criterionforum.org

aox wrote:To annoy the deceased Che, I will state that the films both act as a bundle of sticks supporting each other.

Are you calling Che a faggot?

Jeff wrote:

aox wrote:So the "Complete Form" means, two separate films?

I may have misread your question a little. This should basically be the roadshow version.

There is no content difference between the "roadshow" version and the two separate films. I saw the roadshow version theatrically, which included an intermission and a animated map during the entr'acte. Even though the Criterion site doesn't mention it yet, there's no way this isn't two discs, and I imagine that intermission will be recreated at the end of disc one and the entr'acte at the beginning of disc two.

Im in Denver too. Did you catch it at the Mayan when it was playing as the roadshow edition? I could have sworn I read that the films were edited more like stand alone films in a series whereas the Roadshow edition killed the separate identities that part 1 & 2 had.

Because of this I waited to see the separate versions when they switched back and forth but couldn't make it.

I hope its true that the RS edition is basically the same thing.

I saw the roadshow version and I can assure you that each film, in spite of the maps/intermission, were more or less separate entities. There were two sets of opening and closing credits, so you don't have to worry about anything being "killed."

TedW wrote:you claim the release version cuts back and forth to "maintain audience interest" (as if that would be an inferior reason -- all good movies are willfully opaque, right?)

No, you're being willfully opaque in your misreading of the phrase "maintain audience interest". When film producers talk about "the audience" they mean the lowest-common-denominator, ie. Soderbergh and Co. jazzed up Part One for those with a low attention span, in an attempt to make sure sure they would plonk down their dollars to see Part Two. "The audience", this idiotic other, is a construct, and a self-fulfilling prophecy - but you know that already.

If Criterion are worth their salt (which I'm increasingly beginning to doubt) they will release this film as it was originally conceived and shown, before commercial imperatives, and the failure to strike a US distribution deal in Cannes, diluted it's worth.

NiceGuyCody wrote:Anderson is being intentionally dismissive of facts that dispute the fantasy world he's trying to construct, as well as the innumerable credible sources (http://www.therealcuba.com/)that he's either intentionally ignoring or outright dismissing.

A frothing far-right Cuban-exile website is a 'credible source'?! Crawl back to your hole...

Nothing wrote:

TedW wrote:you claim the release version cuts back and forth to "maintain audience interest" (as if that would be an inferior reason -- all good movies are willfully opaque, right?)

No, you're being willfully opaque in your misreading of the phrase "maintain audience interest". When film producers talk about "the audience" they mean the lowest-common-denominator, ie. Soderbergh and Co. jazzed up Part One for those with a low attention span, in an attempt to make sure sure they would plonk down their dollars to see Part Two. "The audience", this idiotic other, is a construct, and a self-fulfilling prophecy - but you know that already.

If Criterion are worth their salt (which I'm increasingly beginning to doubt) they will release this film as it was originally conceived and shown, before commercial imperatives, and the failure to strike a US distribution deal in Cannes, diluted it's worth.

I just double-checked IMDB to confirm, but Soderbergh, not "the audience," is the credited director of the film Che. But keep on going with how Criterion refusing to reconstruct an early version of the film somehow cheapens their worth as a label, because that is such a well-thought-out argument!

This is an $80m movie that failed to secure US distribution at its world premiere. Even Renoir recut La Regle du Jeu under commercial pressure.

What's the point of this edition if they're not going to treat it with the same rigour as one of their normal releases (ie. sourcing the best, most complete version of the film), but simply as a loaning out of the brand to IFC?

wasn't Canne the test run? Not the completed cut? Don't directors do this all of the time? He cut 30 minutes out of the film. I would imagine that is what 'deleted scenes' will be. At what point does a cut become official?

Don't tell me you regard the dismal 5 1/2 hour work print cut of Apocalypse Now as the most complete and definitive cut...

Nothing does have kind of a point though. Che Part 1 would have been a lot better if they hadn't added all of those fart jokes.

Blood Pie wrote:Did you catch it at the Mayan when it was playing as the roadshow edition? I could have sworn I read that the films were edited more like stand alone films in a series whereas the Roadshow edition killed the separate identities that part 1 & 2 had.

Yep. That's where I saw it. There was a twenty minute intermission. The aspect ratio changed. I don't remember there being credits at the end of part one, but it really did feel like two separate films.

Did Soderbergh's original cut of Pt 1 explain what thrown food that supposed to be on the National Lampoon cover?

aox wrote:wasn't Canne the test run? Not the completed cut? Don't directors do this all of the time? He cut 30 minutes out of the film. I would imagine that is what 'deleted scenes' will be. At what point does a cut become official?

Don't tell me you regard the dismal 5 1/2 hour work print cut of Apocalypse Now as the most complete and definitive cut...

Now I like you again. As for the argument, AOX is very right here. Disregarding quality for a second just this year Inglourious Basterds was shown in a rough cut at Cannes. I'm sure there are other examples, but the point remains that the first shown cut, especially when it's called the work or rough cut, is not necessarily the directors favored cut. Knowing a general idea of how Soderbergh works if he were to show another cut of the film it would probably be even shorter.

aox wrote:wasn't Cannes the test run? Not the completed cut? Don't directors do this all of the time?..

The film was competing for the Palme d'Or and seeking distribution in multiple territories - those are not circumstances in which one intentionally goes for a "test run". Ocassionally, films are rushed to meet the deadline (eg. Apocalypse Now, My Blueberry Nights) but that is a something that filmmakers and producers try to avoid if at all possible. Answer me this: do you really believe Soderbergh would have re-cut the film if it had been well received and sold for it's asking price in Cannes? None of the more successful films in Competition that year (The Class, Waltz with Bashir, Gomorrah, A Christmas Tale) were re-cut in this way. Remember, this is not a simple 'trimming of fat' we're talking about here - the first part has been entirely re-imagined and re-structured.

aox wrote:Don't tell me you regard the dismal 5 1/2 hour work print cut of Apocalypse Now as the most complete and definitive cut...

Actually, the 5 1/2 hour cut has many things going for it, including the intentional absence of voiceover and the hightened sense of rambling picaresque craziness that the additional length delivers. Some say that Coppola lost his nerve and sold out with the theatrical cut... Whilst Redux was an attempt to restore some of the qualities of the work print, Coppola, it seems, was creatively incapable of handling the material by that poiint. On balance, sure, the theatrical cut is the best of the three, but one can't help but feeling that it might've been even better (and I'd certainly like to see the work print released on DVD or Blu-ray, in 2.35:1 ratio preferably...)

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 (and again, I take exception to the notion this is somehow bad -- Che didn't exactly become Transfomers 2) or that Soderbergh compromised in any way. Those are changes he may have been intending to make all along. Who knows? Until you can do more than guess, I'll conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

P.S. And then you go on to argue for the workprint version of Apocalypse Now? Let me tell you, I own it... and if you can't distinguish between a first draft and a masterpiece there's not much else I can say or do.

Nothing wrote:This is an $80m movie that failed to secure US distribution at its world premiere. Even Renoir recut La Regle du Jeu under commercial pressure.

What's the point of this edition if they're not going to treat it with the same rigour as one of their normal releases (ie. sourcing the best, most complete version of the film), but simply as a loaning out of the brand to IFC?

Criterion and Soderbergh have a tight relationship and they will release the cut he wants them to release.

GringoTex wrote: Criterion and Soderbergh have a tight relationship and they will release the cut he wants them to release.

then it seems that Soderbergh is a coward.

Jesus Christ

I refuse to purchase anything other than the film as originally envisioned in Terrence Malick's mind.

domino harvey wrote:Did Soderbergh's original cut of Pt 1 explain what thrown food that supposed to be on the National Lampoon cover?

According to the extras on my VHS workprint edition of Apocalypse Now its a brown shell free range egg.

aox wrote: then it seems that Soderbergh is a coward.

The 6-hour assembly cut of Newton Boys (on which I was an assistant editor) was a fearless masterpiece.

TedW wrote: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 - as well as the reasons behind them: to 'explain' and contextualise the action in simple terms and at frequent stages, to break up the potential 'monotony' of watching the campaign from start to finish (a charge thrown at the far superior Part Two by idiots). Soderbergh is a gameplayer, a glorified journeyman, who just this once has managed to make a worthwhile film. Of course he's not going to go back and start lobbying for a return to the original cut. The compromises are admittedly minor compared to what might have been (Sony wanted a single 2hr30min version). The film didn't go down so well at Cannes but was better received upon release - he probably counts himself lucky. Nevertheless.

TedW wrote:I take exception to the notion this is somehow bad - Che didn't exactly become Transfomers 2) or that Soderbergh compromised in any way.

I must assume, at this point, that you work in Hollywood... Who else would be so defensive of a pratice (pandering to the lowest common denominator) that has all but sucked dry the landscape of modern cinema?

TedW wrote:if you can't distinguish between a first draft and a masterpiece there's not much else I can say or do.

Again, the classic Hollywood PoV... The 5.5 hr cut is more demanding of the audience, sure... I never said it was better than the theatrical cut, but that something got lost along the way. Coppola himself would agree with that (the very reason he attempted the Redux version).

Nothing wrote: Anyone with half a nose for cinematic form can spot the compromises and bad artistic decisions made in the re-edit of Part One - as well as the reasons behind them: to 'explain' and contextualise the action in simple terms and at frequent stages, to break up the potential 'monotony' of watching the campaign from start to finish (a charge thrown at the far superior Part Two by idiots).

Well, maybe your half a nose is better than all the rest. But until you hear from Soderbergh, you're guessing.

TedW wrote:I take exception to the notion this is somehow bad - Che didn't exactly become Transfomers 2) or that Soderbergh compromised in any way.

Nothing wrote: I must assume, at this point, that you work in Hollywood... Who else would be so defensive of a pratice (pandering to the lowest common denominator) that has all but sucked dry the landscape of modern cinema?

Uh, guilty, for whatever that means. But I've seen Che, and on my list of movies that "pander to the lowest common denominator," it wouldn't be anywhere near it. But hey, if it's not opaque, it must suck, right?

Nothing wrote: Again, the classic Hollywood PoV... The 5.5 hr cut is more demanding of the audience, sure...

First, an insult. Okay. Then nonsense. "More demanding of the audience"? Dude, the fucking thing isn't finished. It's a mess. It's not a movie, it's an assembly. Redux blows. The original release version is a masterpiece.

You want to argue that the Cannes version is a better movie? Fine. But don't run around with conjecture about why the film was edited afterwards, claiming it to be fact. It's quite possible Soderbergh didn't think the film was done or that he had always planned to incorporate whatever audience response he gleened into the process of finishing it (as he always does). You don't know. But when you find out, report back.

Nothing wrote: Again, the classic Hollywood PoV... The 5.5 hr cut is more demanding of the audience, sure... I never said it was better than the theatrical cut, but that something got lost along the way. Coppola himself would agree with that (the very reason he attempted the Redux version).

weird. Coppola in 1979 said the Plantation Scene was horrible and that no one would ever see it (the bulk of Redux). He also produced the cut that we all know and love. 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.

(I like both cuts; though, I wish he would have gone farther with Redux. If he was going to do it, he should have done it.)

My guess is money. But I wouldn't present that as truth!

TedW wrote:My guess is money. But I wouldn't present that as truth!

my guess as well.. but I would hate to be accused of conjecture twice in the same day from this board's city fathers.

Nothing wrote:

TedW wrote: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