NEW DIRECTORS CUT

[drinkanddestroy]

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA 1984 RESTORED EXTENDED VERSION Premiere At The Piazza Maggiore A Bologna 2012

C'ERA UNA VOLTA IN AMERICA 1984 Restaurato Piazza Maggiore A Bologna 2012



Only disappointment is that it's not in the original aspect ratio 1.85:1 left and right sides are still crop i compare my DVD and HDTV versions to the early restored studio preparation version and the one premiere in italy, sure you can see the difference

Comparison between HDTV - DVD and early Restore Extended versions and Italy premiere

I analyze images measures the first and third image in 1.78:1 the second image in approx 1.93:1

May be it's to early to say i guess theatrical and video release can be different we'll see upon Blu-ray release later

-- Thanks for sharing these images. as for the aspect ratio:  the dvd of the 229MV  takes up my full hdtv screen, with no black lines on top and bottom, which means that the aspect ratio is 1.78:1, or perhaps it is 1.85:1 but the tv masks a little of the image (according to the experts here, you can only be certain you are seeing the full dvd image if you watch on a computer).

-- How can you tell the aspect ratio from measuring images from the photos on the screen?

-- Although the movie's intended aspect ratio is 1.85:1, some folks here have said that it was actually filmed in 4:3 (but with the intent to crop the top and bottom, to 1.85:1). So if the image is any LESS WIDE (Is "narrower" the correct term here? ) than 1.85:1, I guess it's possible that we may be seeing more information on top and bottom, rather than seeing less on the sides.

-- Some people will argue that 1.93:1 or 1.78:1 are only a tiny bit different than 1.85. That's true, though I still don't like studio execs messing around with the image in any way; I want to see it as exactly as the director intended.

But I would not worry about it until the dvd is released 

[nat]

So I don't know if this has been asked, but does anyone know when the new extended version of OUATIA will be available to us proletariate??!!

[Derbent 5000]

dvd and newly restored studio production preparation extended print





















first image from dvd and the second newly restored extended print studio preparation without color corecttion and other effects, more information on all four sides newly extended print

[moviesceleton]

What's the source of those pics?

Are there final screen captures available from the new restoration? All these pics show us is the full 1:1.85 image, but nothing about the actual image quality.

[drinkanddestroy]

Thanks for the post and images, Derbent 500. I'm sure most of us would love to know a bit more and any more information you can supply would be greatly appreciated.

I noticed that in May 2012, prior to seeing the extended version at Cannes, Robert De Niro gave an 8 minute interview in English to TV5Monde.

He reveals that Martin Scorcese gave him (and probably others) a low quality DVD of the additional scenes.

In the interview he talks about

The Restoration
The Hoods (Arnon Milchan gave him a copy to read and he then realized that he had read the book many years earlier when he was a child.  He found the book very interesting and real with a ring of truth)
Working with Sergio Leone
Jewish gangsters


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr8rjc_robert-de-niro-on-tv5monde-the-french-speaking-international-channel_fun

 

Thanks for the link! The questions are asked in French but De Niro responds in English!

[Novecento]

first image from dvd and the second newly restored extended print studio preparation without color corecttion and other effects, more information on all four sides newly extended print

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr8rjc_robert-de-niro-on-tv5monde-the-french-speaking-international-channel_fun

Thanks for posting 

[dave jenkins]

There's quite a bit more to the Bailey and Jimmy scene than I first thought.  Bailey obviously has health and digestive problems - he drinks milk throughout the scene.  I used to think that Jimmy persuaded Bailey to sign the papers by promising that, after Bailey's death, his family would be able to keep some money.  However it's now made clear that additionally if Bailey doesn't sign the papers, his son would be murdered.

This is a scene like the one in the grotto cut from GBU--interesting to see, but unnecessary. Just as it isn't important to know where Tuco found his three friends--or even that they are in fact "friends", or at least acquaintances of long standing--it isn't really necessary to know the details of Bailey's deal with Jimmy--or even the fact that there IS a deal. The important matter is, as you rightly suggest, what occurs between Bailey and Noodles in the following scene.

I kind of like seeing Jimmy come back into the picture at that point, to see how, over the years, the ass-kicking shoe has moved to the other foot, but the scene plays like molasses in winter. Not even important exposition could justify such weak dramaturgy.

[stanton]

But that the Treat Williams character just vanished was always one of the narrative mistakes of OuTA.

[dave jenkins]

Agreed. But solving one problem by creating another is a zero sum gain.

[drinkanddestroy]

Jimmy does not vanish in the 229MV! we see himon the tv in Fat Moe's during the newscast after Bailey's car was blown up. so we see  that he is still around and involved with the union-political shit in 1968.


For me, this restored scene I guess explains why a man as powerful as Bailey is surrendering and killing himself. With all the money he has, couldn't he just run away to some other country and live out his life in peace and quiet? But now that he knows that his son will die if he doesn't "cooperate," it makes sense why he has no other choice but to commit suicide. (To be sure, the question of why he isn't running away did not occur to me previously).

Also, there is an interesting point about anyone who gets involved in the dirty games of mobsters-unions-politicians: you can manipulate the system for whatever you can and make it rich, but once you step outta line, you are done. So many big mobsters make it big and wealthy, but they make a wrong move and then are whacked and done for. There is a line in this scene where Jimmy says something like "yeah I didn't make mistakes. You screwed up" a very loose paraphrase but that's the point. In this dirty game, you can "succeed" and have everything work out, until you screw up; once that happens, it's over in an instant. Everything you built up for years. Kind of like what happened to Noodles and the rest of the gang: they made it very successfully during Prohibition, but in that one fateful night, they were done for.

I am not saying this is an essential scene, but I don't think it's useless or hurts the movie in any way. Although I guess you could ask, if Bailey is first being informed now, during this party, that he has to die, then how do you explain the fact that he already gave Noodles a contract on himself? Nothing that Jimmy says at that meeting should surprise Bailey. Bailey already made the effort to find Noodles and bring him back to kill Bailey; then when Jimmy tells him on the night of the party that he has to die, he really isn't telling him anything that Bailety doesn't know or hasn't been planning for. So perhaps that scene doesn't make sense after all?



p.s. I still think that, as I've maintained all along, that the most important restored scenes are the ones with Eve. (The restoration includes the scenes where Noodles meets her, but not ALL the scenes between them before we see her on the beach in Florida. I hope that if they do restore more scenes, they include all the scenes with Eve). It's important that we see Noodles meeting her and being with her, so that she doesn't just show up on the beach out of nowhere, in love with Noodles

[stanton]

Jimmy does not vanish in the 229MV! we see himon the tv in Fat Moe's during the newscast after Bailey's car was blown up. so we see  that he is still around and involved with the union-political shit in 1968.

Yes, but that's not enough. in the 229 min version his role is either too big or too small.

[drinkanddestroy]

Yes, but that's not enough. in the 229 min version his role is either too big or too small.

we see that he is still around, that his original idealism for workers' rights has become the familiarly corrupt union-politics-mobster story, and that he is obviously involved with the Bailey scandal.

There are lots of narrative stuff that IMO is missing in the 229MV, but Jimmy is not one of them

[dave jenkins]

(To be sure, the question of why he isn't running away did not occur to me previously).

Exactly. We don't need explanations for things we never wondered about.

[dave jenkins]

I am not saying this is an essential scene, but I don't think it's useless or hurts the movie in any way.

You are going to follow one scene of two guys talking in a room together with ANOTHER scene of two guys talking in a room together--and it's the same room! Man, am I glad that you aren't directing movies.

Any editor would tell you that one of those scenes has to go. It's easy to choose in this case--cut the one that doesn't play.

[drinkanddestroy]

You are going to follow one scene of two guys talking in a room together with ANOTHER scene of two guys talking in a room together--and it's the same room!

Yeah, that's never happened before in a movie

I do think that the scene raises a different serious problem, which I described in the earlier post: Bailey's been planning his death for a while now; so there's no reason that Jimmy informing him that he's gotta go should be any revelation to him. He's obviously made the decision to kill himself, already, why NOW does he begin this argument with Jimmy, telling him that he brought him to his position, etc.

There are a couple of nice parallels (idk if that's the right word) though, between the two scenes: In the scene with Jimmy, Bailey turns on his 4 video screens; in the scene with Noodles, he shuts them off (symbolic I guess for the fact that he's done for). And while Jimmy walks out the main door of the study, Noodles in contrast walks out the side door, as always.


Furthermore, I was never really sure what the purpose was of showing Bailey's son in the movie -- except to tip off Noodles (and the audience, in case we didn't realize it yet) as to the identity of Bailey. Someone here once said that the purpose is to show Max "looking at" himself, which is one of the themes of the movie, people making sense of their past and Time. Also, showing his son leaving with his friends to the party  provides some justification for the partiers in the car at the end of the movie (which is meant to be a surreal scene anyway, and the summation of the themes about dreams, time, and cinema). But I guess that after seeing this scene, perhaps there is one other explanation: showing the son gives it a greater effect when Jimmy threatens his life, as opposed to if he had threatened some anonymous, faceless person.