This is topic Cinema Paradiso in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000538
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-09-2000, 01:40 AM:
Did the 170 minute version ever get a release in the USA? To my knowledge, it's never had a run in Australia, although I know the Electric Cinema in Portabello Rd in London ran it but I had already left the cinema by that time.Has anyone seen it? Here is what the IMDB says about the alternate versions...
http://us.imdb.com/AlternateVersions?0095765
----------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the milage"
Indiana Jones.
Posted by Anthony Matarazzo (Member # 63) on 01-09-2000, 04:41 AM:
I really enjoyed Cinema Paradiso. I know that the 155m version screened in sydney but not in Brisbane. I didn't know of the 170m version screened in Australia. I would like to have a look at the directors cut. Top movie
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-09-2000, 05:27 AM:
Anthony, where did it screen in Sydney? Is the print still around or did it go back. The print of the 120 min version is pretty beat up.
Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 01-09-2000, 08:47 AM:
My all time favorite film-if there is a director's cut on tape, I'd love to see it-I was unaware of a longer version.
Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 01-09-2000, 06:21 PM:
I screened the 120 min version when it was first released.I was unaware that there were other versions and I would like to see them.I have the 120min on video somewhere.It is an excelent film.------------------
Posted by Nicholas McRobert (Member # 205) on 01-09-2000, 07:31 PM:
As far as I am aware, the director's cut was released in the UK on VHS a few years ago. The Virgin Megastores here were giving away a copy of the screenplay with each copy of the video purchased. Personally, I own a copy of the original subtitled version. Excellent movie!!! One of my all-time favorites. I think that's why I have never watched the director's cut, though....don't want to risk spoiling it all.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-10-2000, 04:05 PM:
Yeah, but most of you guys are Cinemecannica-haters. And isn't that projector he's using a V4?
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-10-2000, 04:11 PM:
I don't know what the model of the projector is but I remember it was stamped, "Prevost", on the side. (In the 'first' theatre.)
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-10-2000, 07:35 PM:
>>"I don't know what the model of the projector is but I remember it was stamped, "Prevost", on the side. (In the 'first' theatre.)"<<Actually both projectors in CP were Prevost.
I greek friend of mine said it was pretty typical for the small town theatres to only have one projector. An intermission was expected on all films. I think it was on hour reels though rather than 20 minutes.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-11-2000, 06:41 PM:
I ran an Italian film festival recently and every film had an internission at the end of spool 3.Perhaps that's the way they run things in Italy... (on 6k's with only one machine)
-------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage"
Indiana Jones
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-17-2001, 07:00 PM:
Glorious news!The "director's cut" of Cinema Paradiso is scheduled (as of this post) for a May 2002 release in the US. Naturally it'll go through the Italians' favorite Stateside distributor, Miramax.
In downtown Easton PA -- west of where I live -- some local people took over the old UA theater last year and turned it into an arthouse/art gallery. The name? Cinema Paradiso.
Now if only MGM would release the uncut Italian versions of all those Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns 
I can die happy.
Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 07-17-2001, 09:12 PM:
The local art theatre in Ft. Lauderdale has taken the same name during festivals. Otherwise it has some other honorific name. I wish someone would at least use "Kinema" or "Bijou" as a name.Whenever anyone mentions a "director's cut" I wonder if I am in a Hollywood steakhouse. "Would you like fries with that?" I'm not sure if I want to see a different cut of "Paradiso."
Posted by Mervyn Collard (Member # 916) on 07-19-2001, 06:34 PM:
Hi guys. we are lucky in the UK as there is now a 170minute Directors cut of Cinema Paradiso available on DVD - cracking movie. If anyone is interested it's on a label called Arrow Films. They do have a web site www.arrowfilm.co.uk There are no extras on the disc but who cares - great movie.------------------
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 04-05-2002, 06:53 PM:
Updates:(1) Miramax moved the re-release of Cinema Paradiso back to June. Partly it's because the Oscar-nominated Lagaan (from India) will have a US arthouse run in May.
(2) The Cinema Paradiso theater in Easton PA closed last September. The Lehigh Valley doesn't have the demographics to support an arthouse.
Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 04-05-2002, 09:15 PM:
Isnt Lagaan out on video?
Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 04-06-2002, 02:45 AM:
John,Intermissions in Italy is very usual, all prints come with a "intermission" leader printed directly (not spliced) at the end of reel 3 or 4 (depending of the lenght of the movie).
The intermission is done or not depending of the owner, but I saw that usually customers like it. At my theater we do not have intermission because... we don't have an internal bar!!
In Italy two automatic projectors are very usual (while one is projecting the other is rewinding) so we don't need the intermission if we don't want to do it.
I have set automatic changeover without projecting the "intermission" leader.
Bye
Antonio
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 04-06-2002, 09:49 AM:
James R: Lagaan was picked up by Sony Classics to open in NYC/LA arthouses on 5/10. Cinema Paradiso will be re-released by Miramax on 6/7.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-06-2002, 11:09 AM:
Unfortunately, when Miramax released CP here in the US they claimed it was 1.85 (as per the official info in the Film Journal at the time). And true, Miramax etched the subtitles so they would play ok if run at 1.85, but if you did crop to 1.85, you would immediately see that the film was composed for the European standard of 1.66. How can you be sure? Well, if you have eyes, you can see how the compostiion is compromised at 1.85. If you crop to 1.85, there are shots where it is obvious that significat portions of the image is being cut. For example -- there is a long shot where a character stands close to the top of the picture. If you rack the frame correctly so that the subtitles are EXACTLY at the bottom of the picture, the guy's head is cut off by the top mask. If you get his head the frame, the subtitles fall below the bottom edge. The other downside of printing subtitles at 1.85 when a film is composed at 1.66 is that the subtitles are unnecessarily high into the picture, more of a distraction than they have to be or would be if they were printed at the bottom of the 1.66 frame.
Then again, if I were a distributor who knew that 99% of my potential bookings would only be able to project at 1.85 and would have trouble if subtitles were down at the 1.66 bottom edge, then I guess I would be pragmatic and etch them at 1.85 too. But since each individual print is etched separately, I would at least make a few 1.66 prints so that somewhere, someone, even it is just a few people in an art house someplace, would be able to appreciate the film as the director intended.
Actually, I take that back, maybe 99% of the commectial multiplexs don't have the lenses to play 1.66 flat, but since the Mirimax market is substantially the art house circuits, most of us DO have correct lensing for almost all formats. 1.66 is no big deal. If they re-release in June, maybe it's not to late to get them to etch a few 1.66 prints.
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 04-06-2002, 01:14 PM:
Lagaan is out on UK DVD and Vid on May 27th. Not sure about USA.Edit:According to Amazon its out.
Anyone know if the Cinema Paradiso re-release is going to hit the UK?
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 04-06-2002, 01:16 PM:
quote:
Then again, if I were a distributor who knew that 99% of my potential bookings would only be able to project at 1.85 and would have trouble if subtitles were down at the 1.66 bottom edge, then I guess I would be pragmatic and etch them at 1.85 too. But since each individual print is etched separately, I would at least make a few 1.66 prints so that somewhere, someone, even it is just a few people in an art house someplace, would be able to appreciate the film as the director intended.Actually, I take that back, maybe 99% of the commectial multiplexs don't have the lenses to play 1.66 flat, but since the Mirimax market is substantially the art house circuits, most of us DO have correct lensing for almost all formats. 1.66 is no big deal. If they re-release in June, maybe it's not to late to get them to etch a few 1.66 prints.
Maybee 1.66:1 image within a 1.85:1 image area (black matts on the side of the image) would be a good idea ???
(double post sorry)
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-06-2002, 05:45 PM:
Subtitles are nowadays, at least in my experience, almost always placed high enough to clear the 1.85 aperture. Which is unfortunate since it eliminates one clue, easily observed on the bench, that a film is intended for 1.66 projection. You'd think that distributors of art house and specialty product would want to clearly label their prints so there are no mistakes but you'd be wrong. The ones that leave my booth are, however. Except in the very rare instance where there is a 1.66 vs. 1.85 question and even after the showing I'm still not 100% sure and don't want to put anything in writing! 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-06-2002, 06:03 PM:
I really don't see any problem with printing subtitles within the 1.85 area even for 1.66 films (though not for anything shot in Academy!). It doesn't look bad when the films are run at 1.66 and it makes them watchable at 1.85.As for the "1.66-in-1.85" idea: please, no! This just annoys anyone who has the ability to run the film at 1.66 and gives the theatres which don't have 1.66 capability one less reason to invest in it.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-07-2002, 01:37 PM:
True but it would be a real world solution especially when an art film crosses over and goes "wide."
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-07-2002, 03:43 PM:
I am 110% with Scott on this one -- save us from letterboxed prints -- it compromises image quality just so some cheap exhib can sit on its fat corporate rump and not have to go out and buy the correct equipment to run a film. It is just another example of how the industry skips happily and stupidly down the road to mediocrity. And of course it is hard to miss the irony here -- on the one hand the industry is perfectly happy compromising quality by letterboxing (or in Disney's case, releasing their classic animated features with vertically scanned & panned prints, which is even worse, IMHO), yet on the other hand, it thinks this same industry will abandond film and make massive investments in DLP.
Oh, wait; sorry I mispoke -- that really isn't irony, just consistancy, because BOTH things compromise film quality.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-07-2002, 09:07 PM:
The reduction in image quality would be trivial at best as the resolving power of the intermediate and print stocks far exceeds that of the camera negative. If the projectable area of a high quality 1.85 print is capable of putting a high quality image on the 1.85 area of your screen then I don't see why you would have any problem with the image simply because the side masking must be drawn in a bit. The loss of resolution because of the optical printing stage is canceled by the fact that a larger piece of negative is being used to create a smaller image on the IP so if anything it ought to be a better picture than a similar area of normal 1.85. True, a bit less quality than pure 1.66 but still a high quality picture, better than your 1.85 audiences get.I'm all in favor of doing it right and do in fact run 1.66 all the time but I think there are plenty of theatres who don't even know there is a world beyond "flat" and "Scope" and therefore don't even realize that a different lens and plate are needed, let alone decide to obtain one. And the distributors don't seem to make any effort to encourage correct projection by proper labeling so if a title moves beyond the specialty houses I don't find anything wrong with printing it in this crossover format. I see it as a way for the filmmaker & distributor to bypass the ignorance of some theatres and deliver a high quality image in the correct aspect ratio to appreciative patrons, outsmarting the know-nothings who would almost certainly muck it up otherwise. We can be anal and say "Do it right or suffer chopped off heads and cropped subtitles" but the latter is exactly what will happen and the audience ends up the loser.
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 04-08-2002, 05:07 AM:
I hat to be a spoil sport (no I don't 
) but shouldn't this thread be in the movie reviews forum?Quick call the moderator!
cheers Peter
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-11-2002, 02:55 AM:
Today I spoke with the guys who are laser-etching the negative for the CINEMA PARADISO release (Director's Cut -- who cut it the first time? someone other than the director?); seems they are not etching each print but an IN which marries the subtitles to the print. I told him about our discussiion here and he said he was sure that Miramax ordered the subtitles to be placed at the 1.66 level. I asked if he were sure, because that sounded very suspect to me, given the practical implications of doing that, so he asked his boss who repeated that they were etching subtitles for the 1.66 aperture, not 1.85. Sounds wrong, but I can only repeat what they told me. I guess the houses that run everything at 1.85 are going to have to do a lot of unpleasant racking and re-racking. Too bad, because we know they won't pay any attention to it and it will be the audience that sufferes -- either they will see visual information chopped at the top of the screen or they will have to understand Italian because the subtitles will be just that....below the mask.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-11-2002, 03:33 PM:
I'm glad if they're putting them at 1.66 as it will help force it to be shown right. A 1.85 house will frame down to show all the subtitles and thus greatly exaggerate the top cutoff to the point where anyone and everyone will know they are doing something wrong. 1.85 projection *could* be accomodated as I've discussed. But if they're not doing that then I kind of like the idea of making incorrect projection being either impossible or blatantly wrong to even the most untrained eye.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-12-2002, 07:29 AM:
Hopefully, the prints (leaders and cases) will be clearly labeled that the intended aspect ratio is 1.66:1. Unfortunately, the filmmaker's intent is often poorly communicated to the theatre and projectionist, as most theatres specializing in this type of picture will make good effort to show the film at the intended aspect ratio.------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-15-2002, 03:46 AM:
Absolutely - the number of wasted hours I spent playing 'guess the ratio' on Friday mornings when they could have just told me beggars belief.Steve Guttag writes:
quote:
I greek friend of mine said it was pretty typical for the small town theatres to only have one projector. An intermission was expected on all films. I think it was on hour reels though rather than 20 minutes.
Yikes! 
6,000 feet of nitrate stock on a single spool? No wonder that fleapit burnt down! When I showed nitrate we had a very strict rule - 1,000 feet per reel maximum. Any prints which came in 2,000 lengths were split up, with new acetate spacing and head leaders being added as appropriate.
The heat and expanding gases caused by 6,000 feet going up in an enclosed magazine would probably cause an explosion.
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-01-2012, 01:25 PM:
It has been 3579 days since the last post.
Posted by Fredrik Samuel (Member # 6732) on 02-01-2012, 01:25 PM:
I,ve seen the movie quite sometimes and noticed the upper reel that opens during the fire, looks to be full. They had probably had an intermission just before the fire started.
Also its kind of interresting. My guess why the film catched fire was before he removed the proction glass. You see the lens in the projector going up some inches. It was good idea project the movie at the house, but the film overheated.
Sad, because Alfredo just wanted to make the people happy.
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-01-2012, 02:54 PM:
I do not know if it still is available but there was a Special Edition Directors Cut of CINEMA PARADISO on DVD. It is a two disc set containing the longer version of the film and a audio CD of music from the movie. The discs are housed in a nice box and I have the set. I watched the movie about six months ago and I love it and prefer it to the shorter version.
-Claude
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-01-2012, 06:49 PM:
There is definitely more info on the whole love affair aspect in the longer version...more loose ends are tied up. However, I think the story isn't really compromised in the theatrical release...it is tighter.
-Steve
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-01-2012, 07:11 PM:
Cinemeccanica in Milan Italy has ALL of the projectors used in that film in their museum. They were technical advisors. Louis
Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 02-02-2012, 12:08 AM:
The projectors were Prevost?
I definately prefer the original version.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-02-2012, 10:26 AM:
The original machine pre fire was a Prevost the new cinema is a Victoria4
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-03-2012, 07:00 PM:
I just ran the 170 minute version at The Landmark Loews Jersey. The print was in excellent condition, but strangely it had mono sound.
I also prefer the shorter theatrical version. The long version muddles the emotional impact of the ending without really bringing anything needed to the story.
Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 02-03-2012, 09:35 PM:
The original spent more time in the booth!
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-05-2012, 04:33 AM:
I agree with Mitchell -- the long version dissapates the emotional impact of that very powerful climatic ending. And of course, LESS time in the booth?....minus 10 points for that alone!
Posted by Malcolm Gerard (Member # 546) on 02-08-2012, 11:54 AM:
The 2-disc Collectors Edition has both the international release and the director's cuts. I see that a new Region 2 copy can be had on eBay for £8 (inc UK delivery) as of today (8.2.12). There is no cinema footage in the longer version; it's mostly to do with Salvatore's military service and the resolution of the Elena sub plot.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-08-2012, 02:46 PM:
To this day, I have still not seen the extended (original) version. I'm perfectly happy with the 120 minute version.
No need to possibly ruin my memories of it as it's quite perfect as it is.
Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 02-08-2012, 03:47 PM:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)