A Few Words About A few words about...™ Once Upon a Time in America - Extended Director's Cut -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Michel_Hafner]

Immersive for me is the difference between watching TV and watching a film in a (home)cinema.

 

[Alan Tully]

Immersive for me is the difference between watching TV and watching a film in a (home)cinema.

My home cinema is my plasma in my small lounge, but there is a difference for me in watching TV & a movie. I'll just watch TV with some lights on & maybe looking up something on the laptop, but films...that's lights out headphones on & full immersion. This is movies we're talking about!

 

[jwroma]

The 229 cut is not the version Leone wanted. He initially wanted it to be two 3-hour films, but the studio refused, so he cut it down to 269 mins (the version they were originally going to release in 2012 but couldn't as they couldn't get the rights to many deleted scenes ). The 229 version was made to satisfy the studio. The 251 version isn't the cut Leone wanted, but it's closer to the one he wanted. Would he have approved of the quality of the added scenes? Probably not. But storywise, yes.

Incidentally, the colours on the extended bluray can be semi-fixed by messing about with colour settings, saturation, etc. I got mine looking closer to the original bluray release, although it's impossible to make it look the same without some sort of sophisticated software which adjusts each different colour separately in each scene. Even then it might not work.

Here's what I got with just a bit of messing with levels (this is the Italian blu ray, btw)

 

[haineshisway]

The 229 cut is not the version Leone wanted. He initially wanted it to be two 3-hour films, but the studio refused, so he cut it down to 269 mins (the version they were originally going to release in 2012 but couldn't as they couldn't get the rights to many deleted scenes ). The 229 version was made to satisfy the studio. The 251 version isn't the cut Leone wanted, but it's closer to the one he wanted. Would he have approved of the quality of the added scenes? Probably not. But storywise, yes.

Incidentally, the colours on the extended bluray can be semi-fixed by messing about with colour settings, saturation, etc. I got mine looking closer to the original bluray release, although it's impossible to make it look the same without some sort of sophisticated software which adjusts each different colour separately in each scene. Even then it might not work.

Here's what I got with just a bit of messing with levels (this is the Italian blu ray, btw)

Whatever Mr. Leone may have had in his head, his 229-minute cut is the one he preferred at the end. There are interviews where he has stated that. He never made a 269-minute cut - the additional scenes in this new "version" had to be edited, which means, simply, they never WERE, hence he never made such a cut. There were two versions of this film always - the truncated US cut in chronological order, which is how the film premiered, and his long cut of 229, which appeared about nine months later but which had previously been shown at Cannes, if memory serves me correctly, which I'm sure it does because I remember reading the Variety review of it.

 

[jwroma]

Whatever Mr. Leone may have had in his head, his 229-minute cut is the one he preferred at the end. There are interviews where he has stated that. He never made a 269-minute cut - the additional scenes in this new "version" had to be edited, which means, simply, they never WERE, hence he never made such a cut. There were two versions of this film always - the truncated US cut in chronological order, which is how the film premiered, and his long cut of 229, which appeared about nine months later but which had previously been shown at Cannes, if memory serves me correctly, which I'm sure it does because I remember reading the Variety review of it.

I've definitely read a few articles which state he made a 269-minute cut, but then cut it by 40 minutes right before the premiere, for the distributors who were (naturally) concerned about releasing a 4 hour plus film to cinemas. Certainly he preferred the 229 to the 139 (as anyone would), but it was still a compromise.

Not that it bothers me what Leone wanted, personally I'd have something between the 251 and 229. There are a couple of good scenes like the Cleopatra bit and a couple I'd get rid of. But then, that's true of a lot of films (The theatrical Godfather II lost a ton of fantastic scenes, for example).

 

[alter filmnarr]

There were two versions of this film always - the truncated US cut in chronological order, which is how the film premiered, and his long cut of 229, which appeared about nine months later but which had previously been shown at Cannes, if memory serves me correctly, which I'm sure it does because I remember reading the Variety review of it.

...and as I stated above, it was the ONLY version shown in theaters here in Europe. First - soon after its premiere at Cannes - in France (where I saw it first), then during the following months all over Europe.

The shortened, chronological cut was abandoned completely here (because of Mr. Leones restrictions) and only available on VHS for a very short time - but nobody wanted to see that obscurity anyway.

 

[haineshisway]

I've definitely read a few articles which state he made a 269-minute cut, but then cut it by 40 minutes right before the premiere, for the distributors who were (naturally) concerned about releasing a 4 hour plus film to cinemas. Certainly he preferred the 229 to the 139 (as anyone would), but it was still a compromise.

Not that it bothers me what Leone wanted, personally I'd have something between the 251 and 229. There are a couple of good scenes like the Cleopatra bit and a couple I'd get rid of. But then, that's true of a lot of films (The theatrical Godfather II lost a ton of fantastic scenes, for example).

The quoted articles where he says he prefers the 229-minute version are easily accessible online - I don't think I've ever read anything that he actually completed a fine cut of a longer version. Yes, there would have been an assembly that would have been much longer, but that is not a "cut" at all, just an assemblage of scenes. And if the newly added sequences had to be edited, which they did, then no longer fine cut existed - there is no arguing this fact, much as you might like to. The film as released is only ten minutes shy of four hours anyway. The director makes the film and Mr. Leone released a cut he was happy with - clearly. What he ultimately may or may not have prepared for television is not really germane, as he never did it.

 

[Vincent_P]

Whatever Mr. Leone may have had in his head, his 229-minute cut is the one he preferred at the end. There are interviews where he has stated that. He never made a 269-minute cut - the additional scenes in this new "version" had to be edited, which means, simply, they never WERE, hence he never made such a cut.

The fact that the "new scenes" appear to be dupes of workprint would seem to disprove your theory that they "had to be edited". Are you actually suggesting that the new scenes for this extended cut were edited from scratch from untouched workprint? The condition of them alone seems to disprove that, as untouched workprint wouldn't have the tell-tale signs of optical-duping that the footage here has.

Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

I get "immersive" for Cinerama. I don't get it for regular movies - it makes no sense to me, but that's just me, I guess. If the movie is good, I'm immersed.

So are you suggesting that ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA isn't good, since you're been arguing so passionately about how the color of the new transfer ruins the film? Surely, if the film itself was any good it would get past such a limitation (as per your own quoted argument)...

Vincent

 

[Oblivion138]

But isn't visual style an integral part of what makes a great film great?

 

[chris1234]

Re running times, editing, preferred versions and cuts:
Most of Leone's original interviews were in French or Italian. Two words which have been translated incorrectly are:
inediti - should be translated as unpublished
montage - should be translated as editing
This may have caused some confusion and misplaced opinions.
Filming was completed in April 1983. Sergio Leone and his editor Nino Baragli started the editing process and, four months later, he was told by the Ladd Company that a 270 minute cut was unacceptable.
Extract from the May 1984 issue of Cahiers du Cinema Magazine:
Leone: "Ils avaient fini par me donner carte blanche pour faire quatre heures et demie...Mais quatre mois après le debut du montage, ils m'ont dit : non, ce n'est pas possible..."
(In the end they gave me carte blanche to make a four and a half hour version...But four months after the start of editing, they said to me no, it is not possible...)
Leone cut as much as he could, 50 minutes, and arrived at a 220 minute version. The Ladd Company told him this was unacceptable and wanted him to cut a further 60 minutes:
Leone: "J'ai coupé le plus que je pouvais, et je suis arrivé aux trois heures quarante que vous avez vues. Mais voilà qu'ils veulent couper une heure de plus, et notamment dans le début."
(I cut as much as I could, and I arrived at the 3 hours 40 minute [220 min] version which you have seen. But then they wanted me to cut a further hour, especially in the beginning.)
Leone gave details of the scenes he cut which included "une scène d'amour avec Deborah petite fille" - a love scene with young Deborah. This is the scene where Deborah takes Noodles into the back room of Gellys, recites her Song of Songs and they kiss. Prior to the theatrical release in Europe this scene was added back bringing the running time to between 227 and 229 minutes.
http://www.lb2121.webspace.virginmedia.com/images/cahiers001.jpg
In Leone's interviews in 1984 he regretted making the cuts, e.g.:
"Déjà au découpage j'avais dû réduire beaucoup ce qui, dans le film, concerne les rapports avec les femmes."
(Many of the cuts I was forced to make concern Noodles' relationships with women.)
According to Frayling, Leone said his ideal running time would have been "between four hours ten minutes [250 mins] and four hours twenty-five minutes [265 mins]" but he does not quote the source of this information.
Four years later, in 1988, Leone was interviewed by Oreste De Fornari. Translated it reads:
Leone: "Then there is the very long one that has never been published and which lasts fifty minutes longer. Four and a half hours. But we rejected the idea of two parts on TV. It is so intricate that it has to be done in one evening. And besides, let's be honest: this one is my version. The other perhaps explained things more clearly and it could have been done on TV in two or three parts. But the version I prefer is this one, that bit of reclusiveness is just what I like about it."

 

[chris1234]

Re tints, colors and compression:

When the Italian Extended BD was released, Andrea Leone Films received many complaints and emails from dissatisfied Leone fans. Gustavo van Peteghem from Andrea Leone Films did his best to answer the complaints and eventually the response came back that the company were not experts in such matters and had taken advice from people connected with the movie and WB.

I've not yet seen a fully comprehensive review of WB's new extended version but some viewers have said that it is slightly better regarding colors and compression artifacts. Also extra detail and definition compared with WB's 2011 BD. It still has a slight tint which is variously described as yellow, greenish, golden, sepia or brown.

If the purpose of the tint is to blend the additional scenes into the existing material then it has failed miserably. In some of the additional scenes there is a lowering of green and blue values but the new scenes still stand out like a sore thumb and it doesn't make sense to ruin a 229 minute movie to accommodate an additional 22 minutes.

More work could have been done on the additional material.
Andrea Leone Films have admitted their lack of expertise and reliance on others and it's possible that the advice they were given was misguided.

Sergio Leone and Tonino Delli Colli have both commented on how the film was supposed to look and how RN was used to obtain "deeper more velvety blacks, more luminous whites, added brilliance to everything and reinforced contrasts."

In Oreste de Fornari's book Sergio Leone: The Great Italian Dream Of Legendary America, originally published in Italian as Tutti i film di Sergio Leone, Tonino Delli Colli also commented on how the colors in Once Upon a Time In America differed from those used in a Western, in which they could not use a lot of color. He also said that In Once Upon a Time in the West they gave a sandy color to the whole copy and perhaps sandy could be added to the words describing the tint.

You don't need to journey very far into the movie to see the tint.

Opening titles

WB's 2011 BD

Italian Extended BD

 

[Robert Harris]

Four years later, in 1988, Leone was interviewed by Oreste De Fornari. Translated it reads:Leone: "Then there is the very long one that has never been published and which lasts fifty minutes longer. Four and a half hours. But we rejected the idea of two parts on TV. It is so intricate that it has to be done in one evening. And besides, let's be honest: this one is my version. The other perhaps explained things more clearly and it could have been done on TV in two or three parts. But the version I prefer is this one, that bit of reclusiveness is just what I like about it."

To me this says "work picture." There would be little reason to go through the expense of timing, negative cutting, creation of final tracks, etc., which is what I believe Mr. Kimmel was referencing above, when he noted probably never existed.

Much like the five hour, two part version of Cleopatra -- work picture only.

RAH

 

[Stefan Andersson]

From the www.fistful-of-leone.com web board --- more quotes re: tints and colors:

"Sergio Leone and Tonino Delli Colli have both commented on how the movie is supposed to look and how Rn was used to obtain much deeper velvety blacks, much more luminous whites, added brilliance to everything and reinforced the contrasts.From an interview between Sergio Leone and Jean A Gili originally published in Positif Magazine No. 280 dated June 1984 and repeated in Jean A Gili's book Italian Filmmakers published in 1998:Sergio Leone: "Delli Colli is very good; he created fabulous photography for Once Upon a Time in America, he managed to capture the atmosphere of three different periods. Thanks to Rn, Delli Colli could play with the different eras, the twenties with the children; 1933 with pastel colors; finally our own times with sequences set in 1968. Rn is a well-known Technicolor process that's a little more expensive but can help you obtain much deeper blacks and much more luminous whites."From Oreste de Fornari's book Sergio Leone: The Great Italian Dream Of Legendary America, which was originally published in Italian as Tutti i film di Sergio Leone.Tonino Delli Colli: "Sergio and I understood each other very well; there was no need for a lot of instructions. We shared a point of departure, an aesthetic principle: in a Western you cannot use a lot of color. We kept to subdued shades: black, brown, off-white, since the buildings were wooden and the colors of the landscape rather vivid. In Once Upon a Time in the West we gave a sandy color to the whole copy. We like colors like these; we have the same tastes.In Once Upon a Time in America we differentiated between three periods. For 1923, a sepia print that recalls the photos of that period. For 1930 we tried to keep the image as neutral as possible, a kind of metallic black-and-white, cold approach to the gangster films of that epoch. For 1968 no special effect. We used a little Rn, a special bath patented by Technicolor Italiana, which made the blacks more velvety, added brilliance to everything and reinforced the contrasts."

 

[haineshisway]

The fact that the "new scenes" appear to be dupes of workprint would seem to disprove your theory that they "had to be edited". Are you actually suggesting that the new scenes for this extended cut were edited from scratch from untouched workprint? The condition of them alone seems to disprove that, as untouched workprint wouldn't have the tell-tale signs of optical-duping that the footage here has.

Vincent

What I am saying is clear, I think - I am saying what you are calling "edited" I am calling assembled by an editor, not fine cut by Leone or the editor. And yes, I have read exactly that they had to be put together. And they were not put together or fine cut by Mr. Leone or his editor because they resemble nothing else in the film in terms of rhythm or feel.

 

[haineshisway]

Re tints, colors and compression:

When the Italian Extended BD was released, Andrea Leone Films received many complaints and emails from dissatisfied Leone fans. Gustavo van Peteghem from Andrea Leone Films did his best to answer the complaints and eventually the response came back that the company were not experts in such matters and had taken advice from people connected with the movie and WB.

I've not yet seen a fully comprehensive review of WB's new extended version but some viewers have said that it is slightly better regarding colors and compression artifacts. Also extra detail and definition compared with WB's 2011 BD. It still has a slight tint which is variously described as yellow, greenish, golden, sepia or brown.

If the purpose of the tint is to blend the additional scenes into the existing material then it has failed miserably. In some of the additional scenes there is a lowering of green and blue values but the new scenes still stand out like a sore thumb and it doesn't make sense to ruin a 229 minute movie to accommodate an additional 22 minutes.

More work could have been done on the additional material.
Andrea Leone Films have admitted their lack of expertise and reliance on others and it's possible that the advice they were given was misguided.

Sergio Leone and Tonino Delli Colli have both commented on how the film was supposed to look and how RN was used to obtain "deeper more velvety blacks, more luminous whites, added brilliance to everything and reinforced contrasts."

In Oreste de Fornari's book Sergio Leone: The Great Italian Dream Of Legendary America, originally published in Italian as Tutti i film di Sergio Leone, Tonino Delli Colli also commented on how the colors in Once Upon a Time In America differed from those used in a Western, in which they could not use a lot of color. He also said that In Once Upon a Time in the West they gave a sandy color to the whole copy and perhaps sandy could be added to the words describing the tint.

You don't need to journey very far into the movie to see the tint.

Opening titles

WB's 2011 BD

Italian Extended BD

The first image in your post is correct. The film never had a beige title card, sorry.

 

[haineshisway]

So are you suggesting that ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA isn't good, since you're been arguing so passionately about how the color of the new transfer ruins the film? Surely, if the film itself was any good it would get past such a limitation (as per your own quoted argument)...

Vincent

Well, Vincent, that's quite a leap isn't it? Once Upon a Time in America is one of my all-time favorite films. I have seen it many more times than you will ever see it in your lifetime. I saw it three times on its opening day at the Vogue Theater in Hollywood in its short chronological version - and despite knowing what had happened, and knowing there was a LOT of movie missing, I loved every minute of it because I knew nothing else. I saw it a further five times during its two week run, before it disappeared forever (the short version, which, BTW, I do own on Beta). In fact, a producer named Fred Roos called me during its run, desperately looking for a young actress for his film Seven Minutes to Heaven - he was having no luck whatsoever in casting one particular role. I told him to get his butt over to the Vogue immediately to see Jennifer Connelly. He did. He cast her instantly.

I was at the first screening of the long version in LA, prior to its opening. I saw it many times during its run here. I then was lucky enough to purchase an LPP print of the film, which I also watched many times. So, do I want a transfer that accurately represents what is on that LPP print. You bet. Do I want a brown thing that doesn't? No, I do not and I do not BECAUSE of my love for the work of Leone and Tonino Delli Colli. But happily I have it - in the first Blu-ray release (and I can always watch my print, as it resides with a nearby collector). What has my love for a film with a substandard color presentation to do with it? Why are you trying to argue? What is your point? If I love Vertigo, which I do, and someone issues a black-and-white transfer of it, I should love it because my love for the film should be no matter what I have to watch? I don't think so. I do not like the new color timing. Period. It is better than the Italian thing that was released earlier, but is still not correct. I do not like several of the included new sequences, and think some are okay - none look good and take me right out of the movie. I do not care to see every trim that was shot - it holds no interest for me. I like the 229-minute version that Leone came up with - in the end, he liked it, too, as you've read. And I'm happy to have the first Blu-ray release (also included with the extended cut) because it has completely accurate color.

 

[davidmatychuk]

I saw the chronological version at a Vancouver area drive-in [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]the week it was released[/SIZE], having heard that the studio had taken the film away from the director. So the odds were stacked against it, but I did enjoy what I saw, while wondering if (not when) I might ever get to see Leone's version. All these years later, after many viewings of the real version, I think that it is a masterpiece, but it isn't exactly infinitely better than seeing that initial release was. I may not ever need to see the short version again but it was, at the very least, a necessary interim step to the readily-available 229-minute version that we have now.

 

[haineshisway]

I saw the chronological version at a Vancouver area drive-in [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]the week it was released[/SIZE], having heard that the studio had taken the film away from the director. So the odds were stacked against it, but I did enjoy what I saw, while wondering if (not when) I might ever get to see Leone's version. All these years later, after many viewings of the real version, I think that it is a masterpiece, but it isn't exactly infinitely better than seeing that initial release was. I may not ever need to see the short version again but it was, at the very least, a necessary interim step to the readily-available 229-minute version that we have now.

The short version, which everyone who has never seen it is up in arms about, is not without interest. Seeing it chronologically is a whole other viewing experience emotionally - and some of it, in those terms, works extremely well, most especially the Deborah evolution - her exit from the film on the train is actually and very subtly more emotional for me in the short version. I wish they would have included it for historical purposes - I'm going to have my Beta tape transferred to DVD so I can watch it again.

 

[ROclockCK]

Tee-hee. He said "Beta."