DVD Review HTF DVD REVIEW: Touch of Evil 50th Anniversary Edition - Highly Recommended (1 Viewer)

[BillyFeldman]

Thanks for that. I watched Wargames last night. Many shots, tops of heads cut off. It's not mis-framed, it's the way it was shot. It just truly baffles me, this lack of knowledge on framing. Very few people notice it when they go to the movies because they're not at home watching a DVD and analyzing every bit of minutiae that's in front of them, they're involved in the story and seeing what the DP and director want you to see. People can speculate all they want to about Welles, but they cannot speculate about Russell Metty, who would have most certainly told Mr. Welles how the film was being framed and since I'm pretty certain that Mr. Welles was looking through the camera every now and then, he would have clearly seen the 1.85:1 frame lines that are impossible not to see.

As someone points out above, in the full frame Touch of Evil, you see a camera dolly in the bottom of the frame - do people really need more proof than that? Think Welles wanted folks to see that? Those who simply will not believe what is obvious will also note that Mr. Welles wrote a fifty-eight page memo to the studio about changes he would like, based on having seen a projected print of the film. They most certainly would have screened the film in 1.85:1 since that is how they projected films at Universal. And, you know, nowhere in that memo do I read, "Hey, and you know I framed this for Academy so why are you projecting it in 1.85:1?"

But this argument goes around and around, just as it did on The Shining. Because Mr. Kubrick made a pronouncement in the late 1980s about wanting his film to be shown open matte on TV and home video that became that mantra all the way up until The Stanley Kubrick Archives was released and until the recent re-release of the film in its proper ratio, which, BTW, is framed perfectly. I remember reading a post somewhere on the Internet about the Kubrick Archives book, so I bought it, and, just as the post said, there were Kubrick's storyboards, clearly saying in his own hand, frame for 1.85:1 but protect the full frame. Protecting the frame means just what it says - keep extraneous stuff out so when it's shown on TV (all there was at the time of The Shining's release) you won't see mics or tops of sets.

Anyway, I think I'm smart enough to know that there's no convincing people so I'll shut up now.

 

[rich_d]

Yup and if anyone wants to go back to the Kubrick thread on this forum (shudders) they will find that I came done squarely on widescreen side of the discussion BEFORE the Kubrick Archives material.

Also keep in mind that I said nothing about wanting Academy ratio either (in this case) merely that 1.85:1 didn't protect the artist, in my viewpoint.

So, why do I go widescreen on one discussion and want something that shows more top and bottom now? It's just my opinion based on what I see and what seems valid to these eyes. I do not believe even a hack would compose the shots presented, let alone talented filmmakers. Nothing more.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Not arguing here, but as you say, that's your perception. And let me tell you that if, like the Kubrick Archives, tomorrow morning a memo was found in Orson Welles' hand saying he framed this for 1.85:1 suddenly everything would seem right. All I'm saying, I guess, is that you'd have to criticize about 90% of all filmmakers for cutting off tops of heads in shots, whether in Academy, widescreen, or scope. So how come it's okay on all those films and not okay here? And the customs sign is visible in 1.85:1 - it's only the "United States" that's cut off. And while I'd have to go watch for the umpteenth time, I'm sure that it's mentioned in the dialogue at the border gate. In Academy, my eye goes right to the sign and stays there - but that's not what is important in the frame - the characters are what's important, and what they're saying. And the very opening shot of the bomb timer is much more commanding in 1:85.1 - in Academy it's just sort of floating in the middle of too much space - in 1:85.1 it's commanding.

 

[Patrick McCart]

For what it's worth, the opening credits on the theatrical and preview cuts are 1.66:1

 

[rich_d]

No argument here either other than honest discussion.

Every great actor and filmmaker knows that using dialogue to explain something is the activity of last resort.

What's so important about what they're saying? The absurdity of two American border agents that both recognize a Mexican City persecutor? Or the absurdity of (from the dialogue) learning that they got married on the Mexican side of the border. Great. So exactly why are they getting married there rather than Mexico City and did they stop flight service to Acapulco? Nope, we have to deal with there being no reason for them being there and the absurdity of setting your honeymoon bride up in a third-rate hotel across from a strip club in a fifth-rate town. All thanks to the all so important dialogue.

In my view, Touch of Evil plays well as a dream rather than a straight drama. I'm fine with that.

 

[Film Syncs]

Clearly there are many different and valid opinions on the different Touch of Evil releases.

Some people prefer the film without the opening credits.

Some people like the street level music

Some people like the Henry Mancini opening music.

So I thought ... why can't we get all three?

So here's a link to just that ... for your enjoyment and comment.

YouTube - Touch of Evil - Opening Scene - With Street and Theme Music

More pointedly, there is nothing in Orson Welles' memo about not having opening music or even removing opening music. What is there is a request that street music be added emphasizing the loudspeakers honky-tonks used to draw patrons. Big difference.

Clearly what Welles did hear when he screened the movie was temp music. As we don't know what temp music it was, there is little that can be learned from that comment other than he expected that it was temporary. There's a big difference between that and listening to Henry Mancini's opening music and commenting on it being without merit. That didn't happen.

My viewpoint therefore, is that it's a very slippery slope to go down when someone reads into comments versus simply honoring Welles' comments.

So I was wondering if Welles' feedback can be honored without dishonoring Henry Mancini's contribution to the film.

You be the judge.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Certainly interesting but for me it doesn't quite work. The thing is, Welles didn't choose the source music, Walter Murch did - and the source music is all Mancini. My feeling has always been that Mancini's main title functions like source music in a way. If you're supposition was right and the film was screened with a temp score, then who knows what that was like. I only know that the original version, for me, plays better than the source music version in the Murch cut. The shot, again for me, has no magic without Mancini's which adds immeasurably to the entire sequence.

 

[David_B_K]

What I'd like to see done: a new credit sequence over black with the original font of the original titles with the original Mancini credit music, followed by the new memo-inspired opening scene the way Schmidlin and Murch presented it. A 1958 movie without credits just does not seem right to me.

Film Syncs: The Mancini credit music overpowers the local music, and I like the "new" sequence with all that local flavor sans the overlay of title music. But I appreciate what you did.

BTW, is it just me, or does the cover art and menu art of Welles look more like it was derived from Gregory Arkadin rather than Hank Quinlan?

 

[Robin9]

A very good idea. I'd like to see that too.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Regarding the issue of aspect ratio's and Universal studio policy, check out Jack Theakston's accurate and informative post of 10/13 at 3:33 PM.

New DVDs: Touch of Evil | davekehr.com

 

[BillyFeldman]

Always great to read Jack's posts - but no one wants to hear it. I love the guy who saw the film as a young boy and absolutely remembers it was in Academy. Please. People's memories are time and again proven faulty on these sorts of issues, and that, of course, continues right through the present day.

 

[rich_d]

I agree. But to be fair, why do you give credibility for Jack Theakston's post about trade articles from 1954 without any cited sources?

Seems to me the only difference in their posts is one post (Jack's) could be verifiable.

 

[BillyFeldman]

I give credence because a) he is, I believe, a projectionist, and b) he has time and again posted trade articles here.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Jack Theakston is the head of research for our 3-D Film Preservation Fund. He has access to hundreds of industry trade journals from this period. We collected this material for 3-D documentation, but it's becoming equally important for setting the record straight on the early widescreen era. Jack knows what he's talking about. If he presents some information, you can trust it to be accurate.

It's funny how somebody can present authentic documentation from original, primary source materials and they're called on it. Then somebody else will relate a foggy 50+ year old memory of seeing a film in a theater, and that's taken for gospel. Go figure!

Bob Furmanek
Vice President
3-D Film Preservation Fund
3DFPF - 3-D Film Preservation Fund a tax exempt 501(c)3 non profit corporation

 

[BillyFeldman]

So right. On that Dave Kehr site, some guy named Jean-Pierre posted that he took Blake Lucas's 50 year old childhood memory as definitive - why? Because it agreed with what Jean-Pierre wants to believe.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Billy: I've posted links on the Kehr site to several documents about Universal and their widescreen films. However, while they show up on my computer, several friends are telling me they don't see them. Have they shown up on yours?

 

[Jack Theakston]

This is simply truth, as I proved in the NIGHT OF THE HUNTER thread.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Just went there and don't see any posts with links. It's almost as if they're afraid to have those posts - is it a conspiracy?

Seems a little specious to me.

 

[Jack Theakston]

I'm seeing Bob's posts now. Apparently Dave's site isn't very good about posts showing up so quickly. My post from last night didn't show up until this morning.

Perhaps they're moderated.

 

[rich_d]

Mine post immediately. Perhaps he trusts people in Connecticut.