A few words about...™ The Longest Day -- in Blu-Ray

Robert Harris · 05-25-2008, 05:42 PM

What do you say about a film that no longer looks quite like film?

The Longest Day (1962) is a huge cinematic recreation of 6 June 1944, and the Allied invasion of France as envisioned by one of the greatest names of the golden age of American cinema -- Darryl F. Zanuck. Those who don't know who Mr. Zanuck was need to find the time to do a bit of research. You'll find his name attached to some of the most important films created during six decades.

Photographed in black & white in 35mm CinemaScope, with re-issue engagements blown up to 70mm, The Longest Day is a textbook of precisely what one could do with properly exposed black & white negative 45 years ago.

From white to blacks, and the gray scale in between, this disc has it all and nicely rendered for the nuance of grays.

The cast reads like a dictionary of actors of the era: John Wayne, Richard Burton, Red Buttons, Richard Beymer, Eddie Albert, Bourvil, Sean Connery, Mel Ferrer, Henry Fonda, Steve Forrest, Gert Frobe (Goldfinger), Alexander Knox, Peter Lawford, Sal Mineo, Robert Mitchum, Kenneth More, Edmond O'Brien, Robert Ryan, Richard Todd, and possibly every other actor then in SAG.

Until the arrival of Saving Private Ryan a decade ago, this was THE Normandy invasion film.

The interesting technical point that we now reach is the question of what a film should look like on Blu-Ray.

How much like "cinema" should it look?

Should it retain grain?

Should the image be cleansed?

And it is on this point that many people agree to disagree.

While I'm firmly in the "keep the grain" and eliminate noise reduction camp, there are those who prefer to have less (or no) grain, and prefer their images nice, bright, tidy and clean. Very, very clean.

While I enjoyed seeing The Longest Day on Blu-Ray, I was unable to recognize it as film. There was no look of the cinema, except for some occasional white vertical scratches that remain.

To my eye, the image appears to be highly processed, removing grain, and with it, much of the high frequency information that can be so easily replicated in the wonderful Blu-Ray system. This is what high definition Blu-Ray is all about. Facial tonalities as they are, take on the look similar to wax figures in Madame Tussauds. I'm thinking back here to Paramount's HD
release of The Untouchables which was devoid of detail.

Let me be absolutely clear.

I would bet that the majority of the audience for this film will either never recognize the fact that it no longer looks like film, or loves the look.

Possibly I'm just a purist.

Can I recommend a disc that has been processed to look a bit like Bambi?

Sure.

Do I like it?

No.

Will many people care?

Probably not.

The Longest Day is superb filmmaking, bought to Blu-Ray by Fox in what appears to be a nicely cleaned version.

Recommended.

RAH

john a hunter · 05-25-2008, 06:10 PM

[quote=Robert Harris]

"Photographed in black & white in 35mm CinemaScope, with initial engagements blown up to 70mm, The Longest Day is a textbook of precisely what one could do with properly exposed black & white negative 45 years ago."

Are you sure about the initial release being in 70mm? It was certainly re-released in 70 in that late 60's but I would be surprised that it was initially released in that format given the release date. It was not in the U.K where it was a great hit in 35mm Scope and 4 track stereo. If it was, it would probably be the first "blow up" and not "The Cardinal" which usually has that "honour".

Robert Harris · 05-25-2008, 06:51 PM

Quite correct. My brain is apparently slowing down. I was thinking of In Harm's Way.

TLD was 35mm 4 track magnetic in original release with 70 for re-issue. Thank you for catching this.

Mike Williams · 05-25-2008, 07:52 PM

Mr. Harris, I'm eagerly awaiting your review of "Patton," a tad-bit disappointed that it seems to be your final Father's Day WWII film to review, since it happens to one of my two favorite films of all time.

PaulDA · 05-25-2008, 09:28 PM

Mr. Harris, you've raised a very good point about the nature of recommendations of films in the home viewing environment. On the one hand, you deplore the "scrubbed" look of this film (and, while I haven't seen the Blu-ray, I have seen a number of other films you've commented upon--enough to highly respect your opinions on the matter, irrespective of your profession [I mean that in the sense that I try not to automatically agree with someone simply because they are in a particular line of work]). On the other, you recommend it nonetheless (presumably more on the strength of it as a film than of its presentation). I anticipate that some "purists" will accuse you of "selling out" or some such nonsense (the type that cannot watch something because it has been "ruined" owing to a fractional shift in the colour of the sky compared to when he originally saw it in 1956 or something) but rest assured, your reviews and comments are widely appreciated (perhaps not by my wallet, though

).

Philosophically, I favour reproductions that approximate the original as closely as possible, but I also recognize that there are times when circumstances will dictate a discrepancy. In this instance, sadly, it appears to be a choice, rather than an obligation, that governed the discrepancy but, ultimately, if it does not interfere with the storytelling, I can cope with it. Besides, even with the flaws and shortcomings, we are fortunate indeed to be able to enjoy films at home in a manner that was, for the general public, unimaginable, much less attainable, fewer than 20 years ago.

**HTF Ads**

Robert Harris · 05-25-2008, 09:29 PM

Not by design. I do not yet have a copy of Patton, to which I was also looking forward.

Paul_Scott · 05-25-2008, 09:40 PM

Thanks for the 411 in advance on this, Robert. I greatly disliked the appearence of the Untouchables and was on the fence about this one anyway. .
Off to cancel my Amazon order for TLD.

Marco S · 05-25-2008, 09:55 PM

Movies should be restored, to look like they did, on the night of their premiere.

Robert Crawford · 05-25-2008, 10:53 PM

I'm not cancelling my preorder because it might be many years before this is revisited again.

Crawdaddy

PaulDA · 05-25-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford

I'm not cancelling my preorder because it might be many years before this is revisited again.

Crawdaddy

Precisely. While I agree, in principle, with Marco S, I will not go so far as to boycott a film I like (or anticipate I would like) because it has a less than ideal presentation in a new format that, despite its flaws, is better than any previous presentation readily available at home. One must balance one's expectations with market realities (not that one should be happy about it, but there it is).

For example, a film that I enjoy that has had very little good said about it in either of its HDM releases, Face Off, is still better on HD DVD than I've ever seen it in my home (just watched it last night). I have better looking HD DVDs (some whose original source dates back almost half a century) but it still looked better than either the DVD (which I've seen but not purchased) or my widescreen VHS (which can now be retired to the secondary viewing room for casual viewing when I don't want to fire up the PJ). I bought it because it was inexpensive but also because I doubt it will get a better presentation for some years to come. It is a sad reality and while we should continue to express discontent at less than stellar releases, we should recognize that not everything will get the attention it deserves.

Ken Koc · 05-26-2008, 12:04 AM

Personally, I think the film looks and sounds fantastic.