Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The World at War (1 Viewer)

[Adam Gregorich]

. If they had always cropped them for this format, I'd be a little more forgiving. And if this was "Citizen Kane", and Orson Welles did the cropping, I'd also be a little more forgiving. World At War though is a bit of a special case.

I would prefer OAR, which is one of the reasons I will be buying the set on DVD. The fact that the filmmakers are OK with the change does count for something with me though. I agree with the statement of yours I bolded. Regardless if its Ken Burns or the World at War filmmakers they are using the original films as part of their story and they may modify it as needed to fit the vision of what they are creating (the Ken Burns example). If World at War was made today and they did the same crops on combat footage would it be OK (like History Channel did with WWII in Color)?

Stepping back for a second, I think Rich did a good job with this review. This wasn't like someone cropping Citizen Kane, or colorizing Casablanca where it would be a no brainer to reject that out of hand. It was a documentary comprised of hours of combat footage edited with the approval of the creator. I think that requires a reviewer to give it fair consideration, and regardless if you agree with his conclusions or not, Rich did just that.

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich
This wasn't like someone cropping Citizen Kane, or colorizing Casablanca where it would be a no brainer to reject that out of hand. It was a documentary comprised of hours of combat footage edited with the approval of the creator.

Seems to me that this is exactly like cropping Citizen Kane. Actually, I take that back: altering documentary records of real historical events is even worse. And as far as "approval of the creator," just exactly who created these newsreels and other period films? It sure wasn't the producers of this program.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Russell G
That WW2 footage was shot under duress, and I'm not sure I entirely trust the film makers views on what is important in those shots.

But you trust them to pick and choose what footage to use in the first place? That makes little sense to me. If you wanted to be a purist about it, you'd demand that the entire documentary was nothing but uncut, silent war footage.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich

While purists will undoubtedly moan, the new framing has the approval of series' producer Jeremy Isaacs and supervising editor Alan Afriat. And as Glaridis [Director of Eyeframe Christos Glaridis] is keen to point out, 'it's not an automated process - we're adjusting the image manually, moving it up and down, left and right to ensure that the focus remains on the most important part of the image. You are going from 4:3 to 16:9 so, unavoidably, you do lose a little of the original image. But back when all of this material was shot, even then it was pretty much on the fine line, there weren't many rules going on with framing anyway. So while some people might look at the 16:9 version and think that it's cropping a little head and that, if you go back to the original, it's often shot like that anyway, or it's blurred, and it's like "No, no, this is how it is anyway". Hopefully it won't be judged that much because if you did go back and compare it's really not far off from the original'.

Two points on this section from Adam's post.

One: Even Bertolucci and Storaro approve the cropping of The Last Emperor. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.

Two: I cannot believe that a film director believes that in the 1940s there weren't rules for framing news footage. That is unbelievable...and insulting, frankly, to the photographers who shot much of that footage. It sounds like he believes his strongest defense is to make the case that not that much information is lost in the transition from 4:3 to 16:9.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war#post_3750964




And as Glaridis [Director of Eyeframe Christos Glaridis] is keen to point out, 'it's not an automated process - we're adjusting the image manually, moving it up and down, left and right to ensure that the focus remains on the most important part of the image. 

Pan and scan is not an automated process either. Does he like movies that have been pan and scanned down to 4:3 too?If they restored the footage in full aspect ratio and didn't use that master for the bluray, they aren't just bowing to commercial concerns, they're just plain stupid.I don't care if the producer, editor and janitor signed off on it. The people who shot the footage and the creative director of the series are the ones that should be calling these sorts of shots. Even then, they should provide both versions.Have you seen the series, Adam? It isn't just wild footage grabbed in the heat of battle. It includes carefully shot newsreel footage of political rallies and historical footage that was very carefully planned and shot. I'm rewatching the series on my ten foot projection system and the first few episodes consist of Nazi rallies that are as beautifully shot as Triumph of the Will.

 

[Paul Penna]

But you trust them to pick and choose what footage to use in the first place? That makes little sense to me. If you wanted to be a purist about it, you'd demand that the entire documentary was nothing but uncut, silent war footage.

This is reductio ad absurdum. It's like saying "If you don't like cropping Citizen Kane to 16x9 because it removes part of the images, how come you don't object to losing all of the images from outtakes they threw away?" Let's say someone publishes a book featuring photographs by Ansel Adams. Do we demand that such a book show every single photo he ever took? No. Do we demand that the photos that are selected for the book be presented with the framing and composition he used in his original prints and not be cropped down? Yes.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

. And as far as "approval of the creator," just exactly who created these newsreels and other period films? It sure wasn't the producers of this program.

Is it fair to conclude that you also object to the cropping done by Ken Burns in THE WAR and his other documentaries, and you object to the cropping done to make WWII IN HD?

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by BobO'Link
Thanks for the honest review, Richard! Your comments further convince me to pick up the OAR DVD set ASAP. To me this is no different than butchering a WS film to P&S for the "Joe 6-Pack" crowd. While you feel the cropping done is relatevily non-intrusive I'm also concerned with your mention of the decline in contrast/color. As far as the cropping is concerned, with a 21 year stint in TV as a Director/Videographer/Cameraman, cropping "talking heads" in a way that keeps the titles at the loss of proper framing is also a concern. I could *possibly* live with the re-framed war footage but would cringe anytime a cropped interview appears. Even if it's for only a few seconds I'd distract me enough to pull me out of the story.

As it's been mentioned in several places the producers have a FS copy of the restored product "in case they need it". My question is why did they not shop the WS version to broadcasters who feel no one will watch FS content on a WS TV (anyone remember how distributors felt no one wanted B/W product following the introduction of color?) and release *both* FS and WS versions to the consumer and simply let the market decide. After all, we have David Attenborough narrating "Planet Earth" and "Life" along with the bastardized US versions with Sigourney Weaver and Oprah...

You make excellent points, and a good argument can be made that they should have also made The World at War available in OAR HD. Perhaps they will if enough people refuse to buy the cropped version. But for now it is what it is, and I'm sure that more than few people will want to stick with the DVD set.

Interestingly, I was watching 60 Minutes this evening and several of the subjects interviewed on this week's show had the tops of their heads cut off!

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war#post_3750988
But you trust them to pick and choose what footage to use in the first place? That makes little sense to me. If you wanted to be a purist about it, you'd demand that the entire documentary was nothing but uncut, silent war footage.

Don't be ridiculous, which is what you are being. They made a documentary called "The World At War", and they selected the footage. I saw it. It was brilliant. Now it's cropped. how do I know what's missing? Maybe they are focusing on a soldier that is firing in the foreground because it's action, and cropped out a civilian off to the side or something because them running in terror wasn't the point THEY wanted to make, but it was the thing that effected me emotionally? I would miss such a thing. That's the reason for the me saying "I'm not sure I trust them". I probably CAN trust them, but I'm not going to take the chance. If it was released in the proper OAR, the it wouldn't be a concern.

And yeah, if they used silent footage in the orignal cut, I would want it to remain so. I'm that type of asshole purist, not the fanatical one your portraying me to be. Read my post where I say:

" the criticism of the cropping of the WW2 footage itself being the deal breaker, to me, is a bit fanatical as far as being the deal breaker. My issue is that this documentary isn't being presented in it's original OAR."

Again, great review, but the confrontational HTF community means this is another discussion I'll bow out of since I'm sick to death of seeing everyones post nick picked so that someone can push some bizarre mandate that has nothing to do with posters actual opinions.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Richard Gallagher /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war#post_3751059


 
Is it fair to conclude that you also object to the cropping done by Ken Burns in THE WAR and his other documentaries, and you object to the cropping done to make WWII IN HD?

I haven't seen either of those documentaries, but I have seen a bit of Ken Burns' work. In Jazz, he chopped up incredible archival footage and slapped narration over the top of instrumental solos. In the entire series, there was only one clip that was allowed to play through without interruption. He was so busy trying to interject his own pet concept of jazz as a symbol of race struggle in America that he neglected to let jazz tell its own story.But Ken Burns isn't what we're discussing here. My personal opinion is that the creative people behind The World at War had tremendous respect for the story that they were telling. They let the footage run in its own context and let it vividly illustrate the chronology in a well organized and clear manner. Chopping the footage to fit some arbitrary aspect ratio, no matter how carefully it was done, is not respectful of this important historical footage. And I say that as an archivist, filmmaker and historian myself. I find it baffling why anyone who cares about film would give this sort of thing a free pass.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Richard Gallagher
Interestingly, I was watching 60 Minutes this evening and several of the subjects interviewed on this week's show had the tops of their heads cut off!

True. The present-day norm is to be in and tight on the subject in most news interviews. But this is a stylistic decision that is always evolving and reflective of the era. Watch a 60 Minutes piece from a couple of decades ago and you'll find not only is the videographer's style completely different so is the newswriter's prose and the manner in which the piece is edited. Not to mention the reporter's clothes and hair style, etc.

But just because that's the way they do it today doesn't mean I'd want Ed Murrow's Harvest of Shame to be re-edited to reflect the current sensibilities. Just as we wouldn't want to re-edit Stagecoach as a modern day action flick directed by Paul Greengrass (although maybe his jerky hand-held camera stuff would be appropriate given the jerkiness of a stagecoach ride!).

 

[Vern Dias]

Back in the 1940's TV filming rules, including a significantly restrictive safe areas didn't exist.

The concept of safe area was far far more limited (if it existed at all) as a cinematographer could count on his work being projected at 1.37:1 with very little cropping involved, possibly on the sides of the image to compensate for the keystone caused by an excessively steep projection angle.

Vern

 

[Paul Penna]

?

Actually, I'd rather watch the source material Burns uses instead of his documentaries. And I'd have bought WWII in Hi-Def in a heartbeat if the films hadn't been cropped.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by Paul Penna
Actually, I'd rather watch the source material Burns uses instead of his documentaries. And I'd have bought WWII in Hi-Def in a heartbeat if the films hadn't been cropped.

Fair enough. However, I would point out that in going through the review threads of both The War and WW II in HD I didn't see a single complaint about the fact that the newsreel and combat footage was zoomed and cropped.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

They let the footage run in its own context and let it vividly illustrate the chronology in a well organized and clear manner. Chopping the footage to fit some arbitrary aspect ratio, no matter how carefully it was done, is not respectful of this important historical footage. And I say that as an archivist, filmmaker and historian myself. I find it baffling why anyone who cares about film would give this sort of thing a free pass.

I don't think anyone is giving it a free pass. But I have gone through the review threads for The War and WWII in HD and I haven't seen a single objection to the fact that both sets consist largely of zoomed and cropped newsreel/combat footage. It seems to me that people are now arguing that such footage is sacrosanct, even though cropping it has in fact previously been given a pass.

As I mentioned in the review, I expected that the zooming and cropping would be a deal breaker for many people. I have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind about that. I just try to keep everything in perspective.

 

[bigshot]

Rant on
I've been collecting videos since back in the early days of VHS when most movies that did not match the aspect ratio of 640x480 were cropped and slid around to fill the video frame. Back then, film lovers cried out first for letterboxing, and then for a video format capable of presenting widescreen material without cropping. At the forefront of this movement were magazine reviewers, who considered it to be their duty to let buyers know whether a release was being presented properly or not. The pressure from bad reviews of choppy, incomplete, incorrectly framed videos made the industry clean up their act and give us the fantastic bluray restorations we now enjoy.
Maybe I'm old fashioned and the Internet has created a new type of reviewer... One who doesn't care about films being presented the way they originally appeared, and instead wants every inch of their screen covered and every one of their 8 speakers firing at once. Maybe this post modern world is incapable of appreciating works in their original context, and requires that everything be "pressed and processed" into the cinematic equivalent of head cheese.
Certainly, when I turn on cable TV I am presented with ample evidence that this is the case... a million commercials interrupting the flow of the program, logo bugs in the corner, scrolls at the bottom of the screen advertising the next scheduled program, sliced and diced continuities liberally slathered with explanatory voice over narration describing what I'm looking at, films "edited to fit the time constraints of television", black and white being fingerpainted into peacock hues, images being sharpened and smoothed and interlaced into sterility, footage blown up to focus on details or blown down to fit in little boxes on the screen, images wrapped around spinning CGI globes wiping, peeling, tearing, dissolving and exploding into a million computer generated twinkling stars.
I thought that the bluray format was for people who don't want all that- people who simply want to see the film as it was originally presented in the best condition possible. I thought reviewers of blurays would understand this and not make excuses for a cable channel that "reformats" one of the greatest documentaries ever produced "to suit modern sensibilities".
Silly me. I guess I know better now. Thank goodness for Amazon reviews.
Rant off

 

[Mike Frezon]

I think, Rich, the difference for me is that its not about the source material...but about the final program. The documentary World at War was produced in a 4:3 format.

If Ken Burns modifies source material because he wants to format it into a 16:9 program that he's producing, that's his artistic decision to do so (he could do otherwise, certainly, and retain the 4:3 material within his 16:9 program--which I'd prefer). But nevertheless, I would then want to see his final 16:9 production in 16:9 rather than in 4:3 (which would only further compromise the source material).

One can argue artistic decisions all the time. To my mind, those are subjective. But to take a created final product and then modify it after the fact (for whatever reason--current technology, etc.) is, to me, more objective.

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
I think, Rich, the difference for me is that its not about the source material...but about the final program. The documentary World at War was produced in a 4:3 format.

For me, it is about the source material. Everything I've read about the series tells me the documentary footage is extensive, not intrusively edited, and forms the bulk of the program. That's exactly what I want to see. Therefore, I've just ordered the original DVD set.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by bigshot forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751307
ARant on I've been collecting videos since back in the early days of VHS.....Rant off

What was the point of all that? If your pointing your finger at Mr. Gallagher as being a new type of internet reviewer who doesn't care about aspect ratio, then you might want to re-read his review. It's easy to get caught up in a fanatical furor, but what I read in his review under "VIDEO" was that the cropping was a concern that seemed to be handled well by the producers, but may of been the cause of some undo softness to the picture. It's hardly a "SCREW OAR! THIS IS HOW ALL WORLD WAR 2 DOCUMENTARIES SHOULD LOOK! BWAA HA HAAAA!" statement of support is it?

And all this talk about "The War", or "World War II in HD" is irrelevant really, those are different programs, produced for a different media, and they can use any footage they have in their hands anyway they want to. The complaint with "World At War" isn't how they used WW2 footage, that's irrelevant since they can use it however they want. It's that they change the OAR of their original award winning program. Mr. Gallagher thinks it looks not bad considering it happened, which is still a far cry from "supporting it" or declaring it a preference, which I have failed to see him do.

If your panties are all in a knot about how WW2 footage is used in documentaries based on some bizarre nostalgia, well, you better avoid "Apocalypse" It's a brilliant documentary featuring incredibly well done colourized war footage. Your heads would explode. Which is a shame since the footage, colourized or not, is astonishing and I think it's right up there with "World At War" as far as being an informative and entertaining documentary about world war 2.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Russell G

It's easy to get caught up in a fanatical furor, but what I read in his review under "VIDEO" was that the cropping was a concern that seemed to be handled well by the producers,

If the producers' handling involved removing parts of the image, then I disagree...it was not handled well at all.