Margaret (Kenneth Lonergan, 2011)

[R0lf]

I didn't make it along but The Astor theatre in Melbourne did a theatrical showing of the extended edition - which would definitely have been DCP or 35mm.

If it was just a DVD they would not have screened it.

[Roger Ryan]

I, too, felt the DVD of the extended cut was sub-par for the format - then again, it's a long film to fit on one disc. As disappointing as this release might be, I'm please I was able to see the longer cut as it is indeed the better version.

[warren oates]

Grove Press is publishing a book version of the screenplay in the U.S. on January 7, 2014, in paperback and Kindle formats. Though I've seen the paperback out already in at least one store. There are forewords and afterwards by Lonergan, as well as a pretty long introduction by Tony Kushner. No idea how this draft may differ from any others in circulation on the Internet, though I read enough flipping through to see that Lonergan considers this a "shooting script," with some scenes that were never shot, some that were deleted or that grew into substantially different forms in both released cuts of the film.

[hearthesilence]

I just took a look at the extended cut DVD - it was the second time seeing it on my own HDTV and man, it looks really crummy. To be fair, it's on par with a typical Warner Archive DVD-R (one of the ones in need of remastering), but that's still crummy.

I was curious as to whether "remastering" the extended cut using the visuals from the HD release of the theatrical cut would by a plausible solution. (The audio for the extended cut DVD is fine, which is fortunate because it's substantially different to the theatrical mix, particularly in the choice of music.)

It would definitely improve much of the film, but it would be a lot more laborious than expected because there are a TON of differences, and this website documents pretty much all of them.

[Oedipax]

I like the idea of making an HD version of the director's cut using as much of the 1080p source as possible and the DVD to fill in the rest of the gaps, but that site says 163 scenes feature different takes - which means even scenes that are in both cuts of the film might be different takes. My concern would be there would simply be too much bouncing back and forth between the two sources in a remastered version, and ultimately prove too distracting overall.

Might be something for the fan edit community to look into though!

[hearthesilence]

They're screening a DCP of the extended cut at Metrograph on Tuesday - anybody going? The DVD looks crummy so I'm wondering if the DCP is an better transfer. (It was shot on 35mm film so it's theoretically possible, but perhaps cost prohibitive.)

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

They're screening a DCP of the extended cut at Metrograph on Tuesday - anybody going? The DVD looks crummy so I'm wondering if the DCP is an better transfer. (It was shot on 35mm film so it's theoretically possible, but perhaps cost prohibitive.)

Saw the Los Angeles premiere of the director's cut years ago. It was at a museum and you would figure it would be the best projection you've ever see, but they literally played it off a DVD. Hopefully the DCP looks good.

[hearthesilence]

That's disappointing. I saw the director's cut of Zodiac at BAM in 2010, it was advertised as a DCP, and it looked like it was unconverted from an HD, possibly SD source. The resolution was almost there, but jagged edges all over the place. Someone gently asked about this during the Q&A, and they were told more or less "it's digital, it was shot in digital, this is how Fincher prefers it to be screened" (i.e. they didn't quite get his question).

[MichaelB]

The 2004 semi-restoration of The Devils only exists (and has only ever existed) on SD Digibeta. It doesn't look too bad projected - Digibeta has a major advantage over DVD when it comes to compression artefacts - but it's clearly less than optimal.

[J Adams]

The long version of "Margaret" played at Walter Reade a few years ago. It looked fine, despite my dislike of digital projection of any kind. I trust the Metrograph to project a decent "print".

[connor]

That's disappointing. I saw the director's cut of Zodiac at BAM in 2010, it was advertised as a DCP, and it looked like it was unconverted from an HD, possibly SD source. The resolution was almost there, but jagged edges all over the place. Someone gently asked about this during the Q&A, and they were told more or less "it's digital, it was shot in digital, this is how Fincher prefers it to be screened" (i.e. they didn't quite get his question).

Was that during the Assayas-curated series? If so, my wife and I were there and were totally shocked by how bad it looked.

[hearthesilence]

That's disappointing. I saw the director's cut of Zodiac at BAM in 2010, it was advertised as a DCP, and it looked like it was unconverted from an HD, possibly SD source. The resolution was almost there, but jagged edges all over the place. Someone gently asked about this during the Q&A, and they were told more or less "it's digital, it was shot in digital, this is how Fincher prefers it to be screened" (i.e. they didn't quite get his question).

Was that during the Assayas-curated series? If so, my wife and I were there and were totally shocked by how bad it looked.

YES, that's the one!

[DeprongMori]

The BluRay of Margaret seems to have just gone OOP. Lowest price Amazon listing is $150. Has this gotten a recent restoration? Any indication who has picked it up?

[hearthesilence]

Seriously? Fox's website offered that disc for like $6 just a year or two ago.

Anyway, I hope there's a new version in the works with a new HD transfer of the extended cut.

[solaris72]

The blu-ray is back to reasonable prices at Amazon.

[hearthesilence]

Good to know. FWIW, they are showing the extended cut yet again "digitally projected" at MoMI (as well as Lonergan's other films), and he will be at select screenings.

[J Adams]

The Metrograph digital screening was hideous.

[hearthesilence]

Crap, well at least I can save my money and just watch my DVD copy.

[Roger Ryan]

The Metrograph digital screening was hideous.

I'm sorry to say that it sounds like Lonergan's preferred long cut simply doesn't exist beyond an "off-line" (?) assembly of digital files over-compressed to facilitate swifter importing/exporting. This would explain the sub-standard DVD image and a theatrical DCP that looks bad as well. A real shame.

[hearthesilence]

As long as they didn't trash the 35m camera negatives, theoretically, they could painstakingly recreate the cut and grade, and I'd be fine with using the same exact soundtrack that's currently heard on the DVD. It wouldn't be a huge expense, but then again the film grossed almost nothing (thanks to the extremely limited theatrical release/dumping it had), so getting a studio to invest in this endeavor is another thing.

[solaris72]

Just received my copy from Amazon- it's the Canadian edition. Looks like the US version might actually be OOP after all. (Canadian blu is the same release it seems, 2-disc with the DC on the DVD, just with a bilingual cover.)

[willoneill]

Just received my copy from Amazon- it's the Canadian edition. Looks like the US version might actually be OOP after all. (Canadian blu is the same release it seems, 2-disc with the DC on the DVD, just with a bilingual cover.)

Better check the Extended Cut DVD; I believe the Canadian release mistakenly comes with the theatrical cut on the DVD, despite what the packaging says.

[tarpilot]

Canadian with Canadian release; can confirm that my copy is as advertised. Purchased used (brick and mortar) earlier this year, so it could be from a corrected run...

[JMULL222]

I've noticed that Amazon has the Director's Cut available for streaming rental in HD—has any tried that? I assume it's just the DVD source upscaled, but it's worth trying?

[mfunk9786]

It's certainly worth a try - they'd refund if what you get isn't in the expected quality.