"Vibrant" is really the only adjective to explain an IB Technicolor print. A print that goes through a dye process in its making, the colors are permanent and help provide a reference to people who want to know how the film is supposed to look in years to come. As studios today pop out remastered versions of films on home video, streaming, and even DCP for repertory movie theaters, the debates between how far off the colors were from the original release or rereleases in the past always comes into question. No film is ever kept the same color as its original negative. Timing the colors based on the cinematographer's desired mise-en-scene has been in effect since the dawn of color cinema. How these colors should be timed from the original negative can be referenced in several ways, but with the changing technology of our times, using one of these non-fading prints is the ideal way. So the question does come into play, is it responsible for one to run these prints until they wear out, or should they be preserved for longevity purposes so that the film can be seen as intended for generations to come?
While these prints probably shouldn't be used for projection on a regular basis, when one gets an opportunity to see one, it is a real treat-- given that the film is in good condition. When the New Beverly has shown an IB print in the past, however, they tend to be worn, scratched, filled with splices that cut out sections of the film, and tend to have a worn optical track as well. The Sergio Leoni series it had months ago are examples of this. While the theater raved about showing the entire series in IB Technicolor prints, it had (less than three years earlier) ran the majority of these films in prints that looked much better and had the same quality of color, albeit without the "IB Technicolor" branding. This leads to another question when the New Beverly does their "Vibrant IB Technicolor" screenings, which I am a sucker for and try to catch, hypocrite that I am. What would be better to see, a very scratched up and spliced-to-pieces print that went through this dye process, or a print in better condition which generally, if there still are the correct color timings, could be of much better quality?
The screening of Flower Drum Song was a treat, as the New Beverly usually does deliver. The colors blew me away, as did the opportunity of seeing the dance numbers on the big screen. A musical film of that caliber with the framing of its dance sequences, choice of dreamy colors, and incredibly talented cast (many of the actors were from the Broadway production), should be seen on the big screen, regardless of the print quality. The very geometry of where people fall into the frame during the song and dance numbers is so impressive and can't be captured on a television in your home. It's unfathomable how people could have watched this film in the days of pan-and-scan before letterbox became available.
The print was great in some sections, with only minor vertical scratches (base and emulsion). However, there were some pretty spliced up sections as well during the dialogue sections. Given that this film has a light plot and is more about the environment that the characters live in (a very stereotyped Chinatown, San Francisco in the 1950s), there was nothing wrong with the two to three scenes that had this issue. One of the scenes toward the end that had the most splices, in which the two main love interests reconcile, is known for slowing down the film's pace, so the fact that it was sped up meant the audience could stay engaged with the film.
The sound of the print was less than ideal. Being a 1961 Cinemascope film, Flower Drum Song was released in 4-track stereo prints. While general release prints would might have been downmixed to mono, the fidelity of this print sounded as though the 4 track stereo was simply compressed onto a mono track without any mixing done. Usually, levels would be adjusted for this sort of thing but in this case, the audio of the music numbers was very blown out on the optical track, making the lyrics inaudible and the sound of the instruments grainy and distorted. The purpose of an IB Technicolor print is to simply reference the colors of the original negative, so the sound quality was never intended to be pristine, but if one watches a mono film on IB prints, this usually isn't a problem. I wonder if the original mix had been mono if we would have had a different sound experience in that theater.
Content rating: A-
Presentation rating: B
Friday, November 25, 2016
New Beverly Cinema presents Flower Drum Song in Vibrant IB Technicolor
"Vibrant" is really the only adjective to explain an IB Technicolor print. A print that goes through a dye process in its making, the colors are permanent and help provide a reference to people who want to know how the film is supposed to look in years to come. As studios today pop out remastered versions of films on home video, streaming, and even DCP for repertory movie theaters, the debates between how far off the colors were from the original release or rereleases in the past always comes into question. No film is ever kept the same color as its original negative. Timing the colors based on the cinematographer's desired mise-en-scene has been in effect since the dawn of color cinema. How these colors should be timed from the original negative can be referenced in several ways, but with the changing technology of our times, using one of these non-fading prints is the ideal way. So the question does come into play, is it responsible for one to run these prints until they wear out, or should they be preserved for longevity purposes so that the film can be seen as intended for generations to come?
While these prints probably shouldn't be used for projection on a regular basis, when one gets an opportunity to see one, it is a real treat-- given that the film is in good condition. When the New Beverly has shown an IB print in the past, however, they tend to be worn, scratched, filled with splices that cut out sections of the film, and tend to have a worn optical track as well. The Sergio Leoni series it had months ago are examples of this. While the theater raved about showing the entire series in IB Technicolor prints, it had (less than three years earlier) ran the majority of these films in prints that looked much better and had the same quality of color, albeit without the "IB Technicolor" branding. This leads to another question when the New Beverly does their "Vibrant IB Technicolor" screenings, which I am a sucker for and try to catch, hypocrite that I am. What would be better to see, a very scratched up and spliced-to-pieces print that went through this dye process, or a print in better condition which generally, if there still are the correct color timings, could be of much better quality?
The screening of Flower Drum Song was a treat, as the New Beverly usually does deliver. The colors blew me away, as did the opportunity of seeing the dance numbers on the big screen. A musical film of that caliber with the framing of its dance sequences, choice of dreamy colors, and incredibly talented cast (many of the actors were from the Broadway production), should be seen on the big screen, regardless of the print quality. The very geometry of where people fall into the frame during the song and dance numbers is so impressive and can't be captured on a television in your home. It's unfathomable how people could have watched this film in the days of pan-and-scan before letterbox became available.
The print was great in some sections, with only minor vertical scratches (base and emulsion). However, there were some pretty spliced up sections as well during the dialogue sections. Given that this film has a light plot and is more about the environment that the characters live in (a very stereotyped Chinatown, San Francisco in the 1950s), there was nothing wrong with the two to three scenes that had this issue. One of the scenes toward the end that had the most splices, in which the two main love interests reconcile, is known for slowing down the film's pace, so the fact that it was sped up meant the audience could stay engaged with the film.
The sound of the print was less than ideal. Being a 1961 Cinemascope film, Flower Drum Song was released in 4-track stereo prints. While general release prints would might have been downmixed to mono, the fidelity of this print sounded as though the 4 track stereo was simply compressed onto a mono track without any mixing done. Usually, levels would be adjusted for this sort of thing but in this case, the audio of the music numbers was very blown out on the optical track, making the lyrics inaudible and the sound of the instruments grainy and distorted. The purpose of an IB Technicolor print is to simply reference the colors of the original negative, so the sound quality was never intended to be pristine, but if one watches a mono film on IB prints, this usually isn't a problem. I wonder if the original mix had been mono if we would have had a different sound experience in that theater.
Content rating: A-
Presentation rating: B
While these prints probably shouldn't be used for projection on a regular basis, when one gets an opportunity to see one, it is a real treat-- given that the film is in good condition. When the New Beverly has shown an IB print in the past, however, they tend to be worn, scratched, filled with splices that cut out sections of the film, and tend to have a worn optical track as well. The Sergio Leoni series it had months ago are examples of this. While the theater raved about showing the entire series in IB Technicolor prints, it had (less than three years earlier) ran the majority of these films in prints that looked much better and had the same quality of color, albeit without the "IB Technicolor" branding. This leads to another question when the New Beverly does their "Vibrant IB Technicolor" screenings, which I am a sucker for and try to catch, hypocrite that I am. What would be better to see, a very scratched up and spliced-to-pieces print that went through this dye process, or a print in better condition which generally, if there still are the correct color timings, could be of much better quality?
The screening of Flower Drum Song was a treat, as the New Beverly usually does deliver. The colors blew me away, as did the opportunity of seeing the dance numbers on the big screen. A musical film of that caliber with the framing of its dance sequences, choice of dreamy colors, and incredibly talented cast (many of the actors were from the Broadway production), should be seen on the big screen, regardless of the print quality. The very geometry of where people fall into the frame during the song and dance numbers is so impressive and can't be captured on a television in your home. It's unfathomable how people could have watched this film in the days of pan-and-scan before letterbox became available.
The print was great in some sections, with only minor vertical scratches (base and emulsion). However, there were some pretty spliced up sections as well during the dialogue sections. Given that this film has a light plot and is more about the environment that the characters live in (a very stereotyped Chinatown, San Francisco in the 1950s), there was nothing wrong with the two to three scenes that had this issue. One of the scenes toward the end that had the most splices, in which the two main love interests reconcile, is known for slowing down the film's pace, so the fact that it was sped up meant the audience could stay engaged with the film.
The sound of the print was less than ideal. Being a 1961 Cinemascope film, Flower Drum Song was released in 4-track stereo prints. While general release prints would might have been downmixed to mono, the fidelity of this print sounded as though the 4 track stereo was simply compressed onto a mono track without any mixing done. Usually, levels would be adjusted for this sort of thing but in this case, the audio of the music numbers was very blown out on the optical track, making the lyrics inaudible and the sound of the instruments grainy and distorted. The purpose of an IB Technicolor print is to simply reference the colors of the original negative, so the sound quality was never intended to be pristine, but if one watches a mono film on IB prints, this usually isn't a problem. I wonder if the original mix had been mono if we would have had a different sound experience in that theater.
Content rating: A-
Presentation rating: B
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Nosferatu
Last night, my boyfriend and I decided to take advantage of
my Groupon subscription for the first time and splurged on $10 tickets to an
event being hosted at the Santa Clarita Performing Arts Center (which is really
just a college auditorium). They ran the film Nosferatu with a live orchestra,
featuring the west coast premiere of an original score. I am always down to do
anything Halloween, and boyfriend had been itching me to rent the film for a long
time, so this was an ideal opportunity.
So, I have to say, that the concept was quite cool. Seeing a
silent film with a live orchestra can add something that watching a silent film
on DVD or television just doesn’t have. If one does see a silent film in a
theater, these days it is generally with a live organ or a piano, or a
prerecorded track onto the film. I had high expectations going into the event
because of this, and may have set myself up for failure.
The most common DVD release of the film is the Kino Lorber
release, which features the typical synthesizer that they add to all of their
films. Kino tends to replace title cards with a digital still they create, and
while they do great work for the budget that they maintain, this would not have
been an ideal form of the film to run in this vicinity. Yes—the orchestra
played along with the DVD of the film, as shown on a video projector, not
properly focused on the screen, and with the home video logo opening the event.
I know there are readers rolling their eyes at me, and they
are entitled, but let me clarify why this is a problem. Yes, the film Nosferatu
may be in the public domain, but that does not mean that a company’s
restoration of the film is necessarily in the public domain. Now, we could give
the Santa Clarita Performing Arts Center the benefit of the doubt that they got
permission from Kino Lorber to run the DVD, but there was no mention in the
program, nor in the opening and closing remarks that this was the case, which
makes me speculate otherwise.
My biggest nag with this, however, was the score. Oof, that
score. I never thought the day would come when I preferred a Kino Lorber
synthesizer soundtrack to a live score. Let me break it down for you. A section
of strings plays 8 whole notes, and a drummer bangs cacophony for another bar.
A section of horns plays 8 whole notes, and a drummer bangs cacophony for
another bar. All the while a therymin eerily plays over the whole score doing
its own thing. I wasn’t grabbed, and I started thinking about work. And generally,
if a movie experience on a Saturday night makes me think about work, it goes in
the ‘not fun’ pile.
What could have made this better? A little more liveliness
to the score for starters. The wonderful thing about being able to compose a
new score for an old film is one can be as creative as he wants when doing so.
There were so many opportunities to have an elastic moment with the music
composition, and I felt that, beyond lacking a melody, all the audience got was
a “BOOM” when Nosferatu showed up. Additionally, these Kino Lorber restorations
were meant to be seen at home, on a tv screen. The tints that are used with the
image are saturated for that kind of viewing. When they appear on a video
projector in a live auditorium, they look lame. The skipping of the film frames
(common for silent films released of this time as the elements are in rugged
shape) would not have looked as choppy on a tv screen at home, but on a large
screen in an auditorium appeared very digital, as if I was watching a
slideshow.
Now, in the festive mood of the Halloween Holiday, I will
say that for $10 I did not mind paying what I paid for this event. The costumes
of the stoned college kids, the homely Santa Clarita crowd, and the lovely
college auditorium and its cozy ambience made this an okay evening for what it
was. But, I will say, the reason I am being so harsh is we did this on a
groupon. There are people who paid $40 for their tickets to this event. For
$40, a professional DCP could have been rented. A professional score should
have been played. That is all.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Goodtimes Home Video does not guarantee a good time
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!!!
Signed,
The Celluloid Avenger
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!!!
Signed,
The Celluloid Avenger
Sunday, June 29, 2014
The Disc Extermination
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.
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.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Sholay!!!
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:
Signed,
The Celluloid Avenger
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:
Signed,
The Celluloid Avenger
Monday, June 16, 2014
Going down to South Park
I was 13, the perfect age, when South Park hit TV. At that time, the idea of watching a show online was a pipe dream. We hadn't even mastered the MP3 download yet. So, to be able to brag that you got away with catching an episode of South Park meant that you were the COOLEST kid in school. If you could sit at the lunch table and intelligently discuss the events that occurred the night before, be it cattle killing themselves in a mass cult suicide or a hypnotic trip to the planetarium, you were obviously on a higher level than the average 7th grader. These first few seasons were incredibly crude and almost geared to preteens and teens who wanted good toilet humor. As the show progressed, it got more sophisticated and took on an entirely new tone. With this came a more general demographic. As the initial viewers matured, so did the show. Between seasons 4-10, South Park began dealing with important political and social issues, always ending with a moral of the day. The show never branded itself as liberal or conservative. Instead, it branded itself on having the opinion that had the most sense, and aimed to share it in the most cynical and crude way.
After season 10, the show began to jump the shark. Episodes became a little too strong in their political message, the humor became a little too crude, and it was hard for the show to find a demographic. However, a demographic was still apparent because it soars on. All of the episodes are now available to watch on an official website, www.southparkstudios.com, and yet the show still has high ratings on Comedy Central. I guess people still like being 'surprised' with which episode from the gigantic library the station now has as at its disposal will be chosen.
Now, to chime in on the archivist's point of view. While I love the ability to watch this show online, I do have an issue with the way it is presented. It wasn't until recently that the show switched from a 1.37:1 to 1.77:1 aspect ratio, to adjust for the more common HD TV format. The website opted to reformat the entire show to 1.77:1, from season 3 on. The remastered versions of the show do this from the pilot on. Sure, the show is construction cutouts (later changed to flash) that crudely move around the screen and I'm sure there's nothing cinematic about the show that could compare it to something such as Mad Men. However, I am a firm believer that aspect ratio should be left as presented. People watching the show today should see it as it was originally released. By altering this, the show gives off the impression that the show was always a widescreen show and cropped for initial showings when truth be told the opposite is true.
While we're on the subject, there is constant debate about how the vulgarity of the show should be handled. The rules of what can and cannot be said on television have definitely changed over the years. Still, there are certain words such as 'fuck' that are a total taboo and cannot be run on Comedy Central. The show had crude beeps in place of profanities, as did many shows back in the 1990s, and current showings on Comedy Central leave these in place. The website, however, opted to remove the bleeps and allow the profanity to be heard. In a way, this ruins the show for me. When Cartman says a naughty word , the profanity bleep makes the instance funnier, as it accentuates the fact that a word that an eight year old shouldn't know just came out of an eight year old's mouth. The film's release, of course, allowed the characters' use of profanity to remain intact, but following this, all airings of the show on Comedy Central still kept profanity censored. It adds something special to the show, and to allow the viewer to hear the characters cuss almost removes the humor of their lines.
I will close with this. While I nitpick, I am eternally grateful for www.southparkstudios.com for releasing these shows for free to the public. This show should be seen by people of a variety of ages, disgusting as it may be. The humor is timeless, and the creators' (Matt Stone and Trey Parker, respectively) bravery to push the envelope every week have made this show a classic on American TV. I hope, years from now, people will see this show for what it is, and the reruns on old tv stations will do what shows like All in the Family do for audiences today.
Signed,
The Celluloid Avenger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)