33 Shoeshine

Discuss releases by Eureka and Masters of Cinema and the films on them.
Message
Author
User avatar
ltfontaine
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

#26 Post by ltfontaine » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Ultimately, it adds up to not much hard information and an awful lot of plot description, or explaining at length obvious character motivations.
Last night, I shut off the dreadful James Ursini commentary track on the R1 edition of Out of the Past for just the same reasons. It's irritating to be told what you can see for yourself.

But it also must be hard, from the perspective of the DVD producer, to consistely elicit from commentators a track that is exactly what you're looking for. Once having hired a critic for this purpose, based on a certain level of confidence in their prior work, how much leeway does one have in "directing" the content of their commentary? I wonder how often it occurs that producers reject, or demand an overhaul of, a track with which they are not entirely happy? And how often do tracks end up on discs that do not jibe with the producers' initial expectations?

User avatar
Matango
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Hong Kong

#27 Post by Matango » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:19 pm

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I thought that Shoeshine was tiresome. To me it seemed melodramatic and contrived, and other than a couple of street scenes, not even Neo-realistic. The story was drawn out and dull, and by the end I didn't care which character got sent down for how much time. I felt like de Sica was trying to make a Hollywood-style weepie with the materials he had, rather than a social document under adverse circumstances, which is how I see Bicycle Thieves. Even Umberto D seems realistic and sincere by comparison.

User avatar
TheGodfather
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:39 pm
Location: The Netherlands

#28 Post by TheGodfather » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:45 pm

Matango wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I thought that Shoeshine was tiresome [...]
#-o :|

User avatar
Matango
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Hong Kong

#29 Post by Matango » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:41 am

Well, I just watched it again and I still feel pretty much the same. I won't say any more about why as I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it, but I have to question MoC's assertion that it was 'the first foreign film to receive an Oscar'. First foreign-language film maybe, but British films had surely won several in a number of categories by 1948...off the top of my head, Black Narcissus in 1947...

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#30 Post by Matt » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:14 pm

Matango wrote:I have to question MoC's assertion that it was 'the first foreign film to receive an Oscar'. First foreign-language film maybe, but British films had surely won several in a number of categories by 1948...off the top of my head, Black Narcissus in 1947...
It may seem difficult to believe, especially if you live here, but English is not a foreign language in America.

User avatar
Matango
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Hong Kong

#31 Post by Matango » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:18 pm

Maybe I didn't construct my sentence very clearly but I am saying that Shoeshine, contrary to the MoC's assertion, was not the 'first foreign film' to win an Oscar. Foreign-language film, sure, but not 'foreign film'. England is a foreign country to America.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#32 Post by Matt » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:14 pm

Matango wrote:Maybe I didn't construct my sentence very clearly
No, you constructed it perfectly. I see now that in my haste to make a cheap joke, I didn't read your statement very closely. I apologize.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#33 Post by MichaelB » Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:45 am

Gilbert Adair once wrote a piece challenging the assertion that fewer than 5% of cinema releases in Britain were foreign. Actually, as he pointed out, more than 95% of UK cinema releases were foreign, and the fact that most of them were in American-accented English was neither here nor there.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#34 Post by peerpee » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:51 am

Hear, hear! -- It's beyond belief that we don't have some good old French-style quotas for UK film here in the UK. Then we can start swilling some of this Yank sewage out of the cinemas.

Actually, the brightly lit glorified sheds selling sugared water and popcorn can stay full of sewage. I can't visit them anymore, mostly because of the terrible American films, but also on architectural and ambience grounds.

User avatar
Matango
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Hong Kong

#35 Post by Matango » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:58 am

You should try a Hong Kong cinema Nick. Mobile phones going off left and right, and even phone conversations. I haven't been to one here for about three years. Hong Kong Island's last Art House cinema closed down last week. Tragedy, it was.

Yes, bring back Quota Quickies like in the 1930s...might have been no Michael Powell and others without them.

User avatar
Matango
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Hong Kong

#36 Post by Matango » Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:07 am

While I think of it, you'll doubtless be delirious to learn that MoC has recently joined the ranks of pirated DVDs available in Hong Kong. I saw Kwaidan and Nightmare Alley last week, in full Moc regalia, not even partially disguised covers, for about a quid-fifty each. Didn't buy any of course...already own the originals. And wouldn't even if I didn't, etc.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#37 Post by MichaelB » Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:17 am

peerpee wrote:Hear, hear! -- It's beyond belief that we don't have some good old French-style quotas for UK film here in the UK. Then we can start swilling some of this Yank sewage out of the cinemas.
...and replace it with good old British sewage!

Sadly, every single time the British government has intervened in film exhibition, the results have been catastrophic. True, the quota quickies (directly triggered by the 1927 Cinematograph Films Act) gave people like Michael Powell their first break, but they were also responsible for a calamitous plunge in the reputation of British cinema as a whole, which only really recovered in the 1940s. Similar carnage was wreaked by successive legislation, most recently the longed-for tax breaks of the late 1990s, which directly led to some of the most appalling sub-Tarantino dreck imaginable.

So no, I'm not in favour of quotas.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#38 Post by peerpee » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:28 am

France are doing ok!
(but they're far more cultivated and intelligent) :)

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#39 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:44 am

MichaelB wrote:Similar carnage was wreaked by successive legislation, most recently the longed-for tax breaks of the late 1990s, which directly led to some of the most appalling sub-Tarantino dreck imaginable.

So no, I'm not in favour of quotas.
I think the problem is also that the quotas are set up and managed by the people with the money who don't necessarily know or care much about what makes a decent film, who then decide what gets their funding and what doesn't. (Perhaps because many of these funding bodies are set up in the fever following a particular film being a big success, and money is being thrown at the business from people who see films to be the 'in thing' to invest in again etc, combined with 'fair weather friend' political policies of wanting to be seen helping the film business out after a success yet drops it like a hot potato when it gets into difficulties. Although those policies aren't just specific to the film business, look at the cash that was thrown thoughtlessly at the NHS, and consequently wasted since there seemed to be no plan for using the money that consulted with the NHS staff, the people that actually ran the organisation. The film organisations similarly seem to be run in spite of, rather than in collaboration with people who actually work in films).

This lack of interest or connection to the filmmaking side of the 'business' probably leads to a committee, once they see Lock, Stock or Trainspotting become a hit, only being able to consider funding gangster pictures since they're a 'sure thing'.

I suppose the Channel 4 funding in years past was better in the sense that the channels brief was to make 'alternative' material, and that is what the government funded it for, at least until the end of 1997 when that stopped and it had to make all its money through advertising, leading to more US-collaborations with bankable stars and high profile event pictures trying to outdo Hollywood at its own game. Either that or quirky comedies trying to be the next Four Weddings.

Once a film making a return becomes more important than the quality of the film itself, then there will always be a layer of bureaucracy having a say in the content of a film and trying to make their investment less risky by adding a bankable star, a happy ending, making the film like another one that has just been a big success etc. It takes a special kind of filmmaker, one who can pander to the bosses wishes while still trying to make something interesting and worthwhile, to thrive in these systems and they seem to be rather rare.

It is just a shame that there is very little, if any, room left for funding features and even shorts that probably won't make money, or only have a small but appreciative audience. The idea that a commercial failure can still 'grow the brand' or add prestige to a film company or TV station's output seems far away from the pressure to be a financial success that every type of film seems to now be under.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re:

#40 Post by MichaelB » Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:53 am

zedz wrote:A nice package, as usual, but did anybody else find the commentary exhausting? The nicest thing I could say about it is that it's screen-specific (boy, is it screen-specific!), but the overall impression I have is of the commentator continually badgering me to "Look at this! Look at that! Note the other!" All well and good, but it's generally to no particularly insightful end, or to a bleedin' obvious one ("Look at the worn shoes the beggar is wearing in this scene! They show us that he doesn't have any money!"; "Look at the hurt expression on the boy's face right here! He's really upset that his best friend is being cruelly thrashed!"). Ultimately, it adds up to not much hard information and an awful lot of plot description, or explaining at length obvious character motivations.
I've just caught up with this, and I entirely agree. There's some good content (particularly the historical background detail), but the patronising style and constant demands that we "note" something or other (often a banal observation about a trivial detail) became grating almost from the opening scene.

The rest of the disc is fabulous, though, so in no way should this put people off.
ltfontaine wrote:But it also must be hard, from the perspective of the DVD producer, to consistely elicit from commentators a track that is exactly what you're looking for. Once having hired a critic for this purpose, based on a certain level of confidence in their prior work, how much leeway does one have in "directing" the content of their commentary? I wonder how often it occurs that producers reject, or demand an overhaul of, a track with which they are not entirely happy? And how often do tracks end up on discs that do not jibe with the producers' initial expectations?
The audio commentary is such an odd medium that it's no great surprise that critics have a problem adapting to it. From a production perspective, the only commentaries I've overseen have been filmmaker ones, which are much easier to deal with (assuming the filmmaker in question is both articulate and willing), largely because they don't have to pre-prepare tons of material. In terms of word count alone, a complete feature commentary isn't far short of book-length, and the amount of research to do a decent one must be colossal.

That said, I'm really looking forward to hearing what Robert Gordon did with Bicycle Thieves on the upcoming Arrow Blu-ray - based partly on the quality of the research in his BFI Film Classics monograph, partly on the fact that he's already recorded an excellent, thorough commentary for the BFI's Teorema, but mostly because the new disc's producer explicitly ordered him not to deliver a dry, obviously pre-scripted lecture.

User avatar
ellipsis7
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 33 Shoeshine

#41 Post by ellipsis7 » Thu May 12, 2011 6:04 pm

I too caught up with this latterly - an excellent package... Not so dissatisfied with Cardullo's microanalysis, insofar as I'm guessing the upcoming Raffaello Matarazzo Eclipse set will be a missing link in a wider picture of the calibration of melodrama versus more distanced/objective dramatic treatment across the full range of Italian cinema in late 40's/early 50's, which then bred so much after... This film is probably the most down beat and depressing of de Sica's endings in the trilogy of SHOESHINE/BICYCLE THIEF/UMBERTO D, but reflects a hopelessness facing a new generation expressed in GERMANY YEAR ZERO, EUROPA 51 etc, where a child dies too...

User avatar
ellipsis7
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 33 Shoeshine

#42 Post by ellipsis7 » Sat May 07, 2022 9:34 am

SCIUSCIA/SHOESHINE debuting in a new 4K restoration as part of Cannes Classics 2022...
Sciuscià
Vittorio de Sica
1946, 1h33, Italy
Presented by The Film Foundation and Fondazione Cineteca di Bologna. Restored in 4K by The Film Foundation and Fondazione Cineteca di Bologna at L’Immagine Ritrovata in association with Orium S.A. Restoration funding provided by the Hobson/Lucas Family Foundation.
Opportunity for an upgrade?

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re:

#43 Post by MichaelB » Sat May 07, 2022 11:16 am

ltfontaine wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:22 pm
But it also must be hard, from the perspective of the DVD producer, to consistely elicit from commentators a track that is exactly what you're looking for. Once having hired a critic for this purpose, based on a certain level of confidence in their prior work, how much leeway does one have in "directing" the content of their commentary? I wonder how often it occurs that producers reject, or demand an overhaul of, a track with which they are not entirely happy? And how often do tracks end up on discs that do not jibe with the producers' initial expectations?
I couldn't have answered this question when it was first posed sixteen years ago, as I'd only overseen one commentary, and as it was a filmmaker one I was naturally minded not to interfere - but I'll have a go at doing it now.

In my own experience on both sides of the fence, it depends on the nature of the project and of course who owns it - some rightsholders are happy to allow a commentator to say anything they like, provided the disc has the usual written disclaimer about their views not necessarily chiming with the rightsholder's and the labels, while some are much more hands-on, to the point of insisting on prior approval (and, in the most extreme case - David Kalat and Godzilla - of delivering a script upfront that, when approved, couldn't be deviated from in any way.

And even when I don't have restrictions like that, as a UK-based producer I have to make sure the commentary content doesn't exceed the BBFC classification for the main feature - for instance, no "fucks" at all in anything U or PG, and only a couple in a 12-certificate film.

For the most part, though, commentators have complete freedom, and it's pretty rare in my experience (on both sides of the fence) for the content to be interfered with in any way, unless the commentator is a first-timer who needs guidance or there's a factual error that's fixable. But when it comes to a regular like, say, Kat Ellinger, Tim Lucas, Adrian Martin, Kim Newman or Tony Rayns, you should have a pretty good idea what you're getting upfront, and indeed these people get loads of commissions because they're so reliable. And for the most part they deliver their work as finished tracks, or at least fully-recorded ones ready for mixing.

There have been occasional disappointments - I remember mixing a couple of recent ones that were far too IMDB-tastic for my taste, saying a great deal about the careers of the people involved but very very little about the actual film, but with something like that you'd really have to rethink and re-record the whole thing to improve it, and the commentator can reasonably say that it's an approach taken by many others (more's the pity). I also salvaged a track that the label was minded to reject on the basis of the first ten minutes, but when I listened to the whole thing I thought it was actually pretty decent - it's just that the first-time commentator was so audibly and gabblingly nervous at the start that it got off on the wrong foot. So I rejigged the opening, and left most of the rest intact, and I'm very pleased to say that it got excellent reviews. And there was one toe-curling session that I personally supervised where it became obvious just twenty minutes in that the first-time commentator simply hadn't prepared anywhere close to enough material, but I was able to salvage a decent selected-scene commentary. (I should mention that the overwhelming majority of selected-scene commentaries were planned as such from the start, though!)

With my own commentaries (eleven to date), I've never once had any comments of any kind other than generalised satisfaction - I assume the producer listened to it in full at the QC stage, but I've had very very little feedback outside reviews, and the only time I had to change anything was in a rightsholder-approval situation where a six-minute section had to be rethought because we'd discussed uncredited script contributions (which I hadn't know upfront was forbidden).

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: 33 Shoeshine

#44 Post by colinr0380 » Sat May 07, 2022 1:08 pm

I have often been curious about selected scene commentaries. Is that the kind of thing that the commentator requests from a label because they feel that there is only material for a few specific scenes and would prefer to provide a more limited commentary rather than having the entire track filled potentially with the imdb filmography-type material between the important passages? Or prefer to talk for a shorter time than the daunting prospect of a couple of hours (or having to do a Tony Rayns and speak over a three or four hour long Edward Yang film!). Do disc producers (or labels) have a preference one way or the other that swings things towards or away from a selected scene or a full commentary? Does one take more resources than another? Or does it just vary from project to project?

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 33 Shoeshine

#45 Post by MichaelB » Sat May 07, 2022 3:44 pm

colinr0380 wrote:
Sat May 07, 2022 1:08 pm
I have often been curious about selected scene commentaries. Is that the kind of thing that the commentator requests from a label because they feel that there is only material for a few specific scenes and would prefer to provide a more limited commentary rather than having the entire track filled potentially with the imdb filmography-type material between the important passages? Or prefer to talk for a shorter time than the daunting prospect of a couple of hours (or having to do a Tony Rayns and speak over a three or four hour long Edward Yang film!). Do disc producers (or labels) have a preference one way or the other that swings things towards or away from a selected scene or a full commentary? Does one take more resources than another? Or does it just vary from project to project?
It depends entirely on what the commentator wants to do. Neil Sinyard often favours selected-scene commentaries, and that's absolutely fine - I think most people would prefer 40-60 minutes of high-quality stuff to 90-120 minutes that include a lot of padding. I don't think it makes any real difference in terms of resources - there's less work involved in mixing them, but that's counterbalanced by them needing more work in terms of video presentation, which usually involves the disc being programmed to skip forwards automatically to the next bit. One reviewer of Indicator's The Pumpkin Eater nearly gave me a heart attack by complaining that there were silent patches lasting several minutes at a time (an amazing QC blunder, if true), but when I checked the disc and found that it played exactly as intended, he rather shamefacedly confessed that he'd ripped the video, which of course removed the automated skipping. There may be a moral there.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: 33 Shoeshine

#46 Post by colinr0380 » Sat May 07, 2022 6:35 pm

I remember being a bit perplexed on first experiencing a selected scene commentary where the commentary just stopped for multiple minutes before suddenly resuming again. Mostly because the 2000 BFI DVD of Yojimbo said on the back cover that it included a "full-length commentary option by Philip Kemp"! Which I suppose was technically correct! At least in that case the timing of the commentary re-starting usually coincided with the beginning of a scene and therefore a new chapter that could be skipped to with the remote.

Kemp also provided a similar commentary on Jacques Tati's Playtime. I think this was done for the BFI originally too and then ported across to the Criterion disc. I cannot speak to how whether the BFI disc presented it the same way as with Yojimbo as I only have the later Criterion edition (the DVD Beaver review comparison suggests that it was described as a 'feature commentary', which could mean anything), but Criterion certainly identifies it as a selected scene commentary and indeed rather than just being an alternate audio track on the main film on that disc the select scene commentary is only selectable from the menu as a 46 minute piece that cuts out all the dead air.

But both of those examples are coming from the early years of the DVD format.

Post Reply