What's new

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

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce


I have to agree with John on this one. The DP is more often than not hired by the director, or at least chosen by the director. It is not unheard of for a DP, or a composer or any number of other creative people involved in a film to be replaced in the middle of shooting, because they aren't giving the director what he or she wants.

Yes film is a collaborative art, but ultimately a film set is a benevolent dictatorship. Once the director is hired, he is in charge and he makes all the choices.

Doug
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
I've bought the BD, and watched the movie for the first time; it is indeed terrific.

But I am a little confused by all the hoopla about the color. When Friedkin shows the negative pre-color timing, it looks washed out and grainy, exactly the effect he seems to be going for. Why all the energy with extra layers and color saturation? The original seems fine.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,311
Real Name
Robert Harris

The "pre-color timing," is precisely that, a basic color correction applied to get normal flesh tones, etc. The image is then further manipulated, as it would be in analogue color timing, to give the intended look to the film.

The final digitized "experimental" look and the pre-color grade have nothing in common beyond content.
 

Peter Neski

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,191
whats with all that loading crap on this,everything about this BR was slow
on my player,the menus weren't all that great,the extras were excellent

One should also remember that that last dvd ,looked diiferent then the
laser ,which of those two looked like the original?

I really think the original negative is were all the problems are,Billy might
have changed the look of the color,But the up's and downs of the Picture
Q. are because of the Original neg,Why at the end there are shots that
look great ,then right after one great looking shot theres some over grainy
shots that looks like they didn't have enough light
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
Again, I don't really understand.

Before anything is done to the film, colorwise, there is a print made from the negative, and that print is in color. The color is a flat, low-contrast color, but color nonetheless.

Why do anything at all to it, on this film? Friedkin didn't want natural, rich hues, but something harsher. Why not allow the negative to be seen as it really is?

I don't really have any complaint about this BD except this: the "color" of the movie seems manipulated, and then you find out that it is. It's a distraction.

I know all movies are color-timed, but this does seem like an extreme way of doing it, getting a color "look" that might have been achieved much more easily.
 

JohnMor

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
5,157
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Real Name
John Moreland

Yeah, I actually thought I had a defective disc for a minute because the load time was so long. I'd seen some slow blu-rays but nothing like this.

Also, I just remembered that Fincher completely re-timed his film Se7en digitally for home theater release on the New Line Platinum Series dvd to where it looked completely diffrerent from the theatrical release and no one balked at that or insisted the "original" version be released in the same package. I also don't see anyone calling for the theatrical cut of Zodiac on blu-ray or boycotting the current (DC only) release since it doesn't also include the TC. Added to the titles I mentioned earlier, I really have to wonder why the DVD of Se7en and the blu-rays of Friday the 13th, Sleeping Beauty and Zodiac are somehow exempt from the all-important "must include the original version" rule so vociferously put forth here.
 

Brian Borst

Screenwriter
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,137
It's all a matter of preference, I think. Some want this version, others another version. So that's why (in the extreme cases) both versions should be included. But all this 'campaigning' made me realize something: I'm beginning to get to a point where I almost don't enjoy the movies anymore. There sometimes is too much fuss going on, and I really don't want to become someone who argues about every title out there. And I haven't even seen TFC on BD yet (and caps can be faulty too). So I'll probably buy it. Most of the time I tend to watch the director's preferred cut anyway.
Phew, conflicting opinions of a single person, but anyway
htf_images_smilies_smile.gif
.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
This is just an opinion but if Mr. Friedkin had more directorial jobs lined up I doubt he'd fine the time to go back and mess around with all these transfers. The debate on who has the right to change something is an interesting one. I've been to a few boards where debates about the colorized Ray Harryhausen films have broken out. Some people fall back on the claim that people are watching these movies for Harryhausen's work so his word on whether or not they should be in color is up to him. Thankfully both versions were released.

I would like to know which side of the fence people will fall on if the director of a B&W movie says he originally wanted to shoot it in color and forty-years later colorizes the movie and only releases that version. It really seems like this is something we're headed for and it's clear Friedkin has nothing better to do than mess around with previous films. I do have to wonder why he has so much control over the films and if some of his comments will hold true in regards to the eventual release of THE EXORCIST.

I almost picked this up at Target yesterday but I eventually walked away. I had to do this with CRUISING as well but I hope that's not the case with future films.
 

JohnMor

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
5,157
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Real Name
John Moreland

You even have to ask why he has so much control over his films? :confused: Again, I don't think I've ever heard that asked of any other director.

Personally, there are things I hate in the Exorcist Redux. While I love the additional doctor scenes and the alternate ending, the spiderwalk and the extra superimpositions take me right out of the film and IMO need to go.

However, it's his film and if that's what makes it to blu-ray, I'll either breakdown and buy it, or just be happy with my original version dvd. Either way, it's his work to put out in the manner he wants, not mine.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott

There's some truth to this and I would agree with you if both versions are out there to see. With TFC, its look always had so much to do with the mood, feeling and atmosphere and I just fear some of that will be gone with the new picture. Perhaps I should hold my tongue until I view the disc but I wasn't too thrilled with the CRUISING disc. Griffith and Chaplin were known to edit their films years after the original release but very few people enjoy those cuts.

Going back to your F13 example, I know very few people who want a MPAA-edited edition no matter what the movie is. I guess you have a point about the theatrical version being included but most people will go for the unrated one and I'd guess that's why Paramount isn't going to have both versions. It's either SAW 1 or 2 that features a five second difference in the cuts so once again, most would pick the unrated. EYES WIDE SHUT is another that I doubt people want in its theatrical version.

We could break them down film by film because I enjoy the 1930 cut of THE LOST WORLD to its 1925 theatrical version. Again, it's up to the viewer but I would hope in this day and age we could either get both versions or the one I want, which is how the studio is going to get my money.
htf_images_smilies_smile.gif
 

PaulDA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
2,708
Location
St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Real Name
Paul
IF the director negotiated his contract carefully, he (and his estate) will retain rights over his creation. That is something I fully support, even at the cost of getting what "I" want. Art should remain within the province of the creator as much as possible. Would I prefer to have the theatrical release along with whatever different version becomes available? Of course--but I am not willing to impose my "rights" as a consumer to be satisfied over the rights of the creator. I have NO such rights. I only have the right to decide to whether or not I will rent, buy, watch the "new" version in question, along with the right to express my discontent (where applicable).

Since I've only ever seen The French Connection on TV (and it's been at least 20 years), I doubt I'll be disappointed with this release. But that is just me. I don't expect that everyone will be happy with this release, nor should I. But if I am disappointed, and the disappointment rests on the modifications Friedkin has brought to the film, so be it. I will still defend his right to do with his creations as he wishes.

I think the best approach to filmmakers who want to modify their releases and NOT make the "original" available is to express (either in fora like this, or letters to the director via his agent or whatever) a POSITIVE desire for the original. Calling the director an "idiot" for modifying his own creation may well be within one's right, but it is hardly productive.

All that said, anyone who feels strongly enough about not having access to the original should indeed withhold purchase out of principle. No one should be criticized or insulted for that decision anymore than those who choose to accept the "new" version.
 

Brad Vautrinot

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
219
Paul,

I feel that criticism is fine but insults are indeed counterproductive for the most part.

I wonder what the public would say if Da Vinci's heirs decided they wanted to change the color of Mona Lisa's dress. Well, they can't since the French government owns the painting but you get my drift.

Or how about Ansel Adam's heirs deciding to colorize some of his prints (sacrilege).

Here's a movie that won 5 Oscars and was nominated for 3 others as originally made. Why not leave well enough alone - or at least include the original as an extra. I've seen a few movies that did not benefit, imo, from later director manipulation:

Payback
Exorcist
French Connection
Blood Simple
Star Wars

to name a few.

Brad
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Yet, we're not talking about heirs, but the director, who's vision is the film.

By the way, I like the updated version of The Exorcist, but I would prefer they include both versions with the upcoming BR release.






Crawdaddy
 

PaulDA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
2,708
Location
St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Real Name
Paul
The only one I've seen in an altered form of the above is Star Wars and I was not happy with the changes ("Hans shoots first" makes a lot more sense for his character development) but Lucas has the right to do what he wishes with his creation. He is NOT obliged to provide multiple versions (I can live with the bareboned nod he made with the DVD set a while back), nor is any other creator--no matter what I (or any other member of the audience) may think or feel about it. We have NO "rights" in the matter of satisfaction. We have the right to not spend money on the altered product and express our disappointment over it, but that's a separate issue.

This issue arose with the BD release of The Dark Knight. People wanted a fixed AR version on BD and the director did NOT want to make that available. I understand people's frustration with his choice, but it is his choice to make. It's the same with any and all other releases where the creator retains his rights over the creation. I can cite a musical example. Genesis has recently re-released all of its studio albums (save the very first one over which they no longer hold the rights) and they have new MCH mixes (not the only ones to have done this, of course) and new 2 channel mixes. I have the original mixes and the new ones, while not radically different, are, nevertheless, quite noticeable to serious fans. The band has announced that once existing stocks of the original mixes are no longer available, the new mixes will be the only ones on the market. I already have the originals, so it doesn't much matter to me--but it could be an issue for others (and, going forward, in whatever new formats emerge, the old ones will not be available--just like the "old" versions of films, in some cases). It is their right.

I've been sometimes accused of wanting to stifle dissent (rarely here, but here and elsewhere) by making the "right of the creator" argument. That is not all the case. People have every right to complain about creator decisions. They simply don't have the right to be satisfied with the creator's decisions.
 

Brad Vautrinot

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
219

Not my intention or thoughts. Yes, I agree that the creator has the right to change things. My only right is to not buy it if I don't like it. Here's where, I think, some folks take umbrage with some directors changing things around. If the feelings are strong enough some name calling is likely to ensue pointed straight at the director.Brad
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink

Has anyone opined otherwise? I've seen (and more than once taken part in) lots of bitching and moaning about directors or studios releasing altered versions of films on Blu-ray and DVD without the original version, but I don't think I've seen anyone say that they don't have the right to do so. I'm not even sure how one would formulate a cogent argument for that position. Are you saying that some people believe that it should be illlegal to release a film on Blu-ray or DVD without the original version? If so, I agree with you that it's quite absurd.
 

Kris Z.

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
191
I recently listened to an interview with Terry Gilliam. Upon being asked how he felt about his old films, he said that when he watched them he was often left surprised, wondering who had actually made them, because the Terry Gilliam he was then isn't the same person as the Terry Gilliam he is now.

I thought that was kind of interesting. In a way you could argue that The French Connection was directed by Friedkin 1971, not Friedkin 2008, and thus it is not obvious that editing the film to his heart's content 35+ years later should be accepted without question.

Regardless, I think not including the original version is dumb. It's just sad that there isn't anything more you can do than voting with your wallet.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce

I'm not sure that Payback falls into this category because the original release was taken away from the director, and additional scene were directed by someone else. The director's cut is what Helgeland had intended in the first place.

Doug
 

PaulDA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
2,708
Location
St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Real Name
Paul
No one has said it should be illegal, but more than one person has made claims to the effect that because they are "fans" they are "owed" a version to which they feel attached--the creator's desires be damned. They are free to lament the lack of whatever version they pine for, but they are not "owed" anything (unless the packaging and ad campaigns promise one thing and deliver quite another--but that would very likely NOT be the fault of the creator in any case). And I've encountered some who have argued the creators do not have the right to withhold an original as it belongs to "the public" (a strange interpretation of "public ownership" in a society with copyright laws, but hey, what can one do?).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,741
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top