1073 Memories of Murder

[Mr Sausage]

The First Features List winner was supposed to be our new Film Club topic, but the list has been pushed back a week. So you get chance to make therewillbeblus feel a little less lonely here and actually discuss this wonderful film. Who knows, you might even forget how annoyed and confused you are with the new restoration's colour timing.

[therewillbeblus]

Who knows, you might even forget how annoyed and confused you are with the new restoration's colour timing.

I know I did! (except for some of the middle setpieces)

[FrauBlucher]

I just watched this and next will watch with a commentary. Which commentary do folks prefer?

[hearthesilence]

MoMA is screening their archival 35mm print of Memories of Murder. It would've been acquired no earlier than 2010, but it still could be worth seeing to confirm the color timing on the Blu-ray (though I'm sure it's accurate for reasons already given).

[Drucker]

Lovely will finally catch this one.

[P-Rock]

I absolutely love the cover and the extras seem interesting, but I'll stick to my region 3 DVD.

I like to see the world as it is, in natural colors, and without an overly green tone. Such a shame, as this was one of my most anticipated releases.

[zedz]

I absolutely love the cover and the extras seem interesting, but I'll stick to my region 3 DVD.

I like to see the world as it is, in natural colors, and without an overly green tone. Such a shame, as this was one of my most anticipated releases.

Even though the director has explicitly stated that he wasn't going for a naturalistic look? Seriously, all the colour timing whiners really need to listen to Bong's commentary on the film. I think he addresses the colour choice in the first fifteen minutes. The commentary comes from the time of the release, by the way: no "revisionism" involved.

[therewillbeblus]

The original look was bleached and not naturalistic either, and I think it’s been well documented in this thread (and this one...) that there are strong feelings and well-argued reasons for why the original look is preferred, thematically and tonally in accordance with the film’s design, by plenty of us who saw it in that original form - which are valid divorced from Bong’s commentary. People are allowed to have their own subjective experiences with a film and prefer a different interpretation than the filmmaker themself, otherwise what’s the point of this thread.. just swallow your opinions and listen to the commentary instead?

I try to go into these new gradings with an open-mind regardless of whether it’s revisionism or not. I was even able to find a whole new appreciation for Le Cercle Rouge that I would have never been able to access without the piss-yellow glowing tones! This one, even though not ‘revised’, didn’t work for me. But that should be okay. I’m glad it didn’t bother you.

[P-Rock]

The original look was bleached and not naturalistic either, and I think it’s been well documented in this thread (and this one...) that there are strong feelings and well-argued reasons for why the original look is preferred, thematically and tonally in accordance with the film’s design, by plenty of us who saw it in that original form - which are valid divorced from Bong’s commentary. People are allowed to have their own subjective experiences with a film and prefer a different interpretation than the filmmaker themself, otherwise what’s the point of this thread.. just swallow your opinions and listen to the commentary instead?

I try to go into these new gradings with an open-mind regardless of whether it’s revisionism or not. I was even able to find a whole new appreciation for Le Cercle Rouge that I would have never been able to access without the piss-yellow glowing tones! This one, even though not ‘revised’, didn’t work for me. But that should be okay. I’m glad it didn’t bother you.

Can't open the first link, I don't seem to have permission to view that forum?

I absolutely love the cover and the extras seem interesting, but I'll stick to my region 3 DVD.

I like to see the world as it is, in natural colors, and without an overly green tone. Such a shame, as this was one of my most anticipated releases.

Even though the director has explicitly stated that he wasn't going for a naturalistic look? Seriously, all the colour timing whiners really need to listen to Bong's commentary on the film. I think he addresses the colour choice in the first fifteen minutes. The commentary comes from the time of the release, by the way: no "revisionism" involved.

All the power to him (and every other director that feels the need to alter the color grading of their films to what they feel the audience should watch their movie in), but I prefer the natural color grading, where daytime scenes look like they're filmed in daytime. Even if that means I'm watching it 'wrong' according to Bong. But history has proven that even a director or a dp can be wrong sometimes. Look at the gazillion different versions of Suspiria for example, with multiple releases that claim to have been approved by either Argento or the dp Luciano Tovoli and all sporting a different color grading.

[zedz]

The original look was bleached and not naturalistic either, and I think it’s been well documented in this thread (and this one...) that there are strong feelings and well-argued reasons for why the original look is preferred, thematically and tonally in accordance with the film’s design, by plenty of us who saw it in that original form - which are valid divorced from Bong’s commentary. People are allowed to have their own subjective experiences with a film and prefer a different interpretation than the filmmaker themself, otherwise what’s the point of this thread.. just swallow your opinions and listen to the commentary instead?

But the point that you're ignoring is that the "original form" is what Bong is talking about in the commentary. The commentary was recorded in 2003 - the year the film was released. The brighter look of the film as it appears on earlier DVDs was wrong according to the people who made the film. I saw the film in 35mm on first release: the colours were never "natural."

[therewillbeblus]

I am not ignoring that. The "original look" is meant to refer to that of the (yes, confirmed by Bong, incorrect) DVD presentation being referred to throughout the thread -that mass audiences have previously been exposed and hold a subjectively-tethered relationship to- not the original look of the film screened in theatres that you saw. I should have made that clearer, though it seems obvious that color-detractors are referencing this as the benchmark. This misinterpretation also explains my confusion at you pointing out that it was never meant to look "natural" in the form of a challenge while quoting me acknowledging neither look is natural, but I see now that you thought I was differentiating rather than affirming your point.

It feels like you're applying the derogatory term "whiners" to describe not only the original posters claiming the color timing to be wrong, but any member dissatisfied with the color timing for any reason. I attempted to make room for both conversations by proposing an (I think) appropriate view: Subjective assessments of artistic choices hold a value that is valid divorced from the value of the objectively-defined choices by that artist. Ignoring that, and responding by repeating something akin to 'but the director meant for it to be this way', feels contrary to the spirit of a discussion, and unfortunately reminiscent of our last back-and-forth on the exact same topic. We seem to be talking past one another, and I'm sorry if I'm contributing to any confusion. I'll say this as clearly as I can: I am not disputing anything you are saying factually. I disagree with the presumed logic extrapolating Bong’s documented intentions as cause for dismissing any critical opinions on colorization choices, though.

[Kracker]

All the power to him (and every other director that feels the need to alter the color grading of their films to what they feel the audience should watch their movie in), but I prefer the natural color grading, where daytime scenes look like they're filmed in daytime. Even if that means I'm watching it 'wrong' according to Bong. But history has proven that even a director or a dp can be wrong sometimes. Look at the gazillion different versions of Suspiria for example, with multiple releases that claim to have been approved by either Argento or the dp Luciano Tovoli and all sporting a different color grading.

He didn't alter the color grading, he put it back to the way it was intended or left it alone from when it was first presented. It was your Region 3 DVD that altered it to how THEY feel you should watch HIS movie.

Bong has stated in 2003 that the sickly green tone and dismal muted colors is intentional because this takes place during the "dark times" of totalitarian rule in South Korea and it was important to emphasize how it played into the events. Its also supposed to be juxtaposed against the colorful opening and closing scenes of the movie which take place in later happier times.

I understand its jarring because you are so used to seeing this movie all nice and bright and colorful, but its because the movie was being presented the way it wasn't intended the whole time and those decisions were made without Bong.

Btw ive definitely had this same experience with a Criterion release, but i keep in mind that since the director was 100% behind whatever color decisions were made, I was never supposed to watch it any differently. Not to mention that not all movies are supposed have nice "natural colors", where's the creative expressive freedom in that.

Glad no company ever colored and brightened up 1984, or we'd have people complaining why they had to make a movie like 1984 look so dismal

[ford]

He didn't alter the color grading, he put it back to the way it was intended or left it alone from when it was first presented. It was your Region 3 DVD that altered it to how THEY feel you should watch HIS movie.

Yes, the dismal, green, washed-out look is what the director wanted. That said, I still prefer to watch my "bright, colorful" Korean blu-ray. I'd argue that even there, the comparatively cheerier looking Korea still looks -- appropriately -- very grimy, very shabby and very depressed. Whatever process he did with the dingy greens kinda seems like overkill, to be honest. I'm not sure who'd watch the Korean blu-ray of that film and think "wow, the good ol' days!"

[black&huge]

I saw the film in 35mm on first release: the colours were never "natural."

not to beat a dead horse but I just dropped into this thread. I understand that depending on the theater/region people either saw the correct or wrong color grading? but my actual question is when you saw it during first release was it closer to the Criterion blu or the more "naturalistic" look people are used to/perceiving as the "correct" look?

[mhofmann]

I understand that depending on the theater/region people either saw the correct or wrong color grading?

Uhm, no? Where did you read that?

[therewillbeblus]

He didn't alter the color grading, he put it back to the way it was intended or left it alone from when it was first presented. It was your Region 3 DVD that altered it to how THEY feel you should watch HIS movie.

Yes, the dismal, green, washed-out look is what the director wanted. That said, I still prefer to watch my "bright, colorful" Korean blu-ray. I'd argue that even there, the comparatively cheerier looking Korea still looks -- appropriately -- very grimy, very shabby and very depressed. Whatever process he did with the dingy greens kinda seems like overkill, to be honest. I'm not sure who'd watch the Korean blu-ray of that film and think "wow, the good ol' days!"

Absolutely, I gave some in-depth thoughts at the bottom of the previous page here, but once one has interpreted art based on a certain aesthetic, they should be allowed to critique it based on that presentation, since it demonstrates a possible, existent schematic representation to draw thematic impressions from. I don't particularly care what Do the Right Thing looked like when it came out in 1989, why Dickerson toned down the bleached-out look a tad for the new resto, etc., because after seeing versions drenched in the hot, hot sun, I'm allowed to prefer that extreme look in a vacuum (and yes, I'm aware that it looked the way I like it, but the point is even if it didn't, that preference could be valid - and if Spike Lee came out today and said the Universal blu's grading is actually "correct," I wouldn't change my mind).

[Mr Sausage]

Pretty sure zedz doesn’t give a shit what version you guys personally prefer. He was addressing the contingent who are angry that Criterion put out this colour grading at all, like it’s a mistake or something.

[Kracker]

In the case of Do the Right Thing, they were correcting something that was indeed not intended or improving it on Spike Lee's direction

I don't think every movie needs to be bright and colorful since there are movies that are supposed to look dull and dismal, like 1984. I've certainly seen many other dark Asian movies that have the same tones. The color grading is doing what the other elements in the film are doing: helping tell the story. Likewise, the original color grading on Memories of Murder serves the same purpose. So if you're going to critique it on interpreted art, certain aesthetic, yadda, yadda, then you have to do just that. But people here are just arguing personal preference: "I don't like the look of this new version at all" this and "I like my world colorful" that and "I want my 'natural colors" all day. There's plenty of great movies that aren't all bright and colorful, every movie doesn't have to look like that.

Granted I only watched Memories of Murder once or twice back in the day on cable so I didn't get somehow married to the look of the movie. Seeing for the first time in many years and in beautiful hi-def I was really happy with the presentation and didn't think once "gee this looks rather green. no movie is supposed to look green"

[therewillbeblus]

That’s a reductive and incorrect summation of what people here are asking for. I’d go back and read through the thread before arriving at that conclusion. For starters, I just linked a pretty thorough dissection that recognizes what I think works and doesn’t work about the current presentation in accordance with the film’s tone. I don’t hear a uniform argument extrapolating a dislike for this color timing to a detest for dark, gloomy films as a whole, and I doubt anybody posting here would challenge the radical opinion: “I don't think every movie needs to be bright and colorful since there are movies that are supposed to look dull and dismal”