Touch of Evil: 50th Anniversary Edition

[zone_resident]

Glenn Erickson's review on Film.com

[souvenir]

All three cuts on Universal's Touch of Evil: 50th Anniversary Edition appear in crisp enhanced black-and-white transfers at the original and correct matted matted 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio. More than one of the experts on the commentaries verify this; Schmidlin reminds fans that Universal protected the full frame only for future TV use.

This is discouraging in its closemindedness. It tries to completely devalue the idea that the films might possibly have been composed for academy ratio. I saw a print of Touch of Evil a couple of weeks ago at the Walter Reade that was academy, with the Heston family in attendance, but according to Erickson it was projected incorrectly.

[Props55]

Well, shit on a stick! "Closeminded" hardly begins to describe the mindset behind their "my way or the highway" attitude. More intractable than Cheney and Bushco. I guess us "Academics" better shut up and shuffle on back to Gitmo! With "friends" like these who needs Beatrice? Pricks!

I can only hope that John McElwee (Greenbriar Picture Show) still has his lovely 16mm "Preview" version. It's the only print I'm aware of in private hands within hundreds of miles of me.

On the plus side it's one less title I'll have to throw money at Universal/MCA for

O.K. I'm done!

[jsteffe]

All three cuts on Universal's Touch of Evil: 50th Anniversary Edition appear in crisp enhanced black-and-white transfers at the original and correct matted matted 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio. More than one of the experts on the commentaries verify this; Schmidlin reminds fans that Universal protected the full frame only for future TV use.

This is discouraging in its closemindedness. It tries to completely devalue the idea that the films might possibly have been composed for academy ratio. I saw a print of Touch of Evil a couple of weeks ago at the Walter Reade that was academy, with the Heston family in attendance, but according to Erickson it was projected incorrectly.

I just read the same review on DVD Savant. OK, so let's assume that Universal imposed the 1.85:1 aspect ratio as the theatrical projection standard for all their feature films, which they supposedly did. If Metty shot the film open matte, as would have been standard practice for "flat" films at Universal, and he was working with a camera whose viewfinder had markings for the action safe areas for 1.85:1 and TV (hence "protected for TV"), then isn't it still possibly an open question as to what he and Welles actually preferred?

Shooting a film so that it would "work" for both ratios doesn't seem like rocket science to me. It simply means that you take care not to expose the sets, the equipment, or extraneous objects in the TV safe area, and that you make sure that actors' heads and important dramatic information don't fall outside the narrower 1.85:1 safe action area. It doesn't necessarily mean that one or the other aspect ratio is preferred. Am I understanding this correctly?

If that's the case, it still possbily leaves open the question of which aspect ratio Welles and Metty actually preferred. It seems to me that if people identify meaningful compositional details in the full frame image and can make a good case for the full frame generally having superior compositions overall, that might suggest that Welles and Metty had full frame showings in mind over the long run, as opposed to just its initial theatrical release. (For instance, its afterlife on television). That is what so many of you are arguing for, right?

That is not the same thing at all as an open-matte film which is clearly intended primarily for widescreen projection, where you end up with inadvertent boom mikes in the full frame image and lots of dead space on the top and bottom, which is what you find with many recent open matte films shown full frame on home video.

On the other hand, if Rick Schmidlin has access to memos or recollections by surviving crew members indicating that Welles and Metty specifically preferred 1.85:1, that's a different story. But I think if he did, he would have said so already. So I'm not convinced yet that it's the open-and-shut case that Erickson suggests.

[Rick Schmidlin]

Back in 1996 I looked at all Universal release records in there legal file and Touch of Evil was released 1.85:1. I also asked Janet Leigh and Chuck Heston about this, and they both said that was the ratio in dailies and the one they remembered when released. Universal shot full frame for later use on Television as Lou Wasserman told me, but for theaters it was 1.85:1

And remember there was not one mention by Welles about the ratio 1.85:1 he saw projected. Ernest Nimms was there and he said when Welles wrote the memo the print he saw was 1:85:1. This was told to me by Nimms in his living room in 1997.

Best, and enjoy the DVD,

Rick Schmidlin

[jsteffe]

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in with this additional information! That settles it for me. And yes, I certainly will enjoy the new DVD set.

Back in 1996 I looked at all Universal release records in there legal file and Touch of Evil was released 1.85:1. I also asked Janet Leigh and Chuck Heston about this, and they both said that was the ratio in dailies and the one they remembered when released. Universal shot full frame for later use on Television as Lou Wasserman told me, but for theaters it was 1.85:1

And remember there was not one mention by Welles about the ratio 1.85:1 he saw projected. Ernest Nimms was there and he said when Welles wrote the memo the print he saw was 1:85:1. This was told to me by Nimms in his living room in 1997.

Best, and enjoy the DVD,

Rick Schmidlin

[Gregory]

I'm a little surprised that they apparently didn't do a new transfer. I know the old one looked quite good, but I remember thinking it could be just a bit sharper. I haven't had a chance to take a look at the new DVDs yet. I just take it as a given that when most of studios put together a new special edition they do a fresh transfer, sometime even if only a year or two has elapsed since the previous edition. Seems like eight years after the earlier release they could have made it look just slightly better.

[Narshty]

I'm a little surprised that they apparently didn't do a new transfer.

???

They have.

[Gregory]

I'm a little surprised that they apparently didn't do a new transfer.

They have.

Oh, I hadn't read Jaime Rich's review. I was tentatively trusting what I read in the Home Theater Forum review, which says that Universal appear to have used the same transfer as the 2000 release. Good news.

[evillights]

Dear Rick Schmidlin,

The solution here, to make everyone happy, would be to include two presentation versions on the same release, as is not-uncommon practice in DVD production (see DVDs of the extraordinary Elephant, Last Days, and Paranoid Park by Gus Van Sant, as three recent examples): one version in 1.85, which would appease any functionaries who seek any excuse to release the thing in 'widescreen', and one version in open-matte 1.33 (not the current 1.85:1 image cropped further down to 1.33), which would make the compositions consistent with the core aesthetics of Welles's oeuvre (yes, I am aware of his in-certain-instances deliberate framing of particular films at 1.66), and consistent with the director's reflections on the aesthetics of framing as discussed in his (Welles's own) essay "Ribbon of Dreams", reproduced here:

http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=155

Whether or not every intense cinephilic critic/scholar and cinephile can see the truth with his or her own eyes, and has been metaphorically screaming about the framing of the film both in print essays and on the Internet in the years following the release of the 'reinstitution' version of Touch of Evil in '98, to try to get those who are in control of the telecine and the transfer-process and the disc-authoring, to listen — well, those guiding the project now seem intent on imposing upon the work of Welles a lamentably small-minded and 'anti-aesthetic' course of action — consistent with decades of ill service of the art of this dead giant, who represented everything Hollywood couldn't swallow then, and cannot abide now; and I'm reading crazy, retrospective justifications for dragging Touch of Evil, that ribbon of dreams, into the realm of the presentation the corporation have always dreamed about: to fill up the screens of 16x9 televisions, in order to ease the minds of Best Buy consumers, lest they doubt for one second they're getting their money's worth on their expensive modern sets. (1: Which, if there were any further proof needed that said sets are built in order to impose their form on the cinema, rather than allow the cinema to impose its form onto them, are ratio'd at 1.78: 1, a framing/matting that does not exist in the projected cinema as myself and billions of others have ever known it.) — (2: "March... OF THE NEW!"...?)

Thus effected, Universal would lock everyone who is truly sensitive to Welles's work in to a single option, a single worldview: that imposed by Corporate Will — still un-cognizant of the fact that an art comes first, and a commodity second — still not realizing that the denial of a 1.33 Touch of Evil negates Universal's desired commodity-effect for a large segment of potential purchasers (we are all consumers, no?), who will inevitably smear the reputation of an exclusively-1.85 disc's end-result across the message-boards and grand blogosphere of the democratic Net — yes, like 'going negative' on campaign ads (why not make the comparison?), except with more truth in the facts in such an instance, and more heart-swell in the sensibility.

It pains me to call the decision-makers wrong in their reasoning, and for myself and thousands of others, if Universal release Touch of Evil in 1.85 exclusively, their release will be as good as non-existent. Such a release, such a film — Touch of Evil, one supreme masterpiece among many post-'55 by Orson Welles — would never be handled in this manner on DVD/Blu-ray by either The Criterion Collection, or The Masters of Cinema Series. To invoke examples of two companies that have proven themselves consistently on the side of the sights of the filmmaker, and garnered acclaim for their respective releases.

It would seem the solution is very easy: release the film in both presentations on the disc. Taking this democratic course will make everyone happy, and lead the film-aficionado to approach Universal's effort with sincere gratitude in place of disbelief at best, or, at worst, that melancholy sort of indignation that seems to have trailed forever in the wake of Welles's tragic/lyrical career.

sincerely,
craig keller.

[Jameson281]

Oh, I see, anyone who advocates 1.33:1 for TOUCH OF EVIL is a true poet at heart, sensitive to Welles' artistry, while anyone who belives 1.85:1 is correct is some knuckle-dragging moron who just wants to fill his 16 x 9 TV to watch Welles movies when not attending the local tractor pull or smashing empty beer cans against his forehead.

Sorry, but I have friends who are professionals in the film industry who love Welles and have studied his work for decades; who would scream in protest of they believed his films were being mangled on home video--but who believe the film is supposed to be 1.85:1. (And who saw the film that way long before the Schmidlin version.) You are free to disagree, but, please, do not dismiss everyone else as some ignorant corporate dupe.

[Oggilby]

Just got the DVD in my hands and I can confirm it's a new transfer (or at least a remaster). The heavy noise reduction and filtering is gone, black levels are deeper, and all three cuts are nearly squeaky clean in terms of dirt/scratch removal. Typical A+ handling of B&W from Universal.

I'm not entirely sure yet, but it looks like the theatrical and preview cuts are seamlessly branched.

(Why is the 1.85:1 vs. Academy debate even an issue anymore?)

[Jeff]

Oh, I see, anyone who advocates 1.33:1 for TOUCH OF EVIL is a true poet at heart, sensitive to Welles' artistry, while anyone who belives 1.85:1 is correct is some knuckle-dragging moron who just wants to fill his 16 x 9 TV to watch Welles movies when not attending the local tractor pull or smashing empty beer cans against his forehead.

Completely agreed. I don't know what the "right" answer is. I can see arguments from both sides, and I do like the looks of the 1.33 caps. I'm fully convinced though, that there are plenty of cinephiles, restorers, and Welles experts who think 1.85 is the way to go.

Mr. Schmidlin has convinced me that this wasn't some random, spurious marketing decision. Nobody has to agree with their choice or buy the disc, but to cast those who approved the transfer and those who choose to view it as heathens is kind of ridiculous.

[tojoed]

(Why is the 1.85:1 vs. Academy debate even an issue anymore?)

It's the reason this thread runs to 6 pages.

[Narshty]

At this stage I hope Criterion announce Magnificent Obsession in 1.78, just for the fun and games that will ensue.

[akaten]

Oh, I see, anyone who advocates 1.33:1 for TOUCH OF EVIL is a true poet at heart, sensitive to Welles' artistry, while anyone who belives 1.85:1 is correct is some knuckle-dragging moron who just wants to fill his 16 x 9 TV to watch Welles movies when not attending the local tractor pull or smashing empty beer cans against his forehead.

Completely agreed. I don't know what the "right" answer is. I can see arguments from both sides, and I do like the looks of the 1.33 caps. I'm fully convinced though, that there are plenty of cinephiles, restorers, and Welles experts who think 1.85 is the way to go.

Mr. Schmidlin has convinced me that this wasn't some random, spurious marketing decision. Nobody has to agree with their choice or buy the disc, but to cast those who approved the transfer and those who choose to view it as heathens is kind of ridiculous.

Actually I believe you two are the ones overreacting to Craig, what he said was Best Buy consumers, who expect full screen presentations regardless of the intended aspect ratio.

Sadly we have a choice of the disc producers (with evidence but not to the extent that it outright confirms the preference for 1.85 aspect ratio) being imposed, despite misgivings from cinephiles and critics alike who not only prefer but strongly advocate the film being available in some form or another in 1.33. As David Hare notes, making at least the 70s edit available in this AR seems reasonable enough, as he points out it was once presented in this manner during the critical period of Welles' reassesment, without which this set wouldn't even have been greenlit.

To deny that choice is to deny the opportunity for more of us to enter into this debate in a reasoned and informed manner, and I find that unacceptable - no sale, try again...pretty please with sprinkles on top!

[nycmagus]

Aspect ratios matter since getting them wrong is akin to performing LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT without Act II or dropping the Third Movement of a Brahms' symphony. You get an approximation of the work of art, but not the work of art as intended by the artist.

[swo17]

Better analogies would be:

a play performed with the curtains half closed
playing a symphony without the brass section

[Cobalt60]

This might be pointless, but has anyone ever asked Oja Kodar to weigh in on this? Since she was as close to Welles as anyone for the last 25 years of his life she might be able to provide some insight. However, I don't know if she has ever been any help in the past, just a thought.

[jsteffe]

Aspect ratios matter since getting them wrong is akin to performing LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT without Act II or dropping the Third Movement of a Brahms' symphony. You get an approximation of the work of art, but not the work of art as intended by the artist.

The situation with a film such as TOUCH OF EVIL is not at all comparable to what you're describing. You can argue whether Welles and Metty preferred 1.85:1 or 1.33:1, though Rick Schmidlin has considerable documentation in favor of the former.

The point is that the film was consciously shot open matte so that it would "work" either in 1.85:1 (for its theatrical release) or 1.33:1 (for television). More than likely Metty and his crew would have been using cameras with the "action safe" areas for both aspect ratios marked within the viewfinder. One may prefer 1.33:1, but I don't see how one could argue that showing the film in the aspect ratio that was specified for its original theatrical release is a form of butchery.

Commercial feature film production is a messy, inexact art, even if it occasionally results in masterpieces.

[HerrSchreck]

You can argue whether Welles and Metty preferred 1.85:1 or 1.33:1, though Rick Schmidlin has considerable documentation in favor of the former.

I don't see anything of the sort. I simply see accounts from folks emphatically not Welles & Metty, who simply bore witness to what may well have been an ex-post-facto industrial imposition, not a preference on the part of the filmmaker & dp. Dailies were more than likely in 1.33.. if anything they may have been masked to 1.85. Though I doubt it.

I for one don't think it's as cut and dried as some, nor do I see it in the Angry Young Man "art v commerce" terms of Keller.

I entirely believe much of what Schmidlin says he uncovered. The problem with much of this--

Back in 1996 I looked at all Universal release records in there legal file and Touch of Evil was released 1.85:1. I also asked Janet Leigh and Chuck Heston about this, and they both said that was the ratio in dailies and the one they remembered when released. Universal shot full frame for later use on Television as Lou Wasserman told me, but for theaters it was 1.85:1

And remember there was not one mention by Welles about the ratio 1.85:1 he saw projected. Ernest Nimms was there and he said when Welles wrote the memo the print he saw was 1:85:1. This was told to me by Nimms in his living room in 1997.

is that these are one-sided reinforcements from a sliver of witnesses. Weren't he and Nimms on shaky ground.. the two of them were not the best of working acquaintances-- so his ability to authoritatively pronounce the sum of Welles' intentions on anything remains in doubt to me. Obviously the film premeired in many-- perhaps most-- cinemas in widescreen. None of this establishes what Welles and Metty were doing on the set when shooting started, what they were saying, planning, initially thinking was going to be the result during exhibition.. whether they were planning for exhibition in both aspect ratios, or for 1.37 to be exclusively for television.

I don't understand the statement "the print he saw was 1:85:1". Does this mean that the 1.33:1 print he saw was projected/masked to 1.85:1?

And we can't forget the conditions under which Welles saw the film projected (I take it we're talking in a Uni screening room during the editing process viz the occasion recounted above in the sentence "he saw projected", and not in some cinema during the premeire or after buying a ticket)-- this is a man exasperated over suddenly finding himself back in the shits (post-Zugsmith) over the mangling of a labor of love. Passing off with generosity the idea the Nimms was there 100% of the time that Welles could have possibly commented upon a production/post-production projection or the impending exhibition ratio of the film, the fact remains that these were no ordinary post-prod projection circumstances. We are talking about an emasculated director trying to win over the studio as a reasonable man with bankable, profitable ideas that could work in the market. Reports seem to state that Welles himself was responsible for some of the editorial fucking up of the film due to his own directionless tinkering. He was trying to work the political road to Functional Regard.. i e remain a Working Director that was not a permanent Pain In The Ass.. not a financial sinkhole, not a noodler, not an anti-profitability "art"-obsessed maker of high toned product that studios wanted no part of, a sort of modern day Stroeheim who cared nothing for budgets and deadlines and sniffed down at popular industrial practices, and made no money whatsoever. This is a man trying to work his way back after the disasters of Mr Arkadin, Moby Dick, etc.

Worrying about the OAR (widescreen was probably factored into the shoot, anyway so this was the least of his worries) would be putting the cart way before the horse in this particular case... why start arguing for the most aesthetically pure, visually striking aspect ratio when the nuts and bolts of the film's narrative are being surgically scooped out and flushed?

The man was trying to bring the studio around to his standpoint, with his past history as a director firmly in mind and with an eye on his future. This may be a controversial statement, but I believe that anyone who's studied the visual art of composition can look at screengrabs of the film in both academy vs 1.85 and see that the film was composed in 1.37 with a power and dynamism that dims in 1.85... composed with beautiful embellishments and lighting effects that completely disappear under the 1.85 masking. Nontheless it's a tour de force job of maintaining functionality and narrative clarity in 1.85 as well as 1.33.

The fact that Welles didn't bitch over the 1.85 projection during the controversies of post doesn't neccessarily mean anything. It simply means that he had bigger battles he had to fight first, and throwing the OAR into the pot probably would have made him look anachronistic, out of touch, unsympathetic to the projection changeover happening (not only) in Uni... and over and above all, the thing he most definitely didn't want to come off as-- as it would have nulled his position-- which was: a primadonna, an impossible to please aging "boy wonder" who wants control over everything and will argue about anything.

[Rick Schmidlin]

This might be pointless, but has anyone ever asked Oja Kodar to weigh in on this? Since she was as close to Welles as anyone for the last 25 years of his life she might be able to provide some insight. However, I don't know if she has ever been any help in the past, just a thought.

I brought Oja to see Touch of Evil in L.A. in 1998 and she had no complaint about the ratio. She in fact said that was one Orson prefered and it was perfect.

[peerpee]

From a DVD production point of view, the problem with releasing this 1.33:1 now (ie. after this second 1.85:1 release in 8 years) is that all the digital cleanup/restoration would probably have been done to a 1.85:1 digital master.

Whatever that cost, and it would be considerable, it is not likely to be repeated from scratch for a 1.33:1 version anytime soon.... ie. it's not just a matter of saying, "oh, ok -- <press of button> here it is in 1.33:1 then".

[Rick Schmidlin]

Weren't he and Nimms on shaky ground.. the two of them were not the best of working acquaintances--

Nimms and Welles were not on shaky ground.I have copies of Welles letters that he wrote to Nimms. They were friend since "The Stranger" which Nimms cut. It was Muhl that gave Welles grief. When Welles wrote the memo he thought he and Nimms were on good terms, and it 1.85:1 when he screened in August and lat in December. Not one mention of being unhappy with the 1.85:1. and believe me if he did not like he would have said so,since his visual pattern was important to him!

[jsteffe]

You can argue whether Welles and Metty preferred 1.85:1 or 1.33:1, though Rick Schmidlin has considerable documentation in favor of the former.

I don't see anything of the sort. I simply see accounts from folks emphatically not Welles & Metty, who simply bore witness to what may well have been an ex-post-facto industrial imposition, not a preference on the part of the filmmaker & dp. Dailies were more than likely in 1.33.. if anything they may have been masked to 1.85. Though I doubt it.

I see what you're saying, but how could the 1.85:1 aspect ratio be an "ex-post-facto industrial imposition" when it had been in place as the standard theatrical AR at Universal for five years? Metty was working at Universal all that time and would have been used to it as the basic technical standard. I think TOUCH OF EVIL is a different case from, say, THE MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION, which was shot near the beginning of the transition to widescreen. I can see THE MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION being more ambiguous.