criterionforum.org

Saw the new restoration tonight, which looked great- obviously within the limitations of the DV format. This was the first time I watched the film with a crowd (I've seen it three times alone) and while I remembered the first hour being funny, the collective laughter really emphasized the idea behind this act of the film- if one reads it as

Spoiler

a Hollywood fantasy, where Nikki and her life is the/an illusion/dream

Jeremy Irons adds a lot of humor, but it's Harry Dean Stanton who kills, and the way Lynch blocks and stages some interactions of a running joke involving him recalls comedy gold from the golden age. There's melodrama, suspense, and all the splashes of cinema in digestible "expected" form, including pre-90s Lynchian dread, before the film really goes off the rails.

That Harry Dean Stanton smooth turn from philosophising into bumming money from his co-actors scene may be the funniest thing in a David Lynch film!

That’s exactly what I’m talking about, but never realized the depths of how intelligently crafted it is until I saw it with a packed theatre! Also, it really does lend credence to the reading of this part as fantasy or movie-influenced dream, coupled with other deliberate comic moments divorced from any rationale (i.e. Irons communicating with the gaffer, played by an off-screen muffled Lynch!) and mainly how they’re all fading in and out without connective tissue. Although the rest of the film also does that to some extent, there’s no reprieve like these casual isolated scenes, offering safe escapes from one another.

I seem to remember that a scene or two later there is the amusing pay-off to that scene where Laura Dern looks over and sees Stanton in long shot doing exactly the same spiel with yet another person!

Yeah that's the best punchline- it's a group of three-four young kids, transforming it from an absurdist one-off interaction into a running joke

Looks like most everything from the original DVD made it over here, but does David Lynch no longer endorse quinoa? Sad

Dammit -- I was hoping the complete uninterrupted RABBITS would be included. My interest is significantly lessened.

Not sure a single new interview makes this a worthwhile upgrade from the existing DVD. The uncompressed soundtrack is nice, I suppose.

I have never held on to a disc that I'm upgrading, but I will miss that quinoa feature.

soundchaser wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 5:42 pm Not sure a single new interview makes this a worthwhile upgrade from the existing DVD. The uncompressed soundtrack is nice, I suppose.

Remember though that the film has been meticulously upscaled and should provide a completely different viewing experience from the DVD. Not authentic to the original presentation of course, but I'm still interested to see it

I saw this new version theatrically and it is in fact a pretty remarkable upgrade in terms of clarity and definition; whether that’s a positive or not is another question, but there’s no doubt it’s a different experience

I will keep my miniDV noise where it belongs - which is everywhere, in every shot.

The most important thing of all is that "More Things That Happened" is on there. That may be even better than the main film because, being a collection of deleted scenes, it kind of becomes a collection of free-form dream spaces to linger in without having to worry about where it is all going anymore.

swo17 wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 4:48 pm BD Mar 21

Is that "4K" restoration correct info? It would be crazy because they originally took the SD video and outputted it to HDCAM-SR tape and then to 35mm film; for the 4K restoration, instead of going back to the first-generation source (which again is SD), they used the "upscaled" materials and downscaled those to SD, then upscaled again using the GaiaHD algorithm. I was under the impression this resulted in a new HD master, but if it was actually pushed up to 4K, did they take the 4K output and downscale yet again to HD? Quite a bit of see-sawing in the resolution department.

Regardless, I'm sticking with the BD of the original presentation, I didn't like the look of the new master anyway.

I didn't think it looked as radically different in theatres as either you or DI, but I'm curious what your issues with the new master are? It looked great and I thought retained the feel of the original presentation in all the right ways

FWIW, I found the notes, which seem pretty thorough. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the theatrical projection of the new restoration have something that looked like film grain that was applied? I remember wondering if it was applied digitally or if it was leftover from the 35mm blow-up, but they apparently used the HDCAM, so I guess it was digitally applied.

Anyway, I shouldn't have been too hard - people should view both and see what they like. Just as a personal preference, I liked the old Blu-ray more (essentially the old DVD but without the DVD compression). It's hard to articulate, but the restoration still felt like it was substantially worked on. It may have more detail, but to me it had something that reminds me of AI work I might see elsewhere, where it feels like the details are being fabricated and filled in or approximated.

EDIT: Let me give it a shot - imagine if the frame is made of clay and the details are all diffuse. If you could put your fingers into the clay (or use some kind of fine instruments) and squished certain bits together, like you're trying to make the outline of things clearer or the texture smoother, just to give things more definition, that's kind of what I think it looks like, albeit in a milder or subtler way.

hearthesilence wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:36 pmCorrect me if I'm wrong, but didn't the theatrical projection of the new restoration have something that looked like film grain that was applied? I remember wondering if it was applied digitally or if it was leftover from the 35mm blow-up, but they apparently used the HDCAM, so I guess it was digitally applied.

Hmm I don't recall noticing applied film grain or anything unnaturally-imposed, but I think the whole film intentionally looks unnatural and that's part of its appeal and aesthetically-informed themes, so maybe I wouldn't be as sensitive as others to what I perceive to be different strokes of the same brush

It's mentioned in the tech details pdf posted here in March that they also applied a slight layer of grain on top of the final 4k master.

tenia wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 7:58 pm It's mentioned in the tech details pdf posted here in March that they also applied a slight layer of grain on top of the final 4k master.

Ah, I see it now - it was further down the page I linked to.

I caught this in theaters earlier this year and wasn't sure what to make of it, so it's good to know I can revisit this restoration soon. (Also, that day, I got a friend who had never seen a Lynch film before to come and see it -- bad idea.)

I'd rather have the original unnatural, ugly look of this film courtesy of David Lynch and his original camerawork than what I assume would be the unnatural, ugly, self-conscious digital work self-consciously and un-germanely plastered over the void left from the digital removal of the original unnatural, ugly video noise. Um yah hi Criterion, original ugly video noise plz!!! No sale!!!

colinr0380 wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:08 pm The most important thing of all is that "More Things That Happened" is on there. That may be even better than the main film because, being a collection of deleted scenes, it kind of becomes a collection of free-form dream spaces to linger in without having to worry about where it is all going anymore.

Precisely!!

But this is on the original DVD release, right? I'm trying to find a good reason to get this Criterion version of Lynch's most under-appreciated film.

"Applied film grain" to a digitally shot film is now a thing?

I'll retire to bedlam.

Noiretirc wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 5:36 am "Applied film grain" to a digitally shot film is now a thing?

I'll retire to bedlam.

This is a fairly usual technique at this point. To give one example among many, the final version of The Batman was dirtied up visually by printing the finished movie onto film, then scanning it back onto digital. It looks fine, and so does the restoration of the Lynch (any applied grain effect is very slight)