Friday 3 June 2022

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

199? Saul Zaentz Home Video LaserDisc: This appears to be the film's theatrical mono mix, the last time it ever appeared on home video. The music feels well-integrated into the film in a way it doesn't in later releases. Unfortunately, it sounds a bit muffled and there are clear signs of mastering work visible in its spectrals.

1998 R2 Warner DVD: A new stereo mix that was probably produced for the '97 SE LaserDisc. In terms of pure fidelity, this has the clearest and least manipulated dialogue among these releases. (The mono, if presented without any EQ or noise management for home video, would possibly sound similar.) The music has been newly remixed and has much more detail than everything else - it doesn't fit well. There are no new sound effects.

2008 Warner Blu-ray: The 5.1 here is probably identical to the one on the 2002 Warner DVD (I didn't care to check). The dialogue in the centre channel has been noise managed to the point of sounding similar to the dialogue in the SZ LaserDisc track. There are many new sound effects - so many that I lost interest identifying them, so here are a select few I found while indiscriminately skipping through:

  • 3:30: New foley as the old man scratches his beard
  • 4:41: New foley of the jangling handcuffs and as the bag is passed
  • 5:09: Longer smooching sound as Nicholson kisses the guard
  • 23:23: New bouncing ball sounds whenever the basketball is offscreen
  • 24:34: New sound of Nicholson smacking the backboard
  • 35:21: New water sound as Nicholson sprays everyone and new dripping water sounds throughout the scene
  • 53:32: New sound as the gate is being grasped
  • 58:36: New boat engine noise throughout the scene
  • 2:01:49: New punching sound as Nicholson is struck - sounds like it belongs in an 80s action movie

These effects have distractingly higher fidelity than the original effects still present.

2 comments:

  1. I wouldn't doubt that the 5.1 track on the BD is the same one as the DVD, cause it isn't even lossless to begin with

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm pretty sure that any "similarity" as in "being the same" here entirely refers to the content only, given that lossy codecs against all will audiophile theories don't alter the content in any distinguishable way in the vast majority of the use cases.

    ReplyDelete