The Issue of Authenticity

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Post Reply
Message
Author
kekid
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:55 pm

#1 Post by kekid » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:24 pm

In the world of classical music the issue of authenticity, reproducing music exactly as the composer wrote it, has been much debated. Thus is Furtwangler justified in deviating from the documented tempos of Beethoven's symphonies, and am I justified in admiring someone who so flagrantly ignores the author's wishes - this question has been raised many times. We can even take it further. If someone changed orchestration, added a phrase here, deleted another there, but created a compelling listening experience, should I enjoy it or protest?

As I have been reading the discussions on many Criterion DVDs, and specifically their comparison to those from other credible sources (the most obvious example is the look of Criterion vs. MoC Kwaidan), this issue of what is authentic has bothered me. In written music, certain details (e.g. the shaping of individual phrases, the precise architecture of a large symphony) cannot be precisely captured. But a film is made, viewed by the director on some medium, and he says, this is what I want people to see. How can there be such vast differences in their reproductions? A philosophical question is, is a company like Criterion justified in "improving" the original look of the film? If people prefer the look of their Kwaidan, though that is not what Kobayashi created (hypothetical), is that ok? Do we believe a company as well regarded as Criterion has the audience's mendate to do that? These questions occurred to me when I saw the recently posted "Yi Yi" comparisons.

Either we say, "I like the look of version X the best, so that is the version of choice for me"; or we say, "I want the most authentic version, regardless of my personal preferences", in which case we need to have some objective criteria to determine what is authentic. I do not believe there is a consensus on the latter.

User avatar
sevenarts
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 7:22 pm
Contact:

#2 Post by sevenarts » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:10 pm

Very interesting points here. For me, I'm not terribly picky as long as the film looks good, and in most cases the first time I'm seeing a film is on DVD so I have nothing to compare it to. But absolute most important is that the aspect ratio be strictly observed, and this should be the easiest thing to do, too, though of course companies screw it up routinely. The AR determines framing and composition to such an extent that it should always be presented exactly as the director wanted. There are gray areas with some films of course, talk of multiple ARs and differences between different venues, etc. As long as the company makes every effort to satisfy the director's vision, it will probably be acceptable in that respect.

Colors can be an even trickier problem, though, so much more room for slight (or even drastic) variance, between different prints, different countries, and different processes used. The ideal in this case is also vaguer -- to get the films to look the way they did in the theaters when originally shown, but how to determine what that was exactly? There's no precise measurement the way there is with AR, and color is necessarily a more subjective thing.

User avatar
pro-bassoonist
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:26 am

#3 Post by pro-bassoonist » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:53 am

Execellent topic!!!

At this point I have come to the conclusion that Criterion (give credit where credit is due) have been forigiven way too many times for the "improvements" made on certain film. In addition to Kwaidan, Melville's Criterion treatment being the most obvious case here.

Ciao,
Pro-B

User avatar
stereo
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:06 pm

#4 Post by stereo » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:18 pm

Hi all,

not that anyone cares, and at the risk of sounding extremely lame, I just successfully defended a dissertation on this topic (DVDs, archives, authenticity --essentially how DVDs affect how we remember film history). I have a copyrighted .pdf file of it I can e-mail to anyone who is interested; after working on it for 3 years, I know I'm pretty damn sick of reading it.

kekid
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:55 pm

#5 Post by kekid » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:58 pm

Hi, Stereo. Can you summarize your major conclusions in a couple of paragraphs for all of us? Thank you.

User avatar
stereo
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:06 pm

#6 Post by stereo » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:21 pm

Kekid, sorry, I'm kind of insanely busy right now, but here- let me do the next best thing and post my diss abstract; if anyone wants a copy you can pm your e-mail address to me; it's a big file (300pages, pdf with images), but so far I haven't had any problems with e-mailing it):

Public Access, Private Archives: How DVDs Disrupted Film History

“Public Access, Private Archivesâ€

montgomery
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:02 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

#7 Post by montgomery » Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:55 am

This is a topic I'm very interested in. Too many things are "cleaned up" to conform to modern standards. I guess there's been a long history of this with art restoration, but I can never fully accept it with film (or music).
I am always am astonished when I see posts on this board complaining that 70s Robert Altman DVDs look "grainy" or the colors aren't sharp enough (does anyone remember what films looked like in the 70s?); or that old Japanese films have "scratches" on them. I would think more people would be concerned about how they get rid of those scratches now: is letting a computer "steal" bits of other frames in order to cover up supposed flaws in the film really preferable? I think a lot of people are just spoiled by modern technology, and lose perspective. Whenever I see reviews of a DVD or a restored 35mm print saying that an old film "looks better than it did when it was first release," I just bristle (and I must say I often prefer worn prints to new 35mm prints, not because I love patina so much, but because the new prints are clearly modernized and flawed, designed by people who are video/audio-geeks who strive more for their modern idea of perfection than of preserving history).
Also, I think converting mono soundtracks into stereo or surround sound is as bad as coloring a black and white movie. I really cannot see a difference. (I should note that I am a mono-phile, and I hate surround sound, but I always want to watch what was originally intended and available at the time). The fact that many people have no compunction about watching Citizen Kane in 5.1 is evidence that they really don't care what happens to an old film as long as it exploits all the possibilites of their home theatre system.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#8 Post by Gregory » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:18 pm

Approaching the issue from another direction, an artist incorporating another artist's work raises some interesting issues about authenticity and when/how it is acceptable to go against or beyond filmmakers' intentions for their work.
From the BFI thread:
vogler wrote:I really can't stand this type of thing. It reminds me of the way members of Sonic Youth decided to put on shows performing music along with Stan Brakhage films even though they knew that Brakhage had expressly stated that his films should always be silent and that the lack of sound was a very important part of his artistic philosophy.
Fred Camper quoted this statement by Brakhage about other artists screening his films with music of their own creation:
How can I judge it [without having experienced it]? I don't feel I have a
right to, and wouldn't want to, interfere with others' attempts to be
creative. They might be doing something really important. But they
should be absolutely honest that it's not a collaboration with me. It's
probably not something I would do. I probably wouldn't want to see or
hear it, and they may from my viewpoint distort the aesthetic of the
films, but I don't oppose it as long as they don't distort the fact that
they're doing it themselves without collaboration from me.
And here is the disclaimer that Text of Light (the group of which one member is Lee Ranaldo of Sonic Youth) has consistently offered:
This work is not the result of any collaboration with Stan Brakhage. Text of Light is an improvised music group, and also the name of a 1974 Brakhage film. Text of light has performed with this film and other Brakhage films, screening behind them, but is not creating a "Brakhage soundtrack" nor a "potential Brakhage soundtrack." The music comes from an ongoing series of mixed media performances, drawing on Brakhage's work for inspiration.
Of course, I would never presume to tell anyone they have no right to object to this on personal artistic grounds. But it does seem to me that the musicians have been conscientious about what they're doing. An artist incorporating another artist's work raises some interesting issues about authenticity and when/how it is acceptable to go against or beyond filmmakers' intentions for their work.

User avatar
Cinetwist
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:00 am
Location: England

#9 Post by Cinetwist » Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:09 am

stereo wrote: I just successfully defended a dissertation on this topic (DVDs, archives, authenticity --essentially how DVDs affect how we remember film history). I have a copyrighted .pdf file of it I can e-mail to anyone who is interested; after working on it for 3 years, I know I'm pretty damn sick of reading it.
I've sent you a PM Stereo. I really would like to read it. It's sad, but I find this sort of thing immensely fascinating.

Post Reply