Elvis: That's The Way It Never Was

By Michael Coate

A Unique Approach To Experience "The King"

Rick Schmidlin is an award-winning filmmaker and producer. Some of his noteworthy restoration projects include Erich von Stroheim's "Greed," "The Doors: Live At The Hollywood Bowl," and Orson Welles' film noir-classic "Touch Of Evil." His most recent project was producing a reconstruction of "Elvis: That's The Way It Is," the 1970 documentary/concert film directed by Denis Sanders.

While numerous filmmakers and restoration specialists have revisited films in recent years, "Elvis: That's The Way It Is" offered a unique opportunity not typically undertaken. In this instance, the project was reconstructed from start to finish, changing the focus of the film from the perspective of the fans in the original to the perspective of the performer in the updated version. This was made possible by the retrieval of vaulted footage that had been preserved over the years and was recently discovered. Turner Classic Movies and Roger Mayer, President and COO of Turner Entertainment, sought out the talents of Schmidlin to supervise the project.

Originally produced and released by MGM, the film now boasts an entirely new look, de-emphasizing the "talking heads" approach of the original, and favoring a more direct interpretation of Elvis Presley, the performer. The new version has a revamped soundtrack in stereo for the first time, and includes nine songs not featured in the original cut.

Although a theatrical re-release had been considered but ultimately not undertaken, some new 35mm prints were still struck (complete with DTS®, SDDS® and Dolby® Digital sound) and shown at special screenings and film festivals last fall. The 2000 version premiered on Turner Classic Movies January 15, 2001 and was released on DVD April 10. You can find our review of the new DVD in WSR Issue 49 or here.

Widescreen Review had an opportunity to speak with Rick in March, 2001 about his involvement on the Elvis project, as well as his approach and thoughts on other similar projects.

Michael Coate, Widescreen Review: Why revisit "Elvis: That's The Way It Is" in the manner chosen?

Rick Schmidlin: I thought it was a good project to do to show Elvis through his own spirit, not through an interpretation of someone trying to tell you who he was. This was basically the same way I approached my other projects, "Greed" and Touch Of Evil."

WSR Coate: In what way was the 1970 original different from the 2000 revision?

Schmidlin: The early version was basically a propaganda film, and was a film that was made in 1970 to sell him to audiences. It's good history…as a piece of propaganda. But it really didn't explain who Elvis was at that time.

WSR Coate: Where did did you find the footage necessary to re-edit the film?

Schmidlin: What happened was all the outtakes were vaulted two miles underground in Kansas. We were able to unearth the cans in the vault and found 60,000 feet of negative that was in pristine shape.

WSR Coate: Were the audio elements in that vault as well?

Schmidlin: We found the sound [elements] in the vault, and it was uncatalogued. We found the original 16-track masters that were recorded directly from the truck [used to record the concert] after about two months of searching. The original film was [mixed and released] in mono, so we were able to use [the 16-track master] for the [new 5.1-channel] soundtrack.

WSR Coate: If a film, any film, is reissued in theatres and/or on DVD in restored or revised form, do you think the original version should remain available?

Schmidlin: Always. It should always be available as a comparison for history. What I do with [these types of projects] is to try not to take away from the original film. I just try to make a comparative as a study of what we have now.

WSR Coate: Do you have any rules that you establish when you do a project like this, as far as altering content in the film?

Schmidlin: I just try to stay as close to keeping the artist's vision and the integrity together. I really care about who the artist was and want him to be the spokesperson, not myself.

WSR Coate: Is there a difference on a recent film compared to an older film where the original participants are no longer with us to be able to participate?

Schmidlin: It's different because sometimes someone wants to come in and rewrite something. When I did "Touch Of Evil," for example, we stayed with memos that were only written within the time period of '58 and did not vary into hearsay or statements that were made about things that Welles would have wanted to change in the '60s or the '70s. We stayed within the original context because, as you and I know, we can write something and look at it tonight and say, "I want to do a fix. I want to adjust this sentence and change that sentence." Fine. That puts you into perspective of what we did today. Now, all of a sudden 25 years from now, you find your manuscript and look at it and say, "Gee, I have now written this way and I don't like this sentence. I should have never asked this or I should have included that." And then if you change it, it stays away from the historical accuracy. But if you looked at your notes and your changes from your original draft, it would put everything in perspective of who you were today.

So, in dealing with a project like "Touch Of Evil," I stayed with only '58. In "Elvis," it was a different interpretation because there was no memo or anything, except that fans were interested to see more of Elvis. So "Elvis" was more of an interpretation of, "what was the camera saying to us back then?" And that's how that became a focal point.

WSR Coate: These types of revisionist projects are often controversial, with an obvious recent example being "The Exorcist." Have you seen the new version of "The Exorcist," and what was your impression?

Schmidlin: My impressions are basically that it's what [director William Friedkin] wanted. It's a Special Edition. It can never be considered a restoration, and it will always be a comparison, as "Blade Runner" is. It's a director going in for his own reasons and deciding to change something. It's his body of work and he has every right to do it. Is it a historically important thing? Well, time will tell. With Friedkin, maybe we'll look at him 25 years from now, but we have to look at D.W. Griffith and how many times he changed "Birth Of A Nation." In those interpretations, he screwed up the legacy of the film. He went back in 1921 and re-released it in a re-edited version, and he went back in '31 and made a sound version -- and the sound version was the version that people saw for 35 years. That was released for the same reason as Friedkin is releasing "The Exorcist" now...to sell it to a new audience.

WSR Coate: How do you feel audiences react to these types of projects? Are they viewed as a marketing gimmick or as a genuine artistic endeavor?

Schmidlin: That's a confusing arena because certain audiences understand entirely what the work is. Other audiences go in to be entertained and they don't really go in with an explanation. A majority of the audiences have been fed, almost through hearsay, the wrong dialogue. So sometimes you go in with the wrong interpretation.

I was in line for a movie at the Nuart [an art house/revival theatre in Los Angeles] about two years ago. It was a new print that we were going to see, and the dialogue on the line waiting to buy popcorn was that people were talking about how they were going to see a restoration, which is a sexy word that the marketing people put on to a title. This is "restored." This is, you know, a "restoration." There's a difference between a restoration and striking a new print. So on that line -- which I believe was "Picnic At Hanging Rock" -- people thought they were going to see a new restoration of the film or that something had been done to the film. Nothing had been done except that they went from the original negative and struck a new print. And another thing that happens is, and I see it a lot in publications, they're saying something is a "New Digital Transfer"...but everything is a digital transfer! There is nothing that isn't a new digital transfer, even if you're doing it in the most sloppy way. But people still say, "I've got a copy of this film. It's a 'New Digital Transfer.'" So there's a lot of misleading the audience through the hype words that are given.

WSR Coate: What can be done to be more accurate in this area?

Schmidlin: The media can't take the marketing divisions for face value. The marketing division is there to sell something.

I heard once about a project that came out for the 50th anniversary, and I said, "But the 50th anniversary is not until next year!" And the executive said to me, "Well, what we'll do is we'll put it out IN TIME for the 50th anniversary." So, when the product comes out it's not the 50th anniversary, but fifty percent of the media is telling people it's the 50th anniversary, and everyone's running around saying, "It's a restored print from the 50th anniversary version." And, it's not. So the whole thing is education.

We're becoming more educated cinematically, and as publications like yours are reporting more accurately because of the special interest groups that you address, we understand things much more thoroughly. I would say, probably thanks to the people at Criterion -- who really started grand-standing extra material on LaserDiscs -- we've really become a much more literate consumer audience and we can now interpret what "Touch Of Evil" is or what "Elvis" is, for what it is; which is a different version of, but not replacing, the original.

WSR Coate: What do you think happens if a studio or company decides to withdraw an earlier version of a film proclaiming audiences will never again be able to see the original, like with "Star Wars," for example?

Schmidlin: Well, we're in an industry driven by business decisions and "withdraw" doesn't mean withdraw. Withdraw means "put on the shelf for awhile" or "put on the shelf until the next person comes along." When we did this "Elvis" project there was a new print struck from the negative. It's on the shelf, it's been restored, is being preserved, and it exists.

WSR Coate: That's the original cut?

Schmidlin: Yeah, the original cut. It exists; we didn't cut any negative. One person came up to me at a retrospective screening and said, "How dare you cut original negative?" I don't cut original negative. We cut prints from the original negative.

The original version of "Touch Of Evil" exists. It's preserved, but it hasn't been seen by the public since 1970. I would say that's something the public would love to see because it's the original cut. That would be a wonderful collector's curiosity.

WSR Coate: Do you think the word restore is misused by the industry?

Schmidlin: Well, it's a sexy word, and it's a key-word to try to explain something to the public in a brief headline format. So, yeah, restoration and restored are overused words. I would say "newly struck print" or "completely re-edited." You know, explain things for what they are. They're good enough for that if that's the reason the filmmaker and the studio did the project. With "The Exorcist," I don't remember if the word "restored" was used. I think they were probably too careful on that one. What [restorationists such as James] Katz and [Robert] Harris do, is they try to restore. But then, what do you call "Vertigo?" They re-Foleyed the entire soundtrack! So, that's not restored, that's...

WSR Coate: Revised?

Schmidlin: Yes, revised. But I don't think "revised" sounds good. You know, "The Revised Version." It sounds like you're trying to sell a book. So that's why consumers that are interested should really read between the lines.

WSR Coate: So what would you call something like "The Exorcist," which not only had content changes made, but also had a completely reworked soundtrack?

Schmidlin: Well, that was, you know, Friedkin wanting to show that he had directed a masterpiece, so people would remember him for that and not for some of his latter films. And he did what he did, but again, I think the controversy is kind of like what [Ridley] Scott did with "Blade Runner." I think those are clumped in that same area. I think they should be called "Director's Special Editions."

WSR Coate: What are your thoughts on altering soundtracks? Say, remixing a mono film into 5.1?

Schmidlin: I didn't do it with "Touch Of Evil." I did it with "Elvis: That's The Way It Is" because "Elvis" had the 16-track [master]. There were reasons why "Touch Of Evil" was released as a mono film. It was an academic project and I insisted we stay in mono. "Elvis" was a project meant to be entertaining and enlightening. My sole purpose with this film was letting Elvis "do his thing," as the Graceland Estate likes to say. And we let Elvis do his thing, and he did it really well. It was entertainment and that's why we wanted stereo, and we had the [original] tracks [to do it with]. But "Touch Of Evil" had an intricate sound design that was mono, and we stayed mono.

WSR Coate: Revisionist projects like "Star Wars" and "The Exorcist" were very successful in their re-issues. Do you think the film industry will attempt other revision and restoration projects in the future?

Schmidlin: Sure. Some have been successful, but studios are really apt to say things like, "Well, it worked one time," or "That was the one example." I've heard a lot of that in my career. Whether directors will want to bring their old films out and see if they can do something to make them better or what they originally wanted, we'll only see. It's always good to revisit the past. There's nothing wrong with that.

END

Special thanks to Rick Schmidlin and Jane Ayer Public Relations.

Click here to read our DVD reviews of "Elvis: That's The Way It Is" and "Touch Of Evil."