Which editions to get? "The Stranger"

[telamonides]

Hello,

I am reading through "This is Orson Welles" at the moment and came across a bit of info while the conversation was taking place in Beverly Hills. Orson mentioned several minutes/scenes cut from the film and I was wondering if the 115 minute version of the film is the 'original' cut by Orson? I have found a few versions of this on Amazon, but would like to know what is the best quality one to get for the 115 minute cut? What is the best version to get of the 95 minute cut (assuming it is not the blu-ray)? Thank you very much!

[Jeff Wilson]

There is no 115 minute version, any such listing is a mistake. There is only the 95 minute version. The MGM DVD is the best as far as I am aware.

[telamonides]

Wow, well there are quite a few dvds listed with 115 minute run times. Thank you for heads up!

[Roger Ryan]

The MGM DVD is the best issue I've seen. The Blu-ray version is a public domain release which took a print of the film and did a digital clean-up including a lot of digital noise reduction. The result was a soft image that looks less film-like and less clear than the MGM DVD.

[duke_mccloud]

according to DVD beaver the MGM version was the superior DVD version to get. Not sure about Blu Ray.

Be careful because next to David and Goliath I believe The Stranger has the most different public domain versions available. Seriously they're are probably hundreds of iterations I've come across.

[Roger Ryan]

according to DVD beaver the MGM version was the superior DVD version to get. Not sure about Blu Ray...

Since we're updating this thread from 2012, I'll say the MGM DVD remains definitive in that format whereas the KINO Blu-ray is the best HD representation. Taken from a first generation print housed at the Library of Congress, the KINO issue has the best resolution of any home video release of this film. However, it must be noted that the print used is missing about 25 seconds of footage near the climax of the film (although it includes the complete final shot of Edward G. Robinson which is truncated on all other editions).

[A Sled in Flames]

I need to do a back-to-back comparison one day, but I think the HD version they broadcast on MGM-HD surpasses the Kino. That version stems from the same master that was used for the DVD. Even if it's just an upconvert from a standard definition master (which I don't think), it doesn't suffer from the compression artifacts related to MPEG-2 DVD encoding and thus reproduces the grain better.

In any case, the source is very evidently much cleaner than the Kino, which has quite the high amount of film artifacts. I'm guessing the print used by MGM was from a later reissue, hence the curtailed final shot of Robinson. If the MGM print stemmed from a reissue,that would help explain why here was less wear and tear. The LOC probably just ran their original 1945 version through a scanner with no clean-up, which is really too bad, considering how great films of that era can look on BD- even when taken from release prints. A company like Criterion might do a better job...

That being said, the Kino might have a slight edge in detail over the MGM, as the scanner might be a higher resolution and, most probably, more modern.

EDIT: Of course, the clincher is that you can't get the version they run on MGM-HD commercially. You just need to record it when they air the film (very occasionally).

[Roger Ryan]

Right, the Library of Congress print (the source for the KINO Blu-ray) shows considerably more wear-and-tear than releases sourced from the MGM master (part of that "wear-and-tear" resulted in the loss of those 25 seconds of footage). However, the increased detail in the KINO release may not just be the result of using a better scanner. The Library of Congress received its print when the film was first released; I believe it's a first generation print whereas I suspect the print used by MGM (clearly a reissue from the 50s) is a dupe. Ideally, the LOC print should have been digitally repaired and cleaned-up and the missing 25 seconds should have been sourced from the MGM print - as you say, this is something Criterion would have probably done. But, given this is a public domain film, I think we're lucky to get the LOC print in HD "as is".