criterionforum.org

CSM126 wrote:OK, as far as which versions of the film are included here, I think we have something of an answer. The criterion page has changed to reflect a run time of 164 minutes, which would be the length of the theatrical cut if I'm not mistaken. And the features list the "Extended television version". So I was right: Theatrical cut and Extended cut. Yay me.

Latest blog post clarifies this: the theatrical release is the director's cut, the television version is an earlier contractually-demanded alternate.

Bertolucci wrote:I would be very pleased to present the theatrical version for The Last Emperor, but I'm perplexed on presenting the director's cut, because I wouldn't know what else to say about a version that in my opinion is not much different from the other one, just a little bit more boring (as very often the director's cut can be). That's my sincere feeling.

I've asked this before, but is Criterion going to release more Bertolluci? I would definately buy a criterionized version of Last Tango in Paris...

Mental Mike wrote:I've asked this before, but is Criterion going to release more Bertolluci? I would definately buy a criterionized version of Last Tango in Paris...

Before the Revolution has been planned for ages. (I'd recommend the Italian R2 RHV - 2-Disc and subbed, if you aren't set on just getting a Criterion.)

Last Tango SE has been announced for this year by MGM, so there's no chance of a Criterion.

Still no site of the brilliant and essential The Spider's Stratagem, an r1 La Luna, or The Tragedy of a Ridiculous Man.

zedz wrote:Latest blog post clarifies this: the theatrical release is the director's cut, the television version is an earlier contractually-demanded alternate.

Ha! That's wonderful. If the theatrical cut wasn't here then I think it would go against Criterion's "mission statement." Now knowing that it's also Bertolucci's preferred cut makes me smile. The "director's cut" label has become a marketing tool more than an artistic victory anyway.

souvenir wrote:If the theatrical cut wasn't here then I think it would go against Criterion's "mission statement." Now knowing that it's also Bertolucci's preferred cut makes me smile. The "director's cut" label has become a marketing tool more than an artistic victory anyway.

Good news indeed. I'm very happy to be wrong about it. I'd always heard that Bertolucci had disowned the theatrical cut in favor of the long version. Turns out it was the other way around. It's been a while since I've seen either one, but I always preferred the theatrical version (largely because I have the attention span of a four-year-old). Now I don't have to feel like a heretic for doing so.

Anyone know how long the extended TV version is? (Sorry if this is already mentioned earlier in the thread). And is it 1.33:1?

thanks.

218 minutes and it's 2:1 -- according to the back of the box.

tavernier wrote:218 minutes and it's 2:1 -- according to the back of the box.

The beaver will be on it soon, I suppose, to give us the final look, right?

exte wrote:

tavernier wrote:218 minutes and it's 2:1 -- according to the back of the box.

The beaver will be on it soon, I suppose, to give us the final look, right?

I'm sure Gary will... I haven't gotten a chance to see it yet.

Interesting that the framing of the theatrical vs television versions is, despite the same 2.2 AR, very different in some of those caps. Strange.

Is the difference in quality between these two versions just a result of compression? Also seems strange to me. Looks to me like contrast levels differ.

It's 2.0 not 2.20, and the amount of information lost is devastating, I don't understand how anyone can praise this set regardless of the quality of the picture when enough of the picture is gone for a scene to change meaning. Example:




From three people on a porch to one and a hint of a second.

Domino, that's unfair. You've posted the television version, which is differently framed than the Bertolucci-preferred theatrical version:

Yeah, and the cropping looks just as bad in the theatrical version. I will NOT be buying this release and Criterion should have known better.

Denti, you're right, I misread which was which, and yet Soy Cuba is also right: now all of the information is missing from one side, changing the spatial focus of the shot. Also look at all the caps on the Beaver that feature a lone figure central to the frame, the reformatting brings them closer/fills up more of the frame, diminishing their isolation within these shots.

You did pick the most damning comp Domino - it was the one that really jumped out at me as well. Whether you pick the Criterion TV or theatrical screenshot, both are much worse compositions than the original at 2.35.

2.0 AR is just not defendable. I'm sure it's a lovely package and I still might get it but it's surely compromised for no good reason. I congratulate Gary for being able to work up enthusiasm in spite of that. I had hoped they were letting Storaro have the theatrical cut according to his whim and would slip the TV version in as 2.35, but no such luck.

On the other hand, I might blow it off and try and get the R2 now. Decisions...

Being no great fan of this film, I hit the jackpot getting to save a whole sack of loot...

I haven't seen this film, but I am an O'Toole fan. How big is his part in it?

It`s a sad thing indeed that they changed the AR that much. Don`t really understand how they can do something like that.
Will be getting it nonetheless though, but still....

Never mind the AR - it's the colors I have a problem with now. It looks so cold and drab. And it's a shame because I was really thinking of "upgrading" to this new Criterion being a big fan of the film and all but now, I'm not so sure.

What they should have done is release the theatrical version in both ARs.

denti alligator wrote:What they should have done is release the theatrical version in both ARs.

As great as that would've been, it's none too feasible in regards to the number of discs it would've pushed the set to. I'm also sure that it would've gotten Vittorio's knickers in a twist. The only solution for fans of the film is to buy the R2 as well, I guess.

Lino wrote:Never mind the AR - it's the colors I have a problem with now. It looks so cold and drab. .

Thats the first thing I thought, even above the 2.0ism. The film loses it's mythical pallette and turns into Crime Drama Colorville, cold and grey.

Cronenfly wrote: I'm also sure that it would've gotten Vittorio's knickers in a twist. The only solution for fans of the film is to buy the R2 as well, I guess.

I think their decision to honor a dilletante's desire to say "the work I did must not remain the work I did. We must make it What I'd do now," is not to be admired.

Ex post facto "directors cuts" are one thing as an add on bonus. "Cinematographers cuts" made decades after the fact, when the original film indulged the artisans involved without interference (i e some of the scope-to-academy controversies w Russ Metty), are odd to me and should be against the rules. That's CC hobnobbing in telecine. How can people trace the ideas and development of cinematographers visions over the decades if you cannot observe the changes in their form and theories, if you allow their Current State to whitewash their old work? WHo sits around and says the "new concept" is better than the old "work completed"?

When your cinematographer has gone insane, and wants to radically restructure what to some is considered a pre-existing masterpiece on its own terms, what to you do? When does it end. When does CC so "down boy! This film is finished as far as we understood it."

HerrSchreck wrote:

Lino wrote:Never mind the AR - it's the colors I have a problem with now. It looks so cold and drab. .

Thats the first thing I thought, even above the 2.0ism. The film loses it's mythical pallette and turns into Crime Drama Colorville, cold and grey.

Did the film have the "mythical" green-yellow bias theatrically? The cold/grey colors of the Criterion do little for me; is this a case of Criterion/Storaro revisionism (as it would seem), or did the movie actually look so drab in the theatres? Is this another case, like the Coppola Dracula SE transfer, where the film looked one way theatrically and on the Superbit DVD and then another "correct" way on the SE?

And I agree with you, Schreck: Criterion's honoring Storaro's insanity (or, as they spin it in their blog, genius) without offering up a version of the film that's reflective of the original work is unforgivable. I was hoping that, as a consolation, the television version would be untampered with, but, alas, not. It could be worse; at least there's a truer transfer in R2, unlike Apocalypse Now, which remains fucked everywhere on DVD (to my knowledge).

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:I haven't seen this film, but I am an O'Toole fan. How big is his part in it?

It's a supporting role, but he's certainly excellent and it's an important part of the story. And FYI, his screen time is doubled for the television version, so if O'Toole is your main reason for seeing The Last Emperor then that's probably the version to pursue.

Regarding the new transfer, I'm less than impressed with the screencaps as well. The R2 is far more colorful and the framing far more pleasing and less claustrophobic. The 2:1 works beautifully (in my opinion) for Apocalypse Now and all of Storaro's later work, but The Last Emperor should've been left at 2.35:1. And I do say that as (quite possibly) one of Storaro's most devoted fans.