A Few Words About A few words about...™ 2001: A Space Odyssey -- in BD & HD (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Forgive the profanity but where the hell are you guys finding a list of theaters playing this movie? I've been periodically looking for theaters since this was announced and still can't find any info (other than how it's playing in SF now).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Forgive the profanity but where the hell are you guys finding a list of theaters playing this movie?

As far as I know, there isn't one single list on an official website. It appears that Warner has made up a small number of prints and that they're moving from city to city, and that some of the venues getting it have made their own announcements.

 

[TravisR]

As far as I know, there isn't one single list on an official website. It appears that Warner has made up a small number of prints and that they're moving from city to city, and that some of the venues getting it have made their own announcements.

Yeah, a simple listing of theaters or even just the cities seems like the kind of thing you want to keep secret. That way, less people know and the company makes less money. Smart.

Cynicism to Warners aside, thanks for the info.

 

[dpippel]

Travis, I just did a Google search on "2001 A Space Odyssey 85044" (my ZIP code) and it brought up the local theater (Harkin's) that will be showing it in 70mm.

 

[Vincent_P]

Forgive the profanity but where the hell are you guys finding a list of theaters playing this movie? I've been periodically looking for theaters since this was announced and still can't find any info (other than how it's playing in SF now).

http://www.in70mm.com/ has a listing of the theaters and dates. Just scroll down to the poster for the 50th Anniversary and click on it.

Vincent

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Notes on 2001: A Space Odyssey - The "Unrestoration"
Seen in New York City at the City Cinema Village East "Jaffe Art Theatre" Screen #1 in 70mm
10:55pm showtime on Friday, May 18th, 2018
(Projectionist announced his name as Jordan - no last name given)

This is one that I had been looking forward to for a long time. As many of you know from my previous posts, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is my all-time favorite film, and one I've become very familiar with over the years. I first viewed it on a poor quality pan-and-scan VHS tape in the very early 90s, and since then, I've seen it on various VHS releases, DVD, Blu-ray, 35mm and 70mm.

The two best presentations of the film that I've ever seen were over 15 years ago. One of these was the first time I had ever seen it theatrically, at a mid-1990s screening at the Museum Of The Moving Image in Astoria, playing what was then a brand new 35mm print which was being exhibited for the first time. Made while Kubrick was still alive, this print was approved by either Kubrick or Leon Vitali, and looked and sounded fantastic, and was pristine. The other one was a showing in New York City's Times Square during the (year) 2001 reissue. HTF member Vincent P also saw this film there during this run, and his posts on those screening matches my own recollections. In both of these instances, the theaters opted to skip the intermission (which was unfortunate), but the quality of what was being presented otherwise was outstanding. I recall the 70mm print that i saw in 2001 looking phenomenal, with incredible stability, color and detail. In both the 35mm and 70mm showings, the film almost leaped off the screen, and I was completely immersed in the presentation. The film also contained directionalized dialogue (most notably in HAL's dialogue) which has not always been retained at subsequent presentations.

Since 2001, I've seen the film various times. I've seen the same 70mm print that was once show in New York, and seen how it's been degraded over the years, as wear and tear and frequent use took their toll. I've seen 35mm prints (possibly the same print that debuted at the Museum Of The Moving Image in the mid-1990s) go from pristine condition to being battered to hell. The last time I saw 2001 in 35mm was around 2010 at the now-defunct Landmark Sunshine in New York City; by that time, the print was shot to hell, and just about every frame was riddled with visible scratches, dust, dirt and debris, though it was mostly steady at least. The last time I saw 2001 in 70mm was last summer at the Museum of the Moving Image. While that print had fared better than the 35mm one, it is still in sub-optimal shape - Moving Image doesn't own that print but that does seem to be the one they'd get when they'd rent it from Warner, and it seemed a little worse every year that I've seen it (they've had it every summer since at least 2014). There are some nasty scratches on the emulsion during the scene where Bowman prepares to explode through the pod into the emergency airlock, precisely at a time when you don't want to be distracted by such things. On the positive side, that print is still reasonably steady and has sections that look better than the worst of what I've just described.

I've also seen the 2K DCP projected in multiple venues, large and small (smallest was a 60 seat screening room-sized theater at the IFC Center, largest was at Lincoln Center during a performance with a live orchestra playing the film's music). The master used for that DCP was also used on the Blu-ray disc. I'm not thrilled with it. It's not terrible. It's perfectly stable, very clean, and reasonably detailed. And back in 2007, when it was originally released, it was state of the art. But state of the art has progressed a lot since then. It was also created from a 35mm element (one in good condition, but still) rather than a 65mm or 70mm element. Sound has also been refocused through the center channel, resulting in the loss of directionalized dialogue that had previously been a part of the film. To my eyes, while retaining a decent approximation of a film-like appearance, it comes a little too close to looking like digital video at times.

So it was with more than a little anticipation, and some trepidation, that I approached this new reprinting of the film. And here's the thing: it's a reprint. This isn't a bad word, but it's an honest one. There's a lot of marketing spin going on, which is being misinterpreted by reporters and editors and bloggers, turning this reprinting into something that it was never meant to be. As far as I can determine, from news reports and interviews from more trustworthy sources, it seems pretty clear what this is. Around 1999, before Kubrick's passing, he had asked Warner (who had just came into ownership of the film) what they had available for protection. A decision was made at that time to strike a new interpositive from the original negative, which had seen a lot of use by that point. Some portions of the original negative had been replaced by dupes at that point in time. This new interpositive was created in 1999, but was put away in the vault and not used. When the movie was re-released for the calendar year 2001, new prints were made from an existing internegative unrelated to the 1999 work.

It appears that as part of the preparation for the movie's 50th anniversary release on UHD, that 1999 interpositive was pulled out of the vault. Whether it was being pulled to be used as a source for the UHD, or whether it was merely being used as a reference for what the film was meant to look like, is unknown. But while that was going on, Christopher Nolan was in post-production for Dunkirk at Warner and working on UHD masters for his own catalog titles, and Nolan was invited to take a look at some of the different 2001 sources that Warner had on hand. During that viewing, it was apparently Nolan who suggested, "Why not use the infrastructure we had put in place for 70mm Dunkirk screenings to bring back 2001 in 70mm?" A decision was made around this time to create a new internegative from that unused 1999 interpositive, from which new prints could be struck. While the 1999 interpositive and subsequent internegative and prints were created with modern film stocks under good lab conditions, the actual 1968 original negative was not in the best of shape. A decision was made to use older lab techniques, rather than state-of-the-art digital restoration, to try to gently massage the film as close to the original look as possible. Taking away all of the marketing sizzle, what this basically means (and this is an oversimplification) was that they had the ability to correct for color fading and some other issues, but that any scratches, tears or shrinkage that were part of the original negative in 1999 would be part of this release.

I knew all of this going in. Apologies for those having to read about that for the zillionth time here, but I wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page for what this release is, and what this release isn't.

I arrived at City Cinemas Village East a little early for my 10:55pm screening, which they're showing in their largest auditorium, which they call the Jaffe Art Theatre. This was my first visit to this theater. The main auditorium, in its early 20th century heyday, was a Yiddish vaudeville theater. The balcony and original ornate ceiling survives, and that's the basis for this particular theater. (The orchestra and original stage, on a lower level, were demolished ages ago, and turned into standard multiplex screens.) So it's sort of a weird venue to walk into - you have this ancient and beautiful looking balcony that doesn't overlook anything. There were a few seats, maybe 18, on the "floor" but these were basically too low and too close to the screen to be of much use to most patrons. The screen appeared to be silver, rather than white, presumably to allow for polarized 3D projection. And the projector was positioned in a both very high up at an extreme angle, which resulted in an obviously trapezoidal image. These are problems inherent in how the venue has been set up, and not a problem with the new print. I doubt most people would notice. But I was acutely aware from the start of the evening that this venue, on design alone, would not be capable of a truly perfect presentation.

Shortly before the screening was to begin, the projectionist's voice came through the speakers. He introduced himself as Jordan, and explained that the film would be presented as it was in 1968, with an overture, intermission and exit music. So far, so good. Unfortunately, what followed next was more marketing spin and incorrect information. Jordan explained that what we were about to view was a copy from an original print made in 1968, so that we would be seeing exactly what an audience in 1968 saw. Unfortunately, as I've described in great length above, this is incorrect. What we're seeing is a print from an interpositive made in 1999 from (mostly) the original negative. It's not any closer to the original source than any other 70mm print I've seen in my lifetime. But it's coming from an interpositive and then internegative which had never been printed for exhibition before, which strikes me as being impressive enough without needing any additional sizzle. It's also worth noting that Kubrick retained a good amount of control over this film in his lifetime, with Kubrick and/or his assistant Leon Vitali approving new prints that had been made between 1968 and 1999. For the reissue in calendar year 2001, Vitali was involved in approving those prints as well. In other words, "2001" has never really been widely reissued in a fashion that did not live up to Kubrick's expectations of what it should look like. From a marketing perspective, it sounds nice to say that all presentations of the film over the last fifty years have been wrong, but that this one is finally correct - but it's just not true. We're fortunate in that "2001" has been shown in pretty high quality versions for a very long time, with those versions being pretty close to the original release and always going out with a look matching what Kubrick intended.

Finally, the lights go down, and the film begins. Once the first frames of visual information hit the screen, starting with the blue MGM logo, it was immediately obvious that "pristine" was not a word I was going to have a chance to use. The opening title sequence was very unsteady, which was a shame - the version re-released in the year 2001 was rock steady. Now, because I am unfamiliar with City Cinemas Village East, I have no way to determine how much of that unsteadiness was already part of the film print, and how much was introduced by their projection. It's entirely possible that the print is perfectly steady and that their projector was not.

One thing I always use to judge how the film is looking, in terms of sharpness and clarity, is the copyright credit on the main "2001: A Space Odyssey" title card. Though it wasn't steady, it was clearly and easily visible, in a way that previous 35mm and 70mm prints I had seen were not. Another thing I use to judge is the floating pen during Floyd's journey to the moon. With older film stocks, the glass plate holding the pen in place was not visible; with more modern film stocks, it can be. On this new print, the glass plate was visible at times. While that's less than ideal, it does demonstrate how transparent modern film stocks can be. Even if this is a fourth generation element, it's revealing detail that wasn't meant to be seen at all. In a way, that's a positive because it does demonstrate that the new prints even at fourth generation are revealing a ton of detail and that the look of the film isn't being lost. I saw passengers in the window of the Pan Am shuttle that I'm not sure I had ever noticed before. But on the downside, whether it was that glass plate, or the large format still photography at the beginning of the film's Dawn Of Man sequence, we're seeing more than we're meant to see, and seams that were once invisible are now showing in a way that they did not show in 1968.

In terms of color, I can now confirm what I've long suspected, which is that the new 50th anniversary trailer is absolutely irrelevant when discussing this version of the film. The color timing used in that (digitally created) trailer has nothing at all to do with what's on these new 70mm prints.

Beyond that, the generally looked pretty good. There appeared to be some issues with uniformity, and at times, there appeared to be issues with the extreme right side of the frame appearing underlit and dim compared to the rest of the frame - but I have no way of knowing if this is part of the print that was shown, or if it was a result of the local theater's particular setup. And black was often missing in action - I don’t remember space looking quite so bright.

The obvious damage to the original negative, that was more troubling. And, to be completely fair, there wasn't a ton. But it always seemed to come at a moment when you wouldn't want it to happen. For instance, when we transition from Dawn of Man to outer space with that wonderful jump cut, the actual cut itself is fine. But in the second shot of the orbiting satellite, there's a large tear that is clearly visible. Just as one should be re-orienting themselves to a peaceful, balletic view of our home planet, we're jolted out of that by a tear that reminds us that we're merely sitting in a theater watching an old movie. A similar tear is visible when Bowman breaks into the emergency airlock. These tears were not part of the prints used for the re-release in the year 2001, so it was somewhat disappointing to be subjected to new damage that hadn't been part of any versions I had previously viewed. All of this made the film look, for lack of a better word, old. It wasn't the production design that made the film seem old, nor the hairstyles or acting choices, or anything in the film itself - it was the condition of what was being shown that made it feel old. And, in my view, "2001" is a film that shouldn't feel old.

And what really annoys me from that is how the marketing buzz is spinning this as presenting the film as it looked in 1968. The problem with that is, that in 1968, this was a brand new film. There weren't scratches or tears in 1968; those came later. An audience member taking all of this at face value (and there's no reason they shouldn't - it's not unreasonable to expect that an audience member would accept the information being presented by their local theater as factual) might come away thinking that while the film was good for it's time, it clearly looks and sounds like an old film. That's the shame here, because I've seen presentations that made the film look and sound as if it existed outside of time.

And yet - I would venture to guess that 95% of audience members won't notice these things, and that if they do notice, they won't care.

I still believe that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is worth seeing on the biggest and best screens available, and any opportunity to do so is an opportunity worth taking. In many ways, this print of the film was clearer than any I've seen before. It does have a more lifelike appearance than the dated Blu-ray, and I noticed details on the big screen that I've simply never been able to discern on the BD or in the 2K DCP. There is value to seeing this version of the film vs staying home and not seeing it.

But I also now believe that the time has come for "2001: A Space Odyssey" to undergo a full digital restoration. The issues with damage to the negative can be fixed digitally, including the tearing and the stability issues, and I think that's worth doing. I'm confident that a digital restoration would be the best way to address the things that made this new print feel old, without losing the feel that Kubrick was going for. After that digital restoration is complete, I would then hope that Warner would make it available in both a 4K format for theaters equipped to digital presentation, as well as a new 70mm film-out for venues that prefer to show 70mm. Sony did this with Lawrence Of Arabia, and I thought that the new 70mm prints (sourced from the digital restoration) had the right blend of clarity and perfection, while still retaining that intangible magic that comes with film projection. "2001: A Space Odyssey" deserves no less.

My verdict: go and see this if you can. If you can't, don't beat yourself up over it. Don't expect perfection, but do be prepared to see some detail that you may have missed before. If you go in with reasonable expectations, I think those will be met and possibly exceeded. If you go in expecting it to look as good as Lawrence Of Arabia looks today, you'll be disappointed. I'm glad I saw it and there was a lot to like. But it's not the best presentation of "2001" that I've witnessed in my lifetime.

 

[dpippel]

Quite the write-up Josh! Thanks so much for sharing all of that with us!

 

[dpippel]

http://www.in70mm.com/ has a listing of the theaters and dates. Just scroll down to the poster for the 50th Anniversary and click on it.

That list appears to be incomplete Vincent. It's being screened at one of my Harkin's theaters in Phoenix, AZ in 70mm and that's not indicated.

 

[Vincent_P]

That list appears to be incomplete Vincent. It's being screened at one of my Harkin's theaters in Phoenix, AZ in 70mm and that's not indicated.

I'm guessing new theaters are being added and they haven't updated their list yet. It's a start, though, for folks who have no idea where to look.

Vincent

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Quite the write-up Josh! Thanks so much for sharing all of that with us!

To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, "Once I get started, I'm too lazy to stop."

 

[Vincent_P]

Excellent overview and write-up, Josh. I saw THE HATEFUL EIGHT at that same theater and the projection on that was superb. Of course, this doesn't mean that some of the stability issues you noticed weren't possibly due to the projection itself, if they haven't been upkeeing their 70mm equipment.

Vincent

 

[Josh Steinberg]

My guess is that the stability issues are baked into the film, but the hot spotting and uniformity issues on the right edge of the frame were introduced in projection. But after that giant post where I point out some of the theater’s shortcomings, I doubt they’re going to extend me an invitation to visit their booth

I think they did a great job of presenting it given the limitations that they had no control over.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Josh - excellent write-up. I just got back from the 1:10 show this afternoon at the Village East.

Pretty much agree with everything you said regarding the print. The best way I can describe its look would be "dated" - first giveaway was the MGM logo, which was yellow instead of white. The printed-in wear (at least 4 negative tears, white dust, mottling, scratches) and dupe sections made it look like an "old movie", which is not how it looked with the 70mm prints in 2001 (I saw it in NYC at the Astor Plaza and drove to DC to see it on the curved screen at the Uptown). Also, even though it's been reported to the contrary, I do not believe this is the original sound mix. The 70mm print I saw in 1978 and the 35mm original release print I saw in magnetic stereo (from a collector) both featured HAL's voice coming prominently from the surround speakers. This effect wasn't present in this print (nor in the year-2001 70mm print).

Regarding the projection, the extreme down angle and short throw, for once, did not present a focus issue. That's the good part. The bad part was that the distortion was a tad distracting - I think everyone noticed it during the "Computer Malfunction" screen, which was a trapezoid instead of a rectangle. The stability issues you noticed are almost certainly 100% from the projection - they made an adjustment at intermission which tightened things up a bit. Yes, they have a silver screen and the hot-spotting was noticeable - left and right edges during a lot of the Dawn of Man were noticeably darker than they should be. There was also a persistent flicker, the result of a misaligned lamp or shutter. They were also trimming off the top and bottom - the image was overshooting the masking by several inches. And even though this was only the 5th or 6th showing, there were a few vertical scratches and some dirt that were *not* from the print element - damage should not be occurring! As a (former) projectionist, this stuff is incredibly annoying to me. I'd like to see this again at a venue with a better 70mm setup.

All in all, it's still worth seeing in 70mm as the movie overcomes these issues and remains the incredible piece of cinema it always was. But I did feel a little ripped off by the 'special' $20.00 ticket price.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Pete - thank you both for the kind words and for sharing your observations. I’m glad to have company on this one

 

[Matt Hough]

Thank you, Josh, for the write-ups here and in the other thread. Very interesting, informative, and illuminative!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Thanks Matt!

I've been writing about this movie, in some form or another, since I was about 12 or 13 years old. It's wonderful to still have opportunities to do so!

 

[TravisR]

I'm guessing new theaters are being added and they haven't updated their list yet.

Let's hope they do because my state (Pennsylvania and even New Jersey) is left out.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks for the write-ups Josh. And thanks for your insights too Pete.

I’ve not seen 2001 projected in a theater as many times as you have Josh. However I do remember my viewing in 2001 and I have no recollection of any tears or dust on the film. I do recall a lot of details. I also look for the sequence on the Pan Am Clipper where the glass plate is used where the pen is attached to appear as if it’s floating. I actually recall or think I saw that in the blu ray. I don’t recall if I saw that in the theatrical screening. I might have seen it. I’ll look for it if I can make a viewing date.

 

[haineshisway]

As one who DID see this during its original run and MANY times including its opening day at the Pacific's (formerly Warner Cinerama) on Hollywood Blvd. I am here to tell you know one saw a glass plate or any other trickery undone. It was a flawless presentation of a staggeringly beautiful-looking film. What has happened in the intervening years I know not but none of it sounds good.

 

[Vincent_P]

I wonder if people are seeing the "trickery" now simply because we know to look for it. I imagine a 70mm print right off the negative in the late 1960s would have more than enough resolution to show it. As good as dupe-stocks are today, I can't imagine a modern 4th-generation 70mm print having more detail than a 70mm print direct-from-the-negative back then.

Vincent