Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > Film Discussion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 20-04-2002, 17:56   #1
Guest 15513
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 2,234
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Touch of evil BBC2 2nite 1.10 am

If u haven't seen it - see what all the fuss is about - Set those videos - It probably wont be the widescreen remaster but it will still fascinate:cool:
Guest 15513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2002, 18:23   #2
Panavision
Cinematographer BSC
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pinewood Studios
Posts: 4,727
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
WooooHooo

Love this Welles is awesome and shows off his immense skill as an actor.
The opening tracking sequence is mindblowing.
Panavision is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2002, 18:28   #3
Guest 15513
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 2,234
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
This was the last vhs original I bought - had to because the R1 dvd wouldn't work perfectly on my Wharfdale - It worked up until the last half - that was enough to persuade me I had to have some version of it.
:cool:
Guest 15513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2002, 18:31   #4
Guest 4576
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,572
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It's absolutely dazzling and gets better and better each time I settle down to watch it.
Guest 4576 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2002, 18:37   #5
Richie
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 23,671
Thanks: 238
Thanked 159 Times in 82 Posts
Anyone know which version is showing tonight?

Last time they showed the restored "Welles" cut in widescreen.

Also does anyone know why the "Restoring Touch of Evil" docu isn't on the R1 dvd? At the end it says "copyright Universal Home Video", so it was obviously intended as a supporting featurette. Maybe we'll get it on the R2 (if it ever gets released!).

Richie

Last edited by Richie; 20-04-2002 at 18:37.
Richie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2002, 18:49   #6
Guest 15513
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 2,234
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Oh u have got me excited at the possibility of it being the Welles version - Sky digi's info screen howver does not have a 'ws' abbreviation - usually it does - however her's hoping. :cool:
Guest 15513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2002, 10:39   #7
Panavision
Cinematographer BSC
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pinewood Studios
Posts: 4,727
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Want to buy the R1, but I want the documentary, which could make it on the R2 disc. Decisions Decisions

Janet Leigh is quite hot in this one.
Panavision is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2002, 11:08   #8
Guest 15513
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 2,234
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Well it was the Welles version but it was Pan and scan - please confirm other viewers:cool:
Guest 15513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2002, 13:44   #9
Richie
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 23,671
Thanks: 238
Thanked 159 Times in 82 Posts
stefmcd

Sorry, I was mistaken about the previous showing on BBC2! I just checked my old vhs of it and that too was 4:3

The film was shot spherically so I don't know if it was shown open-matte or pan & scan? Maybe someone else can confirm this?

As far as DVD is concerned I'm waiting for an "ultimate edition". I want both versions of the film, the Welles memo, the "Restoring Touch of Evil" docu, a commentary by the restoration team and a commentary by Heston & Leigh would be nice too! There really isn't any reason why this couldn't happen (well, except maybe studio $).

Richie
Richie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2002, 13:48   #10
Guest 15513
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 2,234
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Richie - I agree. Now that I have both versions on vhs - I want a dogs danglies dvd version before I part with my hard-earned.

For those of u who have not seen the film - that's another matter - buy the R1 for a beautiful picture and version.:cool:
Guest 15513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2002, 14:29   #11
Guest 325
Gooner
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Dunfermline, Scotland.
Posts: 871
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have the DVD and it's very good. The film is an absolute masterclass and is possibly the greatest film noir ever made (perhaps not quite so good a The Maltese Falcon).
Guest 325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2002, 20:33   #12
Guest 155
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire
Posts: 1,538
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Richie
The film was shot spherically so I don't know if it was shown open-matte or pan & scan? Maybe someone else can confirm this?

As far as DVD is concerned I'm waiting for an "ultimate edition". I want both versions of the film, the Welles memo, the "Restoring Touch of Evil" docu, a commentary by the restoration team and a commentary by Heston & Leigh would be nice too! There really isn't any reason why this couldn't happen (well, except maybe studio $).

Richie
Previous BBC showings have been open-matte, so I don't see why last night's wouldn't be (though I didn't see it). The BBC only tend to pan & scan 1.85:1 films when they're hard-matted.

I'd agree with your wish list above, though I'd add the third cut of the film, the original studio version of about 95 mins. Partly through curiosity value, as I haven't seen it, and it is part of the film's history. Perhaps they could include this on another disc with an expert commentary, as they did with the "Love Conquers All" cut in the Criterion Brazil box set. As for the two longer versions, they're so similar that they could have them on the same discs, with alternative chapters for the bits that are different, so you could select which version you want to see.
Guest 155 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2002, 20:52   #13
Guest 15513
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 2,234
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
If its not too much trouble could u explain open-matte and how it differs from Pan and scan please?:cool:
Guest 15513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2002, 21:43   #14
Guest 155
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire
Posts: 1,538
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by stefmcd
If its not too much trouble could u explain open-matte and how it differs from Pan and scan please?:cool:
Up to 1953, when CinemaScope was introduced, all sound films (with very few exceptions) were filmed in a ratio of 1.37:1 (near enough 4:3). This used the whole of the picture area of the film, hence "full-frame", and as 4:3 is the ratio of non-widescreen TV sets, the picture takes up the whole of the TV screen.

CinemaScope and its successors (which usually give a ratio of 2.35:1) often used an anamorphic lens which "squeezed" the picture sideways. When the film was projected in a cinema, another lens "Unsqueezed" the picture, giving a wide image.
CinemaScope was developed as a response to TV, and within a few years (later outside the US), "widescreen" became the norm. For non-Scope films. a widescreen picture was produced by using the whole frame as before, but cropping the top and bottom of the picture to produce a wider ratio. The most common are 1.66:1 (used widely in Europe) and 1.85:1, though you will occasionally find 1.75:1 and more rarely 2:1. The cropped bits are sometimes black bars (known as "hard-matting", either used in the camera itself or added at the laboratory) or more often extra picture area (known as "open matte"). It's very common to find films hard-matted in the camera to 1.66:1 but intended for showing in 1.85:1. If a film is shown open-matte, you'll see extra room over people's heads, and sometimes things you weren't meant to see, such as microphone booms, stage lights, underwear on actors in shower/bed scenes and so on.

As an addition to the above, there's Super 35. This exposes a picture in the ratio of 1.66:1 (basically it's standard 4:3 35mm film with the soundtrack area used for extra picture). This is then cropped to 2.35:1 or (occasionally) 1.85:1 for cinema showings but produces a full-frame picture for TV showings. (Widescreen TV shows are often shot in Super 35 and cropped to 16:9.) The first Super 35 film was Greystoke (1984) and nowadays it's used as much as anamorphic for modern-day Scope films. All of James Cameron's films from The Abyss onwards have been Super 35, as were Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
Guest 155 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2002, 08:42   #15
Lik Mearse
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 199
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Fellow Noirists,

I just saw the opening sequence which followed Welles' instructions.

The original with Mancini's music works far better.

Yours Incidentally,
Lik.
Lik Mearse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2002, 09:48   #16
Guest 1184
Inventor of stuff
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Very interesting film - enjoyed it. Some superb tracking shots.
Guest 1184 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2002, 10:15   #17
Guest 1257
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 270
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Question

Anyone have a VHS copy of the "Reconstructing Evil" documentary that was shown on BBC2 last time they showed Touch of Evil? If anyone can make me a copy I'd be grateful.
Thanks. [This is the doc that was removed from the R1 dvd before release].
Guest 1257 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2002, 10:53   #18
Guest 15513
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 2,234
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Gary - Should open matte presentations mean the normal aspect ratio is preserved on a widescreen tv?

Basically touch of evil filled my widescreen tv but the human figures all looked squat - I know Welles is meant to look like that but not all the others!

In other words to my eyes it looke like a 4:3 picture normally does on a widescreen - with the image stretched horizontally.
:cool:
Guest 15513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2002, 11:37   #19
Richie
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 23,671
Thanks: 238
Thanked 159 Times in 82 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by stefmcd
Should open matte presentations mean the normal aspect ratio is preserved on a widescreen tv?

Basically touch of evil filled my widescreen tv but the human figures all looked squat - I know Welles is meant to look like that but not all the others!

In other words to my eyes it looke like a 4:3 picture normally does on a widescreen - with the image stretched horizontally.
:cool:
Um, I've got to ask WHY would you watch a 4:3 image stretched on a widescreen tv?
This is as bad if not worse than Pan & Scan (only in reverse!)

If the film was shown open-matte (and from what I can tell - it was) why didn't you just zoom the 4:3 image to 16:9 to achieve the correct original ratio? Alternatively, what was wrong with simply watching in 4:3?
Having a widescreen set doesn't mean that the screen must be filled!
How do you watch films / programmes whose intended ratio IS 4:3?

I'm sorry if it seems I'm having a go (don't mean to, honest!) it's just that people bang on endlessly here about having every dvd presented in it's OAR (quite rightly) but then go and insist on stretching non-widescreen images just to fill the widescreen of their tv! 'tis madness!

Richie
Richie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2002, 12:03   #20
Guest 15513
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 2,234
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Richie - have u seen a 4:3 image displayed on a 28 inch widescreen - it equates to about a 20 inch full screen tv - it is very small indeed. The last time I had a tv that small was in the mid 80s - In fact for the past 10 years the 28 inch widescreen is the smallest tv I have had.

Not only that - u don't always know immediately what ratio a film is being shown in - A film like Touch of evil with so many tracking - motion shots and the skewed camera angles means it takes even longer to establish the ratio.



Quote:
why didn't you just zoom the 4:3 image to 16:9 to achieve the correct original ratio?
The film appears to have been shown in 4:3 - I was watching (10 mins of it) in 16:9 - that is why I noticed the squat figures.
Guest 15513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 14:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018 Poisonous Monkey Ltd. Part of The Digital Fix Network