I question the authenticity of older TV shows in HD
No to mention, all three seasons of the original series of Star Trek on Blu Ray are absolutely gorgeous (amazing what they did with a 40 year old TV show), and I hear similar results were achieved with The Prisoner. They were true television shows never meant to be seen theatrically, and they look incredible in HD.
I can't wait to see what they do this year with The Twilight Zone ('59-'64).
Of course, all 3 were shot with film... but I couldn't tell you the mm.
It's OOP now, so the question is moot, but should the BFI have sourced its DVD of Ken Russell's Elgar from the original 35mm negative (as was the case) or attempted to mimic the effect of a 405-line transmission on pre-PAL British television technology?
I'd love to see a Blu-ray of that (even though it would diverge even more dramatically from the original 1962 broadcasts), but the ball's firmly in the BBC's court.
MichaelB wrote:It's OOP now, so the question is moot, but should the BFI have sourced its DVD of Ken Russell's Elgar from the original 35mm negative (as was the case) or attempted to mimic the effect of a 405-line transmission on pre-PAL British television technology?
You can't replicate the experience of watching it on a 17" Ferguson or a nine inch Bush (unless Youtube is your preferred mode of home entertainment); the BFI did precisely the right thing - but you know that Michael.
Oh, I know - and to say we had Ken Russell's full support is putting it very mildly indeed.
But there's always the niggling ethical question of whether one should improve on the original experience, especially if the improvement in video/audio quality is such that it might flag up problems that would have been invisible or inaudible before.
UPDATE: I've just remembered that we did draw the line somewhere - while we pushed the image quality to the max, the soundtrack remained in the original mono, even though some of the recordings that Russell used were stereo. It might well have been technically possible to replace them, but given that the programme was never conceived as stereo and that some of the recordings would have remained in mono, this was considered to be a step too far.
Last edited by MichaelB on Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Generations of directors have probably muttered 'they'll never notice that...', little realising that one day far into the future their work would be available to all, to rewind, zoom in, slow-down, speed-up, spot that he/she came in this way, but went out that, and argue endlessly about a few inches of framing and what the filmakers intentions really were.
Spotting someone's pancake, badly fitting hairpiece or hastily painted backdrop is the least of the problems; in fact, I find it somehow charming.
MichaelB wrote:But there's always the niggling ethical question of whether one should improve on the original experience, especially if the improvement in video/audio quality is such that it might flag up problems that would have been invisible or inaudible before.
Thanks Michael, I think zedz was really losing his patience with me there, but that's all I was trying to say, in the most comical way possible. I am, for instance, hesitant to get rid of my Twin Peaks laserdiscs, as it is the most faithful recreation of watching it on analogue broadcast television, warts and all. This I think this might take it too far however:http://www.elitedisc.com/xcart/customer/drive-in.php
When selected, the patented DISTORTO™ process will deliver the film's soundtrack to only the front left speaker of your sound system (just like the famed Drive-In window speaker). Other Drive-In "sounds" will fill your room from the remaining channels: a car pulling into the spot next to you, friends walking by your car, crickets chirping, guys howling and whistling at the girls in the movies and forgotten friends pounding on the inside lid of your trunk reminding you to let them out.
Once again, as far as it concerns F&A, there are little-to-no "warts" of a technical nature in the film at all, let alone any that could be attributed to Bergman's intended release medium. Read your essays in the F&A booklet (Rick Moody consistently refers to the three hour version as Bergman's "final theatrical film," by historical definition and by directorial intention; Stig Bjorkman says "only reluctantly did he cut the epic film down to 188 minutes..."; there's more in the supplements as well, with Bergman professing that this is to be his last film). Bergman intended or at the very least desired that the whole five and a half hours be shown in a movie theatre, on film. He never wanted to cut the thing down to three hours at all. The timeline is unclear, but unimportant; it is possible that he shot the thing knowing that the five hour version would be on TV only. Given that possibility would still negate your point about "warts" as far as the three hour theatrical version is concerned, if the only criteria for something being a "TV series" vs. a "film" is the director's intentions at the time it was made. Zedz covers all the other possibilities: the five hour version was released on TV to get it shown and make some money. It is now shown theatrically. End of story.
You've demanded "support" for the premise that Bergman considered this a "film," his last film in fact (which is why all his later movies were on video), but the only person who has disagreed with that otherwise well established premise so far is you, citing "common sense," some vague wordings on a community-edited encyclopedia, and the fact that you're "convinced." Sorry, but your conviction does not convince me. It is not "lucky" that Bergman shot on 35MM rather than video. It was deliberate.
This isn't a Blu-Ray of Bosom Buddies. It's not even Saraband, (AFAIK) shot on video and released on Swedish TV (and just as worthy of a Blu-ray, with no ethical questions aroused). This is a "film" in every way, shape, and form. Comical or no, your point is simply incorrect.
Thank Svevan, I appreciate you having gone to the trouble to find that info and you have suitably convinced me that Bergman did in fact only grudgingly conform F&A to television. Certainly, of any TV film I can think of, F&A has the cinematography which deserves to be seen in its full glory, something that I conceded several posts ago. At the risk of further agitating people and risk another condescending response, I will still maintain that there is the point that MichaelB stated far more succinctly than I, which is whether to pay any reverence to the original viewing experience of a particular presentation. Again, F&A is a poor example, so I apologize for digressing, but sometimes it is interesting to view something without resorting to revisionism, even if it is done by the director themselves. Just because Lucas thinks that you should be watching Star Wars with his intended digital "fixes", does that mean that that it is the superior version?
Zot! wrote:At the risk of further agitating people and risk another condescending response, I will still maintain that there is the point that MichaelB stated far more succinctly than I, which is whether to pay any reverence to the original viewing experience of a particular presentation. Again, F&A is a poor example, so I apologize for digressing, but sometimes it is interesting to view something without resorting to revisionism, even if it is done by the director themselves. Just because Lucas thinks that you should be watching Star Wars with his intended digital "fixes", does that mean that that it is the superior version?
I would say we should only pay reverence to the original viewing experience if it was an integral part of the original artistic intentions of the creator. If an artistic TV production was shot and edited on film then I'd find it very hard to believe that the creators would have actively wanted their work to be viewed in low resolution analogue. This was just the technology that was available at the time, not the desired aesthetic of the film-makers. If the master copy of the work exists on film then that is the original work as created by the director. A high quality presentation of this would not be revisionism, rather it would be true to the original intentions of the film-makers in a way that analogue TV sadly could not be. I imagine it's not always this simple though, for example if post production work had been carried out on video, and probably many other exceptions.
Zot! wrote:At the risk of further agitating people and risk another condescending response, I will still maintain that there is the point that MichaelB stated far more succinctly than I, which is whether to pay any reverence to the original viewing experience of a particular presentation. Again, F&A is a poor example, so I apologize for digressing, but sometimes it is interesting to view something without resorting to revisionism, even if it is done by the director themselves. Just because Lucas thinks that you should be watching Star Wars with his intended digital "fixes", does that mean that that it is the superior version?
I would say we should only pay reverence to the original viewing experience if it was an integral part of the original artistic intentions of the creator. If an artistic TV production was shot and edited on film then I'd find it very hard to believe that the creators would have actively wanted their work to be viewed in low resolution analogue. This was just the technology that was available at the time, not the desired aesthetic of the film-makers. If the master copy of the work exists on film then that is the original work as created by the director. A high quality presentation of this would not be revisionism, rather it would be true to the original intentions of the film-makers in a way that analogue TV sadly could not be. I imagine it's not always this simple though, for example if post production work had been carried out on video, and probably many other exceptions.
If it was shot on film, then it was high-resolution analogue. We know that 1080p approximate the detail and resolution of 16mm film, so if a production was filmed in 16mm or better, it equals or exceeds the best of today's digital technology. In addition, there are those who believe that a properly calibrated CRT projector is still the most film-like way to view DVDs and BDs if for no other reason than the problems that )some) digital displays and projectors have with blacks and greyscale. So analogue in itself isn't a pejorative. Just sayin' (And that's without considering the superiority of analogue sound recording over digital.)
vogler wrote:I would say we should only pay reverence to the original viewing experience if it was an integral part of the original artistic intentions of the creator. If an artistic TV production was shot and edited on film then I'd find it very hard to believe that the creators would have actively wanted their work to be viewed in low resolution analogue.
I can absolutely guarantee that this isn't what Bertolucci wanted for The Spider's Stratagem, which he polemically shot almost entirely in medium and long shot even though he knew it was primarily aimed at the small screen - and it consequently looks far, far better in the cinema. As he secretly intended all along!
triodelover wrote:If it was shot on film, then it was high-resolution analogue. We know that 1080p approximate the detail and resolution of 16mm film, so if a production was filmed in 16mm or better, it equals or exceeds the best of today's digital technology. In addition, there are those who believe that a properly calibrated CRT projector is still the most film-like way to view DVDs and BDs if for no other reason than the problems that )some) digital displays and projectors have with blacks and greyscale. So analogue in itself isn't a pejorative. Just sayin' (And that's without considering the superiority of analogue sound recording over digital.)
I was talking about low resolution analogue TV broadcasts. I can't say how good these may have looked in areas with better reception, but where I live they always looked utterly terrible, and obviously they could never come even remotely close to film.
But basically I agree with everything you've just said, which is why I shoot 16mm film and until recently recorded music on tape (but Pro Tools has become far too convenient for me now). I also edit all film transfers using a CRT monitor for the very reasons you mentioned. I'm not sure if an LCD monitor even exists that could produce the level of blacks I'm used to with CRT, and if there's one that even comes close then I certainly couldn't afford it. So yeah, analogue is certainly not a dirty word with me.
triodelover wrote:If it was shot on film, then it was high-resolution analogue. We know that 1080p approximate the detail and resolution of 16mm film, so if a production was filmed in 16mm or better, it equals or exceeds the best of today's digital technology. In addition, there are those who believe that a properly calibrated CRT projector is still the most film-like way to view DVDs and BDs if for no other reason than the problems that )some) digital displays and projectors have with blacks and greyscale. So analogue in itself isn't a pejorative. Just sayin' (And that's without considering the superiority of analogue sound recording over digital.)
I was talking about low resolution analogue TV broadcasts. I can't say how good these may have looked in areas with better reception, but where I live they always looked utterly terrible, and obviously they could never come even remotely close to film.
But basically I agree with everything you've just said, which is why I shoot 16mm film and until recently recorded music on tape (but Pro Tools has become far too convenient for me now). I also edit all film transfers using a CRT monitor for the very reasons you mentioned. I'm not sure if an LCD monitor even exists that could produce the level of blacks I'm used to with CRT, and if there's one that even comes close then I certainly couldn't afford it. So yeah, analogue is certainly not a dirty word with me.
I was having a little fun. Shame on me.
You are correct about the typical analogue broadcast back in the day. Also about LCD displays, which is why I settled on a plasma display as a decent compromise to replace the old Sony CRT last year. I think eventually I'll go to a projector/screen set-up because i certainly have the room to do it right. There are guys refurbing old three-tube CRT projectors, but weight, heat and the fact that I have enough DIY project/maintenance demands on the audio side will probably lead to another new technology compromise.
Am I right in thinking the new Tartan remaster only includes the 3 hour and not the 5 hour version? If this is the case then what a bizarre release. Btw, are there any extras, like the Making Of docu? I haven't been able to find any info on the Tartan website, nor on the online shops, apart from Amazon, which states the feature lasts 180 minutes.
I'm anxious to see how Criterion handles the Blu transition for F&A. Although they elected to leave The Last Emperor's TV version to the SD set, the omission of F&A's TV version would be nothing short of scandalous.
At the same time, a very big problem arises - can Criterion feasibly release both F&A's theatrical version standalone and box-set (a full four spines!) on Blu-ray, or will one take priority over the other? If they release both, it would be the first time I can remember four different editions of one title in print at the same time (2 SD, 2 Blu).
Svevan wrote:I imagine they'd just skip the Theatrical version on standalone blu. I also imagine the set will be cut down to three discs.
Agreed. The theatrical cut, as good as it is, has always felt kind of fragmented to me. The TV version is one of those rare examples of 'more is more.'
The TV version of "The Last Emperor" added nothing to the theatrical version, IMO.
I've only seen the thetrical of F&A and its my favorite Bergman. Don't really see the need to watch a longer version. So I'd like a standalone on blu. :-p
Yeah, I could see them doing a Last Emperor-like scenario and just dropping the theatrical edition. The 5 hour cut is twenty times better and it was preferred by Bergman anyway. win-win. The 3 hour cut is only a historical curiosity at this point. Maybe they could do something like the Leopard and include it in 1080i on a second disc.
But movielocke you miss out on the fantasy sequences like death coming to life and the visualisation of the story Alexander gets told by Isak after their rescue from the Bishop's asetic home, as if his imagination is free to take flight again after being repressed. They might not be narratively important but they add a great deal of texture to this film that is already essentially about the perilously fragile nature of opulence and extravagance, and which helps to balance out the supernatural/theatrical flight of fantasy elements a lot more than in the shorter version.
I do like having both versions though - you can see how the addition or removal of certain elements can drastically affect the whole tone of a scene. Perhaps I wouldn't appreciate the longer version of Fanny & Alexander as much if I couldn't compare it to the slightly differently emphasised shorter one.
But then I always prefer the longer versions of films if I have the choice. The Last Emperor is the same as a lot of the minor characters get lost or not fully developed along the way in the shorter version. And you really need the sweep of history to contrast with the more intimate re-education that occurs.
The wet nurse early on is one sad loss from the shorter version that I can remember at the moment. She actually gets a couple of scenes of characterisation - such as being chosen out of a line up and having her own baby removed in order to suckle the Emperor instead - before she gets brutally kicked out of the Forbidden City and absorbed back into the masses, something which is an early example of the larger theme of the film as all the other characters appear and disappear from Pu Yi's life, leaving just the impact they've had on the Emperor behind (the wet nurses' breast; the tutor's bike; the sexual awakening with the wife, etc) as history overwhelms them while just the slightly reductive single aspect of their character remains in memory. All of which prepares us for Pu Yi's final exit stage left.
Yeah, not to pile on movielocke, but it seems really ignorant to outright dismiss, sight unseen, the director's cut (not a "director's cut" in the cheesy modern way, but in a true "this is my movie, there is no other" sort of way, straight from Bergman's mouth; we should call it "the full version" because it is everything that Bergman wanted it to be, nothing more or less) merely because you like the theatrical version so much. It's not just "longer." There's not just "more scenes." I've watched F&A every Christmas since it came out on Criterion DVD, it is easily my favorite movie, and my favorite parts, the ones I look forward to every year, aren't in the theatrical.
Didn't Rosenbaum make a similar argument, but in the reverse? Something along the lines of, it's not a good movie and I don't need to see the TV version to believe as much?
(And that's without considering the superiority of analogue sound recording over digital.)
