Reds: 25th Anniversary Edition

[Matt]

This is the same problem holding up the release of the Batman TV series. I don't understand why studios are so reluctant to just say, "Hey, we both like money and we're not making any on this property right now. What say we just split the production costs and the profits?"

I know, it's naive.

[Jeff]

If I remember correctly Beatty may have purchased the rights to the characters for the film but Disney/Touchstone still contend they own the rights for any other use. I remember hearing a while ago that ownership and control of the character was what was holding up a DVD release.

It's not Disney that Beatty has the beef with, it's Tribune Features. He is suing them in order to make a sequel. I don't believe that there is any rights dispute over the first film. If there were, Disney would have to take it out of circulation.

[dx23]

This is the same problem holding up the release of the Batman TV series. I don't understand why studios are so reluctant to just say, "Hey, we both like money and we're not making any on this property right now. What say we just split the production costs and the profits?"

I know, it's naive.

That's too easy of a solution for the studios. They want to do it the hard, greedy, litigious way. Is the American way to do it.

[flyonthewall2983]

No! not the same Hollywood that brought in a politician to run the MPAA for almost 40 years? Get out.

[Antoine Doinel]

From DavisDVD:

Paramount Home Entertainment's upcoming two-disc Reds: 25th Anniversary Edition, due in stores on October 17th, will be preceded by a week-long theatrical re-release in selected markets. Warren Beatty's Oscar-winning film will screen at the Landmark E Street Theater in Washington, D.C., the Village East Theater in New York and the Arclight Cinema in Los Angeles. Check respective theaters for showtimes.

[Gigi M.]

Beaver

[davebert]

I'm renting it tonight, so I'll let you all know how that goes when I watch it tomorrow... looks pretty promising.

Edit: The movie itself looks very good, I haven't checked out the extras yet. Reminds me how little I like 3+ hour epics, though.

[TedW]

Saw a print this past weekend here in LA... man, that movie looks good, still. Should have no issue with the DVD whatsoever.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

Apparently the film was restored a few years back -- they've been dragging their heels on the DVD because they wanted Beatty's involvement and he supposedly wasn't on board with the whole "special features" thing. Glad he changed his mind, this sounds like one of the best bargains of the year. (And I still can't believe they're releasing it on HD.)

[Gordon]

It probably wasn't "restored", just a retimed camera negative and printed to safety stock.

[life_boy]

One thing's for sure: This will look so much better than the long in-service VHS rental which was my introduction to the movie.

The film didn't do much for me when I saw it a coule of years back. I wanted to like it a lot more than I did. But seeing those screen-caps make me want to revisit it, if only for Storaro. This may not be the right place for this question, but what do people like about this film?

[TedW]

The film's just okay, though ambitious and well-intentioned. The photography, however, is godhead.

[Polybius]

It was nice to see a major film about any aspect of the history of socialism that was done with respect for the people involved and a committment to telling the story with the proper veracity.

That fact that it was so well made and well cast (with a few minor exceptions) was just gravy.

[Barmy]

Surprising that there is not more Reds love. I am no fan of Beatty, or lefties, believe me. But I can't think of a single "epic" Hollywood film in the last 10 years (if not more) that is as stirring and thought-provoking as Reds. This is a film that is actually ABOUT something. Something that many people are not that familiar with. And it doesn't fall into the typical biopic trap because it is not just about a person, but an era and a movement. In addition to the historical features, you get some of Keaton's best work ever and maybe Nicholson's last good performance. The cinematography is fab, needless to say.

[Gordon]

It's actually quite appropriate that in addition this film, we will soon see the DVD release of Bertolucci's, 1900, a film on basically the same topic, presented with the same honesty and also illuminated by the great Storaro. But generally speaking, films on the rise and fall of Communism - proverbially good films, that is - are rare.

[Dylan]

I just saw it a few weeks ago on TCM, and I liked it.

For the first two-thirds, the feeling I got was comparable to that of reading a great novel. There are some really terrific scenes (both sensitive and intense) between Beatty and Keaton, and I also enjoyed Jack Nicholson. For me it did slow down in the final third (right where Reed becomes captured by the Finnish) because by then I felt the most interesting parts of this story had been told, but I was still with it. I do feel the film does a great job making its points.

Vittorio Storaro's work is astounding.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Surprising that there is not more Reds love. I am no fan of Beatty, or lefties, believe me. But I can't think of a single "epic" Hollywood film in the last 10 years (if not more) that is as stirring and thought-provoking as Reds. This is a film that is actually ABOUT something. Something that many people are not that familiar with. And it doesn't fall into the typical biopic trap because it is not just about a person, but an era and a movement. In addition to the historical features, you get some of Keaton's best work ever and maybe Nicholson's last good performance. The cinematography is fab, needless to say.

I couldn't agree more.

I finally sat down and watched this movie for the first time over the weekend and the DVD is excellent. Superb transfer that really highlights the acclaimed cinematography. I wasn't sure I'd be able to last the 3+hrs. but I found the film completely engrossing and was really caught up in the drama.

I find it interesting that Beatty has decided to release his film on DVD on the eve of another round of elections in the United States. Is he perhaps hoping that his film about people affecting change will somehow influence people now? It's hard not to get caught up in Beatty's enthusiasm for socialism and his idealistic belief that it can change things.

The extras are top notch just for the sheer fact that they got Beatty, Nicholson and Storaro (among others) to sit down for new interviews. Interesting, that Keaton didn't participate and Nicholson even addresses this is one of the extras that she isn't into retrospective docs like this.

Interestingly, Beatty says that she does not like doing many takes and so he would purposely do a lot of takes with her to push and get a different performance out of her. I also though it was kinda funny that Beatty convinced Nicholson to play Eugene O'Neill by saying that he was the only actor who could take Keaton away from him in a movie! Gotta love the hubris, eh?

The featurettes even cover the mini-clash between Beatty and Storaro over the look of the film. Beatty wanted to take a simple approach while Storaro wanted to constantly keep moving the camera. Although, over time, they have switched opinions on this. Go figure.

[Polybius]

I find it interesting that Beatty has decided to release his film on DVD on the eve of another round of elections in the United States. Is he perhaps hoping that his film about people affecting change will somehow influence people now?

I've been seeing ads for it on various liberal blogs with the tagline "Now more important than ever" or words to that effect.

It's hard not to get caught up in Beatty's enthusiasm for socialism and his idealistic belief that it can change things.

Not to get into too much of a political discussion (I would classify my statement here more as historical) but the Socialism of Reed's era, especially before WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution, contained a lot of things that many of us enjoy and count on now, that weren't present in the America he and Louise and all of their compatriots lived in.

[marty]

Just picked up the Paramount 2-disc set for A$12.98 from JB Hi-Fi in Australia which is around US$9-10. Very good deal. Haven't seen the film since I was around 15 on VHS tape so don't remember much at all about the film so it will be like looking at it for the first time.

[filmnoir1]

I believe it is a bit reductive to claim that the things which Jack Reed and Louise Bryant were fighting for have been achieved in America today. We are still waging wars so that those who possess all the wealth in America can become that much richer. Women are still struggling to achieve equal rights and we are still battling a US government that seems to be slipping further and further towards a Fascist state. Can anyone say war with Iran? Where is it going to end and when? These were questions which Reed's masterpiece and Beatty's film are addressing. We like to believe that the America of today is not the America of the early 1980s but unfortuantely as Zizek would argue we are simply repressing our symptoms in order to live with the fact that America is not the great land of freedom.

[marty]

Can anyone say war with Iran? Where is it going to end and when?

Once they had gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, the US and its allies should have left almost immediately and put someone in place who was just as tough with the warring factions as Saddam was but who was also someone who didn't have a grudge against the west. While the Iraq war is spiralling out of control, war in previous years has done some good by ending slavery, fascism, nazism and communism. Not all wars are futile. Can you imagine the world we would live in if some of these wars were not sucessful?

[filmnoir1]

As I am from the South I can tell you that the American Civil War only became a war about slavery in 1863 when it was safe for Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and even then it was not his sole motive. As anyone knows Lincoln had said that he would do whatever it took to maintain the sanctity of the United States whether that meant abolishing slavery or allowing it to continue being the law of the land.

The war was a fight that was used to begin the process of dismantling America as a nation whose economy was based on agriculture and transform it into a nation based on industry and floating capital. If there is one thing which truly identifies the "American way" it is the notion that everyone should be free as long as they buy our products. Thus Iraq wll only be viewed as a success if there is a McDonalds on every street and a Wal-mart in every village. This is not a war about terror but simply about the notion that America is the only modern, civilizing force on the planet. As Chomsky and others have rightly identified America became an imperial power right around the period of 1830 and continues to function as one today.

[colinr0380]

Once they had gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, the US and its allies should have left almost immediately and put someone in place who was just as tough with the warring factions as Saddam was but who was also someone who didn't have a grudge against the west.

The problem is finding someone independent of the 'warring factions' to put in charge, if such a person could exist, and whether by an outside group choosing the leader there is ever the chance they could be more than a 'puppet' who simply by being placed there creates and reinforces grudges against the west. Unfortunately the 'coalition' have continued the policy of supporting one group over the other in the hopes that they would be dominant and subdue (through fair or foul means) dissent (didn't they learn anything from sponsoring Bin Laden in the past? Or Noriega? Or Pinochet? The idea that if you don't learn from the mistakes of the past you are doomed to repeat them has never been truer. After all Graham Greene described the interventionist ideology that leads to these kinds of situations in The Quiet American)

So the same process has been continuing with the 'democractically elected' Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki who gives the opportunity for Shia ministers to give their personal militias some form of legitimacy by fast tracking them through training to become members of Iraq's police force. They then get to carry out indiscriminate tit for tat reprisals against the Sunni population whenever there is a suicide bombing, creating yet more resentment, and completely destroying any faith in a protective police force. Sadly by supporting the Shias against the previously dominant under Saddam Sunnis we have just tipped the balance the other way.

This is before we get into the corruption taking place now that the country has been in a state of Civil War for the last three years.

As I am from the South I can tell you that the American Civil War only became a war about slavery in 1863 when it was safe for Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and even then it was not his sole motive. As anyone knows Lincoln had said that he would do whatever it took to maintain the sanctity of the United States whether that meant abolishing slavery or allowing it to continue being the law of the land.

The war was a fight that was used to begin the process of dismantling America as a nation whose economy was based on agriculture and transform it into a nation based on industry and floating capital. If there is one thing which truly identifies the "American way" it is the notion that everyone should be free as long as they buy our products. Thus Iraq wll only be viewed as a success if there is a McDonalds on every street and a Wal-mart in every village. This is not a war about terror but simply about the notion that America is the only modern, civilizing force on the planet. As Chomsky and others have rightly identified America became an imperial power right around the period of 1830 and continues to function as one today.

It does seem the sort of after the fact legitimisation of something fought for personal interests similar to the discovery of the mass graves in Basra after the invasion of Iraq, which seemed to be cyncially used to suggest that this was the reason the war took place (in addition to WMDs), rather than for any personal grudge or vested interest.

Sadly it does seem that the only thing the individual can do in situations such as these is try to weather the storm of clashes of hegemonies and try to come to terms with the new world they live in. Whether it has changed for the better or for the worse for individuals is usually incidental to those making the decisions. That is something interesting to see in Reds, where people are trying to influence, or are buffeted in the tide of, politics.

[domino harvey]

Why did the Blu-ray for this go Out of Print?

[MoonlitKnight]

Maybe they'll replace it with an edition that has the film all on ONE disc.