A few words about...™ To Kill a Mockingbird -- in Blu-ray

Where do I begin?

I've now had the opportunity to view two of the finest films ever made -- and two personal favorites within a 48 hour period.

To Kill a Mockingbird, based upon the novel by Harper Lee, is to my mind, one of the most beautiful and perfect films ever made.  It possesses a timelessness unlike the majority of period dramas.

But to point, film, as a medium, is not timeless.

And this commentary will go into how it affects a film like To Kill a Mockingbird, why it looks as it does, and with a tip of the hat to James Monaco, how one can best "read" a film, and understand what it is that one is seeing.

Like many productions, mostly large format, but many standard 35mm, one can make an absolute generalization as to what will be found in the cans before they're opened.

The more beloved, the more popular a film, the worse condition it will be in, especially if it came into being before quality duping stocks.  For black and white, this means, the mid to late 1950s, for color the three decades hence.

As a 1962 production, To Kill a Mockingbird was an immensely important and popular production.  For whatever reason, and this does not speak to current management at Universal, the original negative was used to strike far too many prints. It also appears that it may also have been rejuvenated at some point to remove scratches by some overzealous lab technician.

None of that matters now, as we have what we have.

I recall discussions of problems with the original negative a decade ago, and work has been ongoing to create a working set of picture elements toward preservation and replication for years.

Let's go to basics, and I thank Universal for sharing some details.

Of the thirteen reels of original negative, six no longer survive.  What does survive is scratched, warped, and with occasional black slugs, where damaged frames have been removed.  A fine grain master produced contemporary with the film is also problematic with some scratched and damaged sections.  A second fine grain, produced in 1969 stands in where other elements are unavailable.  Duplicate negatives of varying quality have been used to fill in other missing footage.

More specifics.

Dupes of this era do not create a grainier image.  Since the duping stocks are very slow speed emulsions,with virtually no visible grain, what occurs is that with each generation, the edges of grain become a bit more diffuse, and almost velvety looking.  Contrast gain is also not a problem.

Let's take something else into consideration.

A number of catalog titles have had image harvests in 2k or 4k in the past few years from original negatives, and many of the more "image aware" in the home theater community have locked into what a scanned image from an OCN of the era looks like.  There is grain, albeit generally fine, unless higher speed stocks were used.

What this means is that the majority of To Kill a Mockingbird is at least second generation, and some third.  Again, with each passing generation, there is a lessoning of grain, and a slightly softer image.

In my humble opinion, and to my eye, what the technicians at Universal have attempted to do is to homogenize the image, so as not to have a shot or sequence from one generation bumping into a different generation, with abrupt changes in grain structure, contrast or resolution.  They've put in their time, thought things through, and have created a quality product.

A quick word about grain reduction.  I really don't have a problem with what I'm seeing here, as it seems to consistently represent what a second generation element would look like from the era.  There is certainly noting scrubbed, as I've read in some other threads on other sites.

What I'm seeing on Universal's new Blu-ray of the film, is a generally very pleasing image, that is obviously not from an original negative, but controls the character of the film as it transparently jumps back and forth from one generation element to the next.

My take on the Blu-ray is that it generally looks beautiful.  A very nice job.  I'm less thrilled, albeit not overly disturbed, by the handling of field enlargements, as rather than grain slowly building, it just isn't there.  It's matched to the surrounding shots.  This is a technical judgement call, but I don't agree with it.

Overall, with what the studio had to work with, my eye is telling me that they've done a superlative job of saving the film.  This isn't easy.  There are different approaches, and the fact that I may not agree with a part of what they've done, doesn't mean that they're wrong.  Just a difference of opinion.

The bottom line to me seems very simple.  

To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the finest films ever made, with some of the best performances you'll see on film.

Anywhere, in any film.

It has a certain bearing and majesty about it, and once you've seen it, as with the reading of the book, you'll never forget it.

Grab a copy and be immersed in it.

Very Highly Recommended.

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich 

Thanks Robert.  I'm a bit embarrassed to say in front of this crowd that I have never seen the full film, so I will be picking this up.  Is the booklet and packaging worth the extra money?

I would have thought the opposite: That a popular film would be in better condition, but your explanation makes sense. 
 

 

Booklet is fine.  It's the main attraction that worth the price of admission, which I would peg at over $100 easily.

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Perregaux 

I quite enjoy this hobby. I enjoy films old and new, foreign and domestic, of many genres. Only when the DVD format premiered did my passion really take off because suddenly it became absurdly easy to have a library of great films in a digital format with potential to look really spectacular. High-definition formats only sweetened the pie.
But whenever I read sobering remarks such as, "Of the thirteen reels of original negative, six no longer survive," my blood runs cold. It reminds me that films are precious, delicate little things that take an overwhelming effort just to survive intact, let alone be viewable by anyone. It can be very easy to forget this when it comes down to slapping a disc into a player and hitting PLAY.
I'm gladdened by the fact that a studio like Universal will not sit idly by while its best films rot in a can and that they'll invest wisely in saving something for the next 100 years of viewers. And if the world is lucky, the next 100 years after that... and maybe more.
I'm also glad there are people who champion this cause, bring recognition to the art of film preservation, and hopefully spur the next generation to staunch the slow, inevitable decay of one of our culture's most significant art formats.
So, like, hey Universal, thanks for restoring one of my favorite films of all time.

With the cinema now going on 118 years, the problems with which the industry and archives dealt regarding, nitrate, vinegar syndrome, and dye fade will not even relate as blips on the preservation radar, now that digital has taken hold.

Think we've had problems with analogue?

You ain't seen nothin' yet!

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin EK 

Robert, please correct me if I misstate this:

 

A field enlargement is a way of turning a wider angle shot into a close-up.   This can be done by either blowing up the image in a static way (as I've seen happen in post production) or by creating what appears to be a zoom-in on one part of the image.   In the case of To Kill A Mockingbird, there are several shots where post-production zoom-ins were done on wider angle shots.  The one usually discussed (and shown in the "Restoring the Classics" featurette) is Mayella's most dramatic moment on the witness stand.   As we watch, the shot changes from a wider shot to a close-up of her face.  The picture quality goes down as her face gets bigger and bigger in the frame.  

 

For me, this is the same kind of idea as if I have a small jpeg image and I blow it up.  I can make it bigger, but there's a drop in picture quality.

 

Hope I didn't just mangle the description...

Generally correct.  But not necessarily turning a wide shot into a close-up.  One can move in on any part of the frame.  As I believe I stated earlier in the thread, there should be a mechanism of digitally resolving more of the image as we move in, while concurrently equalizing grain.  This was one of John Lowry's concepts, and as far as I have seen, Lowry Digital, now Reliance, is the only facility that can do this well.

RAH