BD 88 Wake in Fright

[colinr0380]

I wonder if MoC might see their way to releasing Sunday Too Far Away at some point in the future, one of the best 'outback life' films.

[GaryC]

I wonder if MoC might see their way to releasing Sunday Too Far Away at some point in the future, one of the best 'outback life' films.

I'd go far a Blu-ray of that like a shot. There appear to have been two Australian DVDs - one very poor 4:3 barebones edition (the one I saw) and a collector's edition from Roadshow - but both seem to be out of print.

[kneelzod]

I sure hope Moc and James White are able to put out a Blu-ray that looks more film-like and less DNR'ed than the Aussies' "restoration" (which was carried over in the Drafthouse release).

[MichaelB]

Unsurprisingly, given that the kangaroo-hunt footage clearly doesn't infringe the Animals Act, the BBFC has passed this uncut, albeit still with an 18 certificate.

The classification box will come with a warning "Contains strong scenes of kangaroo hunting and slaughter", and they've issued a statement of clarification:

There is sight of kangaroos being chased, shot and killed, as well as sight of their dismembered bodies. When the film was originally released the BBFC sought and received detailed assurances confirming that the hunting sequences were not organised or directed for the purposes of the film. Instead the footage was achieved by accompanying an actual kangaroo hunt. There are also scenes in which men fight apparently injured kangaroos. Once again, detailed assurances were received in 1971 confirming that these sequences were carefully supervised, by the Australian equivalent of the RSPCA, to avoid any cruelty to the animals. Therefore there is no breach of the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937, which prohibits the exhibition in the UK of any film in which animals were cruelly treated in order to produce the film.

I would also imagine that the booklet makes this very clear indeed as well.

[eerik]

WAKE IN FRIGHT [1971] Ted Kotcheff's dark and terrifying film about the Australian cultural underbelly sustains the quality of a sun-baked nightmare, finally emerging for its UK home viewing debut in its glorious uncut 2009 restoration; Dual Format (Blu-ray + DVD) edition will be released in the UK on 31 March 2014

[swo17]

The Drafthouse Blu-ray looked really waxy to me. It will be interesting to see how this compares.

[Perkins Cobb]

The Drafthouse Blu-ray looked really waxy to me. It will be interesting to see how this compares.

Right, I'd heard that, and that the Oz Blu-ray was also DNR-slathered (presumably the same encode?). If MOC is able to fix that it would be most welcome.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

I wonder if it can actually look any better. The restoration notes on the Drafthouse release lead me to believe that the film, in order to look good, had to go under a ton of digital manipulation.

[kneelzod]

There's an official Eureka trailer up now. By no means is it the last word, but it certainly looks similar to the previously released (Madman, Drafthouse) versions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzzCIgfowFk

[kneelzod]

DVD Beaver review. Looks very similar to the other releases, in terms of video.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_ ... lu-ray.htm

[manicsounds]

Well, Wake In Fright is finally available with lossless sound, and now being on a DL blu-ray, more breathing space and better picture.

[kneelzod]

Well, Wake In Fright is finally available with lossless sound, and now being on a DL blu-ray, more breathing space and better picture.

Yes, but it still comes from the same source, which appears too DNR'ed to my eyes; it's clearly all that's available to licensees such as Drafthouse and Eureka / MoC.

[MichaelB]

[the girlfriend looked "rootable" enough to me [as a teenager] but why did she make the protagonist sick?]

The book makes this clearer - in essence, it's a combination of:

1. Extreme (and unaccustomed) drunkenness;
2. Intense guilt over the notion of cheating on his girlfriend;
3. The fact that he was a virgin.

I don't recall (3) being mentioned in the film at all, but the book spells out that Robyn, the woman allegedly waiting for him in Sydney (and the one seen in the film's flashbacks) isn't actually his girlfriend at all but somebody he carries a torch for in the hope that this might eventually transpire.

The book's well worth a read, by the way - I devoured it in a single sitting last night. It's very close to the film narratively - so much so that the adaptation often does little more than rejig some of the dialogue to incorporate what was originally presented as an interior monologue (which explains one of the clunkier bits in the film, when Grant launches into a rather melodramatic rant about how outback Australians will turn a blind eye to any manner of atrocities except someone's refusal to accept a beer - in the book, he makes the same observation at the same point, but keeps it to himself). Donald Pleasence's character Doc Tydon is more peripheral in the book, and there's a surprise development in the hospital that I won't spoil, but Ted Kotcheff and screenwriter Evan Jones were clearly operating on the "it ain't broke, so we don't need to fix it" principle.

[GaryC]

[the girlfriend looked "rootable" enough to me [as a teenager] but why did she make the protagonist sick?]

The book makes this clearer - in essence, it's a combination of:

1. Extreme (and unaccustomed) drunkenness;
2. Intense guilt over the notion of cheating on his girlfriend;
3. The fact that he was a virgin.

I don't recall (3) being mentioned in the film at all, but the book spells out that Robyn, the woman allegedly waiting for him in Sydney (and the one seen in the film's flashbacks) isn't actually his girlfriend at all but somebody he carries a torch for in the hope that this might eventually transpire.

The book's well worth a read, by the way - I devoured it in a single sitting last night. It's very close to the film narratively - so much so that the adaptation often does little more than rejig some of the dialogue to incorporate what was originally presented as an interior monologue (which explains one of the clunkier bits in the film, when Grant launches into a rather melodramatic rant about how outback Australians will turn a blind eye to any manner of atrocities except someone's refusal to accept a beer - in the book, he makes the same observation at the same point, but keeps it to himself). Donald Pleasence's character Doc Tydon is more peripheral in the book, and there's a surprise development in the hospital that I won't spoil, but Ted Kotcheff and screenwriter Evan Jones were clearly operating on the "it ain't broke, so we don't need to fix it" principle.

Interesting - thanks, Michael. I haven't read the novel, and won't be able to before reviewing the Blu-ray this weekend (my third viewing, after the Australian DVD in 2009 and the UK cinema reissue a couple of weeks ago) but I'll try to get to it in due course. There's one copy in Hampshire's libraries.

Wake in Fright was Gary Bond's third and last cinema film, and only big-screen leading role. All his later credits on the IMDB are on UK television, until his death in 1995. I wonder why he didn't make any more films?

[hellochas]

The film was released in the UK on video as Outback in March 1983:

[tenia]

I just watched this one, and I'm quite disappointed by the still-problematic presentation of the movie. It clearly seems a waste, as if this restoration was done by people who didn't know exactly how to do it. The picture seems scrubbed smooth into oblivion, and is coupled with what seems to be a patchy color-scheme adjustment. I'm very surprised the US BD (which is most likely equivalent to the MoC BD) got a 4/5 on PQ at blu-ray.com, but I'm quite sure Svet will be more severe if he reviews the MoC disc (I think he will review it).

The sound doesn't fare much better, with a track too quiet, forcing to amp up the volume, fortunately with no negative effect since floor noise has been efficiently kept to a minimum. However, as soon as the track gets heavy, it seems the sound can't follow and everything turns to flat cacophony. The hunting scene is a good exemple of how the sound has lots of difficulties supporting the action on the screen.

I'm not sure how it fares against other problematic presentations from MoC (Rumble Fish and Vengeance is mine) but Wake In Fright sure isn't pretty, but not for the right reasons.

[kneelzod]

Thanks for the report, Tenia. I sure hope that if Svet / Pro-Bassoonist reviews it, his review reflects these problems, which are inherent in each of the Blu-ray releases. All of these discs--Madman, Drafthouse, and MoC--clearly come from the same compromised "restoration." It is a waste and I will just hang onto to the Australian disc I ordered a few years ago, prior to the film being licensed in other territories, a disc I NEVER watch, mind you.

I just watched this one, and I'm quite disappointed by the still-problematic presentation of the movie. It clearly seems a waste, as if this restoration was done by people who didn't know exactly how to do it. The picture seems scrubbed smooth into oblivion, and is coupled with what seems to be a patchy color-scheme adjustment. I'm very surprised the US BD (which is most likely equivalent to the MoC BD) got a 4/5 on PQ at blu-ray.com, but I'm quite sure Svet will be more severe if he reviews the MoC disc (I think he will review it).

The sound doesn't fare much better, with a track too quiet, forcing to amp up the volume, fortunately with no negative effect since floor noise has been efficiently kept to a minimum. However, as soon as the track gets heavy, it seems the sound can't follow and everything turns to flat cacophony. The hunting scene is a good exemple of how the sound has lots of difficulties supporting the action on the screen.

I'm not sure how it fares against other problematic presentations from MoC (Rumble Fish and Vengeance is mine) but Wake In Fright sure isn't pretty, but not for the right reasons.

[tenia]

That's just my 2 cents, I'm no professionnal nor I have any insiders info. The US caps I've seen on blu-ray.com worried me about the possibility of these limitations coming from a problematic restoration and it seems to me to be the case.
I've done some caps myself to ensure this wasn't just an impression, and it clearly seems lacking to me :



To make the matter worse, I've been linked, on blu-ray.com MoC topic, to an article from the Aussie National Film Archive saying this was coming from a 4K scan of the OCN. Needless to say, even by taking in account a possible soft photography, that I don't see anything close to a 4K OCN scan here.

I do think that Svet is preparing a review, and I know he thinks that the presentation is problematic. I'm still baffled by the PQ grade the US disc received there and the quite surrealist review text it has. Wait & see.

[FrauBlucher]

Dr Svet kills the restoration

[Moshrom]

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/16vg50jyzbnu ... 0lbEjtyK8a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(DVD upscaled to 720p)

The other two blu-rays are similarly affected, as is the MoC DVD. Only the R4 Madman DVD hasn't been nuked.

[whaleallright]

saw this in a new 35mm print (from the alleged "restoration," a word that comes far too cheap these days) and it was beautifully grainy, so the liberal DNR of the Blu-Rays seems to have been applied for home-video only. it's really a betrayal of the film's aesthetic, all the more galling since the director himself doesn't seem to notice.

[David M.]

from the alleged "restoration," a word that comes far too cheap these days

Thank you!

[kneelzod]

saw this in a new 35mm print (from the alleged "restoration," a word that comes far too cheap these days) and it was beautifully grainy, so the liberal DNR of the Blu-Rays seems to have been applied for home-video only. it's really a betrayal of the film's aesthetic, all the more galling since the director himself doesn't seem to notice.

Thanks, Jonah. I saw the new 35mm print in 2010 and I honestly can't remember how it differed from the abominations on Blu-ray and DVD.

[kristophers]

it's really a betrayal of the film's aesthetic, all the more galling since the director himself doesn't seem to notice.

In the commentary on the Moc, he praises the restoration numerous times. It was strange to me because its obvious something went a bit wrong with it.

[swo17]

The film restoration and the BD transfer are two separate things. As has been indicated earlier in this thread, it seems like the something that went wrong happened after the restoration.