496 Che

[aox]

Yeah, I loved pt. 1 and found 2 interesting but tedious. I guess I should get into Michael Bay.

[hangman]

Well... Since Criterion are insisting on releasing this, how about they at least do the world some kind of favour and include the original Cannes edit of Che Part One. It is, by all accounts, superior to the compromised cutting-back-and-forth-to-maintain-audience-interest version that was eventually released.

Your argument, such that it is, is purely circumstantial. You have offered no direct evidence that the film was recut specifically to please an audience

Anyone with half a nose for cinematic form can spot the compromises and bad artistic decisions made in the re-edit of Part One

So, all of us who loved Part One, we're all just sheeple or whatever? Quit trying to start a knife fight over what amounts to personal preference

Geez this is really just going on and on but the main topic just keeps getting sidelined by other things. First of as this whole thing started by what account or fact can one claim the original cut to be the superior version, assuming you've even seen it but based on earlier posts of the thread its unlikely (and nobody who has seen the cannes version has posted a reply to that inquiry). Now if the cannes version were more akin to the second part then again we'd still have the question of comparison with regards to claiming the superiority of one version to another, as this really is a more apples-oranges comparison (and it doesn't help that you're touting your view as the canon, that really is just asking for a fight here).

Secondly, as this long exchange has been going TedW points out a very good fact which is that we have NO DIRECT STATEMENT from the director himself, or close co-worker/friend (he's not dead so not like we'd need to go for second hand statements at this point) explicitly stating that he re-cut the version for the audience. While yes the films rough cut/cannes cut did not receive a good response it still doesn't amount to fact that you could claim for truth that it was re-cut for audiences. Which is a worlds difference from Rules of the Game as you made an anology of it, as we DO know (statement and sources) it was due to how it was received at first even then its not necessarily a good analogy for this case considering how the only existing version of Rules of the Game turned out (doubt anybody has seen the original cut here on the board to claim that to be the superior version, much like the Cannes version of Che). That is conjecture, even if you have a good nose as you claim, unless as noted you've got a credible source (the director himself, staff, studio memos, etc) that will allow you to posit what you've stated as fact (which you have been so adamantly defending as so). Or in the case of the nose if you've got "good" taste in cinema you can tell its a compromise =/. So I don't really see the point in this going on much longer, I'm all for your initial proposal of including the original cut as an extra (though as the announcement shows its not going to happen) but I wouldn't go so far as to put forward conjectures of why the film was re-worked on as fact (or insist on it as if it were) or tout that X version is better than Y version. What would be just as good for this release would be a word from the director regarding why he made the changes he did, and perhaps we'll get it.

[TedW]

I made an inquiry. The movie was not recut for the audience or in any way compromised from SS's vision. You'll have to trust me on the source, but it is authoritative. Conversation's over.

Now back to whatever else folks were discussing...

[Nothing]

he had always planned to incorporate whatever audience response he gleened into the process of finishing it (as he always does)

Quite possibly. As I say, if the film had been well-received, I don't imagine it would have been re-edited - and this lack of conviction is one of the reasons Soderbergh will always be a second-rate filmmaker (despite the occasional home run).

I've seen Che, and on my list of movies that "pander to the lowest common denominator," it wouldn't be anywhere near it.

That's because it was primarily financed by Wild Bunch in Paris. Paris being where every American filmmaker now goes if they want to make a film instead of an ear wax product for high schoolers. But the problem is then to secure US distribution...

Quit trying to start a knife fight over what amounts to personal preference

Well, in addition to what I believe are perceivable flaws in the final cut, two people whose opinion I respect have told me that the original version was much better. Also (far from the conversation being over) it's absolutely standard for directors in this kind of situation to get behind the theatrical cut for commercial / political reasons, whether or not the cuts are an improvement (the 2hr cut of Brown Bunny being the ultimate example, the Greed of the 00s, which I have seen, and for which a reliable source contradicts Gallo's public statements). That doesn't mean the director didn't have final cut - indeed, the director may even believe the re-edit to be an improvement (a natural, if weak, response perhaps, in the face to heavy criticism) but that doesn't make it so. Tbh, I just find it strange that folks around here are so uninterested in the seeing the film as originally envisioned.

2001 Coppola suddenly felt the need to recut the film. I won't add conjecture as to why; it's not my place or even my business.

Watch the work print and you'll understand why... The ambition of the project was massively scaled down, there is acres of material that got lost, much of which isn't present in Redux. Redux really was the missed opportunity of the decade - part of the problem being, I think, that he'd become too attached to the theatrical version in the interim (eg. the first thing to go should have been the voiceover, which was a last-minute attempt to paper over the cracks created by chopping out half of the material). The alternative view, one which I won't dismiss entirely, is that the shoot became such a chaotic mess that the footage simply wasn't there to complete the film as originally envisioned and that the theatrical cut was the best compromise in the circumstances.

To bring this back on topic - if Criterion were genuinely behind the release, rather than prostituting their brand to IFC, I believe we would be seeing the original version of the film via seamless branching. It's just the most obvious and most valuable extra, regardless of which version anyone (including Mr. Solaris-remake) prefers. To whit:

(doubt anybody has seen the original cut here on the board to claim that to be the superior version, much like the Cannes version of Che).

There is a comparison between the release version and the reconstruction of La Regle du Jeu on the Criterion edition.

[CSM126]

To bring this back on topic - if Criterion were genuinely behind the release, rather than prostituting their brand to IFC, I believe we would be seeing the original version of the film via seamless branching.

When in the blue hell has Criterion ever once used seamless branching, especially to present a cut that the director doesn't like? Do you honestly think they should shove the disfavored cut in there and piss off Soderbergh when they obviously want his seal of approval and to maintain a relationship with him for future releases of his work (like Gray's Anatomy)? Why burn the bridge? Just to satisfy some asshole who doesn't believe in following the filmmaker's version because they think they know better than him?

[Nothing]

a cut that the director doesn't like

Are you referring to the cut he presented to the Jury in Cannes?

It is common for Criterion to pursue and present alternate versions of films, whether or not they represent the director's final version. In this instance, there's no conclusive evidence as to which cut SS personally prefers, and there are very obvious, albeit circumstantial, mitigating circumstances (ie. the film was poorly received and, following weeks of hype about a bidding war, the Weinsteins and Sony dropped out of the race on the night of the screening - a major bloody nose for all involved) to suggest that he was pressured, at least psychologically, to rethink the editing of the film on some level after the premiere. Afterall, the footage of the UN conference was the first material they filmed, test footage essentially, footage that he purposefully excluded from the original cut of the film. Then re-included. A rethink. BOTH versions are the directors version - but at different moments in time. But you're saying this cut shouldn't be included, whereas the studio cut of, say, Confidential Report is a doozy... Orson Welles doesn't have the same auteur credentials, I guess.

[AlexHansen]

Tbh, I just find it strange that folks around here are so uninterested in the seeing the film as originally envisioned.

I can't speak for anybody else but I'm still holding on to the hope that I'll see The Argentine and Guerilla in their original form.

[TedW]

In this instance, there's no conclusive evidence as to which cut SS personally prefers, and there are very obvious, albeit circumstantial, mitigating circumstances...

Repeating for the final time: dude, you're talking out of your ass. The release version of Che is definitive, period (minus the differences between the roadshow and separate movies, of course). I have it on strong authority, okay? The matter has been settled. Now go back to the midterms you're supposed to be studying for.

[Nothing]

The release version of Che is definitive, period

Pure Hollywood spin.

Even if you had it from the mouth of SS himself that the final cut is 'definitive', the fact is that the moment he presented the earlier cut in a major competitive public form he cemented the existence of an equally valid alternate version - a version which some people prefer, no less. So - SS and/or others may seek to suppress the original version but whether or not the release version is truly definitive is not for them to say. This is something for film scholars and filmgoers to decide over the passage of time.

To put it another way, if the release version really is such an obvious improvement, what's the danger in including the original on the DVD as an extra?

[TedW]

The release version of Che is definitive, period

Pure Hollywood spin.

Huh?

[tenia]

So - SS and/or others may seek to suppress the original version but whether or not the release version is truly definitive is not for them to say.

I think that the director is the best person to decide which version is the definitive or not.
But that's my opinion that, you know, the director was the one making the movie, so, he kind of knows best.

This being said, his definitive version may not be the best, I agree. But it's still the definitive. Because he just said so.

[ehimle]

what's the danger in including the original on the DVD as an extra?

no danger. but if the director doesn't want to release it, its not going to be released.
plus if it were released as an "extra" wouldn't it have to be on two additional discs making the whole thing roughly $80?
this is the first time it is being released on a purchase-able disc set, and its already $40 msrp.

adding the other versions of the movie would make it a real investment to buy. cutting the already limited fanbase and potential buyers down even further.

only to really only satisfying you and at the most 100 people who care... most of those people would probably wouldn't watch it, happy to own it, and then rest that do watch it won't care and will still consider the final cut for u.s. distribution the definitive cut (since it is billed as such) and then there would be you sitting there thinking its the best only one to really care about.

SS and/or others may seek to suppress the original version but whether or not the release version is truly definitive is not for them to say.

absolutely ridiculous. saying the person with major artistic input and responsibility of an artwork has no say as to what the artwork is if he changes it? yeah. lets scrape off the years worth of layers of the mona lisa off to get to the original version of it. its obviously the definitive version and da vinci is suppressing it. what a bastard!

[Nothing]

It's still the definitive. Because he just said so.

TedW is Steven Soderbergh..? For all we know, IFC are just holding on to the original so they can double dip at a later date.

In any case, this really isn't as simple as some are trying to make out. In fact, it's highly ironic that those who claim this as the 'definitive' release of Che also wish to claim the theatrical cut of Apocalypse Now as definitive (surely, if we are to follow the same logic, Redux is now the 'definitive' cut and the theatrical should be de facto suppressed / destroyed / disregarded). To take another example, Bruno Dumont now expresses the belief that Twentynine Palms should end with the shot of David sitting on the bed, before he enters the bathroom and explodes. So - should all conscientious viewers now stop the DVD at this point, in respect of the director's present wishes?

The fact is, artists change their opinion all the time - and history does not automatically regard the final draft of a work as definitive. For example, Thomas Hardy was known to frequently go back and revise his work, however the final versions of his novels are very rarely re-published - indeed, it is generally considered good practice to print the first complete edition, before retrospective edits and changes were made by the author.

re: the Mona Lisa, the sketch is currently displayed in the Louvre:

[Sanjuro]

what's the danger in including the original on the DVD as an extra?

no danger. but if the director doesn't want to release it, its not going to be released.
plus if it were released as an "extra" wouldn't it have to be on two additional discs making the whole thing roughly $80?
this is the first time it is being released on a purchase-able disc set, and its already $40 msrp.

That's the nice thing about Blu-rays and Seamless branching, just stick everything on one disc and choose which cut you want to watch (like the BFI The Other Side of the Underneath Blu-Ray - Two films one about two hours and the other about 106 minutes but both on one disc.) Two complete versions of the movie aren't necessary (well, I dunno how much was changed altogether, but I imagine there's enough replicated scenes to fit it all on one disc).

Also unless someone can prove otherwise, surely it's more appropriate to assume that a director entering his film in competition to the most prestigious* film festival in the world thinks his film is finished and isn't a half-assed, unfinished pice of crap? I'm sure studios force directors to rush a 'Cannes edit' from time to time but is there any evidence this happened with Che? At some point SS believed he had a great film, worthy of Cannes. Then he changed his mind for whatever reason and now thinks the new version is better. Didn't George Lucas do that once?

*possibly - in some people's opinion - maybe SS, maybe not.

[aox]

[Murdoch]

I plan on using this often on this forum.

[swo17]

Technically, you should only be able to use it once.

[Robert de la Cheyniest]

what's the danger in including the original on the DVD as an extra?

Also unless someone can prove otherwise, surely it's more appropriate to assume that a director entering his film in competition to the most prestigious* film festival in the world thinks his film is finished and isn't a half-assed, unfinished pice of crap? I'm sure studios force directors to rush a 'Cannes edit' from time to time but is there any evidence this happened with Che? At some point SS believed he had a great film, worthy of Cannes. Then he changed his mind for whatever reason and now thinks the new version is better. Didn't George Lucas do that once?

*possibly - in some people's opinion - maybe SS, maybe not.

I can't prove it with Che but there are a lot of stories of films being edited up to the last minute at Cannes. I know 2046 is a notable example, so just because it's the world's most prestigious film festival doesn't mean that films are always 100% finished when they are screened at Cannes. Films are often re-cut and tinkered with after their initial screenings

Also every time I look at this discussion I think I'm about to have a brain aneurysm.

[Murdoch]

Technically, you should only be able to use it once.

I believe in reincarnation.

[knives]

Also every time I look at this discussion I think I'm about to have a brain aneurysm.

Better yet.

[GringoTex]

To take another example, Bruno Dumont now expresses the belief that Twentynine Palms should end with the shot of David sitting on the bed, before he enters the bathroom and explodes. So - should all conscientious viewers now stop the DVD at this point, in respect of the director's present wishes?

Bad example. Dumont suddenly woke up one day and realized his new ideas about and sex and violence were stupid.

Directors edit their movies after an intitial screening ALL THE TIME. You are taking the arbitrary stance that once a cut is screened, something mystical happens that makes that cut legitimate despite the intentions or wishes of the creator.

[Ovader]

More has been added to the DVD:
- End of a Revolution, a short documentary made in Bolivia right after Che’s execution in 1967
- “Che” and the Digital Cinema Revolution, an original video piece looking at the RED camera and its effect on modern film production

[manicsounds]

Bluray.com review looks to be a winner. 5.0 marks all around except for "video" at 4.5, but I don't know why....

[aox]

Picked this up tonight and have started watching Part 1. The transfer is absolutely gorgeous.

Soderbergh (I think) said at one point that had this film been more successful, he would have made a 'middle' film of Che's time in the Congo. I think it is a shame we will never get that, as it was apparently a period filled with Che's harshest brutality. With that said, I don't join the critics that claim this film glamorizes Che.

[cdnchris]

Picked this up tonight and have started watching Part 1. The transfer is absolutely gorgeous.

Wait until you get to the second part. It's freaky just how good it looks.

Bluray.com review looks to be a winner. 5.0 marks all around except for "video" at 4.5, but I don't know why....

It might be the 16mm footage or maybe some of the digital noise in a few darker scenes in the first part, but I figured that was in the source and was recorded like that. Despite lacking grain (other than the 16mm parts) I'm amazed that the first part does actually look somewhat film like. The second part doesn't to me, looks way too smooth. But damn, it's friggin' crisp and the detail is striking. I'm pretty cool with it.

Also watch the docs, especially the one on the Red camera.