Burn! / Queimada & other Sony/MGM Brando

Message

Alain3000 · #1 Post by **Alain3000** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:47 pm

davisdvd.com

"MGM Home Entertainment has announced a number of films starring the late, great Marlon Brando. Look for Burn!, A Dry White Season, The Fugitive Kind and The Missouri Breaks to make their DVD debuts on November 8th From the looks of it, "Burn!" will be released in its 112-minute version and not the complete 132-minute cut. Retail is $14.94 each."

oldsheperd · #2 Post by **oldsheperd** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:50 pm

Burn!" will be released in its 112-minute version and not the complete 132-minute cut.

Bastard!

Gordon · #3 Post by **Gordon** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:44 pm

oldsheperd wrote:Burn! will be released in its 112-minute version and not the complete 132-minute cut. Bastard!

Awww, bollocks. The 132-minute version was screened in L..A around this time last year. It's available in Italy with only an Italian dub and no English subs: Review

It would be a real letdown if the 112-minute cut was released, when the restored 132-minute version is out there.

Polybius · #4 Post by **Polybius** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:42 am

The oft-maligned Missouri Breaks and A Dry White Season are both worthy of a pick up.

Burn! is one of those films I keep meaning to see but, as of yet, haven't managed to.

King of Kong · #5 Post by **King of Kong** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:13 am

Burn! is an uneven piece of work, but it's fascinating and quite enjoyable too. Brando's performance defines "acting genius".
It's unfortunate about this release. If there was any justice in this world, it'd be a double-disc including both versions (and some extras).

mingus · #6 Post by **mingus** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:08 am

Even on Austrian Television they manage to show the 132min. version. It was aired twice in the past 6 years. It's a fascinating movie that captivates and takes you for a ride. I like it a lot.

Ashirg · #7 Post by **Ashirg** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:59 pm

Does anybody know if MGM/Sony is planning to release Raise the Red Lantern? VideoETA says it's coming on 11/8.

filmfan · #8 Post by **filmfan** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:51 am

I couldn't wait for "Burn!"...I had to spring for the Region Whatever version.

unclehulot · #9 Post by **unclehulot** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:19 pm

Regarding "Burn!", I can't believe that once again, we have the home video arm of this crappy operation SO out of synch with their (wonderful, soon to be ex-wonderful?) film distribution arm! Any word on how that film dept. has survived the transition to $ony? [/b]

kinjitsu · #10 Post by **kinjitsu** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:14 pm

MGM Home Entertainment DVD Release Date: 11/8/2005

Audio/Video Features:

Full Frame
Color
Monoural
Running Time: 112 minutes

What I want to know is, why aren't we getting the restored print?

Burn!, as featured on the Film Forum website.

Amy Taubin's recent review in Film Comment.

Gordon · #11 Post by **Gordon** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:21 pm

Burn! will have to be the uncut, restored 133-minute version with an anamorphic widescreen transfer.

Only a grade-A dumbfuck would release the 112-minute version with a 1.33:1 transfer.

I really, really hate when a film is restored to original length/"director's vision" and new prints are made and then the DVD comes out and it's the shorter version, or bungled in some major way. There's no excuse and there's no way that MGM/Sony wouldn't know that the film was restored, as they had to submit it for a new rating to the MPAA and the longer cut is an "R", as opposed to the original "GP" rating and new prints have been screened.

It was a real drag when this amazing film was released in the UK in the cut version and it better not happen again.

PS: I found the cover art:

From Amazon.com

Release Information:
Studio: Columbia Tristar Hom
Theatrical Release Date: 1969
DVD Release Date: November 8, 2005
Run Time: 112 minutes

Everywhere I look, this is listed as 112 minutes / fullscreen. It doesn't look good.

filmfan · #12 Post by **filmfan** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:34 am

How does this version of the film to be released, compare with the multi-region dvd that's already in circulation?

Gordon · #13 Post by **Gordon** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:48 am

Do you mean the UK DVD? It is also the 112-minute version in 1.33:1 open-matte/pan and scan from a poor film element.

The Italian DVD that I mention above is the 133-minute version in anamorphic 1.85:1 from a good element, but is dubbed into Italain and has no subtitles.

Maybe an Australian DVD will show up one day.

DrBanan · #14 Post by **DrBanan** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:22 am

There seem to be a 124-minute version available on the korean Spectrum label here. It says widescreen 1.66:1 and English language, but this site is not usually very dependable in it's information. Could this be an old Criterion laserdisc port perhaps?

Gordon · #15 Post by **Gordon** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:05 pm

That's odd. 124-minute version? 1.66:1 "widescreen" - non-anamorphic, I wonder? The running time must surely be a mis-print, but all other non-English version Korean DVD sites that I checked have these specs. Only $8.48, though, so I'll go for it if the R1 edition is bungled.

Any confirmation on the running time and aspect ratio of Burn! yet?

analoguezombie · #16 Post by **analoguezombie** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:58 pm

Gordon McMurphy wrote:Any confirmation on the running time and aspect ratio of Burn! yet?

DVDBeaver are reporting it's the 112min fullscreen version: BEWARE!

Being released in fullscreen (rather than its original 1.85:1 widescreen aspect ratio), even further "Burn!" is the 112 min. truncated version of the 132 min. original version "Queimada", which was recently restored and shown commercially. The Amazon listing shows 112 min. There is no excuse for not having both versions. This would be a second reason to avoid this DVD!

who is bobby dylan · Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:22 pm

I saw the longer version when it played at the DFT, it was very good. My guess though is MGM figures that most customers wont buy the longer version, because it's in Italian and Brando's voice is dubbed. Just a guess.

tavernier · #18 Post by **tavernier** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:47 am

who is bobby dylan wrote:My guess though is MGM figures that most customers wont buy the longer version, because it's in Italian and Brando's voice is dubbed. Just a guess.

Most customers won't buy it, period. I'm sure they'd sell more of the restored longer version than they will of what they're planning on releasing.

kazantzakis · #19 Post by **kazantzakis** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:58 am

But if the release that now and the restored one later, they can probably maximize their sales since some will buy it twice...and that's all that counts for them.

devlinnn · #20 Post by **devlinnn** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:39 am

Do we know if The Fugitive Kind will also suffer the full frame horrors?

DrBanan · #21 Post by **DrBanan** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:17 pm

I received the Spectrum edition of Burn! from Korea today. A quick report:
It is 1.66:1 widescreen non-anamorphic.
It is the 112 minute version (english language).
Picture quality seems pretty OK (haven't had time too see the full film yet), maybe a litte contrast boosted.

Cover says it's licensed from MGM, so why they are putting out a 4:3 version in R1 is beyond me.

Taketori Washizu · Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:54 am

Has anyone seen the recently restored 132 min version of the film?

MGM is releasing the film in November on DVD, but it is the 112 min cut. How do both versions compare? My understanding is the extended version is dubbed in Italian. Since Brando has passed on, naturally they couldn't get him to do voice over work for the new scenes added. Unless a prior soundtrack existed. Anyone know?

I would like to see Criterion release both versions to compare, like with Visconti's The Leopard from last year.

Also, can anyone confirm the original aspect ratio of the film? The MGM DVD is 1:66 in fullscreen, but the specs on imdb's page say it is 1:85 and some are complaining it should be in widescreen. Can anyone validate?

Edit: I looked on the back of the Burn DVD in a Borders today. It says 1:66 widescreen. So which is accurate, 1:85 or the former? Anyone was has got the Region 1 DVD, how is it? Realistically would Criterion be able to acquire it in the future?

Wittsdream · #23 Post by **Wittsdream** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:20 am

Taketori Washizu wrote:Also, can anyone confirm the original aspect ratio of the film? The MGM DVD is 1:66 in fullscreen, but the specs on imdb's page say it is 1:85 and some are complaining it should be in widescreen. Can anyone validate?

Edit: I looked on the back of the Burn DVD in a Borders today. It says 1:66 widescreen. So which is accurate, 1:85 or the former? Anyone was has got the Region 1 DVD, how is it? Realistically would Criterion be able to acquire it in the future?

It's been almost 3 years since anyone's posted a response, so I wanted to resurrect interest in an eventual release of Pontecorvo's original version, but also bring into question the very idea of a "director's cut" in relation to Italian cinema.

Battle of Algiers, made a few years prior to Burn!, was presented in an aspect ratio of 1:85 by Criterion, and I have no evidence to suggest that this is incorrect. But in relation to every presentation of Burn! that has been available thus far (either theatrically or on video), it seems that at least one reviewer believes that the 1:85 AR that Criterion presented Burn! in on the old laserdisc was a little tight in a few shots on the top of the frame. Longtime laserdisc and DVD reviewer, Douglas Pratt, here posits that the top half of the original Criterion laserdisc image of 1:85 is cramped in certain shots.

This suggests that the November, 2005 MGM/Sony R1 presentation of the 112 minute cut is at least presented in the correct aspect ratio of 1:66, and preserves Brando's English-language line readings, which brings us to the question of dubbing.

Semiologically-speaking, is Brando's delivery - which lends emotional inflection and an intuitive perspective of the subject matter - not as political in tone as the additional 20 minutes would be in content, half of which carries the asterisk of being spoken by an entity that is essentially just an emotionally disconnected stab at the tenor of the original scenes! It definitely raises some auteurist questions about original intent, or content, for that matter.

In my view, the very painterly quality and formalist conceits of many Italian filmmakers I admire like Antonioni, Visconti, Bertolucci and Pasolini (though they were hardly divested from political intent) can be attributed as much to their skills as "metteurs-en-scene" as by the long-held Italian production method of post-synchronizing audio, thereby creating a kind of fluid aesthetic akin to the silent period, before sound films were introduced. The dichotomy here is that while boom mics create certain limitations in mise-en-scene, there is no doubt that original recordings of line readings carry more emotional resonance (though animators like Disney would have argued against that point).

Think about this for a second though: how would non English-speaking lovers of Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" feel about a dubbed version of that film, wherein the commanding presence of Welles' voice (we all know how personal a project this was for him and how respectful he was of the radio format) was replaced by an actor who spoke that country's native tongue, whilst keeping intact the original near 2 hour running time of the film?

Many would argue that Brando's own political axe to grind, with contemporary American issues at the time of production, was every bit as imbued with personal intent as Welles' in his expose of William Randolph Hearst, and Brando's love of theater and command of language is certainly worthy of comparison to Welles within this context. The very idea of stripping their voices from their performance would be tantamount to castration, the complete opposite aesthetic of a Keaton or Chaplin.

I would love to hear other people's opinions on this subject!

Joe Buck · #24 Post by **Joe Buck** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:29 am

Right on. I love "Burn", it blew my mind back in the day when I rented it on VHS as I explored Brando's body of work. The current DVD is an absolute disgrace. It is unwatchable. It is one of the worst DVD releases ever by a major studio. I don't know where MGM gets its nerve releasing a piece of garbage like this. This DVD looks no better than the VHS. I hope and pray that this title gets the respect it deserves. With MGM/Fox calling the shots, it seems unlikely, unless they can pull together a new "Brando" boxed set with Burn!, Fugitive Kind, Missouri Breaks, and Last Tango in Paris.

#25 Post by **domino harvey** » Tue Jan 07, 2025 2:48 pm

Bumping this ancient thread after watching Queimada in the extended Italian version via Imprint's box set. I liked aspects of it a lot, namely Brando's performance (even without his voice, he has a weight to his presence that just reinforces why stars were stars), but I don't think it's entirely successful as a film, as the politics are spelled out over and over to make sure no one watching could possibly miss the message. I also found the ending utterly craven-- for a film with this messaging to work, Brando and the industries/elites he represents have to get away with it, period. Trying to infuse some cheap irony at the tailend of a feel-bad movie doesn't do anything but make me doubt the convictions of those who made it.

Site Menu