635 Weekend (1967)

[Kirkinson]

Thanks! That's very good news.

[cdnchris]

I hate to be the broken record of the week but I've just watched it and it has nothing like the image and color quality of original releases. The color is not exactly dark but simply undersaturated and there seems very little contrast or black level. At least Crit kept the film grain but otherwise it looks like the appalling Gaumont La Chinoise, albeit not rendered as plastic, as that disc is. Both these films were very much in 60s Pop Art style with high vibrant colors. Crit has worked hard on the color, given what they had to work with but there's just no clarity in the image, it's muddy. COmpare it to PIerrot for instance.

These new transfers (and prints?) just don't reflect Raoul Coutard's photography for Godard which was always strong bold lighting, high natural grain and brilliant color. Even the darkened room scene in which Mireille Darc recounts her erotic story should be pin sharp. It aint any more.

I don't think this is the fault of Crit, it's a case of what they've been given.

I have to say I'm kinda with you because when I popped it in I was certainly expecting something along the lines of Pierrot or Made in U.S.A. when it came to the colours. But it's a little dreary, other than some reds and blues that pop. It looks better than the washed look of the New Yorker DVD, though (what I remember.) But it could be intentional. In the interview Coutard mentions they used a high-speed film and had to use filters, so maybe it's because of that? (I think it might be the same interview on the New Yorker disc--I never actually watched the features on that disc.)

[warren oates]

I've never seen original release prints, so I can't compare, but the new Blu-ray looks pretty great to me. The colors look far better than they have in the past even if they don't pop like in other earlier Godard features. But most of the lighting also doesn't seem as bright as it does in those earlier features, even the daylight exteriors, and this looks/feels like an intentional aspect of the original photography. The biggest difference in the look for me on this new Blu-ray is how crushed the blacks feel in a much more contemporary fashion and I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the tweaks that was done to the new video master.

[Alan Smithee]

I've never seen original release prints, so I can't compare, but the new Blu-ray looks pretty great to me. The colors look far better than they have in the past even if they don't pop like in other earlier Godard features. But most of the lighting also doesn't seem as bright as it does in those earlier features, even the daylight exteriors, and this looks/feels like an intentional aspect of the original photography. The biggest difference in the look for me on this new Blu-ray is how crushed the blacks feel in a much more contemporary fashion and I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the tweaks that was done to the new video master.

I've also not seen an original release print but it seems that the change from popping saturated colors would make sense thematically. I've only seen the old DVD with the Figgis commentary but I bought this today and will judge for myself. It just seems that a film found on a garbage heap might be a little less colorful.

[feihong]

In the booklet they say this:

"For this film, Godard decided to use the fastest film stock on the market in 1967, Eastmancolor, and to overdevelop it to double its sensitivity. He had long since gotten Coutard into the habit of "pushing" film in development, but this was generally to shoot in low-light interiors or on nighttime Paris streets without having to light them. For Weekend, which was primarily shot outdoors and by day, daylight would have easily been sufficient without pushing the film's sensitivity. Godard's choice was purely pictorial: to obtain colors and texture that would not have the naturalistic quality of the stock when treated normally. Coutard remembers how difficult it was for him to work in these conditions: "It's a terrible problem for shooting. You're forced to stop down all the way, to stack up the gray filters in front in order not to overexpose. You can't see anything through the viewfinder. You can only leave the viewfinder once you've put on dark glasses to avoid being dazzled, and to be able to look back into it without having to adapt all over again. Godard found this very amusing; it was very exciting for him."

Maybe someone with more technical expertise than I can make sense of that, but on my disc I can see the thick grain of the high-speed film, I can see bright colors, and though there is a rough, deep-shadow look to many of the outdoor shots, the film doesn't look even slightly dull. The colors are really vivid to my eyes--they look elevated from natural. The film plays great in motion, for the first time on home video. Like the other guys here, though, I haven't seen a print of the film and can't say for sure if the blu-ray reproduces that look.

[Matt]

I'll take a crack at it. "Push-processing" film stock after it's exposed is a way of bringing out color and detail that would not be visible through normal processing. It's a way of compensating for underexposing the film. This typically has the side-effect of increasing the visibility of the grain. Godard had previously asked Coutard to use this method of developing film so that he could shoot in low-light situations (he could either use a lot of light and process normally or not use a lot of light and push-process).

For this film, it was not necessary to push-process since Godard and Coutard would generally be shooting in daylight. But Godard had come to love the side-effects of push-processing so he asked Coutard to do it anyway. To compensate for the push-processing (to avoid the image being washed out altogether), Coutard had to underexpose the film. The only way to do that in daylight was to have the camera aperture open at the smallest stop and to add a bunch of filters in front of the lens. The amount of light coming through the lens was so low that it made it very hard to see through the viewfinder. Furthermore, Coutard had to wear dark sunglasses when not looking through the viewfinder so that his eyes could adjust easier to what little he was able to see through the viewfinder.

So you should be seeing heavy grain and bright, slightly over-saturated color, but you should also be seeing sharp shadows (as you would in daylight) and also a slight dimness of the image as if you're looking through sunglasses. That's exactly what I see in the screen caps on DVD Beaver.

[colinr0380]

Is this process similar at all to the way that shooting day-for-night sequences would have been done?

[Matt]

Yeah, pretty much. At least before the processing. Push-processing, in this case, was then made to turn night back into day

[cinemartin]

For what it's worth, I saw a re-release print and the screengrabs look very accurate to that. I can't comment on a comparison to an original release print.

[warren oates]

Matt, I really like your sunglasses as ND filters analogy. That along with your detailed explication of the effects of push processing helps me understand both the intended look of the film and where some of those concerned about the image quality above might be coming from. The colors especially have a contradictory visual feeling that seems to be intended. On the one hand, they are deeply saturated as in all of Godard's other color pictures of the period. On the other hand, the colors don't (for lack of a better word and to use the word others have gravitated towards) pop because their saturation isn't brought about/enhanced by the bright lighting that accompanied most of the other films. And there's a conflicting dimness hanging over the saturation that helps create a unique and unsettling look for the whole film.

[JeffWang]

I'm glad they released Weekend, but the Godard film from the 1960s I want Criterion to release the most is La Chinoise. More than any of his other 1960s films, this film was Godard's most politically informed film, and reflects both the hesitancy and the love he felt for the political radicalism of the time.

[knives]

That won't happen any time soon as it is owned by another company which has a disc in print.

[manicsounds]

hidefdigest review

[Mathew2468]

I can believe that this is supposed to be greyer and duller than Pierrot and 2 or 3 Things... Mainly because I always thought 2 or 3 Things was duller than Pierrot and could never understand why they were always lumped together. They're all different...?

[knives]

They're all made by Godard in the later part of the '60s perhaps? I've never really seen those three alone put in conjuction, but that seems as good a trio as anything else.

[domino harvey]

2 or 3 Things is paired with Made in USA, La Chinoise with Le gai savoir, and Week End like Johnny Cash walks alone

[Mathew2468]

I just mean the color. Everyone is saying that this film should look more vibrant like Pierrot and 2 or 3 Things but I don't see 2 or 3 Things as very vibrant and so I trust no one.

[hearthesilence]

I'm not sure who's making that argument, but you're right not to buy into it.

The colors in Pierrot le fou should pop in a way the colors in 2 or 3 Things do not, and the colors in Weekend should look comparatively 'dull' to both of them, nowhere close to the brilliant colors in Pierrot le fou.

[knives]

I suspect he is referencing this line of posts where both films do get name checked.

[ptatler]

I didn't care for WEEKEND.

[accatone]

I'm not sure who's making that argument, but you're right not to buy into it.

The colors in Pierrot le fou should pop in a way the colors in 2 or 3 Things do not, and the colors in Weekend should look comparatively 'dull' to both of them, nowhere close to the brilliant colors in Pierrot le fou.

Says who? Is there some (even first hand) evidence? Everybody (almost literaly on this board) is talking about technical and digital things as if they are professionals. These films looked best on their first cinema(!) run so this should be the main reference. Today the only reference seems to be low res internet screenshots (on bad or different calibrated machines) and DVD blogs…. I am no expert on this, but the extrem focus on digital restauration only without propper references frightens me in so far as the original film seems to disappear behind that endless chat.

Home video is the new Hermès sac!

[elicross]

Re: the muddiness of Weekend's transfers vis a vis P le fou or USA

I first saw these prints more than forty years ago in NY and I remember Pierrot le fou and Made in USA popping off the screen, 2 or 3 things looking fairly normal, and Weekend somewhat dark or muddy.

I just figured the popping colors in Pierrot and USA underlined the pop art-i-ness of these two films... (remember this was during the Warholian/Lichtensteinesque/et.al. 'POP ART' period)... whereas 2 or 3 was an essay film depicting that we are all capitalist whores and wasn't meant to explode on the screen.

Weekend's dark/muddiness seemed fitting at the time... sort of the dusk of capitalism before it's fall... before it's fall and therefore the end of narrative cinema, ...., a slow fade, an Eliotian whimper.

That's what i remember first hand. But then again, i may have been smoking better s--t when i saw Pierrot and USA?

[accatone]

I have seen the film at least twice in cinema but only in the last 20 years. Production value and focus obviously shifted from Le Mépris to Weekend significantly. Not that the money was not there but the intention changed from a pop-art-ificial surface look (not Le Mépris) to a deeper political, essayistical focus. I am with elicross no doubt. There are still the red and blue cars, painted walls, advertisemnets and text inserts but it looks like Godard took less and less interest in deploying these colors/contrasts. The many exterior shots also look much less formaly developed (in classic terms, lightning etc.) but more concerned with their theoretical significance. One plus One is another example for this and the final crane shot at the beach an image of disruption…

[colinr0380]

I have to agree that Weekend does seem to look darker than I can remember on this new edition, but I'm not great at describing the technical side of how things look, so I'll defer to those who know better!

Kent Jones's visual essay on this disc is really valuable in noting some of the numerous quotes that fly past during the course of the film - these are the kind of things that Criterion really focuses on well in comparison to say the Tartan or Artificial Eye way of sending the film out there without any kind of context. For those distributors just making the film available is often an achievement in itself, so much so that it seems uncharitable to want anything more, but one of the reasons why I've always had a fondness for Criterion especially is the way that their editions help open up a dialogue around the film. The visual essay here (along with the reminiscence piece from cast and crew taking up the middle section of the booklet) is a great recent example of that. I'm trying to get my picks ready for the end of year awards, and I think this extra has just jumped into my list.

It was fascinating to read about Antoine Duhamel's thoughts on the use of his beautiful score (chilly and icy, and one which I wonder whether Howard Shore was inspired by for Crash) and the way that he composed music for the entirety of scenes, which Godard edited in and out from and raised and lowered the volume of, such as the opening conversation scene.

And if Criterion are looking for ideas for their Eclipse line, how about a "Mireille Darc, directed by Georges Lautner" set?

[MichaelB]

For those distributors just making the film available is often an achievement in itself, so much so that it seems uncharitable to want anything more

If a shoestring label like Second Run can supply copious context as a matter of expected routine, there's no sensible reason why a comparatively well-heeled label like Artificial Eye can't either.