criterionforum.org

Back cover scan is available

Any reason why the original's running time is listed as 148 minutes and the do-over is listed as 147 minutes?

The new transfer is stunning. One of the best black and white transfers of the year. I watched some of the documentary and it's pretty good. A treasure of a set.

One wonders if Les Diaboliques will be given similar treatment next year. The existing transfer is excellent, though, but this is a film that one could analyse to death.

Clouzot, for me, was one of the greatest filmmakers of all time and certainly the greatest pessimistic filmmaker ever. His understanding of story structure and how to tell the film through the characters in the fullest manner is remarkable and regardless of his poor eyesight, he had a formidable visual awareness and throughout The Wages of Fear and Les Diaboliques you pretty mich see Classical Cinema at its zenith - but also in his eye-popping investigation, The Mystery of Picasso, you get the sense of someone who was obsessed with imagery and understood, to a great extent, the stark power of images.

The Wages of Fear remains a profound lesson in 'action-suspense' Cinema, in fact one is hard pressed to think of a more influential film within this genre. It's almost gleefully pessimistic, existentialist and anti-Capitialism attitude feels totally uncontrived, mercilessly honest and totally unique. The ending, for me, manically demonstrates Camus' 'Absurd' view of the World, but the film is not without morality and the scenes between Vanel and Montand contain subtle, unsentimental affection. I have also found that it is one of the most effective films in converting people who under the impression that 'old, foreign' films are 'not worth watching' today. It's one of the rare vintage 'action' films that never seems to appear 'quaint' or hokey. It remains a pulverizing experience and probably always will and is a heady antidote to today's never-ending glut of crass, over-the-top, comforting, suspenseless films of the genre.

The movie premiered at Cannes with a running time of 155 minute. It was later cut to 148 minute. Now the Criterion release runs 147 min. The special features does have a short session on how 50 min was cut from the original US release, but the true running time of the masterpiece still remains unresolved.

Does anyone know what the difference is between the 148 minute cut of the previous edition and the 147 minute cut of the current edition?

According to this article, Friedkin has confirmed a new anniversary edition of Sorcerer. No mention of Criterion, though.

Gigi M. wrote:Friedkin has confirmed a new anniversary edition of Sorcerer.

This makes me happy. Very happy.

Is it that much better than its rep leads one to believe? I must say, despite all the negative talk, I've always wanted to see it.

Sorcerer is a masterpiece, one of the absolutely finest films of the 70's.

Perhaps from Criterion with the new Paramount deal.

Cinephrenic wrote:Perhaps from Criterion with the new Paramount deal.

Is Universal property.

Your right, well they have a deal with them too. I don't see Universal doing a special edition on the film (not that they should!). So i'm hoping Criterion will have a shot at it. Would be nice for a Friedkin in the collection.

I think that we can be sure that this is going to be a Universal released, handled by Laurent Bouzereau:

DVD Rama:

Finally, the fateful question: when will we finally have a good DVD edition of the Sorcerer ?

Friedkin: Yes, there is a DVD and I know that it is not at all satisfactory. In fact, Laurent Bouzereau, who is working on the extras for Cruising that we prepared, is currently in talks with Universal to do a Collector's Edition of Sorcerer. The film will be presented in the correct format [ie. widescreen], in an entirely remastered copy and I will do an audio commentary, even if I do not like this task. I do not like it when someone says to me what I must look at or listen when I view a film. I find that the films are sufficient in themselves - they do not need comments. But if it has to be done, good, I'll do it.

Well, is this being remastered for the medium (BR), or are they just transferring the dvd master?

aox wrote:Well, is this being remastered for the medium (BR), or are they just transferring the dvd master?

They'll be using the master from the 2005 reissue, which was done in high definition (as has been just about every Criterion transfer for several years).

david hare wrote:This is interesting - after a year in which Criterion released little to inspire me, 09 is shaping up nicely. Studio Canal must have done a massive resto on Salaire de la Peur to get it up to 1080p standard.

I hope they also do Quai des Orfevres in Blu - definite fave Clouzot.

Agreed on sentences one and three. 09 is starting to look more like '04 than '08... and I love Wages almost as much as Quai, which is about as close to perfect a spin off of the "detective" genre as one can get. The picture just fucking levitates.

As for the resto on Wages, that took place a couple years ago, which upgraded the original resto in the first CC edition (sometimes called the "Kino version", which brought the film up to it's full length for the first time with the extra forty minutes) with further photochemical work topped off by HD telecine and massive digital cleanup and restoration. So the BD will certainly be from that HD pass from back then.

HerrSchreck wrote:As for the resto on Wages, that took place a couple years ago, which upgraded the original resto in the first CC edition (sometimes called the "Kino version", which brought the film up to it's full length for the first time with the extra forty minutes) with further photochemical work topped off by HD telecine and massive digital cleanup and restoration. So the BD will certainly be from that HD pass from back then.

Is this really correct, Schreck. I was under the impression that all of Criterion's releases of Wages of Fear, including the laserdisc, presented the film in its entirety. I own the 2-Disc DVD (kevyip) and the LD. Are you saying that there is an additional 40 minutes on the this version of the DVD that I did not see on the LD? I do not think that is correct, but great if it is.

No no, I may have worded what I wrote unclearly or at least not clear enough. I meant:

The Wages CC edition prior to the one we have now (the one we have now came out in '05 I believe? the one prior to that came out around 2000 I'm sure), in terms of the cut of the film, restored the missing 40 minutes of the film-- sometimes referred to as the Kino version.

The original resto-- NOT the 05 digital-resto/HD upgraded edition-- is the one that included the 40 minutes for the first time on dvd. The parenthetical description in the quote above refers to the "first CC edition", which, like 7Samurai, I know Where I'm Going, Andre Rublyov, etc, is probably just a port of the LD transfer.

PS: when they say "Kino version", that doesn't refer to home video.. they never brought it out on home vid. It refers to theatrical distrib: Kino was the distributor which brought to US cinemas (at least) the full cut of the film (40 min added) for thefirst time.

So the chronology I'm describing is:

1) Film has 40 minutes restored to the text, goes on theatrical tour (referred to as Kino version here)

2) CC creates LD then 1st DVD edition of this corrected-length cut

3) In 2005 CC further visually polishes, and runs and HD pass on, this extended version... which is where we're at now. The HD telecine from this stage is what will be used for the BD no doubt.

The subtitles on the most recent CC (2005) are still in need of an upgrade re the profanity, which is watered down from the rich French expletives. I wonder if that'll happen on the Blu Ray. I emailed Mulvaney once (2005) about this on the rerelease, but never got a reply. Anyway, so now I have a VHS Video version (non-Kino), two laserdiscs (one CC, one Japanese), and both the CC DVDs. Going Blu Ray will make it six versions of the same cut. Oddly enough, I never liked this film more than I did when I just owned the VHS video and a small 21-inch CRT telly.

While we're on the subject, will anyone agree with me that Peter van Eyck's character Bimba is meant to be Dutch, not German? Vanel refers to him as 'Le Dutch' at least once, but all reviews and write ups (including Danny Peary on the earler CC DVD and laserdisc) peg him as German.

Thanks.

Matango wrote:The subtitles on the most recent CC (2005) are still in need of an upgrade re the profanity, which is watered down from the rich French expletives. I wonder if that'll happen on the Blu Ray. I emailed Mulvaney once (2005) about this on the rerelease, but never got a reply. Anyway, so now I have a VHS Video version (non-Kino), two laserdiscs (one CC, one Japanese), and both the CC DVDs. Going Blu Ray will make it six versions of the same cut. Oddly enough, I never liked this film more than I did when I just owned the VHS video and a small 21-inch CRT telly.

While we're on the subject, will anyone agree with me that Peter van Eyck's character Bimba is meant to be Dutch, not German? Vanel refers to him as 'Le Dutch' at least once, but all reviews and write ups (including Danny Peary on the earler CC DVD and laserdisc) peg him as German.

I'd have to throw it on again but I seem to remember him rendered as a Dutchman as well.

Salaire de la bleu.

The SE SD dvd (w the same transfer as its source) holds up quite well v the blu-ray, I'd say.