The Last Emperor on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Monce]

Having worked in the industry for years, I know how categories and the awards are chosen. Being a member of the Academy's cinematography branch may or may not make you an expert. I have known a few who have no business being there.

As I said there is far to much politics involved in the Academy for it to be taken seriously or given much merit.

And yes we are way off topic, sorry didn't mean to lead astray.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

The relevancy of the Oscars is the fact that it won an Oscar was being thrown about as proof of the greatness of the photography. I was simply suggesting that winning an Oscar for best cinematography isn't necessarily proof of such a thing.

Again I wasn't suggesting that Blade Runner should have won over Gandhi, I'm saying its shameful that it wasn't even nominated.

I'm also not suggesting that TLE didn't deserve to win. Vittorio Storaro is one of my heroes and everything I've seen of his is nothing less than stunning. It is one reason why this situation is so frustrating. Sadly I can't support these titles by buying them.

Doug

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I'll take my share of the blame for sending this off-topic by playing devil's advocate and attempting to get inside Storaro's head.


What was I on/thinking?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Yeah I wouldn't go in there. Its dark and spooky and there are cobwebs everywhere!

Doug

 

[Vincent_P]

You "fail to see" how any example that differs from your view has any relevancy to "the topic at hand". I bring up another very popular film that was praised for its cinematography and also was reframed for DVD by its maker with nary a peep of protest being expressed, and you're "not sure... how a discussion of that film is pertinent here". Doug questions the judgment of the Academy, and it "has no relevance" according to you. These are all pertinent issues that deserve to be discussed here, rather than being dismissed because some of the opinions being expressed don't jive 100% with yours.

Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

Although it should have

And yes, it is shameful that it wasn't even nominated, let alone that it didn't win.

Vincent

 

[Douglas Monce]

It would have been my choice as well. Though Gandhi is surely worthy and I can't say that it shouldn't have won. Or to put it another way, I felt Blade Runner deserved the Oscar that year, but the fact that Gandhi won didn't bother me.

Doug

 

[Mike Frezon]

It is NOT only wrong when Vittorio Storaro does it...but we are only talking about Storaro in this thread (and, in particular, TLE). I contend it would be wrong when ANY director alters the image for home viewing (from the theatrical presentation) and I support anyone to try and convince me (and anyone else who is interested) why Storaro thinks it is the right thing to do.

And that's what I encourage you to do about Se7en. And if you think that means I'm trying to "dismiss you," you are in error. By taking up the cudgels of your own example, you would serve to educate me and many others who are ignorant on the topic.

There haven't been too many discussions like this since "Full Frame only" releases have pretty much gone the way of DIVX. When they DO pop up from time-to-time I think there is an added importance placed upon them and trying to understand the motivations of those responsible.

========================

Doug: It seems we also agree on not being able to support Criterion's release of TLE because of the Storaro decision.

I understand your point about the overall import of an Academy Award--the first one that comes to my mind of Gump over Shawshank in '94. But, to me it only makes sense to bring it up if you have some issues with the cinematography and are trying to say you don't think it should have won the award. And that's all I was trying to say.

I think we all agree the cinematography is gorgeous and deserving of the award...leading to our concern about it being altered.

I guess the Oscar win is just an easy crutch and one that makes for a compelling argument among those who don't have such an insider's view as you. "For gosh sakes, Bob...the damn film won the Oscar for cinematography and none other than the the DP himself wants to cut it up for home viewing!"

============================

Stephen: Really, for me, this whole exercise (and the parallel thread about the Criterion SD release) has been to try and crawl inside Storaro's thread and figure out what he's possibly thinking.

I've read Storaro's paper on Univision along with the Wiki entry and some other easily accessible info (on-line interviews, etc.) If anyone could point me towards anything further , I'd love to know about it!

The biggest issue I have in this whole situation is that Storaro has forgotten more about filmmaking than I ever will know about the subject...yet somehow I still feel like I'm right on this issue. That is disorienting to me.

 

[Jari K]

2.35:1 will be the OAR of this film for me. Storaro can have one hour lecture of "Univision", Vincent of "reframing the Seven" and Douglas of "I dislike the Academy".

2.35:1 still is the OAR for me.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I never said I disliked the Academy. That would be like saying I disliked Cotton Candy. I love Cotton Candy, but it has little to no nutritional value and I wouldn't want to have to rely on it it stay alive.

Doug

 

[Mike Frezon]

 

[Jari K]

Fair enough.

 

[pacomartini]

i read somewhere bertoluci has said the original shorter release we all saw in theatres IS the directors cut. the one being marketed as the director's cut is actually a four hour long TV version which bertaluci agreed to do b4 production. he actually prefers the original theatrical releas and is "peplexed" about the so called director's cut calling the tv version basically the same...just more boring...lol. i very much want to have a copy of the original as this version is the one the academy chose as best picture in 1987....but in HD and with it's original aspect ratio...anyone know where to get one....i find the descriptions displayed on amazon.con confusing and incomplte.

 

[Lord Dalek]

A blu-ray of Last Emperor in its original 2.4 ratio? Doesn't exist, my friend... doesn't exist.

 

[Mike Frezon]

If you can find this DVD (released in 1999), you will at least see it in it's 2.35:1 glory:





But the new Criterion releases put the quality to shame...but are only 2:1. That's your choice.


If you are unfamiliar with the story, here's the reason why.

 

[Bob Cashill]

2.35:1 it may be, but the Artisan release (as we should all know) is a non-anamorphic disaster.

 

[Nick Laslett]

The relevancy of the Oscars is the fact that it won an Oscar was being thrown about as proof of the greatness of the photography. I was simply suggesting that winning an Oscar for best cinematography isn't necessarily proof of such a thing. Again I wasn't suggesting that Blade Runner should have won over Gandhi, I'm saying its shameful that it wasn't even nominated. I'm also not suggesting that TLE didn't deserve to win. Vittorio Storaro is one of my heroes and everything I've seen of his is nothing less than stunning. It is one reason why this situation is so frustrating. Sadly I can't support these titles by buying them. Doug

Context for the '82 Oscars My understanding is that Blade Runner was a legendarily bad shoot, with a lot of ill feeling between the American crew and Ridley's personnel. The Cinematographer had a reputation for taking his time. The film was taken over by the Bond company, one of the Producer's appeared to activily dislike the film and the lead Actor also appeared disappointed. The film was also a critical and financial flop. Combine all these factors and it is no surprise that there was not enough support from the conservative members of the AMPAS that made up the Cinematography branch for the film to even get a nomination.