|
There's no question that the
advent of DVD has been a great step in film presentation. The medium
has created a whirlwind of fascination among movie collectors with its
ability to showcase more than the feature. Additives such as bonus
footage and commentaries are the fireworks that lure the viewing
audience beyond the main menu. DVD also boasts the potential to give a
complete cosmetic facelift to those films that have suffered the wrath
of father time. Though this is an assumed turn for the better, some
tend to disagree. So the question materializes.....to restore or not to restore?
The
genre that is likely to warrant the most opposition is the crime drama.
Old detective films of the 30's and 40's were built on a foundation of
dread. Many of these films fall into "Film Noir", a mood
rather than a genre, usually discernable by its low-lighting, bleak
urban setting, isolation and paranoia. Film Noir, or "black film"
in French, became a staple in cinema near the end of World War II.
Soldiers returned home thinking that life would resume as they'd known
it before leaving. What they found, however, was a society much
different. Many of their wives had been unfaithful, jobs had laid them
off and opportunities had disappeared. They did not find open arms, but
rather cold indifference. This began a chain reaction of anger and
frustration, stemming from the ordinary citizen to Hollywood's lavish
neighborhoods. Tinseltown started to put a creative face to this
mindstate, churning out some of the most cynical works the screen has
ever shown. There have been commercially successful noirs and detective
films; however, the 1940's saw an explosion of B level pictures, such
as Detour (1945), that futher solidified the intended look
and feel. Naturally, the technology of the day was not as advanced as
it would become. We see these films retain their scratches and hiss,
and it brings us back to that time. We can feel the movie.
You don't expect to see a Cagney movie set in a beautiful flower
garden...because it's too vibrant. The characters need an angry
landscape, a distorted canvas on which to paint their angst. Restoring
a film of this caliber would erase some of that, serving as virtual
paint thinner.
On
the opposite side lies an argument with its own justification. There
are those who argue that restoring an old film breathes new life into
and brings it to a new demographic. Some of the younger generations
frown upon black and white movies. They're considered outdated and
primative in comparison to the multi-million dollar blockbusters of
today. The modern theater has become a gateway to a smorgasboard for
the senses. Enhancements such as CGI effects and digital sound are the
standard. In order to hold the public's attention, measures are taken
that offer more than a 2 hour story with an interesting plot. That is
no longer enough. Moviegoers need stimulation. Film restoration comes
to the rescue in this regard. Some companies have gone further to
colorize films originally shot in black and white. This is an obvious
attempt at debunking some of the negative stigmas attached to older
movies. However, there seems to be one flaw in this process...it
sometimes has a "fake" look to it. It almost becomes the equivalent of
a child's coloring book. Though not as old, the 1962 thriller "Carnival of Souls" was colorized for DVD. Below is the comparison of the two results...
Another
downfall of this process is "color assumption". What proof exists that
the dress was red/pink? This subconsciously removes the audience's
imagination. It's also apparent that the colorized version looks washed
out in its own right. The colors look very dull and pastel-like.
However, some still maintain that even washed out color is a world
above simple black and white. Therein lies the heart of a seperate
debate. A great divide of generation will usually spark a passionate
debate on both views. Is there really a right or wrong? Adding to the
opinion that restoration brings a film back to life, is the stance that
it also presents the movie as it was intended to be seen in
its particular day. This is a logical argument. Those opposed, however,
question if using high-powered audio/video cleaning methods contradicts
the result. The picture and sound may be clear, but perhaps too clear,
a level of clarity that could only be achieved by modern technology.
They argue that if the tools of today are the only way to bring such
vibrance, then it couldn't possibly have looked that way in its debut.
Again, is there a right or wrong?
When
it all boils down, restoration is simply left to the tastes of the
individual. Where one may find damage, another may find progress, and
vice versa. The millions of film buffs spanning the globe can present
convincing arguments either way but there is no supreme decision making
entity. The video companies are likely to continue their particular
practices, regardless of backlash or lack therof. Some of the lesser
known companies take their sources straight from the public domain and
distribute the movie with all its signs of wear. The disadvantage is
that there is no supplemental material. These discs are generally lower
in price. The larger companies jump through the hoops and try to dazzle
the audience. They tend to release "special editions", "ultra editions" and the like. Naturally, these discs run higher in price.
|
