639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#201 Post by zedz » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:32 pm

Crikey, I just realized that the squishing in Naqoyqatsi makes it a sitter for my all-purpose capsule review:

"Looks like shit; too many dwarves."

Sincere apologies for not figuring this out sooner.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#202 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:37 pm

So, just to define our terms, here: Koyaanisqatsi is a good movie, right? We can debate about what makes it work, or what's good or bad as far as the rest of the creators' work, but we're broadly agreed that the first one is an entrancing thing in its own context?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#203 Post by domino harvey » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:40 pm

zedz wrote:Crikey, I just realized that the squishing in Naqoyqatsi makes it a sitter for my all-purpose capsule review:

"Looks like shit; too many dwarves."

Sincere apologies for not figuring this out sooner.
As far as all purpose succinct reviews, clearly you've forgotten the commenter here years back who posted such a memorably weird and garbled take that it was for a time our board's official banner:
Jennifer L wrote:u know how old movie go with acting
I can't even tell you how many times a week I think of this line, regardless of situation

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#204 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:41 pm

Oh Jennifer Lawrence, how far you've come

User avatar
Moe Dickstein
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#205 Post by Moe Dickstein » Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:47 pm

I guess that's where taste comes in, I certainly can concede that the mixing of the two forces works best (Sort of my theory of AI bringing out better qualities in Spielberg and Kubrick via their influence on each other's temperaments). But for me the Fricke films work far more than the other Qatsi titles.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#206 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:15 am

Wait, are you arguing that A.I. is a standout amongst Kubrick's work, due to Spielberg's influence? That is, uh, an unusual viewpoint...

User avatar
Moe Dickstein
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#207 Post by Moe Dickstein » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:46 am

It's an asterisk in Kubrick's work - but considering that SS was operating on the principle of being faithful to SK's vision, it's a creative meeting of their two styles. The coolness inherent in Kubrick tempers Spielberg's maudlin tendencies, and his warmth and heart gives a different dimension to an inherently Kubrickian world.

I find it an essential "non canon" aspect of looking at SK critically. Maybe you can make the comparison to Never Say Never to the Official Bond canon. You have a key element of the true series (Connery) but without whatever overall creative guidance and taste Cubby brought to it.

If anything to me it's a standout in Spielberg's work for the influence Kubrick brought to it. I think you can see the residual effects of that in Minority Report.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#208 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:21 am

Oh, ok- yeah, I'd broadly agree with that, it's an interesting example of a fundamentally Kubrickian work inflected by another director, in the same way that Poltergeist is interestingly Hooper-inflected Spielberg. The way you originally put it made it sound as though it was standout for both Kubrick and Señor Spielbergo, which would be claim that needed some serious defense, to say the least.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#209 Post by knives » Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:12 am

I actually find The Beard's affect on Poltergeist overstated. Beyond the general fact that a lot of his crew from the time worked on the film it seems very clearly in the mode of other Hooper films. Now I think the two are very similar directors at least in how they use the medium if not the stories they tell, but I find Spielberg's effect on the film generally overstated especially compared with something like Who Framed Roger Rabbit which by all accounts he had to babysit Zemeckis through and which is clearly a few steps removed from the rest of Zemeckis' output.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#210 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:58 pm

manicsounds wrote:
Roger Ryan wrote:I believe the "new" footage shot for NAQOYQATSI is presented in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio undistorted, but I'm not sure this includes much more than the opening footage of the Michigan Central Station.
That was Michigan Central Station?! I thought it was a building relic from a war....
Detroit is famous now for resembling a bombed-out war zone, but Reggio was definitely ahead of the curve by shooting this footage when he did. There is an extremely popular barbeque restaurant within walking distance of the Michigan Central Station, so there are always folks around taking pictures of the dilapidated building while they wait for a table.

User avatar
Moe Dickstein
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#211 Post by Moe Dickstein » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:32 pm

I suppose it's up to my lack of knowledge of other Hooper works, but Poltergeist has always felt like a totally Spielberg film to me. I'd never considered Roger Rabbit in that context though. Zemeckis and Spielberg always had a very close relationship (He essentially got his first 2 pictures made and wasn't even able to get BTTF off the ground for him until after Zemeckis realized he had to do something without SS's stamp and made a success of Romancing the Stone). But I'd figure that Zemeckis was a "big" enough director at that point where maybe we worked with SS for advice but certainly didn't need him to step in as Hooper did (I've read somewhere Hooper was impaired by drug use on Poltergeist).

I don't doubt what you report Mr. Ryan, but I'd be interested to read more about the Roger Rabbit situation if you have any links?

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#212 Post by MichaelB » Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:11 pm

I don't have any problem believing that the director of Salem's Lot and The Funhouse made Poltergeist.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#213 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:33 pm

Moe Dickstein wrote: ...I don't doubt what you report Mr. Ryan, but I'd be interested to read more about the Roger Rabbit situation if you have any links?
Well, I wasn't the one who suggested Spielberg held Zemeckis' hand on ROGER RABBIT (that would be "knives"), but my opinion is that RABBIT is all Zemeckis with its emphasis on motion-control camera effects, etc. POLTERGEIST closely resembles a Spielberg film because he wrote the script and had a hard time allowing another director to interfere with how he envisioned the finished product. Crew members have been saying for years that Spielberg was a constant presence on the set and called a lot of the shots.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#214 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:37 pm

I would assume that if anyone was a co-auteur on Who Framed Roger Rabbit? it would be Richard Williams, as the fluidity and characterization of the animation is fully as important as the live action stuff.

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#215 Post by willoneill » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:11 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:I would assume that if anyone was a co-auteur on Who Framed Roger Rabbit? it would be Richard Williams, as the fluidity and characterization of the animation is fully as important as the live action stuff.
A few years back I went to a screening of WFRR that Richard Williams introduced, and that's basically how he himself painted the situation.

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#216 Post by manicsounds » Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:31 pm

The most haunting scene is obviously the final scene of the explosion in Koyaanisqatsi. Whoever the camera operator was (probably someone from NASA), amazingly kept that shot in focus and in frame seems almost like a miracle. Miracle for the film of course, not for the destruction of an expensive piece of mechanism.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#217 Post by tenia » Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:21 am

After having watch this numerous times, I'm quite certain that most of the emotional intensity coming from this scene is also coming from the Glass music, which perfectly fills this instant with melancholy about the fate of mankind, now at this stage of destruction, going down like Icarus after trying to fly too close from the Sun.
I've been able to see the movie "live" with the Philip Glass Ensemble and there is a definite beauty in the score which has always profoundly moved me.

nils
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:43 am
Location: somewhere deep in Russia

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#218 Post by nils » Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:07 am

Reggio, how? How you can "approve" this??? Where your eyes?
Image

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#219 Post by Oedipax » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:57 am

I've held on to my IRE copy despite also getting the MGM DVD and the Criterion box. Definitely a film that works much better in academy for me.

User avatar
HitchcockLang
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#220 Post by HitchcockLang » Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:09 am

If any movie deserved the On the Waterfront treatment of "Choose Your Own Adventure" aspect ratios, it was Koyaanisqatsi.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#221 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:35 am

1.85:1 was the director and cinematographer intended ratio for the film. We have this from those people directly.

On the Waterfront was most likely 1.85:1, but we have that mainly from documentation rather than the creators, and since the film was produced on the cusp of the switch to widescreen some valid arguments can be made for other ratios. That is not the case at all for Koyaanisqatsi.

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#222 Post by Oedipax » Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:56 am

But why did Reggio have it transferred in academy when he oversaw the transfer for the IRE edition?

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#223 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:52 am

Because, as with many many other flat widescreen films being released on home video, it was a different time. In this particular case, 15 years ago. Not many widescreen TVs around back then.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#224 Post by zedz » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:42 pm

EddieLarkin wrote:1.85:1 was the director and cinematographer intended ratio for the film. We have this from those people directly.
And, it probably needs to be added, the original projection ratio. The fact that this film (and countless others) was at one point presented in open matte for television screenings and pre-widescreen home video releases has no bearing on what its actual aspect ratio is.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#225 Post by MichaelB » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:55 pm

Oedipax wrote:But why did Reggio have it transferred in academy when he oversaw the transfer for the IRE edition?
As EddieLarkin says, this was created at a time when the vast majority of Americans still had fullscreen televisions - and so it clearly made more sense to cater primarily for them, especially given that he wanted the image to be as big as possible for maximum impact. In other words, the reason for sanctioning an Academy transfer in the first place was still valid.

But in 2014, that rationale no longer makes sense, as 4:3 televisions form an infinitesimally tiny minority of the total. Which is why the Reggio-approved Criterion disc is in the original 1.85:1, and the Arrow edition will be following suit.

As it happens, I'm sure that Arrow would gladly have considered a dual-ratio edition (they have form, after all), but the only HD master available to them was framed at 1.85:1, and they didn't have the budget to create one from scratch - which in any case would be quite hard to justify given all the unambiguous evidence that 1.85:1 is the correct ratio.

Post Reply