William Friedkin

[beamish14]

Directing Kiefer Sutherland in a contemporary remake of The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial.

As someone who really enjoys his 1997 adaptation of 12 Angry Men, I’m definitely excited about this

The 1988 Robert Altman version that he made for HBO is one of my few blind spots in his catalog

[DimitriL]

The Altman version is spare and focused and pretty extraordinary. (It was for CBS, not HBO.)

[tolbs1010]

I watched the Altman version for the first time a couple of months ago and enjoyed it. Altman's signature roving camera gives this more faithful adaptation a little dynamism in its (mostly) one-location setting. Having seen the Dmytryk film (which I also like a lot) made watching this stagier version more enjoyable. Cast is solid across the board (Bogosian and Gallagher are standouts), though Jeff Daniels doesn't have much to do in it. The Dmytryk film fleshes out that character more.

I added Friedkin's 12 Angry Men to my list after recently watching and being impressed with two of his stage adaptations. What an amazing cast, and I'm even more enthused to see it after seeing beamish14's recommendation.

[therewillbeblus]

I revisited Sorcerer this weekend, and though my LB rating remained the same, I was surprised to come away with a very different impression of its strengths than memory served. What I recalled was a more economically-conceived thriller with emphasis on style instead of character- which is more or less true- but in different arenas. The first half's setup, which I thought I remembered Friedkin making leaner, actually takes up about half the film! And it is so much more involving and interesting than its predecessor's pre-trip first act, well-constructed and intricate in weaving together the prelude stories into the filtered gathering in exile. Friedkin seems to be operating without the moral endgame that The Wages of Fear did through engaging us in a simplified diagnostic of primarily two characters' dynamic drawing shallow traits evoking toughness and earned respect. Friedkin understands this to be the weakest component of the narrative, and knowingly engages in just as shallow waters without allowing the approach to cheapen what he's trying to do- instead opting for a more clinical direction that's more polished and refined, if cooler and aloof by design. The strategy serves the film much better. Unfortunately, the first film is far more suspenseful for drawing out the 'journey' part of the film in more detail and with more memorable hurdles. whereas Sorcerer's action fell flatter for me in the remake, aside from some moments of pulsating score and effective shot choices. The slow-burn suspense of the original was perfect, and opportunities to best it- like with the bridge scenes in Sorcerer- don't work on the same wavelength of sensational thrills, and are more conceptually beautiful. Shots like one man kneeling before the truck are wall-worthy though, but a poster of the still doesn't match the effective tension of many stills in motion.

[Stefan Andersson]

Interesting quote about Friedkin´s tendency to revise the photography of his films:
"we all know what he did to The French Connection on his first try. He got his knuckles rapped pretty hard over that. Unfortunately, everyone was so focused on that one they didn't notice how he did the same thing to The Boys in the Band."

First time I saw that Friedkin had revised The Boys in the Band also.

Source: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/commun ... 477/page-5 - post 86

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

The existing HD master Boys in the Band (which was used for the DVD as well, so you'd have to go back to the VHS/laserdisc releases for something different) definitely has that bizarre "smeary" look from the original French Connection BD. (I saw that one compared to a colorization job and I think that's pretty apt, though at this point I've seen more convincing honest-to-god colorizations.) The DVD Beaver caps demonstrate it well enough. I wasn't as bothered by it as I would've been with The French Connection, where I'd seen the film more than once before (including on 35mm) and knew on some level what it had previously looked like, but there's still something obviously off. I've never listened to the commentary, but per the DVD Beaver writeup, Friedkin specifically talks about overseeing the color on the remaster.