As a rule growing up for someone like myself who lived off of old movies, if you rented a video and it started with this logo, you knew you were in for a troublesome experience:
Goodtimes Home Video...the king of public domain and obscure home video releases at cheap quality rates. From the KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park TV special to clip videos such as A Tribute To Lucy and classic features such as Charade and Royal Wedding, Goodtimes was one of those home video companies that always made me scratch my head and wonder how they always stuck around. Their transfers were usually analog from old analog video sources from old public domain prints. Every Goodtimes VHS I have seen has been recorded on LP mode. Most tapes are recorded on SP mode, which allow 2 hours of program on an average size cassette, allowing for superior video quality. By recording in LP mode, which allows 4 hours of program, about half of the amount of physical tape needs to be used. This had its downfalls. It meant low frequency sound and a much softer image, not to mention thick lines during seek mode on your VCR that made it difficult to scan through. Also, LP tapes have a higher rate of video dropout.
Through 2007, when the company finally folded, Goodtimes seemed to nudge its way into the DVD era, by releasing their older titles on DVD using the same video sources they used for their VHS. I was taken aback the other day when I went to the public library and decided to rent an old film for the evening. There on the rack was the DVD of "Royal Wedding", a public domain film that every video company and their Nanna has tried to release. Official releases from MGM exist as well, but the film is commonly seen on internet streaming sites, public television, VHS and DVD because anyone has the right to profit from it. I saw the Goodtimes Home Video logo before I saw anything else and decided that I was going to tolerate whatever transfer I received as it was a free rental. There on the front cover though, my friends, were the words used so liberally: Digitally Restored. "This I have to see" I told myself and popped it into my machine the minute I got home. Before the feature even started came a white text on black background disclaimer, and I'm paraphrasing here: "This film has been restored using the best possible elements."
The first frame came on, and my inner voice flipped into Claire Huxtable sternly saying "What have you done?" to the makers of this DVD. Spending many years in the film and video archive world, I have been able to identify analog video sources based on grain pattern, dropout quality, and video overhead quality. What I was seeing, based on the video line on the right and the grain pattern of the image, appeared to be a DVD of a D2 of a 1" C video source. The 1" soundtrack had not been calibrated before being transferred to the D2 and the result was a lot of pops and clicks on the DVD. Now I have not seen the official DVD of this film, but SURELY there exists a better "element" of the film than a D2 or 1". This is what we were looking at:
This opens my third eye. I don't mind people releasing films on home video and them being sub par quality if there are other versions available. If you can make a buck, and there are people willing to pay a few bucks as opposed to more than 10, go for it! But why lie? Blatantly, at that. Nothing was digitally restored for this film. There wasn't a computer used to color correct the image. Scratches weren't removed, the soundtrack wasn't cleaned. What exactly was done to fix this? And on top of that, why is the company claiming that they used the 'best elements' for this, as if it had accomplished some great feat by releasing a D2 of a public domain film on DVD!!! The people who would buy a film like this would know when they are being fed a bowl of doo-doo in the form of a home video. Shame on you Goodtimes Home Video! It's no wonder you folded!!!
This last week, after getting my finances in order, I opted to bring the Netflix Watch Instantly plan back into my life. I had gotten rid of it about three years ago as at the time, the plan offered was less than what one would desire. The features included on the plan were very limited. I remember a friend of mine and I flipping through the films offered and having a hard time finding one that seemed remotely interesting. The films would come and go from the plan so quickly that by the time you were finally interested in watching a film, it had vanished and you had to order the disc. Films were taken from the cheapest available elements. For a film like "Charade", while the disc was a transfer from Criterion, restored in vibrant color and offered in its 1.85:1 aspect ratio, the watch instant plan was taken from the Goodtimes DVD, a crappy 1" of a crappy 16mm print that was spliced to hell, pan and scan, and had horrible video overhead on the side. Aspect ratios were completely unacceptable on other films as well. Due to a merger, a lot of the titles distributed came from Starz' catalog. So, if I wanted to watch Pulp Fiction, I would be watching it in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio as opposed to its original 2.35:1.
Time heals all wounds, and after hearing the site had cleaned up its act, I decided to rekindle the relationship. This is true and it has been a happy week for the two of us. We have laughed, cried, talked about memories, and shared many a film or tv episode with a glass of Fresca. I was also in the minority of people whom are still opting to get discs vs. watch streaming. Statistics are showing that now that bandwidth is increasing and it is easier for titles in HD to stream flawlessly, people prefer to rent titles online instead of visiting a local video store or order discs from Netflix. Most Blockbusters have closed, and laptops don't even include a DVD-R drive anymore. We have started to move into a discless generation where everything is ordered, screened, and paid for with the touch of a button. But this does not come without its limitations.
There is so much we are missing from watching a program on stream instead of getting a disc. The restorations screened may be great, but the same options available have now become a thing of the past. For example, if you have been following my blog, you may have read how when I can, I try to watch a title with the original sound mix vs. the upmix as I don't have surround sound in my apartment and enjoy the original mix quality better. Watching a film streaming no longer gives you this option. Whatever sound mix has been chosen is the one you are forced to watch the film with. There are other limitations. Audio commentary-- gone. Making of features-- gone. Deleted scenes-- gone. Music only tracks-- gone. Trailers....well these aren't gone, you can still watch them on Youtube, but you get my point. Not to mention, there is a bit of compression that comes with these streaming videos. Studying the quality as meticulously as a reviewer like myself does now is a thing of the past. The hard meticulous work that studios put into film to video transfers is almost worthless now, as no one is buying the discs that show off the work. The studios might as well lease out the older D1 transfers of the films instead of the newer HD transfers considering the image quality won't be making much of a difference by the time the compressed video with whatever demonic video proxy being used hits your laptop, wireless DVD player, or gaming system.
To wrap this up, sure, I do recommend watching stuff streaming if you don't mind the shift in video quality. But I also encourage you to still opt for a disc from time to time to see the glory of the colors, grain, and high sound quality one gets with an uncompressed video disc. Not to mention, if you want to check out the special features, they still exist on the discs. The studios are still slapping them on DVDs and Blurays in hopes of people buying and renting them. Don't compromise for cheaper video quality if you don't want to. It may take an extra day, but your film experience will be worth it.
Signed,
The Celluloid Avenger
I encourage people to watch films streaming as the option is so much easier than waiting for the disc to arrive in the mail, dealing with skipping sections, etc.
When it comes to my list of favorite film openings, this one definitely takes the cake:
Labeled
as India's 'curry western', a take on the 'spaghetti westerns' from
Italy, Sholay was and is one of the biggest films ever to be released.
Beyond being India's second 70mm released film (Around the World was the
first), Sholay struck big at the box office. Thakur Singh, a retired
police officer, now lives in a provincial town with his widowed
daughter. The town lives under the regime of a forceful criminal, Gabbar
Singh, who takes all assets of the town at his disposal and murders
everyone who may threaten his ruling. Through, song, dance, comedy,
action, and drama-- the perfect blend for a Bollywood film, Sholay
delivers as a prime example of classic Indian Cinema. The film didn't
'explode' at the box office overnight though. According to magazines
from the time, people walked out during the first 20 minutes because of
the long action sequence that introduced the lead men. The audience
figured it was going to be another B action film. The people who stuck
around got to see that the film gets better as it progresses and word of
mouth spread. Not long after, the film grew in audience numbers and
soon was selling out for weeks to come.
The 70mm
grandeur didn't hurt things either, although the film wasn't shot on
70mm. In 1975, widescreen was still a fairly new concept in India. While
most foreign films that came into the country had adopted the process,
most Hindi films were still 1.37:1. Theaters were not about to all
switch over to a 2.20:1 format to exhibit a film either due to the
financial obligation this would require. So, to compensate, Sholay had
two aspect ratios. The film was shot on 35mm at 1.37:1 and printed to
35mm in this aspect ratio, and then it was cropped and blown up to
2.20:1 for the 70mm release. This started a new trend in Bollywood.
Because of the rich colors of the image used in Bollywod cinema, blowing
up the frame didn't create a jarring effect in regards to grain. If you
watch the opening sequence above, you can picture where the mattes
exist. Watching this film open matte, one can see that a lot of empty
space exists, especially above the heads of the characters. The film is
definitely framed for the widescreen format, with many medium shots
featuring 3 characters at a time in the frame. I have seen the film in
both aspect ratios and love it both ways.
In the early
1990s, evident from a trailer on an Eros VHS for Chamatkar (1993),
Sholay was rereleased in theaters. While its legacy lived on from this
rerelease, the legacy was not given the same treatment when it came to
home video. Various copies of various aspect ratios have made their way
to home video. The first VHS I remember seeing was from an open matte
print with French subtitles. This copy that circulated around the
bootleg home video market had some scenes cut and many video dropouts,
but was still rich in color and featured the theatrical ending. Eros
issued an official VHS and DVD of the film. Eros is notorious for taking
2.20:1 or 2.35:1 films and cropping them to 1.85:1 letterbox for
release. With Sholay, one would have thought they could have taken a
1.33:1 source and matted it if they wanted to go that way. Instead, they
took a 2.20 source and zoomed farther in to 1.85:1, making the film
barely watchable. Later, MoserBaer took a 1975 2.20:1 print (the year of
the element comes from the censor certificate at the beginning of the
film) and released it in non-anamorphic form on DVD. This print, while
pretty worn, does contain the film as it was meant to be seen in its
theatrical cut.
Sometime in the 1990s, with the advent of
cable tv, the film received a 'director's cut'. The film had its issues
with censors back in 1975 for being too violent and featuring an ending
that did not please the government (I'm not a spoiler, but if you
really want to know what the differences are, I'm sure IMDB can
accommodate). This original ending and some of the gore was reinstated
to bring the film up to 204 minutes. Of course, this version was
released as a 1.37:1 version. Because it has the highest image quality
and is distributed by Eros, who rule the international video market,
this is the most common seen version of the film. I'm not down with
that. For years, I have been searching for the theatrical cut of the
film in its widescreen aspect ratio-- the way people remember seeing it
in 1975 if they went to a 70mm screening. Which is the proper way to see
the film though? The film really only played in 70mm in a few cities.
The big 'crowd' that made the film what it was actually saw the film in
the 35mm square aspect ratio version. I can say this though, they did
NOT see a 204 minute cut of the film. That's a little too much Sholay
for my taste.
And now, of course, something else happens. Sholay has been released
in....wait for it...3D! 3D?! Yeah, that's right. 3D. I am sure it looks
as bad as it sounds, but this also means that a proper 2D release was
done. And it looks BEAUTIFUL! I am not for tampering with old films in
the form of gimmicks, but in this case it actually paid off. In order to
do a 3D conversion, a 2D high quality restoration needed to be done. I
am so happy and proud of the work that went into this. Sholay should be
seen and shared with future generations. It is a huge part of Indian
history. Not to mention, it is just a badass film. I anticipate the new
DVD of this release with great anticipation and hope that when it comes
out, you will do yourself a favor and pick it up:
I had a sudden urge to watch More American Graffiti, as I realized I had never seen it. Before doing this, though, I presumed it would be a good idea to throw on the original film that preceded it, American Graffiti, as it had been a while since I had seen it and wanted to get in touch with the many characters of the film so that the transition to the sequel would be a little less confusing. It took me a while to warm up to American Graffiti. The first time I rented it, the copy I got from the local video store was an early 80s MCA/Universal VHS that had been pretty worn out, and because of its quality, I had a hard time engaging. It wasn't until I saw a 35mm print of the film at the New Beverly Cinema that I really fell in love with this film. American Graffiti follows a group of teenagers on a summer evening after they graduate from high school. The plot is simple, but there is a certain charm to it that still attracts new audiences.
For film nerds like me, this film has a few qualities worth mentioning. For starters, all of the sound, except for the title sequences and the Goodnight Sweetheart song which continues through a few scenes to the end, is diegetic, meaning all of the sound that we hear as the audience is also heard by the characters of the film. For two hours, music of the time period heard on the radio, at a sock hop, etc., plays as the characters' stories develop. The double record soundtrack to the film, which was a favorite of mine growing up, includes the majority of these songs and the coolest part is that the quality of the recordings on the soundtrack matches that of the film. Master recordings aren't used, and there is a canned quality with limited fidelity used to illustrate the quality of sound of the recordings as heard back in the time that the film is set. Five years after the film was released, it was reissued in Dolby Stereo sound (with a few more scenes added back in), which was fairly experimental for its time. Still, because the technological abilities to do a stereophonic remix in 1978 were limited, this remix is discreet enough to not distract from the film's original concept, compared to the 5.1 mixes of mono films that are chugged out by companies on a regular basis today. I am so happy that the Bluray and DCP of this film retains the 1978 stereo remix, and not a new 5.1 surround. That definitely would have killed the viewing experience for me.
Another notable quality of the film is that it was shot using a process called Techniscope. Instead of shooting a 2.35:1 aspect ratio with an anamorphic lens, Techniscope cameras took 4 perf 35mm film and shot it at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio by filming at 2 perfs at a time, reducing the frame in half. This would then be blown up onto 4 perf 35mm film so it could be projected at its widescreen aspect ratio...sort of a cheap man's widescreen. This gave the film a certain gritty aesthetic that adds to the memorable charm of the film a lot of people may remember in initial releases. I only wish I could have seen when the film was blown up to 70mm for the 1978 rerelease. My mind imagines that the grain for this blow up would have been quite distracting, but it's hard to tell without actually seeing it. When I saw the DCP and Bluray of the film recently, I noticed that any resemblance of this Techniscope process had now been removed with grain removal. The grit that showed the budget and time that the film was made was part of the charm that attracted audiences over the years. By removing this, the studios are almost shaming the filmmakers for the artistic choices they made. The movie is much brighter than I remember as well, probably because with the grain removed the colors needed a makeover. It's hard for me to stomach studios doing this. For years we as professionals discriminated against colorization with black and white films, and now we're colorizing color films. The restoration of this film is a perfect example of that.
The nice thing about films like American Graffiti is that they will always be released time and time again. Gone with the Wind has had numerous releases over the years, and each time, the people working on releasing the film try their hardest to have it resemble its original release. While American Graffiti is no Gone with the Wind by any means, it does hold a special place in many people's hearts and I do see it getting more restorations and releases in the future. Hopefully, the next time around, some of that 70s charm that went into the process of making it will come back. Until then, I will constantly be checking the movie listings for 35mm prints that may show up at local theaters in the LA area.
It was a snowy February Sunday night in 1995 in Brookfield, WI. My usual bedtime was 9pm, but on this very special night, my mom let me go with her to a very special screening: a film that had been buzzing all over the Bollywood gossip magazines: Hum Aapke Hain Koun. An hour later than scheduled, the lights dimmed, and the loud sold-out crowd cheered in delight as the following title sequence hit the screen:
This was actually what we saw. There are a few logos that are supposed to come before this title sequence, but the print we saw had traveled all over the US, and had come to us incredibly worn, starting with the logos cut, and this number incredibly scratched. Still, green emulsion lines dancing and all, it was a night to remember. Hum Aapke Hain Koun was considered a landmark film in Bollywood for so many reasons. I particularly can take or leave the film today, but do applaud its reverence because of what it did for the Bollywood industry. To see its deterioration over the last 20 years in different releases and to see that it has been beautifully restored in HD and released on home video makes my heart smile, even if I don't agree with it being a particularly good film.
The synopsis of the film is quite simple. Two wealthy Hindu families arrange a marriage between a boy and a girl, and in the process of the lavish traditional Indian wedding, followed by the wife becoming 'expectant', the bride and grooms siblings fall in love, keeping their coy feelings from the family. When tragedy strikes (the bride, finding the two are in love, joyously runs down a flight of stairs, trips into a concussion and dies in a coma), their love is jeopardized as her sister must now marry the bride's widow to care for her nephew instead of marrying the man she loves. Full of over-the-top humor, 14 songs, and incredibly cheesy dialogue, the film may not hold up as well as it did when it hit screens in 1994. But at the time, it was a saving grace for an industry that was starting to fall apart.
Still chugging out roughly 900 films a year, India's film market had a new focus...it seems that all films I remember of this era were romantic-drama-action-comedy-musicals that involved drug lords, cops, scorned love by family members, and a rape scene thrown in for good measure. I kid you not, while kissing on the lips was not seen for another year in Raja Hindustani, a staged rape scene happened more times than it needed to. Hum Aapke Hain Koun (HAHK) decided to be different. It broke box office records selling out for weeks in advanced on a simple story about love and family. If it weren't for this film, so many other classics that followed (Dilwale Dulhuniya Le Jayenge, Dil To Pagal Hain, and Rangeela, to name a few) wouldn't have been made, even in an industry that did release so many titles at a time.
There are three main versions of this film, to date. The first release, not remembered by most, had only 10 songs in it, and ran about 20 minutes shorter than the most common version. A groundbreaking marketing technique, Rajshri films waited until attendance had started to tamper down, and rereleased the film with 4 new songs: "Chocolate, Lime Juice", a reprise to "Diktana, Diktana", "Mujse Jodha Hokar", and "Lo Chali Main", the latter before the climactic coma inducing stair fall. This was the version I remember seeing in theaters as the film traveled around the US, running roughly 3 hrs and 5 min. Beautifully restored, here is the "Chocolate, Lime Juice" number, courtesy of Youtube:
Alas, there is one more version of this film that ran roughly 3 hrs and 20 minutes. For a long time, a person had two choices when purchasing the film. There was the first release, which cut the four numbers I mentioned above, and this long version that was almost unbearable to watch. Included were a number of extra short scenes that had nothing to do with the plot and were obviously put back into the film to market it for perhaps a third release, or one for home video or television broadcasts. Most annoying in this version was the alternation of "Ye Mausum Ka Jadoo". In the first and second versions of the film, the last shot of the number involved Madhuri Dixit ringing a bell at a temple and Salman Khan attempting to do the same but flubbing the process. They both sit to pray as the last line of the song is overheard, before the intermission card appears before the screen. The print we saw which toured the US did not have the original intermission card, being such a worn shabby print, but an inappropriate replacement title card, where a dramatic lightning bolt struck the frame and the word 'intermission' shot out at the audience. I remember my mom, sister, and I being a little disturbed by this. The third extended cut of the film featured a closeup of Madhuri looking on at Salman Khan while the song is heard in the background at a picnic, followed by a full scene at the temple, done a la An Affair to Remember. This was the first addition of scenes in the third version. The majority of them happen in the second act of the film, which is a shame because most people will admit that the second half of the film is what makes it drag.
The film became a landmark in a bad way, too. Video Sound, Asian Video, and Eros Video handled the official international video releases of Bollywood films in their respective territories. These releases weren't without flaws, of course. There would be commercial breaks in the official video releases and the transfers were low quality telecine transfers, usually matted from 2.35 to 1.85, but still of watchable quality and widescreen to a certain degree, nonetheless. When HAHK hit screens and became such a blockbuster, nobody wanted to pay for the rights to officially release the film on video before the crowd was ready to see it, and pirated videos in the US were born. These were common in India already, but a foreign idea to international audiences. It became clear that people were okay with renting pan and scan videos with numbers and sequences cut, advertisements flying across the bottom third of the screen, or films taped at private screenings in theaters with whatever sound was booming in the theater that would hit the camera microphone. It was a pleasure to see the film without the commercial breaks that official video releases had at the time, but this was the only advantage. Most films would, months later, get an official release, but a new precedence was set. A film would be released in India, a bootleg from a theater would hit the home video market, a home video from Pakistan with advertisements on the bottom of the screen would follow, and lastly, sometimes up to a year later, the official release would come out. Thankfully, this film was released in 1994 and the Bollywood industry started going to DVD around 1998, at which point everything was of a better quality. At that point, even the bootleg DVDs were better looking than the VHS releases that came out from the official distributors.
Every time this film got a video release, it seemed more worn out. The sound would get grainier and more muffled, the colors would be more faded, and there would be more pesky splices. I am so thrilled that the familiar hybrid version of the film is now released in HD, so all can see its splendor and glory. Looking back, I can say that while I don't care for the film as much as I did when I was 10, I do still feel that it should be preserved and treasured in that it holds an important part in Hindi film history. Now, let's work on getting a 20th anniversary rerelease theatrically!
In 1977, 20th Century Fox leased a series of titles to be released on VHS (a new format) through a company called the Magnetic Video Corporation. One of the titles released was the Marilyn Monroe gem Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. The following is a 30 second clip from the opening of that release, courtesy of Youtube:
Take a look at what happens 20 seconds in. There is an evil splice on the print followed by a flutter in the transfer machine, all within the first few seconds of the opening logo. I point this out for a couple reasons. First of all, a bluray today costs roughly $20-30 and with that, consumers expect a pristine transfer and a large amount of special features. For the first decade of VHS, tapes cost a bit more. I haven't found a source on how much this one specifically cost, but I do know that Dumbo cost roughly $79 in 1980 and Gone With the Wind cost $89.95 in 1985, according to a Today Show clip promoting the video release. By the time these two releases came out, home video transfer had improved a bit, but there was still a long way to go.
This leads me to my second point to this article. Last night, I was watching a DVD of Libeled Lady (1936), as released by Turner in 2005. By all means, this was a decent release-- crisp mono sound, great contrast, sharp focus, and yet, I found myself being a horrible cynic while watching the whole film. At the end of a reel, there were a series of scratches and cue marks from the source print, but I found an internal voice nagging that they were present, even though beyond this, a thick emulsion line on the right, and a few base scratches, the source print was in impeccable condition. Truth be told, we are lucky that a DVD release of such a film is still on the market.
When did we, as a film history field, become so cynical? I can't play martyr because I am just as guilty of it as everyone else. I read the reviews on www.dvdbeaver.com and www.bluray.com and pay attention to what they say before picking up a disc. I nag about how little grain is in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre HD transfer, or how blue Desk Set and The King & I look, but there was a time when I wasn't like this, when I was happy to see a film on home video at all!
For those people of a younger generation, there were a lot of films released on VHS that have not made it to DVD, and the quality wasn't always as good as it is now. Online streaming wasn't an option, and we had only a few means: local video stores, and public libraries. While rereleases may have occurred on VHS tapes, if you were renting them from local vendors, you took what they had. If it was a 10 year old tape or a 20 year old one, you, as my friend would say to his kids 'get what you get and you don't get upset.' I remember renting the Streisand version of A Star Is Born on VHS and, beyond being a worn tape from 1980 chock full of dropout lines, there were splicy sections. This wasn't released by a public domain company like Good Times Home Video, either. This came from Warner Bros. Home Video! This isn't an issue that disappeared with time, when it came to VHS necessarily. When Republic Home Video released Father Goose (1964) on VHS in 1994, the cover noted that it was from the original 35mm negative. I slapped it on a few years ago. The scratches take over the film like confetti, and I remember paying a lot for this item. Keep in mind, this was only 3 years before the DVD started hitting stores.
So, really, when I see people complaining about color temperature, grain, and a little sound distortion, all of which I am also guilty of, I have to remind them, and myself, to give the home video distributors a break. When we rented films on VHS back in the day, we knew we weren't watching the film. We were watching a reference of the film. We used our imaginations to fill in the anomalies so we could picture what the film was supposed to look like. Any step in the right direction should be applauded, but personally, I would rather see more rare films come out than see yet another restoration of Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz, trying to emulate that 'perfect image'.
