A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray

"No, 'tis not so deep, nor so wide, but 'tis enough..." - William Shakespeare

Frank Capra's beloved classic finally makes it to Blu-ray in less than beloved form from Paramount.  The marketing is oddly skewed toward the colorized version, which I scored, easily broke in half and tossed into the garbage where it belongs.  When the lead line begins: "This 2-disc collection set includes the colorized version as well as the pristine black & white version," I'm suspect.  I just don't see the colorized version being the deal maker.  This is unfortunately much like Fox's Oklahoma! release featuring the 35mm version of the film, with the groundbreaking Todd-AO version as a horrific extra.

I love this film, and have since I first saw it decades ago, but after viewing this new Blu-ray am wishing that it had been left in the public domain, where it would have received far better and more respectful treatment.

What's wrong?

Simple. 

This is one of the titles that will remain a sales staple.  Therefore, budget should not be a concern.  My perception is that after some nice film elements were created several years ago, the film was transferred to HD, released on standard definition, and finally that same transfer, which probably looked fine in standard definition, is being used for Blu-ray, rather than going back to film and doing it correctly.  This seems to be the new Paramount ethic, and it really needs to be discussed, both by the public, as well as (hopefully) on Melrose.

What we have is a pretty film element that has been transferred, processed, grain reduced, sharpened -- to give it that wonderful Christmas tinsel look -- and then compressed by someone who apparently has no idea what they're doing.  The final result can be seen in various Paramount releases, inclusive of The Untouchables.  While this is far from what we saw in Patton and The Longest Day, it is far from acceptable in 2009.  

What you'll see on screen is something shorn of grain, and what grain survives appears almost like a suspension in liquid.  As someone moves, they seem to force whatever grain there is out of the way -- pushing it in all directions as the obviously terrorized grain attempts to not come in contact with whomever is on screen.  They almost appear to be repulsed magnetic particles.

This particular It's a Wonderful Life will please those with smaller screens, as well as those with larger screens who care little of quality and aren't seeking a film look.  It gives me no pleasure to suggest that those who do care are apt to be extremely unforgiving of the poor craftsmanship.  And there is no rationale to forgive.

It's a Wonderful Life is one of the great films.  Now that it has made its way to Blu-ray it is ripe for a recall and replacement by someone -- anyone -- who knows how to bring a film to Blu-ray.  I'll repeat something that I've said before.  The job is simple.  Scan the element, clean and stabilize where necessary and take it to Blu-ray.  It ain't brain surgery.  To make it personal, this is something that I could do with my eyes closed, and probably over the phone, although being on site would probably create a better final product.  The point that I'm trying to make is not to disparage, but simply have it understood that this is not film restoration -- merely a transfer, can very easily be performed correctly and with a final Blu-ray product that can look like very stable and clean projected film.

That, as I understand it, is what Blu-ray, with its incredible technical potential, is all about.

It's a Wonderful Life is most assuredly Not Recommended! 

RAH

Edited by Robert Harris - 11/24/09 at 4:50pm

I received an email from a friend this morning who led me to comments re: this piece on other sites.  Strangely some are coming away, presumably after reading this thread thinking that:

a.  I had given a negative because a colorized version was included.  I couldn't care less about that inclusion.  If people view and enjoy it, I wish them well.  My personal feeling have nothing to do with it, and the colorized version has no impact upon the original.  When I hear this I think of wise words from an old, dear friend.  A famous book that he had written had been made into a less than wonderful film. When queried about how he felt about his book "being destroyed," he responded that he had no idea what was being asked.  "My book," he said, "is up there on the shelf."  A bad film has nothing to do with the original work.

b.  I had given a negative because the film had not been "restored."  I'm unaware that the film needed serious restorative efforts, possibly beyond some footage replacement from fine grain and a bit of dirt clean-up.  I believe that at least the majority of the OCN survives. Where it does not there would be a complete FGM and track.  Regardless, my comments have nothing to do with whatever restorative efforts were performed.  Whatever needed to be done has been, and I'm certain that the film elements are currently beautiful.

My comments concern neither of those points.  Rather, they point directly to a Blu-ray that is generally pretty, but looks nothing like film. My point is that it easily can look like film, and not a digital mess with swirling particles that occasionally take on the look of a magnetic force field.  The power of Blu-ray is, in this case, not being accessed.

RAH

Edited by Robert Harris - 11/11/09 at 5:50am

I believe the original impetus for colorization (colourisation for those of you in the UK) was to expand the market for potential television sales.  The concept has been used to some success in taking, for example, a first season of a series filmed in b & w and making it available as "color."  I really don't have a problem with that use, but do when used to destroy films shot in b & w generally because it was a production decision, with every department following the concept.  Costumes, sets, etc.  But again, each to their own.

With a "thank you" to John Hodson for correcting my UK spelling.

RAH

I'll make the point again.  All necessary film based restorative work that may have been necessary has been performed.  

Beautiful prints can be made.  

There would have been two ways to create a new quality Blu-ray.

1.  Use the elements created several years ago and harvest a new image from them for what could have been a superior Blu-ray.

2.  Return to the original elements, re-scan and harvest a new image at 4k.  Use that data to create both new long term preservation elements, as well as the basis for a Blu-ray.

As far as I know, neither of those options were taken.  This is neither a difficult work order, nor a difficult job.  It is also not budget driven, as cost is not a problem.

None of the problems that I'm seeing are coming from a film restoration / preservation area.  Everything wrong with this disc relates to poor decision making on the executive level, followed by unprofessional digital handling.