Touch of Evil (50th Anniversary Edition) 10-07-08 (See Post# 14) (1 Viewer)

[seanOhara]

I thought Welles' original cut was lost. So what's the "preview version"?

 

[Ed Moroughan]

Awesome. Another movie I've yet to pick up. October is going to be an expensive month.

 

[WadeM]

Fantastic!!

 

[Mark Edward Heuck]

The "preview version" was a longer cut located in the '70's that was circulated on the repertory circuit and was believed to be closer to Welles' intentions, until the memo was found and Rick Schmidlin assembled what is now called the director's cut.

 

[danielmartin]

Wow! Terrific news. First time poster here.
I was introduced to this film's theatrical version in the 70s and fell head over heels. I'm a keen fan of Schmidlin's (and Murch) reconstruction job.
Even though I have the current DVD version i will be making room for this title.
I'm not so certain that this signals a growing trend for Universal. I have not been satisfied in their work regarding their classic catalogue, but maybe i've missed something.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

WOW, great news!

And, I missed the bit in previous posts about previous video versions being a longer version found in the '70s with added footage, which is now apparently being called the "preview" version...I thought the old videos were of the theatrical version. Apparently I prefer the preview version then. But I can't wait to directly compare & contrast all three! This release is everything we could ask for, except Welles re-editing the film to his exact specs from beyond the grave.

 

[Simon Howson]

With a bit of luck Beatrice Welles won't veto this a week before the release date.

 

[Alan_H]

You're not kidding!

Hitchcock Premiere Collection
Touch of Evil 50th
Vertigo Legacy
Psycho Legacy
Rear Window Legacy
+ ???

I might as well add Top Ramen to the shopping list right now.

 

[Jim_K]

I'll be holding out for Blu-rays of Touch of Evil and the Legacy Hitchcocks, keeping my current discs in the meantime.

I won't double/triple/quadruple dip for standard DVD anymore.

 

[John Skoda]

I agree--if they won't be blu, I'll be sitting out this round.

 

[dana martin]

have a feeling that these will eventually be released on blu, after they did the sets for The sting it was one of the releases that they put out on HD, sort of like the three step sony thing a couple of years ago, not really a good way to do this, personally day and date legacy series with blu and sd release would have been the way to do this correctly.

 

[Lord Dalek]

What's been on VHS for years. Its the 1975 version.

 

[Dave S.G.]

I am VERY excited to hear this news, but I have to agree with Jim...


Nowadays, my own SD purchases are limited to extreme bargains. Titles like these and the other slew of just-announced Hitchcocks (along with eventual Criterions and the already-released Blade Runner) will be what pushes me in to Hi Def -- when/if I take that plunge. Sitting on the sidelines is frustrating, but on the plus-side it ultimately builds anticipation and appreciation.

I can only justify buying the same thing so many times. That said, I'm psyched for those who are jumping at the SD and can't wait for the reviews. I'll also be checking here and Digital Bits religiously with my fingers crossed that Universal will force me to invest in a Blu-Ray player.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Is there any confirmation that Touch of Evil was shot for 1.37:1?

It was shot in early 1957, which would make the decision to shoot in Academy unusual. Universal had already switched to all new productions being shot for at least 1.85:1 by 1954-1955. Why would Welles not shoot for widescreen matting when all other Universal productions at the time were?

 

[BillyFeldman]

Of course it was 1:85 - Universal was one of the first studios to dictate to their filmmakers to shoot for widescreen. But the gentleman who posted what you're referring to is clearly one of these people who don't understand what an open matte transfer is and that the extra information top and bottom was never meant to be seen. Welles knew how his film would be projected as did his cameraman. Welles's "intentions" would have been for theatrical exhibition, and not some artistic decision for an audience of himself, since no one in 1957 would have shown the film in Academy ratio. They protected the film for future TV showings, but it was projected in 1:85 everywhere, and that's the only framing that should be on the DVD. I would have thought all this would be old news by now.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

You said the same thing about Tim Burton's Batman (1989), and again, its complete nonsense. These are widescreen films. The video may be open matte but that does not make it a 4:3 film. The problem is numerous 50s films are stuck in open matte on DVD because of this kind of specious reasoning

 

[Simon Howson]

I am pretty sure the restoration was covered in an article in American Cinematographer, but I can't remember if it mentions anything about the aspect ratio.

 

[BillyFeldman]

That quote from the imbd doesn't even make sense on any level, therefore it is utter nonsense. There is no way the film wasn't shot 1:85 - as I posted above, Universal was one of the first companies to mandate that all their films would be 1:85, 2:1, or scope. I love the "the studio forced him to film it full-frame" - how can the imdb let something that stupid stand? Oh, wait - it's the imdb.

 

[Simon Howson]

Name a Universal film that has a 2:1 ratio. I can't think of any.

There were some late 50s films shot in Academy. For example Boetticher's film The Tall T. I have seen the remake of The Killers (1964) in Academy which looked fine, and that is how it is presented on the Criterion DVD. I have also seen Welles' Chimes at Midnight (1965) projected full frame from a 35mm print which looked fine as well. But maybe it was meant to be 1.66:1? Either way, Welles wasn't exactly a prolific widescreen director, he never used 'Scope.

 

[John Hodson]

I will show my arse in Burton's window (old English colloquialism; don't worry about it...) if it's proven that Universal ordered Welles to shoot in Academy against his wishes.

It's nonsensical on every level.