Dressed to Kill (1980)

[sjconstable]

All pedantries aside, looking at the restoration of Blind Chance, it is clear the colour-timing is not accurate to what it looked like in the '80s. For many films it is just obvious when it's not faithful, others it can be more difficult to discern. Dressed to Kill I have a feeling didn't look green in the '80s, but I'm not going to argue about that one as to be honest I don't care about that film.

[42041]

Originally Posted by sjconstable

For many films it is just obvious when it's not faithful, others it can be more difficult to discern. Dressed to Kill I have a feeling didn't look green in the '80s, but I'm not going to argue about that one as to be honest I don't care about that film.

From my experience, the people who find this the most "obvious" tend to be the ones least qualified to make any kind of judgement on the matter. There are tons of movies from the 80s drenched in the green/blue/teal light of mercury vapor lamps (as well as the more vaguely green-tinged tones of fluorescent lights).

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

A fair point. BUT remember, some of us may have seen it theatrically much more recently. There are revival houses, museum screenings, etc. I saw a screening off a really nice 35mm print not all that long ago.

I live in a rural area where this never happens, so I have no idea how regular it might be in a city, sounds nice, though. It just seems like folks here see a transfer look more blue than the DVD(or more accurately, less red) they cry foul about the dreaded teal treatment being the norm these days. They trot out the French Connection as the only real proven example of revisionism. When you consider the reduction of DNR and increase in film grain, BluRay is more representative of theatrical presentation than DVDs ever were. Why would studios go in that direction, but then completely change the colors, when it's more likely that there wasn't much concern over recreating a faithful viewing experience back in the DVD days?

With the French Connection you had the director of photography admitting that Friedken screwed up the colors, but in this instance both De Palma and his D.P. have signed off on the transfer, but I'm supposed to take the word of somebody on a message board that the image is supposed to be warmer?

[Trax-3]

Some very famous colour films have never been seen on home video with the original timing. This forum would explode in righteous indignation if Warner released GWTW with brown/sepia tint or pastel Wizard of Oz.

[frakking toaster]

I've held off on ordering this after hearing about it getting repressed. If I order this now is there still a chance of getting the first pressing or will I get the corrected version?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by sjconstable

There are countless DVDs which provide more faithful presentations than the Blu-rays. What people REALLY need to do is stop assuming that if it's on Blu-ray, it's correct.

I don't see people making such assumptions here. You produced one generalization and then produced a second one to dismiss it.

Originally Posted by 42041

From my experience, the people who find this the most "obvious" tend to be the ones least qualified to make any kind of judgement on the matter. There are tons of movies from the 80s drenched in the green/blue/teal light of mercury vapor lamps (as well as the more vaguely green-tinged tones of fluorescent lights).

Very true.

I have seen Kieslowski's film in two different retrospectives and it is indeed very cold.

Pro-B

[mredman]

Originally Posted by GxyExpress999

I did A/B comparison between Arrow and Criterion (first pressing but unsqueezed ) and, to me there is no comparison. I prefer Criterion hands down - beautifully distributed grain, better contrast, and Arrow version's red push is noticeable especially during the museum scene (wall/Dickinson's coat etc.).

The Arrow transfer is fantastic. If you got that there is no reason to upgrade. The only Extras its also missing is the new interviews and thats it.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

I live in a rural area where this never happens, so I have no idea how regular it might be in a city, sounds nice, though. It just seems like folks here see a transfer look more blue than the DVD(or more accurately, less red) they cry foul about the dreaded teal treatment being the norm these days. They trot out the French Connection as the only real proven example of revisionism. When you consider the reduction of DNR and increase in film grain, BluRay is more representative of theatrical presentation than DVDs ever were. Why would studios go in that direction, but then completely change the colors, when it's more likely that there wasn't much concern over recreating a faithful viewing experience back in the DVD days?

With the French Connection you had the director of photography admitting that Friedken screwed up the colors, but in this instance both De Palma and his D.P. have signed off on the transfer, but I'm supposed to take the word of somebody on a message board that the image is supposed to be warmer?

Just to be clear, I'm the one saying I saw the film fairly recently. I also saw it numerous times in the 80s and 90s. And I was saying - based on the screen-caps in the review, still waiting on my copy of the Criterion - the the colors looked pretty accurate to what I remember in the theater, not saying it should be warmer.

Of course no one can say for sure exactly what a film 'should' look like. As Friedken showed, even directors can make mistakes years later. As someone else mentioned, every theater can be different - lamp temps and brightness can vary wildly. And yes, the source of the print is always an issue. Even 'original' answer prints from an I.P - the vast majority of prints made in that era - never look quite the same as the very few 'show' prints made directly off the original negative, that were usually used for the premiere engagements in NY/LA and screenings for the major press - no matter how how hard you try.

Unless you saw a fresh print, made off the negative, projected in perfect conditions (which rarely occur in the real world) you never see a 'perfect' version.

All that said, if you're a fan or student of a certain film maker and their work, see their films multiple times in various good conditions, etc, you can make a pretty good educated guess as to whether the look of a given print, or blu-ray seems to be in the right 'zone'. All I was saying was that, for me, with this film, which I've seen many many times, from early press screenings on, the screen caps on the review here looked promising as being the closest I've seen to what I remember.

[sjconstable]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I have seen Kieslowski's film in two different retrospectives and it is indeed very cold.

Pro-B

Yeah, it's meant to look cold, I never said it wasn't.

[sjconstable]

Originally Posted by Trax-3

Some very famous colour films have never been seen on home video with the original timing. This forum would explode in righteous indignation if Warner released GWTW with brown/sepia tint or pastel Wizard of Oz.

Suspiria would be one of those, the new Synapse restoration should see to that.

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

Just to be clear, I'm the one saying I saw the film fairly recently. I also saw it numerous times in the 80s and 90s. And I was saying - based on the screen-caps in the review, still waiting on my copy of the Criterion - the the colors looked pretty accurate to what I remember in the theater, not saying it should be warmer.

Of course no one can say for sure exactly what a film 'should' look like. As Friedken showed, even directors can make mistakes years later. As someone else mentioned, every theater can be different - lamp temps and brightness can vary wildly. And yes, the source of the print is always an issue. Even 'original' answer prints from an I.P - the vast majority of prints made in that era - never look quite the same as the very few 'show' prints made directly off the original negative, that were usually used for the premiere engagements in NY/LA and screenings for the major press - no matter how how hard you try.

Unless you saw a fresh print, made off the negative, projected in perfect conditions (which rarely occur in the real world) you never see a 'perfect' version.

All that said, if you're a fan or student of a certain film maker and their work, see their films multiple times in various good conditions, etc, you can make a pretty good educated guess as to whether the look of a given print, or blu-ray seems to be in the right 'zone'. All I was saying was that, for me, with this film, which I've seen many many times, from early press screenings on, the screen caps on the review here looked promising as being the closest I've seen to what I remember.

I wasn't referring to anybody specific, but whenever these conversations surface, somebody claims to remember the color temps from a theatrical viewing years, sometimes decades, ago. There's usually a disclaimer about having some type of photographic memory. I think some folks are used to years of watching DVDs that were far too warm. It'd certainly be ironic if they're importing warmer disks in the name of purism, that are actually quite different from how the films were intended to look.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

I wasn't referring to anybody specific, but whenever these conversations surface, somebody claims to remember the color temps from a theatrical viewing years, sometimes decades, ago. There's usually a disclaimer about having some type of photographic memory. I think some folks are used to years of watching DVDs that were far too warm. It'd certainly be ironic if they're importing warmer disks in the name of purism, that are actually quite different from how the films were intended to look.

Quite agree.

The other interesting complexity in new versions of films from the 90s or earlier is that, as someone else noted, before digital intermediates became the rule, the color timing process was very much a trial and error process, and one could only make general overall corrections to the colors or the density/brightness of a shot, not the kind of very specific detailed area by area control that exists as the rule now. And each time you had to print it again off the negative just to see how the correction worked, which always involved risk to the negative itself, so there was a pressure to not do too many timing 'passes' of the film. So all color timing involved a certain amount of compromise, and usually some frustration.

I can certainly see the appeal for a director or D.P. in tweaking the original for blu-ray (or DVD) to try and fix some of those original compromises. So what we get now on any director or D.P. approved blu-ray might very intentionally differ in small but important ways from the original film.

[dwk]

Originally Posted by frakking toaster

I've held off on ordering this after hearing about it getting repressed. If I order this now is there still a chance of getting the first pressing or will I get the corrected version?

Almost no chance of getting the first pressing. The 2nd print has a new UPC code (which is why Amazon cancelled all the pre-orders a couple weeks back.)

[Namuhana]

I'm just happy to get the movie...

[Markgway]

My advice: Just buy the one you think looks best.

After all: You're the one who's going to watch it with your own eyes.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by sjconstable

Yeah, it's meant to look cold, I never said it wasn't.

This is what you said, sjconstable:

Originally Posted by sjconstable

All pedantries aside, looking at the restoration of Blind Chance, it is clear the colour-timing is not accurate to what it looked like in the '80s.

I have seen this film in two retrospectives and the color timing is indeed very accurate. The film does have a very distinctive range of cold color tonalities, with grays, blues, and browns looking very much as they appear on the Blu-ray. The only issue I see here is the fact that the brightness levels are set a bit too low, and as a result some of the indoor footage looks a bit too dark. But this has absolutely nothing to do with Criterion. The entire restoration was completed in Poland and that's where the master was created.

Frankly, Kieslowski is the last director you want to give as an example when addressing common standards and color timing. His films are highly stylized in this particular period. From No End to The Double Life of Veronique all of his films have very prominent greenish/blueish/brownish/grayish tints. You could not quite tell when they arrived on DVD -- actually, I think that if you pay attention you should be able to tell -- but there is a very obvious stylistic preference in his work from the '80s/'90s.

These are two of my favorite Kieslowski films (see below) and they have exactly this greenish/grayish look people on the forum love to argue wasn't around at the time. I can guarantee you that when they transition to Blu-ray -- and they will -- these unique color tonalities will be very prominent because this is how Kieslowski created the films. Later on, he moved everything to a different level with The Double Life of Veronique

The DVD releases simply struggled with these unique color schemes because it was virtually impossible to capture the different nuances. I think that back in the days Karmitz and the guys at MK2 tried to do a decent job, but you can tell that DVD's limitations were a major issue.



Pro-B

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by mredman

The Arrow transfer is fantastic. If you got that there is no reason to upgrade. The only Extras its also missing is the new interviews and thats it.

I love Arrow Video. In fact if I am a fanboy for any company it is Arrow Video. However the new 4k scan done for Dressed to Kill by Criterion adds a ton of detail, proper grain and overall more pleasant image. The only reason to prefer the Arrow version is if you think the colors were massively screwed up on the Criterion, but personally I trust De Palma over warm-push DVD masters and forum gripes.

[frakking toaster]

Originally Posted by dwk

Almost no chance of getting the first pressing. The 2nd print has a new UPC code (which is why Amazon cancelled all the pre-orders a couple weeks back.)

Thank you!

[dwk]

Sorry, scratch that, the UPC (715515154413) is the same but the 2nd printing has a sticker over the old one and adds two digits (01). Here is a picture of the back of the 2nd and 1st printings that Ryan Gallagher of the Criterion Cast tweeted out:


Still, if you order it you almost certainly are going to get the corrected version.

[Canada]

I have to see this movie I am a huge Brian De Palma fan.