409 Days of Heaven

[arsonfilms]

Special Features Updated:

New audio interview with Richard Gere

New video interviews with cinematographers Haskell Wexler and Bailey, and a video interview with Sam Shepard from 2002

PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Adrian Martin and a chapter from director of photography Nestor Almendros's autobiography

[tavernier]

New audio interview with Richard Gere

Pretty boy couldn't get in front of a camera?

[Luke M]

I hope when Paramount releases this on HD they use the Criterion print.

[arsonfilms]

I hope when Paramount releases this on HD they use the Criterion print.

You know, I think we'll see Criterion announce an HD line long before Paramount puts this out as an HD disc, and even if Paramount were to put this out in hi-def, the Criterion transfer would have to be licensed out and I doubt Paramount would buy.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

It's nice to see Criterion include Almendros' chapter on the film in their booklet. If Criterion ever started publishing books, it'd be great if their inaugural tome was Almondros' Man With A Camera. These Almendros' teasers are too much for me!

[bruce holecheck]

Pretty boy couldn't get in front of a camera?

If anything, I would assume this had more to do with scheduling than his ego. It's much easier (and cheaper) to schedule an audio chat than an on-camera interview -- especially considering the hassle of going through agents and reps that takes up 95% of your allotted production time...

While I am bummed that the documentary mentioned earlier in the thread won't be included, I think the chat should be pretty interesting. Now I just need to stop being scared of the film's new "look."

[Oedipax]

While I am bummed that the documentary mentioned earlier in the thread won't be included, I think the chat should be pretty interesting. Now I just need to stop being scared of the film's new "look."

Eh. It's not like all the old DVDs are suddenly going to evaporate into thin air when Criterion's DVD is released. If the new color timing is so disagreeable, there'll always be that. Personally I'm really excited to see what the new version will look like; my guess is something a bit more like The Thin Red Line, a more neutral/cool color palette. It would be interesting to hear if Wexler has anything to say about it.

[TedW]

Repertory house here in L.A. In the last couple of years, I think.

Why mess with it? The movie's a touchstone of modern cinematography for a reason.

Dude, Malick didn't "mess" with DAYS OF HEAVEN. The team at Paramount responsible for the original transfer "messed" with DAYS OF HEAVEN.

Dude. In the article, Lee Kline says the transfer from the existing DVD is good, and then Malick himself initially instructs the team to match the existing transfer, which he also thinks is good.

Think about this: the brand new IP print that Criterion and Paramount struck (thereby creating the only pristine one in existence) is not where the color tweaking happened. It occurred when Malick sat in a room for three days and tried to get the Criterion transfer to look as close as possible to that print.

That's not correct. Think about this: when you make an IP, it includes timing decisions. That's what an IP is, a color-corrected print from the original negative. So that's the first part where you can deviate from what has existed and is known to those who have seen the movie. But fine, they made a new IP. But you are transferring that element itself, so it's not really accurate to say "they tried to get the transfer to look as close as possible to that print." That's not really how it works. Then, as the article states, Malick came in after they had used the existing transfer (which, again, everyone likes) as a rough guide and began making changes, as folks are wont to do when they have knobs to twist and buttons to push. Whether the changes are superior or not remains to be seen. But changes were made, as Kline says: "It was heading towards a really different place from the previous transfer."

My concern is that I won't like it. That was my only point.

[jaredsap]

Dude. In the article, Lee Kline says the transfer from the existing DVD is good, and then Malick himself initially instructs the team to match the existing transfer, which he also thinks is good.

I took "good" in that context to mean "okay" or "not egregious." Clearly Malick was just being lazy by initially refusing to supervise the new transfer.

when you make an IP, it includes timing decisions. That's what an IP is, a color-corrected print from the original negative. So that's the first part where you can deviate from what has existed and is known to those who have seen the movie.

Yes, but there's nothing in the article to indicate that the new IP's color does deviate from the original negative.

Whether the changes are superior or not remains to be seen. But changes were made, as Kline says: "It was heading towards a really different place from the previous transfer."

What I'm saying is that the previous transfer cannot be held as a reference standard for DAYS OF HEAVEN's look. You cannot say because the Criterion transfer doesn't look like the Paramount transfer (which was made from a faulty IP), Malick has pulled a Lucas or a Coppola and "messed" with his film. Malick didn't mind Paramount's previous transfer, but he also didn't supervise it (nor, I'm guessing, did anyone associated with the film). The Criterion transfer represents his vision.

My concern is that I won't like it. That was my only point.

Fair enough.

[TedW]

You're saying a bunch of stuff that's not true or is unsupported by the article.

I took "good" in that context to mean "okay" or "not egregious." Clearly Malick was just being lazy by initially refusing to supervise the new transfer.

Funny, I took "good" to mean, you know, good. "Terry said to simply match the existing transfer because he'd always liked it." How do you construe that as "lazy"? Excuse me, clearly lazy, in your words? I construe it as, "I like it, don't fuck with it."

Yes, but there's nothing in the article to indicate that the new IP's color does deviate from the original negative.

True, but my point was that it was possible. But I'll concede this.

What I'm saying is that the previous transfer cannot be held as a reference standard for DAYS OF HEAVEN's look.

Well, I can, certainly, because I like it. But more importantly, Malick does, because he initially instructed Lee Kline to match it. If he wasn't happy with it, it isn't likely that he would have done this.

You cannot say because the Criterion transfer doesn't look like the Paramount transfer (which was made from a faulty IP), Malick has pulled a Lucas or a Coppola and "messed" with his film.

Of course I can. According to the article, it has been changed under Malick's supervision. Therefore he has messed with it. For the better or for the worse, unknown at this point. But it has been messed with. And there is nothing in the article that says the faulty IP was the one used for the original DVD transfer. In fact, it is called "gorgeous" except for the chemical staining, which could have occurred in the interim since the DVD was made. There is not enough information to support your claim.

Malick didn't mind Paramount's previous transfer, but he also didn't supervise it (nor, I'm guessing, did anyone associated with the film).

Your powers of intuition are incredible. You are intuiting that Malick "didn't mind" the existing DVD, but the article doesn't say that. But it does say he was happy with it enough to instruct the new guys to match what was already done. Then you say he didn't supervise the original DVD, when that too is not mentioned in the article one way or the other. Then you claim no one from the film supervised it, but here at least you admit to guessing. Which is admirable.

The Criterion transfer represents his vision.

His new vision of it, yes.

[jaredsap]

Funny, I took "good" to mean, you know, good. "Terry said to simply match the existing transfer because he'd always liked it." How do you construe that as "lazy"? Excuse me, clearly lazy, in your words? I construe it as, "I like it, don't fuck with it."

Okay, it's not clear. But how does Malick suddenly go from "the existing transfer shouldn't be fucked with" to "okay, I'll fly out to Los Angeles and spend three days in a room carefully supervising the new transfer and creating a dramatically different look"? Something is not adding up here. A piece of the story is missing.

What I'm saying is that the previous transfer cannot be held as a reference standard for DAYS OF HEAVEN's look.

Well, I can, certainly, because I like it. But more importantly, Malick does, because he initially instructed Lee Kline to match it. If he wasn't happy with it, it isn't likely that he would have done this.

The reference standard is how prints looked in theaters in 1978. Whether you or Malick (or me) like the Paramount DVD has no bearing whatsoever on it being a reference standard.

You cannot say because the Criterion transfer doesn't look like the Paramount transfer (which was made from a faulty IP), Malick has pulled a Lucas or a Coppola and "messed" with his film.

Of course I can. According to the article, it has been changed under Malick's supervision. Therefore he has messed with it. For the better or for the worse, unknown at this point. But it has been messed with.

All Malick has definitely messed with is the current Paramount transfer of DAYS OF HEAVEN. As I said, and you conceded, there is nothing to indicate that he messed with the new IP. This isn't just semantics. However, if Malick did in fact mess with the new IP or the new transfer insofar as they look different than what people saw in theaters in 1978, than yes, he has changed his film.

And there is nothing in the article that says the faulty IP was the one used for the original DVD transfer. In fact, it is called "gorgeous" except for the chemical staining, which could have occurred in the interim since the DVD was made. There is not enough information to support your claim.

Fair point.

[GringoTex]

Okay, it's not clear. But how does Malick suddenly go from "the existing transfer shouldn't be fucked with" to "okay, I'll fly out to Los Angeles and spend three days in a room carefully supervising the new transfer and creating a dramatically different look"? Something is not adding up here. A piece of the story is missing.

Here's the missing story: Malick hated everything about the initial release of Days of Heaven. Why do you think he didn't make another film for 20 years?

If you have precious memories of DoH, don't let Terry fuck it up, by all means.

[TedW]

Here's the missing story: Malick hated everything about the initial release of Days of Heaven. Why do you think he didn't make another film for 20 years?

I have no fucking idea, man, and neither do you. "Malick hated everything about the initial release." Did you talk to him about it or something? Please reveal the source of this claim, because I would like to know. Or are you just nattering on like everybody else on the Internet?

[GringoTex]

Here's the missing story: Malick hated everything about the initial release of Days of Heaven. Why do you think he didn't make another film for 20 years?

I have no fucking idea, man, and neither do you. "Malick hated everything about the initial release." Did you talk to him about it or something? Please reveal the source of this claim, because I would like to know. Or are you just nattering on like everybody else on the Internet?

I talked to Malick about the initial release of Days of Heaven several times. I was the one who screened it with him in attendance watching every audience reaction. Google "Austin Film Society" and keep your angels close to your vest.

[TedW]

Fair enough. (Though you might want to add something like, "When I spoke to Malick..." or "Malick told me..." to statements purporting to be definitive. Makes it easier on everybody.) I have no idea what the admonition about angels means, but it sounds like something I should repeat to my grandchildren one day, so I'll take it.

[GringoTex]

I have no idea what the admonition about angels means

Neither do I but it sounds good.

[arsonfilms]

It may be worth pointing out that many of the members of this forum are critics, festival programmers, film makers, disc producers and other industry folk. Although we do get the occasional troll or disgruntled video shop stock boy, most of the information on the forum can at least be taken seriously. Obviously it never hurts to ask for someone's sources, but on this board in particular there is no reason to be so accusatory.

[Person]

Here's one angle: Malick supervised the Criterion transfer as an 'experiment'. He may have been happy with the previous Paramount transfer, but he may have, after some cajoling from Lee Kline, seen it as an opportunity to create an alternate color scheme. But it was Malick's call and it was what the people at Criterion wanted, ie. Malick to supervise and approve the transfer. Whether it will be what the fans wanted, will remain to be seen.

[Oedipax]

GringoTex, out of curiosity, can you expand any on what it was in particular that Malick was so displeased with? Does it concern anything to do with the film itself, or just the way it was marketed/released?

[TedW]

It may be worth pointing out that many of the members of this forum are critics, festival programmers, film makers, disc producers and other industry folk. Although we do get the occasional troll or disgruntled video shop stock boy, most of the information on the forum can at least be taken seriously. Obviously it never hurts to ask for someone's sources, but on this board in particular there is no reason to be so accusatory.

This is an open, anonymous Internet forum like any other. It is not immune to people prattling on with their own speculation as if it was fact, I've read plenty of it over my time here. I don't know what anybody here does for a living and nobody knows what I do for a living. So there's no reason to trust what any member says just because they have a screenname -- or, in your words, tell the festival programmer from the disgruntled video shop stock boy -- which is why definitive, "insider" declarations should customarily be sourced. Pretty basic idea.

[tryavna]

I don't know what anybody here does for a living

You mean, you don't know who, say, Peerpee, Bikey, and MichaelB are in real life?

[TedW]

Well, I think Bikey is actually Robert Rehme, First Vice President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences; Peerpee is Michael Mann's laundry guy; and MichaelB is, well, obviously Michael Bay (sorry, Mike, secret's out!). I hear that you, tryavna, are actually Bela Tarr. But I won't tell anyone.

[Forrest Taft]

GringoTex, out of curiosity, can you expand any on what it was in particular that Malick was so displeased with? Does it concern anything to do with the film itself, or just the way it was marketed/released?

I've read somewhere that Richard Gere was not his first choice for the lead. It was turned down by John Travolta and Jack Nicholson among others. Also, he did not have final cut, and was not satisfied with some of the changes he had to make. He supposedly preferred Badlands. I can't remember where I read these things, so I have no idea if it's true or not.

[Mental Mike]

I am happy with Richard Gere's performance in the movie...very little of the movie is dialogue, so Gere can say a lot with his glances...I do not think Nicholson or Travolta can be as mysterious as Gere with the same sparse dialogue...or be non-entities like Gere seemed to be in the movie...

[Macintosh]

and no one can stick a gerbil up his ass like Gere