David Lean told a story about the production of In Which We Serve (1942) in which he shared the directorial assignment with Noel Coward.
In the background of one scene there was a need for a whistler. Coward pushed to cast a professional, who could whistle as necessary on cue, with the audio being recorded live.
Lean wanted an actor, whistling or not, knowing that the actual audio could be added later.
Mr. Coward won out, and a professional whistler was cast.
When it came time to shoot the scene, however, Coward was less than thrilled, as the non-professional stuck out like a sore, well... whistler.
The way that Lean told it, Coward approached him, and acknowledging the casting error, shook his head at the problem and explained to Lean that it wasn't working, as the gentleman "had the eager gaze of the uninitiated."
Whatever could this have to do with Blu-ray home video?
The point is this.
Generally when publications hire reviewers for any purpose, there is a search for a hire, based upon one's CV, an elimination and final selection.
Not when it comes to home video blogs and on-line reporting.
There are many bloggers and on-line reviewers, some with more experience than others.
Before I go further the point needs to be made that many on-line writers are uncompensated, and do their writing for the fun of it. You cannot expect perfection from them, and they should be lauded for their work.
I should also make the point that quite of number of reviewers got it, were able to decipher what they were seeing, and commented on it.
The recent discussions regarding PQ on Patton, The Longest Day and Gang of New York has brought this to a head.
Two of these films, Patton and TLD, are difficult films to review for a number of reasons. One needs high end equipment, a reasonably large 1080p monitor, and a quality Blu-ray player, all properly set up to work with one another. And make no mistake, Patton and TLD look gorgeous on moderately sized monitors.
The other problem is that a reviewer needs some sort of reference, and here's the rub.
A reference cannot be a standard definition DVD, and broadcast television is less than helpful. One really needs to know what certain films, at least certain formats look like on film, projected in a theater.
That is what the concept of Blu-ray is all about.
"Experience movies the way filmmakers intended!"
A quick search of reviewer's comments on these films will reveal the phrases:
"I've never seen this film before, but..."
"Great colors, and much sharper than one would expect from a 30 year old film."
"Beautiful for an old film."
"A real step up when compared to the original DVD."
These films have all been professionally reviewed in the past. A quick search on MRQE.com will usually bring up dozens of reviews.
On-line when they are reviewed as films, the additional information adds a nice bit of surrounding journalism, but the rub is that one cannot adequately give a quality appraisal of a Blu-ray disc without having at least some idea what it should look like.
On the other side of the equation are readers who seem overly willing to give up their hard earned coin of the realm in order to own a Blu-ray disc that is at least a bit better than the SD that they already own.
They, like some of the reviewers, don't know what their expectations should be.
And this is sending the wrong message to the studios.
A Blu-ray disc should be a formidable creation, with six times the image quality of SD, and the "ho-hum" attitude of some purchasing those discs means that adequacy is the function of the day.
I'm going to make a point for the umpteenth time.
Fox produces extremely high quality Blu-rays, and I look upon Patton and The Longest Day as merely aberrations, but aberrations that need to be dealt with industry-wide before there is an acceptance of what they represent. These are discs where something in the process just went awry.
Gangs of New York is something else.
I posit that any reviewer that gave high or even acceptable grades to Gangs, either needs to be educated properly or should not be reviewing.
The disc is a travesty of the first order.
Can reviewers be initiated to how good a film should look on Blu-ray?
In most cases, yes.
Can the public learn to be more discerning in their purchases?
Absolutely, although many will remain gleeful as things stand, and will continue to deny any problem with their discs, inclusive of Gangs.
What should the expectations of the final consumer be?
As perfect a product as can be created by the studio technicians, which is most cases, problem film elements aside, is very, very impressive.
Where do we go from here? Fix it, I guess.
Things need to occur reasonably quickly, so that our reviews as well as the Blu-ray buying public are unaffected by "The eager gaze of the uninitiated."
RAH
In the background of one scene there was a need for a whistler. Coward pushed to cast a professional, who could whistle as necessary on cue, with the audio being recorded live.
Lean wanted an actor, whistling or not, knowing that the actual audio could be added later.
Mr. Coward won out, and a professional whistler was cast.
When it came time to shoot the scene, however, Coward was less than thrilled, as the non-professional stuck out like a sore, well... whistler.
The way that Lean told it, Coward approached him, and acknowledging the casting error, shook his head at the problem and explained to Lean that it wasn't working, as the gentleman "had the eager gaze of the uninitiated."
Whatever could this have to do with Blu-ray home video?
The point is this.
Generally when publications hire reviewers for any purpose, there is a search for a hire, based upon one's CV, an elimination and final selection.
Not when it comes to home video blogs and on-line reporting.
There are many bloggers and on-line reviewers, some with more experience than others.
Before I go further the point needs to be made that many on-line writers are uncompensated, and do their writing for the fun of it. You cannot expect perfection from them, and they should be lauded for their work.
I should also make the point that quite of number of reviewers got it, were able to decipher what they were seeing, and commented on it.
The recent discussions regarding PQ on Patton, The Longest Day and Gang of New York has brought this to a head.
Two of these films, Patton and TLD, are difficult films to review for a number of reasons. One needs high end equipment, a reasonably large 1080p monitor, and a quality Blu-ray player, all properly set up to work with one another. And make no mistake, Patton and TLD look gorgeous on moderately sized monitors.
The other problem is that a reviewer needs some sort of reference, and here's the rub.
A reference cannot be a standard definition DVD, and broadcast television is less than helpful. One really needs to know what certain films, at least certain formats look like on film, projected in a theater.
That is what the concept of Blu-ray is all about.
"Experience movies the way filmmakers intended!"
A quick search of reviewer's comments on these films will reveal the phrases:
"I've never seen this film before, but..."
"Great colors, and much sharper than one would expect from a 30 year old film."
"Beautiful for an old film."
"A real step up when compared to the original DVD."
These films have all been professionally reviewed in the past. A quick search on MRQE.com will usually bring up dozens of reviews.
On-line when they are reviewed as films, the additional information adds a nice bit of surrounding journalism, but the rub is that one cannot adequately give a quality appraisal of a Blu-ray disc without having at least some idea what it should look like.
On the other side of the equation are readers who seem overly willing to give up their hard earned coin of the realm in order to own a Blu-ray disc that is at least a bit better than the SD that they already own.
They, like some of the reviewers, don't know what their expectations should be.
And this is sending the wrong message to the studios.
A Blu-ray disc should be a formidable creation, with six times the image quality of SD, and the "ho-hum" attitude of some purchasing those discs means that adequacy is the function of the day.
I'm going to make a point for the umpteenth time.
Fox produces extremely high quality Blu-rays, and I look upon Patton and The Longest Day as merely aberrations, but aberrations that need to be dealt with industry-wide before there is an acceptance of what they represent. These are discs where something in the process just went awry.
Gangs of New York is something else.
I posit that any reviewer that gave high or even acceptable grades to Gangs, either needs to be educated properly or should not be reviewing.
The disc is a travesty of the first order.
Can reviewers be initiated to how good a film should look on Blu-ray?
In most cases, yes.
Can the public learn to be more discerning in their purchases?
Absolutely, although many will remain gleeful as things stand, and will continue to deny any problem with their discs, inclusive of Gangs.
What should the expectations of the final consumer be?
As perfect a product as can be created by the studio technicians, which is most cases, problem film elements aside, is very, very impressive.
Where do we go from here? Fix it, I guess.
Things need to occur reasonably quickly, so that our reviews as well as the Blu-ray buying public are unaffected by "The eager gaze of the uninitiated."
RAH
(like me....)
