In the Heat of the Night (1967)

[Scottie]

In the Heat of the Night (1967)

Passing through the backwoods town of Sparta, Mississippi, Philadelphia detective Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) becomes embroiled in a murder case. He forms an uneasy alliance with the bigoted police chief (Rod Steiger), who faces mounting pressure from Sparta’s hostile citizens to catch the killer and run the African American interloper out of town. Director Norman Jewison splices incisive social commentary into this thrilling police procedural with the help of Haskell Wexler’s vivid cinematography, Quincy Jones’s eclectic score, and two indelible lead performances—a career-defining display of seething indignation and moral authority from Poitier and an Oscar-winning master class in Method acting from Steiger. Winner of five Academy Awards, including for best picture, In the Heat of the Night is one of the most courageous Hollywood films of the civil rights era.

• New 4K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• New interview with director Norman Jewison
• New interview with actor Lee Grant
• New interview with Aram Goudsouzian, author of Sidney Poitier: Man, Actor, Icon
• Audio commentary from 2008 featuring Jewison, Grant, actor Rod Steiger, and cinematographer Haskell Wexler
• Turning Up the Heat: Movie-Making in the ’60s, a 2008 program about the production of the film and its legacy, featuring Jewison, Wexler, producer Walter Mirisch, and filmmakers John Singleton and Reginald Hudlin
• Quincy Jones: Breaking New Sound, a 2008 program about Jones’s innovative soundtrack, including its title song sung by Ray Charles, featuring interviews with Jones, lyricists Alan and Marilyn Bergman, and musician
• Herbie Hancock
• Trailer
• PLUS: An essay by critic K. Austin Collins

New cover by Sean Phillips

https://www.criterion.com/films/2945...t-of-the-night

[Dailyan]

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by Criterion

New 4K digital restoration

For those who are knowledgeable about the subject - does that mean a different source from the previous disc has been used?

From the Blu-ray.com review of the 2014 edition:

The original negative for ItHotN either was lost or had degraded beyond usability. MGM prepared a dupe negative from separation masters, but the dupe negative was created by analog scanning, which routinely results in a degree of misalignment. Therefore, a certain amount of instability was baked into the dupe negative, which is the main reason why much of the background detail in the Blu-ray image appears indistinct. The effect is similar to what 1967 audiences probably saw after the print at their local cinema had been run through the projector for a week or so. Some posters in the Blu-ray.com forum have attributed this phenomenon to digital manipulation, but in fact it's an accurate reflection of what is on the negative as it currently exists.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

For those who are knowledgeable about the subject - does that mean a different source from the previous disc has been used?

From the Blu-ray.com review of the 2014 edition:

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the source that is going to be the basis of the new disc. It seems to be the best available element.

[javi92]

Yay, another Criterion issue that already has a perfectly good blu release. Sigh.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by javi92

Yay, another Criterion issue that already has a perfectly good blu release. Sigh.

The MGM Blu is easily one of the weaker looking Blus I own. I don't know if it's because of the source elements or the how they scanned years ago for the DVD but it leaves a lot to be desired.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by javi92

Yay, another Criterion issue that already has a perfectly good blu release. Sigh.

LOl it's far from "perfectly good." If Criterion fixes the registration issues on the film source, it'll be a massive upgrade for that alone.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by javi92

yay, another criterion issue that already has a perfectly good blu release. Sigh.

No.

Not even slightly.

[davidsal]

Originally Posted by javi92

Yay, another Criterion issue that already has a perfectly good blu release. Sigh.

That bluray have big problems. For me the more important is the "fat faces". It's horizontally stretched. Hope Criterion corrected it.

[Doctorossi]

Come on, Criterion! It's UHD time- you know it is!

DO IT!

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by davidsal

That bluray have big problems. For me the more important is the "fat faces". It's horizontally stretched. Hope Criterion corrected it.

Are you sure that's not just Rod Steiger?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by javi92

Yay, another Criterion issue that already has a perfectly good blu release. Sigh.

Posts like these don't age well.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

For those who are knowledgeable about the subject - does that mean a different source from the previous disc has been used?

From the Blu-ray.com review of the 2014 edition:

I'm not really sure, but I know for certain that this release HAS to improve upon the MGM one. Just looking back at the screencaps on that old review you linked to, there are a lot of smooth looking faces and not a whole lot of grain that I can see and some caps have a very bright "video" look to them.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I'm not really sure, but I know for certain that this release HAS to improve upon the MGM one. Just looking back at the screencaps on that old review you linked to, there are a lot of smooth looking faces and not a whole lot of grain that I can see and some caps have a very bright "video" look to them.

Even by older MGM masters standards it's fairly underwhelming and watching it on a bigger screen only makes it look worse.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I'm not really sure, but I know for certain that this release HAS to improve upon the MGM one. Just looking back at the screencaps on that old review you linked to, there are a lot of smooth looking faces and not a whole lot of grain that I can see and some caps have a very bright "video" look to them.

It's mainly because the registration is off, causing it to look soft and mildly out of focus. Not sure Criterion could get the separation masters to re-align the filmstrips, but one hopes they did.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's mainly because the registration is off, causing it to look soft and mildly out of focus. Not sure Criterion could get the separation masters to re-align the filmstrips, but one hopes they did.

"New digital restoration" to me implies it's the same scan.

[SpaceBlackKnight]

Originally Posted by koberulz

"New digital restoration" to me implies it's the same scan.

Then I wouldn't put it past MGM if they cheapened out on the restoration and just "enhanced" the previous source for 4k ala Platoon.

Again, we should wait till someone sees screenings of this restoration or come January.

[tama]

Originally Posted by koberulz

"New digital restoration" to me implies it's the same scan.

No. The original scan was not derived from a 4K scan. Also the official press release both here and elsewhere on other sites specifically state Brand New 4K resto. Park Circus has been screening a DCP of this new 4K master for a while now as well.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by koberulz

"New digital restoration" to me implies it's the same scan.

They have said that exact same verbiage on other releases like The Graduate and Midnight Cowboy, which turned out to have a new 4K scans, so we'll know when the disc comes out.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Whoever handled it, one would hope that they've done exactly what you described, digitally recombining the seps rather than dealing with an extremely dupey-looking source. I do hope they haven't Platoon'ed it though.

To be honest, I can't imagine a scenario where they DON'T do that. There's no way theyvrelease the same master that's out there, so there has to be some incentive for them to tackle it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's mainly because the registration is off, causing it to look soft and mildly out of focus. Not sure Criterion could get the separation masters to re-align the filmstrips, but one hopes they did.

Whoever handled it, one would hope that they've done exactly what you described, digitally recombining the seps rather than dealing with an extremely dupey-looking source. I do hope they haven't Platoon'ed it though.