1267 Sorcerer

[flyonthewall2983]

The surround mix in this case is given preference because it was overseen by the director for this release. The stereo is probably what was just on previous editions, maybe going back to theatrical release.

I don’t believe there was an alternate score or a version without TD’s music. That happened to them later when they worked with Ridley Scott on Legend. Since I have yet to see it I am not sure which one is considered the alternate, between theirs and Jerry Goldsmith’s more traditional score.

[CSM126]

what they call an alternate "2.0" soundtrack; is the soundtrack in 2.0 ?
I don't remember if for this movie, they did a soundtrack without Tangerine Dream (don't get me wrong; the Tangerine Dream soundtrack is amazing)

It’s the same soundtrack mixed in 2.0 instead of 5.1 (which is evidently the default)

[sabbath]

The "5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack approved by director William Friedkin" is probably the one he tinkered with when the Blu-ray came out. There were controversies over his choices back then, especially the gunshot/backfire effect he added in the last shot. I can imagine Criterion decided to respect the late Mr. Friedkin's will by including it as the main audio, while providing the original theatrical audio as the "Alternate 2.0 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack."

[sabbath]

Sorcerer (1977) - Original Stereo vs. 5.1 Remix

[MichaelB]

The surround mix in this case is given preference because it was overseen by the director for this release. The stereo is probably what was just on previous editions, maybe going back to theatrical release.

I don’t believe there was an alternate score or a version without TD’s music. That happened to them later when they worked with Ridley Scott on Legend. Since I have yet to see it I am not sure which one is considered the alternate, between theirs and Jerry Goldsmith’s more traditional score.

Jerry Goldsmith is the original - Tangerine Dream was added for the film's US release.

As far as I'm aware they were always locked on for Sorcerer. In fact, Friedkin said that, had he discovered them early enough, he'd have asked them to score The Exorcist too.

[Orlac]

Also, this really should’ve included a piece on Tangerine Dream’s music. It ushered in a whole new phase of their career and changed Hollywood scores

It's one of those scores I first heard in a kung fu film, ENTER THE GAME OF DEATH, which also samples my all-time favourite film score, KING KONG by John Barry, and Marvin Hamlisch's awesome Bond '77.

[beamish14]

Also, this really should’ve included a piece on Tangerine Dream’s music. It ushered in a whole new phase of their career and changed Hollywood scores

It's one of those scores I first heard in a kung fu film, ENTER THE GAME OF DEATH, which also samples my all-time favourite film score, KING KONG by John Barry, and Marvin Hamlisch's awesome Bond '77.

“Betrayal”, the theme from the film, was also used in the trailer for Walter Hill’s The Warriors and Sidney Poitier’s Ghost Dad

[Stefan Andersson]

Detailed description of the Jim Clark/international version:
https://sorcerer1977.wordpress.com/2013 ... -universe/

[flyonthewall2983]

As far as I'm aware they were always locked on for Sorcerer. In fact, Friedkin said that, had he discovered them early enough, he'd have asked them to score The Exorcist too.

He was hip to electronic and rock music when most guys his age probably weren’t. I read somewhere he cut the car chase in French Connection to Santana, and more famously used the opening theme of side one to Mike Oldfield’s Tubular Bells.

More interestingly to me he was an unwitting catalyst to Peter Gabriel leaving Genesis. Friedkin had read the sleevenote of the band’s first live album, taken from some of Gabriel’s onstage banter, already established at the time as a more theatrical group. He invited Gabriel to Hollywood to I guess just spitball stuff, it came to nothing and Friedkin backed off when he had heard it caused some tension because the band was underway in recording The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.

I have read more books on the band then him at this point but that has been more or less the narrative as to the beginning of the split, that became further complicated by personal events and later lingering tension, resentment or worse towards the split directions they felt things were going in. Rest is history.

[nicolas]

what they call an alternate "2.0" soundtrack; is the soundtrack in 2.0 ?
I don't remember if for this movie, they did a soundtrack without Tangerine Dream (don't get me wrong; the Tangerine Dream soundtrack is amazing)

It’s the same soundtrack mixed in 2.0 instead of 5.1 (which is evidently the default)

The 2.0 is now confirmed to be the original mix according to Criterion, who sent this out to a BR user:

Our release features two soundtracks - the original 1977 2.0 surround soundtrack and the 2013 5.1 surround remix, both of which were approved by director William Friedkin.

[yoloswegmaster]

Comparison between the new release and the previous WB release (though it's not comparing the exact same frame):

Spoiler

Criterion:

WB:

Criterion:

WB:

Criterion:

WB:

Criterion:

WB:

Criterion:

WB:

Criterion:

WB:

[FrauBlucher]

DVDBeaver

[dwk]

And in the case of Sorcerer, there's a director-approved reference print, a 2013 director-approved master... and what then is the Criterion master ? How much of each does it contains ? Where do the differences between the Criterion discs and the 2013 ones come from ? Was the print wrong on some shots and it got fixed in 2013 ? Was the 2013 master wrong and the print allow to realise the mistakes ?
Etc etc.

Well, with Sorcerer, given Friedkin's habit of altering colors for DVDs and Blu-rays, one would assume that, if there was a vast difference between the two, the home video master was more likely to be altered and the print is what you should opt for when deciding between the two.

[tenia]

That's my point : if the print is the decision-making element in the end, why bother with the 2013 master ? Conversely, if you're going to maintain what it did that wasn't exactly in the print, how much of the print is not reproduced ?
And then again : none of it might matter if, no matter which source has prevailed for given shots, the lab leaves a color signature on top of it anyway.

Those are the remaining questions even when there are multiple reference points.

I'm not saying Svet is right in the current case, I'm just saying that yes, even having those don't 100% prevent a grading to go awry.

This being written, Svet's poor C+P of the tech blurb, which now states the restoration has been made from "the 35mm CRI" instead of the freaking 35mm OCN, is yet another proof that he just doesn't care about his reviews being accurate on at least just basic aspects. It's like he gave up.

[cdnchris]

That's my point : if the print is the decision-making element in the end, why bother with the 2013 master ? Conversely, if you're going to maintain what it did that wasn't exactly in the print, how much of the print is not reproduced ?

That was my question, too when I saw that. Using the print is fine (if it's in good condition), but I imagine Friedkin regraded everything for the Warner Blu-ray since he was going through that phase. I honestly doubt the Warner Blu-ray is correct; I always questioned the heavy blues in some sequences and I doubt the colors overall are accurate to the period. But then I'm not sure about what's here either. That said, in the end, I honestly don't think I really give a shit. On the whole, I think this one looks better, and I especially like that the blues are gone (I'm sorry, but that was clearly Friedkin fucking around). It's also not a blanket "teal" (that is admittedly a lot heavier than Night Moves) as the opening sequences introducing the characters are graded differently; it's not until they go to South America that the grading goes heavier towards the greenish/tealy look (edit: just clarifying it's still there in the early scenes, too), which honestly feels intentional. It looks fine. And really, while it's noticeable enough, I think you'd only really notice during direct comparisons; in isolation from one another they're fine. It's not like Ritrovata, Eclair, or others where it's so obnoxiously obvious something is off, and at least looks like something that maybe could have been accomplished naturally. Again, I don't know if it's right, but this constant BS is getting tiring when in the end nobody really fucking knows and the end results are fine.

[tenia]

It is frustrating BS. It bundles very different things together, to the point it'll end up being look at like people yelling wolf, and actual real crappy job being legitimately questioned will be dismissed as people overreacting.
I'd say it's the industry's own fault if it can't be trusted even with humpteen referenced, though, but blanket-statement-reviews like Svet's are genuinely counter-productive, and we're only lucky that less and less people are taking them any seriously.

[dwk]

That's my point : if the print is the decision-making element in the end, why bother with the 2013 master ? Conversely, if you're going to maintain what it did that wasn't exactly in the print, how much of the print is not reproduced ?

Honestly, who knows. Maybe, like with McCabe & Mrs. Miller, they wanted to check multiple sources to reference the colors or they started with the video master before they got access to the print. I think, lacking timing notes, a living director or cinematographer, or answer print, it is generally a good idea to check as many references as you can (previous masters, prints, etc.) even if they look wildly different. (Actually, it probably is a good idea to check out as many references as possible even if you have timing notes, a living director and/or cinematographer and an answer print.)

[Finch]

If I had to buy the film, I'd absolutely go for the Criterion 4K. It's in the correct AR and has the original mono without the annoying gun shot sound added in the last few moments, and I personally really like the grading they've done. On the other forum, one or two users mentioned that the encode struggles a bit with the highlights like some other CC 4Ks do, but outside of that, this feels like as best a release as could be produced, given that we may never know for sure how the film is supposed to look.

[tenia]

Honestly, who knows. Maybe, like with McCabe & Mrs. Miller, they wanted to check multiple sources to reference the colors or they started with the video master before they got access to the print. I think, lacking timing notes, a living director or cinematographer, or answer print, it is generally a good idea to check as many references as you can (previous masters, prints, etc.) even if they look wildly different. (Actually, it probably is a good idea to check out as many references as possible even if you have timing notes, a living director and/or cinematographer and an answer print.)

It's obviously a good idea to check out as many relevant references as possible, it's perfectly fine and I don't doubt it's done as much as it's possible. I do hope I don't look like like I'm questioning this. What I just wanted to remind, Sorcerer's specific case aside, is that unfortunately, there have been cases where even multiple references didn't prevent the grading to go awry, and that has become part of the available data regarding what can be trusted and what needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I wish it was as easy as "this is right because they referenced this and that, this is wrong and they didn't", but unfortunately, available historical data make this more complex (than it should arguably be).

This being written, comparative caps are beginning to pop up, and several of the comparisons are interesting in showing how minute the differences seem to be in several shots between the 2013 and 2025 gradings. Sure, one could argue the newer grading looks a bit teal-er, but one could argue it's simply less neutralized than the 2013 one.

[MichaelB]

Honestly, who knows. Maybe, like with McCabe & Mrs. Miller, they wanted to check multiple sources to reference the colors or they started with the video master before they got access to the print. I think, lacking timing notes, a living director or cinematographer, or answer print, it is generally a good idea to check as many references as you can (previous masters, prints, etc.) even if they look wildly different. (Actually, it probably is a good idea to check out as many references as possible even if you have timing notes, a living director and/or cinematographer and an answer print.)

It's said of McCabe & Mrs Miller that no two 35mm prints looked entirely alike because of Vilmos Zsigmond's photochemical experimentation.

And yes, definitely check as many sources as possible - if you have several, then anomalous ones will be that much more striking.

[dwk]

It's said of McCabe & Mrs Miller that no two 35mm prints looked entirely alike because of Vilmos Zsigmond's photochemical experimentation.

Lee Kline saying they screened nine prints and they all looked different, is one of those thing imprinted in my mind and I think about it when color controversies pop up.

[beamish14]

I saw this in 35mm from a print struck in the 90’s, and the WB looks much closer to how I remember it being. The night scenes in particular were color timed to make certain facets of the screen completely cloaked in darkness

[FrauBlucher]

I finally got around to seeing this at a screening at the Film Forum. While I liked it, I still prefer The Wages of Fear. I thought the characters’ set ups were interesting but I felt it wasn’t something that was necessary once the film moved to South/Central America.

[MichaelB]

I finally got around to seeing this at a screening at the Film Forum. While I liked it, I still prefer The Wages of Fear. I thought the characters’ set ups were interesting but I felt it wasn’t something that was necessary once the film moved to South/Central America.

I haven't seen the 1978 re-edit (created for the European market after the film flopped disastrously in the US), but it was very interesting reading editor Jim Clark's memoirs on the subject. He also felt that that structure fundamentally didn't work, and instead started the action in South/Central America, turning the opening scenes into occasional flashbacks.

(Friedkin wasn't involved, much to Clark's relief; his reputation preceded him!)

[FrauBlucher]

Yeah, I did think that they could’ve been better utilized as flashbacks