World of Wong Kar Wai

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#751 Post by tenia » Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:24 am


Maltic wrote:The Film Formally podcast a while back interviewed a guy who does mastering for Shout and others, and he sort of scoffed at re-graining and mentioned the [highly acclaimed] Indiana Jones BDs as examples of bad jobs. I was a bit surprised, though he didn't go into details.
I'd have love knowing what he's talking about in particular since except the first one noticeably noisy at times because of the film stocks used in some scenes, I doubt it's be tampered with one way or another.
But it's funny that this would come from someone at Shout, who are probably often tampering with their movies, and have dozens of mediocre encodes on top of that (though that doesn't mean he's wrong).

User avatar
andyli
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#752 Post by andyli » Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:11 am

The crime continues: Chungking Express's end credits replaced with a version with a much more "modern" look...
Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Maltic
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:36 am

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#753 Post by Maltic » Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:20 am

tenia wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:24 am
Maltic wrote:The Film Formally podcast a while back interviewed a guy who does mastering for Shout and others, and he sort of scoffed at re-graining and mentioned the [highly acclaimed] Indiana Jones BDs as examples of bad jobs. I was a bit surprised, though he didn't go into details.
I'd have love knowing what he's talking about in particular since except the first one noticeably noisy at times because of the film stocks used in some scenes, I doubt it's be tampered with one way or another.
But it's funny that this would come from someone at Shout, who are probably often tampering with their movies, and have dozens of mediocre encodes on top of that (though that doesn't mean he's wrong).
It's here ca. @16.00

"I do think that some grain management is necessary to mitigate any issues that could happen in compression, but I don't go to the point where I'm smearing the image. I'm never going to do something to the extent of what was done on Predator or on some of the Indiana Jones movies where they removed all the grain and then re-grained it later on." [...] "That's actually a pretty common process, to remove the grain and then add grain back"

Maybe he's talking about the ancient 2008 BD release of Predator (not the waxy 2010 BD or the 2018 4k)? As for the Indy films, who knows.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#754 Post by tenia » Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:08 am

What he's talking about reminds me of the Lowry process, and that wasn't a common process at all AFAIK.
The whole degrain / regrain process is popping up in a regular manner but honestly, I have yet to see concrete proofs about exactly which and how many restorations are indeed concerned. I doubt they're representing the majority of the restorations performed in the market. It does exist for sure, I'm not denying that, but I'm under the impression the utmost majority of the restorations of the past years (let's say since about 2014 at least) are not done within this kind of process, and certainly not by removing "all the grain" before a regraining.

It is however mechanical/mathematical for grain to be challenging encodes, since that's how encoders are working. However, many authoring houses (David M but not only) have demonstrated time and time again how much grain can be handled without compression issues. I'm quite certain, judging by experience, Shout's encoder just isn't as good as them with such amount of high frequencies, and that the issue thus isn't the amount of HF.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#755 Post by cdnchris » Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:25 pm

Question: what is the AR for Fallen Angels actually supposed to be? Still haven't watched it in the set yet, but I've seen comments/concerns about the "reframing" to 2.39:1 since previous releases had it in a 1.85:1 ratio. I had my memory refreshed rewatching the 1996 Moving Pictures interview featuring Wong and Doyle on the Chungking disc (same one on the old Criterion disc) and there are clips from the film (as I think the program was made as a promo for that film's release) in the wider ratio, and the two talk about using a wide angle lens, working with the wider framing, and incorporating the distortion that created.
andyli wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:11 am
The crime continues: Chungking Express's end credits replaced with a version with a much more "modern" look...
Those stuck out, mostly because of the "computer generated" look to them, but the film otherwise got off easy if that's the worst that happened.

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#756 Post by feihong » Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:10 pm

The imdb lists Fallen Angels aspect ratio as 1.85:1. For the new version, Wong has stretched the image to 2.39:1. In most cases he has literally stretched the image, warping it horizontally to achieve the new ratio. In some cases he has cropped shots on the top and bottom to get them into that ratio, and in some shots he's done both things.

As far as Chungking Express, there are the gunshots under the opening credits, which are an annoying new addition, these new ending credits, and the David-Fincher-style new color correction. In respect to the other films in the set, it has, I suppose "got off easy." But I think the new color correction distorts the look the picture used to have in pretty damaging ways. The new look is noirish and harsh. The film originally had, I think, a dreamier look which better supported the material.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#757 Post by cdnchris » Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:26 pm

feihong wrote:The imdb lists Fallen Angels aspect ratio as 1.85:1. For the new version, Wong has stretched the image to 2.39:1. In most cases he has literally stretched the image, warping it horizontally to achieve the new ratio. In some cases he has cropped shots on the top and bottom to get them into that ratio, and in some shots he's done both things.

As far as Chungking Express, there are the gunshots under the opening credits, which are an annoying new addition, these new ending credits, and the David-Fincher-style new color correction. In respect to the other films in the set, it has, I suppose "got off easy." But I think the new color correction distorts the look the picture used to have in pretty damaging ways. The new look is noirish and harsh. The film originally had, I think, a dreamier look which better supported the material.
Ah, I missed the opening shots and noticed it going back to the old disc. I noticed some greens have been boosted but compared to the old Criterion disc I don't think the color changes are that bad to be honest. Some things were digitally enhanced (not to the level of Days of Being Wild mind you) but they're still close.

As to Fallen Angels, again, Wong and Doyle talk about working with the wider angle and framing and they mention they liked the distortion that came with it in relation to the action (with clips in that ratio), suggesting it's how they intended it to look back in 1996: 2.35:1 with the distortion caused by the lens they used. I know IMDB states that it's 1.85:1, which is what I was basing a lot on, too, but it's possible it's wrong or was based on home video releases that incorrectly framed the film, correcting the distortion, even opening it up at the top and bottom. If it was just Wong in 2020 saying that I'd probably be skeptical, but it's both of them in 1996 saying this.

If I'm misunderstanding what they're saying, cool. It's the same interview on the old Criterion disc.

Edit: should point out there is no mention of the color added to the black and white sequences, so that's definitely new.

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#758 Post by feihong » Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:55 pm

I'd suggest checking the previous pages of this thread. Cowboydan and others have done some very thorough accounting of the changes being made from one edition to the other. We've been through this debate on this thread exhaustively over the last couple months.

Of course, it's a personal thing how much the colors matter to you, but to me the difference in the color timing on Chungking Express is pretty vast, and a dealbreaker by itself. What Wong has done to Fallen Angels is depressing to me. Certainly, they had some plan to make the film look that way, but ultimately, the movie was released in 1.85:1 theatrically. That's how it appeared on home video, that's how I saw it at theatrical screenings––that's what I want from the film. But the restoration makes that change and so many more, and there's not a version in the set that preserves the theatrical release of the film. The coloration is to me in excruciating bad taste, and the horizontal stretching as well. I think it's possible that Wong and Doyle shot some of the film planning to stretch it and then some of it intending to meet the 1.85:1 ratio, because, like the coloration and desaturation of select shots in the restoration, Wong is clearly changing his mind long after the fact about some of the things he shot for the movie. It's not a clear-cut case of restoring a movie to its director–intended presentation; there are a bunch of changes made in a contemporary context. For me, those changes meant not buying the set, and I have to say I lost a lot of respect for Wong in terms of his contemporary aesthetic taste.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#759 Post by cdnchris » Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:37 pm

feihong wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:55 pm
I'd suggest checking the previous pages of this thread. Cowboydan and others have done some very thorough accounting of the changes being made from one edition to the other. We've been through this debate on this thread exhaustively over the last couple months.
I did and it still doesn't help because a lot of it seems more subjective and anecdotal and based on releases well after the fact. To be fair, I could have missed a comment that is a smoking gun because of how things are spread out. I get the passion around it all, but the two are literally talking about it at the time of its release (this episode was aired before it premiered in the UK), the clips are in the ratio with the same (or similar) level of distortion, after clips from their previous films are shown in their expected ratios, and they're talking about framing for the wider ratio and such. If things changed in a few days and it dropped in theaters at 1.85:1 then obviously they had a change of heart or someone messed up, but they seemed pretty clear about their intentions for the framing of the film as it was a whole new thing after their previous work together. I just want to stress I'm not defending this presentation: I just watched it and there's a lot to be pissed about it from an admirer's perspective, and the aforementioned "de-graining" is for real. But if this is the ratio both Wong and Doyle intended in 1996 and something got messed up along the way, and it's been shown wrong for close to 25-years, I think it's worth noting.
feihong wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:55 pm
Of course, it's a personal thing how much the colors matter to you, but to me the difference in the color timing on Chungking Express is pretty vast, and a deal breaker by itself.
I guess I'm just lost on your use of the word "vast" in this case, which is what I would call what I sampled with the new In the Mood for Love restoration (all I can say on that one is "fuck"). Jumping between this and the old Criterion I really can't say the colours are that different. Again, blues and greens look to have been enhanced, oddly only touched upon in spots in a scene, not in the whole frame, but I didn't see that different looking a film. But maybe, like you said, that's just not a deal breaker for me, especially since the "enhancement" wasn't to a ridiculous degree like what happened with Days of Being Wild. Granted, for Chungking Express, that was jumping between discs on the television, maybe if I do a side-by-side on my computer it will leap out at me.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#760 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:46 pm

TBH, I would welcome the existence of a new Fallen Angels that follows what they "originally intended"...but under two conditions:

1) The original theatrical version should be preserved and done right on BD/UHD - no messing with it at all, and it should be readily available and affordable.

2) The new restoration should be done well, and the dodgy prospects of that is a big reason why the original version should be preserved. Rock music is the first thing that comes to mind with revisionist presentations of old work because it's been done so often via remixing, especially during the past 25 years. It's become a cliché for an artist or their fans to say "I wish that had been mixed right" or "I wish that had been mixed the way they REALLY wanted, because it would've been a masterpiece!" Flash forward years or decades later, and they finally get their chance, but so much time has passed that they have to contend with different technology (which will sound different and impact the result) and the fact that they've become different people who don't hear or think the way they did back then, so just dictating the choices they "would" have made will be a challenge. There have been massive disappointments, and there have been decent but underwhelming results, but some do live up to one's hopes. I think Iggy's 1997 mix of Raw Power is a godsend, but even that had to wait until it was properly mastered - the first CD issue and really the only complete mastering available for it for over 10 years was horrendously compressed. The Replacement's Dead Man's Pop (formerly Don't Tell a Soul) is a massive improvement too, but it's telling that the producer used a vintage rough mix he created back then as his guide - it's the main reason why they revisited the album, and had it remained lost, it's possible Dead Man's Pop would never have happened.

So it sucks the original version of Fallen Angels remains out of circulation, and it sucks that they've de-grained the new version like this. If it's possible to present the new version with film grain intact, I hope it gets a release somewhere, and I hope they package it with the original version.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#761 Post by cdnchris » Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:05 pm

That's easily the biggest fuck-up with this set. I don't get why on Earth Wong was okay including an obscure alternate edit for Days of Being Wild (that sounds to have been put together when there was a plan for a sequel to the film) but didn't feel it might be worthwhile to include the original versions/edits for some of the other films in the set, at the very least for Fallen Angels.

User avatar
yoloswegmaster
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#762 Post by yoloswegmaster » Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:24 pm

cdnchris wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:05 pm
That's easily the biggest fuck-up with this set. I don't get why on Earth Wong was okay including an obscure alternate edit for Days of Being Wild (that sounds to have been put together when there was a plan for a sequel to the film) but didn't feel it might be worthwhile to include the original versions/edits for some of the other films in the set, at the very least for Fallen Angels.
I honestly think that Criterion chose to not involve Wong for anything involving the first 2 films, from the restoration to supplements. Both titles aren't owned by him, he doesn't appear to have been involved with the restorations for either film, they chose to add an alternate version of 'Days' that no one seems to know about, and the fact that Criterion chose to add the original trailers for both films (something that none of the other titles have), rather than replacing them with the restoration trailers.

User avatar
barbarella satyricon
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:45 am

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#763 Post by barbarella satyricon » Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:01 pm

I guess it was more or less my finalized, personal summation of WKW’s filmography all along, but the release of this boxset is confirming for me that Chungking Express and Fallen Angels are the two works that I care about with any ardency (a lot, actually), and that the others have always been take-it-or-leave-it deals, more so than I would have thought when the old Kino dvd set was holding prIde of place shelf space during college years, and when In the Mood for Love was, in my impressionistic recollections, on near-constant dvd rotation, almost like background music, cinematographic wallpaper on the tube.

It’s funny because that last one’s always felt, from the very first viewing in the theater, dramatically inert at heart, a suspended drama (almost Marienbad-like in its atmosphere of isolation and stasis) that just kind of unspools to an end, with only that provisional, symbolic release/catharsis at the ruins – an act of release that is simultaneously a final burial, another elaborated repression.

Which might be the point of the whole thing, got it. But considering that I still haven’t been roused to pick up the Criterion blu after all these years, I’m thinking it was always the atmosphere – the mood – that compelled me to another “viewing” all those times, but then the go-nowhere story that lost me to other tasks and chores around the house while the gorgeous thing played on.

(But who knows how our individual stances and posturings in regard to films will change and change again with the years? If we’re all alive to be at some 25, 35, or 50th anniversary screening of what will no doubt still be “Wong’s timeless romantic masterpiece”, I may be the one with tears falling like big fat jewels by projection light.)

Continuing this desultory post (in this truly unpredictable thread), a condensed WKW viewing history, with comments:

Days of Being Wild, from a rewatch some seasons back, starts off so strong, with that “pop” in the editing that I think anticipates some of the rhythms of Chungking Express (e.g. the series of shots wherein Carina Lau has the violent meet-cute with Leslie Cheung and ends up scoring the earrings), but then bogs down in sequences of long takes, distended conversation scenes that I don’t think ever play to Wong’s strengths, in this or other of his films (e.g. Maggie Cheung and Andy Lau’s nighttime walks and talks).

Typing out the above, I find the same holds true for me with Ashes of Time. In the original release version, love the editing in the faster-paced scenes and sequences, the rush and the cacophony of that crazy soundtrack music. And even within that preferred version of the film, I tend to tune out when the monologues turn all slow and lugubrious and the shot durations start sapping the mise-en-scéne and cinematography of their interest. The Redux version, when I got around to it, had me tuning out like that a lot more.

Happy Together, I don’t think I’ve ever properly watched from beginning to end, but it’s one I’ve always meant to get to, and its compromised treatment in this set, with the excised dialogue, is curiously what irks me more than the other changes – that is, not a matter of some “new vision” or what have you, but just seeming thoughtlessness and abdicated diligence in showing the film, in its complete and original form, even a modicum of respect and care.

Watched As Tears Go By only recently, couldn’t get into it.

Is this post just me working through a sour-lemons relinquishing of this boxset? Maybe. But 2046 has always meant little to me, keeping me at more than arm’s length each time I’ve tried to warm up to it. It just isn’t a warming-up kind of flick, I guess. And I’m finding now, with just a little surprise, that that’s what I’d say about a lot of Wong’s films, from Days to Ashes, even In the Mood.

In that sense, I’d probably find a place for (gulp) My Blueberry Nights in my own private WKW top five. An untenable position, maybe, and I’ve only seen it once or twice. But except for some very obviously clunky and badly staged scenes (I think Wong genuinely doesn’t know how to set up a shot in wide open spaces; the American desert-town locales here really are a world away from the extreme cramp and compression of Hong Kong tenements and underground concourses), this one left a pretty sweet aftertaste, a nice sugar-buzz, and I think it really would find its place on a short list of favorites, a list with loosely interchangeable positions after Chungking and Angels.

That’s it, that’s me rambling for a bit about these films I’ve long lived with, moved with from place to place. I’m finding I can, if not happily, then also not at all painfully, let go of the idea of some perfectly ideal configuration of Wong Kar-Wai films in one big beautiful box. See ya for the next round of restorations and redos, whenever that may be.

User avatar
andyli
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#764 Post by andyli » Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:50 pm

Image
I've stolen a gif from another social media account to give you an animated comparison of the aspect ratios for Fallen Angels. It's a complicated process of stretching the sides while largely maintaining the central portion.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#765 Post by Zot! » Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:38 am

andyli wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:50 pm
Image
I've stolen a gif from another social media account to give you an animated comparison of the aspect ratios for Fallen Angels. It's a complicated process of stretching the sides while largely maintaining the central portion.
I’m not sure if I would call this complicated, it’s a lazy pillar-boxing filter for showing academy-ish content on widescreens. Compared to this P&S is masterful.

User avatar
yoloswegmaster
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#766 Post by yoloswegmaster » Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:46 am

30 minutes of new footage was screened at the end of a screening for 'Happy Together' at the HKIFF: https://m.facebook.com/hkiffs/posts/10159788647012526

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#767 Post by EddieLarkin » Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:11 am

cdnchris wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:25 pm
Question: what is the AR for Fallen Angels actually supposed to be? Still haven't watched it in the set yet, but I've seen comments/concerns about the "reframing" to 2.39:1 since previous releases had it in a 1.85:1 ratio. I had my memory refreshed rewatching the 1996 Moving Pictures interview featuring Wong and Doyle on the Chungking disc (same one on the old Criterion disc) and there are clips from the film (as I think the program was made as a promo for that film's release) in the wider ratio, and the two talk about using a wide angle lens, working with the wider framing, and incorporating the distortion that created.
This? The clips from Fallen Angels are 1.85:1 there. They maybe seemed wider than this because the clips from Chungking are presented at 1.66:1. It seems clear that Wong and Doyle had wanted to shoot and exhibit the film in Scope, but were unable to, resulting in the film being shot spherical on standard 35mm (not even Super35 according to imdb), and they used wide angle lenses to try and achieve something close to what they'd hoped to by shooting Scope. Wong has now taken the opporunity to bodge the film into the ratio he always wanted to present it in.

The question is, would he have taken the same steps to exhibit the film this way back in 1996 if he could have, even after shooting spherical on standard 35? If so, it does make this version more of a true Directors Cut in my book, rather than some George Lucas style revisionism.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#768 Post by cdnchris » Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:32 am

Ah, that's shady then: on the disc the ratio is fudged with for the entire feature. That, mixed with what they were talking about, had me thinking that they had released it, or intended to release it in scope at the time, especially since they mention working wider. Which could still be the case, but like you said they had to go a different route for whatever reason.

User avatar
andyli
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#769 Post by andyli » Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:37 pm

Zot! wrote:
andyli wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:50 pm
Image
I've stolen a gif from another social media account to give you an animated comparison of the aspect ratios for Fallen Angels. It's a complicated process of stretching the sides while largely maintaining the central portion.
I’m not sure if I would call this complicated, it’s a lazy pillar-boxing filter for showing academy-ish content on widescreens. Compared to this P&S is masterful.
If it were that simple to achieve, why would Wong have claimed not being able to do it at the time?

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#770 Post by tenia » Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:49 am

I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a filter existing in the industry for at least a decade.
However, Fallen Angels new framing is a bit more complex than this since the new framing hasn't been applied in the same manner on every shot. Some are cropped, some more than others, while some are compressed and/or distorted.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#771 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:43 pm

yoloswegmaster wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:24 pm
I honestly think that Criterion chose to not involve Wong for anything involving the first 2 films, from the restoration to supplements. Both titles aren't owned by him, he doesn't appear to have been involved with the restorations for either film, they chose to add an alternate version of 'Days' that no one seems to know about, and the fact that Criterion chose to add the original trailers for both films (something that none of the other titles have), rather than replacing them with the restoration trailers.
I'm pretty sure the alternate version is this one that David Bordwell wrote about back in 2008, though obviously people who actually have the set are better placed to make that determination. As for why Criterion included it but not variant cuts for any of the other films, I don't think they went over Wong's head here—even if they were legally clear to do what they wanted on the first two films without Wong's involvement, the fact that they needed his signoff for the remaining three-quarters of set makes it very unlikely IMO that they wouldn't involve him in their plans for the whole thing. I don't think the presence of the original trailers indicates anything, since AFAICT these films didn't get restoration trailers, presumably because they aren't part of the Jet Tone/Block 2 library.

I speculated way, way back in the thread that the presence of the alternate cut might well be because Wong prefers that version, but it wasn't restored because a) Wong doesn't own control this film and thus wasn't in a place to make that call or b) the surviving elements for the alternate cut were in such a state that it wasn't deemed worthwhile to restore it (and from all indications the alternate cut is in very rough shape, with burnt-in Chinese/English subs to boot). I've never seen anything from Wong stating that he prefers the alternate cut and apparently there's nothing in the box set to that effect either, but then I can't really imagine Wong openly declaring "my preferred version of this film is the one that looks like it was dragged in by the cat."

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#772 Post by cdnchris » Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:00 pm


The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:
I'm pretty sure the alternate version is this one that David Bordwell wrote about back in 2008,
Just to confirm, the alternate version on the disc is what Bordwell describes.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#773 Post by Zot! » Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:06 am

tenia wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:49 am
I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a filter existing in the industry for at least a decade.
However, Fallen Angels new framing is a bit more complex than this since the new framing hasn't been applied in the same manner on every shot. Some are cropped, some more than others, while some are compressed and/or distorted.
Right, in 1995 this kind of digital manipulation was not available, and might have needed to be achieved with optical methods, but today any you-tuber worth their salt could knock this edit out in short order. Most early widescreen TVs had this “smart-stretch” filter to contend with idiot customer expectations to make the picture “fill up” the screen. It was the “smooth motion” of its time.

User avatar
yoloswegmaster
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#774 Post by yoloswegmaster » Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:03 am

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:43 pm

As for why Criterion included it but not variant cuts for any of the other films, I don't think they went over Wong's head here—even if they were legally clear to do what they wanted on the first two films without Wong's involvement, the fact that they needed his signoff for the remaining three-quarters of set makes it very unlikely IMO that they wouldn't involve him in their plans for the whole thing. I don't think the presence of the original trailers indicates anything, since AFAICT these films didn't get restoration trailers, presumably because they aren't part of the Jet Tone/Block 2 library. I speculated way, way back in the thread that the presence of the alternate cut might well be because Wong prefers that version, but it wasn't restored because a) Wong doesn't own control this film and thus wasn't in a place to make that call or b) the surviving elements for the alternate cut were in such a state that it wasn't deemed worthwhile to restore it (and from all indications the alternate cut is in very rough shape, with burnt-in Chinese/English subs to boot). I've never seen anything from Wong stating that he prefers the alternate cut and apparently there's nothing in the box set to that effect either, but then I can't really imagine Wong openly declaring "my preferred version of this film is the one that looks like it was dragged in by the cat."
They would need Wong to sign-off on the rest of the films, but the fact that he wasn't involved with the restorations, or even approved, of the first 2 films leads me to believe that he really has no say over them. If Wong did have final say for those 2 films, why didn't he simply force Criterion to make brand-new trailers for the restorations that matched with the other newly-created trailers and disregard the original trailers? There could be a small chance that Wong prefers the alternative cut, but I have major doubts that since he makes absolutely no mention of it in his director's notes, or the fact that it's never been available on any of the previous home video releases. I also doubt that these are the reasons why the alternate cut wasn't restored, since AFAIK they scanned a alternate version of Police Story 2 that had burnt-in subtitles and looked to be in bad shape. I believe that Criterion simply added the alternate cut of Days as a way of saying "Look guys, we're open to including alternate versions of the same film," as they knew that people were going to blame them for not including the original versions of the other films.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: World of Wong Kar Wai

#775 Post by Finch » Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:02 pm

Who is the Criterion producer for this set? I wonder how Criterion is going to handle questions over this release now that it's been released. Wasn't Kim Hendrickson visibly annoyed when someone once brought up the issues with Madame de... at a Q&A?

Post Reply