criterionforum.org

I feel kinda stupid asking this but the UK steelbook Psycho is region-free meaning that it can play on US Blu-ray players, right?

Yes, Michael, that's right.

Is the Blu-ray Psycho still the slightly shorter "censored" domestic cut previously released on DVD? i.e. without the extra shots we got in Europe of Marion's bra removal, Norman's bloody hands and the additional stabs at Arbogast. I miss those as I got to know the film with these shots in the 1970s & 80s.

Jon, as I mentioned in my post above, it is the cut version.

david hare wrote:This one works, where the Harris Vertigo DTS doesn't - they havent messed with the foley. (..) My only real complaint is that the fucking disc takes three minutes to load to movie option, even on my fastest player. And every time you have to select the language default. The Brit cover is totally fugly. I suggest photoshopping your own cover insert.

Re the sound mix: it's not inconceivable that Universal will get the French to redo the Vertigo track though it's clearly going to be more of a challenge given the poor condition of the existing mono.

The loading times weren't as bad on my machine but then my Sony is pretty fast for a BR player. It certainly didn't take longer to load than the CC Red Shoes does. And as for the cover: it works for me; preferable to the US cover anyway (IMO).

Thanks for confirmation on the shorter version - I didn't see that when I first read your post. I suppose now that one edition can be prepared for all regions we're even less likely to get the European version! The recent UK TV showings I've seen use the same US cut, where as in the 1980s they were still using longer UK prints.

What's the history of these cuts? Were they made after the initial screenings?

tojoed wrote:Yes, Michael, that's right.

Thanks. I have ordered the UK steelbook DVD. I still have a lot to learn about Blu-ray.

While we are on the subject of Psycho, I can't recommend the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello enough - still the best book on Psycho. The Moment of Psycho: How Alfred Hitchcock Taught America to Love Murder (terrible title!) by David Thomson is a piffle. No wonder why it's piling in bargain bins. I will be reading Psycho in the Shower: The History of Cinema's Most Famous Scene by Phillip J. Skerry this week - great reviews on Amazon.

Best part is one of his comments.

How can you say the 1.78 croppings are preferable? There's no reasonable rationale for that viewpoint. Ask Vittorio Storaro! Ask Haskell Wexler!

Alphonse Doinel wrote:Best part is one of his comments.

How can you say the 1.78 croppings are preferable? There's no reasonable rationale for that viewpoint. Ask Vittorio Storaro! Ask Haskell Wexler!

Ah crap, I really wish I had not started reading the talk-back under the article, I should know better.

"This is the version we saw growing up on TV" is idiotic beyond belief. Ditch all your 'Scope DVDs, pls

I couldn't even see why he thought the full-frame caps were better (I'm the "Brian" in his comments who reminds him of 1984, btw). Especially the second and third ones, in which the extra space doesn't even show anything. Are we really missing out on "grace notes" because we can't see the top of the vase? Or a few strands of hair at the top of Leigh's head?

Not that the full-frame caps look bad, of course. They look fine either way. But I can't even begin to guess what's so obvious about the superiority of the full-frame caps that he doesn't even feel the need to expand his argument. Obviously, he's an idiot and I should know better than to worry about it, but this kind of thing is really damaging and really needs to be rebutted.

Brian C wrote:I couldn't even see why he thought the full-frame caps were better (I'm the "Brian" in his comments who reminds him of 1984, btw). Especially the second and third ones, in which the extra space doesn't even show anything. Are we really missing out on "grace notes" because we can't see the top of the vase? Or a few strands of hair at the top of Leigh's head?

Not that the full-frame caps look bad, of course. They look fine either way. But I can't even begin to guess what's so obvious about the superiority of the full-frame caps that he doesn't even feel the need to expand his argument. Obviously, he's an idiot and I should know better than to worry about it, but this kind of thing is really damaging and really needs to be rebutted.

oh nice, you compared his tactics to those of Palin. You really know how to push his buttons.

I agree with you, though I am hardly even near an expert on framing, but the only example he shows that might benefit from the full frame is the first in which you see Anthony Perkins' face, but even that is negligible. One could even argue that just seeing his chin and mouth in the 1.78 is more sinister.

As to show my ignorance, my question is, where does the information come from on the sides?


Does that mean that there is information missing from the corners that each ratio doesn't pick up and we have never seen? Hope my question is clear.

I'm thinking the "full-frame" grabs are from VHS or LaserDisc which involved some zooming in on the image during the transfer, effectively eliminating some of the information found in the full-frame negative. The widescreen grabs, by comparison, are showing more of the full negative image on the sides, even though the top and bottom have been cropped.

Considering how many shots Wells thinks are ruined in the widescreen version, you would have thought he'd have come up with more compelling comparisons.

Roger Ryan wrote:I'm thinking the "full-frame" grabs are from VHS or LaserDisc which involved some zooming in on the image during the transfer, effectively eliminating some of the information found in the full-frame negative. The widescreen grabs, by comparison, are showing more of the full negative image on the sides, even though the top and bottom have been cropped.

This is what I assumed, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification.

What a

(I'll leave the symbolic/freudian ramifications of the image unstated.)

Agreed for the most part David but I've always felt PSYCHO'S dual paternity (contractually a Paramount production and release but Universal/MCA/Revue as far as crew, budget, production facility and "look") seemed to affect the Aspect Ratio. If ever there was a Universal film that looked good in 1:33 or 1:85 then PSYCHO is it! I didn't see it until a drive-in screening in '72 and again the following year then many times later in 35 mm rep. In between were just as many screenings in 16mm and on TV and I was always puzzled by how well in looked either way. True there was a noticable bit of extra headroom at Academy and certain effects shots (especially. the blood running down the shower drain) revealed severe lens distortion at the edges of the frame. But there was never any really contestable ommissions or unwanted additions which would later fuel the flames around MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION or, more to the point here, TOUCH OF EVIL.

Since the production facilities used were Universal I don't think there was ever any serious consideration of Vistavision despite its imminent discontinuation by Paramount. And David, were the 16mm prints down under really hard matted to 1:85? I used to be able to count on the fingers of both hands the number of non-scope films available thusly and PSYCHO was definately not one of them. All the prints booked by Universal 16 and Swank (a stateside licensee that handled most Univesal as well as select Warner and Columbia in non-theatrical) were 1:33. The shots of Leigh in the shower were slightly cropped at bottom of the frame (much the same as Redgrave and the teeny-boppers in BLOW-UP) to delete the breastworks but that was the only concession I recall.

In any event agreed completely that Wells is speaking from the nether oriface!

A lesson learned - keep driving to Tijuana!

The new Psycho transfer is amazing. The films feels more 'immediate'. If you must escape, keep calm and keep driving. In any case, you don't actually need money (easy for me to say) all you need is... that hard-won state of mid that Mr Gautama recommended.

Was Hitchcock the sceptical Catholic artist par excellence? Why steal, then run, but not think?

$700 is $27,000 today! Would that facilitate a new life? Those green notes are a mercurial species!

The film ushers us in to a sweaty fantasy but then... turns. I reckon that this film unequivocally fucked up a fair section of the American public. A man kills his mother, wears her clothes and channels her personality and kills strangers? In 1960? What? It's a mainstream movie by a world-famous artist! It took until 1968 with George Romero's film to futher unhinge American movie-goers and by 1974 with Tobe Hooper's film, it was all over.

Hopefully, Universal will create luminous transfers of their other Hitchcock properties and then keep as this state of anxiety! We tend to avoid that state but he made it a pleasure! He was, truly, a great man.

aox wrote:Absolutely remarkable. I had no intention of buying this, but that has all changed now. I hope Rear Window gets the same treatment, and hopefully sell well enough for lesser films like Rope and Dial M for Murder to follow.

holy shit. I figured the legacy collection dvd would be more than acceptable but those captures are absolutely incredible. The first shot of the house itself caused my jaw to hit the floor....and each one thereafter inspired another audible "holy...shit!" I must have this.

I don't care a wit about steelbooks though, so I'm happy to wait for the U.S. release and hopefully a good deal around black friday or xmas. but I'm upgrading for sure. damn.

when do we get Rear Window - my favorite Hitch?

HistoryProf wrote:I don't care a wit about steelbooks though, so I'm happy to wait for the U.S. release and hopefully a good deal around black friday or xmas. but I'm upgrading for sure. damn.

For what it's worth, there's also a cheaper non-steelbook version for £12.93. The North by Northwest blu is also on there for £8.99.

October really is the perfect month to pick this up though.

Does anyone know why Universal never re-released The Birds as part of their Universal Legacy Series like they did with Psycho, Rear Window, and Vertigo?

Is it possible they are waiting to re-release it once the proposed remake comes out?

Howard Roark wrote:Does anyone know why Universal never re-released The Birds as part of their Universal Legacy Series like they did with Psycho, Rear Window, and Vertigo?

Is it possible they are waiting to re-release it once the proposed remake comes out?

I doubt it. I imagine it will be in the first five Universal Hitchock blu's released. Hopefully within the next couple years.

Those legacy titles are fairly recent. They may have planned The Birds, but cancelled it due to Blu taking over.

Blu-Ray.com

There are some problems.

It's the same exact disc as the UK edition, and that looks immaculate. So, don't worry.