AMADEUS Director's cut (1 Viewer)

[teapot2001]

Did anyone experience a blurry picture (especially on the sides) at the Cinerama Dome? This was my first time there, and I left being unimpressed by it.

~T

 

[DonMac]

Steve Y wrote:

Yes, Amadeus is not factual in regards to Mozart's death because he wasn't murdered by anyone.
But look at the structure of the film more closely because the way the film is constructed allows the film to fit perfectly into the real history:
FALSE: Salieri murdered Mozart
TRUE: Late in life, Salieri went insane and claimed he murdered Mozart. He also attempted suicide, which lead to the old composer being sent to a sanitarium for the insane
The film opens with Salieri attempting suicide, yelling for Mozart's forgiveness and being sent to a sanitarium for the insane. The rest of the film takes place at the sanitarium as a young priest meets with Salieri and the old composer then tells the priest a long story about how he murdered Mozart. Mixed in with Salieri's story are scenes of Mozart based, to a reasonable extent, on actual history (things the old Salieri wouldn't know personally, but could know from writing on the great composer and that he could use to fill out his story for the priest). So the whole film is simply the ravings of a madman intermixed with actual history.
In fact, it could be viewed as a "Mark David Chapman" (aka John Lennon's killer) kind of story in which a man becomes famous simply for killing someone famous. With the knowledge that he as a composer is destined for obscurity, Salieri possibly concocts the story in which he murdered the posthumously famous Mozart in order to ensure he will forever be remembered in history for committing such a heinous act (even though he didn’t really do it) because, for some people, infamy is better than no fame at all.
.

 

[Steve Y]

Fascinating theory Don - echoes of Keyser Soze?
For those wondering about "blur", the print I saw was in fact a little blurry. I'm not sure whether this was a focus or print problem, as the blur did not confine itself to the inserted scenes. (at the time I assumed incompetent projection)
Steve

 

[Jay W]

Did anyone experience a blurry picture (especially on the sides) at the Cinerama Dome? This was my first time there, and I left being unimpressed by it.

I was ready to go see it there this week but after this I'm a little hestitant. Anyone else who saw a screening at the Dome want to add any comments? Another choice is the Laemmle in Santa Monica (a much smaller theater, but I've been there before and the picture was quite good).

 

[teapot2001]

Jehan, I read elsewhere that the picture was fine. There might have been projection problems when Steve and I saw it. Regardless of the picture quality, you're guaranteed great sound.

~T

 

[Micah Cohen]

I'm going to catch hell for this one.

AMADEUS ("The Director's Cut") was a real letdown.

First, let me say that I doubt you could find a bigger fan of this film than me. In its original theatrical version, it is a masterpiece of timing, editing, economy and storytelling. It is a powerful, affecting film that speaks to me of anger, redemption and acceptance. In this new "restored" version, it is all this and less. The addition of "20 additional minutes" of film severely weighs the economical storytelling down with back story and "motivation" that is really unnecessary for the thinking film-viewer. Of the twenty added minutes, only about six are really astonishing. The rest, could have -- and should have -- been left out. Much of it was distracting and meandering, and much of it was just plain awful. (Kenneth McMillan as a Viennese aristocrat? Even the great Milos Forman couldn't pull that off. Those scenes should have stayed on the cutting room floor.)

Further, and more important, what does "restoration" mean? I would think that it means that errors and anomalies in previous versions would be cleaned up, removed or somehow fixed. But that didn't seem to be the case with this film.

In some scenes, in every version I've ever seen, there is an annoying blue dot -- clearly an error -- on the frame. (Watch the scene where Mozart complains to the Emperor's secretary about having to submit his work for the teaching position.) The blue dot travels in an animated fashion from the top of the screen to the bottom. Why was this error not corrected in a "digitally restored" version?

Even the flawed DVD displays clear and bright color and detail. In the opening scenes, the flames are clear and they illuminate the surrounding wood panelled room in deep detail. In most candlelit scenes (especially during Salieri's confession to the priest), shadows are deep but scenes are lit to show detail; Salieri's emotive face is plain and evident; Salieri in his darkened opera box is nevertheless plain and detailed. In this "restored" version, shadows were overwhelming, too deep and too dark, obscuring important details (like facial expressions and movements), and the picture was often blurry or "soft."

Color timing was also an issue. Scene- and reel-changes in this "restored" version were announced by suddening yellow tints, sudden red pushes, sudden wash-outs, always on top of the soft darkness of the image in the first place. The result looked like an unfinished work print of the film.

And sound... In my own home theater, watching the DVD in 5.1 sound, even tho it is an early DVD, not up to the extreme high standards set by DVD since its release, and even tho I have but a small home theater with tiny speakers, the sound and music in this film is lush and enveloping, direct and thick. And while this new version of the film proclaims itself "restored and remastered," I couldn't help but feel that the soundtrack was thin and harsh, even in illustrious Senator Theater in Baltimore. There was no sense of surrounding environment, no lushness, no deep bottom end. The pieces, some of which are the best possible recordings of that certain piece, sounded narrow and much too centered on the screen, too bright. Why would they "restore" and "remaster" this film to what sounds very much like "mono"? I was very disappointed to be surrounded by The Senator's great sound system, watching a film containing some of the greatest music ever recorded, and to have the sound be so lackluster. (This has me so upset that I sent a version of this rant to the owner, who AGREED with me!)

You know, the same exact thing happened for me with APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX. The extra hour of footage? Maybe 20 minutes or less of it was really integral, interesting and truly added more depth to the film. The rest made the film's great editing and dreamlike pacing so much... less than how great it was.

So, as much as I was salivating to see this great film again, and more of it (Elizabeth Berridge's boobies!), and as much as I was hoping that there would subsequently be a new DVD released with better quality and sound than the original one, I am again let down by a director's meddling with something already finished, and I'm probably going to stick with my old "flipper" DVD of AMADEUS, the "original theatrical version."

Okay, there's also this other, more personal problem of me being out in public. I guess I just can't be in public anymore, especially at the movies. From the moment I bought my ticket at the Senator's ticket window, until the film credits were scrolling at the end of the movie, I was unable to relax knowing -- JUST KNOWING -- that I was going to be seated in crowd of neanderthals whose cell phones and wrist watches will ring and bleep and beep, whose throats will scratch only when there is a tense quiet scene unfolding, who will feel it is perfectly okay to unquietly declare "I know someone who looks just like him. The Emperor; I know someone who looks like him," and who will -- even after I turn around and GLARE at them -- announce lines before the characters get to them, announce "their own versions" of the lines before the characters announce the scripted versions of them, and then, at each momentous moment, make that little, serious "Hm" noise of "serious acknowledgement." In conversation, in your own home this is MAYBE acceptable. In The Senator Theater, seated near me, it is not. I guess I just can't go out in public anymore.

So that's my impression of the new "restored and remastered" version of AMADEUS. I recommend you see it, but I was really underwhelmed, and am reserving my love and affection for the "original theatrical release" version, a powerful, economical and beautiful film.

Sorry.

MC

PS... I'm feeling sick knowing that Ridley Scott has spent the last three years "restoring" BLADE RUNNER. Please oh please Ridley, don't muck it up!

 

[Chris_Richard]

I am going to see it tonight.

The sad think is that I have I heard that this film is not going to get a release around the country. The Angelika was going to get it in a week but they have been told that it has done so poorly that Warner Brothers has pulled it.

I will be seeing a one night only showing as part of Dallas' USA Film Festival.

 

[Steve Y]

While I disagree about the quality of the added content I'm really sorry about your theatrical experience, Micah - I've been there (come to think of it... I was there, in a manner of speaking!) I've had mid-movie fantasies of removing the entire audiences members' mouths (a la "the matrix") and watching the ensuing pandemonium as people struggle to chitchat and cannot!

~Steve

 

[Micah Cohen]

I've had mid-movie fantasies of removing the entire audiences members' mouths (a la "the matrix")

YES! LOL! That's great!

I have to settle for glaring at them or beaning them with Milk Duds, I guess.

MC

 

[Jeff Kleist]

We in Philly are still screwed BTW