 |
|
 |
|
|
THE REISSUE VS. THE REMASTER by Peter M. Bracke
Over the past week, this author has had the opportunity to talk a bit more with a variety of individuals about Mr. Kubrick's working relationships, the transfer process and often unwieldy and contentious topics such as respecting the original authors intent while still offering a sound product to consumers. Upon further examination, it is clear that the main focus of the controversy stems from the use of transfers previously approved and supervised by Stanley Kubrick. On the surface, it would seem to be a move celebrated by DVD fans everywhere, and the press materials released on the collection pointed in a similar direction: Kubrick and Warner had worked long and hard on this new DVD release of the director's classic films, and fans everyone should be expecting a top-quality and exciting new release. The Backlash But when the new collection arrived in consumer's hands, however, it became clear (especially to longtime Kubrick fans and prior laserdisc owners) that the transfers on this new Kubrick DVD set were the same as the now years-old masters used for prior home video editions. The reaction in many quarters was of swift condemnation of Warner solely for failing to put in any substantial new and extended effort into the collection. To add further fuel to the fire, no new supplements (with the exception of a well-received though years-old documentary on The Shining) were added, and many of the discs did not utilize anamorphic enhancement or surround sound (or even stereo) remasters. However, upon further examination of the facts, a more balanced perspective is achieved. Though Warner bore the brunt of the harsh criticism for these creative choices (Editor: From this site included, gulp.), The truth is not so cut and dried. Stanley Kubrick is certainly a methodical and exacting artist with very strong ideas on how his work should be presented. And he certainly enjoyed a far higher degree of control over his work than most directors had or could probably ever even imagine. The fact of the matter is that the transfers utilized for the DVD collection are simply the only Kubrick-approved masters available on the planet. The director personally spent a period of nearly three years overseeing them, and sources indicate that ongoing talks with Kubrick were conducted about the DVD release over a period of a year or more. This was no mere Warner "hatchet job" done without Kubrick's approval. Further research also points up the fact that Kubrick and Warner's relationship has been nurtured over a period of decades, and contractual issues specify a great degree of control to Kubrick over the presentation of his films on home video. "They were released as they were presented in movie theaters," Warner President Warren Lieberfarb explained, defending the discs in a recent Hollywood Reporter piece, "in respect to his contractual rights." He further added that "It all reflects Kubrick's meticulous attention to detail" when asked about the lack of the "bells and whistles" such as 16x9 transfers and extras most DVD consumers have become accustomed to (such features of which it should be pointed out were actively pushed and advertised as key selling points of the format by Warner itself.) Though technically Warner does own the copyright to the Kubrick titles. The understanding and agreement between the studio and the auteur are mutually respected and it is clear Warner would be rather foolish to break confidence with the director and not extensively consult with him on any new home video release. Still, when all is said and done, it must be mentioned that the reality is that aside from the director-approved cover art and menu screens, there is absolutely nothing new in the collection that hasn't already existed for years (including the long-completed documentary on The Shining). So, exactly what elements of the collection took at least of year of work on both Warner and Kubrick's part remains a veiled mystery (no official comment from Warner was available on the matter aside from the Hollywood Reporter quotes.) Should It Have Been Released At All? - A Pro and Con Argument The question thus is whether these transfers, approved or not, should have been released in the first place if new remasters were not available. As those who own some or all of them on VHS or Laserdisc know already, consumers have had access to these transfers for some time. The question must be asked of what value is yet another reissue of what are in some consumers' opinions dated and lackluster materials. Certainly, they were fine transfers in their day and a great amount of effort went into their production, but they were created expressively for a home video experience far different than that which is available today. Likewise, the choices Kubrick made in regards to choosing full frame over widescreen was also made when home theater was largely in its infancy and 16x9 televisions and HDTV were far off on the horizon. The finer resolution, color reproduction and interactive features of DVD for some only highlight the weaker elements in these transfers, instead of improving them. Because of this, feelings continue to run high that DVD releases of these transfers are actually more detrimental to Kubrick's work, and the spectatorial experience of it, than they are beneficial. An analogy might be that it is like dubbing an old record album onto CD. It may be "digital," but it still sounds like analog. So, can you only shine up an old pair of shoes so many times until it just may be time to get a new pair? Conversely, for first-time consumers, having the choice of DVD in which to view or purchase Kubrick's films may be beneficial, no longer limiting them to only the VHS or laserdisc antiquities. To buy or not to buy is a personal decision best let to the individual consumer. For those who never owned any prior Kubrick films, the availability of the director-approved transfers, old or not, is welcome in absence of no other alternative. Some may also believe that though flawed, the Kubrick transfers nevertheless represent the only approved home video version of the director's work, and that should be supported above all else, not condemned. Still, the question of whether these films should have been released on DVD now, or held for what could be years or even decades to properly restore them, is a very valid one. The issue is further clouded when one has to consider whether it is detrimental to release product onto DVD that doesn't take advantage of the benefits the format offers. An argument may be that when new DVD owners (often direct from VHS) plunk down their hard earned cash after being advertised benefits of high-quality digital and audio but then come to find a set of discs to be a mere copy of a dated analog source, they may rightly feel cheated. This is a prime reason why many are not particularly fond of the Warner budget line (whom many feel the Kubrick Collection should fall under) or some Buena Vista, Fox and Paramount product, amongst others. Is it the responsibility of every member of The DVD Video Group to deliver hardware and software that gives consumers what was promised...an experience superior to VHS, not just a repackaging of it? Or, is it better to offer only what the director approved, especially with someone of Kubrick's stature, who certainly was busy with other projects and may or may not have been willing to commit to time-consuming remasters? From a marketing standpoint, it could almost aptly be described as a minefield. Do consumers have a right to have it indicated on the box that the elements used on a disc, especially such a high-priced set ($149.95 MSRP) like the Kubrick Collection, are of an older and not pristine vintage? And certainly there is the resale factor in issuing a Kubrick collection (not coincidentally in time for the theatrical release of his last film, Eyes Wide Shut) and then remastering a new collection somewhere down the line. The fears of consumers of another laserdisc-like situation of constant reissuing and reselling is particularly strong with the DVD community, and any perceived threat of exploitation of the market via reissues is fast becoming the hot topic in a post-DIVX marketplace. The cost of the discs is certainly an interesting arena as well, in that many feel Warner and Kubrick are charging Premium Collection prices ($24.95) for budget line quality ($14.95). Such comments perhaps highlight what could be an inherent dilemma in Warner's three-tiered pricing structure (note that Warner currently chargers either $24.95, $19.95 or $14.95 depending on features, "prestige" and other factors). By relegating certain films to the $14.95 (generally featureless and sporting non-remastered or full-frame only transfers), a class system of sorts is established. This is unfortunate to many. A main aim of a large section of the DVD community, as well as the industry, retail and home electronics side of things (Editor: And of this site as well) is to help foster respect and appreciation of all film, even if one doesn't like the particular work in question. Don't both A Clockwork Orange and, say, Ace Venture deserve the same top notch attention to detail, even if many never want to see the latter again? It is certainly desirable that everyone has likes and dislikes, and of course not all films will sell as well as another. But, the approach of "even-tier" DVD distributors such as a New Line, Columbia or Dreamworks is heartening to many. By making High-Definition archival masters standard policy, the cost of which can be recouped across many different formats and markets, a clear message is sent that all films are worth keeping and one is not ultimately "better" than the other. Who can judge such a thing, really? And though prices certainly have to reflect production expenses and supplemental extras, importantly the base quality of the film is never compromised. The Restoration Factor - Does It Do More Harm Than Good? Another very important question here is also one of how restoration or remastering of films can also change the creative content or even intent of the material. Admittedly, this author was a bit disheartened in some conversations that occured where a few equated restoration or remastering of films onto High-Definition or 16x9 as something akin to colorization. Yes, we've all seen those Star Wars reissues that don't just restore a film, but alter it. Same goes for 5.1 sound remasters of mono or stereo soundtracks. Many agree that at Mr. Kubrick's behest Warner should have kept the soundtracks mono (though some disagree). However, restoring a mono soundtrack (which doesn't mean it can't be kept in mono) or preserving a deteriorating transfer, not remixing or retouching them, is "positive" change in the majority of DVD consumers eyes, and not a negative altercation of the original materials. The goal of restoration is to bring a film as close as possible to how it was intended to be seen, not just make it all shiny and digital and "change" things. Apparent film grain on a transfer, for example, can be good, because it more accurately represents how it was shot and looked. Restoration, digital or otherwise, does not have to be destructive to the original presentation of a film. And the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as the "original" experience. Unless you where there to look through that viewfinder while a Kubrick film was being made, you will always be seeing a copy of the film that is slightly different from every other copy. Prints are never exact matches, the theatrical exhibition environment and equipment is never consistent, and certainly the way we watch a video differs depending on what and where we are watching it. Intent Most probable it was Warner's sincere intention to provide consumers with what Stanley Kubrick wanted as best as they could, given contractual obligations and time (though the deadline of meeting the release of Eyes Wide Shut was seemingly made by Warner themselves, which is certainly a valid point). However, without a clear and extended statement from Warner on just how aggressive their efforts were to introduce DVD technology and the benefits of the format's interactive and 16x9 features, it seems the negative feelings by some towards Warner may not dissipate anytime soon. To step away from objectivity, this author agrees that the discs should not have been released in their present state. At the very least, a disclaimer on the press materials and box that it is a repackaging of older materials and not a new modern transfer (similar to the disclaimer on, say, the 1941 disc) should have been instituted. Regardless of the fact of Kubrick's intentions, a studio must never ignore the prior buying habits, preferences and admittedly obvious expectations of the core DVD audience. To be fair, the "problem" also very much lies with Stanley Kubrick. Additional sources revealed that Mr. Kubrick was not very involved nor that familiar with the new technology available, and it was agreed that no new transfers be made. I also don't know for sure how aggressive Warner was in showcasing the DVD format to Mr. Kubrick, nor do I understand how Warner can now, if they are concerned with his approval, release the DVDs before Mr. Kubrick has ever seen them (which, of course, is now impossible). I certainly have heard a few things about what apparently happened, but without actually being able to hear from Mr. Kubrick, and not being provided with an official statement from Warner, it is ultimately all pointless speculation anyway. However, in the above-mentioned Hollywood Reporter piece, Mr. Lieberfarb confirmed some talks occured with Mr. Kubrick about additional supplements for the discs, though it seems nothing came of it. Future Releases? For those displeased and disappointed by the Kubrick Collection that eventually arrived on DVD, it is probably best to look towards the future. We all know that unless his films are left to decay in a vault somewhere, there will come a time when other hands must take over and keep his memory alive on film by restoring and preserving his work. Thus a re-release in the future is inevitable. Talks with Warner's theatrical division did reveal that the rumors of a theatrical digital restoration of the director's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey does have some basic in fact, though a definitive confirmation was not available at press time. Those who feel the Kubrick DVD set is a good value will undoubtedly enjoy it, especially if they have no familiarity of the previous VHS and Laserdisc editions. However, many others will still be waiting or a better, perhaps definitive, Kubrick Collection to arrive. Whether it comes in the form of a DVD, High-Def or some other new delivery medium only time will tell. Certainly there are no indicated plans for a recall or reissue of the current Kubrick Collection at this time. For some, such hopes will just not be good enough....the fact of the matter is that when all is said and done, the current transfers utilized just do not look very good by most estimations, especially when put under the more exacting glare of the DVD format.. If that is the way Mr. Kubrick intended it, well, many now will have to rethink their view of the director's near-infamous reputation for exacting standards. It is clear that for many DVD enthusiasts, Mr. Kubrick may still be regarded as a master director, but his skill in regards to home video presentation is sorely lacking. However, one thing is for certain. The next time a major re-release of a classic film collection on the level of a Kubrick is attempted, the creative members involved may want think especially long and hard about whether to reissue existing materials or remaster from scratch. The eye of the DVD community is watching, and as the bar continues to be raised in terms of quality, features and presentation, the simple reissuing of the past just may not cut it anymore in a digital world. Sources: Hollywood Reporter, "Like Clockwork, Kubrick Without DVD Frills" by Scott Hettrick, July 2-4, 1999, pg. 1 and 2. If you would like to know more about how the DVD industry works, visit our Special Reports section for more behind-the-scenes stories. |
|
Easily
one of the most controversial DVD releases since the format
launched two years ago, the arrival of The Kubrick Collection
in late June of 1999 was preceded by an unusually high level
of anticipation and excitement. Addled by a high-profile announcement
by distributor Warner Bros. who touted the extensive preproduction
period of the discs and unprecidented involvement by Kubrick,
when the collection finally arrived, the reaction was mixed
to say the least. A strong backlash from longtime DVD-philes
combined with lukewarm responses from even casual viewers,
the controversy points up some fundamental questions facing
the release of long-anticipated classics on DVD, especially
the issue of when to remaster as opposed to just reissuing.