639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#176 Post by MichaelB » Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:54 am

I've just played the Criterion Koyaanisqatsi alongside the MGM NTSC DVD, switching between soundtracks and sometimes playing them together. They're exactly the same pitch: no question.

Because the Amazon sound samples are from the middle of pieces rather than the start, it's harder to do a straight A/B comparison, but I'm reasonably sure that the pitch is the same on those too.

I'd expect the Criterion to be correct, since Godfrey Reggio approved the masters. Obviously, Philip Glass would be the ultimate authority here, but I can't believe Reggio wouldn't have noticed if the score was the wrong pitch - he must have heard it untold numbers of times!

User avatar
bugsy_pal
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 1:28 am

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#177 Post by bugsy_pal » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:45 am

Yes - I forgot to mention that I also compared the Koyaanisqatsi blurays with the NTSC full-frame DVD from some years ago, and it matches the pitch/speed of the Criterion bluray exactly. So the Australian bluray (and presumably the German or other Euro versions) are running at a lower pitch or speed than the US version. Very weird...

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#178 Post by MichaelB » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:14 am

bugsy_pal wrote:Yes - I forgot to mention that I also compared the Koyaanisqatsi blurays with the NTSC full-frame DVD from some years ago
Which presumably is a different DVD from my MGM one, as that's framed at 1.85:1.

So that's two NTSC DVDs that the Criterion Blu-ray matches - which is as it should be, as they should all have a core speed of 24fps.

So the evidence suggests that it's the Australian Blu-ray that's been slowed down, although I have no idea why. What's the running time? (The MGM DVD is 1:26:05, with the Criterion a few seconds longer, almost certainly because of the additional Criterion ident as well as the MGM one).

User avatar
bugsy_pal
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 1:28 am

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#179 Post by bugsy_pal » Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:41 am

MichaelB wrote:So that's two NTSC DVDs that the Criterion Blu-ray matches - which is as it should be, as they should all have a core speed of 24fps.

So the evidence suggests that it's the Australian Blu-ray that's been slowed down, although I have no idea why. What's the running time? (The MGM DVD is 1:26:05, with the Criterion a few seconds longer, almost certainly because of the additional Criterion ident as well as the MGM one).
I just checked, and the Australian bluray is 1:26:05 exactly, according to the readout on my player. So does this mean that there was some pitch adjustment done, if the playing time is correct?

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#180 Post by EddieLarkin » Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:47 am

What's most likely happened is that someone in Oz has "helpfully" pitch "corrected" what they think is a PAL source, because they're unaware that BDs are 24fps, unlike PAL DVD. Or, this was done for the DVD equivalent of the release, but mistakenly repeated for the BD.

User avatar
bugsy_pal
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 1:28 am

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#181 Post by bugsy_pal » Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:49 am

Crazy man - not a smart thing to do for a movie that relies so heavily on the soundtrack. I had previously posted that I found the Glass music hard to take when I first saw the movie many years ago. But I must admit that it is inseparable from the movie and I quite enjoy it now.

User avatar
Lowry_Sam
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#182 Post by Lowry_Sam » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:30 pm

If anyone in the SF bay area is interested, Powaqqatsi is being presented on Oct. 2 at the Henry Miller Library in Big Sur with Reggio & Glass in attendance for a "meet and greet".

A poster for the program also mentions Diego Luna (Y Tu Mama Tambien) attending, but I don't see him listed on the events page.

User avatar
Ibnezra
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:54 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#183 Post by Ibnezra » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:25 pm

I really wish they sold these individually. Koyanisqatsi is one of the most riveting films I've ever seen, but the other two films did absolutely nothing for me. I wish he would have let the film stand alone. I feel like he just capitalized on the credibility of the first film in order to get financing to continue making movies. I can see where the temptation would be hard to resist, but the only thing that could tarnish a film of such power is to make it part of something larger and in no way grander.

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

#184 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:08 pm

While I find KOYAANISQATSI the best as well, the contextualization Criterion provides through the box set's bonus features goes a long way to show how each film addresses a specific aspect of an overarching theme. One could argue that theme is not particularly well-defined through all three films, but I admire Reggio's conviction even if it's not altogether persuasive. What does strike me as evident is that the first film is really only concerned with showing technology's effect on U.S. culture in the late 70s. By exploring the effect of industrialization on countries outside the U.S., POWAQQATSI seems like a logical, and needed, corollary to the first film. I'm less convinced that NAQOYQATSI successfully shows Western life as "virtual reality", but, at least, it avoids repeating the approach taken with the first two films.

For me, the trilogy is worth owning for Glass' scores alone. When heard in close succession, one can hear how each has its own distinct character, that there is a progression of ideas that is quite appealing. If Reggio's juxtaposition of images grows tiresome by the third film, so be it; Glass picks up the slack.

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#185 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:56 pm

I'd gladly take a slightly repetitious third film over the inane silliness that is Naqoyqatsi.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#186 Post by manicsounds » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:19 am

What's with the aspect ratio of Naqoyqatsi? It says the ratio should be 1.78:1, and it is, but it looks like this should be 1.33:1 and then got stretched out to 1.78:1. Faces are stretched out. What's going on here?

User avatar
med
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:58 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#187 Post by med » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:49 am

That's because the bulk of the film consists of archival footage that was shot in 1.33:1. It was forced into the wider format for theatrical projection. It would have made sense to present a version of the film in that aspect ratio, but for whatever reason Reggio was satisfied with how it currently looks.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#188 Post by manicsounds » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:58 am

They cropped the 1.33:1 ratios of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi to 1.85:1 for theatrical and for DVD/BD.

Why couldn't they just do that for the 1.33:1 footage of Naqoyqatsi? It was distracting.
Reminds me of "Bodysong", how it was also stretched from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1. I ended up having to watch it by squeezing the image on my TV. Looked much better than way.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#189 Post by MichaelB » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:41 am

manicsounds wrote:They cropped the 1.33:1 ratios of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi to 1.85:1 for theatrical and for DVD/BD.
I thought Reggio had definitively confirmed that 1.85:1 was the desired ratio and the 1.33:1 versions were opened up in order to fill then-universal 4:3-shaped television screens?

As for Naqoyqatsi, I've no idea, but I agree with you that it's horribly distracting.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#190 Post by EddieLarkin » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:56 am

Thankfully, you only ever watch Naqoyqatsi the one time.

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

#191 Post by Roger Ryan » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:20 pm

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. As "med" noted above, the majority of the film consists of existing 1.33:1 footage that was heavily treated and manipulated.

I agree the stretched image is distracting...but, in a way, it feels like a comment on how standard definition programming ended up being viewed on widescreen TVs over the past decade!

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#192 Post by zedz » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:24 pm

manicsounds wrote:What's with the aspect ratio of Naqoyqatsi? It says the ratio should be 1.78:1, and it is, but it looks like this should be 1.33:1 and then got stretched out to 1.78:1. Faces are stretched out. What's going on here?
Because the filmmaker is a visually illiterate idiot. The film does indeed look terrible, but it's supposed to look that way, apparently.

User avatar
sir_luke
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:55 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#193 Post by sir_luke » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:19 pm

I still hold to the opinion that Naqoyqatsi is ugly and basically unlikeable for a very definite purpose. The three films--somewhat similar in theme to Tati's "Hulot" films, oddly enough--portray varying degrees of technology overload.

I think we can all agree that Koyaanisqatsi, at least visually, is pretty incredible. Why? Because the natural world is still visible, even if it's not at the forefront. There are still reminders around each corner of every skyscraper and steel structure that we still have some spiritual and physical connection to the natural world. It's prefaced by a gorgeous and serene reminder that we are still part of the earth.

Powaqqatsi is, for all intents and purposes, a tragedy, because we are presented with a very difficult dilemma: technological developments would inevitably improve the quality of life of these third-world citizens, but there is a risk that such a change could threaten the rich cultures of that region.

Then there's Naqoyqatsi. Huff. What a disappointment after those first two, right? It's ugly, borderline unwatchable. Why? It's all digital. There's almost no "natural" to be found. What little there is is warped and fragmented, illusory. It's stretched and, frankly, stupid-looking. And (at least in my opinion) that's precisely the point. If our world becomes enveloped in technology, our view of each other, ourselves, and the natural world becomes warped and unreal. This was a very intelligent, albeit very risky, experiment on Reggio's part. That is, if it was intentional.

*gasps for breath*

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#194 Post by manicsounds » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:43 pm

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....

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#195 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:07 am

sir_luke wrote:I still hold to the opinion that Naqoyqatsi is ugly and basically unlikeable for a very definite purpose. The three films--somewhat similar in theme to Tati's "Hulot" films, oddly enough--portray varying degrees of technology overload.

I think we can all agree that Koyaanisqatsi, at least visually, is pretty incredible. Why? Because the natural world is still visible, even if it's not at the forefront. There are still reminders around each corner of every skyscraper and steel structure that we still have some spiritual and physical connection to the natural world. It's prefaced by a gorgeous and serene reminder that we are still part of the earth.

Powaqqatsi is, for all intents and purposes, a tragedy, because we are presented with a very difficult dilemma: technological developments would inevitably improve the quality of life of these third-world citizens, but there is a risk that such a change could threaten the rich cultures of that region.

Then there's Naqoyqatsi. Huff. What a disappointment after those first two, right? It's ugly, borderline unwatchable. Why? It's all digital. There's almost no "natural" to be found. What little there is is warped and fragmented, illusory. It's stretched and, frankly, stupid-looking. And (at least in my opinion) that's precisely the point. If our world becomes enveloped in technology, our view of each other, ourselves, and the natural world becomes warped and unreal. This was a very intelligent, albeit very risky, experiment on Reggio's part. That is, if it was intentional.

*gasps for breath*
The thing is, like... Reggio's point was always kind of facile and unimpressive, but that's irrelevant in something like Koyaanisqatsi, where the HEY HEY TECHNOLOGY? IT'S BAD YOU GUYS recedes into the background of the melding of image and sound that comprises most of the movie. I'm not really interesting in watching a movie that's deliberately ugly and bad so that it can make a point that's no less facile than it was when made in the good movie.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#196 Post by zedz » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:37 pm

Yeah, if you have to make a terrible movie to make your rhetorical point, the point really isn't worth making. (And I'm pretty sure that a more talented filmmaker could have made the same point with a film that isn't unwatchably bad).

Also, I think you're giving too much credit to the coherence of Reggio's position in Koyaanisqatsi, since a lot of the urban / technology-based footage is just as visually impressive as the nature stuff. This really muddles his (numbingly facile) point, but I think that's a strength of the film rather than a weakness: complexity creeps in despite Reggio's best efforts to stamp it out.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#197 Post by knives » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:44 pm

Honestly I think the second one is the only one to really function well with its purpose since it is completely nonjudgmental (though still very pre-K).

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#198 Post by Moe Dickstein » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:15 pm

The only reason the first film works is Ron Fricke. Reggio doesn't know what he's doing, and compare both their follow up projects. Baraka and Samsara are captivating while these two... hmm not so much.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#199 Post by knives » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:17 pm

I have to politely disagree. If anything I find Reggio's tempering of Fricke to be why these films succeed on any level as the three Fricke films I've seen only escalate the worst problems present in the trilogy.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#200 Post by zedz » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:28 pm

Yes indeed. I found Baraka to be so inane that I will spend the rest of my life avoiding Samsara. The first two Qatsi films weren't bad enough to scare me away from Naqoyqatsi, regrettably, so I think Reggio wins on points.

Post Reply