422 The Last Emperor

[Barmy]

Yes, it's certainly worth paying $8 over the amazon price to get it a week early. =P~

EDIT: plus presumably you have to pay sales tax.

[domino harvey]

This is an outrage! How dare they change Criterion's vision of it streeting on February 26 by cropping a full week from the release date!

[zedz]

This film is really not a favourite, so I've only just looked at the Beaver comparison caps, but I have to agree that, on the basis of these, the Criterion colour scheme looks nothing like what I saw on the big screen. In fact, none of the comparisons remotely resembles the colours I recall - certainly not the queasy green-dominated R2.

Maybe it looks better in action. If you remove the eye-candy factor from this film there's not much left, in my opinion, so if those caps are representative this release isn't doing anybody any favours.

[kevyip1]

The Optimum disc is not included in DVDBeaver's comparison, but I own the Optimum disc, and I can tell you it looks very similar to the French Gaumont disc. IOW, Criterion's picture quality is clearly the winner and is a revelation, and now I'm strongly inclined to purchase this somewhat overpriced disc set. The cropping is a concern, and, yes, the colors don't look exactly like what I recall seeing in the theater, but this is, after all, a Bertolucci/Storaro approved transfer, and I trust their judgment over my 20-year-old recollection.

Also, Gary Tooze told me the great making-of documentary on the Optimum disc is also available on the Criterion disc.

Gary also said the Bertolucci/Thomas/Sakamoto audio commentary on the Criterion disc contains a mixture of comments from the Optimum disc and newly-recorded comments.

[exte]

I'd gladly add this to my collection, but not for the price they're asking. Can't they have just a solo disc version to sell as well? Jeez...

[kevyip1]

I don't like the laserdisc pricing either ($69.99 SRP), but the picture does look better than the other DVDs. Let's hope the extras are good.

Some of you criticized Storaro's "revisionistic" attempt. The photography was perfect as it was in the first place, so why do you think he would feel the need to revise it? It looked beautiful when I saw it in the theater 20 years ago, and the Criterion screencaps show that it still looks beautiful. Yes, the colors look different from what we recall, but they still look good, certainly the best they ever look on DVD. The greyishness is indeed more pronounced in some screencaps, but the redness and flesh tones also look better. This is a FLAT OUT better video transfer than the Optimum disc, and I'm amazed none of you can see that.

The Storaro interview discusses only the cropping issue (and I did say earlier that I was concerned by it). My comments were mainly about the color scheme on the Criterion disc, which some of you wrongheadedly criticized. The colors looked good 20 years ago and they look good now. They look the best they've ever looked on DVD; you people have to admit at least that.

[jsteffe]

Yes, it looks better than it has ever looked before on video, and I'll even cut Storaro a little slack as to how he wants his own film to look on DVD. Perhaps there were some very precise color effects he wanted to achieve then that he can only do now, though I'm skeptical of that.

What I can say is that the film doesn't look like I saw it in the theater when it came out. I saw it shortly after it opened in Los Angeles, at one of the theaters in Universal City in a 70mm blowup. The projection was, for that time, state-of-the-art. I sat slack-jawed most of the time--I remember very clearly thinking to myself "This is the most beautiful color film I have ever seen." It had such vividness and tactility, especially in the Forbidden City segment at the beginning of the film. Yes there were weaknesses in the acting, but the photography and production design were unparalleled.

Also, the color scheme was definitely different during the prison "re-education" portions of the film. The colors were not so obviously desaturated, and there were more pronounced blue-gray undertones in the image.

I need to withold final judgment until I see the DVD itself, but the screencaps just don't begin to convey that unforgettable richness. I'm afraid the dazzlement might have vanished in the telecine lab.

[TheRanchHand]

Just picked a copy of this up here in Los Angeles. Looks like it came out a little early.

HUGE box. Even looks thicker than The Seven Samurai. Will try and watch the film over the weekend. Haven't seen it in about 10 years so looking forward to it.

[kevyip1]

Just picked a copy of this up here in Los Angeles. Looks like it came out a little early. :D

HUGE box. Even looks thicker than The Seven Samurai. Will try and watch the film over the weekend. Haven't seen it in about 10 years so looking forward to it.

Must be a really thick book(let). I'm still amazed by this royal treatment given to this title. They probably want to trump the UK Optimum edition and the earlier R1 edition.

Still, this should've been a blu-ray release. It's just sad that an SD release comes out right at the moment Blu-ray won the format war.

I emailed Mulvaney about the possibility of a blu-ray, but no reply yet. No reply is good! That means they are probably thinking about it. If there was no possibility, they would've replied me right away.

[starmanof51]

I emailed Mulvaney about the possibility of a blu-ray, but no reply yet. No reply is good! That means they are probably thinking about it. If there was no possibility, they would've replied me right away.

It's nice that they do sometimes respond to inquiries but frequently they don't. Don't take the lack of a quick response or lack of any response at all to signify anything other than luck of the draw.

In the meantime I've ordered a used copy of the Optimum for a relative pittance and am content.

[Ivy Mike]

Saw this at the Egyptian the other night and am strongly considering picking up the DVD. Unfortunately, I have never seen the film before, and so I wouldn't be too familiar with changes in the coloring (noticed the cropping on shots that people have discussed so far) - that's too bad if the color was substantially changed, although I must say the cinematography was still incredibly impressive.

Where in L.A. did you pick it up, and for how much? I think I'll save money and grab it from Deep Discount, but just curious. It would be nice to have this one on high def, but I can't imagine that's gonna happen anytime soon, even with the format war over now - will be interesting to see how and when Criterion decides to go forth with high def plans.

[PNeski]

It's funny that there's a lot about what Storaro did with the color in this thread. While I think he's nuts to crop everything to 2.01, even if the "last Supper" is that aspect ratio, none of his other paintings are that size, the New DVD is worth getting just for the extras, which are great!

As for the color, I think its better most of the time. The Pal versions (English+French) are better only in certain scenes, and are too yellow, While Storaro might have lost his mind about composition (check the third book in his series, which is full of double exposures), I feel he still knows what he's doing when it comes to everything else like color and light.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Home Media Magazine has an article on a screening of the film with some of the folks from Criterion showing up.

[Narshty]

It's Peter Becker's favourite film? Really?

[Darth Lavender]

For what little it counts; I definitely remember seeing this on VHS and noticing how green the prison scenes were.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

It's Peter Becker's favourite film? Really?

Evidently he must have been bugged by the OAR as much as Storaro.

[TheRanchHand]

Where in L.A. did you pick it up, and for how much? I think I'll save money and grab it from Deep Discount, but just curious.

Sorry, just caught this. I saw it in a Best Buy on the Westside. But noticed it was only in that one. I have caught some early releases (up to two weeks for Grey Gardens and Drunken Angel) at Barnes And Noble.

[Jeff]

It's Peter Becker's favourite film? Really?

Evidently he must have been bugged by the OAR as much as Storaro.

I wonder if it actually bugged him to release a film he' s so fond of in a compromised version.

Image and Criterion have to be a little anxious about the fact that a film that was likely a very pricey acquisition and has a very elaborate package is getting quite a bit of bad press and lots of "I'll pass" comments from the film dork community.

[Matt]

Peter Becker sez: so zip it, film dorks.

[Props55]

With regard to cinematographers trumping directors over OAR has anyone noticed that the IMDB (always questionable, I know) listing for Rohmer's PAULINE AT THE BEACH notes that the 1:1.85 ratio is Almendros and 1:1.33 is Rohmer's? I've been viewing the Arrow edition and was surprised to see it was the only title in "widescreen". In the interview featurette however it is open matte and the compositions are much looser and allow the characters to "breathe" in their environment. Also in the supplement on AVIATOR'S WIFE Rohmer specifically addresses the fact that he is generally uncomfortable with close-ups and prefers to see his characters relate to their immediate surroundings. It's nice to see the actors more enclosed by their director selected decor and, as it's a French film, I want to see what's on their plates! As the Arrows are derived from French masters and the R1 MGM is also 1:1.85 it would appear that Almendros had the final word on OAR over Rohmer's original intentions and design. Has it now gotten to the point that the director is merely the "author" of the written text and the cinematographer the "author" (and final arbiter) of the dispostion of the image?

[denti alligator]

In the long interview on the Moral Tales box set Rohmer says that for most of his post-Moral films (specifically the Comedies and Proverbs), he shot in 1.33 but made sure they also looked good in 1.66 (which is how they were usually projected).

[arsonfilms]

I've been in many situations where it was clear that the DP simply cared more about the original compositions than the director did. Many films are still shot in an open matte format and then cropped (especially when using super 35, to avoid anamorphic distortion) making fidelity to OAR a bit of a grey area. This flexibility is typically limited to the vertical axis though, and it strikes me as a little fishy that anyone would decide to use an anamorphic lens with the intention of cropping the sides, rather than simply shooting super 35 with the intended horizontal composition an then cropping vertically as necessary. Then again, this was the late 80s, and the only sets, labs and post-houses I've been in had the benefit of 15 more years of technology than Bertolucci and Storaro had, so what do I know?

[Props55]

No question that PAULINE looked quite good at 1:1.85 especially at the beach where the horizontals predominate but as this is Rohmer where dialogue is paramount most of the film would probably look best full frame. As noted Almendros concerms very likely sprung from how the compositions would be compromised in modern multiplexes which is how I saw THE AVIATOR'S WIFE. In nontheatrical 16mm or repertory 35mm(which is how I originally and last saw both CLAIRE and MAUDE) there is usually more consideration for AR and correct aperture plates or curtains and masking valences can be used. Now that PAULINE's predominate exposure is via home video (and rep or festival) it would seem that the original Rohmer choice could take precedence.

The case of LAST EMPEROR (and APOCOLYPSE) is definitely more troubling. As arson suggests it's pretty bizarre to use an anamorphic process and then (OK 20 years later) crop from the sides! The idea is so peversely "retrofitted" it reminds me of those "adapted scope" prints of THE WILD BUNCH and EL CID where the scope image is reduced letterboxed into a 16mm flat print so that you got a widescreen image of about 1:2 or 1:2.10. At least there was a reason behind this: i.e. affording a mostly complete widescreen presentation to non-theatrical venues with no budget for scope lenses. David Hare is probably correct by suggesting that in most theatres the image bled off at the extremeties. But again, as with the Rohmer, we're in a new era of home presentation where commercial exhibition compromises need not apply.

[TheGodfather]

dvdtalk review

[kevyip1]

This may seem trivial, but this is one of two films I know that has an extreme closeup shot of human feces. (The other one is François Ozon's "See the Sea".) And thanks to Storaro's cropping, the crap will appear closer. I always have to look away when crap is in my face. But apparently, some directors and/or cinematographers have no such problem.

I've heard that "The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover" has it, too. But I haven't seen the film and can't confirm.