International A PEEK AT FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD - UK VERSION (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

I would have to see a detailed list of differences between the two transfers and I'd wager that with the exception of the cockfighting violence, they're probably the same in terms of actual film running time sans overture and play out music.

 

[Stefan Andersson]

Very confusing site and I would take nothing they say seriously since they don't cite any sources. The US version, in fact, trumpets that there are three minutes of unseen footage in that transfer. I presume some of that three minutes is the cockfighting violence - but since no one seems to have spelled out exactly what else was added we have no way of knowing. I believe the running times of the two discs are close and that if the UK is shorter it's because it's missing the overture and exit music (it does have the entr'acte).

George Feltenstein of Warner Archive gave details about the US edition to US reviewer Glenn Erickson:


"The Warner Archive Collection's George Feltenstein gets specific on Far from the Madding Crowd, January 31, 2009:

Hi Glenn --- It's very confusing. There were MANY versions of this picture. What is good to confirm is that THIS is the complete road show version as originally released in the UK.

The cockfight was never part of the domestic release. The original negative for the cockfight sequence is marked "Int'l version only". When our mastering group was working on the picture, they indicated that (in addition to the 'cockfight' sequence), there were a few additional shots added that were less than a minute in total. The circumstances are further confused by the fact that the domestic release was cut and then cut again, so there were actually three different domestic versions, but all were shorter than what opened in the UK. I hope that helps! Best, GF"


Quoted from source: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s4715madd.html - Review of US Blu


See also: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2806madd.html - Review of US WAC DVD w/ slightly longer footnote by Mr. Feltenstein, noting that the overture and exit music were added for the laserdisc edition.


So, the US Blu release includes the cockfight and sundry other shots that originally were part of the international version only.

 

[youworkmen]

Yes , the cockfight would have been cut in the UK even when the film first came out.

Sounds like the US edition is the one to get as it has a bit extra even over the cockfight

 

[haineshisway]

I think you are completely misunderstanding George's comments. What he's saying is the US version was originally SHORTER than the UK and didn't include ANY of the cockfighting sequence and a few other shots. Those were put back for the DVD and now Blu-ray version. So it now matches the UK in terms of film content, with the UK version missing ONLY a few seconds of the cockfighting shots. in other words, I was correct - both versions are exactly the same now save for those few seconds and, on the UK Blu, no overture or entr'acte. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Paul Scott]

Wait a second.

Bruce, are you saying you remember what a film looks like from over 45 years ago?

 

[youworkmen]

Wait a second.

Bruce, are you saying you remember what a film looks like from over 45 years ago?

The internet is full of them. But they usually complain that the color of the home video release is different to what they saw in cinemas 50 years ago.


As much as I enjoy Video Watchdog claims like this from Tim Lucas are hard to believe , specially since a few years back he had major eye surgery that he claimed changed the way he saw everything- so what should we make of claims like this he made before the surgery?


Frankly , I take them all with a pinch of salt although in this case we're talking missing footage which is documented so no need to rely on memory

 

[haineshisway]

The internet is full of them. But they usually complain that the color of the home video release is different to what they saw in cinemas 50 years ago.


As much as I enjoy Video Watchdog claims like this from Tim Lucas are hard to believe , specially since a few years back he had major eye surgery that he claimed changed the way he saw everything- so what should we make of claims like this he made before the surgery?


Frankly , I take them all with a pinch of salt although in this case we're talking missing footage which is documented so no need to rely on memory

Those who know me here, and who aren't trying to denigrate for its own sake, know I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about in terms of color. If you know anything about Nick Roeg and his photography, if you've actually seen Far from the Madding Crowd in a movie theater (which I did, many times and have seen the film many times since its initial run), if you know what color was like back then, if you had one of the world's major 16mm and 35mm film collections, well, the Internet may be "full of them" but I'm not one of those guys. And if I don't remember what a film's color is like, even though I could probably take a pretty good guess as to whether a video release replicates it, based on my knowledge of such things, I don't comment on those other than to say it looks like it should be correct. But if you or anyone want to believe that the Warners disc has accurate color and that the UK version doesn't, be my guest. Anyone who knows anything about the mid-1960s' film stocks, labs, and this particular cameraman's work, will know just how incredible the UK Blu-ray is.


As to the missing footage, everything that need be said about that has been said and it's pretty easy to understand.

 

[Paul Scott]

The internet is full of them. But they usually complain that the color of the home video release is different to what they saw in cinemas 50 years ago.


As much as I enjoy Video Watchdog claims like this from Tim Lucas are hard to believe , specially since a few years back he had major eye surgery that he claimed changed the way he saw everything- so what should we make of claims like this he made before the surgery?

Actually David, I was really just trying to tweak Bruce's nose a little as I thought I remembered him being a little dismissive of the certainty of memories in regards to a films overall visual look in the past.

I recieved the disc Saturday and watched it that night. And while I have no clue just what this looked like theatrically in 1967, there is no doubt there is a huge visual disparity in many scenes with this BD vs the Archive release. Bruce isn't trading in hyperbole either. There are scenes and sequences in the UK release that are as beautifully rendered as anything I have seen so far on Bd. From the expansive, nuanced range of hues to the the quality of light that Roeg frequently captured, this is one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen at home.

It also doesn't seem to be a big leap to me, after seeing both, that someone could have gone through the years seeing the previous releases as "not right" and then seeing this and being overcome with a seasation of "Yes! They finally got it!" After having seen both, I'm happy that I never did first experience the film via the DVD (which I bought and nbever watched) or the Archive Bd (which I also bought but never got around to watching). I would have walked away with a significantly lesser experience and one that would have definitiely influenced my estimation of the film's value.


I want to thank Bruce for his enthusiastic posting about the UK disc, because otherwise I never would have been tempted to purchase a film I'd never seen a third time.


And FWIW about the cockfight scene- I felt in the UK release the scene was clumsily edited which diminished the revulsion of the act. While the main text of the scene is about the character spending his wife's money wantonly, you lose a little of the subtext from him enjoying what is a blood sport. The depth of the scene is a little shallower but it is only one scene and hardly the cruxt of the entire film. I think there were ways to have edited it better to still pass the UK cert while implying more than showing- but it is what it is. Even in the Archive version, what really made me cringe was the shot after that scene where they are strapping on the spurs to another cock that will be fighting soon. THAT shot had impact.

But I would say anyone who dismisses the UK version over that element is making a HUGE mistake.

The archive release is a poor representation of what is actually a sensationally beautiful looking film.

I'm frankly a little shocked and irritated that with only a few dozen archive Bds released so far, that the powers that be would choose something so poor to take one of the slots. It's almost like they purposefully wanted to get the jump on a UK release from the restoration because they knew being first out of the gate was the only positive they had. I honestly feel kind of taken here.

 

[haineshisway]

Actually David, I was really just trying to tweak Bruce's nose a little as I thought I remembered him being a little dismissive of the certainty of memories in regards to a films overall visual look in the past.

I recieved the disc Saturday and watched it that night. And while I have no clue just what this looked like theatrically in 1967, there is no doubt there is a huge visual disparity in many scenes with this BD vs the Archive release. Bruce isn't trading in hyperbole either. There are scenes and sequences in the UK release that are as beautifully rendered as anything I have seen so far on Bd. From the expansive, nuanced range of hues to the the quality of light that Roeg frequently captured, this is one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen at home.

It also doesn't seem to be a big leap to me, after seeing both, that someone could have gone through the years seeing the previous releases as "not right" and then seeing this and being overcome with a seasation of "Yes! They finally got it!" After having seen both, I'm happy that I never did first experience the film via the DVD (which I bought and nbever watched) or the Archive Bd (which I also bought but never got around to watching). I would have walked away with a significantly lesser experience and one that would have definitiely influenced my estimation of the film's value.


I want to thank Bruce for his enthusiastic posting about the UK disc, because otherwise I never would have been tempted to purchase a film I'd never seen a third time.


And FWIW about the cockfight scene- I felt in the UK release the scene was clumsily edited which diminished the revulsion of the act. While the main text of the scene is about the character spending his wife's money wantonly, you lose a little of the subtext from him enjoying what is a blood sport. The depth of the scene is a little shallower but it is only one scene and hardly the cruxt of the entire film. I think there were ways to have edited it better to still pass the UK cert while implying more than showing- but it is what it is. Even in the Archive version, what really made me cringe was the shot after that scene where they are strapping on the spurs to another cock that will be fighting soon. THAT shot had impact.

But I would say anyone who dismisses the UK version over that element is making a HUGE mistake.

The archive release is a poor representation of what is actually a sensationally beautiful looking film.

I'm frankly a little shocked and irritated that with only a few dozen archive Bds released so far, that the powers that be would choose something so poor to take one of the slots. It's almost like they purposefully wanted to get the jump on a UK release from the restoration because they knew being first out of the gate was the only positive they had. I honestly feel kind of taken here.

I'm not sure I've ever been dismissive of people's memories of what films looked like. The real truth is, I'm dismissive when people automatically assume a previous release is the correct look for something.


And I think you're right about the reason the Archive Blu came out - this is happening more and more these days - Arrow recently have attempted it several times, most recently trumping the Cod Red release of something or other. They had to have known this restoration was coming from the UK, just as they had to have known it would blow their transfer out of the water. Really happy you liked it.

 

[youworkmen]

I wasn't actually referring to Haines specifically , it was a general comment.

Just like the whingers that Bluray , unlike dvd seems to have drawn out the woodwork who try and find fault with many discs for ridiculous reasons , including that the movie doesn't look the way they remember it 40-50 years ago.


Saw someone complaining about the new release of the Thunderbirds tv show today even though in order to see the "problems" they have to use the zoom mode on their tv because in its correct full frame mode the "errors" are not that visible.


Whatever happened to sitting back and enjoying a movie without worrying whether ( amongst other things) the image is showing a sliver of picture info that perhaps wasn't intended ( in which case why film it that way?) specially when the ratio differences are minor.

 

[haineshisway]

I wasn't actually referring to Haines specifically , it was a general comment.

Just like the whingers that Bluray , unlike dvd seems to have drawn out the woodwork who try and find fault with many discs for ridiculous reasons , including that the movie doesn't look the way they remember it 40-50 years ago.


Saw someone complaining about the new release of the Thunderbirds tv show today even though in order to see the "problems" they have to use the zoom mode on their tv because in its correct full frame mode the "errors" are not that visible.


Whatever happened to sitting back and enjoying a movie without worrying whether ( amongst other things) the image is showing a sliver of picture info that perhaps wasn't intended ( in which case why film it that way?) specially when the ratio differences are minor.

I completely agree about most of the folks doing the complaining. Here's the thing, though - most doing it have NOT seen any of these classics in a theater, that's the reality. As most here know, I loathe screen caps and yes, if you have to sit and walk up to your TV screen or sit an inch away and zoom to see some little anomaly, it's really silly. And let me tell you, if people had done that back in the day, walked up to a movie screen and put their nose against the screen, the image would not have looked good. But with Blu-ray we've gotten a whole lot of armchair experts who've read a little on the Internet and think they know everything because they use terms like "the grain is well-resolved" or "I'm seeing black crush" or any of the other little phrases they've picked up, usually from Robert A. Harris, who is occasionally having sport with this stuff.

 

[marsnkc]

I guess that's the majority of 50's westerns destined never to find a place in your collection then.


I guess you must be one of the few to import UK Blurays specially to get the cut version then


Fortunately every other country in the world realises that editing movies today that were made decades ago makes no difference whatsoever to animal welfare


I'd make sure you avoid the recent US Blu of Cannibal Ferox , specially if you don't like to watch pigs being stabbed several times in the body and throat while squealing in pain and terror

Hallelujah and at last!


A likeminded individual to (hopefully) help me realize my vision for a movie of the Inquisition. It's been turned down by lily-livered liberals revolted by the idea of watching the actors being actually stabbed several time in their bodies and throats while squealing in pain and terror. One idiot said no actor in his right mind would subject himself to such barbarous cruelty, and in any case it would be illegal. Shows you what he knows! The US isn't the only place in the world to make movies in. Plenty of places where people not in their right minds, and therefore defenseless, could be had to realize my artistic vision.

(Another even had the temerity to say that I lacked imagination, that the torture could be suggested rather than made explicit. He recommended that I watch and learn from some of the great - yeah, right! - horror film directors who managed to scare the crap out of people by implication rather than shoving their noses in it. He said it's even possible, by some kind of trickery, to insinuate the act of vomiting without necessarily having the audience be able to identify the contents of the retcher's stomach. Where's the reality in that...!!! It's the problem I have with Doctor Zhivago, a movie that might have worked had Lean shown protestors' heads being chopped off instead of having us 'see' it through the Doc's eyes. And One Eyed Jacks? Well, that would be a much better movie if Brando had had the balls (or even talent) to show his hand being smashed in by the butt of Malden's rifle, instead of relying on the sound of bone being crushed against wood. BTW, it simply isn't possible to make a good cowboy movie without having dozens of horses have their legs broken every five seconds on trip wire. The more of these, the better the movie. Simple mathematics. There's certainly no such thing as a great cowboy movie without them. I mean, where's the fun? That 'High Noon' bore is an example of what I mean.

But that's not all, this guy went on to say that the beautiful, realistic imagery in my script, of an actor picking his nose and eating the result, might end up being excised, if not now then possibly later on down the road. To compromise an already exhibited work of art is unimaginable and inexcusable in this day and age. The idea of such revisionist censorship of human behavior and historical accuracy is revolting and anathema to the artist in me, as is the notion that human beings and animals are more important than movies).


Call me a hypocrite, but I've ordered the UK edition of Madding Crowd, despite its desecration. I know the whole integrity and structure of the movie will be fatally compromised without that vital scene, but I guess I'm a sucker for a good Blu-ray.

 

[Will Krupp]

^^ Give em HELL, Jonathan Swift!!

 

[youworkmen]

I completely agree about most of the folks doing the complaining. Here's the thing, though - most doing it have NOT seen any of these classics in a theater, that's the reality. As most here know, I loathe screen caps and yes, if you have to sit and walk up to your TV screen or sit an inch away and zoom to see some little anomaly, it's really silly. And let me tell you, if people had done that back in the day, walked up to a movie screen and put their nose against the screen, the image would not have looked good. But with Blu-ray we've gotten a whole lot of armchair experts who've read a little on the Internet and think they know everything because they use terms like "the grain is well-resolved" or "I'm seeing black crush" or any of the other little phrases they've picked up, usually from Robert A. Harris, who is occasionally having sport with this stuff.

I'm very pleased we can agree on something

 

[youworkmen]

Hallelujah and at last!


A likeminded individual to (hopefully) help me realize my vision for a movie of the Inquisition. It's been turned down by lily-livered liberals revolted by the idea of watching the actors being actually stabbed several time in their bodies and throats while squealing in pain and terror. One idiot said no actor in his right mind would subject himself to such barbarous cruelty, and in any case it would be illegal. Shows you what he knows! The US isn't the only place in the world to make movies in. Plenty of places where people not in their right minds, and therefore defenseless, could be had to realize my artistic vision.

(Another even had the temerity to say that I lacked imagination, that the torture could be suggested rather than made explicit. He recommended that I watch and learn from some of the great - yeah, right! - horror film directors who managed to scare the crap out of people by implication rather than shoving their noses in it. He said it's even possible, by some kind of trickery, to insinuate the act of vomiting without necessarily having the audience be able to identify the contents of the retcher's stomach. Where's the reality in that...!!! It's the problem I have with Doctor Zhivago, a movie that might have worked had Lean shown protestors' heads being chopped off instead of having us 'see' it through the Doc's eyes. And One Eyed Jacks? Well, that would be a much better movie if Brando had had the balls (or even talent) to show his hand being smashed in by the butt of Malden's rifle, instead of relying on the sound of bone being crushed against wood. BTW, it simply isn't possible to make a good cowboy movie without having dozens of horses have their legs broken every five seconds on trip wire. The more of these, the better the movie. Simple mathematics. There's certainly no such thing as a great cowboy movie without them. I mean, where's the fun? That 'High Noon' bore is an example of what I mean.

But that's not all, this guy went on to say that the beautiful, realistic imagery in my script, of an actor picking his nose and eating the result, might end up being excised, if not now then possibly later on down the road. To compromise an already exhibited work of art is unimaginable and inexcusable in this day and age. The idea of such revisionist censorship of human behavior and historical accuracy is revolting and anathema to the artist in me, as is the notion that human beings and animals are more important than movies).


Call me a hypocrite, but I've ordered the UK edition of Madding Crowd, despite its desecration. I know the whole integrity and structure of the movie will be fatally compromised without that vital scene, but I guess I'm a sucker for a good Blu-ray.

I suspect you're trying to be clever.

You failed.

It's entirely your decision to purchase cut movies. Thankfully the UK releases always oblige. Editing out all those horsefalls has certainly helped the horses in question..oh hang on . It hasn't

 

[Paul Scott]

I prefer to think of the UK cut as an "alternate version". Sort of like all those iterations of Blade Runner, except without the new, "on a recent whim", color grading.


While i've begun to put less and less stock in screencaps, I honestly can't wait for the caps-a-holic comparison to get updated with the UK disc so everyone can at least get an inkling of how substantial the difference is between that and the Archive disc most people in the US are watching.

 

[Douglas R]

A favourite film of mine which I saw several times in 70mm. I was late getting it because I've been going round to several HMV stores trying to find it but it seems they don't sell it. I suppose they consider it just an old film with actors no-one nowadays has any interest in....so i had to get it from Amazon.


StudioCanal last released the film on video in the UK as an appalling DVD, cropped to 16:9 with mono sound. At long last, with this Blu-ray they have done it right (well, almost right - having managed to miss off the Overture and Exit Music) because the picture now looks perfect.


What I find puzzling, considering the restoration was financed by the BFI, is that the titles are from the American print with the MGM logo and the title card "Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Presents" added to the main titles. In the UK the film was released by Anglo Amalgamated, as is indicated on the back of the box, although the 70mm film prints began with no studio logo at all.

 

[youworkmen]

Strange you couldn't get it from HMV when they've been stocking the 88films slasher collection at bargain prices compared to Amazon. Would have thought FFTMC more worthy of shelf space

 

[Paul Rossen]

Reading all the comments about the new BFI blu ray I'm confused whether of not this version has the Entr'acte or not.

 

[haineshisway]

Reading all the comments about the new BFI blu ray I'm confused whether of not this version has the Entr'acte or not.

Nothing to be confused about - it has the entr'acte but not the overture and exit music.