Originally Posted by Robert Harris
EDIT: Hmmm... Perhaps, this should be a NVM. Just went back to the first post, and realized that RAH liked the new mix (though I'm sure he's glad the original's there also)...
_Man_
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
EDIT: Hmmm... Perhaps, this should be a NVM. Just went back to the first post, and realized that RAH liked the new mix (though I'm sure he's glad the original's there also)...
_Man_
Having supervised sound effects, music, dialogue editing and sound mixes myself, I can say that working from written notes, everything can go wrong. Sound mixing is all about split second adjustments in balance. The only way to control it is to be in the room supervising it. Hitchcocks notes could only give the most general instructions.Originally Posted by Robert Harris
The same gentleman who worked on Vertigo for the studio, and added various efx such as birds in the dead forest, was in charge of Psycho. Mr. Hitchcock left extremely copious notes on audio. If followed, little should have gone wrong.
Originally Posted by bigshot
Having supervised sound effects, music, dialogue editing and sound mixes myself, I can say that working from written notes, everything can go wrong. Sound mixing is all about split second adjustments in balance. The only way to control it is to be in the room supervising it. Hitchcocks notes could only give the most general instructions.
When a studio creates a new soundtrack, they are creating something entirely new. They usually rely on great engineers to come up with the surround mixes. But great engineers are a poor substitute for a great director. The story is told through sound just as much as it's told through pictures.
Originally Posted by bigshot
Conservators, restorers and recreators occupy a continuum of creativity with conservators being the least creative and recreators being the most creative. Adding a 5:1 soundtrack to Psycho is definitely an act of recreation. I don't think it's unfair to say that no matter how qualified a sound engineer is at restoration, he probably isn't qualified to second guess Hitchcock with a recreation.
That said, it's fine to go ahead and make an attempt. The Psycho soundtrack makes a pretty high splat on the wall. As long as the original track is still available, it's cool. But if I went to see the film in a theater and they were using the 5:1 soundtrack instead of Hitchcock's original, I'd probably be pretty angry.
Originally Posted by rich_d
Conservators, restorers and recreators occupy a continuum of creativity with conservators being the least creative and recreators being the most creative. Adding a 5:1 soundtrack to Psycho is definitely an act of recreation. I don't think it's unfair to say that no matter how qualified a sound engineer is at restoration, he probably isn't qualified to second guess Hitchcock with a recreation.
That said, it's fine to go ahead and make an attempt. The Psycho soundtrack makes a pretty high splat on the wall. As long as the original track is still available, it's cool. But if I went to see the film in a theater and they were using the 5:1 soundtrack instead of Hitchcock's original, I'd probably be pretty angry.
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
The Burns has a high quality sound system, and keeps it in tune. Great facility. You'd probably find David Selznick's production of The Portrait of Jennnie (1948) of interest. The film was designed with both image as well as audio upgrades for original performances in a small number of large venues. During the final storm sequence the image grows (at as I recall a changeover) in size via the Magnascope process (an adapter lens) with masking moving out to provide a larger screen surface, and is tinted green. The audio was run (as I recall) interlocked with a second projector or dubber, with additional speakers added to aid in making the storm far more surrounding and realistic.
Portrait of Jennie is a brilliant film. One of my all time favorites. It has an other-worldly, ethereal texture to it, that to me, has never been duplicated. To see it in its original form, tinted, with the final sequence in Technicolor, is something that can only be dreamt of by most cinephiles. An original print is occasionally run at The George Eastman House in Rochester. If you're within striking distance, be there.
RAH
Originally Posted by Steve Christou
I was recently re-reading The Golden Screen which is a collection of film reviews by "the doyen of British film critics" Dylis Powell, and came across her review of Psycho, dated August 1960.
"I managed to reach the Plaza in time for an organ recital, a series of advertising films, the newsreel and a cartoon. When at last Saul Bass's harsh, green-tinted titles for Psycho forked across the screen..."
Green-tinted titles? I didn't know that, was it mentioned in the extras? Interesting.
She liked the film -
"...to my relief, this is the felicitous, the mischievous, old-style old master Hitchcock. Though you, of course, may say I am loco about Psycho."
Originally Posted by Steve Christou
Originally Posted by eric scott richard
So would there be an audible difference between the lossless mono track on the UK edition and the lossy mono on the US edition?
Is the Burns, perchance, the art house cinema built (or rebuilt) on the site of the old Rome Theater in Pleasantville? God, how many great Saturday Matinees I attended there as a youth! Having read your description of its projection system (you mentioned a change-over), it sounds as though they are still running 35mm. Is that so? If so, Bravo!Robert Harris said:The Burns has a high quality sound system, and keeps it in tune. Great facility.