64 / BD 70 Nosferatu

[Tommaso]

I sometimes wondered why I'm not particularly fond of rounded corners. I guess western people are used to 90° corners from their windows and centuries of painted images. Rounded corners thus draw attention to themselves and to the medium, to the fact that what we see is just a created thing, not a representation of reality. They might make it more difficult to immerse oneself in the film perhaps.

[zedz]

They'd make Nosferatu look like it was remodelled in the 70s in Spanish Hacienda style.

[HerrSchreck]

I absolutely adore rounded corners. Why I was just saying this very thing to a young lady last night.

As for film, I love em too-- makes me feel like I have a copy of the reels in their complete form. As to projectors not being able to accommodate the full 35mm image, I'm not 100 percent sure I buy that, as most have the capacity for adjustment in either direction. I've seen rounded corners in projections, most memorably at the MoMA.

As for a full frame for NOS in telecine, that's no problem either if the operator truly wants-- there are so many transfers that feature all four rounded corners, which were fit within the gate with no problem whatsoever.

[zedz]

I've seen rounded corners in projections, most memorably at the MoMA.

That may have been because they were projecting 16mm, where you very often would see the entire frame. If it was shot in 16mm, the director was probably thinking about the whole frame, and if it's a reduction, it's likely that the frame was filled to maximise relevant information.

Another factor with old films that might have been cobbled together from multiple sources, or dupes of dupes, is that the 'projected area' on the print you happen to have in your hands might not be the same thing as the intended projected area on the original negative - in which case it's surely desirable to retain as much of the image as possible, especially if you strike instances like this which look particularly suspicious.

[Sloper]

From what I understand about the cropping of Orlok's head on some video editions is that it is an attempt to be as "true" as possible to the original theatrical projections of Nosferatu... Orlok's head is positioned at the very top, where if you go far enough to the right and left on the 35mm frame you will find rounded corners right in line with his head. If you try to crop those out while still showing most of the image, you will crop Orlok's head. The alternative is to crop further in and up which will show Orlok's head, but loses the rat walking around at the very bottom of the frame which is exactly what happened on Kino's original DVD release. Showing the full image, rounded corners and all, will give you Orlok's head and the rat. But it wouldn't be "historically accurate", and it might not be aesthetically pleasing for those who hate rounded corners.

Interesting thought, but I'm not sure I buy this explanation. On the BFI edition you occasionally get a rounded corner on the top left-hand side of the frame - not, however, in the scene in question, where instead you get a dark blur all along the top, just above the level of Orlok's head. In other words, you can see the whole head but there don't seem to be rounded corners in line with it, so I'm not sure that can be the issue. Also, having compared the BFI and MoC editions, I don't think the latter shows significantly more of the rat. To the extent that the rat is an important detail - a bit of peripheral scene-dressing - both editions show as much of it as is necessary. Given what else is happening in the frame, most viewers are unlikely to be focusing on the lower portion of the image, and it seems to me more important to give Orlok his head. But I'm not capable of producing screen-grabs at the moment, so someone else with better facilities may want to jump in and disagree.

[HerrSchreck]

I've seen rounded corners in projections, most memorably at the MoMA.

That may have been because they were projecting 16mm, where you very often would see the entire frame. If it was shot in 16mm, the director was probably thinking about the whole frame, and if it's a reduction, it's likely that the frame was filled to maximise relevant information.

Another factor with old films that might have been cobbled together from multiple sources, or dupes of dupes, is that the 'projected area' on the print you happen to have in your hands might not be the same thing as the intended projected area on the original negative - in which case it's surely desirable to retain as much of the image as possible, especially if you strike instances like this which look particularly suspicious.

I'm of course aware of all that... Not true, I've seen them on 35 prints straight through.

As for DVDs there are many which show 3 to 4 corners from start to finish, on titles that survive in 35.

[RidgeShark]

I definitely agree that the head is the more important object to show than the rats at the bottom, but I'd like to have both in the shot. It always seemed to me that the video versions that showed the full head had telecine technicians who went to the trouble of retransferring that shot at a higher position and then inserted the fix back into the final video. Of course, this is just speculation on my part.

For comparison purposes, I just found many different transfers of Nosferatu on youtube -

First is the most open framing I've ever seen for this film. Says it is a VHS recording of a 1989 broadcast - http://youtu.be/LfYmOpsjcUw?t=59m57s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It almost has the entire head and shows that there's actually 2 rats at the bottom of the frame. Tough to determine with 100% certainty if there are rounded corners in this shot due to the dark murkiness, but the shots surrounding it do have the rounded corners.

Here is what appears to be the first Kino DVD from 2002 - http://youtu.be/IPEKuWCISak?t=59m15s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the 2007 restoration - http://youtu.be/a7y3pHesceU?t=59m46s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MichaelB]

Just announced:

Eureka! Entertainment and The Masters of Cinema Series are delighted to announce the Halloween 2013 theatrical and home video releases of an eagerly awaited new restoration of F. W. Murnau's legendary silent cinema horror classic Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1919), expertly restored in Germany by the world-renowned Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung (FWMS).

This revival of a horror classic, one of the most famous of all silent films, follows Eureka! Entertainment's hugely successful restoration showcases of Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) in 2010 and Carl Theodor Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) in 2012.

Nosferatu's UK theatrical run will be co-ordinated by Eureka! Entertainment and will open in selected cinemas nationwide on Friday October 25, 2013, just in time for Halloween. Blu-ray and DVD releases will follow with a raft of special features to be announced nearer the release date, as part of Eureka! Entertainment's award-winning The Masters of Cinema Series.

[AK]

The Blu-ray and DVD will follow in November with new special features, and will be available in a SteelBook edition.

Hurrah!

[Jonathan S]

Eureka! Entertainment and The Masters of Cinema Series are delighted to announce the Halloween 2013 theatrical and home video releases of an eagerly awaited new restoration of F. W. Murnau's legendary silent cinema horror classic Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1919)...

1922 surely?

[Tommaso]

New restoration? Again? And does that mean that Schreck gets his head back?!

[MichaelB]

If I remember rightly, the problem with the previous restoration was that it was SD-only, so a proper HD going-over was inevitable.

[RossyG]

Looking forward to it. And fingers crossed that the BFI bring out Herzog's version this year, as well.

[vsski]

Best news in quite a while - can't wait to ditch my DVD! Of course Kino will probably bring out their version in short order as well, but given their recent track record they won't be able to hold a candle to MoC.

[AK]

Looking forward to it. And fingers crossed that the BFI bring out Herzog's version this year, as well.

My thoughts exactly! Will be a fun double-feature. I watched Murnau's film and Merhige's Shadow of the Vampire back-to-back once and it was a wonderful experience. Thought about adding Herzog to the mix then, but will do it next time.

[EddieLarkin]

I wonder if they'll consider a new commentary for this one. The current one, as previously discussed here, is a complete chore. Nosferatu being one of their flagship titles (probably a better seller than both Sunrise and Passion of Joan, though maybe not Metropolis), it really deserves better. Obviously my first choice would be Kalat! He has, after all, done two Murnau commentaries for MoC already (and can clearly be coaxed out of "retirement" if it's a film he's passionate about).

[eerik]

After years of "there's no HD master available and nothing is planned" talk I thought this was quite a surprising announcement. But now I stumbled upon this post on Blu-ray.com forums which confirmed an upcoming 2K restoration already a year ago. And there's also a guy who is planning to release his own Blu-ray of Nosferatu, based on a 16mm print he bought on eBay.

[Jonathan S]

The Photoplay website also now mentions a version "available soon" from Milestone. It doesn't specifically mention blu-ray but at this stage that seems likely. I presume this would be an upgrade of Photoplay's earlier edition with the James Bernard score, currently available on DVD only from the BFI.

[JamesF]

The new restoration is playing at this year's Frightfest next month, for any impatient Londoners.

http://www.frightfest.co.uk/films/2013f ... igh55.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Le Samouraï]

Given what else is happening in the frame, most viewers are unlikely to be focusing on the lower portion of the image, and it seems to me more important to give Orlok his head.

I actually prefer the framing of the MoC. I think the way Orlok's head extends beyond the frame supports the notion that he is very tall much more than if the head had been kept in-frame.

[Sloper]

Given what else is happening in the frame, most viewers are unlikely to be focusing on the lower portion of the image, and it seems to me more important to give Orlok his head.

I actually prefer the framing of the MoC. I think the way Orlok's head extends beyond the frame supports the notion that he is very tall much more than if the head had been kept in-frame.

Weirdly enough, I argued more or less the same thing (in more naive, ill-informed terms than yours) about six years ago on this very thread, though I changed my mind when I saw the BFI edition. I think the shot is most effective, and most uncanny, when the frame is precisely calibrated to accommodate Orlok's head. There's something a bit bathetic about his scalp disappearing at the end of his ascent...a bit like if Kirk Douglas smacked his nose against the camera lens at the end of Ace in the Hole.

This must be the most extensively debated shot on the forum. Or is that the horse in Andrei Rublev?

[Orlac]

Is this due for October?

[swo17]

November

[MichaelB]

The theatrical reissue is October.

[EddieLarkin]

I wonder if they'll consider a new commentary for this one. The current one, as previously discussed here, is a complete chore. Nosferatu being one of their flagship titles (probably a better seller than both Sunrise and Passion of Joan, though maybe not Metropolis), it really deserves better. Obviously my first choice would be Kalat! He has, after all, done two Murnau commentaries for MoC already (and can clearly be coaxed out of "retirement" if it's a film he's passionate about).

Kalat commentary confirmed via twitter!