A Few Words About A few words about...™ Citizen Kane -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/314260/a-few-words-about-citizen-kane-in-blu-ray/90#post_3849014
Ambersons is, in every way, just as remarkable film as Kane, and deserves like treatment.

This ain't brain surgery.

RAH

I agree and if/when that happens and it's released on BRD, I'll buy it again.






Crawdaddy

 

[marsnkc]

None of the above matters, really. Apart from the fact that color in modern films amounts to little more than visual clutter, no one seems to know how to time the color in a movie or TV show anymore. Everything on-screen looks like life as seen through a full urine-specimen jar...

They matter to me, and I'm not the only one to be exasperated by the hyperkinetic, shredder-machine cutting of some films and TV shows, or the overused shaky-cam nonsense. It's one thing to use that 'technique' in an attempt to bring a sense of urgency or place the audience in the center of the action, but to harness the gimmick for a quiet scene in a small room with two people sitting (Bourne, in the second movie, informing Franka Potente's brother of her death) simply draws attention to itself and takes me out of the story.
(I'm not saying this to be iconoclastic here, and not to take away from a remarkable achievement, but the self-conscious and repetitious use of extreme angles in Kane affects my involvement in that movie too).
As to cutting, I mentioned Bond because of the car chase at the beginning of Quantum of Solace. The production goes all the way to Lake Como, a fortune is spent on vehicles and world-class stuntmen to drive them, and another fortune is spent cutting the filmed result so fast and with so many close-ups that the scene might have been filmed against a blue-screen in my back yard, for all anyone could tell. The strobe-like cutting actually undermines any sense of action, tension or danger that the effects crew may have achieved. Those responsible might rent the preceding Casino Royale (but that had Martin Campbell's guiding hand), Bullitt, Ronin and The French Connection for future reference!
As with Solace, the Bourne producers could have saved themselves a fortune by shooting on a back lot. Most shots in the exotic locations they film in typically consist of close-ups of a frantic Matt Damon or others rushing past or through a blur of backdrops.
Another tired gimmick is the editing of milliseconds of action into epic montages of multiple angles, zooms and jump-cuts, presumably aimed at multi-tasking preteens impatiently fingering their social media hardware.
I agree with your frustration over color timing. I'm pretty much tired of that desaturated, filtered or otherwise chemically altered look. It works for some films or scenes (Private Ryan/Gladiator) but, as happens with fads, it's been overdone and wearing a bit thin.

 

[Richard--W]

I don't understand the apparent need to bleed all the life and resolution out of a film, either. The current emulsions are stark enough.

...
I agree with your frustration over color timing. I'm pretty much tired of that desaturated, filtered or otherwise chemically altered look. It works for some films or scenes (Private Ryan/Gladiator) but, as happens with fads, it's been overdone and wearing a bit thin.

Electronic.
Electronically altered look.
Or digitally altered look, whichever you prefer.
Digital desaturation did not serve either Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator very well, to my eyes.
Fortunately, Citizen Kane is monochrome, and very hard to screw up unless somebody is compulsive and can't stop fiddling with the mouse in hand.

 

[RaggedClown]

Looking at the caps from DVDBeaver, the Blu looks slightly squished vertically -- or the DVD is stretched. Anyone have an opinion on which looks more accurate?

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /t/314260/a-few-words-about-citizen-kane-in-blu-ray/120#post_3849119
I don't understand the apparent need to bleed all the life and resolution out of a film, either. The current emulsions are stark enough.
Electronic.
Electronically altered look.
Or digitally altered look, whichever you prefer.
Digital desaturation did not serve either Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator very well, to my eyes.
Fortunately, Citizen Kane is monochrome, and very hard to screw up unless somebody is compulsive and can't stop fiddling with the mouse in hand.

That's probably why there's a push towards digital: because ever since the late 1960s many filmmakers have not been using film to the best of its abilities. Before that, even mediocre films at least looked pretty, or at the bare minimum had properly exposed negatives. Since I became a reviewer, I have had to think about my criteria for judging good transfers, and I have often been in a position where I have had to be magnanimous when a disc is a good representation of substandard cinematography, which some simply chalk up to a bad transfer.

As a photographer with experience in both film and digital, the latter won me over with the way it gives you leeway to experiment at a lower monetary cost. 10 years ago digital couldn't do half the things it can do now. But I'd never totally abandon film unless it ceased to exist, and I don't see them as a zero-sum game. And there are still serious concerns in my mind about the long-term storage and accessibility of digital media. Even under ideal storage conditions, analog tape is at the mercy of the dwindling stock of machines and people who know how to use them.

 

[marsnkc]

I don't understand the apparent need to bleed all the life and resolution out of a film, either. The current emulsions are stark enough.
Electronic.
Electronically altered look.
Or digitally altered look, whichever you prefer.
Digital desaturation did not serve either Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator very well, to my eyes.
Fortunately, Citizen Kane is monochrome, and very hard to screw up unless somebody is compulsive and can't stop fiddling with the mouse in hand.

Isn't the skip-bleach process a chemical one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach_bypass

 

[marsnkc]

Since I became a reviewer, I have had to think about my criteria for judging good transfers, and I have often been in a position where I have had to be magnanimous when a disc is a good representation of substandard cinematography, which some simply chalk up to a bad transfer.

I'm glad you recognise the distinction, Matthew. I met Leonard Maltin in the mid-'80s and confronted him about his 3 out of 4 star rating for the first VHS of Lawrence of Arabia. He said the rating had been based on the fact that the movie had been pan and scanned, leaving us without a (relatively) true sense of what was intended, but that the later widescreen job would carry his highest rating. Problem was, that first review failed to mention that his issue was with the transfer, not the movie.

 

[DarthYotsuya]

None of the above matters, really. Apart from the fact that color in modern films amounts to little more than visual clutter, no one seems to know how to time the color in a movie or TV show anymore. Everything on-screen looks like life as seen through a full urine-specimen jar...

I think your statement is an overly harsh and over simplified view. For one thing, isn't color timing a very film based necessity. I don't believe it has been required in TV for many years. Everything is shot digitally and airs digitally. This really is a conversation to have with the camera makers. What we are seeing is exactly what the camera captured. And a great many movies have been adopting a very specific color scheme. I've seen a lot of very cyan tinted films in recent years. This is an artistic choice. You may not like it, but it is what they have chose. It is the same thing as Natalie Kalmus insisting on bright colors for the older technicolor films. There was no story reason for some of those choices, it was at the insistence of Technicolor, to make full use of their product.
Plus, exacting color timing is somewhat of a myth. While it may happen in the early stages of film distribution, the making of Pleasantville documentary described their difficulty in distributing a film with so many b&w shots on color stock. They had to match up the general tint of each section. Some were more yellow, some more cyan, some more magenta and they matched them up so that each section of the b&w sequences were the same tint. We are spoiled in this age of digital media that we can calibrate the display and audio to a standard and we can take any DVD or Blu-ray of a given movie to any calibrated display and it will look the same.
And if you haven't seen some of those old silent classics, they frequently tinted the film so that night scenes were in blue. Other scenes were in green or purple or some other color. Sometimes they aren't so subtle. The silent Ten Commandments comes to mind, with its purple intro sequence. Color has been a tool of filmmakers since before color film existed. I wouldn't tell a filmmaker how to "color time" a movie anymore than I would have told Picasso to use more realistic colors or El Greco to use brighter colors. It is an artistic choice and with today's digital distribution, a film maker finally has the ability to control EXACTLY what the audience sees. It doesn't always come out well. I know of two films that have ended up tinted wrong when sold for home viewing, but in general, what the film maker wanted you to see is what you are now seeing.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just that I very much disagree with it.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I think your statement is an overly harsh and over simplified view. For one thing, isn't color timing a very film based necessity. I don't believe it has been required in TV for many years. Everything is shot digitally and airs digitally. This really is a conversation to have with the camera makers. What we are seeing is exactly what the camera captured. And a great many movies have been adopting a very specific color scheme. I've seen a lot of very cyan tinted films in recent years. This is an artistic choice. You may not like it, but it is what they have chose. It is the same thing as Natalie Kalmus insisting on bright colors for the older technicolor films. There was no story reason for some of those choices, it was at the insistence of Technicolor, to make full use of their product.

Everything is color timed be it on film or digital. Most digital production cameras now shoot an image that looks very flat with rather bland colors right out of the camera. This gives you options when you get into post production. Even live broadcasts are filtered through a color correction system, and a particular look is designed in it.
Doug

 

[bgart13]

Anyone know what's different about the BB version?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Citizen+Kane%3A+70th+Anniversary+-+Blu-ray+Disc/3158361.p?id=2267726&skuId=3158361&st=Citizen%20Kane%20blu&lp=2&cp=1
Besides it appearing to be in the book format WB does, anyways.

 

[PatrickDA]

Anyone know what's different about the BB version?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Citizen+Kane%3A+70th+Anniversary+-+Blu-ray+Disc/3158361.p?id=2267726&skuId=3158361&st=Citizen%20Kane%20blu&lp=2&cp=1
Besides it appearing to be in the book format WB does, anyways.

It's a digibook. Different cover too. Not sure about any other differences. I read on another message board that the book in the box set and the digibook have different content (text/pics). Not sure if that's true or not.
I LOVE "Kane," so I'll get the Amazon set and the Best Buy set!!!!

 

[marsnkc]

Electronic.
Electronically altered look.
Or digitally altered look, whichever you prefer.
Digital desaturation did not serve either Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator very well, to my eyes.
Fortunately, Citizen Kane is monochrome, and very hard to screw up unless somebody is compulsive and can't stop fiddling with the mouse in hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Private_Ryan
As coincidence would have it, the chemical 'Skip Bleach' (or 'Bleach Bypass') process I referred to in an earlier post was used on Saving Private Ryan.
The last paragraph in the 'Portraying History' section of the Wiki article describes Spielberg's desire and Kaminski's efforts to replicate the look of color film from cameras of the period. Horror of horrors (like watching a beautilful car being demolished in a movie), they first stripped the camera lenses of their protective coating, then bleach-bypassed the negative to desaturate it even further. It doesn't say it here, but I believe the process used was a variation called ENR (after the initials of the man who 'developed' the system for Vittorio Storaro).
Other movies to utilize the process include Seven and Minority Report.

 

[Richard--W]

Well, I wasn't talking about bleach bypass originally.
I'm not going to wiki to read up on bleach bypass, but yes, yes, and yes, it is a chemical process.
I never said it wasn't, but maybe I should have thought of different examples.
Most desaturation and other image degenerations are done electronically now.
The use of a digital intermediate and the hyper-sensitivity of digital tools makes desaturation easy and routine.
Now that major feature films shot on 35mm are going through digital intermediates, and now that major feature films are shot in HD with more coming in HD you'll see more and more degeneration in picture quality.
Look at Revenge of the Sith, Miami Vice, Avatar, and countless others.
Indiana Jones 4 was the first 35mm film in that franchise to go through a digital intermediate, and the result is ... diminished image quality.
Current filmmakers, and the USC crowd in particular, think it's cool and hip to deliver movies that look like a mosquito smeared against the wall.

 

[DarthYotsuya]

The color choices for a movies are part of the artistic pallet. I can understand if this conversation was on color restoration, but we are talking about a deliberate choice made by the films production team to achieve a particular look. They may have an old postcard or magazine they are trying to match the look of, or a painting that they like, or who knows what. If you don't like how a movie turns out, don't watch it, but there is no call to take such a hard line against such artistic expressions in film.
And you mistake reality for Hollywood illusion. The goal was not to make it look exactly like it would have if it had been shot in 1942 (which would be easy enough to do), but the goal was to make it FEEL like 1942 (and D-Day was in 1944 which is when Saving Private Ryan is set).
It is rather funny that we are having this conversation on a thread about Citizen Kane. Wells was an artist and did what he felt would give him the movie he wanted. If he had been working in color he might have had some specific ideas and made some choices in terms of color that others wouldn't get. He used light and camera angles and lighting to achieve a very specific look. The choice of color to modern film makers, especially with the added choices they have in the digital realm, only broadens the possibilities for those film makers who want to explore what can be done. The digital process is new and some are playing with it and some are playing it safe. That is a choice that gets made. The same choice that Scorsese made when he filmed Raging Bull in black and white (in 1980, that was definitely an artistic choice). And how many color films have been made over the years with no thought to special color timing? Some people use light and dark and color and other techniques artistically, some just use the standard because they are more interested in the story than the cinematography. That is how it has always been, that is how it still is.

 

[WinstonCely]

I haven't read all the posts, but they look like they're getting pretty heated..... In the effort to lighten the mood:
TKITH

 

[montrealfilmguy]

A great sketch for sure,but this one,although it has nothing to do with Kane
is another classic inspired by another movie classic.
You cant help but smile.

And i havent had time to check for that dissapearing rain on my regular dvd yet,maybe tomorrow.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Looks like from the pictures, the Best Buy version includes the BD disc, as well as the documentary DVD. This is perfect for me, as I already own RKO 281 on DVD and I'm not into all the extra tchotske items. I'd rather have something that fits on the shelf with the others. Wouldn't mind getting Ambersons, but comparing those it's $20 more, so better to wait for the restored BD. I've still only seen Ambersons from the Criterion LD, and I really do want to see it again, as I liked it maybe even better than Kane. I have little doubt that the full length Ambersons would be a superior picture, but we'll never know for sure.

 

[Hollowbrook Drive-In]

I agree with your frustration over color timing. I'm pretty much tired of that desaturated, filtered or otherwise chemically altered look. It works for some films or scenes (Private Ryan/Gladiator) but, as happens with fads, it's been overdone and wearing a bit thin.

I'm not not talking about desaturation, or trying to emulate old sepia photos (two techniques I thoroughly dislike, but that's a different matter), but merely not bothering or seeming to care that everything in the frame is some shade of green or yellow instead of something resembling a naturalistic range of color.

The last paragraph in the 'Portraying History' section of the Wiki article describes Spielberg's desire and Kaminski's efforts to replicate the look of color film from cameras of the period. Horror of horrors (like watching a beautilful car being demolished in a movie), they first stripped the camera lenses of their protective coating, then bleach-bypassed the negative to desaturate it even further. It doesn't say it here, but I believe the process used was a variation called ENR (after the initials of the man who 'developed' the system for Vittorio Storaro).

Then anyone who's seen John Ford's "Battle of Midway" or William Wyler's "Memphis Belle" documentaries, or the color footage shot by George Stevens in newly-liberated Europe knows that Spielberg and Kaminski got it 100% wrong as to what footage from that period really looks like, printed from 16mm Kodachrome originals onto Technicolor release prints.

I think your statement is an overly harsh and over simplified view. For one thing, isn't color timing a very film based necessity. I don't believe it has been required in TV for many years. Everything is shot digitally and airs digitally. This really is a conversation to have with the camera makers. What we are seeing is exactly what the camera captured.

The camera's irrelevant, and always has been. It's not the camera, but the film stock and how it absorbs the various wavelengths of light, a matter of supreme importance from the days when filmmakers were using orthochromatic black and white stocks that were notoriously insensitive to the blue end of the spectrum (among other things, actors with light blue eyes looked as though those eyes were frosted over with cataracts). With color film, shots still have to be matched, and the fact is that films are still assemblies of shots taken in disparate locales, under different lighting conditions, using a variety of film stocks that are designed to compensate for disparate amounts of light, color temperature of that light, and contrasts desired. The old Metrocolor Labs was the only one that always timed the color of every shot. Now it seems that, if there's any timing done at all, it's set on autopilot at the beginning of the film or TV show and just allowed to run.
It's a mess.

 

[DarthYotsuya]

The camera's irrelevant, and always has been. It's not the camera, but the film stock and how it absorbs the various wavelengths of light, a matter of supreme importance from the days when filmmakers were using orthochromatic black and white stocks that were notoriously insensitive to the blue end of the spectrum (among other things, actors with light blue eyes looked as though those eyes were frosted over with cataracts). With color film, shots still have to be matched, and the fact is that films are still assemblies of shots taken in disparate locales, under different lighting conditions, using a variety of film stocks that are designed to compensate for disparate amounts of light, color temperature of that light, and contrasts desired. The old Metrocolor Labs was the only one that always timed the color of every shot. Now it seems that, if there's any timing done at all, it's set on autopilot at the beginning of the film or TV show and just allowed to run.
It's a mess.

The camera is not irrelevant. There are many ways that the camera affects what goes onto the film and affects the quality of what comes after. I know of several movies that were filmed with panty-hose over the lens to give it a soft look. There is huge range of things that can be done with filters and the settings with a film camera. With a digital camera you have a while other set of options for how the camera processes the image before it is recorded. Plus with a digital camera, you can instantly see exactly what you have, no waiting for developing. The camera has never been irrelevant and is even more relevant to the discussion of color in modern digital productions than post production color correction.
I would tend to agree that there is a lot of laziness, but there always has been. How many TV shows were shot with video (and never recorded onto film) and never went through the color timing process. You can really tell when you see the now on a higher definition TV. Just because they are now using an HD camera isn't going to change how they do things. But at the same time, those who want to experiment with the camera settings and post production corrections now have direct access to the tools and can learn the new art of how it can be done digitally. It may take a while before they are used to the new cameras and what they can do. True HD recording has only existed since 2003 after all.

 

[Douglas Monce]

The cameras used to be almost irrelevant, other than the quality of the movements inside. A film camera is basically just a light tight box. The important items are the lens and the film. A digital camera is a different animal all together, and in that case the camera is enormously important to the quality of the image in total.
HD cameras actually date back to the early 1970s when the Japanese demonstrated a 1125 line system called MUSE.
Doug