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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Cremildo]

I've never seen a screencap of the current Blu-ray that doesn't look pasty and flat and outright undesirable, which is why I've never bought it. If that's "perfectly decent", I shudder to think what a horrible release looks like.

[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.

[StarDestroyer52]

This has been one of my long sought after films. I've held off the MGM one in the hope that there would be a Criterion. When the pre-order goes live on Amazon I will be ordering this baby.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by StarDestroyer52

This has been one of my long sought after films. I've held off the MGM one in the hope that there would be a Criterion. When the pre-order goes live on Amazon I will be ordering this baby.

I paid 5 bucks for the old disc; this double dip won't be too much of a set back.

[Arch Stanton]

Definitely in for this. Really good film (in a kinda weird position between Old Hollywood and New Hollywood - for better and for worse) that hopefully will look substantially better than the problematic looking old disc.

[Alfredlynch]

A classic that needed an upgrade. I'm in.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by javi92

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

No.

Not even slightly.

[Rizor]

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:

Eh. I don't really agree with the reviewer's conclusions. I remember getting the old disc early from Fox Connect and posting my thoughts on it. The problem to me is it looks like an ancient '90s era master, as opposed to bad film elements.

[StingingVelvet]

Ooooh yay. I love it when my procrastination to get something pays off with a better release.

[Trace17]

Don't have the old disc but any improvement will be welcome.

[RCRochester]

I can’t WAIT for mid-January...

When Gary Tooze will post his review, then someone will hand pick some screencaps and despite the obvious improvements in grain structure, detail and colour, will complain that “Critealion” has struck again that he’s hanging on to his vastly superior MGM disc then someone will talk about the magenta push of all those old MGM discs and we’ll have a big ole flame war... insults will be made, Bates Motel will make some snarky comments, CineSicko will go full on rage mode then dial it back quick as can be, Tooze’s competency will be called into question and we’ll all have a good time!