704 Riot in Cell Block 11

[swo17]

Riot in Cell Block 11



Early in his career, Don Siegel made his mark with this sensational and high-octane but economically constructed drama set in a maximum-security penitentiary. Riot in Cell Block 11, the brainchild of producer extraordinaire Walter Wanger, is a ripped-from-the-headlines social-problem picture about prisoners’ rights that was inspired by a recent spate of uprisings in American prisons. In Siegel’s hands, the film is at once brash and humane, showcasing the hard-boiled visual flair and bold storytelling for which the director would become known and shot on location at Folsom State Prison, with real inmates and guards as extras.

SPECIAL FEATURES

• New high-definition digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• New audio commentary by film scholar Matthew H. Bernstein
• Excerpts from the director’s 1993 autobiography, A Siegel Film, read by his son Kristoffer Tabori
• Excerpts from Stuart Kaminsky’s 1974 book Don Siegel: Director, read by Tabori
• Excerpts from the 1953 NBC radio documentary series The Challenge of Our Prisons
PLUS: An essay by critic Chris Fujiwara, a 1954 article by coproducer Walter Wanger (dual-format only), and a 1974 tribute to Siegel by filmmaker Sam Peckinpah (dual-format only)

[DarkImbecile]

• More!

I'm listening...

[HerrSchreck]

I'm rapt.

[domino harvey]

I'm facing a rap.

[HerrSchreck]

I crapt.

[warren oates]

I just wish Siegel had continued on selecting his film titles with random yet highly specific numbers after the, um, one-two punch of this and Private Hell 36. For those who've seen it, as a prison picture, how does this one stack up against another Criterion entry like Brute Force?

[Fred Holywell]

Excerpts from the director’s 1993 autobiography, A Siegel Film, read by his son Kristoffer Tabori

Never knew Tabori was Siegel's son, by Viveca Lindfors. A good actor -- just watched him in something the other day. Seems after his mother remarried, he took the last name of his stepfather, theater director George Tabori, and changed the spelling of his first name.

Can't remember if I've ever seen this film before, though. It sounds like the kind of thing that used to keep me up watching TV in the middle of the night. I like much of Siegel's work, so looking forward to checking it out -- again, maybe.

[kingofthejungle]

He's his own director but if one had to compare him to anyone it's maybe Hawks, except that Siegel disregards the
"group" or the concept of cooperative professionalism per se. Charley Varrick is maybe the exception to that but again it's all about action and solitary success.

Very true. Throughout his work, there's a recurrence of what could almost be described as individualist paranoia. He seemed to gravitate toward films in which a lone protagonist seeks to preserve some form of a just humanity within a social order that's determined to eliminate them (*Invasion of the Body Snatchers*, *Flaming Star*, *Dirty Harry*, *The Shootist* - to a certain extent *Hell is for Heroes*).

I'm very excited about this release -- this one's been on my 'must see' list for a long while.

[feihong]

New Audio Commentary! That prospect always thrills me. And a critic's commentary for Siegel, no less.

[Bob Furmanek]

RIOT was slated for 3-D production until two weeks before cameras rolled. They were given a two week restriction on filming at Folsom Prison and Walter Wanger decided it would not be enough time for the stereoscopic set-ups.

This was Siegel's first widescreen film.

[Bob Furmanek]

Possibly some of the POV shots during the riot with prisoners tossing items from the upper levels of the prison is a remnant of the 3-D storyboards but I can't say for sure.

When initially announced for production on June 15, 1953, it was to be 3-D with stereophonic sound and Crane Wilbur was slotted to direct. He was riding high on the current boxoffice success of HOUSE OF WAX.

On July 22, Variety reported: "Crane Wilbur bowed out as director of "Riot In Cell Block 11" at Allied Artists because of differences of opinion in handling the script."

Siegel was signed on July 27 and plans for 3-D were dropped on August 5. "Walter Wanger's Allied Artists production, "Riot in Cell Block 11," will be filmed in 2-D instead of 3-D because of regulations at Folsom Prison, where much of the shooting will be done. Prison officials put a two-week limit on the use of the location."

The stereophonic sound plans were also dropped because of problems Allied Artists' was having in July with dubbing stereo onto THE MAZE. I suspect the technical problems of doing multi-track 35mm recording at Folsom Prison on a two week shoot was out of the question.

Allied had begun filming for widescreen on May 7, 1953 with THE ROYAL AFRICAN RIFLES. They didn't make their official announcement until July 3 and RIOT went before the cameras on August 17.

[Bob Furmanek]

[EddieLarkin]

Criterion have altered their previously incorrect listing of Il sorpasso from 1.37:1 to 1.85:1. Unfortunately, Riot remains at 1.33:1.

[captveg]

Criterion have altered their previously incorrect listing of Il sorpasso from 1.37:1 to 1.85:1. Unfortunately, Riot remains at 1.33:1.

They did tell Bob they would be looking at it. The Il sorpasso listing was more of a straight up typo.

[whaleallright]

Walter Mirisch is still alive--indeed he's written a memoir--so perhaps Criterion could get him on the record about this film and about his tenure at Allied Artists.

[Yaanu]

Final list of supplements:

New high-definition digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
New audio commentary by film scholar Matthew H. Bernstein
Excerpts from the director’s 1993 autobiography, A Siegel Film, read by his son Kristoffer Tabori
Excerpts from Stuart Kaminsky’s 1974 book Don Siegel: Director, read by Tabori
Excerpts from the 1953 NBC radio documentary series The Challenge of Our Prisons
PLUS: An essay by critic Chris Fujiwara, a 1954 article by coproducer Walter Wanger (dual-format only), and a 1974 tribute to Siegel by filmmaker Sam Peckinpah (dual-format only)

Also, this release will be getting a DVD-only edition, as well as A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, MASTER OF THE HOUSE, and IL SORPASSO.

[John Hodson]

With the Criterion website specs for 'Riot' staying stubbornly in Academy, something tells me that they aren't particularly listening to Bob Furmanek's AR research findings and we are doomed to have the film not as Siegel primarily shot it, or how it premiered, but as it played in some backwoods kinema in the boondocks...

Second prize would have been the ability to zoom the film to an approximation of 1.66:1, but Criterion lock the ARs of their BDs making this impossible. Normally I have no issue with this 'nanny knows best' approach. After all, why would anyone want to zoom an Academy film?

Only this isn't an Academy film.

[EddieLarkin]

Second prize would have been the ability to zoom the film to an approximation of 1.66:1, but Criterion lock the ARs of their BDs making this impossible.

To achieve this I have to faff around disabling all DRM/Region locking on the disc with AnyDVDHD, then crop it with MPC-HC (though at least this allows me to do it precisely, rather than just a flat 16:9 crop), and then connect my PC to my PDP to play it (luckily, they're not that far apart!).

Even viewing this film on youtube the intended AR is obvious. With Criterion's new telecine, this will no doubt be even more blatant.

[domino harvey]

With the Criterion website specs for 'Riot' staying stubbornly in Academy, something tells me that they aren't particularly listening to Bob Furmanek's AR research findings

They ain't the only ones!

[MichaelB]

Bob Furmanek is the reason I went for a dual aspect ratio on Arrow's The Killers.

I had a strong suspicion that the film had been protected for widescreen, fuelled by the evidence of my own eyes, an experimental cropping of the Criterion disc, and the fact that the film played in cinemas at a time when many no longer showed Academy films, but I needed cast-iron proof before proceeding...

...which Bob was happy to provide, in the form of cuttings demonstrating (a) that the film was always intended for European theatrical release from the outset, and (b) that the recommended AR for theatrical presentations was 1.85:1.

So we went ahead, and I have to say that I think the film looks terrific in 1.85:1. I'd never have sanctioned a disc that only featured that ratio, but it's not a long film and we had the space.

[Moe Dickstein]

I'd say this is as much a candidate for a Dual Ratio presentation as On The Waterfront was.

It's clearly shot for some kind of widescreen but at the same time it was in that early period when half the audience out in the rural areas would have seen it in Academy.

Barring the option for choice, I'd rather have the 1.66 over the 1.37 because that is what was being framed for and presented in premiere engagements, but even the expert who personally prefers open matte says that both are completely acceptable...

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

I had a strong suspicion that the film had been protected for widescreen, fuelled by the evidence of my own eyes, an experimental cropping of the Criterion disc, and the fact that the film played in cinemas at a time when many no longer showed Academy films, but I needed cast-iron proof before proceeding...

...which Bob was happy to provide, in the form of cuttings demonstrating (a) that the film was always intended for European theatrical release from the outset, and (b) that the recommended AR for theatrical presentations was 1.85:1.

So we went ahead, and I have to say that I think the film looks terrific in 1.85:1. I'd never have sanctioned a disc that only featured that ratio, but it's not a long film and we had the space.

This is no surprise for those of us who have followed his rantings, but I suppose this means you now join Furmanek on Jeffrey Wells' hit list of 1.85:1 fascists. Be careful that you don't end up at aspect-ratio Nuremberg, where the convicted are guillotined because it creates more headroom.

[tenia]

Ah Jeffrey. Long time no see.
Ans he's still... not getting the point...

[arthousecowboy]

I wrote a column for Jeff's site once upon a time (expatriated and continues to this day). As extreme as his opinions can be, he can be right in some of the most infuriating ways, and you can never guess when he'll happen to be on the right self-righteous footing. On AR, he's sometimes on the right side of history, and other times demanding all grain stripped out and a matte that makes everything 1.66 even if it never was.

The problem with this AR debate is that it's a bit like deciding conclusively what kind of sandwich Beauregarde ate after the Battle of Shiloh. Some of us really, deeply care, but much of it comes down to preference as to what we would like to believe is historically bulletproof.

Dismissing the "backwoods" folks who saw Riot in Academy is a bit harsh, if you ask me. If I had my druthers and compelling, indefatigable evidence were shown that the movie predominantly screened 1.85, or equally as often as Academy, then I'm first in line asking for a dual-AR edition, since Criterion opened the door with Waterfront. What a Pandora's Box that has turned out to be…

What I've seen in this thread seems to indicate it absolutely protected for 1.85, but was not composed specifically for that AR. Bob, do you have sources that quote Siegel or direct associates re: preference for 1.85?

[MichaelB]

The simple fact is that we had the space on the disc and that it was pretty clear from examining the 1.37:1 version that it had been protected for widescreen.

Wells can rant about "fascism" all he likes, but the decision to go with 1.85:1 as the alternative was based on documented evidence from 1964, not guesswork or hearsay - and if I hadn't had such evidence to refer to, I wouldn't have gone ahead.

And of course if you don't like it in 1.85:1, nobody's forcing you to watch it like that. Obviously, there was never any question of presenting the film only in a widescreen framing - so I'm at a loss to see what's so "fascist" about this.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, given that arthousecowboy's post was presumably stuck in newbie moderation for a bit, I'm talking about Arrow's The Killers, where I do indeed have written evidence (Boxoffice magazine, 15 June 1964) that confirms that the cinema aspect ratio should be 1.85:1.