|
|
Special Report
TBP: Okay Robert -- is that what you prefer to be called? Let's start at he beginning. What's your background? How did you get started in this business? It seems like you'd need a PhD in chemistry or something.
RAH: Bob is fine. My partner occasionally calls me things less printable but lets go with that. I grew up with both still and motion picture photography and had a darkroom in my early teens. I started in business as a messenger for Seven Arts Assoc., then later Warner Bros./Seven Arts and stayed with them part time through most of college and a bit thereafter. I don't have a scientific background, but there are so many extraordinarily talented people out there that know everything one could need to know about film and emulsions, that fortunately, one doesn't need to know all of it.
TBP: As you know, here at The BIG Picture we were really blown away by your painstaking restoration work on MY FAIR LADY and SPARTACUS, though we couldn't understand why an anamorphic print wasn't struck from the
SPARTACUS telecine master. Any insights as to why that might have been?
RAH: First, prints are not struck from telecine masters. An anamorphic master is either created or not from a widescreen film master element. One can go to anamorphic video from a spherical transfer, but there is really nothing gained in the exercise, beyond some nice billing for the transfer facility.
The Spartacus master was created in 1990 at extremely high expense by Universal -- well before the concept of anamorphic came along via the experiments through Toshiba and a handful of lasers. The costs went well into 6 figures, working from a specially prepared 65mm interpositive, which was in itself a $60,000 film element with a single purpose. I can't fault them for not wishing to redo it for the infant DVD market -- something that could easily have been stalled by DIVX (Circuit City's ill-fated foray into a pay-per-view DVD variant). There is a new transfer underway which will now find its way to DVD via Criterion with loads of extras. This one will be a keeper.
TBP: "Spherical transfer"? Can you enlighten us neophytes?
RAH: Sorry. Very simple: non-anamorphic. For example, real wide-screen Panavision films are shot with an anamorphic element. If you look at it on the camera, it will appear ovoid, yielding a negative image which must be "unsqueezed" when printed for normal projection. Super Panavision 70 yields a 65mm image which has totally normal proportions and the taking optics are fully round or spherical.
TBP: We're looking forward to seeing the Criterion version of Spartacus, but we're sure lost in the distribution politics of these things. Why isn't Universal simply creating the new anamorphic transfer? They've demonstrated that they're certainly capable.
RAH: Universal is certainly capable and they are creating the new transfer. I expect it to be nothing short of miraculous. Once completed I'll go through it with Criterion to touch up any minor points of color or density that need attention, based upon surviving samples from a 1960 print which was approved by Stanley Kubrick.
TBP: On a personal level, I regard "THX certification" as nothing more than a marketing gimmick, given that several "THX Certified" transfers have represented something far less than the best quality that current technology allows. For instance, letterbox transfers, audio that suffers from dropouts, etc. (I'm thinking the original Live version of PLATOON: SE). What are your thoughts?
RAH: It's a wonderful marketing gimmick that had its roots in an attempt to make sure that equipment was tweaked properly. Problems quickly arose came from the fact that Lucasfilm had neither say in what element was being transferred, nor any creative control. So yes, it became a really nice marketing gimmick that adds nothing to the quality of a disc. I do like the logo, however.
TBP: Tell us a little bit about the recent restoration work you've completed on REAR WINDOW and tell us about what you're working on now.
RAH: Rear Window was a mess. The camera original was used to strike 389 prints for the initial release plus separation masters, IPs and other various bit and pieces. Over 1000 feet of original was gone by the time we
took over the element, which was also showing fading. There is so much available on this restoration that it would probably be a waste of space to go into it here...
I've been working with the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation coming up with a methodology to save their visitor center film, The Story of a Patriot, shot in 1957 in VistaVision. We finally were able to put together the technical means to save the film. They're now working on fundraising.
TBP: Do you mean the film starring Jack Lord?
RAH: Yes. Well before he uttered the famous line: "Book 'em Dano."
TBP: What do you mean by "putting together the technical means" to save this film? Do you have different approaches to your restoral methods, depending on the original film stock used and so forth? Can you explain the unique properties of VistaVision as opposed to Superscope or Panavision, for example? I'm a little foggy as to what these terms actually mean, other than how they were used as a marketing hook by the studios. Kinda like Chevron gas and their "Techroline" additive. These terms are used like they're supposed to actually mean something to the general public. What are they, really?
RAH: They actually are not merely marketing hooks, but deliver in image quality and on an overall visceral level. Our epic films were usually-at least since the mid-50s-shot via a large format process, yielding an extremely sharp, bright, steady image on huge screens. The prints were extremely expensive. For example, while a 35mm print of "Lawrence of Arabia" might cost $3,000, a 70mm print will run ten times as much. These were generally the prints used for the road shows-the hard (advance) ticket shows.
Every film to be restored is different for many reasons. How it was shot, the original negative emulsions involved, storage (or non-storage), dupes, protection elements extant and format among others. Therefore, you don't just restore a film and then restore another exactly the same way. I'll give you an example with "Vertigo."
The film had been shot on a form of Eastmancolor stock, 5248 if memory serves -- in 1957 in VistaVision -- 8 perf 35mm horizontal. I'd suggest a trip to the Wide Screen Museum before we move ahead. You can find it at: http://www.simplecom.net/widefilm/ This will give you a basis in technical film formats. It's also one of the most interesting well-researched sites on the web regarding film. Marty Hart, the webmaster is extremely passionate about the wide screen cinema -- and it shows.
A number of things came into play here-which would affect not only the overall outcome of what the restoration would look like, but the form it would take. The film was shot VVLA (VistaVision) large format and had (in 1958) been printed down to 4 perf 35mm (normal theatrical). This was done for economy. We decided to take another tack and take the film across in its full size to a 65mm dupe to be projected for the first time in Super VistaVision 70.
Had the negative been pristine and new, this would have only created the problems of the optical work involved in the conversion-which was not as simple as it might seem. However, the negative had been stored in a warehouse with temperatures jumping from the 50s to the hot and humid 100s over a 16 year period of storage. This left the original negative faded-both in an overall fade (equal across the frames and reels) and with additional fade via the placement of reels on racks -- those higher would be hotter -- and film-edge fading via oxidation from the edges.
We first had to come up with a means of creating elements, which would make the fade look less apparent. We did this through the creation of adjusted gamma interpositives and internegatives -- all in VVLA (VistaVision Large Aperture).
When these were printed to the new 65mm dupe it helped -- somewhat. The black and white separation masters which should archivally hold the image on three black and white records each containing a third of he the color in magenta, yellow and cyan had all shrunken -- but not at the same rate; nor on an even reel to reel basis. This meant that although we might have been able to print these to bring back the color, they would not fit together. This is called "differential shrinkage." The result looks much like a color photo in a newspaper where the screens don't quite fit together, yielding an out of focus image and people with six eyes.
I'll give you a specific problem in "Vertigo." The sequence at the Golden Gate Bridge was shot so that it jumped back and forth from a soft beautiful, almost dreamlike image -- to one of stark realism. To shoot this Hitchcock filtered many of the shots of Kim Novak standing by the water with quarter-of-half fog filters. Some shots of Jimmy Stewart were also shot with a slight fog. The problem is that thirty years later the negative has faded, but not equally. A shot with a fog filter yields a slightly thinner (less dense) negative. The thinner the emulsion, the more susceptible it is to fade. You see where this is going. Shot to shot, every shot had different fade characteristics. There were old opticals and dupes, which had been cut into the original, which created different problems -- some of which we did not find a way around until "Rear Window."
We go through a period of testing and evaluation, after which we come up with the methodology of precisely how we feel the film can be best saved. In "Patriot" the original negative is faded, filled with well over 1,000 feet of bad dupes and the separations are also extremely shrunken. The only way to save this film is through digital. The cost of simple inputting and manipulation of the image is well over $800,000 before any output back to film. And digital is another entirely different can of worms.
TBP: We've heard terms like "limited restoration" being bandied about. That sounds to me like "As cheap as we can get away with" restoration. What exactly does that term mean -- and why aren't some beloved films like THE SOUND OF MUSIC not receiving the full restoration treatment they so richly deserve?
RAH: I actually haven't heard the term, so I can't explain it. To me something is either restored or it isn't. I'm also not terribly fond of the term "video restoration," which means that film elements have been subjected to additional wear and tear in order to create something for video -- totally stupid. This was done for The Alamo, It's a Mad... World, and a number of Fox musicals.
Fox actually created video masters from original negatives. I would fire someone in my employ for pulling something like this.
The only viable use of digital work that I've seen for older films, has been the digital cleaning (which they refer to as "restoration") used by Criterion for a number of their older titles. This provides a much nicer transfer, and they make no reference to the fact that they are restoring the film elements. I'm all for what Criterion is doing in this regard -- a totally class act which sets standards.
TBP: The very concept that launched this web site was my surprise that not all DVDs are created equally. I naturally expected that each title would represent the very best image and sound quality available to the limitations of the source material and the DVD specifications. Why is it that only a handful of classic titles seem to get the red carpet treatment while others seem to be treated like throwaways?
RAH: Probably greed in the largest sense. Initially there were transfers that had been used for laser, which didn't hold up on DVD. With no assurance that the market would be there, some of the studios didn't want to invest heavily -- and I can't blame them. Warner Bros. was always the gutsiest about providing new transfers and attempting to make their titles look superior. Ned Price, who oversees their transfers has a terrific eye and does superior work. He's a major asset to the studio.
Universal did a terrific job starting about six months in. Colleen Benn, who had been working with lasers for years has been responsible for putting together some of the best special editions to hit the market.
Fox was a washout, and although they seem to be catching on a bit, still don't seem to have it together. I think a great deal of this has to do with the fact that you either do or do not have an innate sense of respect for the public. For Fox to come out with titles like the Die Hard trilogy and some of the large format musicals in non-anamorphic is reprehensible. Now they'll probably come out with the Die Hards in DTS and anamorphic and try and hit the consumer base again. I would have no problem in their upgrading if they were to put some sort of deal in place. For example, send in some part of your original Die Hard cover insert and $10 and get a new set. That would prove that they're concerned about those purchasing their products.
TBP: It certainly would. That's a nice idea and I hope it catches on, but somehow I doubt it will because I think that's part of the game -- to see how many times consumers will purchase the same title. For example, Universal is re-releasing SOMEWHERE IN TIME as a special 20th Anniversary Edition with lots of extras on October 31, 2000, but so far, they make no mention of whether the remastered version will be anamorphic this time around. Maybe they're saving that for the 25th Anniversary editon.
This leads me to another question, however. Occasionally, we notice that there are distinct exceptions to the rules when it comes to 16 X 9 enhancement. We've seen a few letterbox transfers that frankly, blew us away with how good they looked. Conversely, we've seen the same or greater number of anamorphic titles that just don't make the grade. How can that be possible, given the greater vertical resolution of anamorphic enhancement? Particularly, how is it possible for some of those non-enhanced titles to look so good -- and is it safe to assume that anamorphic treatment would make them look even better still?
RAH: It's dependent upon three things. The quality of the film element being used for the tranfer; the quality of the equipment being used for the transfer; the knowledge and capabilities of the transfer supervisor, colorist and then, the overall compression. Allow any one of these to fall below par and you've lost it. This is why the Universal and Warner Bros. transfers from the studios and the Criterion transfers look so much better. Anchor Bay can actually be added to the list. Although they can't always access the elements they'd like, a great deal of effort goes into the transfers, usually based upon older or lesser film elements. Therefore, 16 x 9 really doesn't mean anything unless all else is equal.
TBP: There are a lot of titles that a lot of us have been waiting for since DVD began. THE GRAPES OF WRATH, CITIZEN KANE, SUNSET BLVD., BEN HUR and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN are just a few that come to mind. Any idea why these gems haven't seen the light of DVD as of yet?
RAH: I don't have a clue. The Grapes of Wrath laserdisc was extremely ugly, so there might be some problems there and that's Fox. Again, Warner does a good job so I'd bet they're going to come up with some superior set for Citizen Kane, but I have no inside information. Ben-Hur needs a full restoration and the studio doesn't seem to feel that it's a very good film.
TBP: What?!!! What would lead you to suggest that? Are you saying that they don't think they have enough good elements of the film preserved to work with-or are you saying that they feel BEN HUR isn't going to pull in enough consumer dollars to justify the DVD remastering investment?
RAH: They feel that the public has no interest in an old, creaky religious epic.
TBP: I find that truly amazing. I hope you're wrong.
RAH: I challenged them to a restoration joust of sorts on rec.arts.movies.tech in which they create one reel that they feel is restored from Ben Hur and North By Northwest. They allow me to do the same. We screen the results at the Goldwyn Theatre at AMPAS in LA. If mine looks better than theirs, they agree to allow me to oversee the restoration of both titles. If anyone there has picked up on this they probably think I'm joking, but I'm deadly serious. They've done so much horrific restoration work there that it's a crime. Magnificent Seven is at MGM, so that should be coming along. There is a great deal of product out there.
TBP: That sounds like quite a challenge and I hope they take you up on it. Why haven't we seen your restored version of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA on DVD by now?
RAH: Columbia is working on it presently, and hopefully it will work out. It certainly never did in the past. Studio politics are so out of control there, that it makes many things difficult. A large format hi-definition transfer was done at Sony about two years ago, but they refuse to allow me to see it and make any necessary corrections. When I asked why, I was told that I was considered "difficult," meaning that if there were problems, I'd want them fixed before the DVD was released.
There will be a special edition. At least two documentaries are in the works. The pity is that going around (without) me, they aren't going to have the ability to make them as good as they can be because they don't know what's out there and what can be done as far as additional material, etc. Its rather like dealing with six year olds who are insistent upon taking their toys and going home.
There were several things that David Lean demanded regarding home video and I believe that even the most simplistic dunce easily understands them, but Columbia can't quite figure them out. He wanted NOTHING before the film. He agreed that a discreet title reading "Overture" and "Entr'acte" could come up briefly-no more than four or five seconds-during the music passages against black screen. This meant that any additional materials would come AFTER the film, presumably on VHS or laser on a different tape or disc. He would have understood that DVD doesn't work that way.
So what did Columbia do for their 30th Anniversary versions, just a year after David was gone?
They start the "show" with a featurette and a trailer (presumably the original). The humor here is that they couldn't find the original trailer, looking everywhere for the original 35mm negative. You're probably ahead of the studio already. When they couldn't find it -- and without calling me -- they decided to recreate the original -- lovingly putting together the requisite scenes from the film and copying original typography, etc. What they didn't know was that they copied a print of the wrong trailer. When one hears the words "The film that made an international star of Peter O'Toole" who was a veritable unknown before Lawrence, wouldn't you think they'd feel that something was amiss? Apparently not. After copying the wrong trailer I'm speaking with someone from the studio on another matter and this is mentioned. I told them that the original trailer was not only in their vaults-but 65mm.
Back to the video. After the trailer and featurette -- the viewer is now sitting there for twenty minutes or so-we get the Overture. But not just an overture with a discreet title. No. We are given a slide show over the four minutes of music showing us what we're going to see. One final and interesting point on LOA. When we were completing the cut, we attempted to put together a balcony scene in reel 11B, in which Allenby works to get Lawrence to go back to Arabia. The scene had been hacked in the shorter version. David wanted it in. Bob Bolt felt it was the finest scene he had ever written, which is saying a great deal. David directed the looping of dialogue in London with Peter and, lending his voice to the Jack Hawkins character, Charles Gray. We had requested that the studio check the voices on a few actors and select the best for the roll. They simply took the first on the list, which was Gray -- a fine actor-but sounded nothing like Hawkins.
When we put together the scene, it was obvious that Gray's voice didn't work. At precisely this time, David had to leave for the Cannes Film Fest, Dawn Steel wanted to see the film before he left and we went about recutting the scene once again for a special screening. It was a horrific decision and something that I should have fought at the time, but didn't. David wanted the Allenby lines revoiced and put back at some time in the future. Days after he left town, over cutting room was shut down-and it never happened. I've been trying to get the extended scene reinstated ever since. It adds layers to the film which are unbelievably rich. Their feeling, and one cannot find ultimate fault with their position, is that David allowed the film to be screened in 1989 without the additional footage, thereby accepting it as "his" cut. What they don't understand is that at that time, his mind was no longer on LOA, but very much on "Nostromo," his next project, which unfortunately was never to be.
TBP: MGM has earned the dubious distinction of producing the most inconsistent DVD product we've seen lately. It almost seems as though they'll stop at no expense to produce top notch transfers of the Bond franchise, but most of their other catalog titles seem to be getting the bum's rush into DVD production -- many not even anamorphic. For the sake of consistency, we'd sure like to see ALL widescreen DVD titles anamorphic first and foremost, but also offer full frame open matte versions when possible.
RAH: You've got to keep in mind that MGM is a relatively new company. It's really a unique case. They're also dealing with a sheer volume of titles, many of which they've recently inherited from others-like Princess Bride. There is so much going on there, with major investments at stake, that some of the catalog titles simply have to find their way to market in extant transfers. I'd probably go with the aforementioned rebate program when things are finally re-mastered. Their new masters have been state of the art, however.
TBP: Can you explain to us how films have been stored and cared for over the past 30-40 years? Can you name some great films that are so far lost to the ravages of time and neglect that we may NEVER see them on DVD?
RAH: Generally they haven't been cared for. There are hundreds of major titles that cannot be printed to yield proper results. But you actually have it backwards, while I fully expect, for example, the new DVD of North by Northwest to be startlingly beautiful, Warner Bros. can't make an adequate print for theatrical. A multitude of sins can be hidden in digital video. Therefore, something can look quite nice on DVD, while the original negative can be in the veritable toilet.
TBP: That comment surprises me because it's always been my impression that digital video reveals all the warts that analog video hides. Are we both correct then?
RAH: Yes. While it reveals warts, it also allows a great deal of image manipulation. Another problem title (from Warner) is "Around the World in 80 Days." A commercial quality print cannot be produced without spending between 6 to 10 million. It should be kept in mind that this is not a Warner-produced title, but something they acquired. They didn't create the problem, but their restoration team has been slow in admitting the truth about the problem.
TBP: I'm a bit confused because on one hand, you're really praising Warner Bros. for excellent masters, but with the other, you're somewhat critical. What gives? Do you mean MGM/Turner?
RAH: Sorry about that. I see where the confusion is coming from. Warner/Turner restorations and transfers for video are two separate situations. While the restoration folks did horrific work on Giant, Zhivago, GWTW -- the transfers of films, not necessarily those, are beautiful (actually GWTW is a beautiful transfer). Different people doing different things. Or different messages sent down from above. Make no mistake. Warner Brothers has an absolutely superior home video division.
TBP: That's always been our impression. How does this bode then for commercial theaters converting to digital video? Will this development provide some of those other films with marginal original negatives a new lease on life?
RAH: No. You're talking video here, not film.
TBP: If digital video truly hides a multitude of sins, then it makes it all that more frustrating that so many great titles are still missing in action. What studio has done the best job in archiving and protecting their original film elements? Which has done the worst? Is there anything short of public humiliation that we can do as consumers to prod the studios into putting more effort into "full" restorations?
RAH: The best jobs have been done by Universal and the old MGM. When MGM was taken over by Turner, they received a mass of riches. Turner, however, doesn't know how to restore a film. Much of this comes down to the execs in charge and the personalities involved in the day to day workings of the vaults and asset protection programs. On the positive side you have Bob O'Neil at Universal; Gray Ainsworth at the new MGM, which controls the old UA library, AIP and others; Scott MacQueen at Disney who does superb work even without a budget. Fox seems to be doing something, but I'm not sure quite what. Columbia is better than it has been, but corporate synapses seem to be firing out of sync there. Paramount-probably the only thing that I can say is that they screwed up the "restoration" of The Godfather, but there's no one there doing anything so (that) may actually be better for the library.
TBP: How, pray tell, did Paramount "screw up" the restoration of The Godfather?
RAH: They spent a great deal of money on the project doing it through post-production (personnel), who don't know how to handle antique film, and (they) made a mess of it. They have no 35mm prints that can represent the film at this time. This is a subject that is just as well not gone into as things there may change. We'll see.
TBP: I just viewed THE SOUND OF MUSIC on DVD recently, and noticed many of the artifacts that were pointed out in the excellent restoration documentary that accompanied MY FAIR LADY. You know, like where white against black (as in a nun's habit) appears foggy; colors seem under-saturated, shadow detail bleak, contrast levels unbalanced, specks of dirt visible at times, etc. I mean, you could barely tell that Julie Andrew's eyes were blue most of the time, which almost seems criminal to me. With all the computer technology that's available today, why can't these problems be addressed more easily? I mean, removing a spec of dirt from a frame against a solid background has to cost what? A dollar? During my tour of LaserPacific Media awhile back, I was watching some kid on a computer removing that kind of junk on a frame by frame basis for PLEASANTVILLE. It didn't take very long for each frame, either. Are some of the studios THAT cheap?
RAH: Yes. And if they can get away with it they'll do it again. I have a very basic concept for the handling and video dissemination of library titles.
If someone were to allow me to control the back library of a studio I would do the following: not place any older titles in distribution until each - on a title by title basis - had been preserved, and if necessary - restored. I would have funds going from the home video division back to the asset protection program, so that the library isn't plundered by home video without helping to maintain it. The cost to preserve a black and white film is about $10,000. Color runs about $35,000. The cost of preservation is far below that of restoration. A real restoration of a 35mm film can easily run from $50,000 to $650,000. Move up to the large format films and you're looking at $750,000 to well over one million. But how many large format films are there that would have major public interest? Twenty-five? Not only do most true classic films return their investment, but continue to do so year after year. If the public is able to purchase a film on DVD, and it looks great -- or sees it on, for example, a cable channel which supports the classic cinema -- it should be PROPERLY preserved and/or restored ON FILM -- not simply on video. It's extremely important to have more than the illusion out there that a film survives and looks great. That illusion is video.
TBP: I guess this falls under the category of the aforementioned "Digital Cleaning" that Criterion is doing so much of. In this day and age, I simply cannot fathom why we should see specs of dirt and nicks on prints-it just seems sloppy to me.
RAH: Precisely. But there is always a cost.
TBP: Do you think that we're being too nit-picky with regards to some of the older films we're seeing and disappointed with on DVD?
RAH: No.
TBP: Are we expecting too much perfection?
RAH: No.
TBP: Are you able to enjoy a DVD movie without being distracted by its technical flaws?
RAH: No. Unfortunately I see everything that one isn't supposed to. I'm not a terribly fun person to go to a theatre with.
TBP: Are we as critics being unreasonable, do you think?
RAH: No. The DVD buying public shouldn't have to think about quality. There was a feeling early on as DVD was just being adopted, that all the discs would be of superior quality. The problem is that they SHOULD be. The Big Picture shouldn't have to review discs except to discuss extras. They should all just look great. But we're still going to have to live with studio (executive) apathy, unprofessional attitudes and simple greed. Ain't it great?
TBP: Well, if it weren't for the fact that many studios cared poorly for their assets and then didn't invest the money to restore them properly, I guess that neither one of us would be in business, would we?
RAH: Correct. I probably would have ended up in archaeology.
TBP: I sometimes think it's probably easy for entertainment executives to look upon the public in general with a wee bit of scorn and contempt, cash cows that we are, and that they are so immersed in the business of movie making-the technical creation of it -- that perhaps they sometimes forget what an emotional experience their end-product is for so many of us.
RAH: I don't think so. With few exceptions, the number crunchers tend to stay out of the creative arena.
TBP: Unfortunately for the number crunchers, the fans are all talking, thanks to the Internet. Hopefully, sooner than later, they'll come to understand that they'll make much more money by putting forth the absolute highest quality content that technology will allow. I think some of them are -- but it's obvious that several are not.
RAH: Agreed. I'll give you a perfect example of this. Years ago, I acquired a 35mm fine grain master of the documentary "Triumph of the Will." Keep in mind that this film was created only three years after the advent of sound in Germany. The elements show defects printed through from the original and the track is less than perfect. But it depends on what is done with it. I've elected to bring it out through Don May at Synapse. Why one might ask, go to a company that's known for their releases of horror and sci-fi films. The answer is simple. Because Don does absolutely everything he can to make the element look better than it really is, spending the extra dollars to add commentaries and whatever else to do what? Give the public their money's worth. I've seen what he's done with Triumph so far and the results are great. How often do we see a 1.33 image windowboxed on video to protect the image. Not often. But Don has gone to the extra expense on this 64-year-old title.
TBP: If circumstances dictated that you could save just one more film -- which title would you choose to restore and why?
RAH: I can't answer that question as I've already done it. For me it was Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence is way up there somewhere -- then there's nothing -- followed by a slew of wonderful films. But to me LOA is without equal. That said, I do
have a hit list, many of which we've mentioned. Mad World, The Alamo, Ben-Hur, North By Northwest, The Sand Pebbles, Cleopatra, The Godfather, Big Country, Tom Jones, Lord Jim, Dr. Zhivago and GWTW to mention a short list in no particular order.
TBP: DVD has been around for a few years now. Are you heartened or discouraged in what you're seeing produced these days?
RAH: I feel great about DVD. In the past I've run a great deal of film at home on a pair of 1950s vintage Norelco projectors. The image quality and overall ease of the format now allows webs to occasionally manifest themselves on the Norelcos.
DVD is great. That said, I've just been notified that my room is ready. They've installed my Runco, Stewart screen; set up the Lexicon and wired everything through the Sunfire amp/receiver and into the sub-woofer. This is starting to sound like an ad.
TBP: Yes it is. You can probably expect a check in the mail from Criterion and Anchor Bay, too -- but I wouldn't expect any flowers or silk pajamas in the mail from Columbia and Fox. What's your next move?
RAH: I'm off for a stay at Betty Ford. What DVD dependency?
The secrets behind New Line and Laser Pacific's commitment to pushing the DVD envelope.
New Line Cinema's Editor's Day: The behind-the-scenes Making of Pleasantville.
A candid interview with the DVD development team at Warner Home Video.
A candid conversation with Pixar.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Copyright 1998-99, by Jeff McNeal Productions. Click here to see our legal notice.