New Casablanca SE (1 Viewer)

[Bill Burns]

Robert Harris wrote:

I don't believe that anyone has said that there is more than 2k information in 50 year old films, although scanning in 4k and down-rezzing to 2k might provide an image which can better survive additional photo-optical generations.

So, again, is the argument that LDI is going wrong at 2K, while other houses are doing things right at 2K? It seems a number of studios are on the wrong bandwagon if that's the case. If LDI's work is up to the standards of their competitors (again, as a low res DVD consumer, and in perusing on-line reports about the company, I find no evidence that it isn't), then why insist that they're merely cleaning films, rather than restoring them? For their work in the video realm, I certainly see the argument (no new film element has been created, so no true film restoration has taken place), but when they're creating a new negative at 2K, and when that new element pleases both the studio that hired them and most patrons who see the product either projected or used as a source for home video ... I'm just not sure why LDI bears the brunt of criticism and other digital houses get a pass. If we agree that digital restoration is not an oxymoron, that films can be and are restored digitally, how is it that LDI, with their renewed commitment to film grain (absent from their earliest efforts) and overall "original negative" fidelity (when that original negative no longer survives, as it often doesn't for works that make their way to digital restoration, one can only surmise the "original look," of course, perhaps with the help of records and what evidence remains in surviving elements), fails to live up to the standards set by their competitors? Their success seems to underscore their competence, so I'm unclear what, specifically, they're doing wrong that others in the digital game are doing right.

My defense of LDI orbits around these points. If the company is producing 2K restorations inferior not to photochemical restorations, but rather to the 2K restorations of other digital houses, that would be something of great importance to bring to the attention of the studios who are first hiring LDI and then disseminating their results to the public. If their work is not inferior, why may we call the work of those other houses a restoration effort, and not LDI's? If LDI is serving the films themselves, and the film community, in the same good faith exhibited by their 2K digital competitors, do they not deserve the acknowledgment of consumers and praise for their accomplishments? As the intro to his chat explains, John Lowry has been working in film clean up and digital technologies since the 1960's. If he has moved his company along a 2K path at odds with the 2K path taken by other digital houses ... well, that would be worth establishing for the studios foremost, but also for consumers. If he hasn't, if his work is comparable or even superior, where then does he lose the praise his competitors in 2K restoration enjoy?

I appreciate your time and effort in hashing this out, Mr. Harris, as I hope and believe these matters to be of value both to consumers and, of course, to studios. I for one consider them paramount (pardon the pun) in addressing both the best and the most likely fate (these are often, of course, quite different determinations) of the films we all cherish.

 

[Robert Harris]

I believe the studios are aware.

 

[Gary Tooze]

I have just completed the comparison with the new Warner - SE version of Casablanca.
http://www.compare.dvdbeaver.com/

I have included the Warner Region 2 PAL version:
Warner - Region 2/4 (UK) - PAL "Casablanca" vs. Warner - Region 1 - NTSC vs. Warner (SE) - Region 1 - NTSC


Here is an example of the grain removal:


Warner - old


Warner - SE (new)



I concur with Mr. Harris, but do have one question. The SE version is cropped (not unlike many restored Criterions). I'm not complaining as it is minimal, but is this a process of the restoration?

I have more examples of exact frame comparisons for Casablanca in the link below:

http://www.compare.dvdbeaver.com/

Cheers,

 

[Robert Harris]

It appears that the close up of Miss Bergman was among the dupe shots in the film. As compared to other scenes, it carries with it a different grain structure.

RAH

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I think they were right to clean up that shot.

God, she was beautiful!


Gordy

 

[CraigF]

^^ Exactly what I thought when I saw the pic! Don't know what it is, so many of older films' leading ladies seem beautiful to me, and most of the current ones...pretty at best.

 

[Peter Kline]

It's a matter of the stars outer and "inner beauty" - a cliche, I know, plus great makeup, lighting and photography as well. Much of those elements just are not in today's films.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I just watched the film.

It really is an amazing film. The warmth is has - it's like an old friend that never got old. It's truly heartbreaking in places, but the ending is massively uplifting and life-affirming. They both have their own rows left to hoe in the field of time, and much adventure awaits them both, but they will also love each other and will always be together spiritually. And then we get one of the great 'punch-the-air' codas in all of Cinema!

Gloriously beautiful film.

Truly unfogettable.


Gordy

 

[Peter Kline]

And to think the screenplay was constantly being changed as they filmed.

 

[Paul_Scott]

see now, over the years i've come to read this film much more differently than the 'common' interpretation.
to me, Elsa doesn't love Rick at all...but she needs to use him. She is manipulating him (again) from the moment she is conscious of him in the Cafe.
it's so obvious.
Rick is deluding himself that he actually has the 'power' to give up something that was never going to be his to begin with.
but the thought feeds some need in him, and because Elsa is basically good ( manipulating out of need, not caprice) she leaves him believing that.
and they all get something they can use in the end.
for Elsa and Victor (the 'real' lovers) it is deliverance and freedom.
for Rick it is closure and a comforting (but false) belief that he has the power over decisions of the heart...rather than merely being a subject to another's rule.
rather than see the ending as a triumphant example of war-time self sacrifice, i see it as the necessary self-delusions of an unwanted old saloon owner.






ok...i may have some issues here...

 

[Robert Harris]

But a viable and interesting interpretation nonetheless.

Just an additional layer of concept making this one of the great films.

About a dozen years ago, someone (I believe with Film Comment) sent the original screenplay (I believe under the title "Everyone Comes to Rick's") around to a number of studio execs and production companies.

Of the dozen or so readers, only one or two recognized the screenplay as something they might have seen before.

There was apparently some interest, but most turned it down out of hand.

RAH

 

[Paul_Scott]

i heard that story.

this movie also gives lie to the conception that too many screenwriters will always spoil the script.
there was a whole stable of word-smiths working on this, and revisions on a daily basis, iirc.

there was a thread over on dvdtalk recently about how some of the 'classic' movies seemed too dated and irrelevant.
several people over there mentioned Casablanca as one these titles 'they just don't get why everybody considers it a classic'.

 

[Rain]

Paul,

Spoilers just in case.

If Ilsa didn't love Rick, why the affair in Paris?

Have you considered the possibility that Victor doesn't love Ilsa, but is only using her to get what he needs...and knows more all along that he lets on? Political correctness aside, a good looking woman is going to be a useful tool as she will undoubtedly have more influence in certain ways.

Victor would never have made it to the plane without her.

Chew on that.

 

[Paul_Scott]

ok Rain,
i haven't seen it in a few years so i may be rusty on some plot points, but here goes

if the affair in Paris took place when she thought Victor was captured or in prison, then it was obvious that Esla was skirting with destructive nihlistic behaviour becasue she was heart-broken. her behaviour might not have been that extreme, but if looks a lot like the actions of a girl trying to get past her the heartbreak of having the man she really loves taken/kept from her, by spending time and romantic energy on a man she doesn't care about- i believe a woman in her position would have sought out a relationship like that, because it will have no consequence one way or another.
if the nazis come along and take away Rick, no big deal...her heart wasn't really pinned on him...or any of the other men that will come after him.
of course, when Victor is returned to her, she regains her sensabilities, and she loves Victor so much...she is willing to sacrifice herself to Rick to see his saftey is insured.
luckily for her though, Rick lets her back out of that deal.
actually when i used manipulation in the previous post, that may have sounded harsh.
Rick is a just a means to an end.
and maybe she feels she now has to pay the price for her wanton ways when she thought Victor was doomed.


i'm not saying this is what the filmmakers intended, but i do think this kind of interpretation could have validity.
especially in the context of a continent-wide, de-humanizing conflict.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Are spoilers really nessicary for this film?! Anyone who loves movies really ought to have see this landmark classic by now!

For me, the film is about the transcendental power of love between people. It's about friendship and sacrifice. Ilsa loves Victor and she did once love Rick in te same way, but by the end of the film, they have a different bond, one that will endure over the years, even though they may never meet again.

# Down the windy halls of friendship, to the rose clipped by the bullwhip
The motel of lost companions waits with heated pool and bar #
- Neil Young, 'Thrasher'

Maybe some day they did all meet up thanks to cyclistic circumstance.

Sorry for not being cynical!


Gordy

 

[CraigF]

A mundane query: does this set come in a digipack or keepcase? I'm going to order it online and they list both (??). Looks like a digipack to me in all the pics I've seen. Thanks!

 

[Carlo_M]

RAH - that is a classic story! Yeah, if Michael Bay can't direct it (or Bruckheimer produce it), the major studios don't want anything to do with it...at least that's what it seems like these days.

Last night I watched Rear Window again and thought how this wouldn't get made today (air conditioning argument aside). Just too much...dialogue.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Rear Window could probably be made today - as a low-budget, independant film. It would probably have the feel and look of Roman Polanski's, The Tenant. It wouldn't have the witty dialogue, though. I think that Hitchcock's films from Rear Window thru Frenzy are of a style that is probably impossible to re-create today. And as early as 1980 with Di Palma's, Dressed To Kill, you can see that Modern Cinema is at odds with the Master's subtle, elegant and witty style.

I have never watched the film all the way through, but I am told that the Pamela Anderson 'vehicle', Barb Wire is an 'updated' version of Casablanca. I'm also told that it is a 'piece of shit'. At least they tried...


Gordy

 

[Ray H]

A mundane query: does this set come in a digipack or keepcase? I'm going to order it online and they list both (??). Looks like a digipack to me in all the pics I've seen. Thanks!

Haven't seen it yet in person, but last Sunday, Richard Roeper held it up during the video segment on Ebert & Roeper and it looked like a digipak to me. Plus I doubt they'd do it in a two-disc snapper.

 

[Peter Kline]

I believe it's a digipack style with a slipcase.