The Dark of The Matinee

There is a subject which just will not go away in Blu-ray world, threatening to become the anamorphic/black bars debate that would often dominate conversations on the then new movie format, DVD.

I’m talking: Grain

The recent release of Ghostbusters on Blu-ray has divided fans and film restorers alike. Robert Harris, perhaps the most prominent film restorer and historian, said of this release:

“The HD video master of Ivan Reitman’s 1984 Ghostbusters had the input of cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs, and as such must be considered incontestable as far as a Blu-ray is concerned.

Those who saw the film theatrically 25 years ago, may or may not recall that the look varied from sequence to sequence. While some interiors seemed to have a pushed, grainy look, fully exposed exteriors appeared to have far less apparent grain. Some of the film is sharp, some parts lesser so.

Created from an archival 35mm interpositive, what has been delivered via Blu-ray is Ghostbusters as it originally looked, and I couldn’t be happier”. 

Whereas Steve Roberts, a film restorer for the BBC said this:

” I have to add my name to the list of people disappointed by this release. To put it simply, the desire for purism has resulted in an inferior product, in my opinion.

Blur-ray is not a 35mm cinema projector. Why then is there this desperate desire to make the image look like it might have looked when projected in a cinema in 1984? The levels of grain are overwhelming in some of the scenes, so much so that they are producing visible compression artefacts, which on a system with the bandwidth of BD takes some doing! There’s also a lot of neg fading causing colour casts in certain areas of the picture in some shots, which would have been VERY easy to rectify in telecine.

I’m not against grain - far from it, in fact. But there are limits to what is acceptable. This release could have looked so much better if not for a rigid adherence to a nonsensical remit. People like Robert Harris have a lot to answer for, IMO”.

I have to admit, I feel that Steve Roberts attack on Robert Harris smacks of professional jealousy. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, does he have a point?

I’m not so sure. This notion that restorers are trying to emulate projected film is clearly bobbins. Think about it - does any restorer want all the dirt, scratches, occasional skips and jumps, cigarette burns, light fall off at the corners etc etc to show? No, I don’t think so - no-one is trying to make a blu-ray presentation look like that.

What they clearly want to achieve is the look of a brand-new pristine print - and then to transfer that as cleanly as possible to disc.  That, in my opinion, should include the grain - grain being the inherent photochemical structure of the film stock. Careful choosing of film stock to achieve a particular look has long been used by directors/cinematographers as a deliberate artistic/stylistic choice and, as such, that look should be preserved. If that means a film like Ghostbusters, which seemed to suffer, even on theatrical release, from varied quality film stock, has excessive grain then that is how it should look on Blu-ray - not some cleaned up version with no grain, crushed blacks, saturated colours and little detail - if that is what you want to see, Mr Roberts, perhaps you should buy the Real Ghostbusters instead. We’ve been down this road before and it leads to re-done special effects, horrible 5.1 versions of mono soundtracks and other liberties being taken with the source material. No, for me, the Directors/cinematographers intent is the final word - and that is what should guide any decent restorer. Re-done effects, re-dubbing etc should only be undertaken where film elements are damaged beyond conventional restoration, such as for the remaster of The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.

There are several contributing factors at play here that are pushing a lot of people’s expectations towards digital perfection every time;

1)  Hype of the Blu-ray format. All the demo materials are pristine, carefully shot with no grain and vivid colour.

2) Careful selection of titles for early Blu-ray release. A deliberate ploy by Sony, I reckon, to release titles like Batman Begins, Cars, Spiderman 2 and other recent blockbusters, as these demonstrate the full ‘wow’ effect of Blu-ray. Avoiding releasing older titles which will not perhaps have the same vivid leap in image quality has helped cement this idea that every film on Blu-ray should look like a Pixar release!

3) Excessive use of DNR and boosted constrast on some releases in an attempty to make grainy films look like modern releases. Gangs of New York suffers from this, it looks awful with lack of detail and a waxy look to the actors faces.
Sure, I know that movie/home cinema fans have always demanded the most accurate representation of their favourite films on the best format available - going so far as to hunt out the letterboxed version of films on VHS, to taking time to explain why black bars are often still present, on DVDs viewed on widescreen televisions. I had hoped, in the UK at least, that accuracy had won out over lazyness or ignorance - unlike the US ‘full frame’ or ‘pan n scan’ DVDs never became prevalent - the lack of stupendously big 4:3 CRT’s helped us avoid such heresy!

Sadly, however, it looks like the battle for authentic presentation of movies will continue  - and it’s up to all of us, once again, to shun poor releases and keep this topic current until the studios and public wise-up.

Ok, this isn’t a full in-depth review of JJ Abrams reboot of an ailing, once-popular franchise.

Short review is that - it rocks! Yes it’s a little more action-oriented than some of the navel gazing entries in the film series which ended with the ponderous Nemesis, but this is a fantastic entry into the series - it serves to both reboot and reinvigorate the series to great effect.

Speaking of effects, ILM do a fantastic job here, and for the most part a decent origin story is told (meanders a little in the middle as the writers join up a few dots but it’s executed with such pace and panache it’s hardly noticeable) and, JJ’s trump card - an excellent cast. Pine’s Kirk is nicely nuanced, Quinto, as a young Spock, looks like he will grow into the - admittedly large - shoes once worn by Nimoy, Uhura is played as fiercely intelligent, almost bookish and beautiful (ok she had no choice on that one) by Zoe Saldana, Cho underplays Sulu effectively, Urban channels DeForest Kelley marvellously, and Pegg does a modern Scotty ok - sure he is utilised a little to comic effect but he does get the biggest laugh - in Scotland at least - when he tells Kirk and Spock to ‘get tae’! JJ even finds room to give Bruce Greenwood the chance to portray an exceptional Captain as the stoic, courageous Pike.

Nero - well as a Baddie his motivations could be a little more mapped out - apparently some of his footage was cut due to running time concerns, although Bana does his best to portray a very alien, determined foe. If you’ve not seen the film yet - then I urge you to source a copy of the prequel comic which is a decent story in itself, and greatly fills in Nero’s character background, motivation, and explains his hostility and hatred of Spock, whilst also setting up events that follow in the movie.

So yes - it’s an unqualified success.

So, the point of this ramble? Well I wanted to discuss the ‘complaints’ and ‘barbs’ that the film has still managed to attract from hardened ‘trekkers’. Now, my family are all big Trek fans - we’ve even gone so far as to have a Birthday Party for my Brother where everyone dressed as characters from Star Trek - and I’ve even dressed as a Klingon. In the early days of Sky TV we would religiously gather every evening at 10pm for the latest episode of The Next Generation.

Yet, despite this, I knew that a reboot was needed (in all honesty I though Star Trek was probably spent entirely) - Enterprise the series was turgid and bland, shedding most of it’s audience before improving towards the end, and Nemesis was dreadful, unquestionably the nadir of the series. The franchise was on it’s knees. Paramount knew this, and took the gamble of rebooting the series AND trying to engage a new, young audience - the blockbuster viewers - at the same time. Ambitious - certainly, and a huge risk which has paid off - the film already on course for a +$200 Million domestic gross, being easily the most popular film of the year.

Is it this success that has alienated some of the hardcore Trekkers? Quite possibly - this was ‘their’ baby - the previous films did not do anything near the reboot’s figures with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home being the only one to even break the ‘blockbuster’ 100 million dollar mark. So it was their secret and now 14 year olds are discovering, and taking ownership of, their franchise. Like a slighted woman, they do not like giving up their obsession to anyone else.

Is it because the film-makers, writers etc set-out to alienate the hardcore fans? Well in a word - no. A second viewing shows the writers bending both ways in order to make a movie with the epic feel of Star Wars yet going out of their way to accommodate the fans. Don’t believe me - well a second viewing shows this little list of nods to classic Star Trek (some minor spoilers ahead):

• Bones “damnit Spock, I’m a Doctor not a physicist”
• Kirk - marooned, alone and weaponless - on a barren planet v a BIG monster
• Learning the origin of James T Kirk’s terrible middle-name
• Orion slave girl…
• …Uhura & Spock, finally (see TOS:Plato’s Stepchildren)
• Captain Pike still ends up in a wheelchair
• Kobayashi Maru…
• ..and Kirk with apple (see Wrath of Khan)
• Red Shirted Crewmember!
• Sulu fencing (see TOS:The Naked Time)
• Tribble on Scotty’s desk
• Admiral Archer’s beagle (see Enterprise)

I’m sure there are many more, but really it’s churlish to decry this movie as not having the Trek ‘ethos’. We see people, strangers even, thrown together by a huge threat who learn to work together, to save both themselves and others, in the finest tradition of Starfleet, they overcome insurmountable odds, to assume their destinies - what’s not Trek about that? Hell, they even try to redeem the baddie before the inevitable.

Gene Roddenberry would have approved.

When coming to a film that is an established classic, it is often with a sense of trepidation. Will time have been kind, will the colossal weight of expectation, familiarity with the oft-quoted dialogue and having inadvertantly seen scenes and camera-moves in modern movies that either ape or are almost frame-by-frame rip-offs (something that took the edge off my very first viewing of Hitchcock’s Psycho) dull the experience? Will it, indeed can it, have the same impact it had on moviegoers seeing it upon release?

Whilst I hold such concerns when first viewing any film with a strong reputation, The Godfather, must have always looked a contender, surely? It has a cast to die for, consisting of such movie luminaries as Brando, Duvall, Keaton, and the then unknown Pacino; it’s directed by one of the great 70’s American directors, Francis Ford Coppola; the screenplay is adapted by Puzo (along with Coppola) from his novel of the same name - an epic tale telling the story of the Corleone family, a Scicilian crime organisation who, along with four other ‘families’ control various business interests in 40’s New York. This must always have been viewed as a sure-fire hit by the studio when filming? There surely could have been little doubt that this film would be a success, not to mention go on to break then box-office records, harvest three oscars from eleven nominations, and to regularly vie with Citizen Kane and Casablanca at the top of various ‘best movies’ lists?

Well, yes actually; As unlikely as it seems in hindsight, Paramount had many concerns both over cast and director, originally wanting to hire Sergio Leone (clearly noted by the studio as a director of ‘epics’) to helm, with Leone turning them down, citing his wish to not ‘glorify’ the Mafia/Italian-American Gangsters. Leone, of course, went on to ‘glorify’ Jewish-American gangsters in his equally-ambitious Once Upon a Time in America so, perhaps, the Italian-born director’s reticence was more due to the source material being too close to home. Once Coppola was hired Paramount continually sought to have him replaced, citing ill-founded concerns over budget and filming difficulties (Coppola actually finished principal photography for The Godfather 6 days under the 83 budgeted - something he was not able to repeat when shooting the testing Apocalypse Now - which shot for a staggering 238 days!).

Paramount also put up fierce arguments against the casting of Brando (they favoured Danny Thomas or Lawrence Olivier to play the Corleone Partriarch) - who’s reputation as a firebrand on-set preceeded him (Coppola paved the way for his hiring by having Paramount agree a reduced fee in lieu of a percentage of the gross) and were equally opposed to hiring the then-unknown Pacino, preferring the star-names of Ryan O’Neal or Robert Redford. Even the talent that auditioned for this movie was astounding; De Niro, Anthony Perkins and Mia Farrow all auditioned.

However, Coppola was able to assuage Paramount’s fears and hire one of the best casts that has ever been assembled in celluloid history, and what a cast; Brando, Pacino, Duvall, Keaton…. Brando, despite his akward reputation, cements his place as the best actor of his generation, by nuancing his performance as Don of the Corleone family with warmth, kindness and a patient maturity - not virtues that had previously been applied to gangsters in prior films. This was something that shone through in Mario Puzo’s novel - the importance of the ‘family’ structure of the Scicillian crime families, and Coppola’s film eschews the gritty, realistic style that would become prevalent in the 70’s, such as that used in Friedkin’s The French Connection and instead has legendary cinematographer Gordon Willis use an orange-ish (oranges also being a motif utilised throughout the Godfather series - watch what happens after any scene in which oranges are present) palette during the Wedding and Scicily based scenes, reverting to a more muted, brown-ish hue for the New York interior scenes, which embues the photography with warmth and grounds the film within it’s 40’s time setting. The score by Nino Rota is one of the most recognisable film scores and adds another voice to help tell the tale, and steeps the film in atmosphere.

Despite Brando’s staggering performance, the generous, though never numbing, running time allows space for characterization and character-development by almost all the principal actors, none more so than Pacino in the first of many virtuoso performances he would deliver in his career as he (and it has to be said De Niro) would go on to near-match Brando in the acting stakes. Pacino is not in his later ’shouty-angry’ mode here, yet he still capitvates as the young Michael Corleone, the WWII hero son (one of four) of Vito Corleone and the one whom Vito had wanted to protect from the ‘family business’, hoping he would go on to become a Senator or attain a similar, legitimate position.

It’s James Caan’s hot-headed Sonny, the eldest son of Vito Corleone, played with Caan’s distinctive inner-anger and sharp delivery, who sets in motion events that will force Michael into hiding, after he takes over running the day-to-day family business following an assassination attempt on the Don, with his vengeful, bullish approach causing big rifts between the rival families - an approach which is at loggerheads to Vito Corleone’s patient, diplomatic handling of the politics and etiquette that keeps the balance between the families.

Puzo’s story, spanning some 10 years from 1945, is of such scale that it would take another article to do it justice, but it certainly must have been a mammoth task to adapt the book to a screenplay, as acknowledged by it’s Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar, and it’s paced just ‘right’, allowing time to tell the story, and it tells it without faltering, padding or losing focus, it really is an astounding achievement. The script never becomes overly-sentimental, but still contains warmth and emotion, the violence rarely feels gratuitous (albeit Coppola did acquiesce to Paramount’s request for more ‘excitement’ by inserting some further violent scenes) and the template of criminal syndicates having morals and boundaries (as demonstrated when the Corleones’ anguish over the neccessity to do away with Sterling Hayden’s Captain McCluskey, who is in the pay of another, rival family) would be taken as de facto and used in numerous movies to follow.

So, did it live up to the hype, the baggage that accompanies a first viewing of a classic, much-loved film? Did it come across as fresh and with as much impact as it would have on it’s release? Well, yes, it did utterly transcend the weight of expectation, leaving me feeling rather silly to have had any such doubts - I found it a rivetting view, feeling fully immersed in the politics and family ties that underpinned these crime syndicates, even sympathising with the Corleones, especially Michael Corleone’s predicament when he finds himself unable to resist the family pull and sense of loyalty and slowly becomes drawn into the family ‘business’ despite his Father having different hopes and ambitions for him.
This is an absolute masterpiece of cinema, and one that fully deserves both it’s reputation and it’s place in the highest echelons of the various AFi, IMDB and Critics lists where it can jostle for that elusive, ‘best film’ slot.

This is one of the lesser regarded 007 adventures, and I’m slightly at a loss to know why. There’s an effective, if convoluted, plot involving a renegade Soviet Union General, treasure smuggling, a circus and an atomic bomb! Louis Jourdan makes a good, if effette, baddie and Steven Berkoff overacts to marvellous effect as a renegade Russian Army General who, tired of seeing the USSR’s enormous advantage in traditional weaponry and troops neutured in treaty talks, wants to end the USSR’s policy of detente, even if it means nuking half of West Berlin to do so.

There is, it has to be said, some cheesyness in the film (”fill her up please”) and despite the fantastic setting of the Summer Palace in India the script uses a lot of lazy stereotypes in this portion of the film - Vijay playing the 007 theme on his snake chanter, the comments about curry etc coming over as a little xenophobic . But there’s a lot to enjoy, the plot and pace rarely sags, there is always a prevailing sense of threat that is built from the first scenes when 008 is ruthlessly knifed in the back by one of the sinister knife-throwing twins from Octopussy’s circus and it builds right until the big top ‘bomb’ scene. There’s a brilliant stand-off between Bond and General Orlov where Berkoff chews scenery and Moore really does exude authority in this - (he may be suave in comparison to Connery’s bit of rough, but he IS Bond), a superb fight on top of the speeding circus train and the car chase/race to defuse a bomb with a brilliant car chase in which Bond nicks a local’s Alfasud and hangs the back end out something lovely whilst being pursued by what seems like half the West Berlin police (I’ve loved that car ever since that scene- “Nein, meine automobile”).

The stunts performed in the end scenes, and indeed throughout the film, are superb and knowing they were performed for real, with real danger inherent in the work (a stuntman sadly lost a leg filming the train-top portion of the film) makes them, to my mind, more involving than their CGI equivalent. If any proof was needed that CGI useage in a Bond movie should be kept to a minimum, the surfing scene in Die Another Day is a great example. This is not a full-on rant against CGI which is merely a tool, but my belief after seeing that 007 nadir convinced me that this series can stand-out by ignoring cgi actors for real stunt work where possible. It appears the 007 producers formed a similar opinion, given the reduced use of CGI in Casino Royale.

This is simply great entertainment and Moore, despite looking his age, delivers perhaps his most forceful 007 performance. Moore, realising the inevitable march of time, was perhaps right to want to make this his swansong and hang up his PPK - only to be coaxed out of retirement by EON for one last film….

I missed this at the cinema, probably because it got a limited release but picked it up on DVD as it sounded intriguing.

Intriguing is probably a good word to describe it. Noir-ish in feel and texture, it features Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock From The Sun) as a loner who investigates the circumstances surrounding his ex-girlfriend’s disappearance, with help from his Nerdish friend, The Brain. Feeling a little like a The Big Sleep but set on campus, he tracks down clues and infilrates the cliques and crime-rings that operate on and around the periphery of his High School. High School can be an isolating, confusing place for many teenagers, so it is a clever and suitable setting for a detective (which essentially is what this is) story.

The cinematography and subtle soundtrack help add to the Noir feel - there’s some nice use of contrasting light and shadow, and some scenes are deliberately shot from dutched angles to isolate the viewer, and in turn the protagonist, from the bigger picture.

Unfortunately, the unusual slang used by a lot of the characters is difficult to follow and the dialogue is often buried deep in the mix - a complaint I’ve noted from people who saw this at the cinema so it’s not simply that I have a rather crappy centre speaker (not helped by my R2 release not having subtitles and defaulting to the 2.0 soundtrack not the 5.1). I don’t normally have a problem with slang as it’s usually nuanced, in context and delivered in a familiar rhythm that I can pick up and usually from a good idea what the characters are saying - A Clockwork Orange is a great example - Anthony Burgess’ mixture of latin and soviet slang he wrote for the droogs seems to instantly make sense when read or indeed viewed in Kubrick’s searing movie adaptation.

However, part of my befuddledment is probably in as much part due to the effect most noirs have on me -they almost always reveal more of themselves on a second viewing and are more enjoyable as you start spotting clues or red-herrings.

So I can’t say whether I loved this and would put it into the minor classic bracket (technically it’s good enough) or not but it certainly gripped me throughout and should have rewatch value too. Definitely recommended viewing if you are a fan of noir or to enjoy Gordon-Levitt’s excellent portrayal.

At a time when many are debating whether HD-DVD / Bluray will achieve mass-market penetration or whether physical formats’ days are numbered, especially in an age where people routinely choose to download mp3s over their physical, better quality cd equivalent, the studios have invested heavily in this new premium packaging - perhaps in an attempt to add a ‘perceived value’ to DVD releases and these are already becoming very collectable, fetching inflated prices on Ebay for out of stock / deleted releases.

For us of a certain vintage (38 if you must ask) who witnessed the tail end of vinyl, and the fledgling days of home cinema formats like betamax, vhs and laserdisc - all formats which required a certain degree of routine and care to use and store safely, physical formats are entrenched in us - it’s what we are used to; the satisfaction of hearing the plop of a new arrival on the hall floor; opening the package with that oh so important tear strip (I HATE it when they don’t have one!); checking the artwork; opening the case and logging the dvd in profiler. Then the routine of firing up the a/v amp, the plasma and the dvd player, opening the tray, inserting the disc, carefully and waiting for it to load. Bliss! I’m even sad enough to enjoy a decent ‘menu.

So, steel books then: I adore them. They are so tactile, and the studios cannot be lazy in selecting their artwork for the case - it HAS to be clean, crisp and they tend to go for the original poster artwork or a variant thereof. They feel solid and expensive to hold and just, well valuable.

I only have a couple in my collection at present (Sin City Recut & the 4-disc Flags of Our Fathers / Letters from Iwo Jima set) but have Kingdom of Heaven 4-discer on the way along with The Day The Earth Stood Still (a bargain £4.98 at Amazon.co.uk). I also have my eye on a nice copy of Ridley Scott’s latest film American Gangster (a controlled, languid film with excellent performances from Washington & Crowe and a more ’street’ version of Scott’s trademark cinematography).

I’ve just realised whilst writing this that I’ve turned into my Dad - clinging onto, nay extolling the virtues of crusty old formats! My son, on the other hand, puts his discs into a multi-insert disc wallet and stuffs the cases into a cupboard.

So, if I do hang onto my physical formats, shiny steel books and tins - am I going to end up like one of these old curmudgeons who still had a quad tape player in their car well into the 1980’s and rattled on about it’s fidelity and it’s superiority over cassettes to everyone who would listen?

See Ono’s blog here: Downloading teh films for his article which inspired mine.

Noticed the Teaser Poster for the next Bond (no 22) - Quantum of Solace is out. I like it - it’s nice and stark.

To celebrate this small step towards the release of Quantum of Solace in November, I’ve made a wallpaper from the teaser poster, links below should you want it.

The first National Treasure movie came out of nowhere and rather stole the Da Vinci Code’s thunder by weaving a tale of masonic conspiracies into a fun treasure hunt.

This sequel - Book of Secrets, follows a similar template - this time crafting a conspiracy around an American Civil War confederate plot to discover the City of Gold in order to finance their efforts to secure victory. In this treasure hunt, Cage’s character is not only in pursuit of unimaginable treasure but also seeking to clear his Great Grandfather’s name as Thomas Gates has been smeared as a conspirator in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Presidents play a big part in this film) by Ed Harris’ antiquities collector whose motives for doing so are not yet clear.

The annoying sidekick Riley returns, not quite so annoying this time round, as do Gate’s girlfriend played by Diane Kruger and Jon Voight as his Dad. As with the rule of sequels - (same + more) - Gate’s Mother comes along for the ride (Helen Mirren) as she is needed both to decode an ancient Incan inscription and as a hostage for Ed Harris who, it seems, wants his hands on the treasure.

It’s the equal of the first film for the most part - the action scenes are much crisper (even the oldies in Voight and Mirren get to do some action stuff!), and the clues mostly make sense - with the involvement of the US President and the final reveal all following the same logic. A sequel is also nicely set-up and, in a refreshing twist - we don’t endure a bloated, pointless ‘2nd’ film which is, in essence, an indulgent set-up for a final film a la The Matrix and Pirates of The Caribbean.

Loses some minor points for some lazy stereotypes when Gate’s hunt for clues takes him to Paris and London (’Gor Blimey’). And, with the cast being bigger this time round, there is not a lot of good lines for the supporting characters who simply are there, at times, to help solve clues and push the plot/hunt along - some scenes do lack a little drama. Oh, and I can’t not mention the hairpiece poor Cage is saddled with - it nearly comes a cropper in a few of the action scenes. Guess Hollywood can accept having older actors and bad guys who are receding / thin haired / bald but not their leading men!

I’m a big kid at heart and love adventure films - particularly treasure hunts so this hit the spot nicely. If you have trouble suspending disbelief and/or hate lack of character development (there is none) this will likely do little for your pallette, however for us ‘big kids’ it’s a lot of fun.

Guess I should say hello. Hello!

I’ve made a few film reviews on my fledgling blog but this seems a friendlier place for someone with a love of celluloid. I like a wide variety of films so I don’t suppose this will be the most cohesive blog, but what the hey!