Stefan Andersson wrote: Fri Feb 27, 2026 8:00 pm
Interesting quote from a 2015 article:
"/Lee/ Kline shared some fascinating “war stories” about working with the creators of films that Criterion had restored. He recalled that Terrence Malick insisted on reducing the color saturation of “Days of Heaven” during a digital restoration.
Because the film had been hailed on its 1979 release for its brilliant color, Kline questioned him. Malick refused to reconsider. “I realized he was right – the film has a better look without it,” Kline said." https://www.indiewire.com/features/craf ... ion-64250/
Although this is off-topic, how has a more than 10-year old 4K restoration of Visconti’s Sandra still not gotten even a Blu-ray release?
At the festival, Sony provided two recent 4K restorations of black-and-white classics – Luchino Visconti’s “Sandra,” which stars Claudia Cardinale and debuted at the 2013 Venice Film Festival, where the then-new film won the Golden Lion in 1965; and Howard Hawks’ classic 1939 “Only Angels Have Wings,” with Cary Grant, Rita Hayworth and Jean Arthur.
Also, from a “film preservation” standpoint, I’m kind of surprised that Kline was looking to remove a hair in the gate in The Night Porter. Kudos to Cavani for her stance.
Stefan Andersson wrote: Fri Feb 27, 2026 8:00 pm
Interesting quote from a 2015 article:
"/Lee/ Kline shared some fascinating “war stories” about working with the creators of films that Criterion had restored. He recalled that Terrence Malick insisted on reducing the color saturation of “Days of Heaven” during a digital restoration.
Because the film had been hailed on its 1979 release for its brilliant color, Kline questioned him. Malick refused to reconsider. “I realized he was right – the film has a better look without it,” Kline said." https://www.indiewire.com/features/craf ... ion-64250/
Yeah, I remember when Criterion posted that story in much greater detail on one their previous blogs. IIRC they mentioned a running gag that developed during grading where someone would say "that looks beautiful!" and someone would immediately respond "but not too beautiful."
I should add, when they first reached out to Malick about supervising a grade, he apparently asked if he was really needed because he thought Paramount's DVD looked fine - I guess he didn't know the DVD as well as he thought, because that definitely wasn't the look he wanted when he eventually sat down for the grade. (tbf, he didn't grade the DVD, and I doubt he gave it a good look, much less viewed it on a reference monitor. He probably just didn't think anything was "wrong" with it.)
Stefan Andersson wrote: Fri Feb 27, 2026 8:00 pm
Interesting quote from a 2015 article:
"/Lee/ Kline shared some fascinating “war stories” about working with the creators of films that Criterion had restored. He recalled that Terrence Malick insisted on reducing the color saturation of “Days of Heaven” during a digital restoration.
Because the film had been hailed on its 1979 release for its brilliant color, Kline questioned him. Malick refused to reconsider. “I realized he was right – the film has a better look without it,” Kline said." https://www.indiewire.com/features/craf ... ion-64250/
Yeah, I remember when Criterion posted that story in much greater detail on one their previous blogs. IIRC they mentioned a running gag that developed during grading where someone would say "that looks beautiful!" and someone would immediately respond "but not too beautiful."
I should add, when they first reached out to Malick about supervising a grade, he apparently asked if he was really needed because he thought Paramount's DVD looked fine - I guess he didn't know the DVD as well as he thought, because that definitely wasn't the look he wanted when he eventually sat down for the grade. (tbf, he didn't grade the DVD, and I doubt he gave it a good look, much less viewed it on a reference monitor. He probably just didn't think anything was "wrong" with it.)
I still wish they’d asked Haskell Wexler to grade it.
I think in this instance Malick was a better choice—as Nestor Almendros (who of course would have been perfect, had he not been dead) said, he's a very unusual example of a director who knows a lot about photography and consequently has a very precise idea of what he wanted. By contrast, Wexler was essentially a cinematographer for hire, having to adopt Almendros' working methods (which very much weren't his) so that what he shot would chime with everything else—but it was Malick in overall charge.
MichaelB wrote: Sun Mar 01, 2026 10:14 am
I think in this instance Malick was a better choice—as Nestor Almendros (who of course would have been perfect, had he not been dead) said, he's a very unusual example of a director who knows a lot about photography and consequently has a very precise idea of what he wanted. By contrast, Wexler was essentially a cinematographer for hire, having to adopt Almendros' working methods (which very much weren't his) so that what he shot would chime with everything else—but it was Malick in overall charge.
Criterion's commentary track is great in detailing that, especially Malick's knowledge of film stocks, and there's no question Malick was pushing for things that everyone but Almendros would've resisted or been reluctant to do on set. I don't recall editor Billy Weber mentioned being on set, but he certainly got to see Malick's reaction when they looked at the results, especially how pleased he was to get what he wanted when nearly everyone doubted they were going to get a usable exposure.
