Dracula (1979) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[lukejosephchung]

I don't believe both versions of TFC were released together.

Director William Friedkin had to be prodded by the film's cinematographer into reissuing "The French Connection" with the original color timing intact after the original blu-ray release was altered at his request...

 

[Jari K]

"releasing both versions, a la THE FRENCH CONNECTION"They re-released the film. It's not like in the upcoming Halloween release, where two "color schemes" are added to the box set (at least this is my understanding).When it's director/DOP vs "the fans", I tend to favour the former. But it's not always so black&white.

 

[ABaglivi]

Unfortunately, Dracula's DOP (Gilbert Taylor of Star Wars fame) is no longer with us. He died last year at the age of 99.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

Ted, we've talked about this one before. The prints are lovely on this movie. Since the 2008 fire, Universal has been making new ones of their movies. When they play, they look stunning. I saw a new 35mm print of Dracula a few years ago, and after the LD and DVDs it was a revelation. And one of the selling features of this movie (as this vintage novel shows) was that it was in color.

I wish there was an easy solution to this.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

We have, Neil. As a director myself, I always believe that the director should have the right to issue the version they approve.

and ONLY the version or versions they approve.

Period.

 

[Will Krupp]

(as this vintage novel shows)

2012-05-20 16.13.11.jpg

OMG I got that very edition the summer the movie came out and had it for YEARS! It had a center section full of pictures from the movie and I looked at them so much (I wasn't allowed to go to the movie) that the paper binding eventually gave way and the whole thing fell apart. I finally gave it up in a move about twenty years after the fact. What memories! Thanks, Neil!

 

[Dick]

I don't believe both versions of TFC were released together.

Correct. They weren't. And Friedkin didn't really want to release the original saturated version, but at least he did, and made a lot of people happy. No WE have a choice.

 

[Jari K]

"and ONLY the version or versions they approve."Things get complicated when the film is already released in some form or another. You know, the old Lucas & SW debate etc. I mean the director has already "approved" one - or even several - version.

 

[FoxyMulder]

We have, Neil. As a director myself, I always believe that the director should have the right to issue the version they approve.

and ONLY the version or versions they approve.

Period.

So it's okay for a director to go back to a film he made thirty, forty years, maybe fifty years ago and change everything, colour, brightness, sharpness and contrast just because they have the digital tools to do so. ?

I'm not so sure i agree with that, you would argue revisionism is okay as long as the director is involved, i disagree.

Having said the above, i guess you have to look at this on a case by case basis, if the director wanted this look but couldn't get it in 1979, okay, i'm cool with that, i was more than happy with the changes made to Coppola's version of Dracula, i felt the DVD had boosted colours and wasn't dark enough in places, the blu ray is excellent.

On certain films i agree with changes, for example when Robert Wise worked on the directors cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but i don't think what Friedkin did to The French Connection was a good move, if it's about fixing things they never had the time or budget to do back when they filmed it then it's not so bad, if they do it just because they have the digital tools and think that a contrast boost or super (de)saturated colours are the new in look then i consider it wrong and not the correct thing to do.

I just hope Universal don't sharpen this release too much, excessive sharpening is a pet hate of mine.

 

[JohnMor]

I totally agree that the director has the right to redo a film to his satisfaction and the "final" vision (at any one time) should be his. I just think it's unfortunate when he prefers one and so many fans prefer an earlier one. Because, ultimately, who is that buys it and watches it: the audience. But such is life; neither Universal nor Badham need the money I won't be forking over on this release anyway, so I doubt they care. And one day, those of us who were lucky enough to see the theatrical release will be long gone and only the desaturated version will remain and no one will know or care about this situation. Or realize what a beautiful version of the film they missed out on.

 

[haineshisway]

So it's okay for a director to go back to a film he made thirty, forty years, maybe fifty years ago and change everything, colour, brightness, sharpness and contrast just because they have the digital tools to do so. ?

I'm not so sure i agree with that, you would argue revisionism is okay as long as the director is involved, i disagree.

Having said the above, i guess you have to look at this on a case by case basis, if the director wanted this look but couldn't get it in 1979, okay, i'm cool with that, i was more than happy with the changes made to Coppola's version of Dracula, i felt the DVD had boosted colours and wasn't dark enough in places, the blu ray is excellent.

On certain films i agree with changes, for example when Robert Wise worked on the directors cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but i don't think what Friedkin did to The French Connection was a good move, if it's about fixing things they never had the time or budget to do back when they filmed it then it's not so bad, if they do it just because they have the digital tools and think that a contrast boost or super (de)saturated colours are the new in look then i consider it wrong and not the correct thing to do.

I just hope Universal don't sharpen this release too much, excessive sharpening is a pet hate of mine.

Well, I can only address this from a personal point of view and maybe that will be helpful and maybe it won't. When I transferred The First Nudie Musical for Blu-ray I had the chance to make certain adjustments and fix things that were simply never correct in previous transfers. Ours was a very low-budget film. When the original theatrical color timing was done, we really could not afford to go back and fix every little thing we'd have liked to fix and so out it went, imperfect from my perspective, but the best we could do. But when doing the transfer, there's a sunset shot that we always wanted to be timed the way it is in the Blu-ray - one shot - but it never was - well, I fixed it and if that's "revisionism" oh, well. Also, again because we were very low budget and had to use short ends for the B-camera on the final musical number and one other musical number, those shots from the B-camera were always way more contrasty than the regular A-camera shots and they stuck out like a sore thumb. We were never going to be able to get them perfect, but you can bet they're a LOT better on the Blu-ray. And I fixed a handful of bad framing issues, too, again mostly from the B-camera. If that's revisionism, oh, well. I had the time and resources to finally get it to look right and I did. And I opened it up slightly to 1.78 because for the first time we were using a negative for the transfer which, of course, had a bit more side information and to keep the frame looking like 1.85 opening up that slight amount achieved exactly that.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Well, I can only address this from a personal point of view and maybe that will be helpful and maybe it won't. When I transferred The First Nudie Musical for Blu-ray I had the chance to make certain adjustments and fix things that were simply never correct in previous transfers. Ours was a very low-budget film. When the original theatrical color timing was done, we really could not afford to go back and fix every little thing we'd have liked to fix and so out it went, imperfect from my perspective, but the best we could do. But when doing the transfer, there's a sunset shot that we always wanted to be timed the way it is in the Blu-ray - one shot - but it never was - well, I fixed it and if that's "revisionism" oh, well. Also, again because we were very low budget and had to use short ends for the B-camera on the final musical number and one other musical number, those shots from the B-camera were always way more contrasty than the regular A-camera shots and they stuck out like a sore thumb. We were never going to be able to get them perfect, but you can bet they're a LOT better on the Blu-ray. And I fixed a handful of bad framing issues, too, again mostly from the B-camera. If that's revisionism, oh, well. I had the time and resources to finally get it to look right and I did. And I opened it up slightly to 1.78 because for the first time we were using a negative for the transfer which, of course, had a bit more side information and to keep the frame looking like 1.85 opening up that slight amount achieved exactly that.

I did say i was okay with going back and fixing things that were not possible when the film was made.

 

[haineshisway]

I did say i was okay with going back and fixing things that were not possible when the film was made.

I know you did - I thought your post was excellent. The points in my post were to add credence to your positive points. Each film is different. Would I have changed a plot point or reedited a scene because I could? Absolutely not. THAT is revisionism. But if Mr. Badham because of technical reasons could not get his film into theaters the way he wanted and later could, thanks to having the proper tools, amen to Mr. Badham. I totally get that fans of the film would like to have it resemble the theatrical release (which, BTW, previous video incarnations did NOT), and perhaps it would have been wise to include both versions, but I can assure you that those in the power positions at Universal know very well the kinds of numbers this would sell and they are not interested in spending that money. And if you'd like to know just how many sales they'll lose because of Mr. Badham's version - well, add up the number of people complaining in this thread, maybe add another thirty to that number and you'll still be considerably under 100 sales lost, which is not going to worry one Universal executive for even an eighth of a second.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I know you did - I thought your post was excellent. The points in my post were to add credence to your positive points. Each film is different. Would I have changed a plot point or reedited a scene because I could? Absolutely not. THAT is revisionism. But if Mr. Badham because of technical reasons could not get his film into theaters the way he wanted and later could, thanks to having the proper tools, amen to Mr. Badham. I totally get that fans of the film would like to have it resemble the theatrical release (which, BTW, previous video incarnations did NOT), and perhaps it would have been wise to include both versions, but I can assure you that those in the power positions at Universal know very well the kinds of numbers this would sell and they are not interested in spending that money. And if you'd like to know just how many sales they'll lose because of Mr. Badham's version - well, add up the number of people complaining in this thread, maybe add another thirty to that number and you'll still be considerably under 100 sales lost, which is not going to worry one Universal executive for even an eighth of a second.

We better be careful, too much agreeing with each other, this isn't normal for us.

 

[CinemaCynic]

And if you'd like to know just how many sales they'll lose because of Mr. Badham's version - well, add up the number of people complaining in this thread, maybe add another thirty to that number and you'll still be considerably under 100 sales lost, which is not going to worry one Universal executive for even an eighth of a second.

And if you add up all the people buying the blu ray of the film it would probably fail to top a few thousand, which is the real tragic decline.

As for director's rights, in the main I think its objectively true that there's always something in a film's release that isn't precisely as intended, either technically or creatively. Badham was apparently trying to consciously mimic the Edward Gorey design of the 70's Broadway revival, tho its an inconsistent application as that revival was funnier, starker and frankly highly theatrical. (The sets were essentially all black and white with one prominently red element, like a wine bottle, at the center.)

The problem with that theory however is that it presumes the director is always being honest and accurate about 'his/her original intentions,' and ignores the very real process of change simply getting older brings about in taste, perception, aesthetic and life philosophy. It also does ignore, as previously mentioned, the years of emotional investment viewers have imbued a film with despite of, or in some instances because of their 'flaws.' Flaws are interesting, and in film they're rather an essential human trait that can manifest themselves technically. 'Perfection' may be closer in the digital age but so is sterility. As a 'fan' I'm far more bothered by Friedkin's virtually neon colors in FC & Sorcerer, and worse his robbery of the latter's most interesting theme in the final shot, ambiguity. He simply isn't the same person who made that film, and his perception of his own 'vision' has absolutely changed over time. No one who knows the man would dispute that in private.

Lucas is both a simpler and a more complicated example. He had the legal right to revisit his films via ownership, a far clearer path to alterations than 'director's rights' alone. At the same time he fundamentally altered the intent and nature of some of the characters, the 'crime' for which fanboys have been burning him in effigy ever since. As with Friedkin, there's no question that he's a radically different person than he was in 1975, and that his own perception of the 'point' of Star Wars, whatever it was when he began, had evolved into a much larger business imperative. I detest what he did to his films and consider him a hypocrite of the highest order (given his anti-Turner congressional testimony in the 80's) but I can't dispute his 'right' to have done it.

In all of these instances the solution is simple and has been repeated innumerably on these forums in countless discussions, make two versions available. That's becoming a less common option precisely because of declining sales and (as the Alamo discussion emphasizes) a rise in apathy on the part of some major studios. They'd generally rather have a director approved and endorsed single version if the filmmaker is alive and in the picture, with rare exceptions. The 'Major Dundee' release by TT and, in a somewhat reverse version of this discussion, the WB release of the Donner cut of 'Superman II' are the ideal examples for serious film enthusiasts to have their cake, etc.

But I fear as the market seems to decline in their perception of importance even a solution as simple as this will become like asking for the impossible.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I think the difference comes when you have multiple versions that are each endorsed by the creative team, as opposed to a corrected version supplanting an incorrect version.Take "The Abyss" Cameron will likely always want both edits to be available as he approves both. But in other cases, why would a director want a version they feel is incorrect to be circulated any more?

 

[CinemaCynic]

Take "The Abyss" Cameron will likely always want both edits to be available as he approves both. But in other cases, why would a director want a version they feel is incorrect to be circulated any more?

You're assuming it's the director who has final say, it often isn't (for good and bad reasons.) There are two versions of 'My Darling Clementine,' 'Red River' and of 'The Big Sleep,' with different views as to which were ultimately director favored. And there isn't a person reading this board who wouldn't wish for Welles' cut of 'Amberson's' to turn up.

When Robert Wise went back in to work on his 'Star Trek' film, there was at least some acknowledgment that he went in to make it a better film than the original release. He claimed to have been (and probably was) rushed into releasing something largely unrefined but the hindsight of its critical disappointment absolutely influenced his own views of what the film lacked, particularly in comparison to some of its sequels.

The point is that you cannot always presume a director's motives in alteration are as clear as the restoration of some original or thwarted vision. A film's production and exhibition is complex and, here's some heresy for you, the director is absolutely not always 'correct' or 'final.' The audience at large does have everything to do with a film's commercial and artistic success, and if they prefer Han shooting first (which many do) its understandable why they'd reject an alternative and feel a bit resentful over 'forcing' an afterthought upon them as cannon. It simply isn't what they fell in love with and want to relive.

As for why a director would allow two versions to circulate, in the cases of Cameron and of Walter Hill on 'The Warriors,' its because they recognize that there's an audience that has, perhaps sometimes irrationally, invested themselves emotionally within a particular iteration of that story. They're sensitive enough not to permanently recall out of circulation something that worked for many.

Clearly there's varying degrees of this and it has an extremely high level of subjectivity but if you wanted an answer to 'why' that would be my best reply.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Good post but do you mean Han shooting and only Han shooting, i'm thinking maybe you do.

if they prefer Greedo shooting first (which many do) its understandable why they'd reject an alternative and feel a bit resentful over 'forcing' an afterthought upon them as cannon. It simply isn't what they fell in love with and want to relive.

 

[CinemaCynic]

Good post but do you mean Han shooting and only Han shooting, i'm thinking maybe you do.

I think its the easiest example of taking a deliberately intended 'gray-character' and turning him into a 'white hat' that I can think of.

Star Wars revisions are tricky, as I doubt anyone other than the most orthodox purists would complain about traveling matte removals, etc. But replacing character intent or cast members is far more understandable in terms of proprietary fan outrage. Ultimately when you're messing with a perceived meaning or intent, and altering it to say something completely different despite it being admired and internalized by many, I think you're inviting a certain amount of wrath. But again, only if you force that revision as canon and try to erase the existence of the earlier iteration.

The odd thing is that you'd more often than not likely favor revisions if the original was always there to compare it to, particularly technically. We certainly don't complain about interlopation to make up for missing frames or clean-up tools applied to our aging classics. But if Warner's announced a new version of King Kong with all of the visual effects replaced by modern CG... well, it would be a travesty to most. Even if Cooper & Schoedsack were alive to endorse it.

A director inadvertently making a popular masterpiece only to completely revise the things that made it meaningful to a generation is the sort of plot you'd expect to see Werner Herzog adapt with Klaus Kinski in the lead...

 

[FoxyMulder]

I think its the easiest example of taking a deliberately intended 'gray-character' and turning him into a 'white hat' that I can think of.

I agree completely.