Appreciation for Films (Not Necessarily the Technology of Our Viewing) (1 Viewer)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-how-the-late-la-times-editor-and-film-critic-charles-champlin-changed-my-life-20141118-story.html

In reading this article, I was struck by how, viewing these films in a way that we would probably consider primitive, today, the writer was still absolutely transformed. During her viewings, do you think "OAR" was even so much as a stray thought (at that time)?

I was raised on watching films, more often than not pan and scan, on first a 19-inch black-and-white TV, and then a 25-inch RCA color console TV. And watching films on those sets, in arguably a condition that would merit full-blown rants in today's world, was where my love for classic film came from. I knew nothing about OAR, pixels, DNR, pan-and-scan, etc. It was just the stories being told on the screen.

While I love a pristine BD as much as anyone, I do think the focus on the technology takes away from enjoying the film sometimes. I used to be totally immersed in the film: now I find myself looking for, and distracted by, these technical aspects that 99.9% of the population wouldn't even notice. I've had some "snap out it" moments lately (especially with some of the Kino releases) where I've had to consciously make myself just sit back and enjoy the film and not try to "eagle eye" some small technical flaw.

Here's the test: Even an animated GIF or the crudest flipbook will tell the story:



Our brain is always interpolating the basic motion...filling in any action where necessary. Higher resolutions and frame rates simply offload more of that work to the display medium, which is why, ironically, a less resolved, lower frame rate presentation can *seem* more involving...because we're doing more of the interpolative work to extract story information.

Hence my firm belief that "you can't keep a good story down"...regardless how bad its presentation might be, its core narrative will always come through.

Dave B Ferris said:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-how-the-late-la-times-editor-and-film-critic-charles-champlin-changed-my-life-20141118-story.html

In reading this article, I was struck by how, viewing these films in a way that we would probably consider primitive, today, the writer was still absolutely transformed. During her viewings, do you think "OAR" was even so much as a stray thought (at that time)?

Click to expand...

I watched that same PBS series at that same time. It was quite a revelation for young people to see foreign films with subs. on television back then (1971-72 or so). So many people first saw SEVEN SAMURAI that way. Fortunately, I lived in New York, so I could go see all those films on theater screens when they played at rep houses. In fact, I'd already seen SEVEN SAMURAI on the big screen when it showed up on "Film Odyssey." And both times it was the full three-and-a-half-hour cut. Years later, they showed that cut again in a theatrical release and claimed it was the restored version being shown for the first time since 1954. Nonsense. The long cut had already played in theaters in New York and on television.

I watched the series with my younger siblings, so they got a taste of film classics also. No one ever complained about subtitles. My youngest sister, who was 13 or 14 at the time, became a huge fan of Truffaut (who shared her birthday) and even went down to revival theaters on her own when she was in high school.

On the larger issue, I discovered so many film classics under "primitive" conditions back then. Luckily, I was able to see most, if not all, of them again under much better conditions. I remember the first time we saw KING KONG (1933), it was on Million Dollar Movie, interrupted by commercials, and on a b&w set with a screen that was quite small, yet it was our living room TV. (I don't remember the size--it broke in 1962, never to be seen or heard from again.) Yet we all sat around it (big family) lapping up every stop-motion move and every lunge through the jungle by the crew and every scream from Fay. Of course, I later went to see the (genuinely) restored pre-code cut when it played at a theater in 1970 and have seen it many times since.

Thanks for the Champlin appreciation, of whom I was a regular reader for a couple decades in the Los Angeles Times. Put me in the column of content first appreciators, because so many of the films and television show presentations we discuss here on the Forum were first viewed in such less than stellar conditions.

Most of my first exposure to my favorite films occurred on B&W rounded screen television sets until we got a 25" color in 1965. I still revel in the first time I saw a broadcast of The Great Escape. We would all gasp in horror at that pan and scan 4:3 presentation now, but it had me from note one of the credit sequence. That's why I get a bit amused by the nit-picking constantly occurring in this forum from what I would say are the 'engineer' side of the column, practicing 'forest for the trees' syndrome. I'm here to appreciate what we've been given, and how thrilling it is to see so many of the films and shows we love in presentations we never would have expected (and for which the original producers may never have anticipated either, considering production flaws now exposed).

I consider this period in time the peak of presentation of those films and shows for home viewing, at least for my generation. I won't go beyond blu-ray, since, for me, you get to the point where you really do just expose and magnify production values that distract from watching the film. And the irony of this is, that our vision and hearing ultimately fade, and we're reduced to watching just whatever's on in the cheap broadcast-only set at the nursing home or hospital at some point, like we are all returning to just appreciate the story and characters themselves again in all their washed out color, poorly-calibrated, tinny sound, commercial-interrupted, chopped up glory.

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that a good film - that is, a film that has a solid story, great actors, and beautiful cinematography - will be a good film, and bring enjoyment, regardless of precisely how it is presented technology-wise.

Indeed, one of the reasons I avoid most modern films is because I believe that they represent an overabundance of style and technology/CGI over substance. The story is possibly the last consideration in modern films, whereas typically it is right up there among the primary motivation in classic movies.

But... and there's always a but... as human beings we adapt quickly, and always think in relative terms. Once a beautiful presentation of a classic movie is seen on Blu-ray on a good quality screen, that's the standard we become used to, and it's hard for most of us to then ignore a poor transfer, or go back to a 19-inch black and white TV.

Film is a visual medium, so any technology that improves the appearance of films will always be coveted by movie enthusiasts. I do agree however that there is a point at which further technological benefits are very small - I think we're fast approaching that now with things like 4K and Atmos.

The home theater revolution of the past 35+years has made us ALL a lot fussier about presentation quality of our favorite films, thanks to boutique labels like Criterion/Olive/Twilight Time and the high quality standards of people like Warner's George Feltenstein, Sony's Grover Crisp, film restorer/historian Robert A. Harris and numerous other people on a list too extensive to include here...sometimes we forget that most of us beheld these old classics on the comparatively-primitive technology of NTSC/PAL transmissions on CRT screens for the first time and NOT the big screen...thanks for starting this thread and reminding us that it's still about the storytelling more than about the technical details of presentation!!!

I've posted this before, but I suppose it's worth repeating.The best Blu-Ray Disc I own is the Godfather Restoration. It's a work of sheer beauty, and watching it on a good, calibrated projector is the very finest in cinema coupled with the very finest in technical quality.The first time I saw The Godfather was on a 14" portable in either open matte or pan and scan (a mixture of both?) 4:3.I got 95% of the enjoyment of the film from seeing it on the portable.That should in no way detract from the sheer beauty of the restoration, which I consider to be extraordinary.But the power of a good film is difficult to hide with a shoddy presentation.Steve W

So the next time anyone criticizes somebody else for watching movies on an iPhone, just remember this thread

Ignorance was bliss. We all have THX to thank. Thanks THX.

Persianimmortal said:

Indeed, one of the reasons I avoid most modern films is because I believe that they represent an overabundance of style and technology/CGI over substance. The story is possibly the last consideration in modern films, whereas typically it is right up there among the primary motivation in classic movies.

Click to expand...

How much of the same can be said about mediocre/crappy quality older films, which have been long forgotten with the passage of time?

It's easy to remember the good stuff, while the crappy stuff ends up becoming forgotten.

IIRC, this was related to something known colloquially as "Sturgeon's Law".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

Persianimmortal said:

So the next time anyone criticizes somebody else for watching movies on an iPhone, just remember this thread

Click to expand...

We didn't have a choice back then, which is the difference. As Stanley has commented, ignorance was bliss.

jcroy said:

How much of the same can be said about mediocre/crappy quality older films, which have been long forgotten with the passage of time?

It's easy to remember the good stuff, while the crappy stuff ends up becoming forgotten.

IIRC, this was related to something known colloquially as "Sturgeon's Law".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

Click to expand...

How lucky Sturgeon was to live then and not now, or the explosion of new media outlets over the past couple of decades, much of which has happened since his death in 1985, would push his crap-to-not-crap ratio quite a bit higher than 9:1. And how could he, or anyone else, possibly have seen 90% of anything anyway?

MatthewA said:

And how could he, or anyone else, possibly have seen 90% of anything anyway?

Click to expand...

Good question.

Only guesses as to how that 90% figure might have came about. (Whether figuratively or literally).

Most likely taking at face value what "critics" said and the echo chamber "reputation" of the 90% stuff.

Other possibilities is the tons of stuff which never makes it past the editor's desk, back in Sturgeon's heyday. Today such stuff would probably show up as self-published ebooks on amazon, or fanfic stuff posted up on various fanfic web sites.

Persianimmortal said:

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that a good film - that is, a film that has a solid story, great actors, and beautiful cinematography - will be a good film, and bring enjoyment, regardless of precisely how it is presented technology-wise.

Indeed, one of the reasons I avoid most modern films is because I believe that they represent an overabundance of style and technology/CGI over substance. The story is possibly the last consideration in modern films, whereas typically it is right up there among the primary motivation in classic movies.

But... and there's always a but... as human beings we adapt quickly, and always think in relative terms. Once a beautiful presentation of a classic movie is seen on Blu-ray on a good quality screen, that's the standard we become used to, and it's hard for most of us to then ignore a poor transfer, or go back to a 19-inch black and white TV.

Film is a visual medium, so any technology that improves the appearance of films will always be coveted by movie enthusiasts. I do agree however that there is a point at which further technological benefits are very small - I think we're fast approaching that now with things like 4K and Atmos.

Click to expand...

+1 on the 2 items highlighted in your post. I also avoid 99% of modern films for this exact reason. Releases from Kino, WAC, Olive, and Criterion make up 90% of my purchases (along with the rare catalog releases from the actual studios themselves).

As for adapting...exactly. I remember my family (circa early 70's) being astounded by my grandfathers COLOR TV with rotary antenna on the roof. Then we got cable in the late 70's (with about 15 channels!), my grandfather was astounded by how the picture was clear on every channel without having to do some "fine tuning" (remember the little dials around the channel selector where you could "fine tune" the picture?). Then VHS came along and we are in awe that we could actually own or rent movies that before we had to wait to see on broadcast TV once a year.

I remember when my son got his PS2 in 2000 at Christmas. It was the first DVD player our family had, and we had also bought him a DVD. We popped it in after Christmas dinner and our entire family was in awe of the DVD quality vs what we were used to on VHS. Rinse and repeat for BD. It's like eating hamburger all your life and then getting Prime Rib......hard to go back.

Hollywoodaholic said:

We didn't have a choice back then, which is the difference. As Stanley has commented, ignorance was bliss.

Click to expand...

I think that is a lot of it. Before films were released on video in OAR, I did not pay much attention to the OAR. However, I would sometimes see a movie in the theater and find that it "didn't hold up" when I saw it on VHS or laserdisc before OAR was implemented. I think that disappointment was due to the cropping for 4:3 TVs. I used to have many tapes of movies that I'd made from late shows of crappy 16mm pan/scanTV prints in which I had to hit the pause button to edit out commercials. This thread runs the risk of sounding like that old SNL sketch: "...and we liked it!"

What bothers me about people preferring to watch movies on tablets and phones is that they really do have a choice today. I probably would not blame someone who watched Lawrence on their phone and says "I saw that movie; it was no big deal".

In any case, yes, a crappy presentation of something great can still reveal something great. It's like th old joke about sex: "when it's good, it's great; when it's bad, it's still pretty good".

David_B_K said:

What bothers me about people preferring to watch movies on tablets and phones is that they really do have a choice today. I probably would not blame someone who watched Lawrence on their phone and says "I saw that movie; it was no big deal".

Click to expand...

(On a huge tangent).

Here's a parallel counterexample from my own experience.

For a long time when I was younger, I preferred watching movies on a tv screen than at the movie theaters. (Whether VHS or laserdisc).

Though this had nothing to do with picture + sound quality.

My main reason was that I almost always got a headache whenever I watched movies at the theater. Also for a long time, I could not remember much about the movies I saw in the theater. No point in going to see movies with this happening, regardless of how excellent and superior the picture and sound quality were at the theater.

In contrast, I never got headaches while watching a tv screen.

Well, I am torn here. I have to acknowledge that contemporary viewers accept the incredibly sub-standard quality of movies as viewed on portable devices. These are people who are simply into watching movies for their short-term entertainment value, completely without regard to picture quality. A tiny image playing on their iPhone or whatever is all they need. We can thank the purveyors of hand-held devices for allowing our movies to be displayed this way for teenagers who don't give a flying f**k about image quality. This is a hugely different age we're living in. We HTF members who cherish movie classics and who purchase titles from Criterion, TT, Shout!, and others look at these adolescents who are downloading movies onto portable devices simply because they can, without regards to the quality of the image (which younger audiences could not care a damn about) are discovering that, unfortunately, we are a shrinking minority.

jcroy said:

How much of the same can be said about mediocre/crappy quality older films, which have been long forgotten with the passage of time?

It's easy to remember the good stuff, while the crappy stuff ends up becoming forgotten.

IIRC, this was related to something known colloquially as "Sturgeon's Law".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

Click to expand...

Of course there have been crappy films made throughout the history of moving pictures. I just think the ratio of garbage to good quality movies has shot up dramatically as of late. Particularly as now it seems to be the order of the day to specifically produce one generic big budget "Hollywood Blockbuster" after another, and they inevitably follow the same formula: cliched govt/corporate conspiracy storyline, lots and lots of CGI, and absolutely no attempt to be faithful to source (where the source is an existing property such as a comic, book, or previous movie).

Movies have always been made with the motive of making money, which is fine. But there used to be some class and originality - and more importantly, grandeur - about how that was done back in the day, at least for the big budget movies. Now it's just a blatant cash grab crap factory. I like maybe one new movie each year these days, the rest I can barely stomach.

It's no coincidence that this phenomenon of film crapulence goes hand in hand with the way movies are now consumed: as disposable commodities, to briefly entertain or distract the viewer with no discernible thought-provoking after effects. Perfect for mindlessly watching on your portable device on the way to work, or while sitting at an airport waiting for a plane.

Persianimmortal said:

But there used to be some class and originality - and more importantly, grandeur - about how that was done back in the day, at least for the big budget movies.

Click to expand...

Wonder how much of this "grandeur" has shifted over to basic/premium cable (or Netflix) shows, such as: The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc ...