New TOUCH OF EVIL DVD set?

[ToddBaesen]

Thanks for those image posts. Given what Welles said in 1958, and Rick Scmidlin's own research revealed, I think the 1.85 format is clearly, at the very least, quite an acceptable format to show the film in.

In the frames above, there in clearly two much "dead" image info above Janet Leigh and Akim's head. On the other hand, there is a bit cropped off from the bottom of the frame. What's sort of crazy about this is, maybe it's just the framing the telecine operator decided on.

But, as I've said before, my own option would be be to put TOUCH OF EVIL out in 1.66 to 1, as a compromise, so everyone could at least be satisfied, if not totally happy!

[Roger Ryan]

"keats" - While you've made a very good point regarding dramatic intention, there is one additional way to identify the correct aspect ratio: the appearance of inappropriate items (dolly tracks and/or boom mics for example) at the top and bottom of the frame which suggest that the image is not "protected" for full-frame screenings. "Store Hadji" has noticed the boom mic appearing occasionally in the full frame TOUCH OF EVIL; others have mentioned dolly tracks being seen (it's been nearly twenty years since I saw a full frame version so I can't comment on this). While these appearances don't always indicate the aspect ratio is revealing more than it should (dolly tracks appear briefly in KANE as well), it does suggest that the director/cinematographer assumed the unwanted items would be masked out when shown in a cinema.

[Roger Ryan]

Doesn't that "boom" shot in THE SEARCHERS only appear in the full-frame version? I've heard the top of the studio set can be seen in the full-frame version at one point (exposing the exterior location as a soundstage-bound conceit). Perhaps the boom is visible in the cropped widescreen version as well?

I brought this topic up only because I have seen a number of widescreen films where the full-frame of the negative was used for the television screening. WHAT'S UP, DOC? stands out in my mind as one where the boom appeared a number of times at the top of the frame (not visible in theatrical showings nor on the widescreen DVD release). A friend of mine actually saw a theatrical showing of Adrian Lyne's INDECENT PROPOSAL which was not masked properly for 1.85:1 and noted that the boom was visible in over two dozen shots (he claimed it became its own character by midway through the film)! It's not an ironclad rule, but when the boom appears that many times in a film, it's probably got something to do with the intended aspect ratio being off.

[Glenn Anders]

Roger and keats: Though I'm sure that I have a few esoteric obsessions and peeves myself (the use of songs in the soundtracks of dramatic films, for instance), I think that most of my movie going life, I've noticed only two or three "booms" or "dolly tracks" in movies, maybe the reflection of a camera crew . . . once. My lack of attention was quite possibly remiss, but I grew up on the crazy idea that I went to the theater for a total impression, not a series of technical analyses. The pictures I love most, the ones I saw when I was younger, were glorious experiences, in which I was lost for an hour and a half or two hours in a dream of some sort. [CITIZEN KANE was one of the most memorable of these.] I wasn't looking for booms or dolly tracks or camera crews; hence, as you, keats, suggest, I didn't see them. I know that when I started reviewing movies, I became more analytical, and even the films I admired most in the theater, lost some of their magic.

Might hypercritical examination of the surfaces and technicalities in movies, even among casual moviegoers, have led to the decline of our greatest popular dramatic art form? [Films are marketed now, not on a basis of their quality, but on the most advanced use of CGI, or a soundtrack that may turn a better profit than the picture itself.] Is the lack of a really human total experience leading to the rise of anime, the resurgence of animation, and the coming of the cell phone movie and the computer game picture?

I fear so.

No doubt, the development of Television [which now, on many channels, repeats selected movies several times in a day], VHS, laserdiscs, and DVD's allows us to see movies over and over, run them backward (something we always begged our grade school teacher showing us a bad .16mm educational classroom film to do), take them frame by frame. We examine classic movies and break them down, as a scholar or an adapter would a Shakesperean text. Fair enough, but I don't know if it improves the film watching experience much unless we recognize, which I suppose is your purpose, what is the best framing for a given film.

If I were asked to judge TOUCH OF EVIL on the basis of these single frames, my choice would be middle one from Hadji/Terry's sequence, the one that's crisply black and white, and in focus. Frankly, I blessedly can't see a "boom" in any of the frames, unless it's what looks like a vase in the lower right hand corner.

Unfortunately, the next time I watch CITIZEN KANE, I shall probably be distractedly seeking out those "dolly tracks"!

"TIME MARCHES ON!" [or is it, "NEWS ON THE MARCH!" ?]

Glenn

[Glenn Anders]

My dear keats: Thank you for expanding your explication.

I should add that exposed booms, dolly tracks, and reflected camera crews are only important if -- 1) we notice them (in which case, they pretty much destroy our kinetic experience with TOUCH OF EVIL, CITIZEN KANE and The Last Supper, etc; or 2) they are intentional (which would be nuts for any movie maker to perpetrate who is not deeply into experimental film theory).

I just prefer to watch TOUCH OF EVIL, any other movie, or The Last Supper," primarily as an aesthetic and emotional experience. I would much rather have all that expertise of analysis internalized, and then forget about it.

Hey, I commit "stupid acts" all the time, as I'm sure you would agree. Why not go for #2 this year, yourself. You might learn to like them, keats. I just critiqued your paper on MR. ARKADIN, a film I know something about. I've praised your remarks, and offered some suggestions. I would love to have your reaction.

If you like my suggestions, give me a footnote. [I collect them.]

Glenn

[Roger Ryan]

I'm sorry if I derailed this thread (yet again?) with my comment regarding aspect ratio (a most touchy subject in regards to TOUCH OF EVIL!). My intent was only to suggest that if a director/cinematographer shot a film to be shown in a matted widescreen and the film was mistakenly shown in full-frame, there is a increased probability that the viewer will see things at the top and bottom of the frame they were not meant to see (tops of sets, boom mics, etc.) which could be a clue that the intended aspect ratio had been altered. Some filmmakers like Kubrick made sure the full-frame of the negative could be viewed without revealing some of these unwanted items since he figured a full-frame version would eventually appear on television (at the same time, he composed the shots to work in widescreen when shown theatrically in matted form).

This idea of errors revealed by poor or non-existing matting is different from your everyday goofs that show up in almost all films. I, too, love to be immersed in the film experience and will usually save a more analytical approach until a third or fourth viewing. For me, this is just another way to enjoy a film. However, if there are too many technical gaffes, or lapses in story logic, I will be pulled out of the immersion prematurely and be disappointed with the film; others could very well feel the same without being able to put their finger on the reason. There are easily two dozen minor gaffes, or places where the seams show a little, in KANE but that does not diminish my love of the film. I will just as easily fall under its spell the next time I view it and miss the technical imperfections I caught when viewing the film with a colder, more analytical eye.

[Glenn Anders]

Guys: I guess I'm just lucky. In the last couple of weeks, I went out to see THE WRESTLER and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD (based on the first novel of Richard Yates, my favorite late 20th Century American writer). Though I thought that THE WRESTLER, lean, mean, and old-fashioned, needed a little more development of the daughter's character, and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD should have a couple of more revealing, passionate metaphors (which Yates creates in your imagination with his style on the page), I didn't see a single boom, nor did I have to fall back on a single film theorist in order to enjoy either experience. The same is true of TOUCH OF EVIL. Frankly, I think that the picture's Restoration-like theatrical melodrama does not wear very well, whereas the rich and deep layering of character, meaning, history, and wit in CITIZEN KANE justifies any analysis one can throw at it, no matter how pompous or esoteric. I'll still be willing to fire up my DVD player to watch it any night, and sink within the screen, taken clean out of myself after 68 years!

It's not that I saw CITIZEN KANE with awe, enjoyment, and life-changing emotion before most of us were alive here, but that I can see it now with some of the awe, almost the enjoyment, and much of the emotion because, now, I know what a profoundly true metaphor for an American life, rich or poor, the picture is. I doubt that can be said of TOUCH OF EVIL, which is much more melodramatic but strangely removed from emotion by its intellectual thesis. Any booms or film theory which gets in its way, destroys the picture for me . . . in ways I would be tempted to analyze.

A similar if paradoxical comparison could be made between THE WRESTLER and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD. My guess is that the simpler, more emblamatic THE WRESTLER is a movie that I could go right out and watch again; it's an experience. And within its simplistic arc, a whole life is revealed, and in its comparison of what a celebrity hero and heroine must do to fight of the inevitable decline of age, it is as profound as CITIZEN KANE (but not so rich or deep). The more complex REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, possibly because I've read the novel four times, is one I may want to analyze . . . but not right away. The film will not wear well because I know TOO MUCH about the source material.

There's a lesson there somewhere, guys. It may just take decades to learn it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I understand the technical discussion of screen ratios, and I've read as much of film theory as I care to in my young life, but if the ratio does not destroy the composition of the frame (including obvious booms or tracks I can't ignore), or the theory adds little to my viewing experience, I would rather go with my gut, as they used to say. To paraphrase Evil Pauline Kael: Movies should be fun, no matter how serious and important they are. They should give you a certain frisson, and as Hemingway had the English Hunter, Wilson, say in "The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber," talking too much about it spoils all that. Or more precisely: “Yes,” said Wilson. “There’s that. Doesn’t do to talk too much about all this. Talk the whole thing away. No pleasure in anything if you mouth it up too much."

Yes, I plead Guilty to that, too.

Glenn

[Kane76]

I didn't see this posted anywhere else, so I thought I'd mention it.

Touch of Evil has won "Best Catalog DVD" by the Digital Entertainment Group, an industry trade organization, at the recent CES show in Las Vegas.

Here's a link:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/con ... 2325b645d1

Maybe this will help get some of the other Welles DVD projects (cough, Ambersons) out in the market.

Good to see our boy Orson still racking up the accolades. Thanks, too, to Universal for a terrific package.

[Rick Schmidlin]

The film was as close to we could present the way Orson intended. When Oja,Gary Graver,Joe McBride,Jonathan,Janet,Chuck,FX Fenny and Dennis that had not problem with the ratio. That was the ratio that was intended by Metty,Lathrop and the man himself Orson Welles.

Enough Said.