MovieChat Forums > The Disappearance (1978) Discussion > DVD + Plot (SPOILERS!)

DVD + Plot (SPOILERS!)

posted 16 years ago by leforcat
10 replies | jump to latest

On par with Klute this is the finest performance ever by Sutherland - not bad for an actor with 140+ film roles on his CV. The film itself is a moody, brooding neo-noir with no dead moments in spite of the seemingly slow pace.

The only DVD is a disaster, however. Was the film really shot in full frame? It's possible, since the great cinematographer John Alcott used to work in this ratio for Kubrick as well. Anyhow, his great sense of lighting is lost in the very poor print. It looks as if someone transfered a mediocre VHS straight to DVD. There are no extras, no subtitles. And why is there a 88 and 100 min. versions? The DVD is 88 min - so what's going on in the 12 minutes that have been slaughtered?

As for the plot (SPOILERS!): I guess Sutherland dies because he has become too dangerous. But what is the full meaning of the incident in the English forest? And if his wife put a contract on her lover, who put the contract on Donald?

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

[–] mitoutsound 15 years ago

I always thought Deverell's wife put the contract on Donald.

"Yeah, but it's a DRY heat!" (Aliens, 1986)

[–] leforcat 15 years ago

It would make some sense, yes.....

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

[–] IndLightBulbFilm 15 years ago

"The only DVD is a disaster, however. Was the film really shot in full frame? It's possible, since the great cinematographer John Alcott used to work in this ratio for Kubrick as well."

It is possible, but I doubt it. I believe Stuart Cooper and John Alcott shot all their earlier films they worked on together in widescreen.

" Anyhow, his great sense of lighting is lost in the very poor print. It looks as if someone transfered a mediocre VHS straight to DVD. There are no extras, no subtitles. And why is there a 88 and 100 min. versions? The DVD is 88 min - so what's going on in the 12 minutes that have been slaughtered? "

When Stuart Cooper first shot the film and edited together his version, he showed it to the studio. Needless to say they didn't like it and ended up re-cutting it and adding a modern rock score, it was released for one day. Jerry Harvey, head programmer of Z Channel in the 80s, ran all of Stuart Cooper's films one month on the channel including The Disappearance. He played both versions back to back, needless to say Cooper's version was the better and was more well liked than the studio cut.

[–] leforcat 15 years ago

Thanks a lot for the info!

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

[–] John-367 14 years ago

Widescreen is a slippery term.

To be very simplistic, since the 1950s most theatrical features have either been shot anamorphic - a special lens on the camera squeezes the image onto standard 35mm fim, a similar lens on the projector unsqueezes it - or with a standard spherical lens with the intention that the film will be cropped in projection to, say, 1:1.85.
Many of the latter films are/were shown uncropped on TV, and sometimes latterly on video/DVD. In other words, the viewer is seeing more at the top and bottom of frame than was intended. On a widescreen TV zooming in to 16:9 will give you approximately the image as seen in the cinema.

[–] leforcat 14 years ago

Quite true! However, if precise production details aren't available, only a comparison can tell whether it is the case or whether the film was shot anamorphic and the produced as a "full frame"-DVD (Pan-Scan is sometimes easy to spot). On example of the confusion is "Charley Varrick". A full frame DVD was produced, wrongly discarded by some as crap. A recent DVD is sold as 'wide screen' but a comparison shows it has been cropped, just as you say. Trouble is it's not always clear what the directors intentions were in the first place.

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

[–] John-367 14 years ago

True, but it's usually easy to tell quite quickly what's happening if you are watching a full-frame image and know what to look for.
Acres of unnecessary headroom on closer shots in a post 1950 American or European film suggests an uncropped widescreen film, while apparently clumsy framing which misses action off the sides, false short pans and cutting back and forth from one side of the original frame to the other indicate panning and scanning of an anamorphic film.
In the UK at least we are thankfully seeing less and less pan and scan. The more obscure satellite channels or broadcasts of rare films might still show a telecine from the bad old days (in this regard) but most mainstream channels try to show a reasonable widescreen print.
One channel which ought to know, and be able to afford, better though is TCM, who still show an unacceptably high number of films panned and scanned.

[–] lastshotfilms 14 years ago

The Distributor re-cut the original and changed the music without the consent of the director Stuart Cooper. The original directors cut is in a non-linear format.
It was not shot in full frame, it was shot in 1:6:6 ratio and shot on 35mm spherical using Arriflex cameras and Zeiss lenses. The DVD is off the VHS re-cut and crap. The original is brilliant.

[–] leforcat 14 years ago

Good (and sad) to know - Thanks!

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

[–] edgein15 13 years ago

Found a Vestron VHS copy of this movie at a flea market. This version has been chopped down to 80 minutes. Anyone have a list of the missing scenes?