Why are Universal re-issuing Friedkin's "Sorcerer" on Feb. 8th? (1 Viewer)

Could just be a price reduction, but I don't recall the previous MSRP as I bought my copy cheap and used (and didn't realize it was fullscreen). I would love to see a widescreen release of Sorcerer.

Not surprisingly, it's a Universal release.

For a while, the disc was coming up on E-bay and Amazon as OOP, so it's possible that they're just putting the same disc back in print (which is good, I suppose, even if it is fullscreen with no features; better to be in print than out). I've heard Friedkin wanted it in fullscreen, dunno if that's true or just justifying the bad release.

Of course, you could always opt for the original: "Wages of Fear"

A great film and the DVD is from Criterion...

I like "Sorcerer" too, but I've been waiting for a quality release. Probably be waiting for awhile.

-Scott

"Sorcerer" was originally a Universal/Paramount co-production. Does anyone know if Paramount has put together a decent version of this film in another region?

when this was issued on LD, Friedkin did say he prefered this film on fullscreen, despite much cropping (it looked like it was shot full 1:85 without matting when i compared the LD with the old cable airing, as the cable airng had more picture info but squeezed ). it would be nice if they put the overture back in though.

I love the original Wages of Fear, but I adore Sorcerer. As ugly as the current transfer is, it actually works for the film. It's one of those productions that every few scenes makes you go: "how'd they get that on film??" I also love the pacing, the music. And I don't know how the hell they got away with a PG on this one!

Sorcerer was shot for 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen. I never saw the original, but I ran a 16mm anamorphic print for our University film program back in the early 80's.

[c]


[/c]

The opening credit sequence is squeezed. That's usually a giveaway. The simulated unsqueezed image on the right more closely resembles the logo on the cover art.

Sometimes anamorphic films will be cheated for full-frame video by using some slight squeezing to get more L/R information into the 4:3 frame. If the actors look like Twiggy, that's your clue - prime example, Little Darlings uses this full-framing technique.

Don't be so sure on that theory. When 1.85 feature films are reduced to 16mm prints, often times they are "adapted scope," so that the movie is presented without dead space top and bottom, as it would be were it transferred from an unmatted 1.33 image. Sometimes, the filmmaker shoots 1.85 in a "hard matte" anyhow (such as ALIENS), and there is no dead space to open up, so rather than push into the image and increase the grain, the reduction will be converted to scope.

Here's an example: Michael Ritchie's comedy AN ALMOST PERFECT AFFAIR was released on VHS by Paramount in a squeezed transfer, leading me to think it was shot 2.35. But the DVD is presented at 1.85. I did a test, running both the tape and DVD in sync, and there was no missing picture information in either copy: Paramount had used a 16mm adapted scope source for the old tape transfer.

Thus, I suspect that SORCERER may have some of the same inherent transfer quirks. Viewing the film on laserdisc (which is likely the exact same transfer for the DVD), I noticed a slight amount of pan-scanning, but not enough to denote a scope release. IIRC, Friedkin abstained from scope most of his career for the same reasons Scorsese did, fearing how bad the transfer would look on video, and only with the advent of Super 35 technology did they begin to shoot wider films. (So far, Friedkin made only RULES OF ENGAGEMENT in scope)

Funny, I had heard somewhere that Sorcerer was 1.66:1. Just wanted to darken the mud a little.

Sorcerer blew me away, BTW, so a new transfer in the correct aspect ratio with a commentary by Friedkin talking as much as possible about how "the movie god" shined on him (actually I hear it was a pretty cursed project) would be a welcome DVD release here.

Upon further examination with the DVD's theatrical trailer, it appears the picture more closely resembles 1.85 hard matte.


Aliens wasn't shot hard matte - it was shot full frame Super35, which reduces lighting artifacts (such as oval headlight glare) and grain composition vs anamorphic lenses.

If you have the Sorcerer DVD look at the image of the carving that opens the flat trailer and compare it to the squeezed version that opens the film. Oddly enough, the idol image in the trailer looks more open matte, but the extracted frame of the print (bad as the transfer may be), adjusted for poor light, may indicate that the theatrical prints may have been hard matted. It's just too bad that this could not be presented better to get a proper perspective.



Come to think of it, the 16mm anamorphic print could have been a reduction from a 70mm presentation. I had the same thing occur with a print of "Apocalypse Now" - the 16mm anamorphic print was a reduction of the 70mm presentation (complete with credits over the filmed ending of the Kurtz compound as shown as a DVD supplement!)

I also hope he has changed his mind about this as technology has improved the resolution of home video considerably since it's first "director approved" LD incarnation back in...what was it, 1990? 1991? Things had even improved for LD in the years afterwards but much more so for modern DVD authoring.

Not Jade. And given Friedkin's opinion as of less than a year ago as reported by Avary, it doesn't look to me like he's suddenly ready to change his mind.

DJ

Yeah, I interviewed Friedkin for IGN Movies back in 2000 with the Exorcist reissue and asked him about it. He insisted it was full-frame and not pan-and-scan. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one. At the time he was still very up in the air about To Live and Die in L.A. (rights issues holding it up), but that ended up working out.

I agree with Avary 100% about "Sorcerer," though. Really stunning and harrowing.

and the vHS of JADE is longer than the DVD!

I suspect that Friedkin must have mellowed to some degree on the insistence on full-frame transfers, because we now indeed have beautiful and properly framed discs of THE EXORCIST, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A., with his participation (i.e., he is not withholding his support in protest of the decision to letterbox). Letterboxed transfers of his other films should follow according to the studios' perceived demand for the titles.

Great thread. I wish there were more like this on this forum, instead of "Which version of Armageddon should I get?" Friedkin and Lumet are right up there with Frankenheimer, in my book. And then there's Huston and Welles. Great directors with vision are hard to come by nowadays.