Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The Bridge on the River Kwai Collector's Edition (1 Viewer)

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by Hollywoodaholic

$20 flat at Wal Mart. Good deal. Call first. Some only have one copy, some have several.

Finally got mine yesterday, 'though I pre-ordered it when first announced at Amazon (cheaper for me to buy from them since there's no tax - and no shipping when you buy $25 worth). This masterpiece in this beautiful set has to be the best value in the history of commerce!

I've seen the movie so often that I can anticipate the dialog verbatim, but what follows from the time the demolition group arrive at the bridge took my breath away as though I'd watched it for the first time. Until then, although the canvas is comparatively huge, one doesn't expect anything less from the maker of 'Great Expectations'; yet none of his 'smaller' masterpieces prepares one for

the suspenseful, epic scale of the final action scenes nor the masterful intercutting of these scenes with the light-hearted counterpoint of the show celebrating the completion of the bridge. Also one of the best editors in the world, Lean was operating at genius level at that time, happily carried through to the next little job he took on.


It was wonderful to see Adrian Turner (his post is #12 here) again being interviewed in Laurent Bouzerau's magnificent 'making of ' documentary on the included DVD. A few months ago I finished reading his biographical masterpiece of Robert Bolt. It's out of print but I was lucky enough to be able to get a new copy from England. I was so impressed with the exquisite writing and astonishing research that took him to practically every known piece of ground that Bolt ever stood on that I felt compelled to purchase a used copy of his beautiful, large-format 'Making of Lawrence of Arabia' - again from England but this time - since it was published only in Britain (I think that's right...?) and therefore extremely rare - accompanied by massive sticker shock. And I mean 'massive'! The book is lavishly illustrated with actual 70mm frames from the movie and nicely acknowledges the help of Robert Harris. It's a wonderful complement to the must-have '30th Anniversary Pictorial History of Lawrence of Arabia' by L. Robert Morris and Lawrence Raskin. The last chapter of this is a priceless mini-history of Robert Harris's heroic almost-never-realized restoration of 'Lawrence'.


Thanks to Richard Gallagher for this terrific review.

 

[John Hodson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marsnkc

It was wonderful to see Adrian Turner (his post is #12 here) again being interviewed in Laurent Bouzerau's magnificent 'making of ' documentary on the included DVD. A few months ago I finished reading his biographical masterpiece of Robert Bolt. It's out of print but I was lucky enough to be able to get a new copy from England.

Thanks for that; prompted me to finally get a copy, and I have an off-air HD recording of The Bounty to enjoy shortly, though, obviously, it's a project I would have loved Lean to complete.

 

[marsnkc]

Speaking of 'The Bounty', Dino passed away today. Adrian Turner's description of Dino's maneuverings to abandon his 'Bounty' contract with DL is hilarious.


I envy you getting the opportunity to see it in HD. I'd kill to have that beauty in Blu.........

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by marsnkc


I've seen the movie so often that I can anticipate the dialog verbatim, but what follows from the time the demolition group arrive at the bridge took my breath away as though I'd watched it for the first time. Until then, although the canvas is comparatively huge, one doesn't expect anything less from the maker of 'Great Expectations'; yet none of his 'smaller' masterpieces prepares one for the suspenseful, epic scale of the final action scenes nor the masterful intercutting of these scenes with the light-hearted counterpoint of the show celebrating the completion of the bridge. Also one of the best editors in the world, Lean was operating at genius level at that time, happily carried through to the next little job he took on.

You make some excellent points. No matter how many times I see it, when I get to the final scene a part of me still hopes that Colonel Nicholson will act differently! And Lean plays very fairly with the audience. The prior scene where Nicholson visits the men in the hospital is in keeping with how he acts at the end, yet it is subtle enough that the ending is still a shocker.

 

[AdrianTurner]

Many thanks for all those kind comments - I was saddened to hear of the death of Dino, a very charismatic man who I had the privilege of meeting on several occasions. Am writing this, by the way, from Wallis & Futuna in the South Pacific, having just sailed in from Bounty territory in Tahiti.

 

[John Hodson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marsnkc

I envy you getting the opportunity to see it in HD. I'd kill to have that beauty in Blu.........

Having now seen it, so would I. I'm not really a revisionist kind of chap, but I'm among those that would dearly love to ditch the Vangelis score, or at least score an alternative - I think it would do the film a power of good.


Adrian's biography of Robert Bolt arrived today, so it's all good. Thanks again for the nudge.

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by AdrianTurner

Many thanks for all those kind comments - I was saddened to hear of the death of Dino, a very charismatic man who I had the privilege of meeting on several occasions. Am writing this, by the way, from Wallis & Futuna in the South Pacific, having just sailed in from Bounty territory in Tahiti.

You'll be forgiven only if this is a recce for future delights from your pen! (Oh, hell! Even if it's not, you've earned it - in spades!)

I spotted Dino at a Hollywood studio in the late '80s. If memory serves me, he wasn't in the best shape financially at the time, yet alighted from the back of the longest limousine I've ever seen - the kind one usually sees only in cartoons. The man had a healthy sense of self (...promotion?).

 

[seely]

I noticed the weird frame double or skip that Mr. Gallagher, the blu-ray reviewer, pointed out in his review. It is quite obvious and I noticed it my first time viewing the blu-ray.


The video hiccup happens around 1:50:36 during an insert shot of a bird flying in the sky overhead.

Since Mr. Gallagher states that the hiccup is also on the previously released DVD version, this leads me to believe that whatever master Sony/Columbia has of the film has the flaw in it and that the hiccup is not an encoding error. I do not know if this hiccup is present in the original theatrical prints (I've never seen the film projected from a theatrical print, but I can only assume the prints lacked this obvious error), but I suspect that the error has somehow been formed along the way in finding source material for home video and transferring it. Unfortunately, either Sony/Columbia hasn't noticed this problem or is too lazy to fix it.


Too bad they didn't choose new source material, one without the error, for the transfer. It is annoying that such a great film has been restored so nicely and released on an awesome home video format with an obvious, startling error.

Other than the video hiccup, the blu-ray is excellent. In fact, the audio and video quality of the blu-ray is so good that it makes the video hiccup at 1:50:36 that much more disappointing.


I plan on contacting Sony/Colombia's Home Video Department to try and get information about the video hiccup and why it wasn't fixed/removed.


If anyone else has insight into this issue, I'd appreciate you posting it in this thread.


Thanks.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I can help you. I have received a response to your concern.


It is a jumpcut in the negative of the film and has always been there.

There is nothing wrong with this shot. That is why it is in previous releases, too.

 

[seely]

Ronald,


Thanks for the information.


Prior to reading your post, I sent Sony/Colombia an e-mail about the issue. They have yet to get back to me, and, now, they don't need to bother.


Thanks again for your insight into this "hiccup."

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by seely

Ronald,


Thanks for the information.


Prior to reading your post, I sent Sony/Colombia an e-mail about the issue. They have yet to get back to me, and, now, they don't need to bother.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to write to Sony/Columbia to apologise to them for assuming that "either Sony/Columbia hasn't noticed this problem or is too lazy to fix it".

 

[AZHTNUT]

Richard - Thanks for another great review. I'm happy to learn that they did a really good job on the transfer.


Warren

Glendale, AZ

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Thanks, Warren. Incidentally, I lived in Glendale for a few years back in the late seventies, near 59th Avenue and Thunderbird. It's changed a lot since then!

 

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by seely

Too bad they didn't choose new source material, one without the error, for the transfer. It is annoying that such a great film has been restored so nicely and released on an awesome home video format with an obvious, startling error.

They did use new source material, as the entire film was restored at 4K from the negative and separations.

 

[Robert Harris]

The interval in Kwai occurred just after James Donald's dialogue regarding the wood used for the bridge, and the fact that there are local trees very similar to elm, which has lasted over six hundred years for London Bridge.


"Six hundred years?"


"Yes, sir."


"That would be something..."


In regard to 70mm blow-up prints, there was at least one produced in the late '60s, early '70s (not referring to my files) in six track magnetic full monaural.


In May of 1989, I inventoried the Kwai elements in London. There were 257 reels of audio, inclusive of the original music stems, which were all monaural. I discussed this with DL, who confirmed that the original music stems had been monaural.


While I've never actually handled mag or dual system release prints of Kwai, I have heard of them, and spoken to at least one individual who told me that he had a dual system print.


All of these prints would have been monaural magnetic.


As general information, there were several different mag formats used in the '50s through early '60s for theatrical distribution. Very early on stereo productions used magnetic interlock, which were generally three track stereo. The Robe, which was shot full frame, could have been run at 2.66:1 with mag interlock, with
later prints produced Fox perf four track mag, 2.55:1. Many of the early releases, going through the mid-'60s were struck as Fox perf with a full silver track, which

contained no audio. This was to prevent theaters not set up for Fox perf from destroying these very special (and expensive) prints on projectors with normal sprockets. Once the majority of venues switched to the smaller sprocket, prints would be produced with either a mute optical track, or in most cases Fox perf prints, with the mag striped and sounded over the optical track, leaving a single optical impulse for emergency or later optical only use.


There was a period in the early '60s during which certain films were be struck as magnetic / optical, and later, after a run in a special venue, would re-perforated to enable projection on the standard sprocket, thereby destroying part of the mag track, but not the print. An example of this was The Guns of Navarone.


Again, while I believe that magnetic versions of Kwai exist(ed) in both single as well as dual system versions, everything that I've physically seen and listened to, which includes a large sampling of music stems, points toward the film being recorded monaural.


As to the aspect ratio, and for the record, original dye transfer prints of the film were not produced properly centered, which threw the balance of the image off to the right. Rather than re-center, matrices were produced as RA (regular aperture), which was in effect lopped off (that would be a technical term), thereby losing the left side of the image.


This was corrected by Mr. Crisp a number of years ago for the home video format. For the Blu-ray, he has kicked everything up by several notches.


RAH

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris


This was corrected by Mr. Crisp a number of years ago for the home video format. For the Blu-ray, he has kicked everything up by several notches.

One of the most satisfying Blu-ray releases of the year, and a bargain at that.

 

[seely]

I do not appreciate the personal jab at me, Douglas R., if it was meant as one. Since it really added nothing to the discussion on the thread, I can only take it as an attack of some kind.


I do not think my questions about or guesses at the cause of the "hiccup" were out of line. Nor do I feel that I went on a nonsensical rant. And I definitely did not state my thoughts, guesses, or opinions as fact. If it came across that way, I apologize, but I tried to make it clear that my statements were guesses and opinions, not facts.

I admit that I am glad that Sony/Columbia did not make an error in authoring the disc nor was there an error in the digital master from which they authored the disc. Also, I admit that my assumption that perhaps they missed the "hiccup" or were too lazy to fix it (if it was due to their digital processes and not from the original prints), seems to be incorrect. It appears the "hiccup" has been present since the original theatrical prints (as posted previously by Ronald, thanks again for the information).


But I do not think it is out of the question to believe studios/distributors would release blu-rays with obvious errors because they "just missed it" or because they were too lazy to fix the problem or because it would take too much time, money, or both. Prime examples are substandard 1080i releases that should be 1080p (such as "The Killer" from Dragon Dynasty), the lack of proper print cleaning or slight digital retouches to remove small scratches and flecks, a new digital master if the previous one was made for DVD and thus has excessive edge enhancement or over the top color/gamma boosting (the original "Gangs of New York" release), or simple authoring errors (such as the sound problem on the "Saving Private Ryan" blu-ray).


I am not suggesting that all of these issues represent laziness. Sometimes, things are just overlooked or studios/distributors do not understand the consumers' desires when it comes to blu-ray audio and video (for example, WB using standard Dolby 5.1 on early blu-ray releases such as "Unforgiven" instead of a lossless option). I am sure the "Saving Private Ryan" blu-ray was well looked after by people at the top of their game, but it still had an issue that apparently no one noticed, or if someone did notice, let it go for one reason or another.


To those of you who are involved in restoration, digital correction, transfers, post-production, and home video blu-ray releases in general, I am not suggesting that you are negligent or lazy. To the contrary, I believe most, if not all, of you are passionate about film and do the best job possible whenever you can. I respect your efforts and the difficulty of your jobs. Also, I enjoy your work. But, even the best person can have an off day and miss something. Also, it seems that in all professions, there seem to be some individuals who, for one reason or another, do not take their job seriously and might not turn in the best work possible. For these reasons (and due to studio/distributor interference or lack of understanding), I do not think it is incorrect of me to wonder why certain deficiencies in a disc exist and if those deficiencies might be caused by someone shunning their responsibilities.

So, I do not think it was "reckless" of me to assume, or guess, that perhaps the hiccup on "Bridge" was missed completely by quality control, or seen as an error that was minor enough to let go due to time constraints, monetary constraints, or laziness. I was sure to state that I didn't truly know the cause of the hiccup. I tried to be careful with my use of words in the post, but apparently I should be even more careful and particular with my word choice.


Also, my e-mail question to Sony/Columbia was extremely fair. I congratulated them on a great release and transfer and asked politely, and I believe appropriately, if they had noticed the "hiccup" and if it was in the original negative or not. Even if the "hiccup" was a digital mastering error or a authoring issue, I believe I made it clear that the restoration of the film was done quite well (not quite a Criterion restoration, in my opinion, but very, very good nonetheless).


I think a nice press release discussing the restoration process and shedding light on the source of the "hiccup" and the "stretched/mumps" look caused by early anamorphic lenses would have been helpful. Criterion seems to make a press release such as this before their blu-ray releases and it helps to explain the restoration process as well as any deficiencies in image and sound that might be present due to a film's age, method of production, and/or condition.


That is all I wish to say concerning this exact topic. I do not wish to cause any ill will with Douglas R., but I felt the need to respond to his post to clarify my thoughts and position for him and for anyone reading this thread. I hope no one else takes offense to my posts because they are not meant to be offensive nor do I myself believe them to be offensive. I wish you all, including Douglas R., the best and a Happy Thanksgiving (for non-Americans, have a happy November 25th).


On a separate topic, should a "hiccup" like the one in "Bridge" be fixed digitally even if it was present in the original prints?


As a filmmaker, I would want to fix certain technical problems such as this "hiccup" as well as scratches, flecks, and tweak color correction issues even if my film was made years ago. But, I would never go on to change the entire look of the film in some way, or add in tons of brand new effects, or change the meaning/events of certain scenes (such as Han Solo now returning fire instead of shooting first). To me, there is a line between what is an acceptable change and what isn't, but that line is a matter of opinion and can vary greatly from person to person and filmmaker to filmmaker.

This raises many questions (that may be present in another HTF thread, I am not sure): How much digital change is too much? Who should be the authority of how much change is too much? The audience? The director? The D.P.? The studio/production company? The distributor? I find this to be a very interesting dilemma with no clear answer.


I completely respect Sony/Columbia in choosing to keep the "hiccup" found in the original prints on the newly released blu-ray, but I think I would have digitally corrected the issue to remove the "hiccup" (if possible). I wonder what the original filmmakers (I believe they are all now, unfortunately, deceased) would have wanted given today's digital manipulation abilities and home theater capabilities.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by seely

On a separate topic, should a "hiccup" like the one in "Bridge" be fixed digitally even if it was present in the original prints?


As a filmmaker, I would want to fix certain technical problems such as this "hiccup" as well as scratches, flecks, and tweak color correction issues even if my film was made years ago. But, I would never go on to change the entire look of the film in some way, or add in tons of brand new effects, or change the meaning/events of certain scenes (such as Han Solo now returning fire instead of shooting first). To me, there is a line between what is an acceptable change and what isn't, but that line is a matter of opinion and can vary greatly from person to person and filmmaker to filmmaker.

This raises many questions (that may be present in another HTF thread, I am not sure): How much digital change is too much? Who should be the authority of how much change is too much? The audience? The director? The D.P.? The studio/production company? The distributor? I find this to be a very interesting dilemma with no clear answer.


I completely respect Sony/Columbia in choosing to keep the "hiccup" found in the original prints on the newly released blu-ray, but I think I would have digitally corrected the issue to remove the "hiccup" (if possible). I wonder what the original filmmakers (I believe they are all now, unfortunately, deceased) would have wanted given today's digital manipulation abilities and home theater capabilities.

There are members of the crew thankfully still with us, and no, it should not be fixed.


RAH

 

[GMpasqua]

Did "Bridge on the River Kwai" ever have an intermission. I saw the film about 4 years ago at the Egyptain Theater in L.A. and could have sworn they took a break - If this was a planned intermission or the decision of the theater I do not know. Recently watched the Blu-ray (Wow!) but there was no intermission


The film was originally a roadshow/reserved seat presentation - most usually had an intermission.

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

Did "Bridge on the River Kwai" ever have an intermission. I saw the film about 4 years ago at the Egyptain Theater in L.A. and could have sworn they took a break - If this was a planned intermission or the decision of the theater I do not know. Recently watched the Blu-ray (Wow!) but there was no intermission


The film was originally a roadshow/reserved seat presentation - most usually had an intermission.

Yes it did. See page 1 of this thread although, as far as I recall, the intermission was not "built into" the film print as was the case with many roadshow films where there was often Entr'acte music and a superimposed Intermission card.