Scheduled for release on November 7.The Marlon Brando Collection Six-disc set with "Mutiny on the Bounty" (two-disc set) and four Brando films new-to-DVD: "Julius Caesar," "The Formula," "Reflections in a Golden Eye" and "Teahouse of the August Moon"; $59.92. "Bounty" is available separately for $26.99; "Julius Caesar" is available for $19.97. (Warner).
* Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)
New digital transfer from restored Ultra-Panavision 65mm elements with the soundtrack remastered in Dolby Digital 5.1.
Alternate prologue and epilogue sequences not seen theatrically; two vintage featurettes: "1964 New York World's Fair Promo" and "Story of the HMS Bounty"; Marlon Brando movies trailer gallery; new featurette "After the Cameras Stopped Rolling: The Journey of the Bounty"; two vintage featurettes: "Voyage of the Bounty to St. Petersburg" and "Tour of the Bounty."
* Julius Caesar(1953)
Introduction by TCM host Robert Osborne, new featurette "The Rise of Two Legends."
* The Formulas (1980)
Commentary by director John G. Avildsen and screenwriter Steve Shagan.
* Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967)
Vintage behind-the-scenes featurette.
* The Teahouse of the August Moon (1956)
Vintage featurette "Operation Teahouse."
The Marlon Brando Collection
-
Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
From OnVideo:
-
souvenir
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:20 pm
The NY Times Holiday Preview section talks a little about this release and says it will be the original, gold-hued version on the DVD. It doesn't mention if the normal color version will be included though.davidhare wrote:They don't say if Reflections will include the original desaturated color version. I suppose not.
-Edited to add link
Last edited by souvenir on Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
DVDBeaver reviews Julius Caesar.
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
So, from what I understand, Julius Caesar and Mutiny on the Bounty are the only titles from the upcoming Marlon Brando Collection that will be available separately. I really only want Reflections in a Golden Eye. I don't really have time for the rest of the lot.
If anyone doesn't want it and doesn't mind parting with it, please PM me.
If anyone doesn't want it and doesn't mind parting with it, please PM me.
-
Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am
Why the hell are these films not available seperately, save Mutiny? Are Warner stupid or something? I only want Reflections, especially now that it is the gold-hued version - btw, that NY Times site requires registering, does it say how they created the transfer, as the original lab processing in Technicolor Rome was highly complex.
-
Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am
Ah, thank you; much appreciated.
But can anyone answer as to why Warner are now releasing titles exclusively in boxed sets? I haven't bought a Warner box in a long time, so is this a new practice? It is bad enough that the Universal Brando box is all-exclusive, making it very difficult for me to see their anamorphic 2.35:1 transfer of Sidney Furie's, The Appaloosa; a so-so Western, but I'm a big fan of Furie's compositional style (1962's The Boys, The Ipcress File, The Entity, etc) and to add insult to injury, the UK disc is cropped from 2.35:1 Techniscope to 1.33:1 pan and scan. Cinematography was by the great Russell Metty (Welles' The Stranger, Touch of Evil, Sirk's All That Heaven Allows, Written on the Wind).
But can anyone answer as to why Warner are now releasing titles exclusively in boxed sets? I haven't bought a Warner box in a long time, so is this a new practice? It is bad enough that the Universal Brando box is all-exclusive, making it very difficult for me to see their anamorphic 2.35:1 transfer of Sidney Furie's, The Appaloosa; a so-so Western, but I'm a big fan of Furie's compositional style (1962's The Boys, The Ipcress File, The Entity, etc) and to add insult to injury, the UK disc is cropped from 2.35:1 Techniscope to 1.33:1 pan and scan. Cinematography was by the great Russell Metty (Welles' The Stranger, Touch of Evil, Sirk's All That Heaven Allows, Written on the Wind).
-
Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am
Gnagh, I see that the Gary Cooper box has exclusives, too. I don't get this policy - is it unreasonable to want titles available seperately? The argument for saving money with a box is good if you want 80%+ of the titles, but if all you want it is one film, then you're in a quandry. I was looking forward to snapping up Reflections for $13 (£8) not £32 for the box from CD-WOW.
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
DVDBeaver reviews Mutiny on the Bounty.
-
Gigi M.
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:09 pm
- Location: Santo Domingo, Dominican Rep
Of course. Is a great early Lumet, and Brando and Magnani are magnificent. It's also an adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play.Michael wrote:davidhare, have you seen Reflections? I want to see it mainly for not only Brando but to see how it interprets a really bizarre novella that I read when I was a teen. Another Southern movie with Brando The Fugitive Kind - is it worth seeing?
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
Well, if you don't mind me giving you my two cents about that movie, here they are: I first saw that movie years ago when I taped it from TV. I was going through a sort of Marlon Brando phase and I caught everything that was at hand.Michael wrote:davidhare, have you seen Reflections?
This particular movie interested me for two main reasons, the first being of course Brando and his one-of-a-kind approach to acting. The second one was that I already knew beforehand that he was going to play a closeted homosexual and my interest was peaked. Adding to this, he played someone who worked in the military and was married to Liz Taylor and you definitely got a no-brainer there.
By the way, Liz wanted Monty Clift to play the Brando role (she was one of his best friends and always supported him throughout his brief life) but he ultimately declined (maybe he thought the role was too much true to his own life and backed out). I personally would have loved to see his interpretation.
Liz plays a rich, spoiled and flirtatious wife that does everything she can to either taunt her husband or unmask him. Either way, she always gets her way. She's that kind of a woman here. But to what an extent and what's in it for her we actually never know. Women do work in mysterious ways sometimes and the script is very wisely written to leave us asking. Some may disagree but that is my take on it.
But the real deal here is surely Brando, playing a man on the brisk of losing control over his men at the army, his wife over at home or his very mind. There is a pivotal scene when he loses it and begins to unravel that is a demonstration of how modern Brando's acting really was. That particular scene stands out from the rest of the movie and frankly, I have my doubts whether Clift might have pulled that out as staggeringly as Brando did.
So yeah, I guess you might say I'm definitely looking forward to this DVD especially now that it has been confirmed that we are getting the golden hue version (which I've never seen).
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
Thanks, Lino. This is making me count seconds till I receive the DVD from Netflix. Not that I'm nuts about Ebert but what he wrote about the audience's response to the film I find very interesting:
"It seemed fishy to begin with that "Reflections in a Golden Eye" crept into town so silently. Here was a movie with Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando, no less, and the director was that great man himself, John Huston. So shouldn't we have read millions of words about it by now? Every time Liz blows her nose, she makes the cover of Look. But not this time. Why not? Was the movie so wretchedly bad that Warner Bros. decided to keep it a secret?
Or could it be, perhaps, that it was too good? Perhaps it could. To begin with, somebody slipped up and did an honest screen play based on the novel by Carson McCullers. And then Huston and his cast journeyed bravely into the dark, twisted world of the McCullers characters, and nobody told them they were supposed to snicker. So they didn't.
The story is set on an Army base in the South. Brando plays a major who gives disjointed lectures about leadership and courage as his repressed homosexuality begins to emerge. Miss Taylor, as his wife, plays a domineering, emasculating female who rides a white stallion and carries, a whip (in case you missed the symbolism). Next door, a neurotic and self -doubting woman (Julie Harris) lives with her husband, Brian Keith, who is really a pretty decent sort, even though he is Miss Taylor's lover.
The action is fairly simple, beginning with Brando's abortive attempt to ride his wife's horse. It throws him he whips it and later, at a party, she whips him in front of the entire officer corps. Brando begins to disintegrate, his carefully built facade of "leadership qualities" destroyed. In a horrifying and effective scene, he goes to pieces in the middle of a lecture.
In this scene and others, Brando regains the peak of his magnificent talent. After his series of six or seven disastrous performances, even his admirers had given him up for lost. But it was too soon. There is a scene in which he slowly breaks down and begins to cry, and his face screws up in misery. The audience laughed, perhaps because it's supposed to be "funny" to see a man cry. The audience should have been taken outside and shot.
Indeed, the audience was perhaps the greatest problem with this very good film. It was filled with matrons, who found it necessary to shriek loudly and giggle hideously through three-quarters of it, and their husbands, who delivered obligatory guffaws in counterpoint. They had never seen anything funnier in their lives, I guess, than Brando nervously brushing down his hair when he thinks a handsome young private is coming to see him.
But if you can set that aside, then "Reflections" is a better film than we had any right to expect. It follows the McCullers story faithfully and without compromise. The performances are superb. Besides Brando, there is Miss Taylor, proving once again as she did in "Virginia Woolf" that she really can act, believe it or not. There is Keith, all understatement and quiet sympathy. The photography is restrained, shot in a process which drains almost all the color out of color film, leaving only reds and pinks and an occasional hint of blue or green. The result is a bleak landscape, within which lonely and miserable people try to account for themselves."
"It seemed fishy to begin with that "Reflections in a Golden Eye" crept into town so silently. Here was a movie with Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando, no less, and the director was that great man himself, John Huston. So shouldn't we have read millions of words about it by now? Every time Liz blows her nose, she makes the cover of Look. But not this time. Why not? Was the movie so wretchedly bad that Warner Bros. decided to keep it a secret?
Or could it be, perhaps, that it was too good? Perhaps it could. To begin with, somebody slipped up and did an honest screen play based on the novel by Carson McCullers. And then Huston and his cast journeyed bravely into the dark, twisted world of the McCullers characters, and nobody told them they were supposed to snicker. So they didn't.
The story is set on an Army base in the South. Brando plays a major who gives disjointed lectures about leadership and courage as his repressed homosexuality begins to emerge. Miss Taylor, as his wife, plays a domineering, emasculating female who rides a white stallion and carries, a whip (in case you missed the symbolism). Next door, a neurotic and self -doubting woman (Julie Harris) lives with her husband, Brian Keith, who is really a pretty decent sort, even though he is Miss Taylor's lover.
The action is fairly simple, beginning with Brando's abortive attempt to ride his wife's horse. It throws him he whips it and later, at a party, she whips him in front of the entire officer corps. Brando begins to disintegrate, his carefully built facade of "leadership qualities" destroyed. In a horrifying and effective scene, he goes to pieces in the middle of a lecture.
In this scene and others, Brando regains the peak of his magnificent talent. After his series of six or seven disastrous performances, even his admirers had given him up for lost. But it was too soon. There is a scene in which he slowly breaks down and begins to cry, and his face screws up in misery. The audience laughed, perhaps because it's supposed to be "funny" to see a man cry. The audience should have been taken outside and shot.
Indeed, the audience was perhaps the greatest problem with this very good film. It was filled with matrons, who found it necessary to shriek loudly and giggle hideously through three-quarters of it, and their husbands, who delivered obligatory guffaws in counterpoint. They had never seen anything funnier in their lives, I guess, than Brando nervously brushing down his hair when he thinks a handsome young private is coming to see him.
But if you can set that aside, then "Reflections" is a better film than we had any right to expect. It follows the McCullers story faithfully and without compromise. The performances are superb. Besides Brando, there is Miss Taylor, proving once again as she did in "Virginia Woolf" that she really can act, believe it or not. There is Keith, all understatement and quiet sympathy. The photography is restrained, shot in a process which drains almost all the color out of color film, leaving only reds and pinks and an occasional hint of blue or green. The result is a bleak landscape, within which lonely and miserable people try to account for themselves."
-
Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
Yeah, I'm not that crazy about Ebert either. And I hate reviews that pass out as synopsis. Or is it the other way around? 
One other thing we mustn't forget here is the directing of John Huston. A man that simply gets little or scant recognition as a great director these days (well, apart from cinephile circles, that is) but one that totally deserved that accolade. He has been compared to a lion tamer, controling egos on the set and always getting what he wanted from them while avoiding inner tensions or fights.
He was also a fearless man and the very subject of this film can testify to that. He didn't care if it went against the grain. In fact, I think he relished that very fact. By the way, just when in the name of all that's sacred are we getting his Freud on DVD, Universal?!
One other thing we mustn't forget here is the directing of John Huston. A man that simply gets little or scant recognition as a great director these days (well, apart from cinephile circles, that is) but one that totally deserved that accolade. He has been compared to a lion tamer, controling egos on the set and always getting what he wanted from them while avoiding inner tensions or fights.
He was also a fearless man and the very subject of this film can testify to that. He didn't care if it went against the grain. In fact, I think he relished that very fact. By the way, just when in the name of all that's sacred are we getting his Freud on DVD, Universal?!
-
Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am
The process of creating the special golden prints was very difficult and very few were made by Technicolor Roma. Confusion over the film added to prints being withdrawn - Huston was furious. I am dying to see the DVD, but I'm not forking out £32 for the pleasure. Come on, Warner, give us an individual release! 
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
Gordon, thanks for the details. After watching the film, I checked out the theatrical trailer which is in full colors. That was quite jarring and coarse especially after spending nearly 2 hours of dreaming in beautiful golden hues. Reflections is truly an extraordinary film. Huston's composition is very gorgeous and stark and his completely nonjudgmental treatment of the character is something to celebrate. Reflections is not a movie for everyone. It's dripped in Southern Gothic sensibilities with no redemption.
-
Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am
On Moby Dick (1956, John Huston / photographed by Ossie Morris), the Eastmancolor negatives were separated into three b&w positive matrices by Technicolor using wide-cut filters, so that the respective colours bled into each other. The three passes in the dye transfer printer produced a desaturated image that looked washed-out until a fourth b&w silver image was added, which restored the contrast.
By 1967, Technicolor no longer was able to make a fourth b&w "key" image pass in the dye transfer printer, so for Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967, photographed by Aldo Tonti) positive b&w separation matrices were made from the color negative, and then a bw dupe neg was used to double-expose a bw image over each matrix before final development. I'm not sure when or by what method the golden hue was added. The processing was far more complicated than this and I used to have a terrific link to how the prints were created - it may even have been by someone who worked for Technicolor Rome - but I cannot find it via Google.
I also found out recently that the original 1972 prints of Deliverance were created from a combined colour interpositive and positive black and white element. Vilmos Zsigmond was a great experimenter in the 70s, but these types of unique processing techniques are rare and now that we have digital intermediates, so any photo-chemical work is deemed to be too much hassle.
By 1967, Technicolor no longer was able to make a fourth b&w "key" image pass in the dye transfer printer, so for Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967, photographed by Aldo Tonti) positive b&w separation matrices were made from the color negative, and then a bw dupe neg was used to double-expose a bw image over each matrix before final development. I'm not sure when or by what method the golden hue was added. The processing was far more complicated than this and I used to have a terrific link to how the prints were created - it may even have been by someone who worked for Technicolor Rome - but I cannot find it via Google.
I also found out recently that the original 1972 prints of Deliverance were created from a combined colour interpositive and positive black and white element. Vilmos Zsigmond was a great experimenter in the 70s, but these types of unique processing techniques are rare and now that we have digital intermediates, so any photo-chemical work is deemed to be too much hassle.