Amadeus 4K UHD (1984) (40th Anniversary Edition) Feb 25

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Chad Rouch

Good Lord, that's like a real life horror movie right there. Thank God they were able to properly fix it back.

It was pretty common in the 1990s. It's what Lucas did to Star Wars (and probably Empire and Jedi). It's what Coppola did to Apocalypse Now.

Back before the Digital Intermediate (DI) age, in other words before around 2002, the common way to create a new cut of a film was to alter the conformed negative itself.

Amadeus was done at the VERY, VERY tag end of this era, once digital tools existed to make recutting the negative unnecessary, which is why I was surprised, it's what the Academy Archive official was alluding to.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Egons Ghost

That was painful to read. What the hell was he thinking. Thank goodness for Paul Zaentz's efforts, otherwise the original cut might have been gone. I don't think we knew this until now?

It's true, I was shocked, I assumed that by 2002 they would have been wiser than to alter the negative itself. Most of the cases I spoke of above were in the 90s. I'm assuming that's why the Academy official tried to convince Zaentz to try another method.

It's a miracle that Zaentz's nephew was so committed to restoring the original version of the film, and not just rescanning the 2002 cut, which most other people would have done.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

wouldn't it technically be a requirement by the DGA to include it or something?

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case

Except Forman disliked the material he excised in the first place, which means the theatrical cut *is* the "director's cut". Sort of like Kevin Costner stating he had nothing to do with the extended version of Dances With Wolves and Friedkin unhappy with certain scenes in Blatty's screenplay for the Exorcist, wisely cutting them which rankled Blatty the same way Shaffer was ticked off by Forman's original edit.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

He didn't say if the longer version was also restored at 4K, but since that's what the negative is conformed to, there's a MUCH greater chance of that than I had assumed.

This is why you should never assume.

Thanks for the update! I hope this is released soon on video.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

This is why you should never assume.

Thanks for the update! I hope this is released soon on video.

I do want to be clear, there was no suggestion made at the event that the longer version was also fully remastered. They specifically talked only about the difficulty of recreating the theatrical cut.

That said, if they did choose to remaster the longer cut at the same time, it wouldn't have been hugely difficult.

If they choose to include the longer cut in whatever physical release they do eventually, I'm happy for you.

That said, I'm gonna go on making assumptions, as long as they're based on carefully considered available evidence and as long as I always carefully qualify them as such. The 1% of the time they turn out to be incorrect, I'm fine admitting that. However, usually, assembling strong evidence leads to an accurate assumption. In this case, a surprising new piece of evidence changed everything, which is always possible.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Except Forman disliked the material he excised in the first place, which means the theatrical cut *is* the "director's cut". Sort of like Kevin Costner stating he had nothing to do with the extended version of Dances With Wolves and Friedkin unhappy with certain scenes in Blatty's screenplay for the Exorcist, wisely cutting them which rankled Blatty the same way Shaffer was ticked off by Forman's original edit.

I'm sure we'll learn more once the restoration goes wider and those involved start doing proper interviews. These were very brief introductory remarks, there was no Q&A after the film.

They'll probably either do a limited theatrical run, or send it straight to physical media. Either way, there will be promotional interviews.

Forman did briefly (and wisely) jump on board with promoting the longer cut at the moment it came out.

Now that we know the negative was recut to be conformed to the alternate cut, it does change things a bit. I never expected that to have been the case, as late as 2002.

[James Luckard]

I found one of the only articles that seems to have been done to promote the screening last night, with a couple of interviews:

https://www.goldderby.com/article/20...s-restoration/

Zaentz was one of the first people to bring their collection to the Film Archive when it opened in 1991. “The way he produced his films in a unique kind of way for the time period he was active,” said archive director Mike Pogorzelski in a recent Zoom chat. “He would only make deals for distribution with studios. The Saul Zaentz Company owned all the movies; the studios did not. When the film was released on DVD, Saul wanted to create a new version of it that was marketed as ‘Amadeus (Director’s Cut).’ He wanted to access the original negative to make that version. So, the negative was cut. For all of those years, since 2001, the original camera negative has only existed in this alternate version.”

The producer died at the age of 92 in 2014; his nephew Paul Zaentz now owns the company. He has always preferred the original two-hour 40-minute version over the three-hour eight-minute director’s cut. “So, we all came together in a way we all want to: Paul, because he wants to put ‘Amadeus’ back into distribution for the 40th anniversary of its release and for us, the academy we want the version that the academy members awarded,” noted Pogorzelski.

Because nothing had been taken out of the negative, it made the Academy Film Archive’s job a little easier. “We weren’t trying to find missing footage for the most part,” said archive preservationist Tessa Idlewine. “It just meant we lost a frame on either side on the original negative. It meant replacing those two frames. We used a 35mm interpositive…we were able to fill those in.” Luckily, she added, the original negative was in “pretty good shape” with some dirt, and scratches.”

[Ernest Rister]

Watch them restore the original laserdisc commentary track with Forman criticizing the Salieri/Constanze scene...

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

That article says nothing was taken out of the negative for the DC, aside from some lost frames, but that isn't strictly true. I'm thinking in particular about the moment with Salieri after he says "I will hinder and harm your creature on earth, as far as I am able" - the Theatrical Version then cuts back to him and he says "I will ruin your incarnation!" and then smiles (this is missing from the DC).

Can those who attended the screening confirm that this is back? That article is just making me a bit nervous.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

That article says nothing was taken out of the negative for the DC, aside from some lost frames, but that isn't strictly true. I'm thinking in particular about the moment with Salieri after he says "I will hinder and harm your creature on earth, as far as I am able" - the Theatrical Version then cuts back to him and he says "I will ruin your incarnation!" and then smiles (this is missing from the DC).

Can those who attended the screening confirm that this is back? That article is just making me a bit nervous.

I don't remember, to be honest. I adore the film, and I've seen it countless times, but I admit I'm not intimately familiar with individual lines of dialogue.

I would just say to take any pronouncements in a promotional interview with a grain of salt.

The intention here by Zaentz and the Academy was to restore the theatrical version, exactly as it was originally seen.

I guess we'll see when it's more widely distributed.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

That article says nothing was taken out of the negative for the DC, aside from some lost frames, but that isn't strictly true. I'm thinking in particular about the moment with Salieri after he says "I will hinder and harm your creature on earth, as far as I am able" - the Theatrical Version then cuts back to him and he says "I will ruin your incarnation!" and then smiles (this is missing from the DC).

Can those who attended the screening confirm that this is back? That article is just making me a bit nervous.

Also, note that the worrying part of the article is not a quote, it's the writer's own interpretation. The quote is:

“We weren’t trying to find missing footage for the most part,”

for the most part suggests they did have to retrieve a small amount of missing footage.

That's not the only brief bit of footage from the theatrical cut missing in the 2002 cut:

https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2234

I can confirm that the argument with the father/billiard balls scene is restored to its original form, with original footage restored that wasn't present in the 2002 cut.

Hopefully they saved those negative trims in 2002. If not, they probably sourced that material from the interpositive they mentioned.,

Again, I'm sure we'll get more detailed interviews to promote the wider release of the restoration.

[Chad Rouch]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

It was pretty common in the 1990s. It's what Lucas did to Star Wars (and probably Empire and Jedi). It's what Coppola did to Apocalypse Now.

Back before the Digital Intermediate (DI) age, in other words before around 2002, the common way to create a new cut of a film was to alter the conformed negative itself.

Amadeus was done at the VERY, VERY tag end of this era, once digital tools existed to make recutting the negative unnecessary, which is why I was surprised, it's what the Academy Archive official was alluding to.

True, but none of those were Best Picture winners, which made this news particularly painful. Also, those instances were all intended for wide theatrical releases printed to film, so they'd need the better quality Oneg for that production chain, but I don't remember this getting a wide release (maybe a handful of theaters) so recutting an internegative would have been acceptable for what was primarily a video release.

[SpacemanDoug]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Also, note that the worrying part of the article is not a quote, it's the writer's own interpretation. The quote is:

“We weren’t trying to find missing footage for the most part,”

for the most part suggests they did have to retrieve a small amount of missing footage.

That's not the only brief bit of footage from the theatrical cut missing in the 2002 cut:

https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2234

I can confirm that the argument with the father/billiard balls scene is restored to its original form, with original footage restored that wasn't present in the 2002 cut.

Hopefully they saved those negative trims in 2002. If not, they probably sourced that material from the interpositive they mentioned.,

Again, I'm sure we'll get more detailed interviews to promote the wider release of the restoration.

Wow...I was wrong then about the negative conform being the theatrical cut, I only assumed it was because I didn't think the director's cut ever got a theatrical release that required 35mm printing

But now I know the negative itself only exists in that cut...that's tragic

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

If they choose to include the longer cut in whatever physical release they do eventually, I'm happy for you.

No need to be happy for me, I prefer the theatrical cut.

[Chad Rouch]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

I only assumed it was because I didn't think the director's cut ever got a theatrical release that required 35mm printing

But now I know the negative itself only exists in that cut...that's tragic

And according to Box Office Mojo, the theatrical release of the Director's Cut in 2002 was on a whopping 18 screens. Butchering the negative was so obviously worth it for just under a $500,000 gross, which only about half was returned to Saul Zaentz.

[Thomasj219]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Except Forman disliked the material he excised in the first place, which means the theatrical cut *is* the "director's cut". Sort of like Kevin Costner stating he had nothing to do with the extended version of Dances With Wolves and Friedkin unhappy with certain scenes in Blatty's screenplay for the Exorcist, wisely cutting them which rankled Blatty the same way Shaffer was ticked off by Forman's original edit.

All these people complaining about the directors cut and spreading misinformation about Forman not liking the material he shot clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

They restored that version of the film because that is their preferred version, listen to the commentary on the Blu-ray and you’ll know what I mean. It is also the better version, the only reason people like the theatrical better is because that is what they are used to. The music is even edited better in the directors cut, particularly the scene where Antonio enters the apartment and hears Figaro for the first time.


I really hope that the Directors cut is included.

[Chad Rouch]

Originally Posted by Thomasj219

All these people complaining about the directors cut and spreading misinformation about Forman not liking the material he shot clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

They restored that version of the film because that is their preferred version, listen to the commentary on the Blu-ray and you’ll know what I mean. It is also the better version, the only reason people like the theatrical better is because that is what they are used to. The music is even edited better in the directors cut, particularly the scene where Antonio enters the apartment and hears Figaro for the first time.


I really hope that the Directors cut is included.

I hope both cuts are included, both fully restored. But, the theatrical cut is what won best picture and is therefore the more historically significant version.

I have no issues with Director's Cuts (I prefer the Special Edition Star Wars, for instance), but always think all versions should be preserved and released side-by-side.

[Thomasj219]

Originally Posted by Chad Rouch

I hope both cuts are included, both fully restored. But, the theatrical cut is what won best picture and is therefore the more historically significant version.

I have no issues with Director's Cuts (I prefer the Special Edition Star Wars, for instance), but always think all versions should be preserved and released side-by-side.

I would argue the Director's intentions and integrity of the piece is or should be more historically significant than any award.

[suspiciouscoffee]

No, the movie is the movie when it’s released. That’s the historic record, the locked picture. A director coming back later with crayons and claiming it was the “original idea” doesn’t mean anything in a strictly archival sense. That’s how you get the aforementioned George Lucas, imposing “his vision” on a set of movies he didn’t even direct two out of three of.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Thomasj219

All these people complaining about the directors cut and spreading misinformation about Forman not liking the material he shot clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

They restored that version of the film because that is their preferred version, listen to the commentary on the Blu-ray and you’ll know what I mean. It is also the better version, the only reason people like the theatrical better is because that is what they are used to. The music is even edited better in the directors cut, particularly the scene where Antonio enters the apartment and hears Figaro for the first time.


I really hope that the Directors cut is included.

How about the reason they prefer it is because it's better paced, the added scenes do little to nothing, and the added moments ruin the overall flow? People are understandably upset that the theatrical cut's last home video release occurred nearly 30 years ago and want a good quality version of it.

I saw an interview where the director stated why he included the extra scenes, which basically was because he wanted to present the movie "as scripted" and he never said once in that interview that he preferred one cut over the other.

Well, once we are re-releasing it on DVD, it doesn't matter if it is two hours and 40 minutes long, or three hours long. So why don't we do the version as it was written in the script?

https://www.avclub.com/milos-forman-1798208216