Digital home video is an extremely useful means of watching and analyzing films. However, scholars often

neglect the fact that official home video or streaming releases of a film can have differences from the original

version of the film itself. Such variances typically are lack of film grain (resulting from digital noise reduction),

differences in color grading, and soundtrack remixing. This can depend on the fact that the technicians who

work on home video releases are unprepared, or are instructed to adjust the look and the sound of the film to

the current taste, or because the filmmakers changed their mind and requested some modifications. At any

rate, film scholars must be aware of such possible inconsistencies, otherwise their study could be fallacious.

In this article I discuss upon philological problems of home video releases mainly from a practical point of

view

Sbravatti, Valerio

English

Digital home video is an extremely useful means of watching and analyzing films. However, scholars often neglect the fact that official home video or streaming releases of a film can have differences from the original version of the film itself. Such variances typically are lack of film grain (resulting from digital noise reduction), differences in color grading, and soundtrack remixing. This can depend on the fact that the technicians who work on home video releases are unprepared, or are instructed to adjust the look and the sound of the film to the current taste, or because the filmmakers changed their mind and requested some modifications. At any rate, film scholars must be aware of such possible inconsistencies, otherwise their study could be fallacious. In this article I discuss upon philological problems of home video releases mainly from a practical point of view

AlmaDL Journals

Home Video Philology: Methodological Reflections

Digital home video is an extremely useful means of watching and analyzing films. However, scholars often
neglect the fact that official home video or streaming releases of a film can have differences from the original
version of the film itself. Such variances typically are lack of film grain (resulting from digital noise reduction),
differences in color grading, and soundtrack remixing. This can depend on the fact that the technicians who
work on home video releases are unprepared, or are instructed to adjust the look and the sound of the film to
the current taste, or because the filmmakers changed their mind and requested some modifications. At any
rate, film scholars must be aware of such possible inconsistencies, otherwise their study could be fallacious.
In this article I discuss upon philological problems of home video releases mainly from a practical point of
view

Valerio Sbravatti

Archivio della ricerca- Università di Roma La Sapienza

Special – peer-reviewedhttps://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/7878Cinergie – Il cinema e le altre arti. N.13 (2018)ISSN 2280-9481HomeVideo Philology: Methodological ReflectionsValerio SbravattiSubmitted: March 1, 2018 – Revised version: May 25, 2018Accepted: June 15, 2018 – Published: July 12, 2018AbstractDigital home video is an extremely useful means of watching and analyzing films. However, scholars oftenneglect the fact that official home video or streaming releases of a film can have differences from the originalversion of the film itself. Such variances typically are lack of film grain (resulting fromdigital noise reduction),differences in color grading, and soundtrack remixing. This can depend on the fact that the technicians whowork on home video releases are unprepared, or are instructed to adjust the look and the sound of the film tothe current taste, or because the filmmakers changed their mind and requested some modifications. At anyrate, film scholars must be aware of such possible inconsistencies, otherwise their study could be fallacious.In this article I discuss upon philological problems of home video releases mainly from a practical point ofview.Keywords: Blu-ray Disc; DVD; film fandom; film philology; film restoration.Valerio Sbravatti: Sapienza Università di Roma (It) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0817-6129 valerio.sbravatti@uniroma1.itValerio Sbravatti (1988) has a PhD in Music and performing arts at Sapienza University of Rome, where he is honoraryfellow in film studies. His main research interests are film sound and film music, on which he published some articles anda book (Allegro non troppo. Vedere la musica e ascoltare i disegni, Il Glifo, Rome 2015). He collaborates with the Italianfilm criticism magazine Segnocinema, and he is an amateur musician and sound mixer.Copyright © 2018 Valerio SbravattiThe text of this work is licensed under the Creative Commons BY License.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Art. #7878p. 47HomeVideo Philology: Methodological Reflections Cinergie. N.13 (2018)If a film scholar has to analyze a film, s/he commonly uses a home video edition of such film. When the sourcesare official one should not worry about the faithfulness of the given copy towards the original version of thefilm. However, publishers not necessarily bother offering the user a reliable copy of the film, even when theystate that there has been a restoration and a remastering aimed at preserving the purity of the film. For manycinephiles this is no concern, although there is a niche of aficionados that take a lot of trouble over it, evenmore than scholars, whose neglect of the matter is more serious (cf. Enticknap 2004). While we take care ofprecisely indicating the bibliographical sources in our academic papers we do not do the same for films. Thiswas comprehensible when films could be seen only or mainly in theater projections, in some archive with themoviola, or through a television broadcast. However, we should indicate the specific home video edition weare using, so that the reader can verify.The matter I am dealing with has to do with film philology, which consist of the study of the relationshipbetween a given copy of a film and its original version. Often home video editions present alterations in thequality of images and sounds which depend on an imprecise “restoration” work or on deliberate interventionby the filmmakers or the publishers. When we have to consider the stylistic patterning of the film, as regardscinematography (specifically the use of color), production design, costumes, sound editing and mixing, thephilological problems of the copy become crucial. This article does not intend to offer a theory of philologyor of restoration, but rather some methodological reflections for a more aware search and analysis of the copyof a film.The concept of original version of a film is complicated (Venturini 2006: 22; Fossati 2011: 117–23; Catanese2013: 54–8), but I believe that it is usually acceptable to speak of an original version—and hence of faithfulnesstowards it— in reference to the version originally distributed in accordancewith the choices of the filmmakers.It is this that we normally expect to find in a home video copy, and that constitutes the object of analysis. Evenfilm restoration scholars, who justly express the ontological problem of the original version, make a common-sense use of it. Catanese states thatwe must reckon problems of film philology and aesthetics: if “improving” the visual or aural out-put of a film is an erroneous procedure, the restoration must take the oeuvre back to its originalstate and not adding a new modern aesthetic (2013: 101, my translation and emphasis).Likewise, Fossati writes thatFilm restoration is based on the best possible simulation of the original film artifact (where orig-inal is something in between the material artifact, as it has survived, and the idea of what it origi-nally looked like), carried out using different technologies (2011: 142, my emphasis);among these technologies there are the digital ones, which are able “to simulate analog reproduction media”(2011: 140).The ideal situation is that of watching a copy of a film in its original format, but this is not always possible andwould not automatically be an assurance. Nevertheless, a video version consisting of the digitization of a filmcan be a valid surrogate of it, provided that the qualities of the original film are respected: the aspect ratio,the grain, the color grading, the sound. Catanese affirms that both in the case of film prints and of DCP — towhich I would add home video — “the restoration it is not limited to the intervention of repairing the source-copy, but involves the migration of the filmic text to another medium, which possibly preserves analogous orhomologous features compared to the original one” (2013: 116).Those who accomplish home video editions not always care about the philological respect towards the film. Acommon practice is that of the digital noise reduction used to diminish the grain, supposing that the consumerswant to see “clean” images — i.e., the grain is treated as noise. Another problem is that of the color grading,which is sometimes carried out without bothering to respect the film’s original color scheme but rather toadjust it to current trends. Soundtracks are often remixed in order to adapt them to today’s standards andconventions (e.g., from mono or Dolby SVA to 5.1). By doing this the re-recording mixing style is altered, andsometimes there is even the introduction of new sound effects to make the sound more palatable. The digitalrestoration for home video, as well as the analog restoration of film elements, should bring the film back tohttps://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/7878 Art. #7878p. 48HomeVideo Philology: Methodological Reflections Cinergie. N.13 (2018)its original appearance, so to preserve its features and make it available as it was originally made. Every otherintervention, albeit legitimate, should be presented as an alteration of the original film.As Enticknap (2004) notes, the case of Vertigo (1959) is emblematic of such matter. Restorers Harris and Katzdistinguished between preservation and restoration, explaining that they took care of preserving the originalmaterials before restoring. However the concept of restoration is used here ambiguously: Harris and Katzmade a punctilious research to present the film visually as Hitchcock intended, nevertheless they recreatedthe soundtrack in 6-channel DTS, generating one of the most loathsome instances of film sound restorationever, to such an extent that movie buffs caused Universal to exclude it from the Blu-rayDisc editions of the film,which rather contain the original mono (although unfortunately only for the USmarket) and a new, less radical5.1 mix. If we search the Internet for information about the color grading and the audio of this edition wecan find discussions that could be inspirational for us film scholars (Home Theater Forum 2012). Therefore,one who wants to analyze the film using this version should be aware of the philological status quaestionis— at least selecting the mono audio in the menu of the BD. The same can be said for Psycho (1960), whoseBD editions include both the original mono and a 5.1 remix. Though the engineers who made the remix, ina featurette contained therein, explain with the usual ambiguous rhetoric that they faithfully improved thesoundtrack, we must prefer the original mono in order to experience the film as closely as possible to theoriginal version.Even when the filmmakers, above all the director, take part in the restoration process, the problems are notlacking. It is legitimate that an artist modifies his/her work after some time, and that s/he offers a new versionof it. However, the latter should coexist with the previous one, rather than replacing it, because for historicalreasons and for research purposes it is necessary to access the film as it was originally made and distributed,which is usually how people saw it during the years.The case of Thief (1981) is noteworthy. In the United States we find the prestigious Criterion BD edition(first published in 2014), which has excellent reviews (Atanasov 2013; Tooze 2015). The cover indicates that itcontains director Michael Mann’s cut, in a director-approved transfer. The booklet states:Director Michael Mann’s original 35mm answer print was used as a color reference, and Mannsupervised and approved the entire transfer. … The original stereo soundtrack was remasteredto 5.1 surround at 24-bit from 35mm 4-track magnetic audio stems, and approved byMann [citedin Atanasov 2013].At least two questions arise: (1) did the director approve this version according to a philological principle or tohis current artistic will?; (2) what is the purpose for which we watch the film? To answer the first question weshould focus on two aspects. One concerns the fact that the indication “director’s cut” suggests that this versionis different from the one originally distributed and that has been seen by audiences since 1981. In fact thereare some differences in the editing (MajoraZZ 2015); moreover, Mann had already changed the film for the1995 Laserdisc edition (Criterion). Thus this is the third version of the film (Nield 2014); Mann has legitimatelyfavored his present intentions rather than philology. The second aspect consists in the verification that thequality of images and sounds is consistent with that of the original version, which should be guaranteed by thewords “original answer print” and “original stereo soundtrack”. Watching the film we immediately notice a tealtint, while all of the previous masters presented a considerably warmer color scheme. Since Mann is not newto changes to his films, the suspect is that the statement apropos the color grading is misleading. Besides, a 5.1soundtrack cannot sound as the original Dolby SVA one, whose four channels were encoded through a matrix.Even if this 5.1 version consists of a transfer of the original DME tracks, we are deprived of the chance to hearthe film in the closest possible way to the original, i.e., applying a Dolby Pro Logic decoder to a 2-channelmatrix audio. In light of all this, maybe we should prefer the acclaimed Arrow BD edition (Atanasov 2015;Tooze 2015), distributed in 2015 in the UK in only 3000 units, which includes the Criterion master (this timealso with the 2-channel audio) and a MGMmaster of the “theatrical version” (Nield 2014). Arrow, a publisherthat embraces a cult philosophy more than the highbrow cinephile one that is proper to Criterion, knew thatits customers would have loved to own the film in its original version along with the new one (this edition isnow out of print). Regarding the color grading, based on the memory of those who saw the film at the time, onthe careful observation of the Criterion version, on the knowledge of the history of film style and techniques,https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/7878 Art. #7878p. 49HomeVideo Philology: Methodological Reflections Cinergie. N.13 (2018)and on the comparison with previous masters, aficionados tend to conclude that this version is more faithfulto the original one albeit presenting typical digital alterations (DVD Talk 2014).As for the second matter, what is the purpose for which we watch the film? If we need to study the dramaturgyof noir films of the 80s, or Caan’s acting style, or editing, then philological problems concerning colors andstereophony are negligible. However, if our study takes into account the production design, the cinematogra-phy, or the re-recording mixing style of the period, then the problem is substantial. Lastly, if we want to studyMann’s style, the new version must be taken into account, provided that we consider the differences with theoriginal one — and with the 1995 one, for that matter.In sum, it seems that some publishers, technicians and filmmakers prefer to better presenting a film rather thanto best presenting it in a philological sense, with the highest fidelity towards its original features. Those whouse home video editions for scholarly purposes should always undertake a more or less thorough philologicalresearch, at least to clarify possible problems. I believe that we should first of all look for information aboutthe content and the technical specifications of the film in its original version, starting from the Internet MovieDatabase (https://www.imdb.com/). Then we should check how much the edition we use is affected by theusual interventions, such as digital noise reduction and alterations in the color grading, in the sound editingand mixing. Internet sources are essential: we can refer to review sites such as DVDBeaver or Blu-ray.com,and DVD Talk (the last two containing a user forum as well), and other web sites and forums of aficionadoswho, based on my experience, are often much aware and scrupulous, such as OriginalTrilogy,1 Fanres (FanRestoration Forum),2 Home Theater Forum,3 AVS Forum,4 Bad Audio on Blu-ray.5 In any case, one shouldindicate in the text the details of the edition that is used, so that the reader can verify. The information requiredis the kind of medium (e.g., DVD or BD), the publisher’s name, the year and place of publication or the name ofthe streaming service or the URL; some code indicating the editionmay be specified as well (e.g., the cataloguenumber or the ISBN). This is particularly needed for video essays that contain literal quotations of picture andsound of preexisting works (cf. Grant 2010), which are the audiovisual correlative of the quotations of writtentexts that are carefully referenced in academic papers.Videographic analysis for home video philological studies has an at least twofold advantage over the usual com-parisons found on review sites, such as the well-known ones by DVDBeaver (which are nevertheless useful):first, moving images can be included — instead of stills only — which offers a much more effective support;second, sound can be reproduced as well. Depending on what is at issue, film excerpts from the differentversions can be juxtaposed in sequence or through split-screen, or can be reproduced alternating with oneanother. The following video essay, containing a philological analysis of three home video editions of TheShining (1980), is intended as a case study to demonstrate my argument.1. http://originaltrilogy.com (last accessed 30-06-2018).2. https://forum.fanres.com/ (last accessed 30-06-2018).3. https://www.hometheaterforum.com/ (last accessed 30-06-2018).4. http://www.avsforum.com/ (last accessed 30-06-2018).5. http://blah-ray.blogspot.it/ (last accessed 30-06-2018).https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/7878 Art. #7878p. 50HomeVideo Philology: Methodological Reflections Cinergie. N.13 (2018)Home Video Philology: A Case Study of The Shining (1980), from Valerio Sbravatti on the Internet Archive(https://archive.org/details/ShiningPhilology).ReferencesAtanasov, Svet (2013). “Thief Blu-ray Review”. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Thief-Blu-ray/47071/#Review (last accessed 28-02-18).Atanasov, Svet (2015). “Thief Blu-ray Review”. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Thief-Blu-ray/119278/#Review (last accessed 28-02-18).Catanese, Rossella (2013). Lacune binarie. Il restauro dei film e le tecnologie digitali. Rome: Bulzoni.DVD Talk (2014). “Thief (Criterion edition) comments regarding transfer” [online discussion]. https://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/621138-thief-criterion-edition-comments-regarding-transfer.html (last accessed 28-02-18).Enticknap, Leo (2004). “ ‘Some bald assertion by an ignorant and badly educated Frenchman’: Technology,Film Criticism, and the ‘Restoration’ of Vertigo (1996)”. The Moving Image 4(1): 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1353/mov.2004.0006.Fossati, Giovanna (2011). From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition, Amsterdam: Amster-dam University Press.Grant, Catherine (2010). “Quote Unquote: The Unattainable Film Text in the Age of Digital Reproduction.”https://vimeo.com/groups/audiovisualcy/videos/10059844 (last accessed 28-02-18).Home Theater Forum (2012). “A few words about…™ Vertigo – in Blu-ray” [online discussion]. https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/a-few-words-about-%E2%84%A2-vertigo-in-blu-ray.318414/(last accessed 28-02-18).MajoraZZ (2015). “Thief”. https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=665044 (last accessed 28-02-18).Nield, Anthony (2014). “Thief – A Tale of Three Edits”. http://arrowvideodeck.blogspot.it/2014/11/thief-tales-of-three-edits.html (last accessed 28-02-18).https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/7878 Art. #7878p. 51HomeVideo Philology: Methodological Reflections Cinergie. N.13 (2018)Thief (1981). Blu-ray Disc adn DVD. USA: The Criterion Collection, 2014, cat. no. CC2324BDDVD, ISBN978-1-60465-B04-0..Thief (1981). Blu-ray Disc. UK: Arrow Films, 2015, cat. no. FCD1027.Tooze, Gary (2015). “Thief [Blu-ray]”. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_60/thief_blu-ray.htm (last accessed 28-02-18).Venturini, Simone (Ed.) (2006). Il restauro cinematografico. Principi, teorie, metodi. Pasian di Prato (UD):Campanotto.References for the video essay“1980 TV spot for The Shining (rare, higher quality).” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esaGu1w1K1g (lastaccessed 21-05-18).“Kubrick Questions Finally Answered: An In Depth Talk with Leon Vitali.” https://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html (last accessed 21-05-18).“Shining Music Charts.” http://www.drummerman.net/shining/charts.html (last accessed 21-05-18).“The Shining blue end credits.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-FEFGcsSTs (last accessed 21-05-18).Castle, Alison (Ed.) (2005). The Stanley Kubrick Archives. Köln: Taschen.Instagrampictures: https://www.instagram.com/p/BGhrKR0CkMD, https://www.instagram.com/p/BGiMXZjCkGn,https://www.instagram.com/p/BGjcTSOCkGL, https://www.instagram.com/p/BGj5fQEikMY, https://www.instagram.com/p/BGm3FjxCkF6 (last accessed 21-05-18).The Shining (1980). ABC airing, 02-06-1985. Personal collection.The Shining (1980). DVD. USA: Warner Home Video, 1999, cat. no. 17369, ISBN 0-7907-4274-8.The Shining (1980). DVD. USA: Warner Home Video, 2001, cat. no. 21156, ISBN 0-7907-6005-3.The Shining (1980). Blu-ray Disc. USA: Warner Home Video, 2007, cat. no. 115710, ISBN 1-4198-5299X.Stainforth, Gordon (2015). The Shining Music – Introductory Note. http://www.gordonstainforth.co.uk/shining-music-intro (last accessed 21-05-18).Other pictures through Google Images.https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2280-9481/7878 Art. #7878p. 52

Directory of Open Access Journals

https://cinergie.unibo.it/article/download/7878/8107

Home Video Philology: Methodological Reflections

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AlmaDL Journals

Archivio della ricerca- Università di Roma La Sapienza

Directory of Open Access Journals