Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Ronald Epstein · 01-29-2008, 09:34 AM

Written by the set’s producer Kim Hendrickson with a quote from Bertolucci, this recently posted to the “ON FIVE” blog on www.criterion.com.

We've received a number of letters recently inquiring about the various versions of Bernardo Bertolucci's The Last Emperor. I've been immersed in the film for several months now and wanted to clarify a few misconceptions.

When I started working on the project, I began with the assumption that we would be releasing both versions of the film--the original theatrical version (165 minutes, on the NTSC version) and the "director's cut" (218 minutes, NTSC). Knowing that mastering would be the first step in the process, I reached out to the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, as we wanted him to be involved in a new HD transfer of the film for our release. He wrote back right away, mentioning that he had supervised a 2K transfer of the film in Rome a year or so back. I had accumulated the various European DVD releases of the film--all of which featured both versions--so I asked him which version he had transferred. His response was surprising. He said that the director-approved version of the film (and the one he supervised) was the one we all knew from seeing it screened in theaters in 1987--the 165-minute version.

Not long after we began corresponding, Storaro came to New York, and when we met he explained the story behind the two different cuts. The filmmakers had been required to deliver a four-hour television version as part of their original deal. They delivered four 50-plus-minute episodes, accounting for the 218-minute length. Gabriella Cristiani, the editor, and Bertolucci then continued editing until they had the picture they wanted. The film screened in movie theaters in 1987--and which swept the Oscars--is Bertolucci's final cut.

Because we wanted this to be a "director-approved" release, I contacted Bertolucci, and he confirmed the above with the following response, which I cherish:

"I would be very pleased to present the theatrical version for The Last Emperor, but I'm perplexed on presenting the director's cut, because I wouldn't know what else to say about a version that in my opinion is not much different from the other one, just a little bit more boring (as very often the director's cut can be). That's my sincere feeling."

It seems that in the past few years, the television version has been improperly marketed as the approved "director's cut." Our four-disc edition will also include this longer version, which is fascinating in its own right, but it will be called precisely what it is--the television version. In the past, we've released television versions of films (Fanny and Alexander and Scenes from a Marriage, to name two) that were the directors' preferred cuts. In this case, we wanted to show the alternative--the different ways a director can refine and achieve his final vision.

**HTF Ads**

PaulDA · 01-29-2008, 09:56 AM

The assumption, at least among the general public, seems to be that the "Director's Cut" is always the LONGER version, when available. I'm glad you're able to illustrate this is not always the case. The same applies for Ridley Scott's extended Gladiator (he specifically states in the introduction that the theatrical cut is his "director's cut") and I believe the same applies to the LOTR theatrical cuts (I'm pretty sure I've seen such a comment attributed to Peter Jackson, though I'm not certain).

In any event, it is always enjoyable to get this kind of information and I look forward to adding this to my collection.

Bob Cashill · 01-29-2008, 03:57 PM

This is one case, however, where I very strongly feel that the longer cut is the better one. The theatrical version felt slimmed down to me, as if something was missing. I'm glad both will be present but I can't imagine choosing the shorter one over the far more immersive longer one, which is the one that sold me on a film I had previously only respected, and that only begrudgingly. (Per Bertolucci, I thought it was boring.)

Chris S · 01-29-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulDA

In any event, it is always enjoyable to get this kind of information and I look forward to adding this to my collection.

My thoughts exactly. This is the reason that I so cherish the work that Criterion puts forward with their releases. They take the time to talk to those involved with the film, they don't pander to the "super special ultimate edition" mentality and they present their films with some truly great DVD releases. I've had this title on pre-order for quite a while and am very eager to watch it.

Mike Frezon · 01-29-2008, 10:29 PM

This could be in the running for one of 2008's "releases of the year."

I am very much looking forward to this.

Of course I wish it were being released on Blu-ray. Or, that at least the re-mastered SD-version also had a less-expensive theatrical-cut-only release to hold me over so that I wouldn't feel so bad when I want to double-dip on the eventual HD release.

Patrick McCart · 01-29-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

This could be in the running for one of 2008's "releases of the year."

I am very much looking forward to this.

Of course I wish it were being released on Blu-ray. Or, that at least the re-mastered SD-version also had a less-expensive theatrical-cut-only release to hold me over so that I wouldn't feel so bad when I want to double-dip on the eventual HD release.

Isn't Image supposed to come out with a stripped down movie-only DVD around the same time? They had a deal worked out with the Recorded Picture Company so that Criterion would do the all-out ultimate edition for several films while Image would release remastered movie-only versions.

Mike Frezon · 01-29-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick McCart

Isn't Image supposed to come out with a stripped down movie-only DVD around the same time? They had a deal worked out with the Recorded Picture Company so that Criterion would do the all-out ultimate edition for several films while Image would release remastered movie-only versions.

Gee, Patrick...that sounds like it might be just-the-right-thing for me. But, I only see the Criterion 4-discer listed at Amazon right now.

Robert Harris · 01-30-2008, 07:30 AM

I've always personally preferred the longer cut as a more cohesive and satisfying experience. The two seem quite different and I'm pleased that both will be presented albeit in SD at this point, and not HD, where this film will shine.

Just as importantly, kudos to Criterion's Kim Hendrickson for doing the research and, in what has become SOP for Criterion, getting to the heart of the matter, and thereby "printing the truth."

RAH

JulianK · 01-30-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

Of course I wish it were being released on Blu-ray.

I second that. It's about time Criterion got off the fence.

I'm trying not to buy any SD movies any more, and certainly not titles like this, where I already have a pretty good edition on DVD (the UK two-disc set), and where it would definitely be a title I'd buy in HD if it was available.

Aaron Silverman · 01-30-2008, 02:08 PM

I third that. Any word from Criterion on BD? I'll be first (or, I guess, third) in line for this one when that happens.

But I'm not investing any more money in SD sets at this point.

Mike Frezon · 01-30-2008, 03:07 PM

But I don't have a decent SD version of it...and who knows how long it'll take Criterion to start issuing HD material? And, once they do...how long before The Last Emperor gets an HD release?

I MAY have to bite the bullet on this one...and then eschew the HD version.