A Few Words About A few words about...™ Psycho (import) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris



EDIT: Hmmm... Perhaps, this should be a NVM. Just went back to the first post, and realized that RAH liked the new mix (though I'm sure he's glad the original's there also)...


_Man_

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris




The same gentleman who worked on Vertigo for the studio, and added various efx such as birds in the dead forest, was in charge of Psycho.  Mr. Hitchcock left extremely copious notes on audio.  If followed, little should have gone wrong.

Having supervised sound effects, music, dialogue editing and sound mixes myself, I can say that working from written notes, everything can go wrong. Sound mixing is all about split second adjustments in balance. The only way to control it is to be in the room supervising it. Hitchcocks notes could only give the most general instructions.

When a studio creates a new soundtrack, they are creating something entirely new. They usually rely on great engineers to come up with the surround mixes. But great engineers are a poor substitute for a great director. The story is told through sound just as much as it's told through pictures.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot

Having supervised sound effects, music, dialogue editing and sound mixes myself, I can say that working from written notes, everything can go wrong. Sound mixing is all about split second adjustments in balance. The only way to control it is to be in the room supervising it. Hitchcocks notes could only give the most general instructions.

When a studio creates a new soundtrack, they are creating something entirely new. They usually rely on great engineers to come up with the surround mixes. But great engineers are a poor substitute for a great director. The story is told through sound just as much as it's told through pictures.

Stephen,


When one is producing a restoration, one is not "creating." A filmmaker's notes are sacrosanct, and in the case of Mr. Hitchcock, very easily understood. Certainly, if someone is pulling hundreds of 50 year old stems from a vault there is absolutely room for error. I'm not suggesting that I have a problem with the audio for Psycho. There is a huge difference between making changes to classic tracks previously approved by a filmmaker, and revealing, via digital technology, elements previously unheard, hidden under layers of mag.


For those who know the film well, both changes as well as new "reveals" can be challenging. Whether there may be problems with the new Psycho track or not, is nothing that I'm going to get into, as I don't have the requisite knowledge to comment.


My point, however, in response to your comments, is that there is a huge difference, as I'm sure that you know, between attempting to restore, and / or technologically update a track, and creating a new one.


RAH

 

[bigshot]

I don't have a problem with the Psycho 5:1 track either, but it definitely doesn't qualify as restoration. It's creating something entirely new as an alternative to the original. Restoration involves returning a movie to the way it originally was before the passage of time took its toll, not adding new sound effects and completely altering the balances and spatial placement of the sound.

99% of the time I prefer the original track to recreated surround tracks because the balances are usually clearer and compression is applied more intelligently. As long as they include the original track, they can include as many modern reworkings as they want. I can always ignore them. I recently got the Mexican bluray of Dumbo, and the only English track it has is a horribly monkeyed with 5:1. Disney is the worst offender in this regard... Their surround tracks have totally inappropriate modern sound effects, fake sounding phasey stereo and bungled balances.

As for Psycho, the surround is acceptable, but I'll probably never listen to it again. It pulls me out of the movie to think, "oh, there's rain behind me" a little more than I need. I guess if you've never seen Psycho before, you might not be bothered by that. But im familiar enough with the film that the recreated sound effects are a distraction for me.

 

[bigshot]

Here is an analogy...

Imagine an art restorer being given the Mona Lisa to work on. While he's cleaning it and checking to see that there are no tears in the canvas he notices that one of the trees in the background is painted a little vaguely. So he pulls out his paints and starts adding bark texture and leaves to sharpen it up. Then he notices a dark shadow without a lot of detail in it, so he paints a nice fallen log in the shadow. Then he adds some tiny birds in the sky and blades of grass on the ground. At what point is it no longer Da Vinci's Mona Lisa?

The second the recreator's brush hit the canvas for the first time.

I've worked as a conservator, a restorer and a producer working closely with directors, and I know the difference between conservation, restoration and recreation. They are three completely different things. Conservation is preserving what exists without adding to it. Restoration is replacing missing material as close to the way it originally appeared as possible. Recreation is adding new material to attempt to improve what already exists.

Conservators, restorers and recreators occupy a continuum of creativity with conservators being the least creative and recreators being the most creative. Adding a 5:1 soundtrack to Psycho is definitely an act of recreation. I don't think it's unfair to say that no matter how qualified a sound engineer is at restoration, he probably isn't qualified to second guess Hitchcock with a recreation.

That said, it's fine to go ahead and make an attempt. The Psycho soundtrack makes a pretty high splat on the wall. As long as the original track is still available, it's cool. But if I went to see the film in a theater and they were using the 5:1 soundtrack instead of Hitchcock's original, I'd probably be pretty angry.

 

[rich_d]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Conservators, restorers and recreators occupy a continuum of creativity with conservators being the least creative and recreators being the most creative. Adding a 5:1 soundtrack to Psycho is definitely an act of recreation. I don't think it's unfair to say that no matter how qualified a sound engineer is at restoration, he probably isn't qualified to second guess Hitchcock with a recreation.

That said, it's fine to go ahead and make an attempt. The Psycho soundtrack makes a pretty high splat on the wall. As long as the original track is still available, it's cool. But if I went to see the film in a theater and they were using the 5:1 soundtrack instead of Hitchcock's original, I'd probably be pretty angry.

Agreed and there's the rub. It's not that I know Psycho that well. But when I have a rain scene that takes me out of the film ... that's a problem. That said, I'm also not a hardliner about use of the original audio. For example, I recently saw Key Largo at the Jacob Burns Cinema in Pleasantville, NY. Original mono audio, front delivered but the result was the audio took me out of the film as it was so ineffective. A key aspect of the film is Johnny Rocco being truly scared at a hurricane that he can't control (like he does people). But the sound of thunder had no impact, the wind nothing much and only the loud sound of shutters coming loose in the wind making an impact. My takeaway was this film could use a more modern soundtrack so that additional generations of film-goers could be drawn into the film and support the memorable acting performances on the screen. But yes, the path of good intentions can be problematic

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by rich_d

Conservators, restorers and recreators occupy a continuum of creativity with conservators being the least creative and recreators being the most creative. Adding a 5:1 soundtrack to Psycho is definitely an act of recreation. I don't think it's unfair to say that no matter how qualified a sound engineer is at restoration, he probably isn't qualified to second guess Hitchcock with a recreation.

That said, it's fine to go ahead and make an attempt. The Psycho soundtrack makes a pretty high splat on the wall. As long as the original track is still available, it's cool. But if I went to see the film in a theater and they were using the 5:1 soundtrack instead of Hitchcock's original, I'd probably be pretty angry.

Agreed and there's the rub. It's not that I know Psycho that well. But when I have a rain scene that takes me out of the film ... that's a problem. That said, I'm also not a hardliner about use of the original audio. For example, I recently saw Key Largo at the Jacob Burns Cinema in Pleasantville, NY. Original mono audio, front delivered but the result was the audio took me out of the film as it was so ineffective. A key aspect of the film is Johnny Rocco being truly scared at a hurricane that he can't control (like he does people). But the sound of thunder had no impact, the wind nothing much and only the loud sound of shutters coming loose in the wind making an impact. My takeaway was this film could use a more modern soundtrack so that additional generations of film-goers could be drawn into the film and support the memorable acting performances on the screen. But yes, the path of good intentions can be problematic
[/QUOTE]

The Burns has a high quality sound system, and keeps it in tune. Great facility. You'd probably find David Selznick's production of The Portrait of Jennnie (1948) of interest. The film was designed with both image as well as audio upgrades for original performances in a small number of large venues. During the final storm sequence the image grows (at as I recall a changeover) in size via the Magnascope process (an adapter lens) with masking moving out to provide a larger screen surface, and is tinted green. The audio was run (as I recall) interlocked with a second projector or dubber, with additional speakers added to aid in making the storm far more surrounding and realistic.


Portrait of Jennie is a brilliant film. One of my all time favorites. It has an other-worldly, ethereal texture to it, that to me, has never been duplicated. To see it in its original form, tinted, with the final sequence in Technicolor, is something that can only be dreamt of by most cinephiles. An original print is occasionally run at The George Eastman House in Rochester. If you're within striking distance, be there.


RAH

 

[rich_d]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris


The Burns has a high quality sound system, and keeps it in tune. Great facility. You'd probably find David Selznick's production of The Portrait of Jennnie (1948) of interest. The film was designed with both image as well as audio upgrades for original performances in a small number of large venues. During the final storm sequence the image grows (at as I recall a changeover) in size via the Magnascope process (an adapter lens) with masking moving out to provide a larger screen surface, and is tinted green. The audio was run (as I recall) interlocked with a second projector or dubber, with additional speakers added to aid in making the storm far more surrounding and realistic.


Portrait of Jennie is a brilliant film. One of my all time favorites. It has an other-worldly, ethereal texture to it, that to me, has never been duplicated. To see it in its original form, tinted, with the final sequence in Technicolor, is something that can only be dreamt of by most cinephiles. An original print is occasionally run at The George Eastman House in Rochester. If you're within striking distance, be there.


RAH

Thanks for the suggestion as I am also a fan of Portrait of Jennie. I'm drawn to other-worldly films where there are reasonable multiple interpretations to the story. I've always wondered what influence Portrait of Jennie had on Hitchcock's 'other-worldly' Vertigo. Similar elements (among others) include:

• A m[FONT= 'times new roman']an madly in love with a woman that seems to reappear through time. [/FONT]
• Climatic scene involving a major staircase with a camera zoom image from above
• Haunting painting of a woman who has a tragic death yet re-appears throughout time is displayed in a art museum
• Although dead, lover return to male protagonist in haunting green-tinted scene
• The suggestion that the same tragedy occurs time after time in the same place

 

[Steve Christou]

I was recently re-reading The Golden Screen which is a collection of film reviews by "the doyen of British film critics" Dylis Powell, and came across her review of Psycho, dated August 1960.


"I managed to reach the Plaza in time for an organ recital, a series of advertising films, the newsreel and a cartoon. When at last Saul Bass's harsh, green-tinted titles for Psycho forked across the screen..."


Green-tinted titles? I didn't know that, was it mentioned in the extras? Interesting.


She liked the film -


"...to my relief, this is the felicitous, the mischievous, old-style old master Hitchcock. Though you, of course, may say I am loco about Psycho."

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

I was recently re-reading The Golden Screen which is a collection of film reviews by "the doyen of British film critics" Dylis Powell, and came across her review of Psycho, dated August 1960.


"I managed to reach the Plaza in time for an organ recital, a series of advertising films, the newsreel and a cartoon. When at last Saul Bass's harsh, green-tinted titles for Psycho forked across the screen..."


Green-tinted titles? I didn't know that, was it mentioned in the extras? Interesting.


She liked the film -


"...to my relief, this is the felicitous, the mischievous, old-style old master Hitchcock. Though you, of course, may say I am loco about Psycho."

Yes. Apparently, a small number of premier prints had green-tinted or printed titles, much like N x NW. Ron Haver received one of these prints from the Hitchcock vault when programming a series for LACMA.


RAH

 

[Steve Christou]

Thanks RAH. I must admit I enjoy reading old film reviews, here's one from Variety's 1960 review of Psycho, it's hilarious because it gives away the ending straight after saying it won't give away the ending. I've spoilered it in case there are one or two people out there who have yet to see this classic film.



Hitchcock uses the old plea that nobody give out the ending -- "It's the only one we have." This will be abided by here, but it must be said that the central force throughout the feature is a mother who is a homicidal maniac. This is unusual because she happens to be physically defunct, has been for some years. But she lives on in the person of her son.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

I've never read that particular review. Very odd, even for Variety.


BTW, Rosebud is...


RAH

 

[Steve Christou]

People?



"One of the messiest, most nauseating murders ever filmed. At close range, the camera watches every twitch, gurgle, convulsion and haemorrhage in the process by which a living human becomes a corpse...a spectacle of stomach-churning horror.” (Time)


Oh come on it wasn't that bad.

 

[Adam_S]

that review is indicative of all the people who thought they'd seen more than what was actually show. The human brain is one of a skilled filmmaker's most powerful tools.


It's always interesting to go back and read the reviews of controversial films several years after the fact. Natural Born Killers is a good one, pretty much every review hated it for being the most violent and abhorent film ever made (*rollseyes*), and even if they liked it, nearly every review mentions it was edited on this new fangled computer edit machine called an AVID which meant that all the editing was automatically heartless, juvenile and thoughtless. Those darn kids and their computers!

 

So would there be an audible difference between the lossless mono track on the UK edition and the lossy mono on the US edition?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by eric scott richard

So would there be an audible difference between the lossless mono track on the UK edition and the lossy mono on the US edition?

Doubtful.

 

[EnricoE]

soooo, i just revisted the movie for the first time on blu-ray. what can i say, it looks and sounds great. but it's still cut. the uncut version was shown a few months ago on german television, which i was able to record

while the trimmed scenes are not that long or even special to todays audiences, i still feel cheated by universal not releasing the true uncut version of the movie on home video. funny side note: the re-release trailers on the blu-ray advertise the uncut version and yet the dvd and blu-ray do not include


so will universal ever release the uncut version on blu-ray? proably not. this mean, i better hold on to my tv capture of the uncut version

 

[Lord Dalek]

I was not aware anything was cut from Psycho. Hell its always been arguably the tamest "R" rated movie in cinematic history.

 

[EnricoE]

what's cut from all current versions, except the old german tv broadcast? have a look here.


mind you, the old german tv broadcast is a rarity on it's own. afaik before it's last broadcast, it was deemed lost,

because tv station switched to a new master. the new master was the same version as the current ld, dvd and bd releases.


in short: i have the actual director's cut

 

[Dick]

The Burns has a high quality sound system, and keeps it in tune. Great facility.

Is the Burns, perchance, the art house cinema built (or rebuilt) on the site of the old Rome Theater in Pleasantville? God, how many great Saturday Matinees I attended there as a youth! Having read your description of its projection system (you mentioned a change-over), it sounds as though they are still running 35mm. Is that so? If so, Bravo!