What's new

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

DSmith1984

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
115
Real Name
Doug
Robert Harris said:
That might be the one.  Add to the other team, those who went about rejuvenating the print, and damaging it in transfer.  For the record, the actual company doing the storing is a fine company.  It was the selection of where it went that's the problem.
Not a big wrestling fan.
I would, however, commit to being involved in a Chopped type of contest.
Six archivists.  Twelve weeks.  $250,000 to the favorite charity of the winner.
Scanned!
RAH
How about an Iron Chef style contest? Allez restore!
 

Nick*Z

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
1,801
Location
Canada
Real Name
NICK
Top ten film lists are like promises and pie crusts. Easily made. Easily broken.
I love Vertigo but wouldn't call it the greatest movie ever made. Sorry. But for me that honor would go to either Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, The Wizard of Oz or Ben-Hur. I don't even think Vertigo is Hitchcock's best. My money's on North By Northwest - the ultimate wrong man movie, tied with Psycho. Honorable mention to Rear Window, Rebecca, Notorious, The Birds, and To Catch a Thief.
Again, just my personal picks. I realize others will disagree and have theirs. So I wouldn't take mine or Sight and Sounds too seriously. They're just someone's opinion gleaned from a poll and as we all know by the last Presidential election, polls can be manipulated to prove, disprove and/or say anything!
 

WilliamMcK

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
309
Location
New York, NY
Real Name
Biff
Well the BFI list is a consensus based on polled movie academics. It's a useful list because it tells us the movies (and directors) that are currently the cultural favorites and are most talked/written about. I doubt anyone connected with the BFI would claim the list is inviolate -- but whether I agree or disagree with the inclusion (or exclusion) of certain movies isn't really relevant. What I do find relevant is the fact that it doesn't have a marketing agenda unlike the similar list/s published by the AFI.
 

AnthonyClarke

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
2,767
Location
Woodend Victoria Australia
Real Name
Anthony
I would view any list with great suspicion that doesn't include Eisenstein at or near the top ... either one of the Ivans, or my personal favourite, Alexander Nevsky. Such a great fusion of image and music.
But right at the top? Hitchcock's "North By Northwest' is right up there, but 'Casablanca' forever rules ......
 

Cineman

Second Unit
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
482
Real Name
David B.
Much as I love NORTH BY NORTHWEST and happily include it on my personal list of greatest/favorite/best, I can't shake the feeling I always get when I watch it that it isn't a "real" Hitchcock film, but more of Hitchcock's own amusing spoof of one. And I don't mean because it has humor in it. Most Hitchcock movies are laced with wit and humor. I'm not even talking about the fact that NBNW is rare in that it is one of only a handful of Hitchcock movies clearly trying (and succeeding!) to be funny, to be a comedy, or at least as much of a comedy as a thriller. I guess I'm talking about what Kaplan (Grant) references in his conversation with Vandamm (Mason) in the auction scene, the part about what nefarious plan Vandamm has for him next, being boiled in oil and all. In fact, such a scene could be right at home in NBNW, since the perils that befall our hero are almost as over-the-top comically outrageous, purposely so, as Kaplan suggests with the boiled in oil reference. The "Hitchcock movie to end all Hitchcock movies", as screenwriter Ernest Lehman described his objective when first looking at the blank page.
But, as entertaining as this great movie is, it is precisely that kind of comical, spoofy tone (at one point, Grant actually breaks the fourth wall in a scene to throw an exasperated take directly at the camera and to us in the audience) that strikes me as not really representative of what Hitchcock worked harder to accomplish and, imo, succeeded in accomplishing more than any other film director; a sense of a truly disturbing, complex almost to the point of defying literal articulation, anxiety. It just isn't there in the way it is in spades in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, VERTIGO, PSYCHO, NOTORIOUS, even his 1956 version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, each of which I believe provides better examples of what it feels like to watch a Hitchcock movie. Of course, there is humor in those examples (although probably the least in VERTIGO and NOTORIOUS), as there is much humor in, say, REAR WINDOW, THE BIRDS, LIFEBOAT, SUSPICION, etc. But the humor in them is not spoofing its own genre the way NBNW does. It comes out more naturally from the characters and is there to provide a better pathway for the deeper and more disturbing anxiety Hitchcock hopes to generate elsewhere in the movie.
it would be hard for me to pick NBNW as Hichcock's greatest since he seems to be enjoying the opportunity to goof on the elements of filmmaking and their potential to generate an emotional response in the audience that had so obsessed him throughout his career rather than actually trying to produce those truly disturbing responses in the audience. The reason I choose VERTIGO as Hitchcock's greatest movie is because it generates the deepest, most disturbing, most complex response in me, the response that is the most difficult to articulate in a literal way outside of pointing to the specific elements and tools of filmmaking for how he accomplished it.
 

rsmithjr

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
1,228
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Real Name
Robert Smith
Vertigo has been my favorite film since opening day in 1958, when I stayed in the theatre until closing when my parents insisted I leave.
It has been a long journey with Vertigo to see it finally get the serious respect that it deserves.
Lists are complicated things and of limited utility really. It is more interesting to hear why any particular film is great (or is not) than to just take the lists verbatim. There are certainly films in the most recent Sight and Sound top 10 that I wouldn't put there even though they are good films.
I have a lot to say about Vertigo, more than I should put into this post. I will note that every few weeks I visit at least one of the places shown in the film. This last week, it was the Palace of Fine Arts and the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, as well as the site of the "McKitrick Hotel", which no longer exists. The film has a resonance for me that is almost obsessive.
 

Cineman

Second Unit
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
482
Real Name
David B.
rsmithjr said:
Vertigo has been my favorite film since opening day in 1958, when I stayed in the theatre until closing when my parents insisted I leave.
It has been a long journey with Vertigo to see it finally get the serious respect that it deserves.
Lists are complicated things and of limited utility really. It is more interesting to hear why any particular film is great (or is not) than to just take the lists verbatim. There are certainly films in the most recent Sight and Sound top 10 that I wouldn't put there even though they are good films.
I have a lot to say about Vertigo, more than I should put into this post. I will note that every few weeks I visit at least one of the places shown in the film. This last week, it was the Palace of Fine Arts and the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, as well as the site of the "McKitrick Hotel", which no longer exists. The film has a resonance for me that is almost obsessive.
One of the great ironies of Hitchcock's artistic output is the, imo, unparalleled emotional resonance generated by his use of locations; the English countryside, mid-town Manhattan, Santa Rosa California, New England, San Francisco, Bodega Bay, Morroco, lonely stretches of desert highway, the French Riviera, The Royal Albert Hall, you name it, the images and feel of them just stick with you due to the way Hitchcock utilized them. Which is ironic because much has been said, true or not, about his disdain for shooting on location and despite the slam he gets for too often utilizing less-than-seamless rear projection, matte shots and painted backdrops.
Yet we are haunted by his locations, moved by his treatment and use of them more often and more deeply than any other film director, imo, even those famous for going to extraordinary lengths to devote every frame possible to actual location/non-process shot authenticity, like David Lean and John Ford. Perhaps the old man knew what he was doing for the sake of a net emotional result with those occasional rear screen projections, matte shots and painted backdrops after all.
 

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray
Well this thread took a turn for the odd........Robert and Andre the Giant (in his roll as Bigfoot from Six Million Dollar Man) go back in time to fight for The Alamo! Only on Pay Per View, proceeds to go to film preservation.
 

PaulDA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
2,708
Location
St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Real Name
Paul
Saw this last night as a digital projection at a local (well-equipped) cinema. First time I've ever seen it (haven't watched my Blu-ray in anticipation of a first look on a truly big screen). I noticed imperfections (some noted in this thread, some not) but, overall, it looked very good even on a giant screen (much bigger than anything one could have at home). I, of course, support Mr. Harris' feelings as to the desirability of sparing no effort with this film's restoration, but I also think, given the poor state of other classic films recently released, this is still a fine presentation.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
PaulDA said:
Saw this last night as a digital projection at a local (well-equipped) cinema. First time I've ever seen it (haven't watched my Blu-ray in anticipation of a first look on a truly big screen). I noticed imperfections (some noted in this thread, some not) but, overall, it looked very good even on a giant screen (much bigger than anything one could have at home). I, of course, support Mr. Harris' feelings as to the desirability of sparing no effort with this film's restoration, but I also think, given the poor state of other classic films recently released, this is still a fine presentation.
I'd have to disagree. Presentation, possibly "fine," but DCP lacking in many areas. With all due respect, it is best to not compare to the poor state of other examples. Digital work must succeed or fail on its own. Any comparisons should be vs. a 1958 dye transfer print. Never anything less. And this one, especially if screened theatrically is a fail. Sorry. RAH
 

PaulDA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
2,708
Location
St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Real Name
Paul
I respect that. In your position, I would be as critical as you are. My use of the word "fine" was, in part, influenced by your first post in this thread (your rating of the visual is a 4, not a 1, after all). I understand the caveats involved in your post and my inexpert eyes are certainly not suitable to argue with someone like you on technical matters of this sort. As to comparing to other presentations, I am of two minds on the issue. On the one hand, I agree with you that digital work must succeed or fail on its own and you are in a position, with this film in particular (given your name attached to the end credits in a note of thanks addressed to you) to make the judgements you have made regarding Vertigo, as well as regarding films in general. From the perspective of one in your line of work, it would be quite surprising for anyone to take a different view on the need to ensure quality (and to refrain from criticizing such times when all necessary care was not taken to do so). On the other hand, from the perspective of an amateur film-watcher like myself, I cannot help making comparisons to other productions when arriving at my personal, subjective, views on a particular work. For example, Vertigo was a first time experience for me, in any format. Not having had the privilege of seeing it at its best, I can only judge what I saw in comparison to other presentations of films from that general period of cinema (I'm 45 years old and have not had access to many of these films "at their best"). From that perspective, I have to reiterate that it is quite a bit better than some of what I have seen, while not nearly as good as other things (including the Blu-ray of Lawrence of Arabia that I watched earlier yesterday, a few hours before going to see Vertigo). That is how I would describe my experience to anyone who asked me, "How do some of these classic films look in the most recent presentations?" Answer: "Lawrence is outstanding, Vertigo is fine, Spartacus is a mess, Patton was a mess first time out but the second effort is supposed to be much better. I'll let you know next week when I watch it." I think my response is a fair one from a subjective, this is what we have at our disposal at the moment, point of view. As to their individual technical merits, I claim no expertise in the matter and generally steer my friends (including one last night--who, incidentally, has seen Vertigo at the cinema about 8 or 9 times since the mid-80s and found last night's version the best he'd ever seen, though not a perfect version by any stretch), when asked, to your section of this forum (I tell them to go to HTF and read as many "A few words about…" posts from Mr. Harris as they can--I have always found them quite informative and often entertaining and they have made me a more discerning viewer, even if my own threshold of acceptance is not as high as yours, for a whole host of reasons). Ultimately, I fully endorse your efforts (and those of others in a similar position of influence in the field) to press for the best final product that can be made given extant materials. I do also consider the notion that it is better to have access to a version, flawed though it may be, of many of these fine films (performances and stories are as important, to me, as the audio/visual qualities of a film and unless the latter make the former impossible to enjoy, I am willing to live with a flawed presentation with the hope of a better one in the future, rather than simply go without any version at all). But please, Mr. Harris, do not give up the "good fight".
 

Mikey1969

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 13, 2012
Messages
343
Location
Kitchener, Ontario
Real Name
M. Fox
Although it's a great film and one of my favourites, I still refuse to buy this on blu-ray. Universal has pimped this title out for years in many formats and has surely made a good profit of it. I don't think it's too much to ask to have it presented in a way which represents the intentions of the original creative team. Surely this job could be done properly with the tools and materials they have available, and at a reasonable cost.
 

lark144

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
2,096
Real Name
mark gross
VERTIGO is a film that derives its power from specific details of light and color. For example, during the climax, each shot contains subtle differences of light and color between Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart as they are driving to the mission and then walking up the winding stairs of the tower. These colors refer to the color in earlier scenes, expressing the reality of what is actually happening between the two of them. Those colors trigger our memory. So it's essential that at the end of the film, those colors are precise. Even more than in any other Hitchcock film, the use of subtle differences in color from shot to shot in VERTIGO effectively expresses the meaning contained in those images. In other words, in VERTIGO, the story is told not so much through dialogue or incident, but rather through color. If the film stock is faded, which substantially alters the colors and effect of the light, then the film's meaning is lost. It's similar to stripping the layer of varnish off a Rembrandt . It may look "fine" to someone who hasn't seen the work in its original state, but it's no longer the work that Rembrandt intended. Now Mr. Hitchcock left copious notes and sketches as to his intentions of how every shot in VERTIGO should look. So it shouldn't be that difficult to present VERTIGO in its original state. If Mr. Harris feels that the new Blu Ray of VERTIGO is a fail, this has to do with whether the colors are the same colors that Mr. Hitchcock wanted us to see. So while the Blu of VERTIGO may be perfectly watchable, it isn't the same film that Hitchcock presented to the public in 1958. Those color and light values were all written down. Mr. Harris has read them all, and if he feels that the Blu of VERTIGO does not express 100% Mr. Hitchcock's visual intentions, than what we are seeing is not Mr. Hitchcock's VERTIGO, but something else. And while it's perfectly ok to watch and enjoy the Blu, one has to be aware that what one is watching, according to Mr. Harris, who should know about these things, is not precisely what Mr. Hitchcock intended.
 

lark144

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
2,096
Real Name
mark gross
In re-reading my post, I sound a little harsh, which certainly wasn't my intention. I first saw Vertigo at the age of 8, when it opened at my local neighborhood theatre. I didn't know exactly what it all meant. but the colors stayed in my memory. Those colors crept into my dreams, and lingered in my waking moments. Well, I grew up and went to NYU, where I attended Peter Wollen's seminar in Hitchcock, and we spent many hours talking about those colors and their use and meaning. I'm fairly new to Blu, so I have found Mr. Harris' ruminations extremely meaningful and helpful,and I look forward to each new "a few words" impatiently. What I especially like about Blu is that many films of my childhood and young adulthood look and sound exactly the way they did when I first set eyes upon them. And for me that is such a pleasure and a joy. And I am eternally grateful to Mr. Harris for his enthusiasm and guidance.
 

Brianruns10

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
278
Real Name
Brian Rose
Mikey1969 said:
Although it's a great film and one of my favourites, I still refuse to buy this on blu-ray. Universal has pimped this title out for years in many formats and has surely made a good profit of it. I don't think it's too much to ask to have it presented in a way which represents the intentions of the original creative team. Surely this job could be done properly with the tools and materials they have available, and at a reasonable cost.
I won't buy this one either, not until it is done right. And if anyone from Universal is reading this, I'd GLADLY pay criterion level prices, 40 bucks even, for a proper, full on restoration...I'm talking 4K scan of the O-neg, with Mr. Harris doing all that is necessary. But for half assed efforts that dishonor the creators, as well as the film lovers, by foisting tripe upon them and expecting them to gobble it up, Universal shall receive not a sausage from me.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Brianruns10
I won't buy this one either, not until it is done right.
And if anyone from Universal is reading this, I'd GLADLY pay criterion level prices, 40 bucks even, for a proper, full on restoration...I'm talking 4K scan of the O-neg, with Mr. Harris doing all that is necessary.
But for half assed efforts that dishonor the creators, as well as the film lovers, by foisting tripe upon them and expecting them to gobble it up, Universal shall receive not a sausage from me.
What makes little sense, is that the difference between what was done to the film, and doing it correctly, would have cost under 100k.
RAH
 

Spencer Draper

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
195
Location
TN
Real Name
Spencer Draper
Robert Harris said:
I'd have to disagree. Presentation, possibly "fine," but DCP lacking in many areas. With all due respect, it is best to not compare to the poor state of other examples. Digital work must succeed or fail on its own. Any comparisons should be vs. a 1958 dye transfer print. Never anything less. And this one, especially if screened theatrically is a fail. Sorry. RAH
I have not bought the set myself, but it does seem to follow and then improve upon the transfer as done for the 2005 Masterpiece Collection/2008 Legacy Series, of which both seemed to me to be off somehow. I could never exactly put my finger on it, but they just didn't seem to have the same warmth of color tone, something which thinking back to my experience with a 35mm exhibition and looking up old screencaps of the original non-anamorphic DVD confirms. Were there 35mm prints struck of the restoration? I'm almost positive that this is what I saw few years ago theatrically. In any case, despite the age and lower bitrate, the color of the old non-anamorphic DVD looks best to my eyes and the closest to what the print looked like.
 

John Stockton

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 9, 2000
Messages
391
I saw this recently at the Castro in SF in 70 MM, and minus a tiny scratch or two in the opening credits, the print was in mint condition. Nearly identical to what I saw in 1996 Restoration, at the same theatre. Vertigo while shot in large format Vista Vision, was originally reduction printed on to standard 35 MM frame and projected for its release in 1958. Therefore, the audience never got to see the film in all its glory. The 1996 restoration done by our good friend RAH and James Katz not only restored the film, but also avoided reduction printing. The Vista Vision frame was printed on to 70 MM at full size, therefore preserving all the elements which was captured by the lenses and cameras. Seeing Vertigo in 70 MM is a mind blowing experience which I have always treasured. I have not yet seen the Blu-ray but since RAH gave it a solid 4 out of 5 and said that "The bottom line here is that almost all of the film looks, and sounds, terrific." I see no reason to avoid this release. Hopefully for the future 4K release, with further restoration, they will get it absolutely perfect.
 

Reed Grele

Supporter
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
2,188
Location
Beacon Falls, CT
Real Name
Reed Grele
John Stockton said:
Vertigo while shot in large format Vista Vision, was originally reduction printed on to standard 35 MM frame and projected for its release in 1958. Therefore, the audience never got to see the film in all its glory.
Fascinating! I never knew this. Were any other VistaVision Hitchcock films released this way?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,523
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top