Ken Russell on DVD

[criterion10]

Looks like Altered States will be getting a Blu-Ray from Warner this July...

[Dick Laurent]

The Fall of Louse of Usher UK release

[Calvin]

Japanese Blu-Ray of Mahler on June 8th

[McCrutchy]

Let's talk about Whore, another of Russell's oft-neglected works on DVD...the big news is that there is a forthcoming Swedish DVD, though I have no idea if it will be any better. Here's hoping it's from a different, better source and truly anamorphic.

The distributor's page has been updated to now show a Q4 2012 release date, and unfortunatly, they also list a 4:3 transfer with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio.

[criterion10]

The distributor's page has been updated to now show a Q4 2012 release date, and unfortunatly, they also list a 4:3 transfer with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio.

Was the film originally shot in 1.33:1? And if it wasn't why on Earth would this company release it pan-and-scanned? DVD companies give me major headaches sometimes.... Oh, well. I'll probably still pick this up considering it will currently be the only DVD release of Whore.

[MichaelB]

Was the film originally shot in 1.33:1? And if it wasn't why on Earth would this company release it pan-and-scanned? DVD companies give me major headaches sometimes.... Oh, well. I'll probably still pick this up considering it will currently be the only DVD release of Whore.

Given how important the VHS and cable market would have been for a film like this in 1991, I think there's a strong probability that it was shot in open-matte 1.33:1 while allowing for cropping to 1.85:1 for theatrical screenings.

[criterion10]

Given how important the VHS and cable market would have been for a film like this in 1991, I think there's a strong probability that it was shot in open-matte 1.33:1 while allowing for cropping to 1.85:1 for theatrical screenings.

Well, open-matte is certainly much better than pan-and-scan. Although wouldn't it be assumed that 1.85 was the director's preferred aspect ratio? Regardless, it's good to see another Ken Russell film getting the home video treatment. However, I do find the shift from Q2 to Q4 very odd. Could this just be a normal change in dates or might end up being a DVD stuck in limbo?

BTW, Warner Archive recently commented on their Facebook page, claiming that they finished work on a new restoration of Lisztomania. They didn't provide an ETA for when they will be actually releasing it, but it's good to know that it is forthcoming. If I can find the actual quote they claimed, I'll post it here.

[McCrutchy]

Given how important the VHS and cable market would have been for a film like this in 1991, I think there's a strong probability that it was shot in open-matte 1.33:1 while allowing for cropping to 1.85:1 for theatrical screenings.

I really don't think this would be the case. As far as I know, Russell would certainly have intended the film to be shown theatrically (at least in Europe, if nowhere else) and it certainly was, in most major US-Euro markets between 1991-1992. Therefore, even if he assumed some markets would go video-only, he would obviously have shot the film for a theatrical ratio. And by this time he would have been working on TV projects for some time, so I'm unsure why else he would have wanted to do a theatrical film, when he probably could have had a much easier time developing the film for TV in the first place.

The other thing I know for sure is, every screencap I've ever seen of Whore on DVD has come from a video source (and now I highly doubt the Swedish DVD would be any different), so I feel, honestly, that the licensors are simply doling out PAL master sourced from a European VHS tape, which would explain the run time that matches the NC-17 version and not the US R-rated or US Unrated VHS versions.

It's a sad state of affairs, really, as the film is quite interesting. Unfortunately, the combination of its content, its director, its relatively unknown cast, and the fact that the film is not that good, have probably kept the interest in proper remastering very low.

[MichaelB]

Given how important the VHS and cable market would have been for a film like this in 1991, I think there's a strong probability that it was shot in open-matte 1.33:1 while allowing for cropping to 1.85:1 for theatrical screenings.

I really don't think this would be the case. As far as I know, Russell would certainly have intended the film to be shown theatrically (at least in Europe, if nowhere else) and it certainly was, in most major US-Euro markets between 1991-1992. Therefore, even if he assumed some markets would go video-only, he would obviously have shot the film for a theatrical ratio. And by this time he would have been working on TV projects for some time, so I'm unsure why else he would have wanted to do a theatrical film, when he probably could have had a much easier time developing the film for TV in the first place.

You write as though you're contradicting me, but you're actually completely backing up my argument! Granted, this is educated guesswork, but I'd be very surprised if a low-budget non-Scope film from 1991 hadn't been shot open-matte with the intention of cropping to 1.85:1. Especially for a title that had obvious video and cable potential, as this clearly did.

Russell had in fact been working regularly on TV productions for a full 32 years when he made Whore - he often said that he preferred the small screen because the lower budgets and smaller crews gave him far more freedom of movement and improvisation, and has said many times that he thinks that Song of Summer (1968) is his single proudest achievement. In fact, in the early 1970s, when he was at the height of his fame, he even said "If I could feel that films I did for television were shown all over the world at frequent intervals, I'd probably never make a so-called feature film again."

[McCrutchy]

You write as though you're contradicting me, but you're actually completely backing up my argument! Granted, this is educated guesswork, but I'd be very surprised if a low-budget non-Scope film from 1991 hadn't been shot open-matte with the intention of cropping to 1.85:1. Especially for a title that had obvious video and cable potential, as this clearly did.

This is not what I am saying. It's fine to contend that Russell may have shot it open-matte for video and cable, but I am saying he obviously intended Whore to go to theatres, or he would not have bothered making it a theatrical film in the first place. And since he did so, there is considerable weight to the argument that, if a widescreen medium like DVD (especially anamorphic widescreen DVD and 16:9 TV sets) is available, then the film should be presented as such.

[MichaelB]

This is not what I am saying. It's fine to contend that Russell may have shot it open-matte for video and cable, but I am saying he obviously intended Whore to go to theatres, or he would not have bothered making it a theatrical film in the first place. And since he did so, there is considerable weight to the argument that, if a widescreen medium like DVD (especially anamorphic widescreen DVD and 16:9 TV sets) is available, then the film should be presented as such.

I'm not remotely disagreeing with that - I'm just pointing out that a 4:3 presentation almost certainly won't be pan-and-scan. If you look at my original post, I was specifically responding to criterion10's use of the phrase.

[McCrutchy]

If you look at my original post, I was specifically responding to criterion10's use of the phrase.

Ah, missed that.

In any event, I've ordered some more editions of this that claim different ratios on the box. I'll be getting the old Italian DVD from 2006 that claims to be "16:9" (no ratio specified, but it should be identical to the one the IMDb poster I quoted before mentioned, which would mean non-anamorphic widescreen), and also the newer 2011 Italian DVD, which has English audio and claims it's 4:3, and appears to have some extras. At least one of these editions may have used a source with a burned-in Italian title ("(puttana)" in parentheses) underneath the English title.

I listed all the DVDs I know of (that have already been released) here at Blu-ray.com, since we now have a DVD section.

Finally, I'm most shocked to have found a copy of the seemingly elusive 2004 French DVD, which I didn't know ever existed (and which now appears to be long OOP), that claims to be non-anamorphic 1.66:1.

Neither the French nor original Italian DVDs appear to have English audio, but it will still be interesting to compare and to see if any version has cropping at all, or if the film is indeed open-matte in the 4:3 transfers.

[criterion10]

Altered States DVDBeaver

[Dick Laurent]

The South Bank Show: Volume 1 (Ken Russell) seems to be pushed back to december 2013 at amazon , that's not a good sign at all. Anyone who has more info about this?

[criterion10]

Altered States Blu-Ray.com

[McCrutchy]

In any event, I've ordered some more editions of this that claim different ratios on the box. I'll be getting the old Italian DVD from 2006 that claims to be "16:9" (no ratio specified, but it should be identical to the one the IMDb poster I quoted before mentioned, which would mean non-anamorphic widescreen), and also the newer 2011 Italian DVD, which has English audio and claims it's 4:3, and appears to have some extras. At least one of these editions may have used a source with a burned-in Italian title ("(puttana)" in parentheses) underneath the English title.

I listed all the DVDs I know of (that have already been released) here at Blu-ray.com, since we now have a DVD section.

Finally, I'm most shocked to have found a copy of the seemingly elusive 2004 French DVD, which I didn't know ever existed (and which now appears to be long OOP), that claims to be non-anamorphic 1.66:1.

Neither the French nor original Italian DVDs appear to have English audio, but it will still be interesting to compare and to see if any version has cropping at all, or if the film is indeed open-matte in the 4:3 transfers.

I'm still doing my comparison (as I've now received all three DVDs), but the short answer is that you would definitely want to go for the 2011 Italian DVD from Pulp Video, as it does indeed have a few brief extras.

All of these extras, which amount to interviews with Russell and the cast/crew, and some promo clips from the movie, as well as the NC-17 trailer, amount to roughly ten minutes, and all of them appear to have been produced by Trimark for use in promoting the film in 1991/1992. The Lionsgate logo is also on the back cover, so the content may be very similar to the 2009 Czech DVD, which also has that logo (along with the afortmentioned Russian DVD).

The Pulp Video DVD is a 1.33:1 presentation, while the older, dubbed Italian and French DVDs are non-anamorphic widescreen, with aspect ratios TBC.

This is going to take a while, because I can't take any more of this song right now. The version of "Let Me Be Your Fantasy" from the film is also on many of the DVD menus, and is consequently also getting on my nerves.

[criterion10]

Lisztomania joins the Warner Archive Collection

[criterion10]

Valentino coming to Blu-Ray in France.

[criterion10]

By some fat chance, Whore is available in HD on Showtime On Demand. Seems to be the 85-minute U.S. NC-17 Cut, as opposed to the longer and less frequent Unrated Cut (from what I understand, the differences are pretty negligible).

[beamish13]

By some fat chance, Whore is available in HD on Showtime On Demand. Seems to be the 85-minute U.S. NC-17 Cut, as opposed to the longer and less frequent Unrated Cut (from what I understand, the differences are pretty negligible).

Thank you for the heads-up! This is one of my favorite Russell films, and I've never seen a solid presentation of it

[Calvin]

As of today, Dance of the Seven Veils is legally distributable without the permission of the Strauss estate owing to his music entering the public domain.

[knives]

I guess we can expect that BFI disc some time next year then.

[MichaelB]

I don’t know of any concrete plans, but I do know that the relevant people at the BFI are well aware of the copyright expiry and the fact that they’re sitting on a far better copy (formerly Russell’s own) than the dreadful faded bootleg on YouTube.

My dream release would also throw in Béla Bartók (1964), which is one of my favourite of all Russell’s 1960s BBC films, but I appreciate that the extensive use of third-party footage might present a financially insuperable challenge. (Bartók himself has been out of copyright for exactly four years now, but that’s not the only issue.)

[Calvin]

Lisi Russell has announced that she's doing a Q&A with Dance of the Seven Veils' "premiere" at the Keswick Film Festival next month, though there's nothing to indicate that this is the premiere of a new restoration and not just a public screening of the BFI's existing print.

The BFI's Ben Stoddart responded to my question on the BFI's public Facebook group by suggestively saying that he "couldn't possibly confirm or deny [winking emoji]" any plans for the film.

[Calvin]

Posted in error