Last Emperor uncropped (1 Viewer)

[Worth]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

It's all there in black and white - they felt bound to follow the wishes of the filmmakers, which 99.99999999999% of the time is the correct move. This just happens to be the case of that 0.00000000000001%.

I agree with the sentiment, but not the number. I think it's probably closer to 80% these days, what with Storaro and Bertolucci, Lucas, Michael Mann, Friedkin's neon nightmare French Connection and now James Cameron with Aliens: Smooth as a Baby's Bottom Edition.

 

[PaulDA]

The sentiment is what counts. It is better for creators to maintain control over their creations, even with the occasional revision that irks the fans, than for creators, in general, to have their wishes ignored. Creators owe the audience nothing. The audience has the freedom to be happy or not with what creators put on offer but the audience does not have ownership of the creation as long as the creator exercises rights over it.
 

I can certainly understand the angst of this film's fans with respect to the changes made at the behest of the creators. I have not actually seen this film in any format, so I have no direct opinion on the changes themselves. However, I do support the creators, even when I disagree with them (as was the case with Kubrick's insistence on aspect ratios for home viewing back in the day--I'm a huge fan of his work and was very disappointed when he refused to sanction OAR for home releases, but I respected his rights nonetheless). I support Criterion's approach in this case as a matter of principle, regardless of the outcome of the release itself. Same applies to Cameron's decisions re Avatar for home release, Nolan's decisions re: The Dark Knight and so on. There are too many instances in artistic endeavours, across all genres of art, where creators are prematurely stripped of their rights.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Worth

...now James Cameron with Aliens: Smooth as a Baby's Bottom Edition.

How did you see that already?

 

[Dick]

I am so delighted by the forthcoming OAR LionsGate release of APOCALYPSE NOW. It must feel like a big, humiliating slap in the face to the presumably pissed-off Storaro, which he has more than earned. I watched his interview on the Criterion Blu-ray of 8 1/2 a few nights back and, possibly because it was informed by all of his home video aspect ratio shenanigans of the past thirty years, I found his talk arrogant and condescending. What a dichotomy - I still feel he is one of our most brilliant cinematographers.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

 

Originally Posted by PaulDA

The sentiment is what counts. It is better for creators to maintain control over their creations, even with the occasional revision that irks the fans, than for creators, in general, to have their wishes ignored. Creators owe the audience nothing. The audience has the freedom to be happy or not with what creators put on offer but the audience does not have ownership of the creation as long as the creator exercises rights over it.
 

I can certainly understand the angst of this film's fans with respect to the changes made at the behest of the creators. I have not actually seen this film in any format, so I have no direct opinion on the changes themselves. However, I do support the creators, even when I disagree with them (as was the case with Kubrick's insistence on aspect ratios for home viewing back in the day--I'm a huge fan of his work and was very disappointed when he refused to sanction OAR for home releases, but I respected his rights nonetheless). I support Criterion's approach in this case as a matter of principle, regardless of the outcome of the release itself. Same applies to Cameron's decisions re Avatar for home release, Nolan's decisions re: The Dark Knight and so on. There are too many instances in artistic endeavours, across all genres of art, where creators are prematurely stripped of their rights.

I agree w/ the sentiment for the most part, but would be very reluctant to agree to be bound to a policy of this sort w/out any provisions whatsoever for exceptional cases (like this one).

 

At what point is the creator no longer acting as creator of the created art for instance? That principle essentially assumes the creator is always the creator and would presumably have sincere, vested interest in what's best for the presentation of the art (or the work itself). If some creators make misguided, but sincere, well-intentioned changes, that would be one thing. But what if it's very apparent that the "creator" has some other agenda in mind and is likely ignoring what's best for the created work?

 

Remember. This stuff is not some highly abstract thing just for the sake of art, but also a work released for commercial purposes (and for our appreciation) -- and there are definite side agendas at play here even for the filmmakers. It's not like Storaro's claim that TLE was originally shot for this MARed framing has any legs on which to stand. Considering all accounts that holds any water whatsover, Storaro's claim seems pretty ridiculous and looks loaded w/ side agendas. It would be one thing if the Criterion release was actually 2.2:1 (and w/out some obviously bad crops, need for panning, etc) and that other wider Storaro films did not also get mercilessly chopped down to the same 2:1 AR. The whole explanation being fed to us just doesn't jive at all.

 

If it's simply a matter of the creator doing what's best for the presentation of his work despite diverging from the original composition, then just say so w/out feeding us a line about it having originally been shot for 2:1 AR given the overall context. It's one thing to say the creator believes a certain film should be presented a certain way given a certain context -- and that could indeed make sense -- but it's quite another to claim that it was originally composed for this unless that's really true.

 

At least give us a straight answer on why the film is being altered -- and so far, I have seen no such thing. Even if I might not agree w/ the specifics of the alterations, I can respect the filmmaker for that (and for trying to do what is best for the film presentation in his opinion). This whole fiasco w/ Storaro so far just cannot be respected as any kind of honest effort whatsoever -- and the folks closely involved w/ it, including Bertolucci and Criterion, also lose a bit of respect in the process because of how this has been playing out.

 

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose as long as the OCN or some high quality master remains available in OAR and can be revisited in the future, this MARed release isn't quite so bad though it sure sucks right now. Well, I sure hope they didn't "burn" all higher quality versions of the film in OAR anyway...

 

_Man_

 

[PaulDA]

The rationalizations of the creators, in this specific case, do appear suspect at first glance (I'm not familiar with the film or the details of the claim that it was intended for a different AR than the one used in cinemas back in the 80s beyond what I've gleaned in here and a few other fora I visit). I do understand the frustration of that portion of the audience that cares about such details. My own view, though, remains the same--despite what individual creators might do that could be considered questionable, the principle of maintaining creator control as often as possible prevails (to me).

 

I would dearly like to get my hands on a copy of the theatrical cut of JFK. Historical feature films are an ongoing professional interest of mine and it would be good to be able to compare that cut with the longer cut that is currently available on home video. If I had my way, the current releases would have seamless branching, at the least, if not separate copies on separate discs. I think it would be instructive to do a comparison of the two cuts. Oliver Stone, though, apparently has no desire to make that shorter cut available. I don't know what his reasons are (haven't bothered to look much into it). I probably would not agree with them were they to become known to me. But I still respect his right to decide how his creation should be presented to the audience.
 

At some point, to bring it back to the film in question, I will likely rent the DVD and the BD and do a comparison, just to satisfy my own curiosity. For now, I chalk this up as the cost of maintaining the larger principle. It is a bit like freedom of speech, conceptually. True freedom of speech is measured, not by the speech one finds agreeable, but rather by the speech one finds objectionable. I object to the lack of access to a specific cut of JFK--you object to the recropping of The Last Emperor (someone else has his own beef with another film). Despite this, I believe it important for creators to have as much control over their creation as they can.

 

Anyway, it's very late in my neck of the woods and I'm still behind in my marking, so I will bid you au revoir.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Paul,

 

There is an inherent philosophical (and practical) dilemma w/ what you're promoting(?). At some point, there is a line to be drawn even for something like freedom of speech, eg. it should not allow someone to freely play a practical joke w/ 911 or to shout "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater. Likewise, there needs to be some provision for handling truly exceptional cases w/ this principle about creative control, and I would beg to differ about Storaro's case here (if he is indeed doing something wholly contrary to the good of these films both in his intentions as well as in actuality) vs most other cases we've seen where the filmmakers revised their work.

 

And no, I'm not proposing anything so draconian as to enact laws or such to prevent something like this particular case. I just don't believe it is good for us to actively support a creator's (indefinite) control w/ complete disregard to the creator's intentions, etc. in exercising that control. Again, even if we were to adhere to that principle w/ no exception, I would pose the question whether a creator is still the rightful creator (or relinquishes that role whether temporarily or otherwise) when he/she chooses to do something contrary to the good of the work itself *both* in intention and in actuality.

 

For instance, when Kubrick chose to present many of his films open matte for video presentation back before larger 16x9 displays went mainstream, he expressed that he strongly believes in that presentation specifically for what's available to most viewers of that time, ie. his intention is for what he believes to be the best presentation of his films. In other different cases, the filmmakers may be permanently revising their works (rather than just the temporary presentation) to become what they believe is best for those works whether as they originally envisioned or otherwise. And yes, some of those cases might seem a bit dubious, but most of them are not nearly as dubious as Storaro's case near as I can tell.

 

Anyway, I should probably let this go (at least) for now. Seems like we're just flogging a dead horse here although I sure hope to own a copy of TLE w/ a high quality OAR transfer some day...

 

_Man_

 

[Jonathan Kaye]

Man, you do realise there's a perfectly good word 'with' that you could use instead of 'w/'?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong /forum/thread/303017/last-emperor-uncropped/30#post_3719755

 

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben /forum/thread/303017/last-emperor-uncropped#post_3719595

Nothing like a moderator keeping the discussion civil and on a mature level and setting an example, unlike the rest of us who might have indulged in childish nyah nyah nyah behavior.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

 

And, of course, Criterion is also legally bound to release a film on Blu-ray when the distributor supplies them with inferior elements. Otherwise they would be sued into bankruptcy.

 

Horse hockey. I am sure that Criterion has enough experience and legal advice to allow them to refuse elements or release a product if it is going to hurt their reputation. All of these licenses have a term, and they could simply let it run out if they wanted to. Criterion made a calculated decision and chose to release TLE as delivered, end of story.

 

This film has been released by several companies, and it is not impossible that someone else will get the license and release it in the original aspect ratio.

 

[Peter Neski]

"and it is not impossible that someone else will get the license and release it in the original aspect ratio."

 

They Have and did it first,Pal DVD with most of the extras including commentary

Don't most new LCD's play Pal?