Thursday, August 16, 2012

All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm Ready For My Close-up--in HD!

NOTE: Yeah, I know I said I'd try not to be an asshole and write too many pretentious film pieces just yesterday in the introduction to this blog. I lied, I guess. This is both technical and about film history; yep, it's pretentious. Probably annoyingly so. Anyway...
Norma's ready for her close up, for the first time in HD!

Sunset Boulevard, Billy Wilder's sublime 1950 film noir masterpiece, starring Gloria Swanson, William Holden, and Eric von Stroheim is finally coming to blu-ray on Nov 6. The disc will carry over the extensive special features from the 2-disc Centennial DVD release (an audio commentary and around 2 hours of documentary material) and offer new exclusive content, including a never-before-released deleted musical number.

Sunset Boulevard is the story of Joe Gillis (Holden), a hack screenwriter hired by has-been silent movie star Norma Desmond (Swanson, a real life starlet of early Hollywood) to write her career comeback. Gillis, who's deep in debt, retreats to Desmond's dilapidated mansion on the famed Sunset Blvd, where he begins to work closely--perhaps too closely--with her on the film they eventually want to make. There, Joe meets Norma's ex-husband-turned-butler, the famed silent movie director Max Von Mayerling (von Stroheim, who, like Swanson, was a staple of the early silver screen; he directed Greed, one of the longest films, silent or otherwise, ever shot) and soon discovers that, much like the mansion, Norma's mind is slowly decaying, driven mad by a desire to have just one more moment in the spotlight.


Part murder-mystery, part send up to the Golden Age of Hollywood (made during the twilight years of that spectacular era), writer/director Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard is one of the greatest film noirs ever conceived. Shot in stylish and shadowy black-and-white by legendary cinematographer John F. Seitz--a man who helped  define the very features of film noir photography with such films as Double Indemnity (also written and directed by Wilder), the film is a stunning sight. It's expertly directed, also brilliantly acted--Swanson's portrayal of Norma Desmond is simply iconic--and superbly written. The film works on so many different levels, not the least of which is as a fairly faithful tribute to tinseltown itself.  Sunset Boulevard was nominated for 11 Oscars at the 1951 Academy Awards. It eventually won three (Best Screenplay, Best Score and Best Black-and-White Art Direction).

Apparently, the film has been remastered from the "best available 35mm elements" and scanned at 4K resolution, and will be presented in the original 1.37:1 black-and-white format in which it was photographed. The restored soundtrack, again taken from the best elements, will be presented in lossless TrueHD mono. (Basically, if you don't understand the technobable, and who does, what that means is, well... good things.)

I'm very interested in seeing how this all works out, on the technical front especially, because...

Like a lot of movies in the era (actually, this was changing, but true of a fair few films into the early 50s), Sunset Boulevard was shot on nitrate film stock, which, when improperly stored, deteriorates almost exponentially. It's also the stuff that liked to blow up; or, at least, catch fire really easily--like that part in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds--which is why most movies made after 1950 switched to the newer, less volatile, triacetate (negative) or polyester (intermediate, release print) stocks. Sunset was right on the cusp of this transition and was made using the more flammable nitrate. Unfortunately, film preservation wasn't even an idea on a large scale until the 1980s--some 30 years after the cans of Wilder's masterpiece were put into storage--and only then because the studios finally realized they should probably take care of their property, seeing as how it was suddenly profitable again on the VHS and Beta-Max markets.


By the time VHS and Beta battled it out and the JVC-backed VHS won, the negative of Sunset Boulevard was beyond repair; the original camera negative was too far-gone after years of neglect, to the point where it can ever be used again for anything. That particular element will never be able to be restored.

Fortunately for most films, duplicate elements a mere generation away from the negative usually exist somewhere--for some reason, they're usually found in a salt mine in the desert. Better still, for many films, if they were shot on nitrate, at least some of their dupes were done on the less-flammable, and more easily preservable, triacetate. This was done specifically for safe storage.

This is what happened to Citizen Kane, the original camera negative of which was, for years, thought lost (destroyed by the tire company that bought the shell that was RKO Pictures in the late 1950s), only to have a considerable amount of the original negative and even more of a pristine safety-stock duplicate found in deep storage. Kane has been remastered, and restored, quite impressively using a combination of these film elements, and is available in a rather nice looking package on blu-ray. Other films, like the original King Kong, which did have all of its original 35mm elements (even the first generation dupes) destroyed by that same tire company, aren't as lucky. And what we get now with a film like Kong is something grainer, grittier, less detailed, taken from second or third generation duplicates, with more damage and less image density. These films, without an OCN to remaster from, don't look nearly as good as they should, and although the King Kong blu-ray is easily the best the film has looked it years, it's quite unimpressive to the naked, untrained, eye.

But, as John Logan wrote in Scorsese's Hugo last year, time hasn't been kind to old movies. And at least these less-pristine versions of Kong and Kane still exist. Sadly, the same can't be said for other titles. Entire films have been lost to time because of poor preservation; perhaps ironically, the full 10 hour version of Eric von Stroheim's Greed mentioned earlier is lost forever.

But in the particular case of Sunset Boulevard, something weird happened. There's really no other way to say it. Weird is what it is. Despite its popularity upon release, and Academy Award winning status, somehow most of the duplicate prints--some nitrate, others triacetate--disappeared in the years between the original release and the mid-80s and early 90s when the archivists came a-knockin'. And the negative, well, it was an improperly stored nitrate element. It fell apart. What they found in the place of viable elements of respectable quality were the few acetate duplicate prints that still existed, but had essentially been savagely raped for over those 40 years, continually subjected to the wear of supplying more and more second and third generation dupe and release prints.

Each time a film is duped, the source element deteriorates. Usually, the many first generation prints made upon initial release will be the ones subjected to this process, a thousand times over for the rest of eternity, while the negative survives relatively unharmed, presumably in safe storage, only tapped to make a new inter-positive (or first gen dupe) from time to time.

Because the original negative of Sunset was improperly stored, it deteriorated too severely to be viable and so one of the few dupes still in existence basically became the new source on which all versions, from theatrical revival to home video, have been based. A negative, but not actually a negative, you might say. Because of this, Sunset Blvd looked awful until about 2002, when a massive undertaking by Paramount brought the film back from the dead using new digital restoration technology, by erasing much of the damage on the various surviving first and second generation elements cobbled together to form the new DVD presentation. A new master element, using the best possible portions of the various duplicate sources, was created by scanning the film at 2K into computer files, or a Digital Intermediate (DI). Lowry Digital and Paramount then processed the 2K DI with their tools, before putting it back out to 35mm film, resulting in the version we have today. The DVDs look pretty good, at least considering the history, and the fact that the film is sourced from what amounts to a celluloid hybrid.

Supposedly, the blu-ray has had even more work done and should look even better, and from the wording of the press release, it seems that a better triacetate element may have been found and used in this new, 4K, remaster. I hope so.

But I wouldn't be surprised if this disc ends up getting less-favorable scores from those not in the know. I imagine the increase in resolution will only make the imperfections of the Frankenstein-monster-esque source all the more noticeable. Still, digital tools have progressed rapidly in the 10 years since the first Paramount restoration. Maybe some magic will get Sunset Boulevard looking like it did 62 years ago, or close to it. Regardless, the blu-ray is without a doubt going to be the best version most of us without 35mm projectors (and access to a quality dupe print), or lucky enough to have seen it in initial release and still remember that, have ever seen.


Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard streets on November 6, with an MSRP of $26.99, and will include the following special features:
  • Commentary by Ed Sikov, author of On Sunset Blvd: The Life and Times of Billy Wilder 
  • Sunset Boulevard: The Beginning 
  • Sunset Boulevard: A Look Back 
  • The Noir Side of Sunset Boulevard 
  • Sunset Boulevard Becomes a Classic 
  • Two Sides of Ms. Swanson 
  • Stories of Sunset Boulevard 
  • Mad About the Boy: A Portrait of William Holden 
  • Recording Sunset Boulevard 
  • The City of Sunset Boulevard 
  • Franz Waxman and the Music of Sunset Boulevard 
  • Morgue Prologue 
  • Script Pages 
  • Deleted Scene—"The Paramount-Don't-Want-Me Blues" (HD) 
  • Hollywood Location Map 
  • Behind the Gates: The Lot 
  • Edith Head: The Paramount Years 
  • Paramount in the '50s 
  • Galleries:
  1. Production 
  2. The Movie 
  3. Publicity 
  • Theatrical Trailer (HD)

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

What's In a Name: An Introduction

I'm lazy. I know this because, my last--mostly pretentious film-centric--blog lasted a whole two months before I stopped posting and then promptly deleted it.

I'm an asshole. Or, so I've been told.

And I'm a loser. I mean this in two ways:

1) I'm generally pretty pathetic. I'm awkwardly anti-social. So much so that while the Internet is my life, I don't actually have, like, a life on the Internet. Some people do--friends from forums; a second life in Second Life or WoW, or whatever else it is kid are playing these days. I don't. And I procrastinate, too, leaving anything til the last possible moment before my NOT doing whatever it is will adversely effect me. And that's also why I'm a perpetual college student. I should've graduated this year. I'm 23. That's what you do when your my age. You graduate. And then you move back in with your parents and cry because there are no jobs. Cause, there aren't. But I only finally figured out my major two semesters ago, so I've still got a ways to go. So, yay me!

2) On August 7, 2010, I joined Weight Watchers. I like to tell people I was dragged their by my mom, and that I only stayed for the meeting under duress. But the truth is, that's just not true. I was 21. I weighed 298.2 lbs. I needed to do something, or just give up and decide to be that dude who was going for the Guinness world record for fatness. Now, some two years later, I'm at my so-called "Goal Weight"; three little numbers, which make up the bigger number, that falls somewhere between what doctors agree is under and overweight. If I step on a scale, and look down at the little digital read out, today, the numbers 1-6-5 or thereabouts shine back at me. Losing this weight is the one good thing I've done with my life. I'm proud of the "accomplishment"... to a point. At the same time, whatever. I did it. The end.

If you care: me, 290ish (left). Me, 160ish (right)

But, not the end. Which is, in part, why I started this blog. I have absolutely no idea what I'll do with it. Post crap, mostly, I'm sure. Musings that I just actually happen to commit to... well, not paper. Who uses that anymore? But the blogosphere, or whatever it's called.

Will I talk about my weight loss more? Maybe. It really depends if I want to get into it more than bullet point number 2 already did. I might, if that's what people want. I'll tell my story, if people ask, although I'm not really into trading recipes or talking weight-loss tips, beyond the obvious. Sorry: I don't have magic beans that'll make you thin, or a super secret workout or diet that got me where I am. When people ask, I always just say this: eat less crap, and more good stuff. Drink water, not soda; although you can drink that too, but make it diet soda and consume in moderation. And exercise regularly, but don't go nuts. It's about balance. That's, really, the secret to my success. I'll extrapolate on that more, if people care, but not much more. Because, really, there isn't much more.

Oh, and I review movies. That's what I finally decided I wanted to do with my life. The thing I changed my major to. Film theory and criticism. I've been reviewing for a DVD and blu-ray comparison website since 2009. You can read my shit there. I'll also be posting plenty of movie stuff here too. I think. But it'll be less pretencious-y than last time, I hope. I'm trying to make this a more personal blog. Something really, generally, just about my shit. My life, I guess. Maybe that approach is wrong (they say a blog should have a singular focus), but, fuck it. I'll do what I want.

That is, unless my lazy, assholish and all around losery ways make me decide not to.

- Ethan (Cody)