criterionforum.org

DVD Beaver update: Warner (Ultimate Collector's Edition) vs. Warner HD-DVD

I've only ever seen this film pan and scan. The UK is a bastard. TCM, video, dvd, all cropped with terrible colour.

So, I'm not sure why I've waited this long, but I'm on a Ford binge again, so..

Which edition should I buy? Which is the best other than the HDdvd?

Cinetwist wrote:Which edition should I buy? Which is the best other than the HDdvd?

Bluray? (Just kidding, of course;-))

Seriously, though, if ever there was a single movie that justified moving to HD, this would probably be it (at least for a Ford fan) I bought the standard DVD (taken from the same master) for my Father, then later bought the HD for myself it's one of the biggest improvements in quality I've ever seen (unless you count movies like "Black Rain" were I went from the 10 year old 4:3 DVD to the special-edition HDDVD)

The thing about the colors, succinctly, is that nobody actually knows what it's *supposed* to look like (all that remains are the black & white seperation prints) If you have strong views on how it should look, then the Warner special-edition will be very frustrating viewing.
But, even though I don't know who's right, Warner does seem to have done their homework and used a choice of colors that's just as valid as any of the other well-researched opinions you'll hear.

David, can I still getta hold of the '98 dvd?

If I'm gonna watch the thing for the fourth time (and essentially the first time) I want it to be as accurate as possible. But I'm not going HD yet.

davidhare wrote:People who are old enough to remember VistaVision Technicolor IB screenings DO remember how it looked

My mistake; forgot there were people that old

But, while we're on the subject; how accurate are the colors on the costumes in Troy? Or Jurassic Park?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Don't want to try and drag out the discussion of The Searchers even more, but since it got brought up in the DVDBeaver capture thread (and will likely always resurface in many a discussion), I'll go ahead and ask.

Was The Searchers printed by the IB process at initial release or did that come later? I'm curious as to whether or not there is a definitive look for the film (I'm sure Ford/Hoch had one, but I mean in terms of what elements we're looking back to), as wouldn't a different printing process have given us another look entirely (given how distinct IB can look)?

I'm not doubting that the IB prints davidhare and others have seen look different than the current color timing, and also don't doubt that they look spectacular. However, what is it that makes the IB coloring THE way the film is supposed to look? Could those IB prints be vastly different from what the answer print, OCN, etc. looked like, let alone if it was printed by another process as well at release? I assume there wasn't much color correction ability back then, so the OCN probably possessed all the information that would be printed...no digital tools to change colors obviously. And I understand the possibility of deterioration over time, so it might be a difficult thing to determine which is correct out of the elements, but perhaps that's the whole debate...

I'm not completely familiar with the tech end of things, i.e. the printing processes, etc., so forgive me for any ignorance in the rambling above. Also, I am NOT defending the current look of The Searchers - it's the only way I've seen it so sadly I have no point of reference and freely acknowledge my non-expertise. However, I definitely notice what seems to me like a yellow push on skin tones for example, so it wouldn't surprise me if it did look different originally. I'm just curious about the whole situation and wanted to inquire about the IB arguments.

I recently saw The Searchers for the first time, and was interested in Ebert's take on the film's subplots:

Roger Ebert wrote:The Searchers indeed seems to be two films. The Ethan Edwards story is stark and lonely, a portrait of obsession...[t]he film within this film involves the silly romantic subplot and characters hauled in for comic relief, including the Swedish neighbor Lars Jorgensen (John Qualen), who uses a vaudeville accent, and Mose Harper (Hank Worden), a half-wit treated like a mascot. There are even musical interludes. This second strand is without interest, and those who value The Searchers filter it out, patiently waiting for a return to the main story line.

This was opposite to my initial response, as I found the Charlie/Laurie marriage scene, the gentleman's brawl between Martin and Charlie, and the idiot characters (including Look), to be very pertinent to the "main story line," creating a depth to the communal world that Ethan was forever isolated from. This wouldn't be Ebert's first critical mistake, but I found Scott Eyman's attitude in his book "John Ford: The Complete Films" very similar.

Scott Eyman wrote:The Searchers is a great film, but it is not without flaws; there is the strange, off-putting sequence of Look, Martin's Indian bride, an object of ridicule from the beginning, mostly because she's fat and sexually unattractive. Ford's treatment of Look feels brutal and unfunny, especially if, as is almost certainly the case, he thought of the sequence as comic relief. It's entirely possible that Ford felt he was working too close to the bone with The Searchers, that he felt there might be too much about racism, too much about miscegenation. The tension may have needed an outlet, but the comic interludes Ford devised – Look, Ken Curtis' Charlie McCorry – are too coarse by half.

What's surprising here is that Eyman himself isn't 100% sure that Look was intended as comic relief - certainly her later death causes at least confusion, if not some remorse in Martin.

I find it odd that both writers dismiss the Charlie McCorry subplot, which was one of my favorite parts of the film. Martin's decision to continue searching for Debbie with Ethan is given weight by the fact that he has a family to return to, just as Ethan did (even though he dallied for three years after the Civil War). Ethan's family is tainted by the fact that he's in love with his sister-in-law, and Martin's has the extra tinge of Laurie's matter-of-fact racism and her desire for him to stay, even though Ethan will surely kill Debbie. Furthermore, the scenes of marriage, the brawl, Martin's letter to Laurie, etc all provide the counterpoint between the isolation of their nihilistic quest and the warmth/comedy of the home they've been ignoring. When they come home and find Laurie about to wed, they immediately interfere with the proceedings; the communal world is thrown off-balance by those who have chosen to abandon it, even temporarily.

Further, the farcical comedy during the brawl is completely in character for Ford; Jonathan Rosenbaum's DVDBeaver article mentions how Joseph McBride "observ[es] that Ford likes to follow tragedy with farce in the same pictures..." in reference to Pilgrimage. Perhaps this was a conscious political decision by Ford, like Eyman suggests, to lighten the mood in an otherwise dark film. The end result, however, is that tragedy and farce never exist in the same scene (Laurie's aforementioned easy racism comes close as it is a transition between Martin's jokey fight and his continuing quest). Look is a joke and a bother in one scene, but dead in the next. Ethan reaffirms his intent to kill Debbie and makes Martin his heir in one scene, and the marriage scene immediately follows. The brawl itself is a contrast between Charlie McCorry's buttoned up tuxedo (with perfect white shirt and gloves) and Martin's dusty and unkempt attire, even though both follow a ridiculous code of manners. Even the climactic scene where Ethan lifts Debbie into the air rather than killing her is followed by Ward Bond bending over with his ass hanging out - was there ever a greater contrast between two scenes?

I think Ebert expects a film to be entirely and wholly about one thing, and the social conscience struggling to shine through in The Searchers matches up with many of his yearly top 10 picks in recent years; Eyman ends his discussion of The Searchers by reinforcing that Ethan Edwards, The Searchers, and John Ford himself are all studies in contradictions. Why are they unable to accept that this contradiction exists in the weird mix of comedy and tragedy that is very much a part of Ford's ouevre? I'm thinking of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, which stops in its tracks to tell the story of Wayne's retirement both sentimentally and comically, before returning to the looming war that was the whole point of the flick anyways; or The Long Voyage Home, which alternates between a tragic story of loss and loneliness and the ridiculous bumbling of Thomas Mitchell and his crew. Fort Apache also has a, if you want, "hokey" romance that hinges on the outcome of the main story. I even think My Darling Clementine plays a bit part in this, as Fonda is forced to interact with the town community when he didn't originally intend to. I'm sure there are other better examples outside of my viewing experience as well.

Svevan wrote:I find it odd that both writers dismiss the Charlie McCorry subplot, which was one of my favorite parts of the film. Martin's decision to continue searching for Debbie with Ethan is given weight by the fact that he has a family to return to, just as Ethan did (even though he dallied for three years after the Civil War). Ethan's family is tainted by the fact that he's in love with his sister-in-law, and Martin's has the extra tinge of Laurie's matter-of-fact racism and her desire for him to stay, even though Ethan will surely kill Debbie. Furthermore, the scenes of marriage, the brawl, Martin's letter to Laurie, etc all provide the counterpoint between the isolation of their nihilistic quest and the warmth/comedy of the home they've been ignoring. When they come home and find Laurie about to wed, they immediately interfere with the proceedings; the communal world is thrown off-balance by those who have chosen to abandon it, even temporarily.

I also like the Charlie subplot. In particular, the little bit where he sings to her, from Skip to My Lou, is really moving. Just that one short interlude rounds his character out so convincingly--even though he's a largely a clownish figure, his feelings for her are completely real and heartfelt.

Haggai wrote:

Svevan wrote:I find it odd that both writers dismiss the Charlie McCorry subplot, which was one of my favorite parts of the film. Martin's decision to continue searching for Debbie with Ethan is given weight by the fact that he has a family to return to, just as Ethan did (even though he dallied for three years after the Civil War). Ethan's family is tainted by the fact that he's in love with his sister-in-law, and Martin's has the extra tinge of Laurie's matter-of-fact racism and her desire for him to stay, even though Ethan will surely kill Debbie. Furthermore, the scenes of marriage, the brawl, Martin's letter to Laurie, etc all provide the counterpoint between the isolation of their nihilistic quest and the warmth/comedy of the home they've been ignoring. When they come home and find Laurie about to wed, they immediately interfere with the proceedings; the communal world is thrown off-balance by those who have chosen to abandon it, even temporarily.

I also like the Charlie subplot. In particular, the little bit where he sings to her, from Skip to My Lou, is really moving. Just that one short interlude rounds his character out so convincingly--even though he's a largely a clownish figure, his feelings for her are completely real and heartfelt.

In the book, Charlie marries Laurie, leaving Martin to end up with...well YOU figure it out (or simply read the book). But it was quite a surprise to me.

Vic Pardo wrote:In the book, Charlie marries Laurie, leaving Martin to end up with...well YOU figure it out (or simply read the book). But it was quite a surprise to me.

Sounds like an interesting difference; I've never read the book. The only immediate possibility that comes to mind is Martin marrying (well, I guess I'll spoilerize it to be on the safe side)...

Spoiler

...Debbie?

They're not related by blood, unless one believes the various theories about Martin being Ethan's son (theories about Debbie being Ethan's daughter abound as well, though Debbie and Martin would already be first cousins if Martin was Ethan's son). Though I assume those theories are entirely in reference to the film, without the book in mind at all.

Does anyone have this on Blu-Ray? I saw a 35mm print at MoMI last night and when I came home I popped in the Blu-Ray disc to check out a few things. During the first shots by the door (from Martha's viewpoint) I noticed a light spot near the center of the screen, just a bit to the right.

It doesn't move but it's very noticeable when the blue sky passes underneath it. It's difficult, even impossible to see when darker colors are underneath, but it's there shot after shot after shot.

For a minute, I thought my TV had a burn-in spot, but I popped in some other discs and the spot is not there, it's just The Searchers. Anyone else have it, and if so, what would cause this?

Out of curiosity, how did the color timing of the 35mm print compare to the Blu-ray?

It was actually very close. Don't know where the print came from though. FWIW, they had a handful of shots that looked 'reddish,' like they spliced a few shots in from a print that was missing one of the matrices. Weird.

(Also, from what I understand, the Blu-Ray disc doesn't have the 'yellow' problems found on the last DVD - I can't personally confirm because I haven't compared the two myself, but screen caps were put up on DVD Beaver.)

The print I saw in 2005 was awful. Pinkish and Beat To Hell. The bluray colors definitely look better but that's only an illustration of the caveats inherent in celluloid.

Jesus, and virtually TEN years later to the day (time really flies!) I once again saw The Searchers at MoMI for the East Coast premiere of the new Film Foundation restoration, projected in 70mm. (This may be only the second time I've seen it projected in film, so the repetition is amusing.) MoMI's curator Edo Choi pointed out that it was a film output from a digital restoration, acknowledging there's different schools of thought regarding reproducing color in the film and digital domains. He thought the color was fine and so do I - in fact, I looked at the same caps I mentioned ten years ago (still there on DVD Beaver) and it looks generally like the Blu-ray's color scheme, which for the most part matched the 35mm print I saw back then too.

For those missed it in the WA thread, the new resto will be getting both UHD/Blu-ray combos and Blu-ray only releases via Warner Archives in December

Full details here