They Shall Not Grow Old

[wich2]

And let's not discount the computer "in-betweening" and cleanup, which also does much to strengthen the feeling of immediacy and reality.

[s.w.a.c.]

And let's not discount the computer "in-betweening" and cleanup, which also does much to strengthen the feeling of immediacy and reality.

I mentioned this earlier, it takes you a moment to realize how the motion in the film clips has been smoothed out. I don't think I've ever seen that done with old footage before, and the effect is striking. I'd hate to see it applied to silent dramas or comedies, to make them look more "modern", but it did occur to me that it could prove helpful where film is damaged or missing frames due to bad splices and so on.

[R. Cat]

If opinions are a dime a dozen, then hopefully my two cents will be worth a bit more, on balance.

I've given a lot of thought to the issues of documentary direction, colorization, reformatting and sound editing. I'm inclined to give documentarians a lot more latitude than bottom-line minded studio producers and license holders in this regard.

While I'm loathe to endorse colorization of B&W films across the board due to the obvious potential for abuse ...imagine the bastardization of Casablanca, Citizen Kane or the many wonderful B&W noir classics we all know and love... there should be some room for experimentation that allows color to be utilized as an alternative choice for tightly budgeted "B" films that may be shelved due to lack of interest from contemporary audiences.

In respect to silent films, there are many examples of colorization from hand colored prints released by George Melies to later silent era color film stocks used for lighting effects, night scenes, etc. Does that make the general release B&W versions the preferred version or is there another perspective? The end objective should always be preservation of the original source materials for future generations regardless of how it's manipulated for current audiences.

Note: Colorization was employed years ago ...with the approval of the late Ray Harryhausen... to a number of his mid-50's science fiction films, thus providing a choice of either colorized or B&W versions. Even as a purist, I could see this technique being utilized to good effect for some serials given the colorful characters, storylines and explosive scenes.

Reformatting is another matter altogether. While I'm much less concerned with how a documentarian mattes photographs and archival footage for presentation in a documentary, I have no interest in seeing Academy formatted feature films re-edited in widescreen to accommodate an intolerant audience. That's almost as offensive as stretching a 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 screen.

I'm also persuaded that ...with the possible exception of extended Director's cuts... compromising the original theatrical release versions of films in any way risks distorting viewer's perceptions of films, potentially lessening entertainment value to future audiences.

But I've digressed enough. For whatever it's worth, I'm excited about Peter Jackson's effort. It's obviously a labor of love, and from what I've seen thus far, very compelling. After viewing the complete results we'll undoubtably pick apart those things that don't meet with our approval and debate the merit of the Director's choices, but my inclination is to lend enthusiastic support for this achievement. Overall, I agree with Brooksie's point of view based upon my understanding of the well stated points she made earlier.

[bigshot]

You also have to remember that movies were intended to be an evening's entertainment where you would go out and sometimes see a whole program with shorts along with a feature on a big screen with a theater full of people. When we sit in the living room with the lights on checking our email while a movie plays on a TV set across from the couch, we aren't experiencing anything even remotely close to what was intended. We put up with that for the convenience and we don't even think about it. Since I got rid of my TV set and installed a projection screening room in my home, I've realized how different seeing films projected is from seeing them on a TV with the lights on while multitasking.

[Silent London]

I saw this yesterday, and posted my thoughts here. I am afraid I was sorely disappointed

https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/l ... e-archive/

[R. Cat]

I saw this yesterday, and posted my thoughts here. I am afraid I was sorely disappointed

https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/l ... e-archive/

Thanks for the review link. You're not a lady who's afraid of much, so I consider your disappointment in Peter Jackson's documentary fair warning.

Cheers,
Cat

[Silent London]

That's very kind of you. I must say many people have had a more positive experience. If I had got the "wow factor" others experienced, then perhaps these qualms would have bothered me less. Who knows?

[bigshot]

Do you think the restoration effects would be less objectionable if they weren't in 3D? Also, do you think a general audience with no particular connection to archival footage would share your problems with the film?

[Silent London]

Not sure about the first question – I would be inclined to say yes, but a friend who saw it in 2D wholeheartedly shares my reservations about the look of the film. The second question is more difficult. You're probably right. Then again, lots of critics have reviewed it very, very positively – and in doing so, parroted the line that the footage was unwatchable before and has now been rescued. So they're not troubled by it, but they are misled. And the film tries to make people think that for sure. My website is for a specialist audience, and that's who I wrote that review for.

[IA]

From Silent London's excellent review:

Almost every man has a creamy, peachy skin tone, and the grass in each shot is a warm, yellowy green. The sky is blue. If it weren’t for the daubs of bright red blood, and the bomb craters, this would risk being a unnaturally prettified image of war, with remarkably consistent scenery. These are really incredible images – so homogenising them in this way does them a disservice. It’s not easy either to dispel the thought that all these colours (as well as many of the sounds) are simply guesswork: the colour of hair, blankets, signs and wildflowers having been plucked out of the air.

So much for the great breakthrough in bastardization! But I'm sure Jackson's hype machine will roll on.

[wich2]

So much for the great breakthrough in bastardization! But I'm sure Jackson's hype machine will roll on.

Pamela reminds us, in her well-written review, that ~

"At one point a soldier in a trench waves at the lens and calls to his pals, 'It’s the pictures, mate' – a reminder that there can be no raw, unmediated moving image record of reality, whether silent or sound."

So, IA, I would ask both you, and her:

How is the original removal of depth, hue, and sound by the limitations of the technology of that time not also a form of "bastardization" of the reality of the situation then?

- Craig

[Silent London]

That's the whole point of Jackson's argument, right, that he is putting back what the original cameras missed? My worry is that you can't put it back – what he has added relies on his own creative decision-making. I don't like the words "bastardisation", myself, for either process.

[Arndt]

Let me throw a new word in here: kitsch. While I have not seen Peter Jackson's new documentary, kitsch is a word I have associated with this director for a while. In my view he turned the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy into kitsch with his peculiar form of hyper-realism. KING KONG turned to kitsch in his hands and even more so THE HOBBIT.
Could it be that Peter Jackson is the King Midas of contemporary film? Only instead of gold, you know...

[Spiny Norman]

with his peculiar form of hyper-realism.

That's not a term I would have chosed, what do you mean by it?

[Arndt]

When you portray an obviously fantastic subject - with elves, balrogs etc. - you can choose to acknowledge the fact that these things are fantasy in some way stylistically. It's like someone saying: "I am telling you a story." Look at the illustrations of Arthur Rackham for example, or the films of Jean Cocteau, Tim Burton or Wes Anderson. Or look at a favourite of mine: Fritz Lang's DIE NIBELUNGEN.
Jackson chose to present the events in LOTR as if they were genuine history by leaving out any of these stylistic markers or flourishes. By doing so he not only endeared himself to a particular (teenage by age or inclination) clientele, he also helped to create the unbearable glut of special effects-heavy science fiction and superhero movies that dominate blockbuster cinema today.
So by 'hyper-realism' I mean presenting fantastic things in a literal way, as if they were actually, like, you know, totally real, man. Awesome!

[Paul Penna]

The guy who restored Vertigo, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady, etc. etc. doesn't have a problem with it:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/commun ... s/4664029/

[Spiny Norman]

When you portray an obviously fantastic subject - with elves, balrogs etc. - you can choose to acknowledge the fact that these things are fantasy in some way stylistically. It's like someone saying: "I am telling you a story." Look at the illustrations of Arthur Rackham for example, or the films of Jean Cocteau, Tim Burton or Wes Anderson. Or look at a favourite of mine: Fritz Lang's DIE NIBELUNGEN.
Jackson chose to present the events in LOTR as if they were genuine history by leaving out any of these stylistic markers or flourishes. By doing so he not only endeared himself to a particular (teenage by age or inclination) clientele, he also helped to create the unbearable glut of special effects-heavy science fiction and superhero movies that dominate blockbuster cinema today.
So by 'hyper-realism' I mean presenting fantastic things in a literal way, as if they were actually, like, you know, totally real, man. Awesome!

Do you mean that in a purely visual/special effects manner, or is it also that those directors portray things a bit over the top and that's how the fantasy element is indicated by a sort of unseriousness? Or couldn't you say the same thing about Star Wars or the Harry Potter films/books?

In a sense, any historical movie is resurrecting the dead and putting its own idea on historical facts. Only this time it's visually based on historical material.

[Arndt]

Do you mean that in a purely visual/special effects manner, or is it also that those directors portray things a bit over the top and that's how the fantasy element is indicated by a sort of unseriousness?

That is one way of doing it, but there are many others.

[Spiny Norman]

Do you mean that in a purely visual/special effects manner, or is it also that those directors portray things a bit over the top and that's how the fantasy element is indicated by a sort of unseriousness?

That is one way of doing it, but there are many others.

No, those are two ways, and the subtler they are, the more they are in the eye of the beholder. I never thought I'd defend a dumber-down like peter jackson, but in one LotR scene, Legolas jumps on a galloping horse in an extra impossible manner. If anything in some ways I would have liked it MORE realistic. (Anyone charging into war mammoths with a full frontal assault deserves to die.)

[R. Cat]

That's the whole point of Jackson's argument, right, that he is putting back what the original cameras missed? My worry is that you can't put it back – what he has added relies on his own creative decision-making. I don't like the words "bastardisation", myself, for either process.

I used, or perhaps misused, the term "bastardization" earlier in respect to the idea of colorizing revered classics like Citizen Kane, Casablanca or the many B&W noir classics that use shadow brilliantly where color would impose an unwanted distraction to the mood of the film and ultimately the Director's vision. I agree that it is a rather crude term for want of another that might work better.

Let me throw a new word in here: kitsch. While I have not seen Peter Jackson's new documentary, kitsch is a word I have associated with this director for a while. In my view he turned the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy into kitsch with his peculiar form of hyper-realism. KING KONG turned to kitsch in his hands and even more so THE HOBBIT.
Could it be that Peter Jackson is the King Midas of contemporary film? Only instead of gold, you know...

Kitsch is a great word for describing many of the things done to titalate an audience at the expense of plausibility. In fact, that's one of the things which has always bothered me about Steven Spielberg's biggest crowd pleasers, ...Jurassic Park being one example. The frustration for me comes from the illogic of scenes composed just to get an initial reaction from a first time audience that don't hold up on repeated viewings. Peter Jackson is prone to some of those same excesses.

[Donald Binks]

So, what we do, in essence is to stifle creativity and invention?
Some comments over the years:-
1896 - Who wants to look at moving images? It ruins the aesthetic of the still image.
1927 - What's with this adding of sound to pictures? The whole artistic nature of pictures are going to be ruined by this so-called realistic intrusion!
1936 - Why are pictures being made in colour? Surely everyone ought to be quite satisfied with monochrome?
1953 - There was nothing wrong with the square screen - I much preferred it rather than this huge rectangle that now confronts me!
2001 - This C.G.I. is disgusting! And, film is film, digitising films is so wrong.
2018 - Making old film like it was made yesterday - completely out of order!

[R. Cat]

So, what we do, in essence is to stifle creativity and invention?
Some comments over the years:-
1896 - Who wants to look at moving images? It ruins the aesthetic of the still image.
1927 - What's with this adding of sound to pictures? The whole artistic nature of pictures are going to be ruined by this so-called realistic intrusion!
1936 - Why are pictures being made in colour? Surely everyone ought to be quite satisfied with monochrome?
1953 - There was nothing wrong with the square screen - I much preferred it rather than this huge rectangle that now confronts me!
2001 - This C.G.I. is disgusting! And, film is film, digitising films is so wrong.
2018 - Making old film like it was made yesterday - completely out of order!

Interesting ...and clever... points, Donald, but for most examples ...which, BTW, are absurdly extreme positions... there can be a case made that some harm or abuse occurred due to the excesses of those choices. Conversely, there can be demonstrated accomplished uses of prior technologies in deference to newer ones through examples of great works of film achieved after those technologies were introduced to the great unwashed.

Food for thought.

[bigshot]

That's the whole point of Jackson's argument, right, that he is putting back what the original cameras missed? My worry is that you can't put it back – what he has added relies on his own creative decision-making.

Since when has film making NOT been about a director expressing his own creative decision making? Maybe I just think differently because I work in the film business, but I would say that is pretty much the essence of film, not reproducing reality. I think perhaps people who don't make films have the impression that they are just "captured"... like "taking" snapshots. That isn't the way it works. Even if the overall impression to the viewer is realistic, it isn't real. It's a million creative decisions that work together to create the illusion of reality.

I really don't cotton to the idea that film is sacrosanct and shouldn't be reinterpreted by other film makers. If they do that, I'll judge them by what *they* create, not how faithful they are to the source. Film is better when it's a living medium. It would be terrible to put films on a shelf in formaldehyde and say "That's the way they'll always be."

Let me throw a new word in here: kitsch. While I have not seen Peter Jackson's new documentary, kitsch is a word I have associated with this director for a while.

I don't think Jackson is at all kitsch. Kitsch infers that there is an element of tastelessness that the creator doesn't understand or have control over. I think Jackson is totally aware of what he's doing and he is operating from a clear design aesthetic. It might be lowbrow to you. Or perhaps you might think it's in bad taste, but that is more your interpretation of what Jackson is doing than it is a comment on Jackson's work. Picasso said that the chief enemy of art was good taste. I think he was right. Art can encompass all kinds of ideas, whether you like them or not.

When it comes to Lord of the Rings being styleless and realistic, I don't know what you're looking at. Special effects fantasy movies are all over the place now, and they follow their own rules of style. Rackham and Dulac followed the stylistic precedent of the turn of the 20th century book illustration. Jackson follows the president of current moviemaking, and that is largely based on the technology that is available to us now. He's exploring new tools and that is pushing the medium forward whether you like where it's going or not.

It's easy to mistake a things from a different time and place as being more stylish than today. In the 1930s, people were probably deriding art deco as being crass machine made kitsch compared to the classical revival works that populated the late 19th century. But now it looks like beautifully designed fantasy to us. Good and bad taste is about frame of reference. It isn't absolute.

[R. Cat]

That's the whole point of Jackson's argument, right, that he is putting back what the original cameras missed? My worry is that you can't put it back – what he has added relies on his own creative decision-making.

Since when has film making NOT been about a director expressing his own creative decision making? Maybe I just think differently because I work in the film business, but I would say that is pretty much the essence of film, not reproducing reality. I think perhaps people who don't make films have the impression that they are just "captured"... like "taking" snapshots. That isn't the way it works. Even if the overall impression to the viewer is realistic, it isn't real. It's a million creative decisions that work together to create the illusion of reality.

I really don't cotton to the idea that film is sacrosanct and shouldn't be reinterpreted by other film makers. If they do that, I'll judge them by what *they* create, not how faithful they are to the source. Film is better when it's a living medium. It would be terrible to put films on a shelf in formaldehyde and say "That's the way they'll always be."

Let me throw a new word in here: kitsch. While I have not seen Peter Jackson's new documentary, kitsch is a word I have associated with this director for a while.

I don't think Jackson is at all kitsch. Kitsch infers that there is an element of tastelessness that the creator doesn't understand or have control over. I think Jackson is totally aware of what he's doing and he is operating from a clear design aesthetic. It might be lowbrow to you. Or perhaps you might think it's in bad taste, but that is more your interpretation of what Jackson is doing than it is a comment on Jackson's work. Picasso said that the chief enemy of art was good taste. I think he was right. Art can encompass all kinds of ideas, whether you like them or not.

When it comes to Lord of the Rings being styleless and realistic, I don't know what you're looking at. Special effects fantasy movies are all over the place now, and they follow their own rules of style. Rackham and Dulac followed the stylistic precedent of the turn of the 20th century book illustration. Jackson follows the president of current moviemaking, and that is largely based on the technology that is available to us now. He's exploring new tools and that is pushing the medium forward whether you like where it's going or not.

It's easy to mistake a things from a different time and place as being more stylish than today. In the 1930s, people were probably deriding art deco as being crass machine made kitsch compared to the classical revival works that populated the late 19th century. But now it looks like beautifully designed fantasy to us. Good and bad taste is about frame of reference. It isn't absolute.

Two points and I'll try not to labor them.

First, in respect to directors expressing their own creative decision making, that's usually balanced by the front office signing off on the director's decisions. Except in those rare situations where a director has enough clout to call all the shots, filmmaking is a collaborative medium. Without judging Peter Jackson's intent, there's a sizable difference between creativity in fiction and creatively restoring documentary footage. In the latter case, the choices made are subject to being scrutinized for historical accuracy.

Secondly, kitsch isn't the word I'm inclined to use in describing Peter Jackson's epic LoTR series, but his follow-up excursion into Tolkien's world is another matter. Let's just say the second attempt at an epic series was far less satisfying than the first and much closer to my definition of kitsch, but I'll gladly refer to it as controlled kitsch, if you prefer.

Of course, these are just my opinions, other's mileage may vary.

[Spiny Norman]

1953 - There was nothing wrong with the square screen - I much preferred it rather than this huge rectangle that now confronts me!

Actually I'd be interested to hear any reasons why widescreen, cinemascope or other variants are better than 4:3. Technologically speaking it meant for half a century 35mm film was twice as long as it needed to be.

[Paul Penna]

Actually I'd be interested to hear any reasons why widescreen, cinemascope or other variants are better than 4:3. Technologically speaking it meant for half a century 35mm film was twice as long as it needed to be.

Those processes don't use more film. The exposed frame size is the same as for 4:3.

[Spiny Norman]

Actually I'd be interested to hear any reasons why widescreen, cinemascope or other variants are better than 4:3. Technologically speaking it meant for half a century 35mm film was twice as long as it needed to be.

Those processes don't use more film. The exposed frame size is the same as for 4:3.

No, they use less film, so the rest of the 4:3 frame goes unused (save for a bit won by anamorphic squeeze). Each film cel was therefore higher than it needed to be, so that's where I conclude that a reel of film was more or less twice as long as necessary.

[bigshot]

Without judging Peter Jackson's intent, there's a sizable difference between creativity in fiction and creatively restoring documentary footage. In the latter case, the choices made are subject to being scrutinized for historical accuracy.

First of all, anyone who has actually made a documentary film will tell you that it definitely IS a creative task. A documentary film doesn't present reality, it presents the director's VIEW OF REALITY. He isn't restoring old footage. He is restoring old footage to create a new documentary. Besides, colorizing old footage doesn't alter historical accuracy. You could argue that the surviving footage is mostly from behind the lines and that doesn't accurately reflect the horrors of being in the trenches, but I'm quite sure even without seeing it that Jackson's film deals with that.

The reason 1.85 is used is because that's the current standard, and this documentary is being made now. Jackson isn't just presenting old footage, he is using old footage to create a new film. You judge new film by its own merits, not the merits of the source material. Jackson is the film maker here, not the cameramen who shot the bits of film 100 years ago.

Secondly, kitsch isn't the word I'm inclined to use in describing Peter Jackson's epic LoTR series, but his follow-up excursion into Tolkien's world is another matter.

I would say that Tolkein's books are kitsch in the first place.

[Spiny Norman]

You could argue that the surviving footage is mostly from behind the lines and that doesn't accurately reflect the horrors of being in the trenches, but I'm quite sure even without seeing it that Jackson's film deals with that.

Sure without having seen it, wow, that must be nice to be so confident. Apparently he uses no narration or historians.

I would say that Tolkein's books are kitsch in the first place.

I would say that that is just your opinion. Tolkien took his work very seriously. But the row of skulls above the doorway, that's the kind of thing that really says kitsch. So if I were you I'd wait and see instead of unreservedly putting all your faith in peter jackson.


Also, it isn't my own own observation at all, but they got the name wrong. The quote goes "they shall grow not old".

[bigshot]

Also, my own own observation it isn't at all, but the name they got wrong. The quote goes "they shall grow not old".

FTFY