitchcock rights to "It Had To Be Murder" during its renewal term before that renewal term actually happened, thus Stewart/Hitchcock had no rights to use of the story during its renewal term (which began around the end of 1969). From 1969 on, it was actually an illegal infringement of "It Had To Be Murder" to copy, distribute, broadcast, etc., the film Rear Window (although the Supreme Court didn't actually decide the case until 1990 - the parties had previously settled out of court in 1974, and this suit was later brought again years later). This ruling put the film into limbo.

Thus, Universal could not do anything with Rear Window because they did not have a license to use the story on which it was based. And no one else could do anything with Rear Window, either, because only Universal had the rights to the film. Therefore, no one could do anything with Rear Window. The only way that Rear Window could be taken out of this limbo was for Universal to renegotiate a new license from the owner of "It Had To Be Murder" (which eventually happened). And, of course, it's pretty obvious that this cost Universal a hell of a lot more than what Woolrich negotiated for in 1945 (which was $9,250 for the rights to six short stories in total).

And, yes, it's all very befuddling, even to lawyers.

DJ

 

[Robert Harris]

For the record the Moroder version of Metropolis was licensed from the German owners.