Joined
·
792 Posts
Close Encounters of what kind?
One of the classic "New...New Hollywood" features was released on blu ray a while
ago in a large box set that contains three of the four versions of this movie. All
are different in subtle and important ways. The only cut missing is the television
pan/scanned version which contains all the scenes from the other three. To my
surprise, after removing the shrink wrap there was also an extra disc in a sleeve
(not plastic case) which contained the sountrack album I used to have on vinyl.
The album does not have actual tracks from the movie but re-recorded themes
adapted for consumer use.
First let me explain was New New Hollywood was in the late seventies. "New
Hollywood" encompassed the young film directors in that decade that rejected
virtually everything "Old Hollywood" stood for which was mainstream entertainment
with slick technical specs. New Hollywood filmmakers included Dennis Hopper,
Melvin Van Peebles, Robert Downey Sr., Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma and
Francis Ford Coppola. Their movies had a counter-culture perspective, graphic
nudity, sex and violence, grainy underlit cinematography and quirky editing.
Some became classics like "The Godfather" and "Taxi Driver". Others like
"Greetings" and "Putney Swope" dated so quickly they were unwatchable
a few years after they were released. Their impact was felt in Hollywood in
numerous ways. The 'look' of movies changed permanently. "Glorious Technicolor"
was out, grain and murkiness was in which was applauded by many critics as
something daring and innovative. Today many of these movies look amateurish
and don't hold up in the digital formats.
The most profound impact New Hollywood has was in the moviegoing demographic.
Rather that make features for a broad age range from children to seniors, they
targeted the 16-26 year old 'youth' demographic exclusively. The problem with
that was it decreased attendence. 41 million weekly viewers went down to 21
million by the mid-seventies. The movie palaces folded like dominos and were
replaced by multi-plexes although a few large screens remained for the occasional
general audience release. These counter-culture movies were specifically linked to the Vietnam war which was the only thing that united groups like black radicals, hippies,
yippies and feminists. After that war ended they had nothing to unite them and split into hostile factions.
What followed was "New" New Hollywood which was to a large extent a return
to mainstream filmmaking but with some elements remaining from the counter-culture.
The late seventies showed a major increase of attendence as families flocked to
see features like "Jaws", "Star Wars", "Close Encounters" "Raiders of the Lost Arc"
and "Superman". Quite a difference in terms of the content compared to the
counter-culture pictures that dominated cinema a few years earlier. No more stories
about revolutions, black power and the deconstruction of Western culture. While the technical specs were greatly improved, the look of these movies was still different than the classic "Glorious Technicolor" movies of the past. Directors like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were the front runners of this new mainstream direction and former counter-culture filmmakers like Brian De Palma were able to adapt and survive. Others
like Van Peebles disappeared.
Another element that remained was the 'auteur' theory of filmmaking. Prior to the
sixties this was pretty much a non-existent concept. 'Auteur' is the French word
for author and filmmakers like Truffaut and Godard championed the notion that the
director should be in artistic control of every aspect of a production. In Hollywood
it was definately a collaborative effort with the producer, writer, director, stars,
studio head and production code office all participants in the final product. It was
hard to argue against the studio system since they made great movies within that
structure. Titles like "Singin' in the Rain" and "Casablanca" had many people working
together to make them. While it's true that some directors like Hitchcock produced
his own work and put his personal stamp on it, he still collaborated with writers along with
distributors and the Breen/Sherlock office which had final cut.
In the mid-sixties, the young filmmakers adopted the French New Wave 'auteur'
method to their work and it was taught in film schools. Movies made by a single
filmmaker were given accolades...even if the finished product was somewhat
sloppy in terms of narrative structure and cinematography. "Easy Rider" was
definately Dennis Hopper's vision as was De Palma's "Greetings".
I was certainly educated in this theory at NYU and am an auteur myself but I do acknowledge it's not the only way to make a good film.
Like all theories of filmmaking, there are attributes and liabilities. One attribute
is that when you watch a movie made by an 'auteur', you can examine
the filmmaker's worldview and individual style. There were also limitations.
Some auteur directors were indulgent and lacked discipline. Michael Cimino is an
example of an auteur who was out of control. Considering himself a 'great artist'
who didn't have to concern himself with crass items like staying within a budget
and schedule much less test screening a movie before release to see if it worked
for audiences, he made "Heaven's Gate" in 1980 which almost destroyed the whole
theory and folded a major studio. The biggest three and a half hour bomb in the
history of cinema.
Another curious liability...or at least a strange quirk was that some auteurs couldn't
finish their movie. They considered their features perpetual 'works in progress'. So
we have multiple versions of "Close Encounters", "Star Wars", "Alien" and "Apocalypse
Now" among many others. Each cut is quite different in tone and since they were revised years apart they reflect the director's altered worldview and attitudes. People change as they age. In the case of Spielberg, his early features tended to have a charming youthful innocence. Almost a teenage boy's view of the world. Quite different than some
of the director's later pictures like "AI" and "Minority Report" which are relentlessly
grim and downbeat. So as movies are recut by auteurs over the years, they
will change in perspective and filmmaking technique.
Which brings us to "Close Encounters". Each cut illustrates Spielberg's changing approach to narratives. Personally, I like the first version the best. I saw the original release in 1977 at The Ziegfeld movie palace in Manhattan on their enormous screen in 70mm. When the ship landed there were some 'sensurround' type of subwoofer effects that rattled the seats. I enjoyed it thoroughly but with some reservations. I was very disappointed with the look of
the aliens when they appeared. They resembled the Roswell descriptions which
I thought was a bit cliche. Otherwise there was tremendous narrative drive,
sympathetic characters you could relate to, good special effects and a brilliant
concept of having the extra-terrestrials communicate through music. Add to that
John Williams haunting score. I later saw the film twice more in 35mm mono which
was less effective.
Then came the 1980 re-issue. In my area in only played it 35mm Dolby stereo,
not 70mm. Dolby sounded good but lacked the sound field of the six channel
discrete large format. Gone were those subwoofer effects (called baby booms
at the time) which made you 'feel' the ship over Dreyfus's truck when it hovered.
New special effects were added including a ship found in a desert and some shots
inside the alien vessel. I didn't object to them although it was better to keep
the mother ship more of a mystery as it was in the original version. What disturbed
me about the 'Special Edition' is that Spielberg was taking a new direction
in terms of character development in his films. It was gradual but distinct. Like
his friend, George Lucas, both directors were becoming enamored what could be
done with the f/x imagery but at the expense of characterization. Both "Jaws"
and the first cut of "Close Encounters" were people driven story. The effects were
great but the emphasis was on the actors. The new version of "Close Encounters"
cut key scenes which motivated the people in the story. The scene establishing
Dreyfus as a technician in an electrical power plant was gone. So why was he
in his truck lost looking for the station he was sent to investigate prior to having
his 'close encounter'. Also gone was the press conference where his wife sees
him humiliated as the media doesn't believe the people who had encounters.
I thought this was very important in terms of their relationship. Finally, the scene
when Dreyfus rips up his back yard and neighbor's property to build his clay tower
was trimmed. So when Terri Gar finally walks out on him, it no longer had the
emotional impact when you saw the gradual transformation from suburban husband to obsessed visionary. I was very disappointed with this cut as I was with Spielberg's later
effects spectacular "Jurassic Park". Great effects, disappointing characterization.
In summary, the Special Edition is more of an effects driven rather than character driven
story.
Then came the television version which combined all the footage of both 1977 and
1980 cuts. It worked a bit better in terms of characterization but was too long
and padded. It was pan/scanned so the wide screen visuals lost their impact and
of course was broadcast in mono sound.
Then Spielberg recut the movie again into a new 'director's cut' which was a bit confusing
since they all were director's cuts. This 1998 version restores some...but not all...
of the characterization of the 1977 release but removes the mother ship interior.
Sound bewildering? It is.
And now for some bad news. "Close Encounters" only looks 'okay' on blu ray. The
problem with all of the versions is the cinematography. Spielberg used multiple cameramen
on the picture and it shows. It doesn't have a consistent visual design. The climax
and special effects look very sharp and are fully lit which was required for Douglas Trumbull's
space ship designs. Trumbull had worked on Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" so he was
already an expert on creating these type of visuals. They were shot on 65mm film so they look a lot finer grain than the rest of the picture. In contrast, "2001" was filmed in it's entirety in 65mm so there wasn't a visual difference between the effects and live action.
The scenes shot overseas were shot by John A. Alonzo, Laszlo Kovacs, William A. Fraker and Douglas Slocombe. These scenes look vibrant and colorful with a fully
exposed image and rich colors. However, all of the earlier interiors in Dreyfus's house and
other locations were filmed by Vilmos Zsigmond. Zsigmond was part of the original New Hollywood movement (in style anyway) and used very limited lighting on set. As a result, these scenes have have muted colors, are grainy and flat looking without dimensionality. The opposite of later 65mm effects scenes and foreign locations. Underlit negatives do not look good in high definition which exagerates the grain and murkiness. The blu ray is considerably better than the early anamorphically enhanced DVD which was really muddy but it still doesn't look like a contemporary feature with razor sharp visuals.
The 5.1 sound does simulate the original six track magnetic mix from 1977. You'll feel that
subwoofer effect when the ships hover. The music is spread out nicely creating an effective sound field. I still don't like the aliens at the end but otherwise the first version is still an entertaining and nostalgic visit to another era in filmmaking. You'll be amused by the ancient video and audio equipment the crew is using to record their close encounter of the third kind in the climax. Richard Dreyfus is excellent in the lead role and he still looks good compared to now when the ravages of his drug problems have aged him into looking decades older than he really is. So I recommend seeing the original cut first and experiencing what the director envisioned at that moment in his life, career and American culture. The 1977 version best reflects Spielberg's youthful sense of wonder. Then watch the revised cuts at a later date since they show his changes as an older filmmaker with a different approach to characterizaion, narrative structure and technology.
In summary: Picture quality B, stereo sound design A, special effects A, cinematography B-, performances A, screenplay B +.
One of the classic "New...New Hollywood" features was released on blu ray a while
ago in a large box set that contains three of the four versions of this movie. All
are different in subtle and important ways. The only cut missing is the television
pan/scanned version which contains all the scenes from the other three. To my
surprise, after removing the shrink wrap there was also an extra disc in a sleeve
(not plastic case) which contained the sountrack album I used to have on vinyl.
The album does not have actual tracks from the movie but re-recorded themes
adapted for consumer use.
First let me explain was New New Hollywood was in the late seventies. "New
Hollywood" encompassed the young film directors in that decade that rejected
virtually everything "Old Hollywood" stood for which was mainstream entertainment
with slick technical specs. New Hollywood filmmakers included Dennis Hopper,
Melvin Van Peebles, Robert Downey Sr., Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma and
Francis Ford Coppola. Their movies had a counter-culture perspective, graphic
nudity, sex and violence, grainy underlit cinematography and quirky editing.
Some became classics like "The Godfather" and "Taxi Driver". Others like
"Greetings" and "Putney Swope" dated so quickly they were unwatchable
a few years after they were released. Their impact was felt in Hollywood in
numerous ways. The 'look' of movies changed permanently. "Glorious Technicolor"
was out, grain and murkiness was in which was applauded by many critics as
something daring and innovative. Today many of these movies look amateurish
and don't hold up in the digital formats.
The most profound impact New Hollywood has was in the moviegoing demographic.
Rather that make features for a broad age range from children to seniors, they
targeted the 16-26 year old 'youth' demographic exclusively. The problem with
that was it decreased attendence. 41 million weekly viewers went down to 21
million by the mid-seventies. The movie palaces folded like dominos and were
replaced by multi-plexes although a few large screens remained for the occasional
general audience release. These counter-culture movies were specifically linked to the Vietnam war which was the only thing that united groups like black radicals, hippies,
yippies and feminists. After that war ended they had nothing to unite them and split into hostile factions.
What followed was "New" New Hollywood which was to a large extent a return
to mainstream filmmaking but with some elements remaining from the counter-culture.
The late seventies showed a major increase of attendence as families flocked to
see features like "Jaws", "Star Wars", "Close Encounters" "Raiders of the Lost Arc"
and "Superman". Quite a difference in terms of the content compared to the
counter-culture pictures that dominated cinema a few years earlier. No more stories
about revolutions, black power and the deconstruction of Western culture. While the technical specs were greatly improved, the look of these movies was still different than the classic "Glorious Technicolor" movies of the past. Directors like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were the front runners of this new mainstream direction and former counter-culture filmmakers like Brian De Palma were able to adapt and survive. Others
like Van Peebles disappeared.
Another element that remained was the 'auteur' theory of filmmaking. Prior to the
sixties this was pretty much a non-existent concept. 'Auteur' is the French word
for author and filmmakers like Truffaut and Godard championed the notion that the
director should be in artistic control of every aspect of a production. In Hollywood
it was definately a collaborative effort with the producer, writer, director, stars,
studio head and production code office all participants in the final product. It was
hard to argue against the studio system since they made great movies within that
structure. Titles like "Singin' in the Rain" and "Casablanca" had many people working
together to make them. While it's true that some directors like Hitchcock produced
his own work and put his personal stamp on it, he still collaborated with writers along with
distributors and the Breen/Sherlock office which had final cut.
In the mid-sixties, the young filmmakers adopted the French New Wave 'auteur'
method to their work and it was taught in film schools. Movies made by a single
filmmaker were given accolades...even if the finished product was somewhat
sloppy in terms of narrative structure and cinematography. "Easy Rider" was
definately Dennis Hopper's vision as was De Palma's "Greetings".
I was certainly educated in this theory at NYU and am an auteur myself but I do acknowledge it's not the only way to make a good film.
Like all theories of filmmaking, there are attributes and liabilities. One attribute
is that when you watch a movie made by an 'auteur', you can examine
the filmmaker's worldview and individual style. There were also limitations.
Some auteur directors were indulgent and lacked discipline. Michael Cimino is an
example of an auteur who was out of control. Considering himself a 'great artist'
who didn't have to concern himself with crass items like staying within a budget
and schedule much less test screening a movie before release to see if it worked
for audiences, he made "Heaven's Gate" in 1980 which almost destroyed the whole
theory and folded a major studio. The biggest three and a half hour bomb in the
history of cinema.
Another curious liability...or at least a strange quirk was that some auteurs couldn't
finish their movie. They considered their features perpetual 'works in progress'. So
we have multiple versions of "Close Encounters", "Star Wars", "Alien" and "Apocalypse
Now" among many others. Each cut is quite different in tone and since they were revised years apart they reflect the director's altered worldview and attitudes. People change as they age. In the case of Spielberg, his early features tended to have a charming youthful innocence. Almost a teenage boy's view of the world. Quite different than some
of the director's later pictures like "AI" and "Minority Report" which are relentlessly
grim and downbeat. So as movies are recut by auteurs over the years, they
will change in perspective and filmmaking technique.
Which brings us to "Close Encounters". Each cut illustrates Spielberg's changing approach to narratives. Personally, I like the first version the best. I saw the original release in 1977 at The Ziegfeld movie palace in Manhattan on their enormous screen in 70mm. When the ship landed there were some 'sensurround' type of subwoofer effects that rattled the seats. I enjoyed it thoroughly but with some reservations. I was very disappointed with the look of
the aliens when they appeared. They resembled the Roswell descriptions which
I thought was a bit cliche. Otherwise there was tremendous narrative drive,
sympathetic characters you could relate to, good special effects and a brilliant
concept of having the extra-terrestrials communicate through music. Add to that
John Williams haunting score. I later saw the film twice more in 35mm mono which
was less effective.
Then came the 1980 re-issue. In my area in only played it 35mm Dolby stereo,
not 70mm. Dolby sounded good but lacked the sound field of the six channel
discrete large format. Gone were those subwoofer effects (called baby booms
at the time) which made you 'feel' the ship over Dreyfus's truck when it hovered.
New special effects were added including a ship found in a desert and some shots
inside the alien vessel. I didn't object to them although it was better to keep
the mother ship more of a mystery as it was in the original version. What disturbed
me about the 'Special Edition' is that Spielberg was taking a new direction
in terms of character development in his films. It was gradual but distinct. Like
his friend, George Lucas, both directors were becoming enamored what could be
done with the f/x imagery but at the expense of characterization. Both "Jaws"
and the first cut of "Close Encounters" were people driven story. The effects were
great but the emphasis was on the actors. The new version of "Close Encounters"
cut key scenes which motivated the people in the story. The scene establishing
Dreyfus as a technician in an electrical power plant was gone. So why was he
in his truck lost looking for the station he was sent to investigate prior to having
his 'close encounter'. Also gone was the press conference where his wife sees
him humiliated as the media doesn't believe the people who had encounters.
I thought this was very important in terms of their relationship. Finally, the scene
when Dreyfus rips up his back yard and neighbor's property to build his clay tower
was trimmed. So when Terri Gar finally walks out on him, it no longer had the
emotional impact when you saw the gradual transformation from suburban husband to obsessed visionary. I was very disappointed with this cut as I was with Spielberg's later
effects spectacular "Jurassic Park". Great effects, disappointing characterization.
In summary, the Special Edition is more of an effects driven rather than character driven
story.
Then came the television version which combined all the footage of both 1977 and
1980 cuts. It worked a bit better in terms of characterization but was too long
and padded. It was pan/scanned so the wide screen visuals lost their impact and
of course was broadcast in mono sound.
Then Spielberg recut the movie again into a new 'director's cut' which was a bit confusing
since they all were director's cuts. This 1998 version restores some...but not all...
of the characterization of the 1977 release but removes the mother ship interior.
Sound bewildering? It is.
And now for some bad news. "Close Encounters" only looks 'okay' on blu ray. The
problem with all of the versions is the cinematography. Spielberg used multiple cameramen
on the picture and it shows. It doesn't have a consistent visual design. The climax
and special effects look very sharp and are fully lit which was required for Douglas Trumbull's
space ship designs. Trumbull had worked on Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" so he was
already an expert on creating these type of visuals. They were shot on 65mm film so they look a lot finer grain than the rest of the picture. In contrast, "2001" was filmed in it's entirety in 65mm so there wasn't a visual difference between the effects and live action.
The scenes shot overseas were shot by John A. Alonzo, Laszlo Kovacs, William A. Fraker and Douglas Slocombe. These scenes look vibrant and colorful with a fully
exposed image and rich colors. However, all of the earlier interiors in Dreyfus's house and
other locations were filmed by Vilmos Zsigmond. Zsigmond was part of the original New Hollywood movement (in style anyway) and used very limited lighting on set. As a result, these scenes have have muted colors, are grainy and flat looking without dimensionality. The opposite of later 65mm effects scenes and foreign locations. Underlit negatives do not look good in high definition which exagerates the grain and murkiness. The blu ray is considerably better than the early anamorphically enhanced DVD which was really muddy but it still doesn't look like a contemporary feature with razor sharp visuals.
The 5.1 sound does simulate the original six track magnetic mix from 1977. You'll feel that
subwoofer effect when the ships hover. The music is spread out nicely creating an effective sound field. I still don't like the aliens at the end but otherwise the first version is still an entertaining and nostalgic visit to another era in filmmaking. You'll be amused by the ancient video and audio equipment the crew is using to record their close encounter of the third kind in the climax. Richard Dreyfus is excellent in the lead role and he still looks good compared to now when the ravages of his drug problems have aged him into looking decades older than he really is. So I recommend seeing the original cut first and experiencing what the director envisioned at that moment in his life, career and American culture. The 1977 version best reflects Spielberg's youthful sense of wonder. Then watch the revised cuts at a later date since they show his changes as an older filmmaker with a different approach to characterizaion, narrative structure and technology.
In summary: Picture quality B, stereo sound design A, special effects A, cinematography B-, performances A, screenplay B +.
