Kenneth Branagh's HAMLET -- the ultimate, merged, when-oh-when thread (1 Viewer)

[Bill Burns]

Branagh's Hamlet stands, for me, among the very finest films ever made. I've been awaiting its DVD arrival ... well, since the format launched. I have the laserdisc set from Columbia/TriStar, but it has, unfortunately, rotted on several sides (which continues to grow worse with time), and it was mastered from 35mm elements, a further blow against it.
As I've said elsewhere, I trust Warner's will have the wisdom and foresight to master this from its original 65mm picture elements (the film was made in Super Panavision 70), which would represent a correct AR of 2.2:1 (versus the 35mm reduction AR of 2.35:1). I had the tremendous pleasure of seeing this in theaters at 70mm, an experience I count alongside the experience of seeing Vertigo at 70mm (and DTS!) and my theatrical experiences with Casablanca and Giant as among the best of my life -- this from a guy who's been seeing one or two films a week, every week, in theaters for more than a decade, to say nothing of the frequent, but not quite as frequent, movie watching of years before.
Warner's ... I strongly, with all due heart-on-my-sleeve sincerity, encourage you to master this from 65mm. It's exceedingly important. The film is a masterpiece (among the thousands I've seen, running the field from silent to early sound to yesterday's blockbuster, I count this among the top five ever made), but visually so much less in reduction sources (going by the sight of the laserdisc prior to rot). The only extra I'd like to see, in particular, is a Branagh commentary. The film itself should ideally occupy two DVD-9s. If issued (anamorphically, but that goes without saying) from 65mm picture sources, and if mastered with WB's usual care (and no bloody edge enhancement/edge haloing! :frowning, this will count as one of the best discs on the market, and remains my single most "hoped for" title ... if done right. Hamlet is Branagh's Dances With Wolves: Extended Cut, his Vertigo, his Sunrise ... heck, his Lawrence of Arabia. I trust the studio realizes what a treasure it holds, and I also trust Branagh himself will insist on the above before it hits the market. The laserdisc was a significant disappointment after the theatrical experience -- Warner Bros. has the opportunity to rectify that Columbia/TriStar failing with a stunning DVD presentation. I have every faith the long delay endured since the format's launch will yield a DVD to celebrate for its quality and attention to detail (much as I hope will be the case with the much lesser -- but still important and visually magnificent -- Lawrence Kasdan epic Wyatt Earp, a 35mm film due in 2004, according to WB's last chat, and which I hope will be presented in its extended cut, perhaps with the theatrical cut available through seamless branching -- the extensions are relatively minor).

 

[Michael Reuben]

Bill, I've taken the liberty of copying your post to the Hamlet thread in Studio Feedback. More chance it will be seen there.
M.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Branagh's film version is good, but his really *great* performance was the stage production at the Royal Shakespeare Company (which I was lucky enough to see). Every generation the leading actor of the day passes on (what is by now a now fairly ancient) copy of the play to the actor reckoned by his peers to have given the definitive performance of the role in his generation. All the greats of British theatre have had this award, back to Keene et al in the 18th century. Branagh is the current recipient (he got it from Derek Jacobi), following this RSC performance.

The film version was made on the back of this.

All this is just some back story to preface my comment of 'why the smeg isn't this movie released yet?'. When you see the 24 carat crap that gets released every week, couldn't room be found in the schedules to get this one out?

 

[Rob Willey]

But my wish is to see a wonderful new DVD edition of Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 version of Hamlet with Mel Gibson and Glenn Close. That was just the best, in my opinion.

I completely agree. I would probably buy both DVD's, but it's Zeffirelli's version that I am really waiting for.

Rob

 

[Dan Hitchman]

It must be sourced from a pristine, 2.20:1 ratio 65mm negative, and digital 6 channel master soundtrack. This was one of the last feature films to use grand Super Panavision 70 photography. I was lucky enough to witness a giant screen, 70mm presentation at one of the last few art houses in Denver to have a 70mm projector.
The laserdisc by Sony was an abomination with brownish, dingy colors and telecined from a cropped, misframed 2.35:1 35mm down-converted scope dupe. To make matters worse, they only released it with 2 channel Dolby Surround!
This one also needs DTS!
Dan

 

[Bill Burns]

Bill, I've taken the liberty of copying your post to the Hamlet thread in Studio Feedback. More chance it will be seen there.
M.

Ah, excellent. Thank you, Michael. I'm not often so adamant about specific transfer parameters, but with a film I admire so deeply (and having seen the laserdisc) ... only the best will do. Warner Bros. has an excellent record with the format, so I'm sure it's in good hands.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

And they'd have to have the 10-minute preview trailer as well.

Is that right? A 10-minute trailer? Wow.

Personally, I loved the 4-hour Hamlet. I thought it had a few unfortunate flaws, and some of the celebrity casting is poor (although not as bad as Keanu in Much Ado), but ultimately it has incredible scope and beauty and majesty and is a most enjoyable film. I hope to see it on disc, and soon.

 

[Jeffrey Gray]

I think this movie could be taking so long to come to DVD because it could be (don't quote me on this) tied up in legal issues with the former owner/distributor, Columbia Pictures. (Columbia distributed Castle Rock's films until WB bought Turner, who had acquired Castle Rock in 1994.) Ever notice that nearly none of the Columbia-era Castle Rock films are coming to DVD?

(And does anybody remember the "Alaska" DVD cover that was floating around the Internet a couple years back? That release was cancelled...and Columbia may again be responsible. After all, that was a pre-1997 CR film also...)

 

[Joe Caps]

Howabout more Shakespeare on DVD - period - there was a wonderful film a few years ago of Twelfth Night. No showon that. The BBCshakespeare series would be fantastic.

 

[andrew markworthy]

The BBCshakespeare series would be fantastic.

Joe, agreed (though there were some pretty dull ones amongst them), and there is a possibility - they were out on VHS a few years ago (indeed, last time I looked, there were copies in the RSC theatre shop at Stratford).

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I'm pretty sure the BBC series is already available. My local library has it. Haven't seen it for sale though.

 

[Rob W]

Didn't Robert Harris tell us once that he would never risk a 70mm element for a video transfer ? The resolution of DVD doesn't allow any of the extra details to be of significant enough value to justify the wear on precious large-format elements.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

But, the 35mm dupe seems to be at the wrong aspect ratio.

Dan

 

[Dan Rudolph]

They would presumably be using the 70mm to make an HD master which would be down-converted for the DVD.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's right, there is a 10-minute preview trailer to Branagh's Hamlet. I remember tacking it to the end of my VHS copy of the Zeffirelli Hamlet some years back for my personal collection. It clearly starts off with Hamlet's "To be or not to be..." soliloquy in which he's looking into the mirror and performing the soliloquy.
What would also be a great little extra to include, on either the DVD of the Branagh or Zeffirelli version, would be the 25-minute adaptation introduced by Robin Williams as part of HBO's "Shakespeare: The Animated Tales". That was a pretty good adaptation for 25 minutes.
But the one that will always stand out in infamy is the "Gilligan's Island" segment where the Broadway producer landed on the island and wound up doing his hilarious one-man musical version of "Hamlet". Now THAT would make a hilarious Easter egg!

 

[Bill Burns]

Rob W wrote:

Didn't Robert Harris tell us once that he would never risk a 70mm element for a video transfer ? The resolution of DVD doesn't allow any of the extra details to be of significant enough value to justify the wear on precious large-format elements.

Oh, no, no, perish the thought. This isn't the case at all, I'm happy to say. Just as with 35mm material, a duplicate 65mm negative would be used for striking 70mm theatrical prints (picture + soundtrack), and these duplicate elements would presumably also be used for the high definition master they'd downconvert for DVD. The original camera negative would never be placed in jeopardy by such a process, just as 35mm negatives are preserved despite master after master from dupes. Back when good dupe negatives were hard (or expensive?) to generate, prints were often struck directly off of camera negatives, but so far as I've heard most everyone in the industry knows better than to risk such elements today.
According to Mr. Harris, the original, non-anamorphic DVD (and previous laserdisc, which I presume is the same master) of his restoration, with James Katz, of Vertigo (an eight perforations high 35mm VistaVision film restored to 65mm to preserve the full resolution and character of the large format original -- ordinary 35mm film is usually four perforations high, and VistaVision gained both width and height by running horizontally, rather than vertically, through the camera -- thus it was around twice as wide, and a bit taller, than standard 35mm film stock) was made from 65mm elements, at great expense to Universal, and this is why that transfer looks so good among non-anamorphic (and many early anamorphic) releases (it was one of the finest looking laserdiscs I ever encountered, much as was the case with Fox's large format Oklahoma!, which I presume was mastered from 65mm, though I'm not certain of this).
65mm picture elements are just as durable (which is to say, just as fragile) as 35mm picture elements, but the process of duping and printing has matured over the years to better care for and preserve original film elements. Large format materials have often been very poorly preserved from the heyday of large format filmmaking (the 50's and 60's, though large format film is more or less as old as the movie camera itself*), which is why so many of the great large format films are in need of extensive restoration -- when they can be saved in their large format form at all. I don't know how the materials for Hamlet have been cared for, but I'd presume well, given not only how recently it was made, but also in whose hands it has rested (major studio hands, so far as I've heard, versus third parties or other distributors).
As an outsider looking in, I may have some of this wrong or incomplete, and I certainly invite Mr. Harris to contribute anything he may know, as a large format film expert, about the state of Hamlet. But there's no reason of which I'm aware, aside from additional expense, why 65mm elements cannot be used in this transfer. And while many disagree with my aesthetics (just as many disagree with the call to anamorphically enhance 1.66:1 films), I maintain that Mr. Harris is entirely correct: we were privileged to see Vertigo from 65mm elements, a process even more expensive at the time, but well worth it for the distinct character of large format which is compromised, even at NTSC/PAL/SDTV resolutions, by reduction printed sources (the better the source, the better the result -- which is why high definition downconversions to DVD resolution often look so much cleaner and better than video masters made at those resolutions in the first place). Compare the laserdiscs of the Todd-AO version of Oklahoma! (a 65mm picture process), or Vertigo (restored at 65mm), to their fellow laser releases of the day, most of which were 35mm sourced, and you'll clearly see the difference**. With DVD's increased resolution and digital precision, this difference should be all the more evident (I've also long called for and hoped to see a new, anamorphic 65mm transfer of Vertigo, which Mr. Harris tells us is financially much more viable today than it was when DVD debuted, but that's another thread and another hotly contested debate).
* You'll find another thread here where a 70mm production from 1930, The Big Trail, and another, The Bat Whispers, are discussed, as examples of early uses of large format.
** Such differences depend on equal care in the presentation of sources for accurate comparison, of course. But a great 35mm presentation on DVD does not have the same character and look of a great 65mm presentation (variant choices within the parameters of cinematography and film stocks, and also the quality of surviving elements, make comparisons of multiple films with one another somewhat specious, but there are plenty of Hitchcock VistaVision transfers at 35mm four perforation reduction with which to compare Vertigo for evidence). I wouldn't call for this on every film made in large format processes (though I'd certainly love to see that large format heritage receive the respect it deserves), but for the very best films of the last century (among them Vertigo, My Fair Lady, and Hamlet, in my estimation ), the expense of ensuring the best possible presentation on each home video format is not only justified, but rightly expected. This is why I continue to urge the involved studios to reissue My Fair Lady and Vertigo in new, 65mm sourced anamorphic transfers (no one, I'm sure, would object to two disc "Deluxe" editions of these films, designed to hit the market as major events and hopefully generate the revenue to justify their remasters, restoring Vertigo's new effects and music track to DTS, etc.), and WB to do Hamlet right the first time -- which I have every faith they will. The urgency of my comments derives from love of the film (and disappointment in the laserdisc), not concern over the studio, for whom I have always had the utmost respect. Warner's is an outstanding studio with a long-standing, admirable commitment to the format, so I'm sure they'll take their time and make this release as special as it deserves to be.
Oh, also, As Dan Hitchman reiterated, there is a descrepancy in ratio that further urges the use of original materials for both Hamlet and My Fair Lady, both of which are Super Panavision 70 motion pictures (so as to avoid needless, albeit minor, changes in composition in the reduction to Panavision).
And as a final post script, allow me to add my continued hope that Disney's upcoming Sleeping Beauty will be mastered from its Technirama (which is essentially VistaVision plus a bit of anamorphic squeeze -- see The Widescreen Museum's website for further details) large format source, and not, as the laserdisc, from a reduction print. What's done is done with that release, as it arrives in only a couple of months ... but I'll be very eager to hear just what sort of effort has been made to preserve its original "event" nature, as intended by Disney. It'll be worth buying in any event, as it's been digitally restored, according to The Digital Bits, and anamorphically enhanced, so should look lovely -- but I trust they've gone "the extra mile" and made a release to truly celebrate.

 

[Robert Holloway]

I seems to have been asking this question for years.

We were "promised" 2001, then 2002, then hinted at 2003.

Still no Ken Branagh Hamlet

Does anyone have any info.

What peeves me is the endless dross being released each week, while this magnificent movie, which just cries out for a high quality DVD, sits gathering dust.

Cheers

Rob

 

[ChrisBEA]

I'm with you.

I saw this on the big screen many moons ago and loved every second of it, and the only reason I went was because my then-gf had to see it for a class.

Thank God for that class!

Rumors have been swirling but I have seen nothing concrete.

I want my Branagh Hamlet!!

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Maybe after Gilligan's Island season 4 is released?

 

[Robert Holloway]

It's a relief to know that we get "I Eat Your Skin" and "Gilligan's Island Season 4" before this junk from Ken Branagh

Grrrr

Rob