UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[BobO'Link]

Thanks for the explanation! So, the 1.85:1 version is the original element, and the 2.00:1 version is a recreation of the theatrical release.

The true original element is a 1.33:1 negative, which was lost or destroyed (currently no one knows which). The 1.85:1 that exists is cropped to the intended aspect ratio of the director and was originally produced from the 1.33:1 "master." The 2.00:1 version is what the studio insisted be released to theaters, against the wish of the director, and was created by cropping the 1.85:1 version.

 

[Robert Crawford]

So instead of the 1.85:1 ratio being created from the 2.00:1 ratio, it's actually reverse in regard to this 4K/UHD.

 

[Dennis Gallagher]

The true original element is a 1.33:1 negative, which was lost or destroyed (currently no one knows which). The 1.85:1 that exists is cropped to the intended aspect ratio of the director and was originally produced from the 1.33:1 "master." The 2.00:1 version is what the studio insisted be released to theaters, against the wish of the director, and was created by cropping the 1.85:1 version.

Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere, but what actually was the benefit of presenting this in "Superscope" beyond hyping the name of another (supposed) widescreen format (which seemed to be common around that time; love the ultra widescreen curved Superscope logo). One would think that creating an anamorphic Superscope extraction (with side mattes) would add an unnecessary additional generation in projection when it could have been just as easily presented in "flat" widescreen with mattes added in the projection. (A couple of side notes: I remember an extra on the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" Criterion laserdisc where they hyped the letterbox presentation without letting us know there were other things going on; I do remember in this extra being shown a crop from the Superscope extraction in an effort to convince us how much better the letterboxed presentation was. I never bought this disc but rented it back when that was the occasional option and wonder whether this extra might still exist somewhere (most likely not legally). It would be quite interesting given current discussions. I was also curious where the "Aspect Ratio Documentation" discussion on this forum's gone. I did manage to find it - along with some "Body Snatchers" comments from 2018 - but it's been fairly quiet with no postings there since the beginning of the year.

(Upon further research I found this site. It's interesting but not unexpectedly provides no answers for the "why" of the Superscope presentation: https://www.chicagofilmsociety.org/2012/07/02/invasion-of-the-aspect-ratios/ )

 

[RolandL]

On caps-a-holic, the 2.0 version is cropped from the 1.85 top and bottom but, the 1.85 is cropped on the sides compared to the 2.0.

left side 2.00

left side 1.85

Right side 2.0

Right side 1.85

 

[Robert Harris]

Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere, but what actually was the benefit of presenting this in "Superscope" beyond hyping the name of another (supposed) widescreen format (which seemed to be common around that time; love the ultra widescreen curved Superscope logo). One would think that creating an anamorphic Superscope extraction (with side mattes) would add an unnecessary additional generation in projection when it could have been just as easily presented in "flat" widescreen with mattes added in the projection. (A couple of side notes: I remember an extra on the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" Criterion laserdisc where they hyped the letterbox presentation without letting us know there were other things going on; I do remember in this extra being shown a crop from the Superscope extraction in an effort to convince us how much better the letterboxed presentation was. I never bought this disc but rented it back when that was the occasional option and wonder whether this extra might still exist somewhere (most likely not legally). It would be quite interesting given current discussions. I was also curious where the "Aspect Ratio Documentation" discussion on this forum's gone. I did manage to find it - along with some "Body Snatchers" comments from 2018 - but it's been fairly quiet with no postings there since the beginning of the year.

(Upon further research I found this site. It's interesting but not unexpectedly provides no answers for the "why" of the Superscope presentation: https://www.chicagofilmsociety.org/2012/07/02/invasion-of-the-aspect-ratios/ )

None.

 

[Nelson Au]

A Fine Grain merely refers to the film stock, and has nothing to do with quality, generation or content.

Thanks!

 

[Jeffrey D]

Just watched the 2:1 aspect ratio version. I never had seen the film before. I really liked it- I think it’s better than the Sutherland remake.

 

[Nelson Au]

Just watched the 2/1 aspect ratio version. I never had seen the film before. I really liked it- I think it’s better than the Sutherland remake.

I see both films are different interpretations of the source material. But I agree, the original is great and it can be seen as allegory made at a time of fears being felt in the nation.

Also after repeated viewings, I interpreted the transformation from human to pod people is very differently handled. In the original, I interprete that of the body being taken over by the “spores”. But it’s not clear as the pods are creating new bodies. But Becky’s change seems to occur while she’s still Becky. So it’s fun to try to figure that out. The remake is more specific in how that process works, the human is replaced by the pods. There’s no doubt. I like that it’s vague in the original. The point is the person is changed.

One of these days I’ll have to read the original, maybe not the copy that RAH showed.

 

[BobO'Link]

I've loved Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) since I first saw it around age 10 on a local late night horror host program. I was surprised at how good the 1978 version is in comparison. The 1978 film became the first remake of a loved classic that I'd willingly watch and recommend to others, though I'd always qualify it with a "It's very good but not as good as the original. You should really watch both." And then Body Snatchers (1993) came out and it, too, is a pretty good version, though not as good as the 1956 or 1978 versions, and gets occasional rewatches. It's best to forget The Invasion (2007) exists (it's the only version I've not upgraded to BR, and likely won't as I've seen it once and that was enough).

 

[ScottRE]

I would love to see the original version, without the added bookends footage and narration.

So would I, for curiosity's sake, but the more hopeful ending still packs a punch. The look Whit Bissell gives Kevin McCarthy when he finally realizes the story is true sends a relieved tingle through me. Plus the expression of exhausted relief on McCarthy's face the movie closes on with Carmen Dragon's explosive music is part of what made this film such a favorite of mine. Of all the tacked on endings I've seen in films, this one really works.

 

[Nelson Au]

So would I, for curiosity's sake, but the more hopeful ending still packs a punch. The look Whit Bissell gives Kevin McCarthy when he finally realizes the story is true sends a relieved tingle through me. Plus the expression of exhausted relief on McCarthy's face the movie closes on with Carmen Dragon's explosive music is part of what made this film such a favorite of mine. Of all the tacked on endings I've seen in films, this one really works.

Years and years ago, on Saturday night, one of the local stations did a show called Creature Features at 11:30pm. The host introduced the films, had info about it and even had guests on. It was well done, the host was Bob Wilkins. One night he showed Invasion of the Body Snatchers without the intro and outro to show what it was originally. It was simply started as the flashback starts and ends with McCarthy on the freeway. That was great as I never knew that at the time. I was just a kid then.

 

[JoshZ]

Also after repeated viewings, I interpreted the transformation from human to pod people is very differently handled. In the original, I interprete that of the body being taken over by the “spores”. But it’s not clear as the pods are creating new bodies. But Becky’s change seems to occur while she’s still Becky. So it’s fun to try to figure that out.

I'm not sure that there's really anything to figure out. It seems to me to just be an unresolvable plot hole in the film. During the first half of the movie, we're told and shown that the pods are growing clone bodies to replace the humans, and the characters theorize that the original will be destroyed (How? Not addressed) while they sleep. Then at the end, Becky falls asleep (nowhere near a pod) and simply turns directly into an alien.

It feels like the two halves of the movie were written by separate people with different ideas for how the alien takeover works.

 

[Nelson Au]

I'm not sure that there's really anything to figure out. It seems to me to just be an unresolvable plot hole in the film. During the first half of the movie, we're told and shown that the pods are growing clone bodies to replace the humans, and the characters theorize that the original will be destroyed (How? Not addressed) while they sleep. Then at the end, Becky falls asleep (nowhere near a pod) and simply turns directly into an alien.

It feels like the two halves of the movie were written by separate people with different ideas for how the alien takeover works.

Thanks JoshZ. Yes, I’d agree it seems like the writers never fully resolved how the pod people replaced the humans. I think they weren’t sure how to do it, or they left it vague.

 

[JoshZ]

Thanks JoshZ. Yes, I’d agree it seems like the writers never fully resolved how the pod people replaced the humans. I think they weren’t sure how to do it, or they left it vague.

It's also possible that they had more elaborate plans for the climax of the story, but the production ran out of money and time, and they were forced to switch lanes at the last minute into the "Becky just magically turns into an alien" route instead.

To be fair, the actual moment where it happens and Miles realizes that Becky isn't Becky is brilliantly realized for what it is, with a superb combination of performances, directing, and editing. It's shocking and heartbreaking at the same time.

 

[Charles Smith]

I always figured the cave was full of pods.
Or was that not exactly the concern here?

 

[Robert Harris]

I always figured the cave was full of pods.
Or was that not exactly the concern here?

You may be conflating with Robot Monster.

 

[ScottRE]

I try to rationalize it as sometime after Miles left Becky alone, she was replaced It doesn't hold up, but the rest of the movie earned my forgiveness.

 

[Denham]

I'm not sure that there's really anything to figure out. It seems to me to just be an unresolvable plot hole in the film. During the first half of the movie, we're told and shown that the pods are growing clone bodies to replace the humans, and the characters theorize that the original will be destroyed (How? Not addressed) while they sleep. Then at the end, Becky falls asleep (nowhere near a pod) and simply turns directly into an alien.

It feels like the two halves of the movie were written by separate people with different ideas for how the alien takeover works.

Maybe Miles is simply an unreliable narrator?

 

[JoshZ]

I try to rationalize it as sometime after Miles left Becky alone, she was replaced It doesn't hold up, but the rest of the movie earned my forgiveness.

He's only gone for a couple minutes. And when he gets back, not only does the body fully look like Becky (not the waxy half-formed things he'd seen previously at Jack's house and in his own greenhouse), it's dressed in all of her clothes.

Maybe Miles is simply an unreliable narrator?

Well, I suppose there's that. Maybe he's just crazy after all.

 

[Robert Crawford]

There have been so many films that have certain sequences in which they don't make sense plot-wise, but the director doesn't care about that because his first task is to entertain the audience. That particular scene was so devastating and iconic that most people will soon forget how was Becky transformed? Hitchcock was known to have such moments in his films because his goal was to entertain people and not worry whether logic or plot made sense to people.