From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: Kubrick and Directors -was Re: New Release Info ...
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:58:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Apr08.200222.6456@uhura.neoucom.edu>, wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu (William R. Cruce) writes...

} (2) Different movies are put together in different ways so that different
} people are responsible for the "look" of the final product, but I side
} with the school of critics who believe directors are given entirely too
} much credit.

I'm not a hardcore auteurist myself, but I do believe that while film is a
collaborative medium, the director is the central vision in most films, and
certain directors (Kubrick included) more than others.

} Without getting us into a long winded discussion here, I think you will
} concede that in many cases the cinematographer has a great deal to do
} with the final look of the film. In some cases it is the editor that
} has made a film stand out from the rest.

And in other cases, the writer. Certainly. Herman Mankiewicz and Gregg
Toland had much to do with the success of CITIZEN KANE, and ANNIE HALL's
editor (the name slips my mind at the moment) was the saviour of that
film. And I think of CHINATOWN as being Robert Towne's more than Roman
Polanski's.

But in many, many cases, the director still has ultimate control over the
work. The director is the one who lays out the storyboards, decides how
he wants to present each shot. The cinematographer may decide *how* a
particular shot will be done, decide which film stock will best achieve
the desired results, how to light the subject, and much more, but the
director, while leaving that up to the cinematographer, still decides
*what* to shoot. He still blocks the set, tells the people where to stand
or go, and in general composes the shot. A good director with a good
cinematographer will listen to the latter's advice, but the bottom line
decision is still the director's.

} (3) Actually the director can do anything he damn well pleases as can 
} anyone else, but what I want to see first and foremost is a pristine
} transfer of image and sound AS IT FIRST APPEARED IN THEATRICAL DISTRIBUTION.
} This is my scholarly and historical side speaking.  Once a film has 
} appeared this way, then it is interesting (sometimes amusing) to see
} other forms of the film (how it appeared on TV, how the director Would
} Have Done It, alternate endings which were shot but not shown, and
} matted, pan & scan, etc.).  [...]  BUT, pleeeaaase let's have a good
} clean ORIGINAL release first before getting into all the complexities.

I think the idea that the original theatrical presentation is sacrosanct
as dangerous an idea as any. Because many changes are made by the studio
with no regard for the artistic value of the work, only for the commercial
value.

} (4)  So my reason for wanting letterboxing is not simply wanting to see
} what the director (or cinematographer or editor or ...) intended.  I
} want to see the film as ORIGINALLY RELEASED. That includes the format
} shown in the theaters and I suppose what I mean is the format shown in
} premium first-run theaters not as it appeared cut down on some of the
} not-so-wide local screens. To me, that is the baseline from which we
} start. Then we can see what an older director (who may or may not be
} wiser) would do with it now.

OK, so let's say Universal got its way with BRAZIL. Happy ending, and all
that nonsense, and that was the way the film was originally released in
the US. Would you then feel that *that* is what should be released to
video first, and then maybe later see what it was that Gilliam really
wanted to do with the film?

Do you feel that the released version of LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS is the
"real" version, and that the original intended Audrey-takes-over-the-world
ending is merely a curiosity?

If, say, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS had, for some bizarre reason, never
been released to video before now, and Robert Carringer had managed to
scrounge up a copy of Welles' original cut, would you *really* prefer that
the original released version be issued on video first, and Welles' cut
later?  Me, I'd want the latter, and never look back (though if they
later issued the original theatrical release, I might pick it up for
curiosity value).

To me, at least where major studio films are concerned, the original
theatrical version is the curiosity (let's see what happens when the studio
takes art and turns it into product), and what the director intended is
the "real" version.

There are, of course, exceptions. For one, I much prefer the original release
of CE3K to the Special Edition, but that's for artistic reasons, not due to
the sanctity of the original release.

} (5)  I think it is worth giving serious thought to these issues because

} (b)  The competition and availability of different formats outside the
}      theater (TV, vcr, laserdisc, HDTV) offer numerous commercial
}      opportunities for reissue of films - and the accompanying pressure
}      to make those reissues "different."

I agree that there is great commercial value in issuing "different" versions
in these formats, and thus pressure on the releasing companies to do such
things. But in as many cases as not, the difference is the restoration of
scenes that the studios cut out in the first place for commercial reasons.
The restored footage of ALIENS wasn't cut in the first place for artistic
reasons, but because the film was "too long". The restored footage in
BLADE RUNNER and ANGEL HEART and CRIMES OF PASSION wasn't original cut for
artistic reasons, but to avoid an "X" rating. I think these are valid
reasons for releasing a "different" version to video that go above and
beyond the marketing advantages.

} (6)  In closing, ponder this.  If CITIZEN KANE had never before been
}      released in a pristine transfer to laserdisc and if for the occasion
}      of the first release, Orson Welles announced that the latest in
}      coloration technology made it possible for him to do something he
}      had secretly desired -to make it in color- and that was the only
}      way it was going to be released, How Would You Respond?

} I would want the original first and the colored one later, thank you.

That depends. If Welles and Toland wanted to shoot it in color, but RKO
told them no, it has to be black-&-white, then they would make artistic
decisions (lighting, costume color decisions, etc.) that would make the
results look best in black-and-white, not color. If, in your sccenario,
Welles felt that colorization technology would make it possible to add
color to the film and achieve THE EXACT LOOK THAT HE WOULD'VE WANTED if
they'd shot it in color in the first place, then I'd support his decision.
Or if they they made all of their artistic decisions based on the film
being shot in color, and then just shot it in black and white, then again,
I would support the decision.

I think a far more appropriate analogy to what we're discussing, however,
would be this:

Suppose Welles and Toland shot CITIZEN KANE in three-strip Technicolor.
Then, after they produced the final edit, RKO said, "Ah, gee, we're getting
a *lot* of pressure from Hearst to scuttle this film. And we think that
we're going to lose our shirts on KANE. So we've decided that we're going
to try to cut our losses some by just using one of the negatives and
printing and releasing it in black-&-white. We could save a lot of money
that way." So they release the film in black-&-white.

So now it's the 50th anniversary of the film, and the first laserdisc
release has been announced from Criterion. So Welles calls them up and
says, "Yo, Voyager! Guess what I ran across up in the attic? The original
never-before-seen Technicolor print of KANE. Interested?"

Now, would you rather they released the black-&-white version first,
or the color?

-- 

	"Buster, this trip downriver has been truly special.
	 Downright Twainian in a Hitchcockian sort of way."


--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases