Touch of Evil: 50th Anniversary Edition

[HerrSchreck]

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!

I'm speaking entirely within the parameters of the time from when the film was taken away from him, to it's eventual release.. not during production, or years earlier when things were on a normal keel.

And again, I can only emphasize that these were the events leading up to Welles' demise as a Hollywood Studio Filmmaker, and I think Welles--brokenhearted-- knew his fate was on the line here. Despite how important his visual aesthetics were, one can imagine him knowing it was time to be pragmatic, and entirely sensible in dropping the OAR issue in favor of the more urgent, crucial battle of the basic knitting together of the film's narrative. I don't think he felt he had the collateral to fight on multiple fronts; requesting special projection considerations on top of his already difficult predicament would not have, to say the least, helped his already sinking predicament. I think he just let it go.

Whatever that cost.... ie. it's not just a matter of saying, "oh, ok -- <press of button> here it is in 1.33:1 then".

Telecine For 'Tards?

Seriously, that's what makes this so depressing. It's a situation very similar to The Searchers' latest HD pass: the latest run thru the elements will be the last word for quite some time, and leaves so many dissatisfied.

[Jameson281]

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.

Typically studios remaster widescreen films at 1.33:1, 1.78:1 and the original aspect ratio in order to service international television deals, where licensees may request any of the above in either 4 x 3, 16 x 9 or HD. (Fans tend to think of remastering as being all about DVD, but that isn't the case; studios have to think about other markets as well.) So Universal almost certainly has a cleaned-up 1.33:1 version.

[zedz]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I really appreciate Rick coming on board and presenting his evidence for the AR decision. Even if there'll never be absolute consensus here, we've all got much more information now with which to decide for ourselves.

[Se7en082]

Has anyone seen this at their local store? Best Buy, Circuit City, ect... I basically did not buy it online so I could pick it up Tuesday. Seems like a mistake...

[HerrSchreck]

I saw it weeks ago at Kims NYC.. but they're notorious for early streeting. But just as confirmation that it's shipped to brick & mortars.

[Se7en082]

I saw it weeks ago at Kims NYC.. but they're notorious for early streeting. But just as confirmation that it's shipped to brick & mortars.

Thanks! I went to mine and had nothing. None of the Hitchcock's either. Was wondering if anyone had any luck at their local stores.

[peerpee]

Typically studios remaster widescreen films at 1.33:1, 1.78:1 and the original aspect ratio in order to service international television deals, where licensees may request any of the above in either 4 x 3, 16 x 9 or HD.

Where the 4 x 3 is pan and scan? -- Yeah, but typically, they restore a film once in whatever ratio they deem to be correct (even if it's wrong).

They may restore it in the original aspect ratio, and then create differently matted masters from that, but they do not restore the film three times!

In the case of TOUCH OF EVIL, which is under discussion here, they think that 1.85:1 is the be all and end all ratio, hence, I was suggesting that would be their "OAR" that received the restoration.

(Fans tend to think of remastering as being all about DVD, but that isn't the case; studios have to think about other markets as well.)

Again, not true in my experience. Much digital restoration circa 1998-2008 has been in the SD domain, specifically aimed at SD DVD or SD TV broadcasts -- including almost all of Criterion's restoration work (unfortunately).

So Universal almost certainly has a cleaned-up 1.33:1 version.

I would love to be proved wrong for this film. Maybe Rick could tell us whether a fully cleaned up 1.33:1 HD master was created for the new DVD, which was then simply cropped to 1.85:1?

If so, there's a chance we could lobby for it on Blu-ray.

[Jameson281]

Where the 4 x 3 is pan and scan? -- Yeah, but typically, they restore a film once in whatever ratio they deem to be correct (even if it's wrong).

They may restore it in the original aspect ratio, and then create differently matted masters from that, but they do not restore the film three times!

All versions of the film need to be cleaned up, or else they may get rejected by broadcasters who are becoming increasingly demanding about quality. The typical procedure now is to do a hi-def transfer transfer of the full aperture, digitally clean it up, then create extractions in the various aspect ratios from that. Criterion may not do it that way since they are a specialized company, but that's how the major studios do things these days.

[Musashi219]

Has anyone seen this at their local store? Best Buy, Circuit City, ect... I basically did not buy it online so I could pick it up Tuesday. Seems like a mistake...

Best Buy is only carrying Touch of Evil as an Online Only item, although there is currently a sale going on their website where you can get any of the Hitchcock re-releases or Touch of Evil together as a "2 for $30." I ended up ordering Touch of Evil and Rear Window.

[Jonathan S]

So Universal almost certainly has a cleaned-up 1.33:1 version.

Comparing my off-air (BBC) recording of the 1998 restoration in open-matte 1.33:1 format with the earlier DVD, I'd say they have the same (or very similar) level of digital clean-up; neither is pristine, but very acceptable in my opinion. I don't know whether further clean-up was done for the new DVD set.

Owning the same edition of the film in both aspect ratios, I can see valid arguments on both sides. Does anyone know why the Universal International globe is slightly cropped at the top on Touch of Evil in its 1.85:1 aspect ratio, yet on The Incredible Shrinking Man - released the year before - it isn't cropped because it's a smaller globe, evidently designed for widescreen? Is Shrinking Man perhaps taken from a reissue print that doesn't have the globe used in 1957?

[evillights]

Owning the same edition of the film in both aspect ratios, I can see valid arguments on both sides. Does anyone know why the Universal International globe is slightly cropped at the top on Touch of Evil in its 1.85:1 aspect ratio, yet on The Incredible Shrinking Man - released the year before - it isn't cropped because it's a smaller globe, evidently designed for widescreen? Is Shrinking Man perhaps taken from a reissue print that doesn't have the globe used in 1957?

1. Comparisons re: the Universal logo framing, along with comparisons of the composition of frames in the 1.85 and 1.33 versions, are here.

2. Much discussion over at Dave Kehr's blog. Here.

craig.

[indy81]

I don't think you can definitively call the 1.85:1 ratio a travesty after seeing how bad the second-to-last shot looks in 1.33:1 on the German site.

[HerrSchreck]

You mean the one with the file cabinets? I actually think the reverse, that the dynamism of the one-point perspective-- the vanishing points of the cabinets and the tables and everything else leading right into Menzies' guts-- is far more coherent and narratively illustrative in the open matte shot.

Think, man. The physical subject matter of this scene are the files, and what Vargas will eventually tweeze out of them, and the threat that Menzies fears this presents to Quinlan. You think Welles, such a dynamic visual storyteller, would deliberately frame the most loaded object in the scene half out of the picture, i e the way the 1.85 framing chops his hand and the files?

It looks like a classic Wellesian high headroom shot to me.

Chopped heads, chopped hands, chopped globes, lost light effects that cost money to artfully arrange on set, Welles very identifiable style of extra headroom rendered as narrative environment-- it talks pretty loudly there in those german caps.

[Max von Mayerling]

I'm not quite as worked up over this as some, but from all the caps I've seen, I agree with Schreck. Frankly, I'm not sure I care what was intended - by Welles or anyone else - I definitely would rather be looking at the 1.33:1. I think they're just more interesting compositions.

[indy81]

I was thinking more of the top of the frame. Way too much headroom, and you can see the open end of the light. The whole composition reminds me of every other incorrect open matte DVD I've seen, with way too much unused space at the top and bottom. I'm no widescreen snob, but it's hard to watch a DVD like This Island Earth, a Touch of Evil contemporary, without being distracted by the unnecessarily "open" compositions.

I understand why people prefer the 1.33:1, and I agree that some of the compositions seem improved with the open frame. But others aren't -- most are just different, not better or worse. A lot of this comes down to personal preference - where one person sees "cropped" or "cramped", another sees "tight" or "claustrophobic" (in a good way). I can't see how someone can declare one ratio absolutely right and the other a travesty without projecting their own aesthetic preferences in the effort to ascertain Welles's. It certainly looks like the film was composed with both ratios in mind, to accommodate different exhibition situations.

In any case, Universal clearly should have included both versions, due to the uncertainty about Welles's intentions and the clear differences between the two.

[Via_Chicago]

In any case, Universal clearly should have included both versions, due to the uncertainty about Welles's intentions and the clear differences between the two.

Yes. This is the issue boiled down to its barest elements. I don't think anyone is arguing that Universal ought to have scrapped the 1.85 version entirely, only that Universal is in the wrong in presenting the film in only that AR. Clearly this is an argument that no one can objectively win, nor one that can ever be "solved" as such. Nevertheless, these arguments only stress the extremely wide chasm that has developed between Universal and its constituent buyers.

[Rick Schmidlin]

Would Welles have complained about boom shots?

[Jack Phillips]

Rick, I'll just skip the OAR debate if I may, and say that I enjoyed the DVD immensely. The chance to compare the different versions is fun; the documentaries are informative; the commentary you did with Mr. Heston and Ms. Leigh is a delight. Thanks for all your hard work. May all your projects yield such fine results.

[HerrSchreck]

I was thinking more of the top of the frame. Way too much headroom, and you can see the open end of the light.

The headroom resembles precisely just about every single screencap taken for Mr Arkadin. There is no such thing as "too much headroom", which supposes a standardized placement of character across the intentions of thousands and thousands of directors-- from the closeups of Dreyer's Joan to the proscenium of something like Last Days of Pompeii-- within the frame and removes the possibility of an individual style. These shots for Arkadin, his preceding feature, precisely mimick the shooting style of TOE in 1.37. So unless you're prepared to announce the cinematography in Arkadin flawed viz too much headroom, then one must pronounce 1.37 TOE absolutely Wellesian in it's construction.

I'm repeating myself from thread to thread now, so I'll try my best to let it rest. I don't hold it against Rick Schmidlin (whose work on Greed & London After Mindnight I appreciate) that he followed instructions of the producers, as he's certainly not alone in his belief and he has good company... and I do believe that Welles & Metty hedged their shots to be plausable in 1.85.

[filmsyncs]

Clearly there are many different and valid opinions on the different Touch of Evil releases. But if I may, I'll discuss something other than the aspect ratio.

Some people prefer the film without the opening credits.

Some people like the street level music

Some people like the Henry Mancini opening music.

So I thought ... why can't we get all three?

So here's a link to just that ... for your enjoyment and comment.

YouTube - Touch of Evil - Opening Scene - With Street and Theme Music

More pointedly, there is nothing in Orson Welles' memo about not having opening music or even removing opening music. What is there is a requesting street music emphasizing the loudspeakers honky-tonks used to draw patrons. Big difference.

Clearly what Welles did hear when he screened the movie was temp music. As we don't know what temp music it was, there is little that can be learned from that comment other than he expected that it was temporary. There's a big difference between that and listening to Henry Mancini's opening music and commenting that it should be removed. That didn't happen.

So I was wondering if Welles' feedback can be honored without dishonoring Henry Mancini's contribution to the film.

You be the judge.

[Rick Schmidlin]

Clearly what Welles did hear when he screened the movie was temp music. As we don't know what temp music it was, there is little that can be learned from that comment other than he expected that it was temporary. There's a big difference between that and listening to Henry Mancini's opening music and commenting that it should be removed. That didn't happen.

So I was wondering if Welles' feedback can be honored without dishonoring Henry Mancini's contribution to the film.

You be the judge.

Welles also wrote a twelve page sound memo that explains his sound design for the opening. This memo is discussed on my track but is not printed for the new DVD.

[filmsyncs]

Welles also wrote a twelve page sound memo that explains his sound design for the opening. This memo is discussed on my track but is not printed for the new DVD.

I doubt that many people would consider Hitchcock a slouch when it comes to sound design or his resolve or preparation for his films. Hitch didn't want music backing the famous shower scene in PSYCHO and resisted Bernard Herrmann ideas around that. Still, when Herrmann played his music to the scene Hitch changed his mind. The point being that Welles didn't have the chance to hear Mancini's music so we will never know what he would have thought.

I'm sure many of would be quite interested in seeing that sound memo. It seems a shame that it wasn't included as a disc supplement if printing it was too cost prohibitive.

Speaking of memos, was the 58 page memo the entire memo? It seemed quite odd there were no salutations and to start things off with "I assume that the music now backing the opening sequence of the picture is temporary ..." seems a very odd flow as the first sentence in a memo. No name at the end or signature also is puzzling. Perhaps this has already been asked and answered but I didn't have time to read this entire thread. Also, in your commentary you make the point that Orson Welles did not take "one note" during the screening of the film, went home mad and wrote the 58 page memo. I don't know what information you base that on but Welles clearly states that he wrote notes while the film was being screened in the memo itself.

[Rick Schmidlin]

Ernest Nimms who was present at the screening told me that he sat next to Welles and he did not take anynotes. He was surpised when the 58 page memo was received in such great detail. Welles did take notes in August when he prepared his first memo responses.

[filmsyncs]

Ernest Nimms who was present at the screening told me that he sat next to Welles and he did not take anynotes. He was surpised when the 58 page memo was received in such great detail. Welles did take notes in August when he prepared his first memo responses.

Understood Rick, but give the gentleman a break. He was around 89 years old when you talked to him. How well he remembers the details of a screening 40 years earlier ....

How can this stand up against the possibility that Welles wrote a 58 page memo without notes? Or more pertinently, what Welles wrote in that December memo:

"Unfortunately, since this new dialogue was never sent to me, I do not have the exact text and was unable, during the single running, of the picture, to write it down in the projection room."

Sounds like the comments from someone taking notes. Writing down running dialogue is hard, for anyone that has tried it, but the statement seems to indicate he tried, with only limited success. Or:

"I have a note which reads - (rather cryptically, since it was written in the dark projection room) - "the new cut from Menzies' line "brave, say - ',' is confusing."

So Welles is talking about a new cut, not something from August. Agreed?

[Matango]

Does anyone have a recommended viewing order for this release? How about: 2xDocs/Preview/Theatrical/Restoration (all without commentary). Or do the docs have too many spoilers? Thanks.