422 The Last Emperor

[domino harvey]

I'm surprised Storaro didn't try to trim the top and bottom of the image for Reds to achieve his 2:1 there as well-- although maybe he did and Beatty told him to go to hell

[Cronenfly]

I'm surprised Storaro didn't try to trim the top and bottom of the image for Reds to achieve his 2:1 there as well-- although maybe he did and Beatty told him to go to hell

Thank god he only believes in doing it to the films he shot in 2.35:1...for now.

[denti alligator]

Let's keep in mind that the R2 is the odd-ball here in terms of color. Sure, the Criterion is still a little more grey-ish, but the reds and yellows are about the same as the old R1. The R2, on the other hand, has a totally different color palate. Which is more accurate? I hate to say it, but with Bertolucci and Storaro involved, wouldn't you think the Criterion is (or were they involved in the R2, also?).

[Cronenfly]

Let's keep in mind that the R2 is the odd-ball here in terms of color. Sure, the Criterion is still a little more grey-ish, but the reds and yellows are about the same as the old R1. The R2, on the other hand, has a totally different color palate. Which is more accurate? I hate to say it, but with Bertolucci and Storaro involved, wouldn't you think the Criterion is (or were they involved in the R2, also?).

Once again: does anyone know/remember the colors from the original theatrical prints? The R2 may be the odd-ball color-wise, but Storaro has proven just as free with regards to colors as he is with aspect ratios (case in point: Apocalypse Now, which exemplifies both well) when it comes to DVD transfers (that said, I don't remember anyone complaining about the colors on The Conformist/1900 being unduely manipulated). And given Criterion's seeming reverence for Storaro in the transfer process, I doubt that they would've stood in his way with regards to color if they didn't object to his AR change.

[domino harvey]

Let's keep in mind that the R2 is the odd-ball here in terms of color. Sure, the Criterion is still a little more grey-ish, but the reds and yellows are about the same as the old R1. The R2, on the other hand, has a totally different color palate. Which is more accurate? I hate to say it, but with Bertolucci and Storaro involved, wouldn't you think the Criterion is (or were they involved in the R2, also?).

Those two have very little credibility left for this release, I'm not sure that's the best argument to make in favor of Criterion's color scheme

[Cronenfly]

Let's keep in mind that the R2 is the odd-ball here in terms of color. Sure, the Criterion is still a little more grey-ish, but the reds and yellows are about the same as the old R1. The R2, on the other hand, has a totally different color palate. Which is more accurate? I hate to say it, but with Bertolucci and Storaro involved, wouldn't you think the Criterion is (or were they involved in the R2, also?).

Those two have very little credibility left for this release, I'm not sure that's the best argument to make in favor of Criterion's color scheme

It seems like Bertolucci and Criterion are just kowtowing to Storaro, which makes them no less culpable, I guess, but the blame lies primarily with Storaro. His amazing ability to brainwash once great directors like Bertolucci and Coppola into conforming to his vision (not to mention DVD producers of the caliber of Criterion) is truly awe-inspiring. I wonder if any of us mere mortals could avoid crumpling to the ground in his presence...

[domino harvey]

[Cronenfly]

=D>

[kinjitsu]

Is that image 2.00:1 Storaro approved?

[domino harvey]

Is that image 2.00:1 Storaro approved?

I emailed it to him and just received this attachment of the corrected Univisium image:

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Ha ha ha - post of the year, sir!

Does anyone know what Bertolucci has to say about this? I can't believe that anyone in his right mind would let 2.35 get cropped. It's his movie for one thing.

[Cronenfly]

Jeff's link to the Filmmaker Magazine article on the second page of this thread seems to indicate that Bertolucci is in agreement with Storaro on the 2.00:1 (if Storaro's word is to be trusted).

[kinjitsu]

Even if you lose something, you gain the most important things.

[HerrSchreck]

Yeah, you lose your artistic integrity and image of artistic confidence/decisiveness, but you make money from yet another "authoritative" dvd release of a old previously released movie.

[Dylan]

but they screened it here in a 70mm print!

Am I mistaken or aren't most (all?) 70mm prints of 2.35:1 films cropped to 2.00:1?

[Jeff]

Am I mistaken or aren't most (all?) 70mm prints of 2.35:1 films cropped to 2.00:1?

2.20:1

[kekid]

Storaro seems to be unanimously condemned here for his artistic decision on DVD versions of this (and perhaps other) films. It is reasonanble to assume that he would want these films to be seen in best possible form by the DVD audience, therefore his decisions represent his honest judgment. Why would a creator of these magnificent images make (what a majority of members on this forum consider) poor decisions on his own creations? I would like to see if someone can suggest the thought process that might have led him to these decisions. (Filling the TV screen seems to be an unlikely, though possible, explanation). To form a considered view on the issue we need to understand the creator's rationale.

[HerrSchreck]

The problem is there is no authoritative arbiter for right or wrong or "looks better" or "looks worse" on dvd screens. A film or piece of art represents a time capsule on the state of the artist(s) at the time the film was made-- not At Time of DVD Release. If a cinematographer starts dropping acid or shooting dope and develops strange new ideas about "the eye" and "spacial perfection vis a tv screen" it sounds like he's forgotten the state of his mind when making a film in question and is focused more on his role as Cinematographic Theorist For The Ages... and should be whipped away from the telecine room where a film made long before the hatchling Special Theory first kicked it's way out the retarded little egg.

How can a museum hold a retrospective on the development-- stylistic and technical-- of a painter if the fucking guy wants to stagger around the MoMA with a corrective paintbrush bringing each painting, some decades old, up to his present state? What good does this do? What happens in the future if his ideas change? Let him in again and mess with them? That's bullshit in my view, and Criterion should be a little embarassed about this sort of Hobnobbing Revisionism which has been allowed ONLY because of Storaros present state of prestige.

This is why Sam Fuller says "you have to think your film out when you have the chance-- which is when you make it... you can't say after a bad premiere 'well I really meant to to THIS but I couldnt get it to work right', you'll look like a schmuck."

Indulgence of Artistic Creampuffs if you ask me. And this is coming from me who always considered Storaro the true heir of John Alton. I worship this man's work.

The most important thing to know how to do in the visual arts is to say "this work is finished"... many a painter ruins works by endless revision and correction and suck the power of the Moment right out of the work. In my view this whole "Director Approved" issue, responsible for so many mindblowingly wonderful CC releases, puts them in a vulnerable position every here and there with dilletantes who don't know how to leave their past alone. In my view-- only mine-- someone like Storaro is unfortunately at this time the least authoritative or weight-carrying soul on the block when it comes to establishing the state of this picture upon its release. He should be bound and gagged and shot off of Solaris until telecine is over. Then they can reel the ship back in. He cannot contend with the power, flaws and all, of his youthful self, vs his present Professorial Role.

[Gregory]

Then again many major artists seem to think of their works as in-progress until they die, and nothing any of us can say or do will change this. I don't have a problem with such tinkering in theory (it's up for debate how often this kind of thing yields worthwhile results) as long as the version with which the artist was originally satisfied remains equally available. The point at which I have a problem with what Storaro is doing is when he prevents or makes it difficult for Criterion or whomever to release the reference version. It's especially disappointing in this case, considering that Criterion has with several of their releases included as an alternate version something the filmmaker actually hated from day one.

[HerrSchreck]

Then again many major artists seem to think of their works as in-progress until they die, and nothing any of us can say or do will change this.

That's pretty self evident from the fact that we were having this discussion. But appreciate the stern yellow highlighter marker.

The problem is that when a film is done, it represents the work of more than one person, not just one. If a painter wants to go ahead and turn a vibrant painting all his own into mush- fine. But a film is a sum of many parts. If an actor feels as though they could go back and shoot a retake a performance which was not "perfect" why can't they go back and make adjustments to their performance? Why is Storaro being indulged?

Because he's Storaro, plain and simple. I just don't think CC had the cojones to stand up to him. The film now looks the worst I've ever seen it.

Artists who don't know when to call their works finished, and see them as neverending projects (that's what the next project is for, to follow the development of your ideas) usually suck toilet. Storaro is a rare example of a genuis tippling over into knucklehead richmanville. Not to say he still doesn't posess some of the genuis he once had.

Give me Victor Erice "Once I finish my movie it no longer belongs to me, it belongs to the people" any day. Or Fuller. This sort of of self-conscious handwringing... leaving the gut for the terrain of the head... is not my flavor of gelato.

... there's also the issue of who the film belongs to. If a painter has sold his canvasses to someone (or the museum) it no longer belongs to him. If Storaro doesn't own the rights to the film why is he given carte blanche for modification? If a painter owns all his own paintings (the way zappa owned all his masters, and tried-- once, to furious howls which forced him to reverse him self-- to add new bass & drums to we're only in it for the money) he can wheedle till the cows come home.

[MichaelB]

there's also the issue of who the film belongs to. If a painter has sold his canvasses to someone (or the museum) it no longer belongs to him. If Storaro doesn't own the rights to the film why is he given carte blanche for modification? If a painter owns all his own paintings (the way zappa owned all his masters, and tried-- once, to furious howls which forced him to reverse him self-- to add new bass & drums to we're only in it for the money) he can wheedle till the cows come home.

Which is why I won my argument with the Quay Brothers over including their first film Nocturna Artificialia on their DVD - they were dead against it, but the BFI owned it outright, so they couldn't do anything to stop me. (We did compromise by tucking it away on the extras disc, though, and I kept my promise not to cut out the bits in the interview where they slagged it off).

On the other hand, they were able to veto the inclusion of other early titles - and I've no idea if these will ever see the light of day again.

[HerrSchreck]

This is truly the first topic I really wish the CC producer who handled this project (or whoever okayed the modif) would come onto the forum and have a brief Q&A.

Interesting on how its a film I don't really care much for. But given their propensity for "director approved editions"/"cinematographer-supervised telecine" (creating the possibility of getting "pushed around" a bit so to speak by revisionist desire via changing artistic temperaments of aging artists), and stated desire to restore these vintage films as much as possible to their premiere condition (against which this release leaves a black mark), it's a possibly hot topic vs their mission statement.

[MichaelB]

Interesting on how its a film I don't really care much for. But given their propensity for "director approved editions"/"cinematographer-supervised telecine" (creating the possibility of getting "pushed around" a bit so to speak by revisionist desire via changing artistic temperaments of aging artists), and stated desire to restore these vintage films as much as possible to their premiere condition (against which this release leaves a black mark), it's a possibly hot topic vs their mission statement.

An exemplary current example is the new Second Sight DVD of Joseph Losey's Don Giovanni, which I believe is a clone of the French edition.

They provide ample evidence (in the form of facsimiles of blistering letters setting out numerous objections) that Losey hated the original Dolby Stereo mix, and there's no doubt at all that the two new mixes sourced from the original 16-track master (one replicating the original speaker configuration, the other a truly mindblowing DTS 5.1 96/24 remix, both supervised by the original sound recordist) are vastly superior for all sorts of reasons...

...but they also included the original Dolby mix, for the benefit of people who don't like post-original-release tinkering.

(That said, the PAL transfer process has pushed it up a semitone, while the two new mixes have been pitch-corrected, so it's not a perfect replica of the original 1979 version).

[MichaelB]

Why on earth couldnt they have pitch corrected the two channel track? I can even do this with the "truePal" faclitiy on my crappy version of WinDVD.

I've no idea - maybe they assumed that anyone who wanted to listen to the original Dolby Stereo even after hearing about Losey's total contempt for it (expressed at the time of the original mix, not years later in a fit of revisionism) was probably so tin-eared that they wouldn't notice?

Or maybe the phasing problems in the original track (a side-effect of using a miking technique for the live recordings of the recitatives that the Dolby system didn't get on with) sounded even worse after pitch-shifting?

[tavernier]

If you want to buy it a week early, Landmark Theatres is selling it Feb. 19:

LANDMARK THEATRES TO OFFER EXCLUSIVE ON BERTOLUCCI’S ‘THE LAST EMPEROR’ DVD

LOS ANGELES (February 12, 2008) – Landmark Theatres patrons will get an exclusive, one-week opportunity to purchase Criterion’s 4-disc special edition release of Bernardo Bertolucci’s gorgeous epic, THE LAST EMPEROR before its wide release on February 26. Landmark, known for its in-theatre retail sales of uncommon and hard to find DVDs, books and CDs, will stock THE LAST EMPEROR at its theatres nationwide one week early, starting February 19.

Bernardo Bertolucci's THE LAST EMPEROR won nine Academy Awards® unexpectedly sweeping every category in which it was nominated—quite a feat for a challenging, multilayered epic directed by an Italian and starring an international cast. Yet the power and scope of the film was, and remains, undeniable—the life of Emperor Pu Yi, who took the throne at age three, in 1908, before witnessing decades of cultural and political upheaval, within and without the walls of the Forbidden City. Recreating Ching dynasty China with astonishing detail and unparalleled craftsmanship by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro and production designer Ferdinando Scarfiotti, THE LAST EMPEROR is also an intimate character study of one man reconciling personal responsibility and political legacy.

The film was previously only available in a basic, one-disc version, and has been out of print for years. The new release features four discs of material, including an all-new, restored high-definition digital transfer of the film, supervised and approved by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, commentary by director Bernardo Bertolucci, producer Jeremy Thomas, screenwriter Mark Peploe, and composer-actor Ryuichi Sakamoto, multiple documentaries, interviews with Composer David Byrne and Bertolucci, and more.

The DVD will be available for purchase at all participating Landmark Theatres locations for $49.99 (nearly $10.00 off the SRP) starting February 19.