What's new

Hitchcock's Notorious from Criterion (1 Viewer)

GlennH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 28, 1998
Messages
2,155
Real Name
Glenn
I will be interested to see similar comparisons for REBECCA next month. I still have my AB copy of that and the Criterion is on order.
I wonder if the Lowry Digital Images process used on CITIZEN KANE would have made for a superior product on these - with lower grain like the AB but still more resolution like the Criterion?
 

Jim Rankin

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 31, 1999
Messages
206
Just watched this film for the first time this morning - definitely has replaced The 39 Steps as my favorite Criterion Hitchcock film (for now!). The chemistry between Cary Grant & Ingrid Bergman was electrifying - and Claude Rains was superb in his supporting role.
One question I don't know was explained or not, Spoiler:Was the uranium ore going to be used in the manufacturing of weapons?. I never thought a film outside of his "golden years" in the 50's could compete - but after seeing this film I will have to re-evalate my position. Bring on Spellbound and Rebecca!!
 

GlennH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 28, 1998
Messages
2,155
Real Name
Glenn
I believe I saw at least one Hitchcock documentary where they discussed Spoiler:the uranium ore as being the "Maguffin" of this story -- it doesn't matter what it was, it was the device, the item of conflict between the good and bad guys, used to move the story along.
[Edited last by Glenn Heberle on October 21, 2001 at 03:24 PM]
 

Randy_M

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 25, 2000
Messages
803
Location
Peoria, AZ
Real Name
Randy
Yes, the 1940's were a fertile time for Hitchcock...Shadow of a Doubt is another hightlight as well as...just about all of them. I am waiting for someone to issue Lifeboat, a personal favorite...
Cheers
 

Matt Butler

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 23, 2001
Messages
1,915
Real Name
Matt Butler
Someone email me if they want to unload their Anchor Bay of Rebecca. I want the CCs but due to finances Ill take the AB. I already have Notorious and Spellbound.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
Somewhere amidst the lexicon and narrative of what makes a good DVD, someone has mistakenly entered the concept that there is something wrong (negative) with film grain.
Every film every photographed has film grain.
In early photography it differed by process. By the mid 19th century and the earliest of the examples of motion pictures -- the mid 1890s, grain was quite course.
It became finer with the advent of panchromatic stocks and continued to a point today, where it is almost undefinable, especially in dupes, which are what we see on screen.
The most definable grain structure will be found on the original element, lowered in a fine grain or interpositive and again in a dupe negative.
Film grain is not the enemy and should not be unnaturally (digitally) removed. It makes film what it is and gives it its unique look.
RAH
 

Everlasting Gobstopper

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 7, 1998
Messages
832
Real Name
Mark
Amen to that, Mr. Harris. As a man of film as a medium, I'm sure you can appreciate all the work a DP goes through to select his stock, which I think is the most important part of his job. As a still photographer, I make it a point to use the right stock for the job in terms of how much grain is reproduced. I'm of the firm belief that grain creates moods and atmospheres in ways independent, but interacting with lighting, exposure, colour, form and composition.
------------------
Link Removed
"Sex? We're men! We wrestled!"
-Barton Fink
 

GlennH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 28, 1998
Messages
2,155
Real Name
Glenn
Well, as I noted in the Snow White thread, I find excessive film grain distracting and as long as important detail is not removed I support the removal of it via the available technology.
As Mr. Harris points out, film grain has reduced over the years to the point where it's barely noticeable in today's films. It is my belief that if filmmakers in the past had these newer film stocks available to them they would have been used. I don't think it's the same as still photos, where the photographer purposely may select a certain grain for artistic effect. With judicious use, we now have the ability to go back and, in effect, allow them to do just that. Just look at CITIZEN KANE.
Filmmakers create an art that lets the audience look in on the lives of other people and the events and stories of other places and times. I don't think they really wanted us looking into those worlds through a dirty window (except for certain scenes where a cinematic effect is desired). Real life just isn't fuzzy like that, and when I watch an excessively grainy movie I can't help but be a little disappointed in the image I'm seeing.
I know this is heresy for those in the business who have developed an affection and reverence for the physical elements themselves. Certainly I appreciate and applaud all efforts and accomplishments at film restoration and preservation. But I also believe we can go beyond these efforts and employ digital tools that can improve the home viewing experience even further. Again, with measured and judicious use so as not to destroy details in the image.
 

Mike Brantley

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 1, 1998
Messages
202
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
Real Name
Mike Brantley
All I want is for films on DVD (or whatever medium to which they are transferred) to look AND sound as close to the way they did when they were new and first seen by the filmmakers and their audiences as possible. I absolutely do not want a 1941 film to look and sound as if it was made in 2001. To me, that's no fun at all.
Sure, Curtiz may have made "Casablanca" in color today, but different choices were made all those years ago -- in film stock, lighting, composition, etc. I want those choices respected.
Getting back to the topic... I watched "Notorious" last night, and I am pleased with the Criterion disc. I looked at some of the Anchor Bay version before starting over with the Criterion one, and I don't think either is shabby. But I would give the edge to the Criterion transfer, grain and all, because I observed that the contrast is richer in that one. The blacks were close to black even on my LCD projector.
They only thing I have to complain about is the rather extreme window boxing of the credits on the Criterion disc. I suspect they didn't look like this in theaters when this film was new. Besides, I have very little overscan cut-off from my projector, so I think I see just about everything. I would rather Criterion had compromised with a very slight windowboxing, but this isn't a major quibble for me.
I can't wait for "Rebecca"! Wish somebody would do "Lifeboat" and "Foreign Correspondent" soon...
------------------
Mike Brantley
Our Theater:
Mike & Cheryl's Screening Room
 

Agee Bassett

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 13, 2001
Messages
922
I personally don't have a problem with film grain. What I do look upon with askance is flat, depressing rendition of image values.
------------------
The Devil & Daniel Webster (1941)
webster.gif
"Cinema is simply letting the audience fill in the blanks." - David Lean.
 

GlennH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 28, 1998
Messages
2,155
Real Name
Glenn
Whoever said Movies are "Real Life"? Au contraire, mon frère.
Terrance - I did not mean to imply that the movies themselves should be like "real life" -- but when you look at somebody in real life you don't see a fuzzy grain, and I don't think Hitchcock wanted us to see Ingrid Bergman that way either.
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
(sigh)
From an interview with Criterion director, Peter Becker:
At Criterion, we've always thought that we should leave a movie we've worked on in better condition than we found it in. In one sense, that means we try to present our films as the filmmakers would want them seen. That means in uncut and uncensored versions, in their proper aspect ratios, with ancillary materials that will enhance not only viewers' understanding and enjoyment of the film, but also their desire to see it again and look deeper into it.
But we also recognize that filmmakers really want their films to be seen in a dark room with a lot of other people, projected from some distance away, on celluloid. When we have an opportunity to restore and reissue a film theatrically, bringing it back out in front of audiences, we do that. The difference between what we do and what Bob Harris does when he restores "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Rear Window" -- though the goal is the same, to present a pristine print of a great picture -- is that Bob really wants to create a stable, secure, even permanent physical picture element. We all hope it will last, but he's working with an ephemeral medium that needs proper temperature storage and other stuff.
Still, you can't beat film grain! It's the most beautiful recording surface for moving images. Our works exists finally on a digital tape. The movies are stored in bits. Strictly speaking, in terms of film restoration, the film may not be restored. But it is at least preserved and recorded. We shouldn't underplay the importance of these things just because the final product for restoration isn't a piece of film. It's probably more stable and certainly in a format more accessible to an array of people than a piece of film permanently stored in an archive vault. That's not to say that we shouldn't be giving money to film preservation. Everywhere we look we find that films have been recorded on volatile material and there is a great deal of restoration and preservation work that needs to be done.
Now, when we go through and do restorations for video only -- and we're very clear that we're not actually restoring the film -- we tell people that the image has been restored and we show them examples of the repairs that we do so that we can educate their eyes. We want them to know what a splice looks like. What we do is go back to the best possible preprint elements that we can, then we create a digital record of those elements.
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/20...ion/index.html
 

Brian W

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 12, 2000
Messages
167
Al-
Amen! Can I just say here that I just saw Criterion's Written On the Wind over the weekend (for the 5th time) and every time I show it everyone is blown away!
I have Notorious and Lady Eve on order, been anxiously waiting.
Really appreciate Criterion's dedication to maintain the integrity of the the films you transfer. I'm one of your biggest fans.
 

Jo_C

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
347
...by the way, Bob Harris, for those who want to know who owns the rights to the Selznick library...correct me if I'm wrong, but after Selznick met his Maker the rights were acquired by ABC. When ABC merged with Disney, they became the property of Buena Vista/Disney (hence Scott MacQueen's involvement with the restoration of "Notorious"). ABC still holds the copyright.
The few Selznick films ABC does not own are "A Farewell To Arms" (which belong to Fox), "Gone With The Wind" and "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" (which are held by Warner/Turner), and the original "A Star Is Born" (which are held by the Selznick Estate).
If I am wrong about the rights, please let me know.
------------------
hips
SUPERMAN Web Central
http://www.geocities.com/hiphats/supmain.html
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
As a DVD reviewer, I try to mention whether grain is visible, but temper that with mention of the fact that film often is supposed to have grain. I'd rather see the grain than have digital noise reduction erase raindrops off the picture.
For instance, in the theaters Eyes Wide Shut had plenty of film grain. Warner in its infinite wisdom digitally erased all the grain when it transferred the picture to DVD---and no doubt took actual picture detail with it. Since they censored Kubrick's movie anyway, they apparently figured they may as well revise the look of the movie as well.
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."
[Edited last by Mark Zimmer on October 22, 2001 at 02:17 PM]
 

carl.k

Auditioning
Joined
Mar 5, 2001
Messages
14
I finally got the chance to watch Notorious CC and really wish I had kept the AB release for comparison. I didn't see a problem with grain but the frequent black circles and vertical white lines that appear throughout were distracting, and I don't recall seeing them on the AB release. Here are several
NotoriousCC.jpg
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
The strange marks as noted by one of this board's subscribers on Notorious were part of a post-war nitrate syndrome.
The sharp angular white lines are what we call "crawl."
These were left by nitrate worm infestations which came to ths country from South America, which its much more humid climate. They can still be found in parts of the Florida panhandle and Louisiana.
The lines are actually the trail marks of the worms, left before they feed.
The location of their "feeding" can always be ascertained by the incredibly perfect "roundals" left just after feeding and just before egg laying, which occurred within those "roundals." Geneally this activity occurred withing the first dozen wraps of the film's outer surface, generally the tail sections of the negative -- which accordingly will show what looks like wear from the nitrate worm activity.
This is something that has plagued film archivists for decades, being alleviated by the British starting in the 1970s, when they would punch the offending areas out of the negatives, leaving even larger scarred areas.
Their appearance in Notorious not harkens back to a bygone era in film history, but concurrently -- because Criterion's technical staff returned to those original elements -- shows us how devastating this problem was in the mid to late 1940s.
RAH
[Edited last by Robert Harris on October 26, 2001 at 08:12 AM]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,532
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top