War and Peace (Sergei Bondarchuk, 1966)

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Message
Author
macaca
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:16 pm

War and Peace (Sergei Bondarchuk, 1966)

#76 Post by macaca » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:17 pm

if youre in toronto, its playing at jackman hall in about 2 weeks.

does criterion have any plans to release this? the existing dvds arent that great.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#77 Post by MichaelB » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:55 pm

macaca wrote:does criterion have any plans to release this?
Not while someone else owns the US rights.

User avatar
Blonde Venus
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:11 am

Re:

#78 Post by Blonde Venus » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:27 am

HerrSchreck wrote:Better advice: don't buy anything at the moment, as a new restoration is being done, and Kino (thru RusCiCo of course) has announced a new release "late 2008" from HD telecine wherein PAL/NTSC issues shouldn't be a problem. Hopefully RusCiCo will begin regularly providing elements as strong as the recent HD-sourced Paradzhanovs released thru Kino... wondeful releases and promising owing to the lack of conversion issues thru HiDef transfers.
So what has happened to this purported new restoration? It's now mid-2009 and nothing seems to have been announced or released.

Meanwhile there's been much debate over on the IMDB boards as to the original running time of this film. And despite having read this whole thread, I'm still unsure as to the definite answer. So for PAL it's 403mins and for NTSC 419mins? And an 8 hour long version doesn't really exist, despite rumours to the contrary? (Read here)

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#79 Post by jsteffe » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:29 am

404 minutes for the PAL Russsian DVD/VHS versions basically all I could find. At 420-430 minutes, that more or less fits what I could find in reference works, too. I'm not aware of a longer version, and I would be suspicious of alternate running times unless it's an authoritative source.

User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#80 Post by Person » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:02 pm

The R0 Ruscico is PAL and runs 403. The R1 set from Image was incorrectly converted from PAL-to-NTSC and also runs 403. The R2 Artificial Eye is PAL and runs 403. This is the running time for the uncut 35mm reduction prints. The original 70mm negative/prints ran/run longer (507) because the frames are physically bigger (5 sprocket holes high for 70mm, 4 for 35mm) though the content is the same for both.Someone has added info to the IMDb stating that the Seagul Films shown last year ran 414 minutes. I'm pretty confident that the 2002 Rusico digital (2k? HD at all?) restoration (based on the 1989 ?) photo-chemical restoration is full and uncut. A 4k or 6k digital restoration from the 70mm negatives or the 35mm restoration would be great. Having said that, the real weakness of the DVD versions is the encoding, which is crappy, early-days MPEG2 or soemthing, all blocky, pixallated. The shitty contrast is inherent in the 35mm and possibly 70mm elements.

User avatar
Blonde Venus
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:11 am

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#81 Post by Blonde Venus » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:24 pm

Thanks for the info.

So now to wait for the HD release... possibly within the next decade? Let's hope the world doesn't implode before then.

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#82 Post by jsteffe » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:56 pm

Person wrote:The original 70mm negative/prints ran/run longer (507) because the frames are physically bigger (5 sprocket holes high for 70mm, 4 for 35mm) though the content is the same for both.
How is this possible? The gauge (16mm, 35mm or 70mm) would have absolutely no impact on the running time, since the prints would all run at standard sound speed, 24 frames per second. If the 70mm version really did run at 507 minutes, it necessarily had *more footage* than the 35mm reduction prints.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#83 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:41 am

I thought the same thing. That was one of the craziest theories I ever heard. The projector motors for each gauge are designed to get the thing thru at the proper speeds, where a second is a second regardless of the film frame measurement.

rgross
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:43 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#84 Post by rgross » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:11 pm

Back when the Ruscico/Image DVD was first issued I e mailed Ruscico about other rumored longer versions. I posted the gist of their reply on an early version of this forum. I can"t remember exactly, but the main thing they replied was that Bondarchuk probably made several different cuts and Ruscico's was the authorized version.I have always wondered about the length of the film. When it was first brought out in the 60's in the U.S in a 6 hour dubbed print, I had read some reviews that indicated there were longer versions issued in other countries, the French one being 8 hours. I am sorry to say I don't remember the actual sources of these reviews. If there was a substantial amount of time that has been cut, it might fill out some of the plot such as Nikolai Rostov's story. I remember there is no mention of Nikolai helping Princess Maria after her father's death in the version that is the current Ruscico print.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#85 Post by zedz » Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:28 pm

jsteffe wrote:
Person wrote:The original 70mm negative/prints ran/run longer (507) because the frames are physically bigger (5 sprocket holes high for 70mm, 4 for 35mm) though the content is the same for both.
How is this possible? The gauge (16mm, 35mm or 70mm) would have absolutely no impact on the running time, since the prints would all run at standard sound speed, 24 frames per second. If the 70mm version really did run at 507 minutes, it necessarily had *more footage* than the 35mm reduction prints.
A frame is a frame at 24 per second, whatever its size, so the 70mm print wouldn't have run longer, but I suspect Person has hit the nail on the head about the source of the confusion. The larger frame size would mean that the total length of the film (in metres or feet) would be 20% greater, and since it used to be far more common to give film lengths in physical terms rather than running times (still best practice with silent films, what with potential confusion over running speeds), the fabled 507 minute running time probably arose from somebody using the wrong (35mm) formula for converting distance into time.

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#86 Post by jsteffe » Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:13 pm

zedz wrote:The larger frame size would mean that the total length of the film (in metres or feet) would be 20% greater, and since it used to be far more common to give film lengths in physical terms rather than running times (still best practice with silent films, what with potential confusion over running speeds), the fabled 507 minute running time probably arose from somebody using the wrong (35mm) formula for converting distance into time.
That's a very plausible explanation. Yet another reason to maintain a healthy skepticism regarding longer versions of films that are supposedly "out there" somewhere. Very simple errors in running times have a tendency to get perpetuated even in published reference works, to say nothing of that pillar of accuracy, the IMDb. This can raise false expectations about what's out there, unfortunately.

Memories of films from 30 years ago don't always help, either. For instance, I've had very a knowledgeable person insist on seeing a 90-minute version of The Color of Pomegranates back in the Seventies, when I can't find any evidence--even in the production files--for anything but the Armenian release version (the "director's cut") and the Yutkevich version.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#87 Post by zedz » Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:56 pm

jsteffe wrote:Memories of films from 30 years ago don't always help, either. For instance, I've had very a knowledgeable person insist on seeing a 90-minute version of The Color of Pomegranates back in the Seventies, when I can't find any evidence--even in the production files--for anything but the Armenian release version (the "director's cut") and the Yutkevich version.
And I'm sure we're all aware how subjective one's perceptions of running times can be (was that second Matrix really under five hours?) I can well believe somebody remembering Poemgranates being longer than it is, since it's like no other film you've seen and you have no idea where it's heading and how. First time I saw it leaving the theatre was like coming back to Earth from Mars.

unclehulot
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: here and there

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#88 Post by unclehulot » Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:04 pm

Person wrote: The original 70mm negative/prints ran/run longer (507) because the frames are physically bigger (5 sprocket holes high for 70mm, 4 for 35mm) though the content is the same for both.
Ok, and a 20% slower speed would mean a soundtrack running a major third flatter in pitch, and battle scenes would be rather, uh, Peckinpah-esque! This is the oddest statement I've read in quite some time!

Flanell
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:16 am
Location: Gothenburg

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#89 Post by Flanell » Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:43 pm

I am thinking about getting this movie at last (probably the Artificial Eye release). My local library seem to have lost their copy and i also been waiting for a possible restoration to appear but nothing seem to indicate that it will happen anytime soon. Anyway, i started looking through the reviews on amazon.co.uk to see which version i should get and in one review a customer claimed to have seen a 505 minute version at a film festival in Sydney back in 2007. I have been looking for evidence of a longer version but have never found anything of substance. Well, i searched and found the homepage of this "Russian Resurrection, Russian Film Festival 2007" and according to the info there, the version that they were showing ran for 505 minutes (like the reviewer claimed, current dvd runs about 400 mins.) Is there anyone out there with significant knowledge about this film (or someone who was there at the showing) that can confirm that this is indeed true? Could it be that the info is wrong and that it should perhaps have stated a running time of 405 mins. instead? I love this film, and if there is indeed a more complete version out there, it would be fantastic if it were ever to resurface. Link to homepage: http://russianresurrection.com/2007/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dancerslegs
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: War and Peace (Bondarchuk)

#90 Post by dancerslegs » Wed May 30, 2018 4:54 pm

Apparently, Mosfilm dropped news of a brand new digital restoration of War and Peace on the Cannes Festival website a couple weeks back, which I've seen no one else yet mention:

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/fest ... -and-peace

Today, they also seem to have uploaded the new restoration in full to YouTube on their channel in multiple parts (currently w/out English subtitles):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-SAh4jdssA

The new restoration looks phenomenal and seems to promise a future blu-ray release. Did this restoration somehow fly under the radar? If so, that seems incredible, considering the stature of this film. In any case, this is fantastic news for the countless fans who have had to suffer only egregiously-bad prints/transfers of W&P in years past.

P.S.: Mosfilm also seems to have uploaded a new resto of Elem Klimov's Come and See, which has also been another long sought-after Holy Grail.

Edit to correct some misinformation.

Post Reply