Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Apocalypse Redux

This is topic Apocalypse Redux in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=000185

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 09-04-2001, 06:41 PM:

Where do I start?
I saw it at the Angelika Film Center in Dallas.
It looked like a bad dupe to me, but I don't know if it was the film or the presenters that were at fault. The focus was soft and the colors where really goofed up. Most of the time everyone looked like they had a sunburn. There were several instances of misregistration and color seperation. The first reel was vibrating side to side and it wasn't weave. I'm talking vibrating side to side at high speed. The additional footage was interesting and was fun to see. Spending more time in this bizarre universe was fun, and getting to see a bit deeper into the characters was interesting. That's where it stopped though. The additional footage cut into the pacing of the film badly and led the story into digressive passages. I'm glad I saw this version, but if the two films were playing in two theaters side by side, I'd go to the original. I think they made some wise choices when they edited it the first way.
Presentation......
OOOOffff
These guys need some practice.
They ran two trailers and the second one was cut off at the end right in a big music peak. You'd think they could have gotten another copy of the trailer in there. If that weren't bad enough they cut to a short piece of film that said Angelika Film Center, but it was spliced in OUT OF FRAME. Geez guys, I know you had time to fix that! How embarrassing. So you can see the projectionist cranking the frame down but he doesn't get it quite far enough, so everytime there is a camera change (switching from one angle to another) there is a white flash across the bottom of the screen at the frame line. Very distracting. The sound system was inadequate and needed to be EQed. Nice seats and extreme stadium seating. I'm guessing 15-18" drop from row to row. And, a curved screen?? Why?
All in all I'm disappointed. The print was crappy and I don't know why. It reminded me of the print of the rerelease of The Wizard of Oz that I saw that suffered from the same problems. I wish I knew a bit more about the problems encountered in reprinting these films.
Go see it, it's worth it, BUT, don't expect all that you were hoping you'd get.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Larry Davis (Member # 609) on 09-05-2001, 01:32 AM:

I wonder if Storaro intended the dye transfer prints to look this way. I noticed that the DVD (the transfer was supervised by Storaro) also had a super saturated look. I thought most of the added material didn't help the film, but I did like seeing a dye transfer print. The added Kilgore footage was very funny. I also thought the soundtrack had some very effective use of the surrounds. I vaguely recall seeing some horizontal jitter. Perhaps this is in the print itself and not due to the theater's presentation. I also saw the white flashes at the bottom of the frame. No doubt mistakes were made in the editing or assembly of the new cut, but I'm glad I had a chance to see it. I always wished I had seen it at the Ziegfeld when it first opened in NYC, so many years ago...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-11-2001, 12:51 AM:

I just saw the film....

The print I saw did just fine by Technicolor Dye-transfer...the graininess came and went (no doubt due to the avaiable sources and various opticals or how they were shot).

The sound is what got me...it seemed excessively shrill! In fact, there was a tone/whine that seemed to gate on and off with the dialog...perhaps the mag masters were damaged. The sound just seemed like someone pushed the highs so much they became unnatural.

For the most part, the new footage was interesting but non essential and in some cases detracted...As with most of the DVDs I have that show deleated scenes...most of the time I agree with the deletions though about 10% of the time a deleted scene would have made the film significantly better.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 10-25-2001, 07:05 AM:

I don't want to make anyone jealous, but I saw an absolutely outstanding presentation of this at the Century 21 dome on Winchester Blvd. in San Jose (the theater that used to be a Cinerama installation). It was just fantastic. That goes on my personal list of "Great Moviegoing Experiences", which has not been added to in a while.

Posted by Colin Wiseley (Member # 247) on 10-29-2001, 12:18 PM:

We just got Redux this weekend at the Lyric and I watched it Fri night. The print we got was fantastic. The color and sound was great. Definitely one of the best prints we've had this year. I did notice the white flashes at the bottom of the screen during some cuts, I guess these were editing splices. Luckily I didn't notice them too often.

The extra scenes were interesting and I felt most of them added to the movie, like the surfboard and playmates scenes. However, the plantation scene didn't contribute anything to the movie and it was a good thing it was cut out of the original version. It seemed like the movie just stopped, then they had dinner at the plantation, and then started back up again with them on the river.

Other than that I really enjoyed it and will probably pick up the DVD when it comes out.

------------------
Colin Wiseley
Lyric Theatre
Blacksburg, VA
www.thelyric.com

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-05-2002, 01:21 PM:

I saw this a few days ago. museum of pft

I have a question.

The "chop a cow in half" scene at the end of the film.

Does anyone know how this was done? I assume it was not a real cow, since it was passed by the british board of film classification in the uk.(and classification boards in other countries) (The scene has been on my mind during the passed few days)

The only problem i saw was that from time to time a black horizontal bar would appear at the top of the image. (sometimes this appeared to have defects i'e hairs or wiskers which would disappear as the action cut from shot to shot.)

The print had white cue dots, that singinfies that it is not a normal print, i think???)

I asked a member of staff and found out that the showing was presented in DTS.

I have never seen the original version.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-05-2002, 04:04 PM:

As I recall from the "making of" movie, the chop the cow in half scene was real. It was a ceremony that was performed and allowed to be filmed in the Phillipines. It's been a while since I saw it but I think I have that right. I think the making of movie was called something like "Hearts of Darkness: the making of Apocalypse Now" I'm pretty sure that's pretty close

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-05-2002, 04:16 PM:

If that was a real cow then somebody better get a bucket because i'm about to chuck up

I wouldn't have thought that would have been aloud.

and the film only has a "15" certificate in the UK.

Its horrid.

Wouldn't it make it a "snuff" movie anyway?

Posted by Larry Davis (Member # 609) on 01-06-2002, 01:36 AM:

Michael,

The native people of the Philippines have the right to engage in their cultural practices. I guess in the UK, there isn't any "native" people. In the US, they are granted the right to engage in things that the average American can't (like hunt certain types of whales, own Bald Eagle feathers, etc). To not allow them to maintain their own culture would be genocide. That's not hyperbole, it's a legal fact. So I guess Coppola had the chance to film this scene in the Philippines. I think the slaughter of the cow and the slaughter of you-know-who (don't want to spoil anything) was juxtaposed quite well. Were you really horrified by this scene?

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-06-2002, 03:22 PM:

Yes. I really felt un-easy about the scene.

I found this:

The recent film "Before Night Falls" was cut because:

"BEFORE NIGHT FALLS Cut under the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937

The BBFC has required a cut to the cinema film Before Night Falls under the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 which makes it illegal to show "any scene...organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain and terror on any animal or the cruel goading to terror of any animal to fury".

Before Night Falls is a drama about the life of the Cuban poet Reinaldo Arena. The scene which has been cut takes place in prison and involves the capture of a bird by one of the inmates. The bird seems to have been lassoed round the neck with a rope tied to the end of a stick. As it flaps, appearing to fight frantically for escape, it is pulled through a hole in the roof of the cellblock. The bird is evidently distressed.

The BBFC contacted the American Humane Association for further information about the film and the AHA expressed concern about that particular scene. The assurances from the trainer/handler of the bird about the way the scene had been filmed were not consistent with what appears on screen. The BBFC, therefore, concluded that the scene should be cut before awarding the film a '15' certificate.

The BBFC takes its responsibilities under the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 seriously and required cuts to twelve video works in 2000. These did, however, include some archive material being submitted on video for the first time. It has been several years since a feature film contained material which the Board considered to be in breach of the Act."

Under that definition I would define Apocalypse Now as breaching the act also.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-06-2002, 03:36 PM:

This is in reference to Amores Perros:

"The BBFC has spoken to the RSPCA and SSPCA who were concerned about some scenes where goading appears to take place. The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 specifically refers to "cruel goading of an animal to fury", but the Board is satisfied that what is seen on the screen provides no actual evidence of such cruelty. The BBFC regards dog-fighting as an unacceptable sport and would not hesitate to take action against a film where dogs had been treated in this way. It has during the past year cut 12 films and videos for scenes of actual cruelty to animals, ranging from horse falls to snakes being burned alive."

So a scene in which a horse falls over is cut yet, the cow scene in REDUX remains?

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-06-2002, 03:38 PM:

I wonder if there's any exception for "cultural exhibitions". The scene is actually a cultural tradition and it might be argued that it is just showing the ritual of another culture, like National Geographic does. Also since this was a religious practice that was filmed and the animal was not killed soley for the gratification of the audience or the camera man, maybe that too could make a difference.
If the scene horrified you and made you feel uneasy, then it worked exactly the way it was supposed to.

"The Horror....The Horror of War....."

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Colin Wiseley (Member # 247) on 01-06-2002, 03:45 PM:

I know this is getting off topic, but was "The Wild Bunch" ever released in England? There's a scene in it where a bridge is blown up and real horses and riders fall about 20 feet into the water below. This was filmed before animal cruelity laws were really enforced in the US. The horses were definately inflected with terror in that scene so it seems like the BBFC wouldn't have passed it. I was just curious if this scene was cut from the movie if it was released in Britain.

------------------
Colin Wiseley
Lyric Theatre
Blacksburg, VA
www.thelyric.com

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-06-2002, 03:51 PM:

The Film is avalible in the UK, but i have never seen it, so do not know any details.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-10-2002, 06:52 AM:

I agree, this seems inconsistent. The BBFC quite often cuts animal cruelty scenes on the grounds of the 1937 act; and this act is cited on the BBFC Website as the justification (you need to click on 'legal considerations' after this link).

I've just tried to post a direct link to the BBFC's page on Apocalypse Now Redux, but as it's a very long URL which also contains the character '[' it won't work here. But if you click on the link above, then click 'search' in the top right and call up their page, you'll see that it does not mention the salami-ised cow at all. I can only presume that the cow died instantly, so you could argue that there was no cruelty involved...

BTW, Michael, if you've finished vomiting, why not try a game of Apocalypse Cow...

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-10-2002, 09:39 AM:

This the response i got back from the bbfc. It seems that because the animal was quickly killed that it can be passed.

---------------

The bull at the end of APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX was
really killed (this scene was also present in the original version of
APOCALYPSE NOW). However, the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 only prohibits the screening of a film if, during the making of that film, animal(s) were treated 'cruelly'. The law does not actually prevent the killing of animals on screen, provided that they are killed in a swift and humane manner. The bull in APOCALYPSE NOW is killed immediately with one swift blow of a knife that severs the animal's neck almost completely. This was clearly a swift clean kill in which the animal did not suffer and therefore it does not contravene the law or the BBFC's guidelines.