- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 17,821
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
The Sheik is an important film from Hollywood's silent era, and as far as production values, appears every year of its age, as in still early for the technology.
While I applaud Paramount heralding the film's 100th anniversary, I'm a bit confused by the use of the word "restoration" attached to the new release.
Giving credit where due, there is no original negative, or quality pre-print surviving on the subject, which means that any restorative efforts go to 35mm prints, dupes and 16mm versions.
And that what we appear to have.
A reconstruction of sorts - and there's nothing wrong with that - but without any seeming rhyme nor reason to how it was reconfigured.
Examples:
The first shot that hits the screen is the main title, which appears to be from a well-loved 35mm source, but with wear all at the fore.
Some inter-titles appear too have been culled from surviving 16mm sources, while others - in different formats, typestyles, etc appear to be from 35. There seems to be no overall cohesiveness to the presentation.
Much of the production footage is quite lovely for the era, and that's the highlight.
It's understandable that there's always an innate fear at the studio level of putting heavy funding into the restoration of a film that sits firmly in the public domain, but other studios do it, and without the ability, which Paramount did have, to place a New Edition copyright on their work for certain parts of the restoration. It doesn't remove the base work from the PD, but it makes it difficult for other distributors to grab their work as a totality.
So what do we have?
An interesting composite version of the 1921 film, along with a quality original score created by Roger Ballon for the 75th anniversary of the film in 1996.
Having worked with silent films and synchronized scores, I can offer the fact that making visual changes, updating elements or massaging an earlier restoration is akin to opening Pandora's box.
You don't want to do it unless absolutely necessary, especially with recorded scores.
Which leads me to wonder aloud if that's what occurred here?
Might the studio have been locked into the work performed using an older reconstructed element, with the need to remain in sync?
A distinct possibility.
But be aware that the word "restored" may, at least in this case, denote something that occurred decades ago, and that needs to be refreshed.
Image – 2.5
Audio – n/a
Pass / Fail – Pass
Recommended
RAH
While I applaud Paramount heralding the film's 100th anniversary, I'm a bit confused by the use of the word "restoration" attached to the new release.
Giving credit where due, there is no original negative, or quality pre-print surviving on the subject, which means that any restorative efforts go to 35mm prints, dupes and 16mm versions.
And that what we appear to have.
A reconstruction of sorts - and there's nothing wrong with that - but without any seeming rhyme nor reason to how it was reconfigured.
Examples:
The first shot that hits the screen is the main title, which appears to be from a well-loved 35mm source, but with wear all at the fore.
Some inter-titles appear too have been culled from surviving 16mm sources, while others - in different formats, typestyles, etc appear to be from 35. There seems to be no overall cohesiveness to the presentation.
Much of the production footage is quite lovely for the era, and that's the highlight.
It's understandable that there's always an innate fear at the studio level of putting heavy funding into the restoration of a film that sits firmly in the public domain, but other studios do it, and without the ability, which Paramount did have, to place a New Edition copyright on their work for certain parts of the restoration. It doesn't remove the base work from the PD, but it makes it difficult for other distributors to grab their work as a totality.
So what do we have?
An interesting composite version of the 1921 film, along with a quality original score created by Roger Ballon for the 75th anniversary of the film in 1996.
Having worked with silent films and synchronized scores, I can offer the fact that making visual changes, updating elements or massaging an earlier restoration is akin to opening Pandora's box.
You don't want to do it unless absolutely necessary, especially with recorded scores.
Which leads me to wonder aloud if that's what occurred here?
Might the studio have been locked into the work performed using an older reconstructed element, with the need to remain in sync?
A distinct possibility.
But be aware that the word "restored" may, at least in this case, denote something that occurred decades ago, and that needs to be refreshed.
Image – 2.5
Audio – n/a
Pass / Fail – Pass
Recommended
RAH
I guess all things considered ...
