How The West Was Won, Cinerama, Blu-ray transfers and the idea of the definitive

[Amnesiac]

...

[The Mike]

is there a definitive original of sorts which should remain revered and without interference?

Yes.

In this case it might not be the biggest issue, but it seems to me that the people doing these restorations don't always know what they're doing. I look back at the awful stuff they did when restoring Carpenter's Halloween, and don't want them to have the chance to do that again.

People today have this thing about cleaning up the past, it seems, and I don't know why we can't just let history be history.

[Sven]

All I know is that I couldn't stand watching How the West Was Won because those seams drove me crazy. Eyesores. I'd more liken it to removing dirt from a film strip during a restoration. You think the filmmakers wanted those strips? I agree that it's an interesting discussion, but when you get down to it, why are you trying to replicate a Cinerama experience on DVD? You're fooling yourself, I think. This isn't vandalism: it's cosmetic surgery, and it looks much better afterward.

[Kurosawa Fan]

There are many other factors that point to when a film was created. I don't need blemishes in the print to point out the age of the film I'm watching. Saying it's "sweeping history under the rug" is absurd.

[Grouchy]

In this case, I take no issue with erasing the seams. It seems to me that that's not vandalizing the work of the director(s) in any way. It's a technical limitation of the era that can be improved upon. Also, check out the DVDBeaver comparison to see the emulation of Cinerama ("smile box") that was described in that article. Pretty neat.

Obviously no home viewing can compare to a Cinerama show or a 70mm projection. That's out of the question. But the only answer to that is simply not to release the movie on DVD at all, which is just stupid.

I draw the line at changing the cinematography choices or trying to "improve" upon the special effects of the era, like the Star Trek re-release or George Lucas's insanity.

[D_Davis]

When I watch movies at home, I make sure to do a couple of things to ensure that I have a more "realistic" theater experience in order to see the films in the most proper way I can, thus ensuring to not disturb the director's true vision.

1. I invite a friend over to kick the back of my chair.
2. I invite a friend over who is babysitting an infant so said infant can cry.
3. I invite a small group of "drop-off" pre-teens to sit in front of me and talk and text on their cell phones
4. I spray the floor of my living room with soda so it is sticky.
5. I buy the most outrageously expensive snacks I can find.
6. If I am watching in older "art house" film, I make sure that I have something in front of the TV to make it kind of out of focus, and I poke holes in the speakers of my TV so the sound is messed up.
7. I make a tape of commercials to watch for 20 minutes before the actually movie starts

[Sven]

1. I invite a friend over to kick the back of my chair.
2. I invite a friend over who is babysitting an infant so said infant can cry.
3. I invite a small group of "drop-off" pre-teens to sit in front of me and talk and text on their cell phones
4. I spray the floor of my living room with soda so it is sticky.
5. I buy the most outrageously expensive snacks I can find.
6. If I am watching in older "art house" film, I make sure that I have something in front of the TV to make it kind of out of focus, and I poke holes in the speakers of my TV so the sound is messed up.
7. I make a tape of commercials to watch for 20 minutes before the actually movie starts

At the end of the day, I find theater purists niggling. Naturally, under ideal circumstances, the size of the screen, the intensity of sound, the darkness, and the clarity of the (hopefully film) print should equate to a more immersive, more memorable and rewarding experience. I recently saw Tokyo Drifter in the theaters and I'll be damned if any home theater experience could've even come close to how great it looked and how imposing it was.

Still... shut up. You know? Too many variables, too many opposing schools of thought (when one does as I do and sees film more as a text than an experience, it really doesn't matter: I had a better time with Fellowship of the Ring on my 13" mono-sound television than I did in the theaters), too much money... ultimately, it's just that I get a little irritated when people say that I haven't truly seen a film unless I've seen it in a theater.

[balmakboor]

When I watch movies at home, I make sure to do a couple of things to ensure that I have a more "realistic" theater experience in order to see the films in the most proper way I can, thus ensuring to not disturb the director's true vision.

1. I invite a friend over to kick the back of my chair.
2. I invite a friend over who is babysitting an infant so said infant can cry.
3. I invite a small group of "drop-off" pre-teens to sit in front of me and talk and text on their cell phones
4. I spray the floor of my living room with soda so it is sticky.
5. I buy the most outrageously expensive snacks I can find.
6. If I am watching in older "art house" film, I make sure that I have something in front of the TV to make it kind of out of focus, and I poke holes in the speakers of my TV so the sound is messed up.
7. I make a tape of commercials to watch for 20 minutes before the actually movie starts

Me too. All of those things.

[The Mike]

Yeah, I know what you mean. But I wonder, can you or anyone else name an instance in which this cosmetic surgery of sorts has been fruitful, productive or justified? Or do these revisions always fall under the censure of 'vandalism'?

And, returning to the specific case of HTWWW, are those seams integral to the value and integrity of the film?

I wouldn't say restorations are always a problem, and I can't say for sure in this case having not been around when the film was released theatrically. But when I look at the two pictures, I see one that looks like I'd have expected it to when it was released, and one that looks like it's been bleached.

Recreating the Cinerama effect is impossible, agreed, but I don't know why you'd get rid of any sign of it.

And as for the "updating with methods the director didn't have but would have used" argument people have made, it's bogus. It's on the same level as asking "Would they have cast Jason Statham in Death Race 2000 had he been around then?" or "Would Thomas Jefferson have used text message speak in the Declaration of Independence had it been available? OMG!"

The film should stay as completed, for better or worse.

[MadMan]

When I watch movies at home, I make sure to do a couple of things to ensure that I have a more "realistic" theater experience in order to see the films in the most proper way I can, thus ensuring to not disturb the director's true vision.

1. I invite a friend over to kick the back of my chair.
2. I invite a friend over who is babysitting an infant so said infant can cry.
3. I invite a small group of "drop-off" pre-teens to sit in front of me and talk and text on their cell phones
4. I spray the floor of my living room with soda so it is sticky.
5. I buy the most outrageously expensive snacks I can find.
6. If I am watching in older "art house" film, I make sure that I have something in front of the TV to make it kind of out of focus, and I poke holes in the speakers of my TV so the sound is messed up.
7. I make a tape of commercials to watch for 20 minutes before the actually movie starts

I've never had a problem with #1. And if I did, I'd turn back and tell the person doing it to stop. #2 has only happened once or twice, and I've learned to often go during times of the day when there aren't too many people in the theater. Same goes for #3, and I'd tell those people to shut the fuck up or I'd get an usher. Maybe I should start bringing a small blunt object with me to the theater #4 really has never bothered me, and it often comes with the territory. As for #5, I don't buy snacks because they are expensive. They don't make you do this btw. Don't have any of #6 in my area, so I'm good. As for #7, there aren't as many commercials in front of movies as there used to be. And I use that time to go to the bathroom before the film starts, plus that way I know I'll never be late for a movie.

[The Mike]

I've never had a problem with #1. And if I did, I'd turn back and tell the person doing it to stop. #2 has only happened once or twice, and I've learned to often go during times of the day when there aren't too many people in the theater. Same goes for #3, and I'd tell those people to shut the fuck up or I'd get an usher. Maybe I should start bringing a small blunt object with me to the theater #4 really has never bothered me, and it often comes with the territory. As for #5, I don't buy snacks because they are expensive. They don't make you do this btw. Don't have any of #6 in my area, so I'm good. As for #7, there aren't as many commercials in front of movies as there used to be. And I use that time to go to the bathroom before the film starts, plus that way I know I'll never be late for a movie.

This is why living in the midwest rocks. Annoying people only get out on the weekends. ritch:

[D_Davis]

I know you're being facetious here but you touch on some interesting points. There seems to be a difference between the advent of watching films in your 'home theatres' and that of the commercial theatre...

I almost always prefer to watch stuff at home - I have a pretty killer set up with a projector and a huge screen (100''). I prefer to watch films from the comfort of my own couches, with friends who I know will respect the movie watching process.

However, there are times when a theatric experience is awesome. Seeing a great film at a festival (like watching the US Premier of Godzilla Final Wars at a sold-out midnight showing) or seeing something like 2001 at the local Cinerama.

[The Mike]

Haha. Interesting. You judge a thing by the limitations that come with the context in which it was created. Sounds reasonable.

So, with Jefferson it's a matter of using the most persuasive language within the logic and reality of that time. With a filmmaker in the silent era, it is similarly about using the tools which are at their disposal to best communicate their story. Is the prospect of adding in common-day idioms and language into Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, a very specific historical document, the same as polishing the grit of a film so that it might appear more pristine? One is a document that relies on it's historical context and it's relation to a certain point in time, the founding of the nation and the prospect of unity among the colonies. With film, is there as strong an emphasis on didactic historical context? One might argue the diegesis of the film survives, and perhaps is heightened in a way ... these revisions, therefore, might be doing a service to the director's intentions. But in doing so, they negate the importance of progress, posterity and the didactic benefit of historical context.

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't put the Declaration of Independence and Death Race 2000 in the same category. My question is simply, as you put it, How far do we go? Is it ok to do this to some movies and not others? If it's OK for movies, is it OK for books? And so on. And I don't want to answer those questions.

Also, I do think most restorations are good things, thanks to making a work of cinema available and giving it a chance in today's world. Then there are things like George Lucas that are totally wrong. This one's somewhere in the middle, I think.

[balmakboor]

I have a pretty killer set up with a projector and a huge screen (100'').

Someday, you'll even tell me about it.

[Mysterious Dude]

I still like Touch of Evil better when it had credits.

[MadMan]

This is why living in the midwest rocks. Annoying people only get out on the weekends. ritch:

Hah, pretty much.