WHV Press Release: SORCERER (Blu-ray Book) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, I watched this last night and what really jumped out at me was how bright the colors were. I mean the greens are really vibrant greens that leap off the screen and the pastels of some of the rooms stood out far more than I ever recall them standing out. I mean I just did not remember seeing this film look this deeply saturated in terms of the colors. I have to confess I've never seen this film in a theater and only have seen it presented poorly either on TV or the horrible DVD version...so I am not the person to say if this looks like it should or not...but I felt like I was watching the film for the first time. Loved every second of this last night but I'll leave comments on if it "looks right" to others.

 

[CinemaCynic]

Friedkin is obsessd with oversaturating his colors on his blu ray releases. The French Connection controversy (in which he truly ruined the film) is worth reading up on. Others can debate on wether a director has the right to alter his/her work or not, IMO his retouches have been uniformly horrid, excessive and tawdry. There are shots in this blu ray where he has turned up the color so much that the grain has taken on a kind of digital hue.

Its a bit frustrating as its entirely through his personal eforts of campaigning and legal action that he got Sorcerer out in the first place, a good film that genuinely deserves reappraisal... only to color time it for the blind with a palette not actually known in the natural universe.

 

[cineMANIAC]

The jungle greens are definitely oversaturated. I'm not sure if I dislike the look but in some instances it just looks too green, unnatural. The rest of the film looks excellent, barring a handful of shots in small, dank rooms.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, none of it detracted from my enjoyment of the film and yes, I thought the image itself was pretty spectacular but as I sat there watching it I wondered if there would be some backlash over the "look" of the film. I am well aware of the back and forth over the look of French Connection and I have both versions of it on blu-ray.

My feeling is I would highly recommend this disc but as I said I can't comment on if it looks correct. Be really interested to read Mr. Harris on this one but I am happy to have this film in the best presentation of it I have ever seen.

 

[AdrianTurner]

My copy is in transit. I wonder, though, how the greens compare to the greens of, say, Apocalypse Now or The Emerald Forest. Having been in several jungles myself (such as two weeks on location in Borneo with John Milius on Farewell to the King), it is amazingly green in there as well as impenetrably dark under the canopy.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I am curious to hear what you think, Adrian, once you have seen it. I watched the blu-ray of Apocalypse Now not that long ago and do not think the greens of the jungle are as bright as what I saw in Sorcerer. I do recall watching Farewell to the King and that film also having very bright greens but that was some time ago now. I think with Sorcerer two things could be in play for me. One, I really don't have any recollection of a version of the film that was not poorly presented and so the colors were more muted just for that reason. Two, in my memory this was sort of a downbeat story and so all of the bright colors of the film seem to contrast with my emotional memory of it.

 

[Ruz-El]

Are we sure we should be comparing Sorcerer to Apocalypse Now and actual foliage to determine if it's colour timing is correct?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don't think he meant to compare them to see if the color timing was correct. I think he just was talking about the fact that a jungle can appear a quite lush and vibrant green. Really, I am not complaining just was interested to hear what others thought. It's a great looking image, I think, so I think most people are going to be thrilled with this and I am one of them.

 

[CinemaCynic]

Are we sure we should be comparing Sorcerer to Apocalypse Now and actual foliage to determine if it's colour timing is correct?

No. And "correct" is obviously subjective. In the interest of partial disclosure I've worked with quite a few of the French Connecton alums, as well as other Friedkin veterans. Their private views of him as a talent and as a person are not things I would ever be comfortable sharing on a forum (but rest assured, he has his friends, defenders and his critics... and often in the same breath).

But his revisitations of his films with digital post techniques are often mistaken for "original vision" when they are usually more like "messing with." That asessment is a personal one but informed in part by his patterns of behavior as a man. In the case of Sorcerer, I'd rather it be out in its current form than not at all, or worse as was the case for years, disputed in its ownership and releasablilty. On that topic I have nothing but profound empathy for the filmmaker, dealing with apathy and incompetence in simply getting his film seen!

But he should be tested for color blindness.

 

[hanshotfirst1138]

Thank you. Freidkin was supposedly once just interested in working with actors and largely leaving visual decisions to his DPs. Now it seems that like Cameron, Mann, Lucas, and others, the digital age's increasing allowance for revisionism has made him more inclined to practice it. How good or bad the decisions made to Sorcerer were, I am still skeptical of his (and others') "director approval" today on new releases, especially with the increasing color-tweaking which seems to be becoming increasingly frequent. That being said, judging by the reviews of this, it sounds like it turned out surprisingly well. I'm thinking about picking up it and the Criterion Blu of Wages of Fear and making it a double feature.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

I was fortunate to see the film shown -- 35mm! -- at the Aero in Santa Monica along with CRUISING as part of a Friedkin retrospective last spring. That print, which was in pretty great shape, looked nothing like the new Blu-Ray, which is way too saturated. The greens are almost distracting and I'll agree with the pastels. And the bridge sequence wasn't nearly as purple-blue (but not as bad as those YouTube clips, which are even more out of whack than this Blu-Ray). But it's not as bad as I feared and certainly nothing like that first FRENCH CONNECTION Blu-Ray, which is a monstrosity. If he'd just toned down the intensity of the colors a smidgen to make the piece seem more naturalistic, none of this would be an issue. No wonder they went with different art from the original one-sheet, which details the film's original color scheme:

 

[Peter Neski]

"and largely leaving visual decisions to his DPs"" where's the proof of this??

 

[Worth]

Follow
William FriedkinVerified account‏@WilliamFriedkinDo not buy the Sorcerer DVD yet. WB is making sure it's Cut out. They are making a new DVD which will be available Shortly, from the master.


[*] Reply
[*] Retweet
[*] Favorite
[*] More
[/list]

 

[Ronald Epstein]

^^^^Ramblings from a mad man or something we should be paying attention to?Don't buy the DVD or does Friedkin mean the Blu-ray? I suspect the latter?What does "WB is making sure it's cut out" mean?

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

^^^^Ramblings from a mad man or something we should be paying attention to?Don't buy the DVD or does Friedkin mean the Blu-ray? I suspect the latter?What does "WB is making sure it's cut out" mean?

I think Universal is dumping their DVDs, which are full-frame and NOT this version which is currently Blu-Ray only. A new DVD is being prepared from this master. The Blu-Ray is fine (though I would have liked to have seen the awesome trailer on it).

Here's Friedkin on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2OVLFFTBGIZCH/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00HT2L7VS&nodeID=2625373011&store=movies-tv

And why the DVD has the new box art (the old Universal one just had a repurposing of the bridge poster art) is beyond me.

 

[Harry-N]

I read all this DVD/Blu-ray stuff as:

Friedkin was purposed to supply a new master to Warner Brothers for the purpose of them making a Blu-ray. From what he's saying now, it sounds as if he never gave "DVD" a thought, and was shocked and appalled that WB would put out a DVD using the old DVD master from Universal. WB probably couldn't get the t's crossed and the i's dotted to make a DVD from the new master, so they put out what they could (though WHY is anyone's guess).

Now Friedkin is saying that he and WB have gotten together with the purpose of using the new master for a DVD release at some point in the future. It sounds as if he's got WB recalling the DVDs put out yesterday (Collector's item? ) so that they can re-release it when ready.

That's my two cents on the matter.

Harry

 

[CinemaCynic]

"and largely leaving visual decisions to his DPs"" where's the proof of this??

It isn't my comment but you won't have to dig too deeply to find quite a few published anecdotes about Friedkin's over and under-emphasis in various technical and creative areas. And I should add that no director in cinema history has ever been a complete package in that manner, its the auteur myth that has messed with everyone's perceptions of a 'vision' vs the practical and collaborative realities of production. Each have their strengths and weaknesses and all have moments of over and underachievement. And all need a crew.

On Friedkin's delegations, I'd specifically call your attention to his early career. 'The Night They Raided Minsky's' was an absolute disaster because of them, and granted he was probably far too inexperienced to be able to handle the scale of the picture. He was asked by his DP Andrew Laszo on the very first morning of filming "where do you want the camera?" and infamously couldn't answer the question. For the rest of that fiasco I'd refer you to editor Ralph Rosenblum's book on the film.

As for other exciting tales, including the firing of a loaded starter pistol off camera to frighten actors and slapping an actual Jesuit right before filming the closing scene of The Exorcist, I'll let you discover those all on your own.

 

[hanshotfirst1138]

I don't know how to delete this post.

 

[hanshotfirst1138]

It isn't my comment but you won't have to dig too deeply to find quite a few published anecdotes about Friedkin's over and under-emphasis in various technical and creative areas. And I should add that no director in cinema history has ever been a complete package in that manner, its the auteur myth that has messed with everyone's perceptions of a 'vision' vs the practical and collaborative realities of production. Each have their strengths and weaknesses and all have moments of over and underachievement. And all need a crew. On Friedkin's delegations, I'd specifically call your attention to his early career. 'The Night They Raided Minsky's' was an absolute disaster because of them, and granted he was probably far too inexperienced to be able to handle the scale of the picture. He was asked by his DP Andrew Laszo on the very first morning of filming "where do you want the camera?" and infamously couldn't answer the question. For the rest of that fiasco I'd refer you to editor Ralph Rosenblum's book on the film.As for other exciting tales, including the firing of a loaded starter pistol off camera to frighten actors and slapping an actual Jesuit right before filming the closing scene of The Exorcist, I'll let you discover those all on your own.

I don't know about the aeuter "myth." Guys like Kubrick were notorious for micromanaging every aspect of production. Granted, he and many other "aeuters" tended to become producers and writers as well, but I do tend to find many more casual links between director's films than I do editors, DPs, etc.

 

[CinemaCynic]

I'll save my anti-auterism rant for a seperate thread someday but to use your own words, Kubrick was first and foremost a micromanager. He was a great artist and the author of most of his films in as much as one person can be (and more than most ever could ever even imagine). Certainly when you combine the actual work of writing/producing/directing (rather than versions of vanity or contractual crediting of those titles common today, at least in producing) then it becomes a far less disputable chain of control. And let's be honest, there is a genuine pantheon of filmmakers whose careers stand as testament to their consistency of method, control, theme and 'vision.' And sometimes just endurance.

However, the 'myth' begins with the veneration of anyone credited as a "director" as the 'author.' It is simply overapplied. Every film is different and, as Friedkin proves, a green and 'in-over-his-head' disaster on one project can quickly mature into a highly skilled filmmaker with a lot to say. Likewise the notion that every creative idea or piece of execution is engineered by the director is nonsense. Only people who've never worked on a set would ever believe something so deluded. Ideas come from every corner and there are complex levels of filters that vary from production to production.

There are producers, writers and performers who, in individual instances, 'author' the work far more completely than an average director ever could. My favorite example that always start arguments with my auteurist friends:

Fred Astaire.

Who authors the film that's chief success is the recording of choreography, the director who runs the set or the performer/choreographer? Astaire (and Hermes Pan) were not filmmakers, yet it is their work that defined many of the films in which he starred. Who 'authored' "Top Hat?" Mark Sandrich? Pandro S. Berman? Or Astaire and Pan? The reality there, as always, is a complex collaboration but its Astaire's work that draws and his choreography that is ascendant rather than Sandrich's direction. Do you refer to them as 'Sandrich films' or 'Astaire films?'

Auteurism is an oversimplification of a process that is TERRIFYINGLY complicated and most people have a dreadful tendency to reject nuance in favor of simplicity, especially when crediting accomplishment. Incidentally, I don't personally know a single director (great or average) who would ever characterize a DP as a 'casual link.' That role is the biggest technical anchor on any film, you get lost there and you are doomed. And they, unlike most, don't claim authorship even though there are more than a few filmmakers who've been carried for their entire careers by men and women in that role.