salo criterion collection

[bigmix007]

i want to buy this movie but i need the orginal not a bootleg. Anyone know a legit dealer to buy from that isn't out the ass expensive.

thanks

[The Chaostar]

no way man...

[KR~!]

Amazon has one for over thousand dollars.

[dwatts]

Wasn't this due to be reissued at some point?

Anyway - the R2 release from Bfi is a better print all round. 25 seconds more footage, and a fraction of the price.

If you insist on a Criterion then you're going to have to sell your mother. Be sure to ask her permission first.

[bigdaddyhorse]

I thought I heard this was going to be re-issued along with a couple other Criterion rarities in the near future.
If I had any interest I'd get that R2 disc. You can get that and a region free player for less than 1/4 of the Criterion's aftermarket price. If you refuse to go region free for some reason, then bootlegs are the next best thing. I mean around a grand for a fucking disc?, be real! That is just insanity.
I think you might be able to snag one off ebay for 7-9 hundred, still insane. IMO $100 is insane, although if I saw this title for that price I would buy and re-sell on ebay.:D

I was looking forward to watching the aftermarket reaction to a re-issue. I hope it happens just for that reason.:)

[MorallySound]

I thought I heard this was going to be re-issued along with a couple other Criterion rarities in the near future.
If I had any interest I'd get that R2 disc. You can get that and a region free player for less than 1/4 of the Criterion's aftermarket price. If you refuse to go region free for some reason, then bootlegs are the next best thing. I mean around a grand for a fucking disc?, be real! That is just insanity.
I think you might be able to snag one off ebay for 7-9 hundred, still insane. IMO $100 is insane, although if I saw this title for that price I would buy and re-sell on ebay.:D

I was looking forward to watching the aftermarket reaction to a re-issue. I hope it happens just for that reason.:)

Interesting that this topic appeared here lately, as I just purchased a boot off ebay the other day. I will not pay the outrageous prices for the Criterion original.

And yes, I too heard about the re-issue, but since I first heard of it over 6 months ago, I still haven't found any info confirming if it is still happening....

[dwatts]

Why buy a boot off Ebay when you can get the longer R2 cut? Was it much cheaper than that one?

[rhett]

Criterion definitely announced the new disc on their blog, so it's coming. I wouldn't rule out a late summer or fall release, knowing their release patterns.

[MorallySound]

Why buy a boot off Ebay when you can get the longer R2 cut? Was it much cheaper than that one?

I'm not region free. And it's widescreen and uncut, and was only 6 dollars.

[Matt89]

Yeah this is one DVD I've never understood. Why the fuck is it so expensive? There have since been better quality releases, the Criterion isn't the full version, a new version FROM CRITERION is coming out...why the hell is it so expensive!? I can understand OOP Criterions like Rebecca, Spellbound and Notorious being expensive, since there has yet to be a DVD release (on any region) that tops the Criterions. But Salo? What's the big deal with this DVD? I thought the movie was terrible. Then there's other Criterions like Straw Dogs that have gone OOP but they STILL sell for the original SRP. What's with that?

~Matt

[KR~!]

Criterion is different, since their DVDs are also very collectible, they cost a lot but they also have the highest resell value of any DVDs from any company ever. This goes back to their laserdisc days. The same will be true when they start releasing Blu-Ray discs once the war is 100% over.

[dwatts]

I'm not region free.

Oh, you're one of those. :D

As was pointed out, Kr~1, the Salo disc seems to be over-priced by far more than other OOP Criterions.... still I've never really thought about it, since this film is available elsewhere.

[MorallySound]

Oh, you're one of those. :D

Yeah, one of those... I'll go region free when I finish watching all my unwatched movies, and have the cash to spend on a region free player.

But a downside for me going region free would be that then my collection would grow way to fast and I'd never catch up because there were be soooo much more temptation to spend money on DVDs. So I don't think I'll be going region free for a while.

[Matt89]

But a downside for me going region free would be that then my collection would grow way to fast and I'd never catch up because there were be soooo much more temptation to spend money on DVDs.

LOL that's been my problem ever since I went region free like 4 years ago.

~Matt

[Criswell]

I cant believe people are still buying it at that price.


amazing

[HAEMORRHAGE]

There's a lot of sicko's out there that'll pay big bucks for this sucker.

[Zillamon51]

I can't even understand why people watch (literal) shit like this, never mind pay hundreds of dollars for it.

[Matt89]

I can't even understand why people watch (literal) shit like this, never mind pay hundreds of dollars for it.

Yeah I know what you mean. It's such a tasteless film, I'm really not surprised the director was murdered after making this. It's vile, depraved and disgusting. I don't know what the people at Criterion see in this movie. (However, it's still not as tasteless as I Spit on Your Grave and Cannibal Holocaust, a film that should be burned and completely obliterated from all existence.)

~Matt

[Rockmjd]

(However, it's still not as tasteless as I Spit on Your Grave and Cannibal Holocaust, a film that should be burned and completely obliterated from all existence.)
You should move to China!
http://www.horrordvds.com/vb3forum/showthread.php?t=35976

:banana: Cannibal Holocaust:banana:

[dwatts]

Not surprised Pasolini was murdered after making it? Why's that - because the world is full of intolerant idiots who think killing people is okay if they make a movie some others don't appreciate? Wow. *I* find that surprising, and totally reprehensible. I think the person who killed him should be hunted down and handed over to the Baltimore PD.

[Criswell]

He was killed by a male prostitute.......... not a film critic.

As for the film....... i hate the fucker if only cause its boring pretentious 60's/70's Euro shit!

[Matt89]

Not surprised Pasolini was murdered after making it? Why's that - because the world is full of intolerant idiots who think killing people is okay if they make a movie some others don't appreciate? Wow. *I* find that surprising, and totally reprehensible. I think the person who killed him should be hunted down and handed over to the Baltimore PD.

Where exactly did I say that it was ok for him to be murdered? I said I'm not surprised considering the type of movie he made. I didn't say it was right that he was killed. You totally misinterpreted what I said. Entirely. You're making it out to be that murdering him was some sort of justification for the type of movie he made. Whether the man who killed him thought this was true or not, that's certainly not what I meant. What I meant was that I'm not surprised that he was murdered after making this movie considering when it was made, and the country it was made in, and the type of film that it is. I really didn't think I'd need to have to explain that.

~Matt

[dwatts]

Where exactly did I say that it was ok for him to be murdered?


Try to hold back from the knee jerk reaction for a moment. You even quoted my post, and nowhere do I suggest you think it's "ok for him to be murdered" - in fact, I use the exact same word you did - "surprised".

So, basically, you didn't have to explain it.


What I meant was that I'm not surprised that he was murdered after making this movie considering when it was made, and the country it was made in, and the type of film that it is.


Tis fair enough (I suppose). As has been mentioned, his death had nothing to do with the film at all (or any of his films) - but was instead due to his gay lifestyle.

Personally I think Salo gets a lot of flack for no good reason. It has a political center, which seems to bother people quite a bit. If it had included the same types of footage but in some pointless exploitation setting (say as a Fulci movie), it'd be lauded as something of a classic by the same people who hate it now just for shock value. Just my view - but it's not half as bad as some make it out to be. It's well documented inspirations and message are used as a weapon against it, is all.

[Grim]

Yeah, I'm just going to wait for the Criterion rerelease. I have a decent bootleg of it so I'm in no rush.

[allmessedup]

I still have a VHS release of it...good enough for now.

Dwatts is right...it has too many exploitative elements for the arthouse crowd, and too much political commentary for the exploitation crowd. I've always liked it, but have only seen it a couple of times. I guess I don't have an overwhelming urge to see it compared to other films. I'll buy a new Criterion release if the supplemental materials are worthwhile.

[rhett]

I'd call it one of the most technically masterful films ever made. It does have a lot of exploitable elements, but Pasolini shoots it in such a way that watching it for pleasure (like you normally would a gore story) is impossible. His removed camera keeps everything at arms length, so the deadening impact of dominance and torture shows it's true soul sucking colors. ELEPHANT was able to accomplish the same, but Pasolini did it first, and best.

[Paff]

Rhett's right (wow, what does that make it? Twice in the last 6 months?). If you haven't watched Salo in a while, pop in the DVD and just watch the final couple of chapters. You will find yourself horrified at the violence, much more so than when watching the movie in its entirety. Pasolini found a way to numb his audience to horror and shock, and how surprisingly quickly a person can become desensitized. When you sit through 2 hours of ass, sodomy, shit-eating, humiliation, etc, watching a few more minutes of torture and violence loses its effect.

It's a better movie than many people (including me at first) give it credit for.

[KamuiX]

I really couldn't care less for this film...pretty much everything else Passolini has done is miles better. This is one I completely don't "get" the praise for. It's like Passolini got lazy and couldn't make emotionally shocking and intense films subtly anymore, so he decided to blatantly toss it in your face. Teorema, Oedipus Rex, Mamma Roma, and Accatone! are all far more effective and elegant in what they set out to do.

[bigmix007]

so i guess everyone is saying wait til the reissue....

[Matt89]

I really couldn't care less for this film...pretty much everything else Passolini has done is miles better. This is one I completely don't "get" the praise for. It's like Passolini got lazy and couldn't make emotionally shocking and intense films subtly anymore, so he decided to blatantly toss it in your face. Teorema, Oedipus Rex, Mamma Roma, and Accatone! are all far more effective and elegant in what they set out to do.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've never understood the argument many people put up for this film. They'll say something along the lines of, "It shows how brutal and depraved human beings can be." Personally, I find that to be a cop out. A total load of crap. I'm sorry, you do not need to make a film that explicit to get a point across. I'm not personally targeting anyone on this board, but that seems to be a common argument in defense of the film, albeit a weak one. Were we not shown how brutal and depraved human beings could be through the Holocaust? Or, through "Night", Elie Weisel's memoir of being imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp? Or how about Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority? Films like this just don't need to be made.

Why is a film like The Last House on the Left any different? Simply because of the way the film is presented to you. Yes, it too is gritty and raw, but it is done in a way that juxtaposes violence against a serene background with calm music. It's almost peaceful in an unsettling, disturbing way. It's also driven by a powerful narrative, not just pieced together with senseless violence like so many movies of its kind tend to be. Salo, in my opinion is one of those movies. It's just....nothing. I think many people tend to confuse shock with repulsion. You're disgusted and repulsed when you see this movie. You're shocked when you see The Last House on the Left, which, I think because of the way it's made has a much greater effect on the viewer. It gets you to think, not throw up.

This goes back to the cliche expression, "it's not what you see, it's what you don't see." Cliche it may be, but it's certainly true. Why have the films of say, Hitchcock and Polanski survived? Because they DON'T show you everything. They leave it up to the imagination. The minute you show the audience everything, you've lost them. It worked in countless films: Jaws, Halloween, Black Christmas, The Shining, Psycho, Repulsion, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Rosemary's Baby. And these films have lived on and continue to scare people. These are the films that survive the test of time.

Films that show you everything are popular for a minute, but fade into the limelight and are forgotten. The films just mentioned have an effect on people, and they show how brutal and inhuman we can be as a race. A chainsaw-wielding maniac, a woman caught in a situation in which she doesn't even trust her own husband. Fear of murder by a member of your own family. These films all tap into those fears that every horror movie represents. They're effective in the way that they get you to think. That's what films do. Salo leaves nothing to the imagination, it's unnecessarily explicit and does nothing other than leave you with a feeling of disgust and repulsion.

For those of you who like Salo, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I just tend to think this movie is very overrated. It's one of those films that gains status because of how tasteless and violent it is. I'm not out to start an argument, I'm just stating my opinion on the film.

~Matt

[rhett]

This goes back to the cliche expression, "it's not what you see, it's what you don't see." Cliche it may be, but it's certainly true. Why have the films of say, Hitchcock and Polanski survived? Because they DON'T show you everything. They leave it up to the imagination. The minute you show the audience everything, you've lost them. It worked in countless films: Jaws, Halloween, Black Christmas, The Shining, Psycho, Repulsion, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Rosemary's Baby. And these films have lived on and continue to scare people. These are the films that survive the test of time.
Pasolini knew this, and if you look beyond the surface you'll see that's exactly the adage he employed throughout the film. Sure, it has shit eating, torture, nudity, sex, the like, but look how it is filmed. Static, symmetrical long shots for the most of it, so removed and distanced from the material that it really does become what you don't see. Had Pasolini been a lesser filmmaker, he would have given us nice close-ups of the shit eating, of the suffering, zooming in on tortured faces in a chance to really exploit the subject matter. Not the case. Instead, he shows depraved happenings from a distance, and what he refuses to show is the emotion. There is no emotion in a torture State like Nazi Germany. SALO has a lot of sick shit, but believe me, Pasolini could have showed a lot more had he not truly understood the essence of the subject matter.

Further in point, observe the finale. What we've seen transpire beforehand were elegantly framed long shots of suffering given an almost painter-like formality. It distanced us, but then the end makes us question that. We see things as the Nazi's do, through small little eyeholes as they indulge in the pleasures of torment. Certainly the stuff that happens indoors is worse for the victims, but in changing the perspective from detached longshots to voyeuristic close-ups, Pasolini addresses head on the notion of sight, and how perspective can shift the feeling and reality of any situation. Genocide in Africa means one thing to us here, but something much harsher if you were to go there and view it up close. Notice too that in the voyeuristic shots at the end, they seem so much more brutal because often the sight is obscured. We see only snippets while black blurs cover most of the screen. Again, it may only be a second, but because that perspective suggests an active gaze, it comes as far more shocking than those long shots beforehand that show events transpire in their entirety.

To suggest that Pasolini tried to bombard the viewer with depravity in SALO, abandoning all his subtlety of his previous films, is to completely miss the mark of what he was trying to do with the film. In many ways it's one of his most subtle, removing the guiding narration that helped contextualize ACCATTONE, MAMMA ROMA and TEOREMA. SALO isn't just its subject matter - it's how it's presented that defines the artistry of the film.

[Matt89]

As much as I'd like to see what you mean rhett, I just don't. Maybe I just don't "get" this movie. Maybe it went too far? Who knows. I don't like hating films, but this is one movie I can't help but feel that way towards. You bring up many great points, and I do respect your opinion, but I just don't see it within the film. And I don't believe I ever will. And that doesn't go to say that I can't appreciate film for what it is, or appreciate film as an art form, I just don't see what everyone else sees in this movie.

~Matt

[rhett]

As much as I'd like to see what you mean rhett, I just don't. Maybe I just don't "get" this movie. Maybe it went too far? Who knows. I don't like hating films, but this is one movie I can't help but feel that way towards. You bring up many great points, and I do respect your opinion, but I just don't see it within the film. And I don't believe I ever will. And that doesn't go to say that I can't appreciate film for what it is, or appreciate film as an art form, I just don't see what everyone else sees in this movie.

~Matt
Oh yeah, you are entitled to hate it, and you'll certainly find yourself in good company. I just think the movie is unfairly denigrated because of its obvious subject matter, so I always feel the need to stick up for it. It's all good!

[Noto]

I always feel the need to stick up for it.

You kids and your rebellious attitudes.

[rhett]

You kids and your rebellious attitudes.
Hey now, where's the sister thread of you sticking up for SPICE WORLD. I want it. Now.

[hotbodynick]

What is this I read about a rat being sewn into a woman's vagina that was in the original release but hasn't been seen since? Any truth to that rumor?

The video quality on the Criterion Collection disc sucked. I've bought DVDs for a dollar that looked better. I should have held onto it but I never figured I'd get more than $300.00 for it back in the day when somebody wanted to buy it for that much. Cha-ching!

[Noto]

Hey now, where's the sister thread of you sticking up for SPICE WORLD. I want it. Now.

http://www.dvdinmypants.com/images2/home/splash_images/spiceworld_rotate.jpg
http://www.dvdinmypants.com/reviews/O-V/spice_world.php

Spice World pwns Salo.

Zigga-zig Ah, bitch!

[Matt89]

LMAO!!! :lol: :lol:

~Matt

[rhett]

Wow, that was quick. Nice to finally see a dig at the phenomenally overrated A HARD DAY'S NIGHT. But Noto, this must become part of your sig:

Spice World is a place where friendship conquers all, there is nothing more important than loyalty and having fun and the worst backlash comes from simple misunderstandings.

[Noto]

Done and done-er.

Despite the fact that quoting ones own self in your sig is about as masturbatory as someone can get.

[rhett]

Done and done-er.

Despite the fact that quoting ones own self in your sig is about as masturbatory as someone can get.
Are there any masturbation scenes in SALO?

How's that for getting back on topic? :D

[mutleyhyde]

Straying back off topic, my local art house, the Inwood theater, will have midnight showings of Spice World Feb. 29th and March 1st. Ha!


Plus, I really should sell my copy of Salo already.

[Matt89]

Straying back off topic, my local art house, the Inwood theater, will have midnight showings of Spice World Feb. 29th and March 1st. Ha!


Plus, I really should sell my copy of Salo already.

Is it the Criterion? Because if you sell that, you can probably feed Africa for a year with what you'll get for it.

~Matt

[Noto]

Is it the Criterion? Because if you sell that, you can probably feed Africa for a year with what you'll get for it.

~Matt

That would make the Spice Girls, and Band Aid very proud.

[mutleyhyde]

It's the real deal, and Africa already has Bono and Angelina... I'll take the cash, thank you.

[Noto]

It's the real deal, and Africa already has Bono and Angelina... I'll take the cash, thank you.

And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmas time
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life.
Where Mutley's money doesn't flow
And no Salo profits go
Do they know it's Christmastime at all?

[rhett]

It's the real deal, and Africa already has Bono and Angelina... I'll take the cash, thank you.
Just give it to me, man. I'll promise to do a real bang up review on the site. :D

[The Chaostar]

Pasolini was way ahead.
If you don't agree, see this pic.
If you still don't agree well... Don't get angry!

His vision was a political one and an angry one as well. I believe that he was murdered because of his views.
He was not murdered by his lover - the case is STILL open in Italy and remains a "mystery".

[dwatts]

OT: Damn it looked cold there last night, Chaoster. The game was awful, and my team weren't impressive..... but what's with all the snow? Brrrr.

[The Chaostar]

Fisrt half was good for Olympiakos, then, I dunno what happened. Your team wasn't impressive at all... but they will kick Olympiakos ass next time, me thinks.

The snow... It's the worst snow storm in 10-15 years...

[dwatts]

We've not lost a game at home in two years. That's TWO WHOLE YEARS. so yeah, they might run into some issues. :D

Hear you had a great home crowd though.

Anyway... sorry for going OT.

EDIT: What was I thinking, Chaoster? We've not ben beaten at home in FOUR YEARS.

[Criswell]

I dont give a toss about the subject matter nor the violence. Films like The Night Porter etc made around the same time covered similar themes of degeneration.

But i have always found the film dull and worst of all lazy. His camera work is stock standard for Italian 'art' films of a naturalistic bent. Its pure exploitation, nothing more nor less. The Political undertones are so obvious they are sledge-hammered over and over and over....

His use of ugly, fat, skinny, deformed people is also stock standard - check out any Spagetti Western!

Hitchcock and H.G.Lewis were both exploitation film makers........ its just that Hitchcock made better films and had better stars and technical assets. Pacollini was a pretty ok filmaker, but this it cheap junk dressed up as political satire.

[neversummer]

What happens when Criterion re-releases Salo? Will the original dvds on ebay that are going for $800 become nearly worthless? I watched Salo for the first time this weekend, it must've been a bit of a shock for anyone to see it '75.

[dwatts]

What happens when Criterion re-releases Salo? Will the original dvds on ebay that are going for $800 become nearly worthless?

Just a guess, but I'd say that if they keep the same spine number, then it'll kill off sales of that original disc. If they change the spine number, it won't - because apparently there are people collecting all Criterion titles.....

[Matt89]

Yep. Those DVDs will be positively worthless. Same thing happened with the Anchor Bay edition of Prom Night when Echo Bridge re-released it late last year. The DVD used to fetch an easy $50-60 on eBay, used. (I saw a few go for about $80.) But yeah when the Echo Bridge DVD came out, the value of the Anchor Bay edition dropped like the stock markets in 1929. It sells for no more than $10 now. I'll still keep mine. I got the R2 in "proper" PAL, plus I like the colour saturation of the AB edition, even though it's a bit washed out. I'm just used to it. (Plus, it's "proper" NTSC, not like the crappy PAL-NTSC conversion job on the Echo Bridge DVD.)

But the DVDs I REALLY want Criterion to re-release are Rebecca, Notorious and Spellbound.

~Matt

[dwatts]

I'd like those, Matt - in a nice box set with Lady Vanishes.

Really though, my dream is for them to reissue some of their Laserdisc titles that have yet to get their sterling treatments...

[Matt89]

That would be freakin' sweet. Network UK just released (as of yesterday) a boxset of the "British years" of Hitchcock's career that looks quite promising. Might pick it up, but I still gotta get the Criterion of The Lady Vanishes.

But yeah, on a side note...Criterion will without a doubt use the same spine number. When they re-released Beauty and the Beast, Brazil and The Third Man, they used the same spine numbers. So...you can only assume lol. :)

The Carrie and Taxi Driver commentaries would be nice if they made their way over to DVD from the Criterion LDs, tho. That would make my year.

~Matt

[dwatts]

Well - they did Cronenberg's Crash mate, so you know what I want. :D

[Matt89]

Well - they did Cronenberg's Crash mate, so you know what I want. :D

A Criterion edition of Cannibal Holocaust? :lol:

~Matt

[rhett]

I think at this point the Criterion SALO has attained such notoriety as the most expensive DVD out there, that regardless of a release it will still go for huge numbers. It's not like there isn't a better quality version out already, so again people are just paying for the ability to own it in their collections.

[Anaestheus]

When I first heard that Salo was going to be re-issued, I thought that I might try to pick up the old copy (if the price dropped) just to have a bit of history. But then I realized that I'd be paying to own a rather stupid piece of history.

Not to offend other collectors out there. I mean, I've made my share of silly purchases (see previous posts about the Merzbox) but $1000 for a DVD of moderate quality still just blows my mind.

[X-human]

I think at this point the Criterion SALO has attained such notoriety as the most expensive DVD out there, that regardless of a release it will still go for huge numbers. It's not like there isn't a better quality version out already, so again people are just paying for the ability to own it in their collections.

Well what's "huge numbers"? I don't think it'll be worth more than $100, probably significantly less than that if anything. In reality very few people want the movie itself beyond the fact that it is a rare printing of a Criterion release.

Once people actually see the film the demand will plummet. While it's one of my favorites I'm a realist, this film is only appreciated by a select few.

I've been waiting to buy a R2 to see what Criterion's re-release will be like. So far neither the French or the British releases are complete cuts, although the missing footage is minor. Once there's a comparison of all three I'll decide what to get.

[dwatts]

It won't go for a $100 or so.... not when you can get a nice new one for $30. A lot of people selling it are chancers who aren't really interested in the film (if they are, why they selling?) but rather are traders. Honestly, what are the chances of getting an original disc on Ebay? What percentage of what is on there is a pirate you reckon?

Nah - it'll go back to being a $30 DVD - people will want the best version of the film (which is the primary reason they ever want to pay extra for a Criterion), so a longer version that is easy to grab will win out and kill the market for cut bootlegs or old releases.

In fact, if this film had ever gotten another R1 release, it probably would have hapened by now....

[X-human]

Honestly, what are the chances of getting an original disc on Ebay? What percentage of what is on there is a pirate you reckon?

There are probably more fakes out there than real ones. I'm the happy owner of one of those fakes. :D I paid like $17, don't worry. Part of the problem is that some fakes are sold as real because they're "secret stock" or some such none sense. Eventually the "secret stock" part gets left off and the buyer/seller thinks it's really real.

Even if I had enough pocket change to say "What the hell I'll buy one," I doubt I could ever really "know" that I have a real one. It's at the point now I think it's foolish period, like trying to buy a piece of the cross Jesus was nailed to.

[DeathDealer]

It's at the point now I think it's foolish period, like trying to buy a piece of the cross Jesus was nailed to.

It's not that hard.

[rhett]

Nah - it'll go back to being a $30 DVD - people will want the best version of the film (which is the primary reason they ever want to pay extra for a Criterion), so a longer version that is easy to grab will win out and kill the market for cut bootlegs or old releases.
People are not paying upwards of $700 for the quality of the film. It's the rarity. Look at video games. Everyone said that the resell market for older games would plummet in light of emulation and the new onslaught of virtual consoles. The fact of the matter is that classic video games go for more today than they ever have in the past. There's not near as many people willing to pay for them when emulation is free, but you can bet that the collectors out there ensure the price stays high. Likewise, Salo may hemorrhage buyers looking only to see the film, but the collectors will still continue to pay top dollar for the distinction of having that in their collection. I could see the price dropping a little, but I wouldn't think it would drop more than 20% of what it fetches today. I'd love to eat my words though, but that would mean Criterion would have to actually release the thing. ;) If prices drop to $30, you can bet I'll be one of the buyers.

[TaxiTitan]

Im one of the crazed ones that just got to have this on the white ring.
I also have a english dubbed version witch the duke sounds very evil :P
theres a very nice divx version out there with the best DVD print available that wasnt with subs.
so they have aded subs and ripped it with deacent bitrate.
They also include the BFI only sequence witch the duke speach in the stairs.

check the info http://isohunt.com/release/97515/?poster=rumsfeld69&cat=-1

and the torrent http://www.seedpeer.com/details/722282.html

its legal for me cause I own the bfi also :P
Cant wait to watch it in full HD on the ISF calibrated pioneer plasma :banana:

[dwatts]

We'll see Rhett, we'll see. People aren't paying $700 for the quality of the film, I think mostly they're paying because of the delusion that they have something of value, value die to rarity. Once it's not rare.... once a version from Cirterion is out that is a longer cut etc. - I think things will change.

The video game thing isn't quite the same. I'm not aware of any video game that is going for 20 or 30 times their original value. Or more specifially, one that cost 20 to 30 times it's original value - was reissued in a better version (let's say better graphics or more levels), yet it still maintained that new value.

Still, this DVD is an anomaly. It's so rare - if Ebay is to be believed - I can buy it any day of the week.

When you say you'd be one of the buyers, are you saying you'd buy the original release at $30 even though therte's a new version out, that is more complete and with a better transfer? Or that you'd simply buy the new version? I hope the latter. :D

[Noto]

The video game thing isn't quite the same. I'm not aware of any video game that is going for 20 or 30 times their original value. Or more specifially, one that cost 20 to 30 times it's original value - was reissued in a better version (let's say better graphics or more levels), yet it still maintained that new value.


Rhett is smoking shit here. There are plenty of rare video games. Some go to $300-$400 with ease if they are still sealed and mint. Games like the Saturn's Panzer Dragoon Saga come to mind. Still, when you factor in that 90% of all video games had a retail cost of $50 (even old Atari shit) there is no way that they go for more than 4-5 times retail.

The exceptions that do come to mind are usually exclusive titles that never saw release (so no retail value) - stuff like the 2600's SwordQuest: Waterworld, the PS1's Thrillkill and the Dreamcast port of Half-Life.

I would love to see examples of games he's referring to. [EDIT - Rhett never mentioned the 20-30x figure.] The cases of such extreme collector's market price gouging are very rare though, maybe 2-3 titles per system - if that.

[HAEMORRHAGE]

The video game thing isn't quite the same. I'm not aware of any video game that is going for 20 or 30 times their original value. Or more specifially, one that cost 20 to 30 times it's original value - was reissued in a better version (let's say better graphics or more levels), yet it still maintained that new value.




I see what you're saying but still. I mean, who knew that a game that's several generations old would have any value at all? Sure, there's a ton of NES games that are worth $.01 - $1.00 but there's ones like Tyson's Punch Out that usually sell for about $30 and then there's Bubble Bobble 2 which sells for up to $400. I never would have predicted that any of these games would have any value 20 years later. You don't see that with BETA.

[dwatts]

There was a guy on TV here, a year or so ago, who collected plastic cutlery from McDonalds. Seriously. People collect any old thing, it seems. You name it, someones collecting it. And there will always be exceptions. There mjst be some rare beta tapes... though I really wouldn't know.

The thing with an old... well, Atari 2600 cartridge is - it is relatively rare, they're not made anymore - so you buy that cartirdge or do without (emulation isn't the same thing). This film on DVD could be repressed in minutes, and apparently will be. The point being, if they started remaking Bubble Bobble 2 and selling it at normal prices - do you think it'd still be worth $400? I think likely not.

[X-human]

It's not that hard.

That's my point. ;)

Salo was readily available for a couple of years before being discontinued. There are plenty of copies out there. Once a new edition comes out there will be little reason to have an original copy, and for those that still feel that there is a reason I'm confident enough copies will be floating around to satisfy them. Once Criterion collectors are able to fill Spine Number 17 on their racks, it'll become a fleeting memory that it went for so much.

Plus realistically it's a movie very few would want at all, in fact many would disown it if they could, if not for the Criterion Spine number. After seeing how Beta, VHS and DVD "collecting" has progressed I don't think DVD will progress any better. I think the idea of DVD collectability is a fantasy. This is coming from someone with nearly 4,000 DVDs. If I could I'd trade them all in for HD or especially film prints.

[Anaestheus]

I think the big problem with the idea of collecting DVDs for antiquity's sake lies in the technology. In defense, I would make an analogy to first edition books, which we all know can bring in ridiculous prices. But, the problem arises in that a first edition book is still functional, which i think enhances the nostalgic experience of owning one. But, with a DVD, you need special technology to actually experience it. As that technology becomes surpassed and obsolete, I don't see the nostalgic experience increasing. So, thirty years from now, when movies are being downloaded directly into our brains, what do you do with that weird shiny disc, other than frame it and hang it on a wall? And how valuable is that experience? Or look at it another way, how much would you pay for a 16mm print of Lawrence of Arabia?

[dwatts]

Digital. That's the problem. First Edition books are rare because, well, they're rare. The ONLY way to get a first edition book is to have the first edition right in front of you. DVD? Well, as has been proven by Ebay, you can just copy it. The film itself - Salo - isn't rare. Not a bit of it. You can get a copy of it as easy as any other movie. What's rare is that spine number. Fill that spine number.....

Digital changes a lot of things, imo. For me it brings into question the very essence of "what is ownership". We'd probably never agree on it. For instance, if you have a pirate DVD copied from a Netflix disc or something, to me you don't really own the disc. All you own is basically a VCR. You have a copy of the film, but it's not really collectable. It's just bits, and those bits can be regenerated time and time again - they're not unique in any way.

Still, we live in times when just good enough is good enough. The Criterion Salo is an anomaly we probably can't adequately explain. It's a blip. Personally speaking I want the best version of the film there is - usually that's Criterion, but not in this case.

[X-human]

So, thirty years from now, when movies are being downloaded directly into our brains, what do you do with that weird shiny disc, other than frame it and hang it on a wall? And how valuable is that experience? Or look at it another way, how much would you pay for a 16mm print of Lawrence of Arabia?

Perhaps I'm missing your point but film is a lot like a rare book. Night of the Living Dead on 16mm will cost you a lot more than the remastered DVD. Even an 8mm 10 minute silent version of a movie can go for the same price of a full length DVD. That's because it is a recreation of experience. You're running a real life projector and have a glowing screen before you. Prints are also rare, and getting rarer all the time.

I don't even think HD or UltraHD will replace film for such movie collectors.

[rhett]

The video game thing isn't quite the same. I'm not aware of any video game that is going for 20 or 30 times their original value. Or more specifially, one that cost 20 to 30 times it's original value - was reissued in a better version (let's say better graphics or more levels), yet it still maintained that new value.
Once an item becomes canon for its rarity or demand, it pretty much retains it regardless of what happens since. There are collectors out there who pay insane amounts for video games that have either since been remade or have better ports on other systems. It's about collecting *that* item though. The quality of the actual game is irrelevant. On the Sega Master System, a terrible game called "James Buster Douglas Knockout Boxing" fetches $250 regularly, and that's not even accounting for what it would get sealed. Not only is the game awful, certainly one of the worst for the system, but it's also been released in a better (but still bad) Sega Genesis version readily available for $0.99 on the bay. The game can easily be found in Europe for the same system under a different title, Heavyweight Champ, for roughly the same. Still, it's the idea of collecting that one rare game, no matter how bad or outdated it is, that keeps the price high. Look at any system, and you'll find similar examples of terrible games that fetch an amazing price because of their purported rarity.

Salo is that Buster Douglas equivalent on DVD, that rare title that eludes most collectors. And for collectors, the fact that Criterion is re-releasing it in a better version with the same spine will mean nothing. Their collection still won't be complete without it. It's the rarity that's important, not the quality.

[rhett]

I think the big problem with the idea of collecting DVDs for antiquity's sake lies in the technology. In defense, I would make an analogy to first edition books, which we all know can bring in ridiculous prices. But, the problem arises in that a first edition book is still functional, which i think enhances the nostalgic experience of owning one. But, with a DVD, you need special technology to actually experience it. As that technology becomes surpassed and obsolete, I don't see the nostalgic experience increasing. So, thirty years from now, when movies are being downloaded directly into our brains, what do you do with that weird shiny disc, other than frame it and hang it on a wall? And how valuable is that experience? Or look at it another way, how much would you pay for a 16mm print of Lawrence of Arabia?
Good point, but bad analogy. A 16mm print is definitely still fully functional, with quality better than any home video format. Those things fetch big bucks. Hell, even a 8mm print of a movie will set you back a good $400 if you want one. I almost got a copy of HALLOWEEN that way years ago from someone who makes those for a living.

Your example does hold weight when you look at VHS and how worthless it is. By the same token though, LaserDiscs have still managed to keep interest, and I'd imagine DVDs would as well, since they are digital and at the very least complete versions in their original aspect ratio. An old Nintendo will always hold it's value, too, because like others have said, it's the experience of playing it on that outdated piece of technology that would continue to create demand.

[Anaestheus]

Perhaps I'm missing your point but film is a lot like a rare book. Night of the Living Dead on 16mm will cost you a lot more than the remastered DVD. Even an 8mm 10 minute silent version of a movie can go for the same price of a full length DVD. That's because it is a recreation of experience. You're running a real life projector and have a glowing screen before you. Prints are also rare, and getting rarer all the time.

I don't even think HD or UltraHD will replace film for such movie collectors.

Yes, I think you may have missed the point, but it was a bit subtle. The argument really relates more specifically to "Lawrence of Arabia" being on a 16mm print, since that "experience" would pale when compared to watching the full, widescreen DVD. Furthermore, I would add that the ability to enjoy the "experience" of watching "Lawrence of Arabia" in glorious 16mm, if that is your bag, would be increasingly difficult and expensive as 16mm projectors get more difficult to service.

I think a more accurate analogy would be for the audiophiles. Right now, old vinyl is very popular, and understandably so. But, real audio purists would be better served hunting down 8-tracks, even better, reel-to-reel tapes. And, I am sure that there are people out there who do. But, as technology improves for audio, I am also very sure that the number of people who hunt and collect reel-to-reel tapes is dropping. And, I suspect that the same would happen to DVD.

Finally, as video technology has really spiked over the past few years, I do believe that we will see a video technology that either completely replicates the look of film or surpasses it.

[dwatts]

Sorry Rhett, maybe I wasn't clear, I wasn't at all making a point about the quality of games.

Once an item becomes canon for its rarity or demand, it pretty much retains it regardless of what happens since.

Well, obviously this isn't the case with DVD. Many titles have gone OOP and garnered high prices, only for the bottom to fall out of it when a reissue takes place. We all know instances of this. Who do we think buys these Salo discs at high prices? It's got to be either a) People who want the spine number, or b) people who just think they have something of value (which is based on its rarity). No? So once it's out again.... neither of those apply... People would have to have a desire to have a cut version of Salo... It's rare today because it's a Criterion title, nothing more, imo.

Finally, as video technology has really spiked over the past few years, I do believe that we will see a video technology that either completely replicates the look of film or surpasses it.

I believe they can already do this for still images, Rhett (resolution wise). Not heard of it for moving images though. On the other hand, I don't offer hear this as a goal from industry types to be honest. Digital yes, but to completely replicate film, no. I think film is seen as rather antiquated, in that it's mechanical, expensive (and increasingly so), and difficult to store. As noted before, we live in a "if it's just good enough, it's good enough" world. Hence the uptake of MP3 etc. I think we'll wait a hell of a long time before a home format reaches film resolutions.

[X-human]

Criterion has announced an August re-release for Salo: http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=17

Brand new 2k HD restoration.

Criterion's finally releasing some things I want again, but with their Blu-ray announcement I still have to sit on my hands. Fuckers.

[dwatts]

I don't have to be so cryptic now. Bfi in the Uk are putting this out on Blu-Ray, not quite sure of the date.

[Number Six]

That cover is awesome!

I just rewatched this a few weeks back and, surprisingly, found it better the second time than I had the first. If Criterion has a cut equal to--or longer?--than the bfi disc, I'll get it for sure. Some of the features sound intriguing enough for me to double-dip.

[MorallySound]

Goodbye bootleg, hello Criterion.

[Criswell]

Man....... i still cant masterbate to this film.

[neversummer]

As I'm fairly slow in the head, what's the significance of the four crossed out lines repeated on the new cover art --edit--took me a few minutes to figure out they equal 120... too much beer, (which I'd love to have a poster sized version for my living room, although the wife would probably throw me out) ?

Viewed the movie once, looking forward to the documentaries, probably not going to watch the movie again for quite some time though.

[rhett]

I liked the old cover better, but this one is still really nice. Adding a cover pretty much confirms its a reality - after so long without word I'm glad this will finally be out in a few short months. Here's hoping the transfer isn't the sodomy of the previous disc.

[Paff]

I've always preferred the cover of the Criterion laserdisc. Almost makes it look like a classy film. Almost.

hope this link works:
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/5202/CC1361L/Salo:-Pasolini's-(1975)

[dwatts]

Criterion and Bfi are using the same all new hi-def transfer.

ps: Prefer the new cover art myself. I have the original theatrical art for this one.... Had a picture of Pasolini on it......

[rhett]

That art is pretty awesome, Paff. It wouldn't work on something as narrow as a DVD cover though, that one is all about the symmetry of that LD jacket.

I wish they took the number count off the DVD and went more minimal. Just the blurry shot of the naked girl and SALO encrusted in the black space above would have been killer. Too much text and trimmings now.

[indiephantom]

I've always preferred the cover of the Criterion laserdisc. Almost makes it look like a classy film. Almost.

hope this link works:
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/5202/CC1361L/Salo:-Pasolini's-(1975)


This is the version I proudly own. Think I will upgrade for the special features. I find this one astonishlingly f*cked up film. Very unsettling.

[old-boo-radley]

Once an item becomes canon for its rarity or demand, it pretty much retains it regardless of what happens since. There are collectors out there who pay insane amounts for video games that have either since been remade or have better ports on other systems. It's about collecting *that* item though. The quality of the actual game is irrelevant. On the Sega Master System, a terrible game called "James Buster Douglas Knockout Boxing" fetches $250 regularly, and that's not even accounting for what it would get sealed. Not only is the game awful, certainly one of the worst for the system, but it's also been released in a better (but still bad) Sega Genesis version readily available for $0.99 on the bay. The game can easily be found in Europe for the same system under a different title, Heavyweight Champ, for roughly the same. Still, it's the idea of collecting that one rare game, no matter how bad or outdated it is, that keeps the price high. Look at any system, and you'll find similar examples of terrible games that fetch an amazing price because of their purported rarity.

Salo is that Buster Douglas equivalent on DVD, that rare title that eludes most collectors. And for collectors, the fact that Criterion is re-releasing it in a better version with the same spine will mean nothing. Their collection still won't be complete without it. It's the rarity that's important, not the quality.

There are quite a few Atari 2600 games that easily go for $2000 - $3000+ complete in their box. Obviously relative unknown games to begin with, I don't know their original price.

[Ash J. Williams]

I agree that the number markings should've been left off, but I still prefer this to the horrible cover Criterion first gave it. Showing that image gives a very poor indication of what the film conveys, whereas the new cover's image is much more fitting for the majority of the film.

By the way, this film is fucking beautiful. Pasolini is the fucking man.

[The Chaostar]

I love you Ash.

[dwatts]

I just heard that the Bfi release will have more extras. I'm trying to get details.....

[dwatts]

Guys guys guys........

The first review of the new Criterion is out......... and it's STILL CUT.

(Note: As some know the previous region 2 BFI release included an extra 25-second sequence that appeared during the first wedding sequence where a poem is quoted. I’ve never seen the BFI disc but I can point out that this short bit is still missing from this new Criterion DVD and the cut looks to be exactly the same as the one that appeared on the old Criterion DVD. As of right now the old BFI is the only disc I know of that contains this extra sequence...)Criterion Forums (http://www.criterionforum.org/dvd_review.php?dvd_id=476)

Talk about dropping the ball.

R2 all the way for this one.

There's some combing during chapter stops too.

The DVDbeaver comparison (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/salo.htm) includes the OLD Bfi disc, not the new one... I'm sure the Bfi will blow the Criterion to hell.

[MorallySound]

Meh... 25 seconds for a small speech of a poem isn't going to steer me away from the new Criterion release. And the combing during chapter stops will only be for a few frames. The transfer alone has me sold.

[The Chaostar]

Having see both cuts - and in a cinema, to boot - I must say that conceptually, the added poem adds a lot of strength in the film. As Criterion is supposed to be the Ultimate in cinephile releases, this is a big minus on their behalf. They are still the best around, generally, and I opted for their release of Vampyr, leaving aside the BFI with the Guilermo Del Toro commentary. But this is important.

However,
are we REALLY sure that the BFI transfer will be intact?

Let's just wait a bit...

[rhett]

Bummer about the missing scene, but it's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and those screen caps look pretty beautiful. Add in all those extras, and that nice slipbook packaging, and there's no way I'm still not getting this.

[dwatts]

Interesting, suddenly we're okay with a film cut by 25 seconds and suffers combing. In other threads there's moaning about a few frames of a gore scene. Ain't life strange? :D

Such is draw power of anything with the words "Criterion" in the title.

However, are we REALLY sure that the BFI transfer will be intact?Yes, 100% sure. In fact, an insider at the Bfi confirmed it today. ;)

Since I'll be rebuying this I can certainly say that I won't consider a cut print just because....... well actually there's no "just because", as an equally good print is coming out in a few weeks that's complete.... so there's no reason to settle for less.

I'm amazed Criterion didn't fix this, their last release had the same problem. Are they not striving for the more complete films anymore? Since I've had it confirmed by the Bfi that they have the complete print - why did Criterion settle for less? Weird.

The Bfi is stacked with extras too. :) No extras are going to compensate from 25 seconds of missing footage for me.

[MorallySound]

Interesting, suddenly we're okay with a film cut by 25 seconds and suffers combing. In other threads there's moaning about a few frames of a gore scene. Ain't life strange? :D

Such is draw power of anything with the words "Criterion" in the title.

Yes, 100% sure. In fact, an insider at the Bfi confirmed it today. ;)

Since I'll be rebuying this I can certainly say that I won't consider a cut print just because....... well actually there's no "just because", as an equally good print is coming out in a few weeks that's complete.... so there's no reason to settle for less.

I'm amazed Criterion didn't fix this, their last release had the same problem. Are they not striving for the more complete films anymore? Since I've had it confirmed by the Bfi that they have the complete print - why did Criterion settle for less? Weird.

The Bfi is stacked with extras too. :) No extras are going to compensate from 25 seconds of missing footage for me.

The other reason I'm not bitching a whole lot about the missing footage is I'm not region free. So the Criterion is the only option for me, other than shitty bootlegs which I already own one version of.

[dwatts]

Oh, I can understand. The Criterion release will no doubt have plenty of really good extras to soften the blow too. And yes, the transfer looks good.

I'm a tad surprised that anyone would consider 25 second - what amounts to an entire scene - missing isn't a big deal. But life is full of surprises. :)

As I wrote a moment ago, there are plenty of people who complain about missing frames and the like, so when an entire scene goes, I'd have thought that was a big deal. Why is it not important - because it's an art film and it's only a poem missing? or is there some other reason?

I can see being seduced by the new transfer, but the Bfi will at the very least match it. Although my gut tells me it'll actually be better - since I seriously doubt it'll have the combing, and it'll have the aforementioned 25 seconds reinstated. No brainer from where I'm sitting.

Since a new hi-def transfer has been done and made available for this film, I can't fathom why Criterion settled for a cut print. I'm really quite shocked, they must have known they had a cut version..... I've got to say it again... weird, it's not they skimped on this release.

[rhett]

Cut is relative, isn't it? If we look at it another way, couldn't the Criterion be the proper theatrical print, and the BFI a lengthened one? Pasolini's not around anymore, so we'll probably never know. Ridley Scott's director's cut of ALIEN has one added scene with Ripley and all those pods at the end that really breaks up the pace of the entire film. More doesn't necessarily mean better.

I've never been one to complain about frames of gore or that missing, but you could bet if that was 25 seconds of torture or depravity, there would be a lot more up in arms. I've seen SALO a number of times, never with that extra scene, and it's still worked for me. I've never felt I was missing something profound. Would I want it in a cut? Yeah, it sounds like a good scene. I'm not about to label the Criterion version a "cut" version without it, though.

Chao has seen both versions projected theatrically, so perhaps at one point both were part of Pasolini's preferred vision. Think about Kubrick and his journey with THE SHINING. Since it's not a controversial scene, censors would have no reason to cut it, so why wouldn't it be there? There's a good chance that choice would have lay with Pier Paolo. And now that answer will continue to lie with him six feet under.

[KR~!]

Well, I no reason not to trust Criterion, so I wouldn't call their DVD cut nor the other DVD uncut. If you have any questions as to why it is not there just email them or post on their message board. They tend to be pretty user friendly.

[dwatts]

Cut is relative, isn't it? If we look at it another way, couldn't the Criterion be the proper theatrical print, and the BFI a lengthened one?

It was theatrically shown in Germany while I was there, and the scene was in. And the scene was included in the previous Bfi release (although, of course, the transfer there won't match these new discs).

The scene has been cut out. I don't really understand why people would be pedantic about it, it's clearly cut. You can't compare this to Scott's Alien, where a studio paid him to make changes to pull in punters on an anniversary. :D

But really, it doesn't matter. I have a choice, and I won't choose a cut version when there's simply no good reason too. Two new discs, two new transfers - tons of extras ans great packaging on both.... one has been cut by 25 seconds, the other not. Erm.... yeah, that was really a hard choice. :D

Having seen both versions (as has Chaoster), it's a no brainer. But if people are happy with a cut print and 25 seconds missing - then obviously the choice is there for you, so we're all happy. :)

ps: The link above is to Criterions own forum, they could repsond if they felt they wanted to.

Good luck with your cut prints mateys - but I'm sticking with the complete thing. :)

[X-human]

But really, it doesn't matter. I have a choice, and I won't choose a cut version when there's simply no good reason too. Two new discs, two new transfers - tons of extras ans great packaging on both.... one has been cut by 25 seconds, the other not. Erm.... yeah, that was really a hard choice. :D

Pretty much how I look at it. That's why I waited for reviews before even pre-ordering, Criterion's been dropping the ball a lot recently. I skipped Criterion's version of Vampyr too. If BFI or Eureka are putting out the same film, chances are their version will ultimately be the better version.

Reportedly Criterion will release a Blu-ray of it, which I'll probably buy though.

[Workshed]

I'm unfamiliar with the term combing, can anyone enlighten me, please?

[dwatts]

Follow the link to DVDBeaver (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/salo.htm)- they have a screen grab.

I will try to contact the guy at Bfi and see if he can enlighten us on this scene.....

Reportedly Criterion will release a Blu-ray of it, which I'll probably buy though.

The Bfi release is coming in both SD and Blu-Ray from day one........

CHECK HERE (http://www.cultmovieforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14144)

I'll get the Blu-Ray myself. A cut R1 on SD, or an uncut on Blu-Ray....? Hm... :D

[DeathDealer]

Rumors are now floating that this poem scene was orginially not in the film, but put in singularly by BFI...Without Pasolini's approval.

[The Chaostar]

Rumors my ass. I saw the film in cinema from an italian print, years before BFI touched it. That scene was in.

[MorallySound]

I got the DVD on the weekend. Can't wait to check out the new Criterion transfer!

[dwatts]

Rumors are now floating that this poem scene was orginially not in the film, but put in singularly by BFI...Without Pasolini's approval.

The scene belongs in the film, and I know with 100% certainty that Pasolini put it in. It was removed, and ought to be put back. Criterion needed to do a little extra work, and lay out a bit more cash to get this one right - and for some inexplicable reason, they chose not to. Bfi had an easier time with the extra material, hence they have the complete print.

In the end it's all about personal taste. But I can be categoric - the Criterion print is cut. The Bfi print is uncut. Whether that bothers you - especially given the extras - is up to you.

The fact that the Bfi will be a Blu-Ray release is enough to ensure I won't bother with the Criterion, let along that fact that it's uncut....

[Anaestheus]

Just curious, anyone know why the poem was cut? Considering the nature of the film, it seems odd that the recital of a poem would end up being the final controversy.

[X-human]

Just curious, anyone know why the poem was cut? Considering the nature of the film, it seems odd that the recital of a poem would end up being the final controversy.

It is rather ironic isn't it?

Let's just look at the logistics of it. Is some producer going to ADD a poem to a print to make it more commercial? It was after all in Pasolini's script and he shot it. This isn't like inserts added by the distributor. It's possible he cut it for pacing reason or what not but common sense would suggest the Pasolini's preference would be to have it in.

Sadly it seems to come down to the fact that since sex and violence hasn't been cut out nobody cares. Infact people are trying to justify these cuts for reasons which can only be known to them. Artistic integrity my ass.

BFI's putting it out uncut and on Blu-ray. The choice is crystal clear.

[Mok]

Not that I read through this thread or anything, but I was bored and found this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1559408855/ref=olp_tab_new?ie=UTF8&originalMarketplace=A2EUQ1WTGCTBG2&ie=UTF8&originalLanguage=en%5FCA

EDIT: HAHA, ok, here's a case for reading though an entire thread before you post. I just read through the debates about the controvercial nature of this film, the off topic banter and finally the fact that it got re-released this month. :lol: *sigh*

[DeathDealer]

Rumors my ass. I saw the film in cinema from an italian print, years before BFI touched it. That scene was in.

The scene belongs in the film, and I know with 100% certainty that Pasolini put it in. It was removed, and ought to be put back. Criterion needed to do a little extra work, and lay out a bit more cash to get this one right - and for some inexplicable reason, they chose not to. Bfi had an easier time with the extra material, hence they have the complete print.

In the end it's all about personal taste. But I can be categoric - the Criterion print is cut. The Bfi print is uncut. Whether that bothers you - especially given the extras - is up to you.

The fact that the Bfi will be a Blu-Ray release is enough to ensure I won't bother with the Criterion, let along that fact that it's uncut....
You guys sounded so confident, I almost believed you. Almost.

http://www.criterion.com/blog/2008_08_01_archive.html#3999477088388292832

[Workshed]

You guys sounded so confident, I almost believed you. Almost.

http://www.criterion.com/blog/2008_08_01_archive.html#3999477088388292832

that's awesome, thanks for posting.

[rhett]

I suspected as much. Knowing it is from the Italian interpositive is comforting, since that would be the version and print all other exports were based from. Certainly Criterion kept with what they already had though, it's cheaper that way, so even if it is the preferred cut, there's a profit motive in staying with what will cost you cheapest to produce. If Criterion had the BFI cut, I could easily see them spinning it the other way, that while the IP may not have the scene, they wanted to give fans the most complete version available. Yadda yadda.

Still, I have no problem with the Criterion version, and seeing them address the topic straight on adds a bit of closure to a debate that, really, can never be closed without Pasolini here to weigh in on it.

[RJ Fielder]

From the Criterion Blog:

IMeanwhile, Lee touched base with James White, the technical director at the BFI, who was in Rome this summer working on a new transfer of the film for their upcoming rerelease. James used original film materials in Rome that didn’t contain the scene either. He said he didn’t know where the BFI got the print with the extra footage.

So looks like the upcoming BFI re-release won't have the missing scene either. unless they include it as a supplement (or pull an Anchor Bay and splice it back in).

[dwatts]

Guys guys guys. You've got to read between the lines. That's a nice little fudge article that skims over the facts. Nowhere does it mention where this scene came from. There is no mystery, it's just that the article linked to is incomplete. They seem to want to suggest the scene flew in from outer space. :D

Their version is cut. Plain and simple. Now, given the overall quality of the package, that might not be an issue for people. And that's fair enough. But that link is a whitewash, doesn't tell the whole story through knowing omission, and dares not even speculate - let alone give the facts as Criterion must know them. By omission, they admit no guilt - or that their film is missing a scene we know Pasolini put in the film. Essentially Criterion are calling on ignorance as a reason. None of the quotes even dares speculate on the scene - yet the people who must know something about it - those people who have issued DVD's with it in, aren't even asked! Why? Because they're competition on sales of this film.

Doesn't float with me.

Or it’s possible that the footage was lost from the original negative after Pasolini's death.The scene is not in the Italian negatives any longer. That's true. But if you want to know about the scene - clearly the people to ask are Bfi, because they have it. And to quote a Sergio Toffetti who states: "Unfortunately, he was not familiar with the scene either" is surely a joke. Maybe he should have bought the previous Bfi DVD, because it had it. :D

But then, they've not done a hi-def release either - so there's no way I'd invest in a cut SD right now.

Still, we can draw this to a close. Criterion look bad here, because they're being very shifty and giving out half truths. A call to the Bfi would have given them a response. Still, such is the lure of a Criterion disc - especially this one since the last release went for sky-high money - is such that some people don't mind.

Reading that, my estimation of Criterion has actually gone down. At the very least they could have included it as an extra on the disc. But they couldn't do that either, because the truth is, Criterion didn't put enough effort into tracking it down - and it would have cost them extra monies to do so. Argue whatever you want about whether it bothers you it's not in the film - but for it to be gone completely from a package like this is pretty poor, imo.

[rhett]

After watching the two clips on the Criterion blog...this is what we are fussing about? More sometimes means less, and I'd argue that that quote lessens the dread and power of that sequence. It makes the Nazi's seem much weaker than they are, appealing to art for persuasion rather than the silent complacency they expect throughout the rest of the film. It's too reflexive for a film that relies on a cold distance; it's the red jacket in SCHINDLER'S LIST, and in a movie without any emotional throughput, it goes against everything Pasolini achieved with SALO. By adding the scene in, it removes the subtler poetic importance Pasolini instead placed on the dropping of white undergarments to close the scene. There's a metaphor for the loss of innocence without all the obvious tinges of art worship. With the added lines in, that beautiful shot becomes a throw away transition between the two locations.

dwatts can have his "uncut" print all to himself, because I'll take poetry over footnotes any day of the week. Add to the fact that the scene is taken from a release print of lesser quality, so if Criterion would have sought out that one bit for their DVD, the scene would have been even more distractingly out of place because of the glaring difference in condition. Think ARMY OF DARKNESS but with more shit. Since BFI is pulling from the same material for their DVD, it would be funny if after all this, they too opted for the better quality, more poetic version themselves. Then what would dwatts do?

[dwatts]

Rhett - it's about the film, the complete film. You're not going to tell the whole impact from a tiny clip of a few seconds. There are many films that may benefit from a snip here or there, but as has always been the case with DVD - people generally want the most complete print of films. They generally don't want cut versions, or at the very least, they want to know they're getting a cut version. It's simple really. Still, I'm surprised you saw all that from what amounts to a poor Google clip. Personally I think you've just gotten used to seeing it cut, but that's just my view - and it serves as another excuse to defend Criterion. Maybe the film is better with the scene cut, that's a matter of opinion, there are plenty of people who'd suggest other scenes being cut would make the film better too. So why stop with this one scene?

Even Chaoster, who saw this in the theater, has gone on record as saying he's seen it there. I've seen this film theatrically with it there. No conspiracy. I bet that if we'd known it was going to be so difficult for these so called film scholars to figure it out, we'd have invited them along. :D

And no-one has yet seen the new Bfi disc, so discussion on quality issues is, once again, a reflexive, and defensive move on your part. To suggest "distractingly out of place because of the glaring difference in condition" is dishonest - you don't know that, and have no way of knowing it. You have no idea on how it will look. It's this kind of speculation that Criterion have indulged in to cover their tracks. In fact, you've done nothing more in this thread that defend Criterion and suggest it's the version to get - when you've only just seen a (very poor) copy of the scene, and not seen the Bfi release. You've made up your mind without seeing it, now that's clever. Doesn't really make things very balanced on your part - one assumes you actually know about what you write - but I guess we can all speculate. For the record, I guess it's possible the Bfi copy will be in black and white, and only run to one reel. It's possible. Doubtful though. :D

Still, you are free to buy the cut version. Fortunately, I'm free to buy the full version. What's important is that people make informed buying decisions. I suggest people buy the uncut version of this film, and in hi-def if they have capability. At the very least, they can then make their own decisions about the validity of the scene. Fans of the film will want to see it.

it would be funny if after all this, they too opted for the better quality, more poetic version themselves. Then what would dwatts do?Again - this is a rather poor comment, it barely reaches the level of crediblity of tabloid journalism, a little disappointing from someone like yourself, but oh well. Bfi have the full print, not the cut one (even Criterion admit they've had this since 2001 in the article linked to. :D). That's fact. Rather than throw around comments such as this, I think we'll stick to the facts, don't you? They've said they're releasing the full print, Criterion mention it themselves.... simply as.

You've turned into a Criterion apologist, and that's fine. As with all similar discussion on this site about new releases, it's just important that readers can make an informed decision. I really don't care which version people buy, I know which *I'll* buy, because hi-def and uncut beats SD and cut for me - others might feel differently, and that's fine.

This scene, at the very least, should have been an extra on the Criterion release. The fact is, they don't have the scene because they couldn't be bothered to do the research, or pay the money, to have it. Otherwise, on a disc that is supposed to be exhaustive, how do we explain its complete absence - let alone having it missing from the film? Is this scene so flawed it didn't even warrant as an extra? Would it injure the film even as a "deleted scene" on the disc? That's just silly, imo. They haven't got it because they didn't bother to go get it - they took the new master they were handed, and want to put that out with the extras they had in hand. No additional work. There can be no other explanation of its complete absence- even from the extras.

But yeah - you can have your cut print, and the Criterion brand. I have no issue with that. It's just important that people know the differences. That's all.

Come to think of it - when there were insert shots into Zombi 3 with horrendous quality, it sure didn't make me rush out and buy a cut version, so I'm very confident things will work out here - since the cut footage from the Criterion didn't look all that bad in the last Bfi release, let alone now it's had additional work done on it.

My guess? Criterion ship you free discs for review and you don't want to upset them. I have no idea, but that's my guess based on what I've read here in this case. Generally I read a lot of sense about such things from you, but in this case, you're being inconsistent - defending films being cut, defending DVD companies who can't even be bothered to get a scene we all know is freely out there because it would have cost money - even as an extra.... As I say, odd. So, I assume it's one freebie too many.

ps: The scene in question was in the last Bfi release of this film - and while that version won't match the current releases, it was no worse at that time to the rest of their release. At least the old release would sure have made a nice extra.... pity but Criterion buyers will have to make do with youtube.

[rhett]

I criticized Criterion in the post prior, and they haven't sent me screeners in some time, so I don't know where that conflict of interest pot shot came from. Code Red sends me screeners too, did I praise the interlacing?

You're accusing me of making uninformed statements when here you continue to assert that Criterion did no research, when it's pretty clear from their blog they did more than that. I'd say locating the original IP would be bottom line, but they made the effort to correspond with several other Pasolini experts, including BFI and the Pasolini estate. That's not doing your homework?

I am not dogging the BFI transfer without having seen it, I'm simply stating the inevitable. If that extra scene is not in the IP, it is going to be of lesser quality. BFI might do a bang up job restoring it, but the fact is it's going to be sourced from a copy one step further down the chain of transfer. That's a fact, and there's something that can help the informed make a decision.

So you're going with the BFI, no question. What about the reviews stating that the Criterion subtitles are a big improvement over BFI's? Does that not matter to you at all? What if the sound was better? Clearly we're dealing in greys.

I'm definitely not pro-Criterion, I'm just against writing them off entirely because of the exclusion of one ten second line reading. BFI discs are great, I own several and wouldn't be upset at all if I had their SALO disc, but I'm not about to herald one over the other when it's clear both have their benefits.

I think staunchly labeling one disc "cut" and the other "uncut" is what is the most troubling. I'd say labels like "regular" and "extended" have more relevance in light of everything.

[dwatts]

You're accusing me of making uninformed statements when here you continue to assert that Criterion did no research, when it's pretty clear from their blog they did more than that.

I concede - they did some research. However, they asked some very ill-informed people who are supposed to be experts. They act as though the scene in question came from outer space, no-one seems to know where it's from. Yet members of HorrorDVDs knew - and there was a disc with it on that's 7 years old. What's more, the article they posted is very shifty indeed, and doesn't have a quote from the people we know have the scene. And then they show the scene! So it IS there. Just not on the Criterion disc - even as an extra. Strange.

What about the reviews stating that the Criterion subtitles are a big improvement over BFI's?

Can you link me to a review of the new Bfi - because in all honesty - I've not read any at this time.

I think staunchly labeling one disc "cut" and the other "uncut" is what is the most troubling. I'd say labels like "regular" and "extended" have more relevance in light of everything.

Well, Pasolini put a scene in, it was cut out, and not restored by Criterion. It was restored by Bfi. So I don't consider it a matter of semantics. We often talk about missing scenes from films on here - and it's pretty black and white in this case, imo.

Others might feel differently, but at least they're informed.

[rhett]

Well, Pasolini put a scene in, it was cut out, and not restored by Criterion. It was restored by Bfi. So I don't consider it a matter of semantics. We often talk about missing scenes from films on here - and it's pretty black and white in this case, imo.
Yeah, but what if it was Pasolini who cut it out? There's extended cuts of PET SEMETARY TWO and CREEPSHOW floating around too, are the theatrical prints cut? Should we be writing to Warner and Paramount about this oversight? They are nowhere to be found in any of the special features (as if there are any in the first place) either. THE SHINING, again, was released in theaters with an additional afterward following the picture dolly. Can we call the print on DVD now cut? Rough cuts exist in any art form (sketches, jam sessions) and so to label one version of a film definitive and the other compromised is to ignore the nature of the medium.

Was it "restored" by BFI, or did it just happen to be the print they had available to them? Are they flipping you freebies for your blog? :D

[The Chaostar]

Well...
...I will shed some light into this. Not now though.

Saw the film twice in cinemas.
Once, in Rome, and I remember the name of the cinema
It was named CAPRANICA, and I could never forget the name because Kapranos is MY name.
The second time it was in Greece when it was re-issued, in 1997.
The print was brand and sparkling new. And the poem was in both times. The greek distributor is a friend of mine. On Monday I will ask them where did they get their print from, even though I remember that their posters had the UNITED ARTISTS logo on them.

What can I say? It the only version I know. Not an extended one. The full version.

[KamuiX]

Such fuss over Pasolini's worst film :p

[rhett]

Such fuss over Pasolini's worst film :p
Hey, if Accattone were getting the same treatment, you can bet I'd be just as vocal. It's in my nature to refute everything that dwatts says. That's who I am. :D

[DeathDealer]

Very interesting discussion.

[dwatts]

Was it "restored" by BFI, or did it just happen to be the print they had available to them? Are they flipping you freebies for your blog?The Bfi used the same new print as Criterion - they simply took the time to track down the cut footage, and to put it back in. Criterion did not. It was cut AFTER the film was initially released, and is now back where it belongs.

Criterion couldn't even be bothered to track it down to include it as an extra. And then they put a blog up claiming it's from Mars (from what I can understand) and that none of their experts knew anything about it - when they knew full well the Bfi had put it out on DVD seven years ago.

I guess calling the Bfi was a little too much research for their "experts". :D

Hey, if Accattone were getting the same treatment, you can bet I'd be just as vocal. It's in my nature to refute everything that dwatts says. That's who I am.You're not alone. :lol:

But hey, why be so defensive that you prefer a cut film? Be proud. :D

Now, what was it about those subs? Would love to read how the Criterion's subs are "better".

[The Chaostar]

Well, here's the news.

The greek distributing company AMA FILMS bought the rights - and the print - from the Hollywood Class Collection of the British Division of United Artists.

Hey, whatever that means.

It was easy to find out though...

[indiephantom]

As someone generally impressed with this film, I'm tempted by the new CC. I think I'll hold out for a blu-ray, though. I have the old LD version, but if I see it cheap I'll grab it.

[Number Six]

Here's what caught my eye from that Critertion blog:


Meanwhile, Lee [Kilne; Criterion technical director] touched base with James White, the technical director at the BFI, who was in Rome this summer working on a new transfer of the film for their upcoming rerelease. James used original film materials in Rome that didn’t contain the scene either. He said he didn’t know where the BFI got the print with the extra footage.

Did BFI-guy just admit to Criterion-guy that the new BFI discs won't include the poem scene after all? Am I reading this wrong?

[dwatts]

I think you're reading it just the way the biased, and incomplete, Criterion blog want you to read it. The scene will be there.

[RJ Fielder]

Here's what caught my eye from that Critertion blog:


Did BFI-guy just admit to Criterion-guy that the new BFI discs won't include the poem scene after all? Am I reading this wrong?

A poster on CriterionForum.org who received a screener of the new BFI disc confirmed that the poem scene is still present on the new disc, albiet taken from a different print. Here's what the BFI booklet says about it:

In order to present Salò in its complete and uncut form, this DVD edition includes a brief scene which was cut from the original negative and is only available in a 35mm print held at the BFI National Archive. Although efforts have been made to make this inserted material consistent with the overall feature, the noticeable contrast in image quality is due to the difference in source material.

[ReelFear]

The new Criterion DVD looks great. Blows away the previously released Laserdisc and DVD. Finally there's some color!

[DeathDealer]

I think you're reading it just the way the biased, and incomplete, Criterion blog want you to read it. The scene will be there.
Lets not be quick to make rash and quick judgements. Look where that got us last time.

Don't be so sure Dwatts, no one will officially know until the release comes out.

[The Chaostar]

Well,
the BFI blu-ray is out
and
the scene is there indeed!

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/salo.htm

It kicks ass - I know what I'll be getting.

[The Chaostar]

Oh and I see a United Artists remark on the opening UK credits for the Blu-Ray, so I was right!

[dwatts]

Well,
the BFI blu-ray is out
and
the scene is there indeed!

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/salo.htm

It kicks ass - I know what I'll be getting.

Would I have lied? In your eye naysayers. ;)

Criterion don't always win.... Nice. :)

[indiephantom]

Would I have lied? In your eye naysayers. ;)

Criterion don't always win.... Nice. :)


Sucks that it is REGION B only, though. Was really hoping that wouldn't happen.:(

[dwatts]

Yeah - I'm surprised. They say their test disc isn't - so I guess there's an outside chance.......

[SaviniFan]

I've never seen the film until I just picked up the new Criterion release. I haven't seen a film so obsessed with ass since Butt Sluts 15.

[Matt89]

Shit, I hope this isn't gonna become standard with the BFI. They're releasing Red Desert on blu in about a month and that BETTER not be Region B.

~Matt

[Paff]

I've never seen the film until I just picked up the new Criterion release. I haven't seen a film so obsessed with ass since Butt Sluts 15.

Anytime anyone asks me what Salo is about, I tell them, "Ass. It's all about ass. Things going in to, and coming out of ass."

(yes, I know it's about a lot more than that...)

[rhett]

Shit, I hope this isn't gonna become standard with the BFI. They're releasing Red Desert on blu in about a month and that BETTER not be Region B.

~Matt
Oh man, I never even knew RED DESERT was coming at all. I've been waiting forever for it to get properly released on DVD to no avail, so this will no doubt seal the deal. If ever there was a movie to watch in high def, that would be it. My LG will play whatever region, so bring it on!

[Matt89]

LG blu ray players are region free???

~Matt

[rhett]

Not region free, but region switchable. So region free for the non-lazy.

[dwatts]

Is that just a remote change - Rhett? And can you change it as often as you like?

[Matt89]

Damn I'm jealous, Rhett. :) BUT PLEASE GOD let Red Desert be region free.

But I think the BFI had to make their Salo blu-ray region locked because of competition with Criterion's edition so Criterion won't lose sales. I know nobody will fess up to this but I bet you that's what's happened. The BFI owns the longest version of the film and aficionados will be going after their blu-ray and not Criterion's standard def release. Don't get me wrong, I love Criterion. They really put a lot of work into their DVD releases, but I think this time around it was all about the money. I mean yeah they are running a business and have to make profit, but that really sucks for "Region A" fans of the film. Hopefully there won't be a problem with Red Desert. I don't see why there would be.

~Matt

[rhett]

Is that just a remote change - Rhett? And can you change it as often as you like?
I have the dual format LG BH-200 player that supports Blu-ray and HD-DVD. To change regions you have to have the tray open, enter in a code in the remote and then change a two digit HEX value. You can do it as often as you'd like.

[rhett]

Damn I'm jealous, Rhett. :) BUT PLEASE GOD let Red Desert be region free.

But I think the BFI had to make their Salo blu-ray region locked because of competition with Criterion's edition so Criterion won't lose sales. I know nobody will fess up to this but I bet you that's what's happened. The BFI owns the longest version of the film and aficionados will be going after their blu-ray and not Criterion's standard def release. Don't get me wrong, I love Criterion. They really put a lot of work into their DVD releases, but I think this time around it was all about the money. I mean yeah they are running a business and have to make profit, but that really sucks for "Region A" fans of the film. Hopefully there won't be a problem with Red Desert. I don't see why there would be.

~Matt
Saying Criterion did a lavish two-disc restoration complete with booklet and beautiful artwork just for the money is like saying Shoeless Joe Jackson threw that World Series with .375 batting average. SALO was on their initial Blu-ray announcement, so I'm sure that will be soon coming as well. Not to dog the BFI disc though, the transfer looks great.

[Matt89]

I meant that the reason the BFI disc is region-locked is that it probably had something to do with Criterion. LOL of course they release DVDs for profit (they ARE a business, after all) but I personally think they had something to do with the BFI disc's region "lockage". Hey, I might be wrong. :)

~Matt

[X-human]

Looks like a good amount of DNR was applied to the BFI Blu-ray and the Criterion disc looks like it's had its flesh tones boosted. At first I thought the edge enhancement was a non-issue but looking at the full size shots I can see it pretty clearly. Very disappointed in both BFI and Criterion.

[KR~!]

Would I have lied? In your eye naysayers. ;)

Criterion don't always win.... Nice. :)

not according to that website:

NOTE: Our original comparison was done many years ago but the new captures were obtained utilizing the exact same method. It appears as though the Criterion has, both, the most detail and more information in the frame (side edges) - even more so than the BFI. It is cleaner and smoother - damage removed but is still missing the short 25-second sequence at 0:42:24 (see below) during the first wedding ceremony, where one of the masters quotes a poem by Gottfried Benn. The sequence is intact on the Region 2 BFI DVD.

The Criterion seem to have used the 'Alchemist' method of transfer - with brief interlacing between chapter stops - as noted in the screen grab below.

An optional English DUB is offered as well as extensive extras. We will comment further once we have it in our possession but the Criterion easily appears to be the definitive edition at present.

[The Chaostar]

"the Criterion has, both, the most detail and more information in the frame (side edges) - even more so than the BFI"

This is a comparison of what? The Criterion DVD and... what? The old BFI DVD? or the BFI Blu-Ray?

[RJ Fielder]

This is a comparison of what? The Criterion DVD and... what? The old BFI DVD? or the BFI Blu-Ray?

Old BFI. That review was done before the new BFI release.

[X-human]

^ Must be the old BFI, they haven't reviewed BFI's SD re-release yet just the Blu-ray (which, obviously, has more detail).

[old-boo-radley]

I just bought this flick, although I think Teorema has more potential. I really need to get whatever the hell the Canadian equivalent to Netflix is because these weird foreign films seem to be the most interesting to me at this point (which sucks as I've seen zero of them, my ripe and cultured town doesn't exactly stock stuff like this). Any Canucks here use Zap or whatever the fuck it's called? They good with obscure stuff like Criterion or just random art house?

After reading the thread to be sure it was a good buy, I must say that the scraps were quite entertaining.

[rhett]

I was on the zip.ca train for a couple years. Great selection, they basically have everything, and if they don't you can ask them to get it in and they usually will. I canceled the membership after I'd seen virtually all the movies I really wanted to see. It's since gotten even better with a more effective ranking system that is similar to Netflix's.

Teorema is solid, but don't go expecting Salo. It's a lot more subtle and the decadence is more implied than anything. Still, Pasolini knows how to really fuck with the system, and Jesus worship takes on a whole new face after the man is done with it.

[old-boo-radley]

Wow, I got the DVD in the mail yesterday and I haven't had time to watch it. What surprised me was the booklet isn't just your average booklet, it's 70 friggin' pages! A little extra reward for those 30 big ones I spent. I might have to pick up White Dog since the exchange rate sucks so bad and amazon.ca pre-orders aren't too pricey if you can lump a few together and are willing to wait. Might have to get Dead of Night to go along with it.

[killit]

I wish criterion would make with the blu-ray already

[old-boo-radley]

Blu-ray would be $70 ($120 CDN) per disc from Criterion? ;)

[f.ramses]

I almost got the new Criterion DVD but lucky for me I saw this thread and found out it was incomplete so I went with BFI. It's been years since I've seen this movie and I haven't had a chance to watch it yet but the samples I've seen as well as the quick step through of the disc I did looks great (then again my other copy of this movie is a dub...)! I guess it's minor but I was pretty annoyed when my copy arrived with a rip in the back of the booklet and then fairly pissed when BFI ignored my emails requesting a new booklet. (It was a new release, factory sealed DVD... I guess it's a small price to pay vs having a copy that's missing footage and that I'm expecting too much over a 2 cent booklet though...) :/

[rhett]

Blu-ray would be $70 ($120 CDN) per disc from Criterion? ;)
I know, hey, but it's actually nice that Criterion is pricing their Blu-rays identical to their DVDs. I'll bite for sure once they ride the Pasolini, Antonioni, Tarkovsky and Bresson Blu-ray train.

[Criswell]

Still a lot cheaper than those idiots on Ebay were paying a few years ago for the DVd, up to 200-300 bucks. lol.