National Post
By Calum Marsh
July 15, 2019
Calum Marsh: The point is to enjoy the movie as it was
meant to be enjoyed, as Sergio Leone intended.
[Devan Scott, Will Ross in their editing studio.]
Not long ago, Will Ross was in Photoshop, carefully
erasing a cannonball.
In the original theatrical version of The Good, the Bad
and the Ugly, Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti Western masterpiece from 1966, there is
a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it shot of a cannon firing on the Confederate outpost
where Tuco, the Mexican bandit played by Eli Wallach, is preparing to hang
Blondie, the otherwise unnamed hero played by Clint Eastwood. But on home
video, the shot’s been trimmed slightly, and there are critical milliseconds
missing of the canon seen without the firing ball in frame. Ross is doing what
someone tasked to restore the movie should have done a long time ago. He’s
trying to fix The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, honing it scrupulously, one frame
at a time.
A filmmaker, editor and sound designer based in
Vancouver, Ross has been fine-tuning a private restoration of The Good, the Bad
and the Ugly with Devan Scott, a cinematographer and colorist, for several
months now — although the idea of taking it upon themselves to perfect a film
left otherwise to languish has been on their minds for years.
Leone’s stylized epic is something of an obsession for
the pair. Ross and Scott discovered the film at different times in their lives,
but a shared affection for it was the foundation of their friendship and
collaboration. They named their filmmaking studio, Sad Hill Media, after the
fictitious cemetery where Blondie, Tuco and Lee Van Cleef’s Angel Eyes have
their protracted duel at the climax of the picture. A few years ago, they
mounted an arduous pilgrimage to the real-life plain in southern Burgos in
Spain, near Santo Domingo de Silos, where the scene was filmed, and recreated
the famous shootout with astonishing accuracy. Their journey — an €80 taxi ride
into the middle of nowhere, surrounded by mountains — was extensively featured
in the Spanish documentary Sad Hill Unearthed.
With the expedition out of the way, the Sad Hill guys
were ready to get down to more serious business. “Since going there, there were
two items left on the checklist as fans,” Scott explains. “One was to
successfully lobby for an accurate release of the original cuts of the film.
Two, in the absence of the first, was to accurately recreate those cuts
ourselves, using a melange of different home-video releases.”
The first seems more and more like a pipe dream. The
second is nearly done. “We are more or less finishing up our reconstruction,”
Scott says. It might have proven to be more labor-intensive than even their
crusade to Spain. But whatever it takes, Scott and Ross want to see the film
fixed.
Most people don’t know The Good, the Bad and the Ugly needs
fixing. It’s one of the best-known and most celebrated movies of all time; it’s
widely available on DVD, Blu-ray, online and it appears regularly on cable
television, in high-definition and with Dolby sound. This is not one of
cinema’s lost classics, like the director’s cut of Erich von Stroheim’s Greed,
nor is it one of the countless curios underserved by the video market, such as
Wavelength or The Mother and the Whore, long unavailable to own and possible to
see only in roughshod bootleg. You can buy The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and
its two predecessors, A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More, together
as a box set on Blu-ray right now on Amazon, for $37.99. And for most people,
it’ll do the trick.
But Ross and Scott are not most people. The versions
readily available are not good enough for them, nor for anyone who cares, who
feels the desire to see the movie as it was meant to be seen. That Blu-ray, in
common with every other Blu-ray, DVD, VHS and digital version of the movie on
the market, is compromised, bowdlerized, watered down. It doesn’t accurately
reflect the movie made by Leone in 1966.
“What you have is an iconic film. The title is in the
cultural idiom. Everybody knows the theme music,” Ross explains. “But you have
rights holders and distributors who are not doing their due diligence in
presenting it.” The studio, the Leone estate, the people whose job it is to
release movies on video and make sure they look and sound good — these people,
in the eyes of fans, have failed a great film. They don’t care that it isn’t
right.
Preparing a movie for release on home video is not as
simple as stamping it onto a disc. For a top-to-bottom restoration and release
like the ones MGM conducted for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in 2002 and
2014, technicians create high-resolution digital scans from the original 35mm
negative, which are a bit like the studio masters used to produce new copies of
recorded music. Because film deteriorates over time, there’s a certain amount
of rehabilitation involved, too: Scuffs and scratches have to be removed, often
frame by frame, while colors that have faded are resaturated and images that
are damaged or weather-beaten are cleaned up and refined.
There is a creative element in all this. A film print
can’t just be ported onto a DVD, the way you tape something from TV. It has to
be translated, and that translation involves decisions about how things look,
sound and feel. For most of the history of the medium, movies were made to be
projected in a cinema, on film; when you digitize them and squish them down for
home video, to be shown in a living room on a television, what you want is for
it to look as much as possible as it did on the theatre screen. The ideal is
not necessarily the sharpest image or the most eye-popping colors. (Although
that is sometimes the impulse of distributors who want to make striking
products.) It is, or ought to be, the most faithful approximation of the way it
was shown in cinemas when it was first released.
In the case of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, that ideal
is complicated by certain unusual factors. For one thing, the movie was an Italian
production, shot partly in Spain, with a cast of Americans and Mexicans. For
another, Italian movies of the era were almost always dubbed, in part so that
actors of different backgrounds could read their lines in their native tongue.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was therefore always intended with both an
American and Italian audience in mind.
“The core thing you need to know about the film is that
two versions were prepared and approved by its director, Sergio Leone,” Ross
says. “One of them was the initial 1966 cut. It was dubbed in Italian, which
was common in Spaghetti Westerns at the time, and ran just shy of three hours.
And a year later Leone prepared the 1967 international cut, for which he
supervised the English dubbing along with all of the cutting and additional
music editing. That version runs about two hours and 42 minutes.”
Two versions: One in Italian and one in English, the
latter cut down a little for international sensibilities. (Some of the more
violent action in the film was tamed for British and American audiences,
particularly the torture of Tuco at the hands of Angel Eyes midway through the
film.) You cannot see either of these versions as they were seen at the time
anymore. They don’t exist, and outside of their time on screen in the late
1960s, they never have. “Unless there is some extremely obscure VHS release
that I don’t know about,” Ross says, “there has never been an accurate
depiction of either of those definitive cuts.”
The film’s history on home video is extensive, owing to
its fame and popularity. There were some versions of tape in the 1980s. In
1990, it was put out on laserdisc, and in 1998, it was put out on DVD, as a
hybrid of the Italian and international versions, with “some shots added, some
subtracted,” the guys complain. In 2002, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer unveiled a
spectacular new restoration of the movie, which they touted as “The Extended
Cut.” The goal of this cut was to add the scenes missing from the 1967
international version, only with the proper English voices, as until then they
had only been seen dubbed. To accomplish this, they brought in Eastwood and
Wallach, as well as a soundalike for Van Cleef (who died in 1989), and had them
record the missing dialogue, 35 years later.
“They got 70-something Clint Eastwood, 90-something Eli
Wallach and someone who was not Lee Van Cleef to dub the audio,” Scott says.
“And it sounds like two very elderly men and someone who is not Lee Van Cleef
voicing everything.”
The restoration had other problems. Several scenes that
MGM alleged were from the original Italian cut actually differed in key
respects; the Tuco torture scene, in particular, had been radically changed.
For the sake of really extending the movie, they added an entirely new scene
that Leone had shot but left, by choice, on the cutting-room floor — the “worst
scene in any version,” Scott insists, which “Leone never approved of” at all.
(It’s the scene in which Tuco recruits his brothers in the cave after Blondie
leaves him to die, and it does seem out of place, even to novice eyes.) Plus,
MGM’s much-vaunted new 5.1 audio mix was an outrageous hack job. “They took all
the sound effects, especially the gunshots and the cannon shots, and replaced
them with completely modern sounds that didn’t sound like the originals at
all,” Scott says. “It’s The Good the Bad and the Ugly, but it’s mixed like
Master and Commander. It’s bewildering.”
It was around this point, Ross says, that “fans started
getting uneasy.” In the late 2000s, at the dawn of another technological
change, there was a Blu-ray release of the 2002 restoration. Then in 2014,
there was another restoration, this time with the original mono audio track.
Still, problems persist. “They’re still using the bastardized extended cut, and
there’s no 1967 version anymore anywhere,” Ross says. Added to which is another
new issue altogether: In an effort to address the color, they added way too
much yellow, turning every passing cloud in the sky into what Ross describes as
“washed-out tufts of urine.” The sound, meanwhile, though thankfully mono,
sounds “tinny” and “bizarre.”
“Fans were so frustrated that finally, in 2017, a
boutique Blu-ray label called Kino announced they’re going to put out their own
edition,” Ross says. “Fans were excited, because they said they’re going to
include the 1967 cut, they’re going to include a proper mono audio track,
they’re going to fix the yellow.” Things seem like they might be right at last.
But somehow, devastatingly, Kino screws it up.
“It’s the worst-looking version of the film ever
released,” Scott says, downcast. “I was shocked.”
Which doesn’t leave admirers of the film with much faith
that it will ever be done properly, by anyone. “Fans have begged,” Ross says.
“There are fans who own excellent quality 35mm prints who have called
distributors and offered to let them use it as reference. I don’t know what’s
holding it up. Why not listen to such a vocal fanbase? This is Quentin Tarantino’s
favorite movie. What’s happening?”
Distributors can’t get it right. Studios can’t get it
right. The men and women tasked to restore the thing can’t get it right. But
who might? Well, guys who obsess over the film — guys like Devan Scott and Will
Ross. Which is maybe why, without anything remotely resembling permission to do
so, they have decided to do the impossible and fix The Good, the Bad and the
Ugly, even if only for themselves. They’ve begun to cobble together the ideal
version of the movie using the materials at hand.
They started with the laserdisc. They bought one on eBay.
“It’s the closest thing we can find to the 1967 version,” Scott says. “Luckily,
it only has one deviation, which is a close-up of a cannon—”
“No, it’s not a cannon, it’s a wall exploding,” Ross
interjects.
“Right! A wall exploding after a cannon fires.”
Scott and Ross took the laserdisc to a local arts
collective that happened to have a laserdisc player. They hooked it up to a
wall projector, and hooked the audio up to a sound recorder, and then recorded
the audio and taped the movie off the wall.
With this copy as a visual reference, they took images
from the restored Blu-rays — some from the 2014 MGM Blu-ray, some from the Kino
version, some from “an obscure 2009 Italian release” that had a couple of
images the others did not — and assembled a makeshift “original” cut. Over the
years, the movie has undergone enough restorations and high-definition releases
in different versions that a savvy eye can pick and choose the best components
from each: a shot that was done well here, a reverse-shot done better there.
Some of the most pernicious gremlins, such as the bogus
Tuco recruitment scene Leone never wanted, have been deservedly excised from
the Scott-Ross cut. Shots have been trimmed or expanded to be as consistent as
possible with the original theatrical version. In some cases, as in the shot of
the cannon with the missing frames (they could see them in the laserdisc copy),
they resorted to Photoshop and did the restoring themselves, by hand. They have
spent countless hours lingering on the details most people wouldn’t notice.
Their diligence, their super-zealous rigor, is what elevates their work above
the amateur tinkering of the hobbyist and into the realm of serious care.
The result, they feel, is very good. Although “it’s not
perfect,” Ross concedes, “it’s close — within a few seconds of the original
cut.” With the means and raw materials at their disposal — a few hundred
thousand dollars, give or take, and the original negatives or a few
good-quality 35mm prints — they could do the whole thing from scratch and
perfect it definitively.
To diehards like Scott and Ross, this has been more than
a mere passion project. The point is to enjoy the movie as it was meant to be
enjoyed, as Sergio Leone intended — not how some distributor decides it ought
to be seen. They are reclaiming The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from the people
who have proven incapable of doing it justice.
Though they don’t have the rights to release their
version, there’s a certain cosmic justice simply in knowing that it’s been
done. They only hope someday a distributor does it too.
Interesting! A minor correction, GBU was not made with a "cast of Americans and Mexicans." The Americans (Eastwood, Wallach, and Van Cleef) are supported by a cast of Italian and Spanish actors. No Mexicans! ;)
ReplyDelete