DVD Review HTF DVD REVIEW: Touch of Evil 50th Anniversary Edition - Highly Recommended (1 Viewer)

[MarcoBiscotti]

I'm not saying that Kevin is mistaken, but I would be very surprised if Universal did not go to the trouble of reconstructing multiple cuts of this highly regarded film without creating a new transfer to work from. I'm sure this will eventually rear itself on BD given that it is a rather high tier entry in the cannon of "film noir" and classic cinema with the Welles director credit so it would strike me a very odd decision. I'm sure most were expecting to see this remastered with the new Legacy Edition. Perhaps it's a subtle difference.

 

[David_B_K]

That's good. I threw the old disc on the other day to see if it looked as bad as I remember, and it is really pretty soft.

Also, I watched the "Reconstructing Evil" doc, and from the lineup of folks in the "new" features, I am inclined to believe that they have indeed broken up "Reconstructing Evil" into a couple of featurettes.

 

[oscar_merkx]

nearly forgot that this came out

 

[Patrick McCart]

Quick comparison to show how the transfers look...

Restored Version on the 2000 DVD:
[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/a/ac/htf_imgcache_35043.png] [/url]

Restored Version on the 2008 DVD:
[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/0/02/htf_imgcache_35044.png] [/url]

1975 Preview Cut/1958 Theatrical Cut:
[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/a/a8/htf_imgcache_35045.png] [/url]

Main difference for the restored version between 2000 and 2008 is that the heavy noise reduction is lifted, the image is sharper, there's natural film grain visible, and black levels are richer. I'm guessing that Universal built the theatrical/preview cuts back up from the same materials since the opening credits look exactly the same in quality.

Overall, the quality is in line with Universal's usually stellar handling of B&W films. I'm eager to dive into the commentaries, especially with Heston and Leigh.

 

[Fabian Kusch]

What a relief!

The new transfer looks good to me, as far as you can judge from one single screenshot.

I'll be happy to recieve my DVD soon...

 

[oscar_merkx]

another review DVD Talk Review: Touch Of Evil - 50th Anniversary Edition

 

[Craig Beam]

Clearly a new transfer. No offense, Kevin, but how could you think these were the same???? ;-)

 

[Jon Martin]

Dave Kehr has a comparison of the full frame to the new DVDs on his blog.

New DVDs: Touch of Evil | davekehr.com

 

[Charles H]

Has anybody spotted Keenan Wynn in a "bit part" in any of the three versions? The imdb has had him listed as being in the film for ages.

 

[PaulDA]

Same here. Anyone have any idea if this likely to be on BD in the near future?

 

[BillyFeldman]

Oh, my Lord in heaven, the stupidity of the people on that site is beyond belief. Not a one of them ever saw Touch of Evil when it was released - they saw it on TV. Of course, they think it's Academy ratio, that's all they've ever known. But to hear them spout off is shocking, actually. No feature film from a major studio in the US in 1958 was shot in Academy ratio - none. No theater would have been able to project it that way in 1958. But because they're used to the open matte framing they think that's the way Russell Metty and Welles framed it. Sorry - they're pros - they knew how it was going to be projected. Is it tight at the top of the frame - sure, claustrophobically so, as was the intent. It's such a cliche now to say "ooh, they cut off the heads" - have these people never seen any films shot in Academy - plenty of tops of heads gone in close-ups, because the cameramen wanted the eyes just above the center of the frame. Have these people never seen a film shot in scope? Plenty of tops of heads missing in plenty of shots, plenty of tight to the frame sequences. And this is the problem with young people who grew up on films on TV and video - they have no idea about framing - don't they go to current films - plenty of tight to the frame line shots and plenty of cut-off tops of heads. But, they know better because, you know, they've watched TV and that's how they first saw the film. Reminds me about The Shining, etc. so clearly framed for 1.85:1 and so clearly projected that way in its theatrical engagements.

 

[Bob Cashill]

They're pretty bright people, actually.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Well, you wouldn't know it from their posts.

 

[Kevin EK]

I can't argue with the screen captures - they definitely look sharper. If anything, they show what I was referring to as a "crisp" transfer. At the same time, the DVD Talk reviewer mentions that the differences are subtle. I'll be the first to admit not picking up on them. What I don't understand is why there was no discussion in the packaging or anywhere else of a new transfer being made for this release.

Be that as it may - I'm not perfect. I make the best call I can, and I try to give you as much information as I can. The DNR issue is one that I don't tend to see as much on a 40" screen. (Robert Harris has discussed at length the need to have a larger screen to really pick up on what DNR can do to the image, and I am looking into getting a 60" screen in the near future.)

Craig Beam, what can I say? You're right to thwack me. On the other hand, how many reviewers do you know who will run over to the surround speakers in the middle of the movie and try to listen to just that speaker's output to figure out exactly what is in the surround field? People that come over to my place think I'm OCD with this stuff...

 

[Fabian Kusch]

My DVD arrived today and I'm very happy with it. Watched the Preview Version first. What a wonderful film!

I uploaded some screenshots from all three versions and compared them to the previous NTSC und PAL transfers on this German site:

Left to right:
1. 2000 transfer of Restored Version (NTSC)
2. 2003 transfer of Restored Version (PAL)
3. Preview version (NTSC)
4. Theatrical version (NTSC)
5. 2008 transfer of Restored Version (NTSC)

http://forum.cinefacts.de/5758528-post12.html

 

[Fabian Kusch]

.

 

[rich_d]

Sure, films were shown in 1.85:1 ratio in 1958. Are films today shown in widescreen with heads cut off? Absolutely as any who has watched LOTR films can attest.

However, WHAT Welles knows and whether one applies what one knows is on much shakier ground. If you're going down the he's a pro route than I would have to say that:

- Pros know that when someone does them a favor getting them to direct a film when nobody at the studios wants you ... you deliver in spades

- Pros know that if you don't have 'final cut' you do what you can to protect the final product. Bend over backwards, but protect your creative product as much as possible. What pros don't do is send off long-ass memos from the sidelines.

What Welles knows about modern projection is not a given. For all we know he's living in 1948 - which by the way is the last year that his friend Ernest Nims last edited a film and who Welles got on the project.

Personally, the film I know is the 1.85:1 version. I didn't grow up watching this film on TV so I don't have that bias.

I did watch the video posted on this:

New DVDs: Touch of Evil | davekehr.com

and I read some of the debate going around the Internet.

To me, the key point is that if you're going to go about doing a version of Touch of Evil with the intent of protecting the artistic choices of the director then they should protect the artistic choices of the director. Admittedly, that becomes judgmental but that comes with the project they chose so it comes with the territory.

Do I for a second believe that a lower budget film did this big long sign for the United States Customs and Immigration as visual narrative of the couple entering into the United States for the viewer? Yes. Do I believe they wanted it cropped from the scene and missing entirely as they walk up? No.

Do I think that Welles wore a fat suit so that it would be cropped so that his big belly wouldn't show it the scenes (which btw would add to the claustrophobic element Billy alludes to)? No.

Do I think a film with so many, many camera shots looking up were done so you don't see up? No.

Do I think that Welles borrows from the 1930's German style of slanted angles (in so many shots) to build on the surreal/noir aspects of the film? Absolutely. Do I think that the approach works when the background is cut off so that effect is (often) lost or that Welles went for that? No.

Welles was a visual genius. My opinion is that these gentlemen did not protect that. Others can watch the posted link and decide for themselves.

Certainly widescreen DVDs sell better than full frame and certainly calling something a "restored version" or a "definitive cut" also sells better than 'straight talk.' They are quick to point out there is no such thing as a "director's cut" but strangely the same truth that this is NOT a "restored" film alludes their lips.

 

[Sergio A]

My copy of this new release arrived yesterday and I'm glad to say that, to my eye at least, it improves considerably on Universal's earlier DVD. The presentation of three different release versions (the chronologically first and second 'cuts' presumably through DVD branching) is a great accomplishment and will doubtless prove to be of great interest to students and academics in particular.

In 2001 I gave a lecture at the London National Film Theatre (now renamed BFI Southbank) on the three versions of TOUCH OF EVIL and had the chance to examine 35mm prints of the original 1958 release, the longer UCLA 1970s version and the Rick Schmidlin/Walter Murch 1998 version. While the other two were unmarked, the print of the 1998 version that was made available from the UK distributor was clearly marked on the can as to be showed in 1.66:1 and that is how we screened it - it is certainly clear when watching 35mm prints projected (which in any event to avoid showing the rounded corners cut off part of the image even when shown at 4:3) that screening it in open matte format would do it a disservice - apart from anything else, if shown that way then during the second tracking shot (the one after the zoom into the exploding car) you would be able to see the bottom of the camera dolly throughout most of the shot. Personally I have great faith in the judgement of Schmidlin, Murch and Jonathan Rosenbaum given what they have written on TOUCH OF EVIL and if they have signed off on this video release then would consider that to be a fairly good indicator that is to be taken very seriously.

Having said that, personally I have always felt that the best home video compromise would be 1.77:1 - I find it fascinating, and healthy, that this has generated so much interest. It's a magnificent and important film - the more people see it and discuss it, the better.

I think this new DVD works extremely well and is a fine release, but nothing is perfect of course and the omission of the original documentary (which has been shown on UK television however) is certainly thoroughly irritating, especially as the way it has been broken up into the new documentaries is frankly rather artless compared wityh the original. The commentaries are fascinating though, with Feeney's talk definitely coming a distant third, it has to be said. It's a shame that there are no features explicitly looking at the variences between the three versions in detail (like the Bob Gitt documentary on the BIG SLEEP release for instance) - something of a missed opportunity really.

The criticisms of this set though seem minor however, subjectively speaking of course and wel all have different standards -for instance, if the mono track really is missing from the new VERTIGO disc I for one will be bitterly disappointed since it was after all available on the previous if (if you're overseas like myself) hard-to-obtain and fairly expensive box set (UK customs would have a field day I assure you).

 

[David_B_K]

I watched some of the documentary material on this new SE, and it is indeed edited down from "Reconstructing Evil". The original doc had a several-minute-long intro which included snippets various talking heads make a statement which was intercut with a shot and line from the movie. For example, Rick Schmidlin says "we decided to re-edit the film the way Welles intended", and it cuts to Schwartz and Vargas in the Records room with Schwartz saying "you've got your work cut out for you", and so on.

Also, some of the talking heads are edited. In this new version, you see Robert Wise saying that "Touch of Evil was a return to the Welles I worked with from Citizen Kane..". In the uncut version, he goes on to say "..and The Magnificent Ambersons" and he continues to talk over some scenes from the film. So there is probably a lot of paring down of the various statements throughout the mini docs, but they basically add up to "Reconstructing Evil".

 

[Douglas R]

Billy Feldman said all there was to be said on the subject and this is adding yet more speculation. As always, people tend to look at full screen versions of films and see all that extra material which they think was intended to be projected.