Pinocchio, on my 50-inch plasma display
Believe you me, I am not one to wax nostalgic over the days of VHS. But it’s an indisputable truth that back then, things were a little simpler. The question of how a movie ought to look on home video was severely circumscribed by technical limitations. The answer to the question was, in pretty much every case, “As good as it can look given how crappy the resolution of the NTSC broadcast standard and the crappier-still VHS standard could get it up to.” As a devoted laserdisc buyer back in the day, I wish I could say that said superior disc format had some say in the debate, but let’s face facts: that particular market was so small that its proclamations concerning the, shall we say, art of the possible never even had a chance of being heard.
Today things are quite different. DVD, and its high-definition coeval Blu-ray, complicate the question in any number of ways. In this post I’ll only deal with one aspect of it: film grain. The debate falls, crudely, along these lines: those who believe that when dealing with a good number of what we’ll call classic films,grain is not just an integral part of the picture but is, as film restoration expert Robert Harris has said, nothing more or less than the picture itself. Then there are those who argue that grain…or, when pressed, what they term “excess” grain, is a detriment to picture quality, and is only defended by purist “monks,” to use Jeffrey Wells’ term. They argue, for instance, that if Billy Wilder could have concocted a shiny, grain-free version of Sunset Boulevard, they damn well would have—as Paramount, with the technical assistance of the digital restoration firm Lowry Digital, did a few years back for a standard-definition DVD of the film.
The argument that moviemakers themselves hate grain and would gladly do without it if they could is contradicted in large part, I think, by, say, the post-2001: A Space Odyssey work of Stanley Kubrick. It receives an extremely controversial rebuke in the form of the new Blu-ray disc of The French Connection, which was subjected to a color re-timing by director Billy Friedkin himself. The new version has been denounced by no less a personage as Owen Roizman, the cinematographer of the picture. I’m of two minds about it myself, and the discussion is a continuing one.
There’s one genre of filmmaking, though, in which the “they-would-have-gotten-rid-of-the-grain-if-they-could” line holds a great deal of water. Animation. Disney works with Lowry Digital on (thus far) all the restorations of its classic animation titles, and the digital work goes beyond erasing scratches and smudges. It extends well into the issue of the grain that was produced when the actual animation cels were photographed. It aims to give a representation of what the artwork would have looked like had the intermediaries of the camera lens and the film stock never, shall we say, interfered.
The first high-definition demonstration of this wizardry was with 1959’s Sleeping Beauty, released on Blu-ray last fall, a staggeringly beautiful disc. In a week and a half, DIsney unveils a 70th-Anniversary edition of Pinocchio on Blu-ray, and in a way, it’s even more of a stunner.
Okay, the actual 70th anniversary of this 1940 title is a year away, but let’s not quibble. For borderline boomers such as myself, Pinocchio never played as an “old” movie when we saw it, or bits of it, on the color version of “The Wonderful World of Disney” on our households’ first color televisions in the early ’60s. But to look at this version is to look at something not just not old, but brand new. The colors, the detail, the almost preternatural absence of smudges, scratches, and whatnot…this does, I think, inarguably, honor the intentions and the labors of the filmmakers in a way that even they themselves could not have envisioned. The above frame is a snapshot I took off of my display, midday on a sunny day; I don’t have to apologize for my photographic ineptitude here. Below are a couple of screen caps I got on my computer from the standard-def DVD included in the package I got; they speak for themselves.
I don’t know how you yourself feel about Pinocchio the film; as you might have inferred, I’m pro. If you love it as I do and have a Blu-ray player, go out and grab this; it’s pretty much as thrilling as the format gets.
Glenn,
This post is a great way of reframing the debate on film grain in the Blu-ray realm. You are correct that each film that runs into this issue should be considered on a case by case basis.
Friedkin’s “French Connection” revision seems to be done in the spirit of fulfilling the intent he had at the project’s inception: presenting a raw, gritty, take on crime in New York. In Aradillas’ interview with Roizman, I inferred from his attitude that Roizman was more pissed off at not having been consulted than anything else.
You are correct that had Disney been alive today, he would have certainly opted to clean the grain off of “Pinocchio.” And had Wilder been alive he probably wouldn’t have opted for the same on “Sunset Boulevard” (but that one is arguable, so know what… err on the side of caution, and leave it as is).
Each film should be examined within its individual situational context, perhaps even by a historian on the level of Harris when the director is unavailable, to determine whether or not the deletion of grain is warranted or not.
My personal problem with the Lowry restorations–at least up to PINOCCHIO, which I haven’t had a chance to watch yet–is that they tend to take it a step farther than grain removal, erasing any trace of William Blake’s “infernal method” from them by digitally scouring away brushstrokes and the like, which in fact you only really notice when they’re gone. What I love about those HiDef Looney Tunes cartoons on THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD BD is that Warner didn’t succumb to that same corporate vanity.
@The First Bill C: Point taken. The surfaces of these films have been burnished…but not, I think, to the point where the beauty and the humanity of the animation is sacrificed to a digital sheen. In fact, watching “Pinocchio” in this version, such corruption never entered my mind. I should also note that, for all its corporate vanity, DIsney did not correct “Pinocchio“ ‘s most glaring continuity gaffe: the disappearing/reappearing sleeping cap of Geppetto in the scene where Pinocchio sets his finger on fire is retained, in all its trainspotter glory.
Thank you! I was wondering about the 70th anniversary thing. I kept walking by ads and wondering how they managed to produce two hand-drawn full-length films in 1939. Those snaps look absolutely gorgeous. If I ever get over my childhood terror of the little boy who turns into a donkey (and, um, buy a Blu-ray player and an HD TV) I’ll have to get my hands on this.
My own view is that any version of a film which uses modern technology to achieve a look not available to the film’s original makers is in effect a new work.
The film’s director may have the moral right to do this, and the copyright owner may have the legal right to do this, and the result may or may not be an improvement on what was available before, but there’s also an obligation to make available the best version possible or what was made in 1940 – otherwise you’re erasing or obscuring film history.
My objection to colorization isn’t that it’s butt-ugly (which it generally is), but that it’s a lie. My objection to George Lucas’s revised Star Warses isn’t that they’re inferior to the original cuts (which they are), it’s that they obscure what he originally made.
The danger is that too many people are ceasing to watch old movies. Making old movies new in this way just adds to the problem.
Having said all that, I’m very curious to see this.
‘Pinocchio’ is a beautiful and enduring work of art, by far the best Disney film. I love it even more for being the inspiration behind two of my favourite films, Gilliam’s ‘The Adventures of Baron Munchausen’ and Spielberg’s ‘A.I. Artificial Intelligence’.
Glenn,
You should know that there has been extensive discussions in the animation community about the accuracy of these “restorations”. Many believe that the discs, though beautiful, are inaccurate reproductions, whose colors have been “tweaked” to modern tastes. There were particularly vocal objections to the recent “Peter Pan” disc to the extent that some recommended the previous un-restored disc to the new release. I’ve also heard objections to the new “Sleeping Beauty” and am beginning to hear the same thing about Pinocchio. Since it’s my favorite animated feature, I’ve already ordered it, but “caveat emptor” indeed.
@Steve Winer: I will seek out those discussions you mention, but if you could cite them with links for the benefit of readers here, that would be much appreciated. As far as I’m concerned, the proof is in the pudding. As far as the colors are concerned, I think the snapshot from my display and the images taken directly off the SD DVD of “Pinocchio” testify to the truth of this transfer. The colors are, to my eye, very much of their time. Look at the subtle aqua on the undersides of the tuna—nothing pumped up there. And I feel that as far as “Sleeping Beauty” is concerned, viewing the DVD on a properly calibrated display yields superb, true-to-the-original results.
Disney I pay attention to on this, if for no other reason than their standard-def DVD sets show just how historically minded the home video division is. Yeah, they’ve got plenty of “cross-promotional” crap (the most egregious is probably on the Cinderella set with “Cinderella Moments” in sports courtesy ESPN Classic), but they really dig into those archives.
I’m inclined to associate movie cartoon grain with the awful paper comic books were printed on when I was little. I don’t miss the grain when I look at current, super-clean reproduction of the original art in new graphic novels. Haven’t seen the Blu-Ray versions of classic animation yet, but I don’t think I’ll miss the grain.
Here are a few links to comments on Jerry Beck and Amid Amidi’s
Cartoon Brew blog, and an overview on the Peter Pan problem. The Peter Pan comment includes a link to some frame comparisons –unfortunately a similar link in the Sleeping Beauty comment seems to have disappeared.
I couldn’t find anything on Pinocchio and your frame grabs look great, so I’m hoping for the best. Admittedly, these arguments can get pretty arcane.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/sleeping-beauty-blu-ray-doesnt-mean-better.html
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/new-peter-pan-dvd-ruined.html
http://vintage-animated-films.suite101.com/article.cfm/peter_pan_dvd_controversy
Could anyone shed any light on the controversy re the dvd release of Ironweed? There is much comment on amazon.com regarding the aspect ratio, which is apparently full-screen, with one poster’s emailed reply from the distributors Lion’s Gate stating that there is no plan for a widescreen release. A later posting states that it was never shot in widescreen.
As a 1987 theatrical release, Ironweed was certainly composed for 1.85 widescreen. I’ve never handled a 35mm print of it, but I would guess it was shot in full frame, but composed to be matted for 1.85 widescreen. Standard practice for 99% of 1.85 widescreen films. I’ll bet Lion’s Gate is using an older full-frame video master rather than a newly-done film transfer.
@Dave Cairns –
__________X Co-sign.
best regards,
The Siren
P.S. I have philosophical problems with Pinocchio. Even as a child, the idea that simply playing hooky one day meant you would be turned into a pack animal and never see your mother again was Way Too Much. Pinocchio’s sin is innocence and trust as much as it is untruthfulness. But the movie is unbelievably beautiful, possibly the pinnacle of Disney animation. So in that sense I share Glenn’s love.
While we’re talking about aspect ratios: I want a widescreen dvd of “Arthur”, damn it. I actually have a video I recorded off TCM with “Arthur” in 1.85, but I did something wrong and there’s no audio. (Actually, there is audio, but it sounds like an angry bear/demon growling at me and not anything like Arthur.) I suppose I could hook up the fullscreen dvd for the audio and a VCR for the visual, but really, things would be a whole lot easier if they just released it in widescreen.
Thanks, Pete, for the feedback on Ironweed – it will be very interesting to hear comments on the quality of the transfer if, as you believe, it was done from an old video master.
Re Arthur: i have a region 2 Warners dvd and it is 1.85 ratio, so it’s crazy there is no widescreen region 1 available. Who knows, with the proposed remake, we may get a usa remaster of the original…
Wouldn’t it be fascinating to view “Pinocchio” in side-by-side comparison — the Blu-Ray and a 35mm IB Technicolor print (preferably one on nitrate stock). That would give us the surest insight as to how presentation of this film has evolved (or devolved?).
Lesley Chatham
Fantastic article.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.