A Few Words About A few words about...™ Rear Window -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[rich_d]

Damn, damn, damn, DAMN. (in the wrong thread)


I wanted to watch the restoration feature on Rear Window last night, but my Hitchcock set is the UK one and it looks like that feature wasn't carried over to it. Is it on the US BDs, or do I have to reacquire the DVD to have it back? Shame on me -- I'm usually much more careful about these things.

Charles,


You have it on the UK set as well. It's called Rear Window Ethics. The full name on the documentary is "Rear Window Ethics: Remembering and Restoring a Hitchcock Classic" and I'm guessing the shortened name is what tripped you up.


Thanks for the MFL reference.


Rich D

 

[ChromeJob]

... later in the film much time will be spent watching or hearing him dismiss sex and/or female sexiness. ... he will make a snide remark about what is probably going on behind the lowered shades in the newlyweds' apartment, ...

I'm not saying you don't know this, but.... It's worth pointing out that when Rear Window was made, the Production Code was in full force, so oblique remarks about what was pretty obviously going on in the newlyweds' apartment were de rigueur. Ditto Doyle's knowing glance at Lisa's overnight "bag" (negligee, slippers 'n all) and asking Jeff, "Do you tell your landlord everything," and Jeff's reply, "Now, I said be careful." (This in the day when having overnight guests was something frowned upon by apt landlords, or at least in the Code's tilted view of how the world could be represented on screen.)


The whole complication of Lisa announcing she was staying the night, and Jeff's responses, are a testament to the Code's influence on scripts.


Of course Hitch's sidestepping of Code restrictions is one of the jewels in any Hitchcock piece. North by Northwest and To Catch a Thief are full of 'em. Jessie Steven's flirtatious look when Robie says, "You must be a sound sleeper." And Jessie's exchange with her daughter, "They're my jewels that were stolen, and I'm not upset. Why are you upset, what'd he take from you?" "Oh, Mother!"


The exchange on the train in North By Northwest either ran afoul of the Office, or Hitch decided to rein it in during post-production. Eva Marie Saint said, "I never make love on an empty stomach," Roger replies, "But you've already eaten," to which she answers, "But you haven't." Changed in post to "discuss" IIRC. Like Thief, tons of double entendres in the film. I've always liked the quick look Cary Grant gave her when, after asking from the bunk bed "Why are you so good to me?" and she said, "Shall I climb up there and tell you?" Of course, the Code prohibited two people in bed without some feet planted on the floor -- couldn't do that in the top bunk of a sleeper car compartment! (I've always thought the love scene of them rolling and being unsteady in the train car later is a clever euphemism for them reclining in bed, the way Grant is using his hands. Of course, Hitch also liked spinning the camera around characters during a "hot" moment, and couldnt' do that in that cramped set with the Frigidaire-sized VistaVision camera.)



Ernest Lehman has been openly incredulous that the Hays office didn't balk at the final, end title shot of the film.

 

[Mike Boone]

A 4K digital DCP should be noticeably sharper than a 70mm relase print.

OK, with digital, I'm not surprised at it having some advantage over film, in sharpness. However, I've always read that 4k has the resolution of 35mm film, while 8k is needed to equal the resolution of 70mm film. So one might assume that a 70mm film should reveal more detail than its 4k counterpart. Now many 70mm film fans, I understand, claim that 4k has quite a way to go before it matches the quality of a pristine condition 70mm print presented with a well maintained projector, by a projectionist who knows what he's doing. That's why with him being maybe the world's foremost film preservationist, I was somewhat surprised by what I seem to remember as RAH's glowing praise of 4k. Of course, even devoted to film as he is, when he observes excellent quality in any format, I have to remember that RAH isn't going to give extra credit to a presentation, just because its on film, but rather, base his praise only on what he actually sees.


And, as I've come to understand it, the theoretical resolution of film often does not make it to the eyes of the audience, because the typical prints of films delivered to theaters, even of new films, possess a substantially lower amount of resolution than the original camera negative.

That, I understand accounts for the fact that although 35mm film potentially has 4X the resolution of Blu-ray, movies on the home disc medium often seem as sharp and detailed as what many audiences saw in the theater if the Blu-ray was sourced from the original camera negative.


Anyway, Worth, I've gotten too long winded here, already, so my basic question for you is, do you really think that good 4k presentations of 65 or 70 mm large format films, display all of the detail that quality exhibitions of these large format films would display?

 

[Reed Grele]

Ernest Lehmann has been openly incredulous that the Hays office didn't balk at the final, end title shot of the film.

 

[Reed Grele]

Rich, I see (from top left):

The Birds
North By Northwest
Psycho
Rear Window
Dial 'M' for Murder
Vertigo

Did I miss any?



p.s., Where did you get this limited edition poster?

 

[rich_d]

Rich, I see (from top left):

The Birds
North By Northwest
Psycho
Rear Window
Dial 'M' for Murder
Vertigo

Did I miss any?



p.s., Where did you get this limited edition poster?

That's what I got as well. Although, it's possible that the skyline at the bottom is not (also) from Vertigo, but another film.


I don't own it but you can. It's part of a new series of directors.


http://www.stellavie.com/home/en/products/print-fine-art-portraits-movie-directors-alfred-hitchcock/

 

[Charles Smith]

You have it on the UK set as well. It's called Rear Window Ethics...

Oy! And thanks!

 

[Worth]

Anyway, Worth, I've gotten too long winded here, already, so my basic question for you is, do you really think that good 4k presentations of 65 or 70 mm large format films, display all of the detail that quality exhibitions of these large format films would display?

That's been my experience with films both old (Lawrence of Arabia, 2001) and new (The Master, Interstellar). The one exception would be real IMAX 15/70.


And have a look at this post from RAH in the Lawrence thread:

...is the 65mm presentation always the "preferred" medium in which to watch LOA?

Each has it's trade-offs. And each is ultimately in the hands of the projectionists and the hardware they use. But that aside, here's the simple version as to how things stack up. For 70mm... We begin with a 65mm negative, which has 4k resolution, so when scanned is scanned at 8k. Keep in mind that scanning at 2k 35mm is four times the resolution of scanning at 1k. 4k is 4 times the resolution of 2k, etc. However, when we scan 65mm at 8k, what is really occurring is that we're scanning twice the width, and height remains relative. So that 8k scan is basically the same resolution as a 35mm 4k scan. Back to film, please. From the 65mm negative, we create a 65mm interpositive, from which dupe negatives can be printed. And from the dupe neg, we create a print. Now... using 4k as a parameter, and presuming 4k information in the original negative, by the time we get to the print, we're down to at least 2k at best. 35mm wold be far worse. Returning to digital... Take the 8k files harvested from the original negative, downrez it to 4k for ease of data transfer, restoration, and ultimately projection, and the image projected is... 4k. Now it gets even more interesting. With film you have all of the anomalies of print manufacture and it's problems, then the entire light path, and the inner machinations of the projection equipment, and finally, gate weave, dirt, wear, etc. With 4k projection, and a properly aligned and setup projector, you still have, guess what? A 4k image harvest, still based upon the original negative, or in the case of Lawrence, the myriad of different elements which make up the "original" which Mr. Crisp used as the basis of his work. No printing anomalies, no gate weave, no build up of dirt on the pressure bands or in the gate, etc. See where this is going? RAH

 

[rich_d]

Good work, Worth. That's the post I think others were referring to.

 

[Cineman]

I'm not saying you don't know this, but.... It's worth pointing out that when Rear Window was made, the Production Code was in full force, so oblique remarks about what was pretty obviously going on in the newlyweds' apartment were de rigueur.

Yes, and the jokes about sex were so much funnier because of the limitations, imo! Those comments still garner laughs. And not because they are seen as "quaint" by today's standards. I don't believe today's audiences are laughing "at" the work-arounds, but with them. In fact, in Hitchcock's hands, I don't believe most modern audience think they are missing something "sexy" so much as they are gaining something "sexier". In the North By Northwest dining car scene you mentioned, when Eva Marie Saint gently pulls Cary Grant's hand back closer to her lips and slowly blows out his match, it is almost sure to garner oohs and ahhs from today's audiences as though it is one of the most overtly sexy moves they've seen a female movie character make in a long time.

 

[ChromeJob]

Absolutely. Flirtation, double entendres, like this illustrate William Archer's quote, "Drama is anticipation mingled with uncertainty." Jokes like this promise the anticipation of what we think is being implied, but the uncertainty derived from the puns not being wholly transparent. Theres' that sort of, "I dunno, maybe it's a symbol ... or maybe a cigar is just a cigar." And this is a linchpin to Hitchcock's brilliance, in generating suspense and fear.

 

[Oblivion138]

That's been my experience with films both old (Lawrence of Arabia, 2001) and new (The Master, Interstellar). The one exception would be real IMAX 15/70.

Agreed 100%.

 

[cannon1]

This question would be for Mr. Harris...is it know if this BD was scanned from the OCN, except for the Dupe sections...or is this entirely taken from an intermediate? I wondered because of the variation in softness/graininess in the various shots.....such as the conversation between Stewart and Kelly, when she is sitting down by the lamp, after the fade in and she has the cigarette....the shots of Stewart are soft and the shots of Kelly are quite sharp. I guess I'm wondering if the 'OCN' is now a mix of dupe material and ocn, due to fading, damage, etc., and this is reflectant of that...though I also remember that in the1982 release. The BD, aside from the titles and obvious dupe/transition sections, just seems unusually soft in 'random' shots of Stewart in his chair...an inconsistency, then shots juxtaposed will be quite sharp. I also remember the 1982 release had a bad discoloration over the late reel before Kelly goes across to the Thorwald apartment...but you overcame that in the restoration apparently....

 

[octobercountry]

This is pretty cool---the Rear Window exterior set recreated in miniature. The level of detail is astounding!


http://thewonderofminiatures.com/2015/03/26/all-the-rear-window-details/

 

[Kyrsten Brad]

I've had this one on price watch in my cart and today when the price fell below $10, I pulled a Grabbit Rabbit and ordered it. Looking forward to this Jimmy Stewart title.

 

[Johnny Angell]

That's what I got as well. Although, it's possible that the skyline at the bottom is not (also) from Vertigo, but another film.


I don't own it but you can. It's part of a new series of directors.


http://www.stellavie.com/home/en/products/print-fine-art-portraits-movie-directors-alfred-hitchcock/

Could that skyline be from Rope? If I remember correctly we get some good looks out of a big window.

I've had this one on price watch in my cart and today when the price fell below $10, I pulled a Grabbit Rabbit and ordered it. Looking forward to this Jimmy Stewart title.

Congratulations on the price. Doesn't it almost seem a little wrong for a movie this good to sell for that little?

 

[Joel Arndt]

Could that skyline be from Rope? If I remember correctly we get some good looks out of a big window.

I doubt it as Rope (1948) was made for Warner Brothers and Rear Window (1954) was a Paramount production.

 

[Oblivion138]

Could that skyline be from Rope? If I remember correctly we get some good looks out of a big window.

I doubt it as Rope (1948) was made for Warner Brothers and Rear Window (1954) was a Paramount production.

The poster in question also includes imagery from North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, etc. It clearly has nothing to do with any particular studio.

 

[rich_d]

Could that skyline be from Rope? If I remember correctly we get some good looks out of a big window.

Definitely not the skyline from Rope. I'm guessing the skyline is San Francisco. Whether it is directly from a film or merely a thematic "idea" I'm not sure. Thus, the more likely candidates are Vertigo or The Birds.

 

[ChromeJob]

Definitely not the skyline from Rope. I'm guessing the skyline is San Francisco. Whether it is directly from a film or merely a thematic "idea" I'm not sure. Thus, the more likely candidates are Vertigo or The Birds.

Not the San Francisco that I grew up in. Maybe the new York of rear window.

That sideways camera to Stewarts face throws it for me....