Re: Vanska's Beethoven symphonies on BIS

On Jun 23, 9:05 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I saw HtWWW at the Seattle Cinerama several years ago, and the Blu-
ray Disk -- derived from the original negatives -- utterly and totally
blows
away the theatrical presentation. Except, of course, for the "immersive"
effect. (I have not yet looked at the second disk, which has a "smilebox"
transfer that more-closely resembles what you see in the theater.)
Plus except, of course, that your TV screen is only a tiny, tiny
fraction of the size of a Cinerama screen and that a direct comparison
between the original presentation and its miniature version on a home
format like BD is more than just a little nonsensical!

Not really... <semi grin> The image quality of the BD is so spectacularly
superior to what you see in a theater that this has to be taken into
account.

I recently saw "Up" in digital 3D, and was not impressed. Even DVD (on a
good 480p display) is about as good as what you see in most theaters.

That's comparing apples to peas and is basically complete nonsense as
the quality of a good 35mm print and even a 2k d-cinema presentation
is theoretically vastly better than DVD or even BD.

Unfortunately, on the other hand, you are also correct to a certain
degree because the actual presentation in most movie theaters in the
US is crap. Handling and projecting film requires a certain level of
knowledge and abilities and while it isn't even that difficult, the
reality is that most movie theaters in this country are run by minimum
wage kids with next to no knowledge and competent supervision, since
the theater chains don't give a ***, and, unfortunately, most of the
movie goers don't give a *** or don't care either. The same applies
to many small theaters, too, of course.
It is really sad because it doesn't even take that much. But in
addition to the operator problem, most equipment is also in a really
bad state, badly installed, badly handled, badly maintained, and most
theater equipment made in the US is pretty crappy to start with. They
made better movie projectors in the former Eastern Block (no, I am not
kidding).

Or have you projected the BD on a Cinerama size screen and
directly compared it to a 35mm print set?  ;-)

I know you're joking, but I remember very well what I saw at the theater,
and there's no contest -- at least in terms of basic image quality.

Watching a movie in a theater might be more "fun", but it is, technically, a
lousy way to watch a movie. It is not, by any definition (joke intended),
high definition. An HD DVD or BD shows far, far more of what is actually on
the original negative.

I wasn't joking. While in most cases, you wouldn't project a DVD or
even a BD on a really big screen, doing so and comparing the image
quality to a 35mm print or a 2k digital "print" gives you a more
realistic picture of each formats relative quality. And what you are
saying about there being more of the original negative on DVD or BD
is, sorry, total BS. Apparently, you have never seen a really good
film presentation.
Didn't you say you were close to Rochester?

BTW, because so many theaters are so bad in this country, I prefer to
watch stuff at home on my plasma screen, too, and with BD (not with
DVD though), the image quality is finally good enough to satisfy my
eye - but we are talking about an image that is just a tiny fraction
of the size of even a small real cinema auditorium, even if you have a
really biiiiig plasma.

I would like to see the "smilebox" version at one point. I wonder
if that really works on a flat screen. Looks like the BD version is
available at Netflix, so I will rent that at some point. That is very
interesting from a technical and film history point of view although
the movie itself is just fascist crap.

LOL! My Amazon review appears below. I've seriously considered rewriting the
title song's lyrics to praise the need for the heathen Injuns to be wiped
out to make this glorious land a fit home for good Christian people.

"Just for you", I stuck the smilebox disk in the player. The smilebox
version makes much-better use of the available image area, extending (at the
sides) almost to the top of the screen. (The height at the center is
greater, too, because the smileboxing reduces the width of the A and C
panels, making possible a taller overall image.) The presentation is
definitely much more like what you see in the theater. I played the "Erie
Canal" tracking shot near the beginning, and it gives /some/
peripheral-vision excitation -- certainly a lot more than the flat version.

I want to see that at some point. It sounds more like a gimmick to me,
but I am still curious.

I get annoyed when told you're supposed to sit way back from the disply.
Bullfeathers. I have a 60" Kuro, and I sit only slightly farther from the
set than its diagonal. What's the point of buying a big HD display and not
sitting on top of it? Hell, you're grown-ups. Your mom isn't there to tell
you you're going to ruin your vision!

America's own "Triumph of the Will" -- Leni would be proud!

In a remarkable coincidence, the same day I saw "How the West was Won" at
the Seattle Cinerama (03/01/03), the History Channel aired a program on the
history of the wheel. One of the talking-head experts opined that the
wheel's invention marked a fundamental change in human thought -- not only
was there a technological solution to every problem, but nature could be
bent to human will, forced to reveal her secrets and serve us.

This is the theme of "How the West was Won." It starts with the title, and
extends to nearly everything in the film. The narration tells us that the
land had to be wrested from nature and from the "primitive people" who
inhabited (and by implication, infested) it. The chorus is continually
singing about how "we're headed for the promised land" and those who are
willing to work hard will be richly rewarded (except the Chinese railroad
laborers, of course). We were justified in overrunning the continent because
we are actually "doing something" with it -- as opposed to the Indians, who
merely lived there in harmony with nature. Not having invented the wheel,
they saw no further possibilities.

James Webb's script <does> acknowledge the culture clash between the
Americans and the native peoples, recognizing that the latter will have to
eventually change or be destroyed. But this is peripheral to the celebration
of the industry, hard work, and sacrifice of the Americans, who "tamed" the
wilderness. The film ends with a nausea-inducing flyover of the California
freeways (I sat next to a guy who'd taken Dramamine in anticipation of such
scenes), followed by a flight under the Golden Gate bridge, firmly and
unambiguously driving the point home.

"How the West was Won" is social propaganda, plain and simple. It's the kind
of film that could change Osama Bin Laden's mind about destroying the US.
(Maybe the State Department could arrange a screening...)

As a movie, there's no denying "How the West was Won" is wildly
entertaining. Simply as cinematic spectacle, it works magnificently. There
are films (such as "2001" and "Lawrence of Arabia") that even the finest
video transfer cannot do justice to, and this is one of them. Sitting in the
first few rows, you're so close to the screen that you can't take in all of
it at once. When the camera tracks into a scene, the sense of physical
motion is uncanny. (Can you say "stimulation of peripheral vision"? Sure you
can.) And if you haven't seen a buffalo stampede, or a train crash, or a row
of cannons firing in sequence on a (roughly) 30' by 90' screen -- well, you
haven't lived, cinematically-wise.

Story-wise, there's so much material to cover the script cannot begin to do
it justice, even in a film lasting 2½ hours. Characters are more types than
individuals, and almost every performer is cast to type. (Eli Wallach, in
particular, gets to do his "crazy Mexican outlaw" shtick, though without an
accent.) It's only the efficiency and focus of the script that keeps the
actors from looking altogether foolish. Other than (perhaps) Karl Malden, no
one gives what would be considered a "real" performance.

The plot (which follows the Prescott family and its descendents over 50
years) is concocted to make Debbie Reynolds' character the sort of farm girl
who wants to run off to the big city to become rich, so we're treated to
several (mercifully brief) song-and-dance numbers. Her sister is played by
Carol Baker, who falls head over heels in love with Jimmy Stewart's
"aw-shucks" mountain man, and later "tames" him (as the film's conceit
requires). The rest of the film rehashes just about every cliché of westerns
and Civil War movies -- though entertainingly. The final sequence posits the
"conquest" of the West as occurring when "the law" (in the form of George
Peppard's marshall) arrives, to establish justice. * But Peppard -- who says
he wants to bring the bad'un to justice in court -- shoots him to death,
anyway.

My five-star rating acknowledges this is a classic film -- not necessarily a
great one.

I can't pass up the opportunity to trash Pauline Kael, who was not so much a
hard-nosed-but-movie-loving critic as she was an empty-headed, loudmouthed
[female canine]. Note how she uses the artistic limitations of a single
sentence to craft a thoughtful, insightful commentary that will help the
reader better understand this film...

"'How the West Was Lost' would be a more appropriate title for this dud
epic, since, as conceived by the writer, James R. Webb, the pioneers seem to
be dimwitted bunglers who can't do anything right."

Hello? Were we watching the same movie? "How the West was Won" might be
politically incorrect, dramatically shallow, and little more than
agit-prop -- but it's no dud. The Seattle audience -- which included many
people sporting "No Iraq War" buttons -- just ate it up. "How the West was
Won" is Hollywood middlebrow-populist entertainment at its best.

One final question... Where did they find a stunt man who looked like Agnes
Moorhead? **

* Note Bobbitt's assertion in "The Shielf of Achilles" that governments need
to subsume control of all forms of violence to hold valid power.

** The running commentary for the BD includes one of the stunt men. Stunt
men often double for women, and he doubled for Debbie Reynolds when she fell
from the raft. "Note her hairy arms."

Good review. The "problem" in my eyes isn't with the historical
realities behind this movie - which are just that, historical
realities, but the way everything is presented and the hypocritical,
self-righteous portrayal of the "white man" in this film. As you said,
"America's own Triumph of the Will" (of sorts)...
.