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

[Brian Borst]

The fact that Roizman is working on it as well as Friedkin makes me hopeful that it will look better than The French Connection. The cinematographer hated the new color timing.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Same here. I am only interested in the original version of The Exorcist, and will not purchase any other version on BD.

Also, I watched my DVD copy of The French Connection last night. The transfer holds up very well, IMO. I am quite satisfied with watching this version, and will not be buying the altered BD transfer.

 

[Brian Borst]

I bought it last week, and watched the film yesterday. I must say the transfer didn't work entirely for me. The red colors (and sometimes the blue colors as well) blooming is really distracting in some shots, and in others it isn't really visible.
The crushed blacks didn't look good either. I don't know if this was inherent in the film, but in some shots of Popeye in his jacket outside, all you could see was his head and his white shirt.
Also, some excessive grain in some shots was a bit distracting. Now, I love grain in a film (makes it come alive to me), so that isn't the point. But it was strange seeing the normal amount of grain in the film, and suddenly it looked like a second generation dupe or something.
But after a while I didn't look for flaws anymore, I was watching the movie. I have never seen it (tried to watch it on television one night, but I was too tired) and I loved it. Great film. I still have to watch the supplements, so I can't really comment on that.

 

[Vincent_P]

*ACCIDENTAL DOUBLE POST*

 

[Vincent_P]

The only thing that bothered me about Friedkin's experiment were the blooming reds. In terms of color timing and saturation, I liked how it looked. Hopefully they can figure out how to use this process without the bleeding reds (maybe don't be so aggressive with unfocusing the color image?). The "black crush" and high contrast didn't bother me, nor did the grain. There are some old dupes in the film, so maybe that's what you were seeing.

Overall, I liked the look of this, again aside from the bleeding reds which looked odd.

Vincent

 

[Brian Borst]

The best way to do it is just use the original color timing. Finished all the supplements, and while the color grading featurette was interesting, I thought the 'normal color grading' parts Friedkin showed us looked way better than the other bits. If he'd had wanted subtle colors he could have asked the cinematographer that, couldn't he?
I did found in interesting that many of the old noir clips showed in the 'Rogue Cop: The Noir Connection' featurette were in HD. They looked gorgeous (who says black and white doesn't look good in HD?) but it did remind me we need a lot more old films on Blu-Ray, this is ridiculous.

 

[Vincent_P]

I thought the difference was rather subtle between the "normal color timing" and the final result when Friedkin had the color timer switch back and forth in that documentary. The only shots that looked appreciably different were the one-light, completely uncorrected scans from the negative, which looked rather flat and lifeless with very low contrast.

Vincent

 

[Bleddyn Williams]

I bought this last year on release. I was aware of the controversy and had seen screenshots, but was willing to give Friedkin's new version a go.

Time goes by swiftly, and so only now I tried watching it this weekend - and was surprised to find myself struggling to watch it. The skyline with the cut-out looking buildings, the Santa suit bleeding - I kept wondering what the film originally looked like. After about 10-15 minutes, I pulled my Five Star Collection DVD and synched them up.

Sad to say, I preferred the old version, while acknowledging the extra detail available in the new transfer. Next time I pull the film off the shelf, it will be the old DVD. If only they had provided both versions in HD! If I upgrade to blu and decide to watch the old DVD instead, that's a bit sad. Who knows when this might be revisited on HD.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

I re-watched my BD of the film again a few weeks back, and I enjoyed watching it more than when it was frist released, due to the changes Friedkin made. I understand what he was trying to do technically, but I felt like the bleeding was odd.

That being said I like how it looks overall, it has an interesting look, but I believe it would be best to release a version with both versions included. That way everyone wins. I think everyone could have stomached the changes more if it weren't for that horrendous bleeding!

 

[Bleddyn Williams]

Agreed on the bleeding. I think I could have gone along with the overall look if it wasn't for this. I don't know why Friedkin thought fuzzing the colours so they bled outside the outlines of objects was a good idea.

 

[PMBen]

Respectfully, I don't quite agree with most of the views expressed on this thread. This concept of the director as a God-like figure who is entitled to do whatever he pleases with his film clashes with another reality which I consider of the utmost importance in considering any film: a great movie is, more often than not the result of many people working together in a creative process. The director is one of them (of the biggest importance) but the others should be considered as well. One might remember how Hitchcock's films got worse in many respects when Bernard Herrmann, Robert Burks and Tomasini died and/or left him and for some time he didn't find the right people to substitute them. Another good example is the importance of Thelma Schoomaker's work in the films directed by Martin Scorsese.

 

If Friedkin wanted to change the colors or anything connected with photography, he should have done it in collaboration with the man who was credited for it. This film is not only his work, and in assuming so, he is bastardizing another man's work. I see that as egotistical and disrespectful, no wonder the DoP has severely critiziced it.

 

Of course this is only my opinion, which I'm happy to share with all of you.

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by PMBen


 

. . . . This concept of the director as a God-like figure who is entitled to do whatever he pleases with his film clashes with another reality which I consider of the utmost importance in considering any film: a great movie is, more often than not the result of many people working together in a creative process . . . . .
 

Of course this is only my opinion . . . .

Thank you for making that point. It cannot be made too often. Mind you, it is not only your opinion. Many people agree with you including most peope who work in the movie business.
 

I have never read an interview - see edit point below - or an autobiography where someone with a career in movies declared that the director is a one-man-band and that all the other people on a movie are of minimal importance. Some major movie figures such as Robert Mitchum and William Goldman repeatedly declared in public that the idea that a movie "belonged" to the director was nonsense.

 

EDIT: Sorry. Huge oversight! Of course I have read interviews which suggested the director in effect made the movie by themselves: interviews with certain directors whose egos were greater than their talent!

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by PMBen

Respectfully, I don't quite agree with most of the views expressed on this thread. This concept of the director as a God-like figure who is entitled to do whatever he pleases with his film clashes with another reality which I consider of the utmost importance in considering any film: a great movie is, more often than not the result of many people working together in a creative process. The director is one of them (of the biggest importance) but the others should be considered as well. One might remember how Hitchcock's films got worse in many respects when Bernard Herrmann, Robert Burks and Tomasini died and/or left him and for some time he didn't find the right people to substitute them. Another good example is the importance of Thelma Schoomaker's work in the films directed by Martin Scorsese.

 

If Friedkin wanted to change the colors or anything connected with photography, he should have done it in collaboration with the man who was credited for it. This film is not only his work, and in assuming so, he is bastardizing another man's work. I see that as egotistical and disrespectful, no wonder the DoP has severely critiziced it.

 

Of course this is only my opinion, which I'm happy to share with all of you.

Interesting point, and I agree, up to a point. Director's Cuts often can't be seen as a collaboration. Even small things as changing the color timing can destroy the entire look a DP and his crew carefully created, just to make it more modern.

The problem is: what if a Director of Photography wants to severely alter things, with the approval of a director? The most famous example is of course Vittorio Storaro, who had the blessings of Francis Ford Coppola and Bernardo Bertolucci to effectively hack up the movies they collaborated on. Even if some things are altered through a collaboration, things might turn ugly. I believe that the original version should always be included. People, whether they're the director, the producer, the writer or the DP, can alter it any way they want, as long as the original work can be seen too. Friedkin failed to do that with The French Connection, but The Exorcist will have both versions. Most other directors see that too. It's just that the few who refuse to do that (whether it's completely their work or not) are the most controversial. For example, George Lucas, obviously, whose every work has been changed on their DVD releases. There are many other examples, but Lucas is the most talked about.

Anyway, if they would just include the original cuts, nobody would protest this much. It's as simple as that. Even the people who happen to like this version, or any director's cut should agree to that.

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst




People, whether they're the director, the producer, the writer or the DP, can alter it any way they want, as long as the original work can be seen too. Friedkin failed to do that with The French Connection, but The Exorcist will have both versions. Most other directors see that too. It's just that the few who refuse to do that (whether it's completely their work or not) are the most controversial. For example, George Lucas, obviously, whose every work has been changed on their DVD releases. There are many other examples, but Lucas is the most talked about.

Anyway, if they would just include the original cuts, nobody would protest this much. It's as simple as that. Even the people who happen to like this version, or any director's cut should agree to that.

How exactly did Friedkin prevent the original work from being seen? Did he pull all dvds and vhs tapes and film prints? Just because the "original" version wasn't included on the same blu-ray does not prevent it from being seen. And to compare a moderately different look to the film to a completely re-edited film like The Exorcist is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by JohnMor





How exactly did Friedkin prevent the original work from being seen? Did he pull all dvds and vhs tapes and film prints? Just because the "original" version wasn't included on the same blu-ray does not prevent it from being seen. And to compare a moderately different look to the film to a completely re-edited film like The Exorcist is comparing apples to oranges.

He failed to include it on the Blu-ray, so the only way possible is to watch it on older DVDs, which obviously wouldn't be as satisfactory as watching it in HD.

Altering a film is altering one, especially when it's done so drastic as was done here.

 

[Steve Christou]

I was going to skip buying The French Connection on blu-ray but a friend brought his copy round and we watched it. And I liked the new 'pastels' even if it does look like a colorised B/W film on occasion..

 

So it's on my to buy list and I'll hang on to my 2-disc DVD when I feel like watching that "authentic flavour of the 70's' edition.

 

[John Hodson]

I was intrigued enough to buy the UK set (which lacks the original mono track, otherwise as the US release), and whilst I mourn the lack of a simple spruced up hi-def version of the film as released originally, as an artistic experiment, I thought Friedkin's reworking was not without merit - the power of the film as a piece of cinema is still intact, and it was only a little while in that I stopped looking at the transfer as something that had been messed with, and simply saw a superb, thrilling, drama.

 

What did surprise me (having no choice in the matter) more was just how good the 5.1 soundtrack is; it's quite involving - a brilliant modern remix that retains a heady period flavour. I'm assuming this was also Friedkin's handiwork - bravo.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

Seems Best Buy got a FOX Exclusive Re-Issue of The French Connection and it seems to be a whole new transfer. Can't wait to hear some thoughts from Robert Harris on this new Blu transfer.

here is a blu-ray.com link with some screen grabs


http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=8328

 

[Southpaw]

Very interesting. I'm trying to recall without reading through this entire thread, didn't Friedkin personally oversee the previous French Connection blu-ray release? And didn't he boast that it was the way he wanted? Heck, there was a featurette on the color timing, wasn't there? My memory is hazy....

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Very interesting. I'm trying to recall without reading through this entire thread, didn't Friedkin personally oversee the previous French Connection blu-ray release? And didn't he boast that it was the way he wanted? Heck, there was a featurette on the color timing, wasn't there? My memory is hazy....

Yes. Let's just say that Friedkin acquiesced to having both his revised color-timed version and the new original-look version on the market, influenced by how well he felt The Exorcist release turned out.