A Few Words About A few words about...™ The French Connection -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Alex cosmo]

Very, very few people are actually out there claiming any kind of ownership over a movie. Everyone else merely wants the most for their money or would like the same choices that exist for one movie to exist for any other. (nobody is trying to take away an artist's rights, I promise)

 

[Ken Groulx]

Upon viewing this disc, I feel compelled to echo Roizman's sentiments; Friedkin's revision of The French Connection looks terrible, even ridiculous.

I really have no issue with manipulating the color in a fashion different from its original release if it honestly would have benefitted in some manner. (See David Fincher's re-timed scenes in the Platinum Edition of 'Seven' as such an example). However, this is ultimately a failed experiment. It looks utterly unrealistic - completely out of step with the "documentary" style of the original version. It's unnatural and just plain...strange.

The supplemental feature that walks the viewer through Friedkin's process for achieving the new look for the film explains what he was striving for, but it simply doesn't work. To my eyes, it's not just the reds that bleed, but all the colors seem to bloom in varying degrees. It reminded me of a poorly colorized black-and-white film.

This is, by far, the most disappointing Blu-Ray release I have encountered.

 

[Edwin-S]

I'd like to see this, but I just can't bring myself to spend 30 bucks and be disappointed with Friedkin's meddling. Why couldn't he leave well enough alone? What is it with the urge to ruin what has stood in good stead for decades? I'd rent it, but the local shops tend to stock only new releases in Blu.

 

[Brad Vautrinot]

Paul,

I agree that fans are not literally "owed" anything by the director. However, in a sense, just a sense, are we not owed something since the director lives off of our largess when we pay to see their movies? Without us paying customers, Mr. Friedkin would be at a window asking "fries with that burger?". Although he does not owe us anything I still feel it would be nice to include a copy of the original for those of us who want to remember it as we saw it in the theater - show a little respect and courtesy to the fans. Is that asking too much?

Having watched it a second time, I find it terribly disappointing and in a few spots unwatchable. I'll be dumping the BD and enjoy the dvd instead.

Brad

 

[PaulDA]

It depends on which philosophy of creator/creation one subscribes to. Some artists (in the broadest sense of the term--writer, filmmaker, painter, composer, etc.) are explicit about their commercial ambitions (and this goes back to at least the Renaissance, not just today) and such artists do care about public reception (and, likely, would give the audience what it wants). Other artists create for themselves and put it out for consumption--on their terms. They are indifferent to what the audience thinks. They hope it will be liked (and thus "successful") but the concerns of the audience are low on their list of priorities. Such artists do it for themselves--any "success" is a bonus (Van Morrison is a great example of that).

I prefer the courtesy shown by many but, ultimately, I think the creator's right to do as he wishes with his creation is of paramount importance and I will defend it, even if it means I will face the occasional disappointment. There have been far too many creators in all artistic fields who've not been able to see their visions realized because of commercial or other interference.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Perhaps he IS concerned about the audience and feels that the film will reach a much larger NEW audience if it is updated with a fresh new look.

Doug

 

[Carter of Mars]

The DVD doesn't have an altered picture but it only has the altered 5.1 track and not the mono that is on the Blu-ray.

 

[PaulDA]

He could very well be. Or he could simply have the attitude that "it's my baby and I'll do what I want with it". Or he could have a completely unknown motivation. Whatever the motive is matters not with regards to creator rights. I was merely pointing out the two dominant strands of thinking regarding "the arts" in the broad sense. There are, of course, nuances in each strand.

 

[TonyD]

I was waiting for the blu to watch the French Connection, but since it sounds
like that has been botched I decided to take out
my 5 star edition and finally watch this mvie
for the very first time.

I can't believe it myself that i never have watched this movie.
Had the 4 star since it was released but never got around to it.
then the blu was announced so i waited some more.

I do say that the dvd looks pretty terrific upconverted
with the ps3 > hdmi > denon 3808 > mits 73' dlp.

I guess I'll rent the blu someday just to see what it looks like.

 

[TonyD]

so is there a web site with comparison pics?

after watching the dvd I thought it looked great.
normal grain and no ee that i could see.

dvd beaver seems to only have pics from the blu and they
hardly look different if at all.
on the dvd the last scene in the dripping wet freezing werehouse
the shot looks nearly b&w on the dvd.

Is this shot more colorful on the blu?

 

[JohnMor]

Not really. It's pretty much b&w on the blu-ray.

I don't find the difference that great. A slightly cooler feel to the colors. More detail, except in the blacks, which are now richer and darker. I think the skin tones are far more realistic and natural on the blu-ray.

My only quibble is the bleeding on the Santa suit. Otherwise, I think the blu-ray really is beautiful.

 

[Kris Z.]

Kind of. Take a look at the row of shots at the bottom here. The second shot is how it should have looked, the fourth one is how it actually looks on the Blu-ray.

 

[Edwin-S]

Friedkin's meddling is beautiful. The brown pattern in the coat is completely gone. The button on the coat which was a brown tortoiseshell color is now grey. The lapel pin which was red in both the untimed OCN and the DVD is now just dark grey. The turtleneck shirt which was noticeably brown now looks almost black. The red and blue car in the background are almost completely colorless now, and the red band on the ship on the ship is almost as black as the waterproofing paint on the concrete dock.

The lapels of Hackman's coat have almost completely disappeared into the rest of his coat, and the gold buttons now look like pewter. Just bloody awful.

 

[Brian Borst]

It's funny how Friedkin thinks the far left shot of the comparison looks too bright. You almost wonder if he has his monitor calibrated correctly

.

 

[krylonman]

I had to de-lurk to reply to this, as you've mentioned it several times. With 'Zodiac' you're right that it was a brand-new director's cut and the theatrical version didn't end up on anything but the first DVD, but there are mitigating circumstances in all of your other examples.

I may be wrong about 'Se7en,' but as I recall the Platinum Edition DVD, as well as the Criterion laserdisc, weren't a new revision but came from silver retention prints that were indeed shown in theaters (just not everywhere, as it's expensive). This was always something Fincher wanted for the look—and made in 1995—and not an idea he suddenly had years later. It's arguably the original version.

'Sleeping Beauty,' besides the usual cleanup, didn't change anything except showing a part of the frame that hadn't been theatrically exhibited. You could argue that this is as much of a difference as showing it with part of the original image lopped off, but you can see why nobody complained about it, especially when this newly displayed part of the image was fully animated from the start and not "finished" for the Blu-ray or anything.

And the new version of 'Friday the 13th' is not new; it is the original version. Fans of that movie had been quite vocally begging for it to be released this way in the U.S. for years, as the only U.S. releases were censored to obtain an R rating. It should be obvious why there was no uproar about not having both versions on the BD.

But really it's a matter of degree. Whatever you think of the new look of 'The French Connection,' there's no denying it's a drastic change and it affects every frame of the movie, and no denying that it's absolutely not the original version. Under those circumstances it makes sense to at least want a choice of seeing either version on Blu-ray.

 

[JediFonger]

classical painters (renaissance) often go back decades later to touch up on what we consider as "classics" today. i wonder if we were all alive back then with the internet, what we'd say about that . in light of history, the 'final version' artists die with are what we're left with.

heck, back then artists even paint OVER existing paintings COMPLETELY to save $. using X-Ray nowadays u can see what the original painting were vs. current image.

and yet... do you hear scholars of classical art debate vigorously over what is and was and what ifs and so on? maybe some clamoring, but whatever we have today is what the artist died with.

if we take film as true art, then even if the 'painter', in this case the director, repaints his entire picture then it is still his (like lucas). we've got no right to experience it. eventually, we'll all be dead (yes that's reality and this will be but a little footnote in the grand scheme of history, if it is ever preserved.

 

[Dion C]

Friedkin, obviously, had all the right in the world to alter the look of this masterpiece as he saw fit.

I, also obviously, have all the right in the world to decry it as I see fit.

I watched it on a calibrated 50" Viera plasma, and I was mortified. Just terrible. As bad, sometimes even worse, than what I was expecting based on the critical comments of others.

I disagree with the notion that a director's post-theatrical-run alterations of his/her film are de facto "correct" iterations. Some changes are, IMO, stone cold wrong. Terrible. Boneheaded. Bizarre. Silly. Crazy.

It's my opinion; therefore, it's right -- to me. (Just as yours is right to you.) I'm the one watching it. I'm the one that spent his personal money on it. I'm the one that cared enough about it to be a member of its audience.

My own eyes tell me what I believe to be a truth: If this film had the same changes made without them coming from the director, every single person on this film-savvy site would be disgusted by the results. It's that clearly bad. The fact that the horrid results are from the director does not magically make what would otherwise be a terrible, boneheaded change suddenly acceptable.

TFC is one of my favorite films. It is a masterpiece and a heralding of what I have always considered a golden age of cinema: the 70s. I include "The Exorcist" in that same category, and I will absolutely not purchase that Blu-ray if Friedkin applies the same desecration to it that he has applied to TFC.

I regret my purchase.

 

[Peter Neski]

"I watched it on a calibrated 50" Viera plasma, and I was mortified. Just terrible. As bad, sometimes even worse, than what I was expecting based on the critical comments of others."

maybe you sould have done a comparision between the two versions,"Terrible"
seems a little too harsh for me.The Original dvd never looked that great
so even if the color is muted in a couple scenes(I am Not Saying I prefer the new version)The original had that grain,the color covered it up in the few
scenes (like the club and outdoor scene that follows).It could only be "Terrible "if the dvd was great,and its far
from great.

 

[Dion C]

Hi, Peter ~

I own the earlier 5-star SD, and I did do a comparison. Does the Blu look better than the SD? In some ways, certainly. But in other -- and to me more important -- ways, no, it doesn't.

The Blu-ray is not an improvement over the SD if the changes made (what, oddly enough, Friedkin considers to be the "improvement") explicitly alter the image in such a way as to change the look completely. And not, IMO, for the better.

It flat-out took me out of the film. I have standards, but I'm not a super stickler like many here are, so for the alterations made to this film by the director remove me from it -- one of my favorite films -- says a lot to me.

If others watch it and think it's just fine, that's just fine. I don't begrudge them, nor would I criticize them for their position. But Friedkin I do criticize. Strongly and without hesitation.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I guess I'll get it started but Warner announced that Friedkin (as well as the cinematographer) are working on the BR of THE EXORCIST. If the rumors out there are true then I hope Warner has seen this thread and will release the original version as well as the "never seen" and possible third one.