422 The Last Emperor

[Darth Lavender]

I've heard that "The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover" has it, too. But I haven't seen the film and can't confirm.

I think there was a "bodily functions" thread elsewhere with a few lists, etc.

I do recall The Cook, The Thief... beginning with someone beaten by gangsters and force-fed dog excrement (actually, chocolate mousse)

The trick with watching scenes like that is just to know what's actually being used. (And, reportedly, the mixture of orange-marmalade & chocolate used in 'Salo' was actually quite delicious. I've seriously thought of preparing such a desert as a joke-gift next time I'm invited to a 'pot luck' type dinner )

Bertolucci does seem to have a penchant for depicting such things in his movies. I'll advise* you to stay away from his "Novecento" which involves the peasants pelting Donald Sutherland with horse-manure, running out manure, then (in a surprisingly graphic close-up) massaging the horse's anus to produce some-more.
*That is, of course, unless you happen to have a particular dislike of Donald Sutherland.

I've read it's a particularly prominent theme in medieval Italy (especially in depictions of Hell; just look at Dante) Which would account for it being so unusually common in Italian films (and films by Italian directors)

[domino harvey]

Becker throws down on THE LAST EMPEROR.

Bull.Shit. I think the caps as shown in this thread prove that the filmmakers are indulging in revisionism, not staying true to their original intents. If they just added extra space for the 2.35:1, we wouldn't have drastically recomposed shots in the 2:1.

[miless]

added extra space for 2.35:1?

Isn't the framing with Anamorphic lenses pretty rigid (making it difficult to "add" to the image).

[domino harvey]

added extra space for 2.35:1?

Isn't the framing with Anamorphic lenses pretty rigid (making it difficult to "add" to the image).

I can't tell if you're objecting to what I said, which was right from the blog post:

Thomas said Storaro and Bertolucci filled the wider frame knowing that there would be 2.35:1 prints in circulation as well, but that they always knew they were shooting a format wider than what they hoped to release.

[Senya]

Peter Becker sez: so zip it, film dorks.

If "Storaro and Bertolucci filled the wider frame knowing that there would be 2.35:1 prints in circulation as well, but that they always knew they were shooting a format wider than what they hoped to release"
then how the following happened?

Good (IMO) composition with all required people on both sides:


"Filmmaker's" version(s) (which one?):



I am still confused. Even after the explanation

[arsonfilms]

If the original intention argument is to be believed, then the top capture is what was achieved with the anamorphic lens, and the bottom capture is what was "originally intended." The middle capture seems to me to be a mistake, as it was incorrectly shifted to the wrong side to achieve the intended ratio. Am I correct in assuming that the mistaken framing is from the television version and not the director's cut?

[miless]

added extra space for 2.35:1?

Isn't the framing with Anamorphic lenses pretty rigid (making it difficult to "add" to the image).

I can't tell if you're objecting to what I said, which was right from the blog post:

Thomas said Storaro and Bertolucci filled the wider frame knowing that there would be 2.35:1 prints in circulation as well, but that they always knew they were shooting a format wider than what they hoped to release.

I was confused by what you had written. I thought you were saying that if they wanted to present the material at 2:1 that they should have opened up the framing of the 2.35:1 (the top and bottom to accommodate the 'taller' aspect of 2:1) as could be done with shooting something with an open matte.

[Senya]

If the original intention argument is to be believed, then the top capture is what was achieved with the anamorphic lens, and the bottom capture is what was "originally intended." The middle capture seems to me to be a mistake, as it was incorrectly shifted to the wrong side to achieve the intended ratio. Am I correct in assuming that the mistaken framing is from the television version and not the director's cut?

No, you are not correct. The middle picture is from the theatrical cut.

And one more thing... Same video aspect ratio, same filmmaker, different movie, different explanation.



Corrected later: I was wrong and the middle picture is from the TV cut.

[arsonfilms]

I thought I remembered that same explanation made with regard to this film as well, but I can't recall where I heard that, or even if I did at all. Even if Storaro is lying and the 1:2 ratio wasn't what was initially intended, the thrust of his argument seems to be that the grandeur and scale of his images should outweigh the contents of the frame. I don't know that I agree with this, but if he would just come out and say THAT at least I would get where he's coming from. I could then at least grant that a 2.35 ratio diminishes the scale of the film a bit, but it's this awkward re-framing that I don't understand. I know that the theatrical cut is "preferred," but now I'm wondering which version to watch. Has anyone delved into this set yet? Any suggestions on how to approach?

[miless]

in the new blog they did say that this was Storraro's first film composed for 2:1... which means that Apocalypse Now was NOT (although the film was cropped for 70mm projection, then... so it could be argued that Storraro, in that case, released the film in a ratio that it was projected in).

[mogwai]

No, you are not correct. The middle picture is from the theatrical cut.

Firstly, let me state that I have been drinking. Heavily. Yet, Senya, I believe arsonfilms is correct in stating that the mistaken framing is that of the television version. The captures you've posted, from DVDBeaver, clearly state the third grab as being the theatrical version. The middle capture is from the television version.

[colinr0380]

Glenn Kenny on the debate, with an interesting Wikipedia link that describes Storaro's plans for a 'Univisium' ratio which is the ratio he has filmed his recent projects in. I'm sure none of us would have trouble with those later films but I think we are a bit more concerned about after the fact revisionism - ok, it is nothing like George Lucas with Star Wars but then Last Emperor is arguably a better film (I'd argue for THX-1138 though! ).

I also picked up on that comment in the blog that seemed to justify Last Emperor while reopening the debate on Apocalypse Now!

[Senya]

No, you are not correct. The middle picture is from the theatrical cut.

Firstly, let me state that I have been drinking. Heavily. Yet, Senya, I believe arsonfilms is correct in stating that the mistaken framing is that of the television version. The captures you've posted, from DVDBeaver, clearly state the third grab as being the theatrical version. The middle capture is from the television version.

My fault. But where are the people onthe left side?

[Antoine Doinel]

The Onion AV Club doesn't enjoy the extras:

Key features: The theatrical version, the 218-minute extended cut, and supplemental materials are spread out over four discs, but this is the rare case where Criterion goes for quantity over quality. Most of the making-of documentaries are deadly dull.

[colinr0380]

A more positive DVD Talk review.

[Matango]

I'm inclined to agree about the extras. There's way too much about Bertie. Ian Buruma's 45-minute piece on the historical background is quite good, but there could have been some docu stuff on subjects like Pu Yi himself, the Cultural Revolution, Manchuria/Manchukuo, the Kuomintang, Sun Yat Sen, and Reginald Johnston (The Peter O'Toole character, on whose book much of the film was based). That said, I haven't seen all the extras yet, but probably never will anyway.

[planetjake]

"Please do not tell anyone about my mouse."

I haven't seen this film since it hit VHS and I was 4 years old... Does this line of dialogue strike anyone else as being extraordinary in more ways than one? I was nearly moved to tears...

[Gigi M.]

Did anyone notice the excessive amount of grain and digital noise, particularly during day scenes? My god, as I was watching this last night I honestly can remember the last DVD that had so much grain.

Anyone?

[denti alligator]

Having just watched this I need to comment on the colors that most of us have found troubling:

The colors in Gary's caps (DVD Beaver) seem to me to be totally inaccurate.

On my carefully calibrated system the colors in the film look nothing like the washed-out grey-tone of Gary's caps. They look much closer to the colors in the region 2 Gaumont, bright and full. The difference between imperial yellow and ordinary yellow is very clear, not a greyish yellow to ordinary yellow. The reds and greens are rich and powerful.

I don't know what's going on with Gary's system, but the Criterion disc (theatrical version) looks nothing like his caps. I even paused the screen and pulled up his caps to compare: night and day! Have others noticed this?

As for the AR: it looked fine to me. There was only one scene in which it seemed wrong, but this was short and didn't bother me. I was really hesitatnt about getting this because of the greyish tone of Gary's caps. For those of you who are holding off because of that: don't. This looks great.

[Lino]

That's good to know! Excellent!

[Gary Tooze]

The colors in Gary's caps (DVD Beaver) seem to me to be totally inaccurate.

Total bullshit.

This cap of the theatrical was obtained using PowerDVD 4.0 (flat - color setting 0 -0 - 0 and original, not 'vibrant' setting)



Here is from a totally different version (newer) of PowerDVD on a different computer system but with the same settings as above. You can see although the newer has flat settings it still brightens a bit. We continue to use the original for a more unmanipulated representation. PLUS the original caps - Gaumont and Artisan were taken using the old system - so that it was we use to compare. It gives us as pure and fair comparison as possible. We don't go in for this boosting crap...



We take great pride in the accuracy of our postings and certainly don't appreciate this type of unfounded accusation.

I don't know what's going on with Gary's system,

Denti, I suggest that you are not familiar with the inner workings of your own system, be it the player or the monitor (or maybe your computer monitor!), but it is VERY common now for newer systems to have built-in color boosting (they call it 'correction' systems). In future if you have issue with my work please email me directly - I promise to respond - rather than to 100's in this forum and my ListServ casting aspersions on my painstakingly diligent efforts.

Regards,
Gary

[Gigi M.]

I just made a comparison with Gary's caps with my setup calibrated with DVE and AVIA Pro, a Konica Minolta CL-200 color meter with color facts 6, and all I can say Gary's system looks identical to mine.

I was also shocked by the incredible amount of grain and digital noise this disc has. During day scenes, especially blue skies, clouds and such, are just nasty. I thought it was my projector bulb that was dying at one point, but it wasn't.

[denti alligator]

Sorry, Gary, perhaps my original post was a little strong. I felt misled by your caps (still do), and might have worded things with more tentativeness. I did say that "it seems to me," but obviously the rest of what I wrote says otherwise. Anyway, please no hard feelings. I would like to get to the bottom of this, however.

I've worked long and hard on my system, and I have adjusted every color control very, very carefully and precisely, using both DVE and Avia calibration tools. On my display I have turned off all automatic color correction features and have even gone into the color palette to adust hue, brightness, and saturation for reds, greens, blues, yellows, magentas and cyans. With each adjustment I go back to the other colors to make sure they haven't been adversely affected. Everything in the color bars filtered through red, green and blue has been carefully matched.

Now: what I see is very different from what I see in your caps. That's all. I ask others: make the comparison and tell us what you see. Thanks, Gigi, for doing this. Perhaps my system is, after all my calibrations, still inaccurate ....

[Gigi M.]

Thanks, Gigi, for doing this. Perhaps my system is, after all my calibrations, still inaccurate ....

No problem, Denti. Did you read what I wrote about the massive presence of grain and digital noise? Do you see them in your setup?

I'm actually very surprise no one hasn't mention it at this point.

[denti alligator]

No problem, Denti. Did you read what I wrote about the massive presence of grain and digital noise? Do you see them in your setup?

I saw some digital noise, yes, but not any more than with your average Criterion release--usually in darker shadows it's most visible. Grain didn't jump out at me as being excessive: but I'm only watching this on a 46" display.