WHV Press Release: SORCERER (Blu-ray Book) (1 Viewer)

[hanshotfirst1138]

Causal, not casual. Damn autocorrect. Again, I'm not arguing that the director does EVERYTHING by any means, but there are generally more casual links between directors' work than anything else. How many Steven Spielberg films deal with father figures, nuclear families, etc, even those which he didn't write? How many Scorsese films deal with catholic guilt, self-destructive behavior, etc? How many repeatedly utilize the same stylistic traits or camera techniques repeatedly. Again, I'm not arguing that the director is the only authorial voice by any means, but "aeuter" directors are almost never hired for big studio projects, and you can almost always tell which piece is which in a designed by committee movie like that. Again, there are a broad variety of factors-choreographers, second unit directors, CG artists, etc. But a "aeuter" director (Orson Welles, Steven Speilberg, David Lynch, David Cronenberg, the lost goes on and on) almost always have specific visual tropes to which they return, themes which they repeatedly explore, etc, as opposed to more journeyman directors (Simon West, Len Wiseman, etc). As you yourself pointed out most "aeuters" almost inevitable take on other production roles as micromanagers-producer and screenwriter, and sometimes even editors, or hitch their wagons to specific artist collaborators, but the violence in Anthony Mann films is shot too similarly across many of his films for me not to see him as the link, and there's way too much of Tim Burton in Tim Burton films for me NOT to call him an "aeuter." By no means does that mean he was the ONLY creative force behind any picture, but there's too much of him in his movies not to define them as primarily his own. I've simply seen too many films with many interesting elements which didn't cohere together because the director at the helm wasn't a strong enough hand to pull everything together. Hell, I loathe Michael Bay, but the constant leering up women's skirts, slow motion, rapid fire cutting, military fetishism, and constantly roving camera in his films leads me to believe that he's the primary creative force in charge. Someone has to be able to unite the many disparate pieces of a film into a cohesive whole.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Just saw the blu-ray tonite, projected on a large screen. Looks quite brilliant, and the selective oversaturation of colors contributed to the surreal atmosphere. I've been watching this film since the ONTV pay television days of the late '70s/early 80s, and still have the 1998 DVD that I just put into a sleeve and slipped it into the Digibook (the old DVD has the excellent trailer, production notes and bios, and it's one less thing to add to the local landfill).

However, one thing I did NOT like, was...

Spoiler

The added gunshot sound at the end of the film. I mean c'mon, that was not necessary AT ALL.

 

[rsmithjr]

I just saw the new Blu-ray of Sorcerer.

I didn't see this film in original release but I like it very much and have seen other home video incarnations.

I generally like the color timing of the Blu-ray. It adds an intensity to the film. However, if you don't like it, it is easy enough to tune it down a bit if your monitor/projector has reasonable controls. I tried some experiments.

I take the view that it is my disk and my house and I will adjust accordingly. In this case, I will go for what I suspect is over-saturation from the original prints but still a very interesting look.

 

[CinemaCynic]

Causal, not casual. Damn autocorrect. Again, I'm not arguing that the director does EVERYTHING by any means, but there are generally more casual links between directors' work than anything else. How many Steven Spielberg films deal with father figures, nuclear families, etc, even those which he didn't write? How many Scorsese films deal with catholic guilt, self-destructive behavior, etc? How many repeatedly utilize the same stylistic traits or camera techniques repeatedly. Again, I'm not arguing that the director is the only authorial voice by any means, but "aeuter" directors are almost never hired for big studio projects, and you can almost always tell which piece is which in a designed by committee movie like that.

I think the long term argument over this is best saved for a seperate thread, but just to parry on this point it is actually the studio system that inadvertetnly led to the auteur theory. When Truffaut and much of the French New wave were rediscovering Hollywood releases at the Cinematheque after WWII they began to see thematic and stylistic patterns is the work of specific directors, virtually all of whom labored on studio projects to which they were assigned. Some of it is their interests bleeding through but most is repetition of success and reappointment to similar themes and topics after proving an aptitude for filming them successfully. (Financial success over creative, generally. A director's job was and still is primarily as a foreman: get it done, get it done well, get in done on time and on budget.) Their articles in Chaier Du Cinema began the veneration of the director over the system, which once in a while was even actually true.

There's also a difference between modern 'committe' filmmaking, which is probably better described as corporate production, and the once imperfect yet highly functional studio system that provided years of trial and error and craft perfection for all involved who could make it. The prime causal movement in that era was generally a studio boss and/or their heads of production, tho there were succesful independents and the few outlier directors who had real power. Ford, Hitchcock and Capra are three that stand out but its their combination of skills and, in truth, the reliable profitability of their films that gave them their rare autonomy. As did Selznick as a producer, tho his relations kept him financed and is the stuff of lore. The modern corporate blockbuster is neither director nor even strictly producer led, but rather an enterprise that exploits and monetizes (often RE-monetizing) intelletual property. Unromantic and ruinous to diversity in filmmaking (beyond anything micro-budgeted) but the unfortunate reality nonetheless.

As for 'almost never being hired' for those jobs, that's not entirely true. Ang Lee's 'Hulk' comes to mind, and to your thematic point was a very poor fit as a result. Sam Raimi's Spider Man series was far better (the first 2 at any rate) as have been Bryan Singer's X-Men films, tho many disliked his Superman Returns. Many consider Richard Lester an auteur and he was far more catastrophic on Superman III, and does Richard Donner make the Auteur cut? He's a damned good director, one that I far prefer being around than a few others on your list. (And someone who I once heard privately describe 'an auteur' as 'a director who cant easily be fired.')

Speilberg's films are thematically even simpler than you describe, they're all about the sepearation of parent and child. Why? Because his dad ran out on him when he was a kid. He relives it in every story he's told, whether in minor or major form. Scorsese, Lynch, et al are all distinctive artists who are repeatedly drawn to themes and motifs and craftsmen seek to work with them to be a part of that experience and their distinctive manners of story telling. But they're still the exception, superb role models tho they may be.

Every director who repeats or revisits themes is hardly an author, or even a good filmmaker. Technically Ed Wood is an auteur, admire him if you like as that's your personal perrogative, which is a nice segue into Tim Burton. Few filmmakers in the world have leaned more heavily than he has upon the gifted work of others. Talk to some people who have made films with him. Much to admire, much to puncture. That's not an anti-Burton slam, I generally love his taste in material, but the reality is not some brave, clear-sight gifted artist and field general, he's very human in his skills and in his faults as are they all.

Which brings us back, finally, to Friedkin. A filmmaker hired by others on Minsky's, Birthday Party, Good Times, The French Connection and The Exorcist. Some sucked, some worked, but those that fall in the latter are not the exclusive result of his efforts but succeded in large measure because of the help that he had. And in two major cases because of the bosses that he had.

 

[hanshotfirst1138]

I think the long term argument over this is best saved for a separate thread, but just to parry on this point it is actually the studio system that inadvertently led to the auteur theory. When Truffaut and much of the French New wave were rediscovering Hollywood releases at the Cinematheque after WWII they began to see thematic and stylistic patterns is the work of specific directors, virtually all of whom labored on studio projects to which they were assigned. Some of it is their interests bleeding through but most is repetition of success and reappointment to similar themes and topics after proving an aptitude for filming them successfully. (Financial success over creative, generally. A director's job was and still is primarily as a foreman: get it done, get it done well, get in done on time and on budget.) Their articles in Chaier Du Cinema began the veneration of the director over the system, which once in a while was even actually true.

I know all of this, and of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder-as is well-known, many directors like Hawks were amused by the deep analysis given to their films and unintended interpretations. But art is also mercurial by its nature. When I see something in a film quite specifically and the director says that that isn't what he intended, it's part of the magic.

There's also a difference between modern 'committe' filmmaking, which is probably better described as corporate production, and the once imperfect yet highly functional studio system that provided years of trial and error and craft perfection for all involved who could make it. The prime causal movement in that era was generally a studio boss and/or their heads of production, tho there were succesful independents and the few outlier directors who had real power. Ford, Hitchcock and Capra are three that stand out but its their combination of skills and, in truth, the reliable profitability of their films that gave them their rare autonomy.

Three of the greatest filmmakers ever are pretty big outliers though. Obviously, a lot this comes out afterwards too-we now know who did what on which films for a variety of reasons. The notions of "aeuters" even back then had some basis though-writer-directors like Preston Sturges or even filmmakers like Douglas Sirk or Vincentti Minelli who were known for particular stylistic uses of color, etc. Again, that doesn't diminish any of their artistic collaborators, such as the dance choreographers, etc, but it does provide an undeniable causal link between their films. It also depends on how we're define the "aeuteur." If you're saying that the director is responsible for every single minute detail of the film, then obviously, that's physically impossible. Hell, look a talented director like Paul Verhoeven given a bad script like Basic Instinct. You can isolate various elements of Verhoeven's personal tropes and obsessions while still recognizing the bad Esterhas screenwriting. I'm not arguing that the director is responsible for EVERYTHING, simply that you could usually argue that in the case of an iconoclastic director like Terry Gilliam, Cronenberg, etc. that their hand can be felt much more strongly from film to film. Your in interpretation of said theory (which I admit, I too am skeptical about) seems to be that its proponents argue that every last minute detail can be attributed solely to one individual, the director. I agree with you that such a notion is simply ludicrous. If, however, you were to argue that the director was probably the strongest or uniting creative force on a film, then I think you'd be standing on much firmer ground. Beyond this, though, every director is different. Some are obsessive technical perfectionists like Cameron, Speilberg, Kubrick, Fincher, etc. who do fit the above description. Others approach projects differently-Kevin Smith simply tells his DP to make it look good. It depends.

As did Selznick as a producer, tho his relations kept him financed and is the stuff of lore. The modern corporate blockbuster is neither director nor even strictly producer led, but rather an enterprise that exploits and monetizes (often RE-monetizing) intelletual property. Unromantic and ruinous to diversity in filmmaking (beyond anything micro-budgeted) but the unfortunate reality nonetheless.

Franchising, yeah. Filmmaking costs a lot of money. Art of all kinds always has and always will exist at the whim of money. And usually the more money, the strong the mass appeal has to be.

As for 'almost never being hired' for those jobs, that's not entirely true. Ang Lee's 'Hulk' comes to mind, and to your thematic point was a very poor fit as a result. Sam Raimi's Spider Man series was far better (the first 2 at any rate) as have been Bryan Singer's X-Men films, tho many disliked his Superman Returns. Many consider Richard Lester an auteur and he was far more catastrophic on Superman III, and does Richard Donner make the Auteur cut? He's a damned good director, one that I far prefer being around than a few others on your list. (And someone who I once heard privately describe 'an auteur' as 'a director who cant easily be fired.')

Granted. Or look at Kenneth Branagh on Thor, where his influence-extravagantly theatrical style, broader strokes, bold colors, a Shakespeare-inspired narrative, pagentry are seen throughout the film. Branagh still took the project as a gun for hire, and obviously he wasn't the only creative force behind the huge film which ties into a larger franchise, but that doesn't mean you can't see his fingerprints all over it. Again, this depends on how we're interpreting the "aeuter" theory. If the director was literally capable of doing everything, then obviously, there wouldn't be a need for editors, DPs, etc. But if you're arguing that the director is generally a stronger single creative force than the other disparate pieces on the film, then I think you could make a more compelling argument for that. The James Bond films almost NEVER hire someone who could be identified as an "aeuter," precisely because they want someone who'll be easier to sway to the producers' wishes and more importantly, won't mess with the formula. Arguably the only "aeuter" who's ever been involved with the Star Trek franchise is Nicholas Meyer. He brought things to the franchise which lesser directors didn't or simply borrowed from him, and the fact that he directed what are widely considered the two best films isn't simply coincidental-he's more than a journeyman, he brought something to the films-wit, a quite intelligence, the nautical stylings-which other directors, usually simply TV-bred guns for hire, didn't. Donner is a trickier one, but even there, you have a film with a unifying piece-the producers-but two directors (each with their own crews), and the pieces of those films are usually quite easy to identify as regards who directed what. I would argue that it's the fact that Donner could be considered an "aeuter" which is precisely what led to him being fired-bringing on his own writer for rewrites, fighting for creative control, etc. As far as commonalities, there's his blend of humor with very kinetic action and his slightly cartoony style. Obviously, this is all relative, especially given how troubled those productions were.

Speilberg's films are thematically even simpler than you describe, they're all about the sepearation of parent and child. Why? Because his dad ran out on him when he was a kid. He relives it in every story he's told, whether in minor or major form.

Yes, I know, but my point is that 90% of the time, that theme runs through screenplays he didn't write. Obviously, as the most commercial successful filmmaker ever, he has his pick of material more than some other directors do, but my point is that that's still running through his work. That's not to suggest that he's the sole creative force either-many of his films have bad screenplays.

Scorsese, Lynch, et al are all distinctive artists who are repeatedly drawn to themes and motifs and craftsmen seek to work with them to be a part of that experience and their distinctive manners of story telling. But they're still the exception, superb role models tho they may be.

But I think it's iconoclasts like that to whom critics and film fans seem to be drawn, and who seem to be tarred with the "aeuter" brush. Exceptions? Perhaps. But art always has to fight against commerce. Obviously, for directors to become as iconoclastic as they are generally takes years. It comes back the studio system-the idea then was basically to learn on the ground. Make X number of films per year, find your personality as you go. I think a director worth his salt usually has to find SOMETHING personal to him in films upon which he works, or be drawn towards specific things within the material.

Every director who repeats or revisits themes is hardly an author, or even a good filmmaker. Technically Ed Wood is an auteur, admire him if you like as that's your personal perrogative, which is a nice segue into Tim Burton.

I just argued that. I think Michael Bay's films are terrible, but I think he's at least iconoclastic enough that various tropes of his are consistent throughout his films. That doesn't mean I think that they're great films, just that his hands are clearly visible on them. Again, the "aeuter" theory is relative. I lend it more credence than you, but by no means does that mean that I abide by it fully or am not skeptical. It's certainly a word I'm very reticent to use.

Few filmmakers in the world have leaned more heavily than he has upon the gifted work of others. Talk to some people who have made films with him. Much to admire, much to puncture. That's not an anti-Burton slam, I generally love his taste in material, but the reality is not some brave, clear-sight gifted artist and field general, he's very human in his skills and in his faults as are they all.

Yes, but how many critics (arguably justifiably) have argued that Burton makes "the same film over and over again?" The endless Gothic atmosphere, obsession with freaks and outsiders, etc? I know the stories about Beetlejuice, and by no means was Burton the sole creative force in the film, I'm just saying that there are WAY too many things in Burton's body of work which repeat themselves over and over again not to be attributed to him, if not exclusively, than largely.

Which brings us back, finally, to Friedkin. A filmmaker hired by others on Minsky's, Birthday Party, Good Times, The French Connection and The Exorcist. Some sucked, some worked, but those that fall in the latter are not the exclusive result of his efforts but succeded in large measure because of the help that he had. And in two major cases because of the bosses that he had.

Again, I don't disagree on any of these points, but if Freidkin's films had had the same DP, producer, screenwriter, and editor, but still been directed by someone else, they would've been distinctly different. You can look at the push-pull in a film like True Romance, where two very iconoclastic people are arguably the main driving forces-Tarantino and Scott. You can see Tarantino clearly in much of the dialogue, many of these themes, characters, and references. But you can also see Scott in the flashy style, rapid cutting, and action scenes. I'm agreeing with you that it isn't all attributable to one thing (it's probably the reason that so many of the greatest Classical composers were conductors as well), I'm just saying that you can-broadly, to be certain-figure out where many-though by no means all-of the pieces fall.

 

[bujaki]

A minor quibble, Mike, but since you use the word so often, the correct spelling is auteur.

 

[JoHud]

However, one thing I did NOT like, was...

Spoiler

The added gunshot sound at the end of the film. I mean c'mon, that was not necessary AT ALL.

Spoiler

Yes, that straddled too close to revisionism for my taste. There was no need for that "confirmation" since it's not hard to imagine how it's probably going to end.

I never watched this movie before and even I knew it was added into the new restoration given that sound effect happens when the new restoration credits are shown at the very end. Thankfully it's at the tail end, so I can easily disregard it on future viewing.

 

[hanshotfirst1138]

Sounds like apart from the colors, he couldn't resist another subtle change either. I suppose we should be grateful it's so small.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

I'm just pretending it's backfire from that taxi.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

Spoiler

The added gunshot sound at the end of the film. I mean c'mon, that was not necessary AT ALL.

This is the worst kind of historical revisionism, which Friedkin seems to constantly traffic in, unfortunately. What is the point? Are 2013/14 audiences perceived to be that much dumber than their 1977 counterparts?

Would it have been so difficult to include the original '77 soundtrack, along with the new 5.1 "reimagined" soundtrack?

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

I was fortunate to see the film shown -- 35mm! -- at the Aero in Santa Monica along with CRUISING as part of a Friedkin retrospective last spring. That print, which was in pretty great shape, looked nothing like the new Blu-Ray, which is way too saturated. The greens are almost distracting and I'll agree with the pastels. And the bridge sequence wasn't nearly as purple-blue (but not as bad as those YouTube clips, which are even more out of whack than this Blu-Ray). But it's not as bad as I feared and certainly nothing like that first FRENCH CONNECTION Blu-Ray, which is a monstrosity. If he'd just toned down the intensity of the colors a smidgen to make the piece seem more naturalistic, none of this would be an issue. No wonder they went with different art from the original one-sheet, which details the film's original color scheme:

Saw that same print last May when it played in Brooklyn before going out West. I don't recall it as well you did, Mark...other than the fact that it looked and sounded GREAT, and the film played in as gripping and enveloping a fashion as ever. Audience was riveted.

 

[Felix Martinez]

I'm just pretending it's backfire from that taxi.

LOL,

Spoiler

my take is that the barmaid washing the floor Scanlon wound up dancing with was packing and covered for him. After all, he was worth more to the village of Porvenir than those goombahs.

 

[Harry-N]

For anyone offended by the

Spoiler

gunfire,

simply press your audio button as the camera begins to withdraw from the bar. You'll be switched into the Spanish track where the offending insertion is nowhere to be found.

Harry

 

[hanshotfirst1138]

Still revisionist on Friedkin's part. Apparently this was a big year for a few releases in six-track stereo, but this was simply regular 2-4channel stereo, so technically it doesn't include the original soundtrack. Minor, but there you go.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Okay....

Just finished watching this film for the first time ever this morning.

To begin with, I have known about Sorcerer since its VHS release.

Never had the urge to want to see it. I suppose it got negative reviews
at the time, and personally, I felt it would be the type of film that would
not hold my interest.

Over the years, here on HTF, I have read countless posts by many of
you demanding Sorcerer to be released. I didn't pay much mind to it,
but I did support the fact that a message was getting out there and happy
that this forum could help promote member wishes.

When the Blu-ray was finally announced a few months ago, I saw the
overwhelming amount of support for it. I decided, perhaps, this was a
movie I should buy blindly. Certainly, you guys made it very difficult not
to get one's curiosity perked up.

So, I spent the last two hours watching this film. Gotta say, it was a
phenomenal experience, despite the fact I was slightly confused with
one of the characters -- which I will inquire about in a few moments.

First, I love movies that were made in the era of Sorcerer. This
was a time when there was no CGI and filmmakers had to rely solely
on great storytelling and effect work that had to be done in front of a
camera (instead of added in post production). The movie had that
gritty kind of feel to it that you just don't see anymore.

Going back to storytelling....

This film had a solid foundation to build itself from. Terrific story,
perfectly told with exceptional editing, and a great deal of edge-of-your-seat
suspense to keep the audience riveted to the screen.

I can see now why there are so many fans of this film.

The transfer, as far as I can see, is exquisite. I know there is discussion
about the way this film looks, but quite frankly, I haven't poured over it.
I did not want to go into this film with any expectations of how it should
or should not look.

I enjoyed the surround track immensely. There is a very annoying cricket
in the right rear channel in the scene where the assassin first arrives.

Which brings me to this question of where I got confused:

Spoiler

At the very beginning of the film we see an assassin kill someone. I thought
that assassin was sent after Roy Scheider for killing someone's brother. I
thought the assassin was Niko, who is with Scheider right up until the end
when the truck runs out of gas in the middle of nowhere.

Was that the assassin from the start of the film? If not, why had he come to
that country?I do know that the guy who set Scheider up with instructions to go to the
Pier is the person that eventually kills him (or we are led to believe at the
close of the film).

Also...

Spoiler

I never heard the gunshot at the end of the film. Never noticed it. Was
that intentionally added where it wasn't prior?

Just want to reiterate that I am so proud of this Blu-ray purchase. Very
deserving of the Digibook treatment that Warner gave it. Highly enjoyed
watching it this morning.

 

[Harry-N]

Ron, the opening of the film sets up all four main protagonists, scumbags all.

Spoiler

Nilo, the assassin in Veracruz, is given a very short scene. Basically, he enters, kills and leaves. And we move on to Jerusalem. All four of the men who will end up on the trucks are profiled, and then all four end up in the South American hellhole - quite by coincidence. Nilo is not connected with Roy Scheider's character in any way other than being his ultimate truck "buddy".

Oh, and welcome to the SORCERER admirers club!

Spoiler

The gunshot has apparently been added to the restored sountrack. It was not present on any prior home video releases, and it's not there on even the Spanish soundtrack on *this* disc. So, the ultimate solution if it offends might be to simply switch to the Spanish track for that small segment of the movie. There's no dialog anyway..

Harry

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Harry,

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Citizen87645]

When I watched the film I didn't even notice the addition and wondered how that could be possible. I went back to that scene and it's so low key, very easy to miss and easily explained away as something else as Mark suggests. I think the ambiguity of what transpires remains intact.

For anyone offended by the

Spoiler

gunfire,

simply press your audio button as the camera begins to withdraw from the bar. You'll be switched into the Spanish track where the offending insertion is nowhere to be found.

Harry

 

[Worth]

Are 2013/14 audiences perceived to be that much dumber than their 1977 counterparts?

Well...

 

[hanshotfirst1138]

This is the worst kind of historical revisionism, which Friedkin seems to constantly traffic in, unfortunately. What is the point? Are 2013/14 audiences perceived to be that much dumber than their 1977 counterparts?

Are they that much dumber? That's up for debate? Are they perceived to be by studios? Most likely, yes.

Would it have been so difficult to include the original '77 soundtrack, along with the new 5.1 "reimagined" soundtrack?

Probably not, but what nerd would want that? Who'd want stereo when you have surround sound? I've never understood why studios are so adverse to including original tracks, especially mono. How much more space can it take up?