The Killers (1964)

[antnield]

Arrow Films’ Arrow Academy label is pleased to announce the release of The Killers, coming to Blu-ray for the first time in the UK on 24th February. One of the first post-noir movies, The Killers is a sizzling sun-drenched thriller packed with shadows where the darkness at the heart of its protagonists’ souls is allowed to rot in the heat of the day. Probably best known as the film which was originally intended to be the first TV movie, but pulled by broadcasters due to what was seen as overtly graphic violence, The Killers, most importantly, is the film which established Lee Marvin: achingly cool, unnervingly relaxed and physically daunting.

This feature-packed disc will be released as a deluxe Blu-ray featuring original and newly commissioned artwork, an archive interview with director Don Siegel, new and exclusive interviews with Dwayne Epstein, author of Lee Marvin: Point Blank and Marc Eliot, author of Ronald Reagan: The Hollywood Years, alongside an exclusive collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by Mike Sutton, extracts from Don Siegel’s autobiography and contemporary reviews.

Here for the first time on Blu-ray, Arrow Academy is proud to release the film in both the alternate widescreen framing (1.85:1) and the more commonly seen 1.33:1/4:3 version. The Killers was originally commissioned as the first American TV movie, though it was intended from the outset to be released in European cinemas. However, following the JFK assassination, NBC became nervous about the film's subject matter, and the film debuted in American cinemas instead. But because of the original plans, previous video releases have treated The Killers as a TV movie and framed it at the then-universal TV shape of 1.33:1/4:3.

Synopsis

There is more than one way to kill a man...

"I gotta find out what makes a man decide not to run. Why all of a sudden he'd rather die."

So muses hitman Charlie (Lee Marvin) after his high-priced victim Johnny North (John Cassavetes) gives in without a fight. Obsessed with the answer, Charlie and his hot-headed associate Lee (Clu Gulager) track down Johnny's associates, and uncover a complex web of crime and deceit involving his femme fatale girlfriend Sheila (Angie Dickinson) and ruthless mob boss Jack Browning (Ronald Reagan in his last screen role).

Loosely inspired by the Ernest Hemingway story, and directed by Don Siegel (whose many other taut, efficient thrillers include Dirty Harry and the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers), The Killers was commissioned as the very first 'TV movie', but was given a cinema release because of its violence - although a cast like that really belonged on the big screen in the first place.

This super-deluxe package will be full of special features and bonus material including:

· High Definition digital transfer of the film by Universal Pictures, presented in alternative “television” and “cinema” aspect ratios
· Original uncompressed 2.0 mono PCM audio
· Optional English SDH subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired
· Reagan Kills: interview with New York Times bestselling writer Marc Eliot, author of 'Ronald Reagan: The Hollywood Years'
· Screen Killer: interview with Dwayne Epstein, author of 'Lee Marvin: Point Blank'
· Archive interview with Don Siegel (1984) from the French television series 'Cinéma Cinémas'.
· Gallery of rare behind-the-scenes images
· Reversible sleeve featuring the original poster and newly commissioned artwork by Nathanael Marsh
· Booklet featuring new writing on the film by Mike Sutton, extracts from Don Siegel’s autobiography and contemporary reviews, illustrated with original lobby cards

[EddieLarkin]

Thanks again for the dual aspect ratios Michael. Criterion may be facing a similar problem with their own Siegel release this year, and I hope they have the sense to offer it in wide even if it is just an alternative crop of the 1080p 1.33:1 version.

Love the cover by the way.

[swo17]

If you get to widescreen by just cropping the 1.33:1 image, some of us can do that already with just a few clicks of the remote.

[EddieLarkin]

My point being, that is presumably what Arrow have done here for their alternative presentation, and if it's good enough for them I'm confident it'll be good enough for me. I'm sure Michael or David can explain best why cropping the 1.33:1 master and re-encoding the result separately results in a better image than just using your TV or BD player zoom function instead.

[zedz]

That cover might be this week's best use of teal and orange.

[MichaelB]

If you get to widescreen by just cropping the 1.33:1 image, some of us can do that already with just a few clicks of the remote.

You can match the framing (or near enough), but a TV zooming in from a Blu-ray image isn't going to match the quality of a professional encode sourced from the original 2K master.

I was really startled by how good it looked, although it helped that the master was in remarkably fine shape (considering the film's age, its TV origins and Universal's variable track record) - in fact, I think this is the one project I've worked on that didn't involve James White's input because there was nothing for him to do!

[swo17]

I was more addressing this comment: "I hope [Criterion] have the sense to offer it in wide even if it is just an alternative crop of the 1080p 1.33:1 version."

[MichaelB]

Incidentally, I was thrilled with the cover - Nat Marsh sent me three alternatives, but this was so obviously the first choice that I'm not sure why he bothered with the other two (which were perfectly OK, but much more generic hitman stuff, and impossible to guess the film if the title was removed).

I actually think it's vastly superior to the reverse sleeve art, which is derived from the original release poster - which, frankly, looks like a rush job. And probably was, under the circumstances! (i.e. the film being pulled from TV and going to cinemas instead).

[EddieLarkin]

Allow me to reword:

I hope Criterion have the sense to follow Arrow's example, and offer a widescreen version of the film even if it is not a true 1920x1080p image.

By all means, they can go back and remaster the film for true 1080p 1.85:1, but what I fear is going to happen is Criterion will feel this is not a financially sound option (or they may not have the time), and instead we'll just end up with the announced 1.33:1 version only.

I think Arrow's The Killers disc is going to prove that there is a quicker, easier and cheaper alternative to issues like these.

[mistakaninja]

I like the original artwork, and prefer using the red to the yellow or white of the original poster. I think the original red poster had a different image of Angie Dickinson (which, interestingly, my phone's autocorrect tried to change to Abhor Fucking).

Maybe it's just because they're the images I've always associated with the picture. I do like original art and uncluttered covers though. I liked the early covers that went up for this and Sullivan's Travels as soon as they appeared.

That said, I like the commissioned work too.

[MichaelB]

Don Siegel would have hated the poster, because he hated the title - the film he shot was called Johnny North, and he strongly objected to the full title Ernest Hemingway's The Killers because there wasn't a word in the film that was actually written by Hemingway!

Incidentally, we had a mini-dilemma about what to put on the spine of the reverse sleeve - on the Arrow artwork, it says "DON SIEGEL'S THE KILLERS" on the spine, but we had to choose between DON SIEGEL'S and ERNEST HEMINGWAY'S on the alternative version, since "DON SIEGEL'S ERNEST HEMINGWAY'S THE KILLERS" would be ridiculous. In the end, we went for ERNEST HEMINGWAY'S, just to maintain a visual connection with the original poster.

Which reminds me - we had another issue over whether to call him Don Siegel or Donald Siegel. Contractually, the credits block on the back of the sleeve has to reproduce the film credits precisely, which means "Directed by Donald Siegel", and Nat Marsh's original artwork followed suit too. But I was then faced with the dilemma of whether I should call him Donald throughout the entire package, which seemed ridiculous to me since he's universally known as Don. We had no choice about the official credits block, but in the end it was Don everywhere else, including the full credits list inside the booklet.

(DVD/BD production is about making a million and one small decisions like this! Plus a lot of subtitle proofing.)

[mistakaninja]

Yeah, the extended title is unwieldy at best.

[Finch]

I forgot to ask you on Facebook, Michael, but considering the film's age and what gets passed for a 15 nowadays, I was surprised to see that the film received an 18 from the BBFC. Since I have never seen the film, I was wondering if you guys considered that fair? Granted, the film is very likely not to be a huge seller but I am intrigued by their decision to award it an 18 just the same.

The new cover is fantastic by the way.

[swo17]

I watched The Long Goodbye and Runaway Train back to back and had a similar thought about the former being 18 and the latter 15. Granted, the Coke bottle scene is pretty horrific, though it's still largely left to the imagination. Meanwhile, Runaway Train is one of the most graphic hand-horror films I can think of.

[knives]

I imagine Reagan slapping around Dickinson is what got the 18, but the film definitely is more in line with a 15 or at least that's my unprofessional opinion.

[zedz]

It's likely that the rating may be an old one (or a direct conversion of an old one), not what the film would currently be rated if submitted today. Unless a lower rating is going to make a huge difference in sales, there's not much incentive for Arrow to go to the expense of resubmitting an already rated film.

[EddieLarkin]

If it's a new disc, it must be resubmitted (though I believe at a reduced rate). How else are the BBFC going to make sure labels aren't slipping in frames of hardcore porn every now and again?

[MichaelB]

It's likely that the rating may be an old one (or a direct conversion of an old one), not what the film would currently be rated if submitted today. Unless a lower rating is going to make a huge difference in sales, there's not much incentive for Arrow to go to the expense of resubmitting an already rated film.

It is actually a fresh rating, confirmed last Friday.

It was last submitted in 2007 for a Universal-produced DVD, and the fact that it still got an 18 even then suggested that it would probably get one again now (since there hasn't been a significant change in BBFC policy since then), so it wasn't wholly unexpected, though I share your bafflement. The only official reason I've received thus far is "Contains violence", which is undeniable, although we're not even talking the level of Don Siegel's former assistant Sam Peckinpah, never mind the kind of surround-sound-enhanced bone-crunching that's routinely passed at less than 18 today.

Technically, we can appeal, but I can't see any point - it will delay the release (which, happily, is currently bang on schedule), and it's not as though Arrow was targeting the teenage market. And if anything a big red forbidding-looking 18 might even boost sales, although I'd hate to think that anyone was disappointed by the film as a result.

[Finch]

Having not seen the film I was wondering if the scene knives referred to where Reagan hits Dickinson has any kind of sexual undercurrents to it? If so, then chances are this is what led the BBFC to insist on the 18 certificate. But yes, considering what else gets passed at lower certificates, it'd be interesting to hear a more detailed explanation from the BBFC. That said, The Wild Bunch also still got an 18 a few years ago.

[knives]

There's a gendered undercurrent (really text at that point) to the scene, but I don't remember anything explicitly sexual about it.

[David M.]

No, there's not. Not surprising, it's a made-for-TV movie from decades ago.

I'd be amazed if BBFC, in 2014, would single out a slap to the face in a film full of guns and mayhem. Then again, they're a censorship board so are dated by design...

[colinr0380]

Can't somebody dangle the BBFC out of a window by their legs to get them to reconsider? I'd actually really love to read the BBFC's specific reasoning behind that decision though. Maybe they didn't like the equal opportunities approach to violence on display by the hitmen?

I agree with what has been said, the film does have shocking (for the suddenness rather than the nastiness) moments of violence in it that explode almost without warning (like the above mentioned Dickinson-Reagan-Cassavetes punch up! 60s icons duking it out for ideological supremacy!) but it adds a sense of verisimilitude as well as underlining the brilliantly callous and blasé 'cool' attitude to violence and the lives of others that runs throughout the film. Beyond the muted gunplay and Dickinson-threatening going on perhaps the most 'violent' moment is the race car crash with Cassavetes staggering out of the wreckage and collapsing onto the ground as the commentators continue to shout wildly as if trying to outdo the Hindenburg reporter!

But it really shouldn't need to be an 18 - a 15 would have accommodated the material perfectly fine and, compared to many action films that routinely get 15 certificates, this film is quite moral in the presentation of its brutal amorality, if that makes any sense.

[MichaelB]

A very fair review from Rewind.

It cannot be stressed enough that this is a 50-year-old TV movie, made on a small budget and a very tight schedule - Don Siegel was hired as director specifically because of his ability to weave silk purses out of sow's-ear situations. It's a more recent (2009) transfer than the Criterion DVD and substantial chunks of it look dramatically better, but you're never going to get a truly pristine image out of this film: longevity wasn't part of the game plan!

[MichaelB]

Beaver.

[Props55]

Any possibility (or interest/awareness) in Siegel's later telefeature THE HANGED MAN (a remake of the 40's Universal noir RIDE THE PINK HORSE starring/directed by Robert Montgomery) as an Arrow release? Both are missing in action as far as home video (at least in R1) and it's been years since I've seen either one on cable or pay-tv. Granted, it doesn't have Marvin test driving the icy hitman he later perfected in POINT BLANK or Rockin' Ronnie bitch-slapping the lovely Angie, but it is a very tight reshaping of another golden-age 2nd tier noir classic transplanted from the Mexican village setting of the original to 60's era Mardi Gras. By the time Siegel completed these two and the star-studded STRANGER ON THE RUN he'd proved he was ready to opt out of the TV grind and get back into theatricals again.