1179 Targets

[Finch]

There has been precedent for UK labels to do their own grading as we saw with Arrow's The Trees of Wooden Clogs. The quote from Stoddart was they were waiting for a decent master. He may well think that the restoration in and of itself is fine but he may also feel that it needs to be regraded (and evidently, several posters here think it does) (equally he may feel the grading is fine in which case everyone disapproving of the 2023 grade is out of luck). Whether Paramount will let the BFI do so is another question. I haven't seen Targets theatrically so I can only speak to my own preferences and I'm not sure yet where I stand on this because the Beev's caps have been shown to be unreliable, so I'd like to see caps from other sites first. Just by looking at the CC specs, I think I'd only really miss the Nayman essay from their features. I don't think the Linklater interview is going to be enough to persuade me to buy both (I don't love the film that much to own two copies), so I'm going to wait and see what Stoddart's team have put together.

[dwk]

I'm not sure that trailer is a good color reference - the color of the opening Paramount log alone looks really off, as if the film hasn't held its color of the years (which makes sense - the crappy color retention of that era's film stock has been discussed many times).

I know trailers are not an ideal source for color timing. Anyway I should have checked out a few different trailers, 'cause here is a different trailer with a more accurate Paramount logo and the dinner table scene looks more like the DVD.

[Finch]

BFI edition will have those features

New 2K digital restoration supervised by director Peter Bogdanovich and presented in High Definition
New audio commentary by author and film critic Peter Tonguette
Audio commentary by Peter Bogdanovich (2003)
Introduction to the film by Peter Bogdanovich (2003)
Newly recorded interview with Sara Karloff (2022)
Newly recorded interview with Stephen Jacobs, author of Boris Karloff: More Than a Monster (2023)
Video essay by Vic Pratt on Karloff, Targets and the changing face of horror (2023)
The Guardian Interview: Peter Bogdanovich (2005, c60 mins): the Oscar-nominated writer and director is interviewed on stage by Clive James
Trailers From Hell: Joe Dante on Targets (3 mins)
Gallery
**FIRST PRESSING ONLY** Illustrated booklet featuring an introduction by Sara Karloff, new writing on the film by Stephen Jacobs and an essay on Peter Bogdanovich by Peter Tonguette

[soundchaser]

Looks like the BFI has this one bested, at least from an extras point of view. Will be curious to see if the restoration is timed the same way. (If you're listening, Criterion, Linklater is also a champion of At Long Last Love.)

[cdnchris]

Answering a question from another thread:

Chris, would you be able to post the transfer notes for Targets?

Sure thing:

Targets is presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:. This new 4K digital master was created from the 35 mm original camera negative, which was scanned in 4K 16-bit on a Lasergraphics Director film scanner. The original monaural soundtrack was remastered from the 35 mm magnetic track.

[cdnchris]

I received an email from BFI stating they are using a master that was supplied to them directly from Paramount but it is sourced from the same restoration. They were told by Criterion (not Paramount) that the restoration was undertaken in 2K and that's how it was delivered but BFI's Technical Manager confirms that, at the very least, the original negative was scanned in 4K.

It's odd Criterion would have updated the specs for their release to indicate a finished 4K restoration. Since BFI got it from Paramount, maybe they only supplied a 2K downscale (or whatever you want to call it)? Or Criterion's mistaken (though it appears they worked on the restoration)? Since it's only 1080p in the end, I doubt it really matters and any difference will ultimately come down to encode.

[yoloswegmaster]

I emailed Criterion and they told me that the booklet information is correct and that the restoration was done in 4K.

[nicolas]

I got my copy today and gave it a first look especially to see if it has "teal".

No, it thankfully doesn’t. This doesn’t look like Paramount’s The Italian Job, and thank God at that. I think the grading is beautiful and seems faithful to a film print. As mentioned on the cover, this transfer has been supervised by the late Peter Bogdanovich, which I assume was one of his last projects sadly, but that’s a very good thing here.

What I don’t like about Criterion’s approach here is the obvious low-pass filtering Pixelogic applied to what really is a 16-bit 4K restoration from the original negative. As we know, good 4K restorations on a standard BD can look as if they were put on a 4K disc - a great example is the Indicator BD of Body Double, encoded by Fidelity in Motion - but Criterion’s Target unfortunately is far from it. Sure, this is a low-budget film but in no way would the negative have this little detail.

As such, considering the filtering, the encode seems fine with nothing egregiously blocky or clipped but they literally wiped off what could be problematic. In my opinion, if I had to guess, the disc presentation of this 4K master looks more like a 2K Interpositive scan (although it obviously isn’t) similar to some of Kino’s recent exclusive IP masters.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on the audio and potential noise reduction.

Knowing that a BFI release is coming makes me extremely happy, to say the least.
I hope that they decide to go fully 4K with this but even it is "just" a BD, it will easily surpass the Criterion.

(By the way, it seems like Criterion were planning for this film to get a UHD as the Blu-ray has "Blu-ray" written on the artwork. I think I never noticed this on a release that didn’t get a 4K).

[tenia]

(By the way, it seems like Criterion were planning for this film to get a UHD as the Blu-ray has "Blu-ray" written on the artwork. I think I never noticed this on a release that didn’t get a 4K).

Arsenic and Old Lace also has it written on the disc. It might be because they also have DVD releases.

[yoloswegmaster]

Arsenic and Old Lace also has it written on the disc. It might be because they also have DVD releases.

It's also written on the discs for Boat People, Last Hurrah for Chivalry, and Exotica, so I very much doubt that this meant a UHD was planned.

[nicolas]

Arsenic and Old Lace also has it written on the disc. It might be because they also have DVD releases.

It's also written on the discs for Boat People, Last Hurrah for Chivalry, and Exotica, so I very much doubt that this meant a UHD was planned.

Thank you for letting me know!

[Matt]

What I don’t like about Criterion’s approach here is the obvious low-pass filtering Pixelogic applied to what really is a 16-bit 4K restoration from the original negative.

Could someone please explain to me very simply what a “low-pass filter” is and does to video? I understand what it means in an audio realm, but I’ve seen it pop up here recently as a criticism of Criterion’s Blu-ray encodes.

[ChunkyLover]

Could someone please explain to me very simply what a “low-pass filter” is and does to video? I understand what it means in an audio realm, but I’ve seen it pop up here recently as a criticism of Criterion’s Blu-ray encodes.

Basically, it's a form of DNR that's suppose to "soften" high-frequency grain so that it won't be as demanding to encoding. Probably not the best example (especially since it's an older HD master), but compare Shout Factory's release of "The Town That Dreaded Sundown" to Eureka's release:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x=63 ... 1&i=0&go=1

Shout is softer, but not necessarily DNRed in the typical sense that's associated with it, whereas Eureka retains more "grain".

[tenia]

It's interesting because to me, this example is just poorer compression vs better compression (see how the hat is all blocky). Maybe it's actually a slight filtering (which, to me, implies a different frame of mind), but I always thought it's poor compression leading to macroblocks and thus lower fine grain retention.

[AxeYou]

What I don’t like about Criterion’s approach here is the obvious low-pass filtering Pixelogic applied to what really is a 16-bit 4K restoration from the original negative.

Could someone please explain to me very simply what a “low-pass filter” is and does to video? I understand what it means in an audio realm, but I’ve seen it pop up here recently as a criticism of Criterion’s Blu-ray encodes.

Mulholland Dr 4K may be a better illustration: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x=80 ... 1&i=7&go=1

StudioCanal and Criterion encoded from the exact same master, but Fidelity in Motion managed to leave the grain (one example of high-frequency detail) much much more intact on the StudioCanal release than Pixelogic did for Criterion.

Is Criterion/Pixelogic literally applying a low-pass filter to the master before encoding? Or is it that their encoder settings are just so inept as to consistently scrub away fine detail? I think both are plausible. It's hard to tell and ultimately it may be a distinction without much of a practical difference.

[colinr0380]

I already liked Targets, but came away from watching the film again with even more admiration for the neat way in which it is structured. I think there is something really interesting going on with regards to feelings of purposelessness and finding a meaning to life that rather subversively equates Byron and Bobby together. We start with both characters safely ensconced within their respective worlds. Both are respected (or rather, respectable, if rather pushed around) and have roles and duties within it that they are expected to fulfill (plus hangers-on in terms of entourage and/or families) to keep the status quo ticking along. But both Byron and Bobby seem to be chafing at the confines of their circumscribed, stultifying existences offering no chance of development or escape - Byron trapped in his ever more shonky-loooking and out of their time gothic period pieces being churned out in quick succession on a production line schedule; Bobby seemingly trapped with his young wife living in his parent's home (as compared to the brother that the mother briefly mentions when she says that she spoke to him and their new baby is doing well, which is not put across as an intentional jibe but which I could see unwittingly may have been a further nail in her coffin!). They both have obviously been considering their big move for a while before the film begins - Byron with his announcement of his retirement and refusal to brook any notion of deviating from his intentions; Bobby with the boot of his car full of guns seemingly built up over many trips to different weapons shops across the area.

Also whilst Byron is retiring from his job, despite mentions of Bobby (ironically) doing a job involving insurance we never see him at work. Which suggests to me that Bobby already either quit or stopped going to work before the film even began and has been keeping up a Time Out facade of normalcy for a while. Or maybe he was made unemployed and this could have been the last straw that spurred his acts? I like that questions over motivation are left open to speculation, both because they are rather reductive and because they are the mundane 'explanations' for inexplicable behaviour that only come after the fact as the media tries to get their head around the carnage left in its wake. But that does lead to a really interesting sense of 'contempt for the worker drone' vibe that I could really strongly feel coming from both characters, actively from Byron in his contempt for the rubbish that he is being forced to do by producers and agents more interested in keeping their meal-ticket ticking over and ruining Orlok's reputation in the process rather than trying to give him anything more substantial to do; and passively smouldering from Bobby in the scenes with attempting to communicate with his wife (trapped in her own ritualistic cycle of working to work) who is busy getting ready to do her night shift and then too tired after getting home to notice that something is wrong with him (and that is even before we get to the second half involving factory workers and projectionists being shot for just working in what has become a makeshift shooting gallery!)

This is not just thematic counterpointing but because of the entire film taking place over two days it is a temporal one as well. That first night we get both characters, whilst surrounded by (arguably selfish, or at least solipsistic) oblivious other characters stuck in their own worlds, contemplating that this is the end of the way that they have been living to this point, and ready to take their leave of it. Byron gets drunk to 'celebrate' his freedom whilst rejecting everyone around him (but only ends up abusing his assistant for just being another cog in the machine); whilst Bobby stays terrifyingly stone-cold sober (despite a beer with the folks in front of the TV), the facade of 'normality' maintained more than in Byron's eventually trashed hotel room, but the cracks beneath the brittle surface far more deeper and dangerous. Its a 'long dark night of the soul' for both characters, where their lives are going to be entirely different from what they were up to this point. A 'liberation' in both a freeing and nihilistic sense, and in both cases the characters are doing the most collateral damage to those surrounding them by their, arguably selfish (but probably justifiable as the only possible course of action in their own mind), actions.

I think that the back and forth between the two storylines is at its strongest here, particularly that the morning killings in Bobby's home, to the point at which he has tidied everything up and left to drive off into the wider community, all takes place before Byron and Sammy wake up in their hotel room at noon! It is the difference between being drunk or sober again, I suppose, but it is also as if whilst Byron and Sammy have been unconscious a new world has begun and they have woken up into it, even if it takes them a while to recognise that fundamental, irreversible change has occurred. That for as much of a relic that Byron considers himself to be, at least he got out of bed to answer the door, whilst just a few blocks away in some anonymous suburbs there are a couple of people who will never get out of bed again.

And then we get more parallels as Byron has a change of heart about making the public appearance at the drive-in. He will put on the facade one last time (perhaps for Jenny's sake more than his), and for now has motivation and a purpose even if it is leading nowhere, much as Bobby now has a purpose and a goal, even if it is just one to kill as many people as possible before he is captured or killed. I love the 'Samara story' that Bryon has at this point, where the amusing theme about the impossibility of running from death because of never being able to escape the fate that has been dealt out for you is contrasted against that chillingly powerful scene of Bobby randomly shooting cars on the freeway (and that is why it is so impactful that this was a real location too rather than entirely staged, for that frisson of all of those hundreds of cars just narrowly avoiding the sights of Bobby's gun as they pass by in the background as he sets out his equipment and then has a break for a bite to eat. All of those insert shots of random cars suggesting Bobby's gaze briefly flicking to them but 'escaping' unscathed, until the moment he settles down to begin randomly picking out targets), and then running off when the police arrive on the scene as if he is trying to do what the person attempting to escape Death in Byron's story attempted!

We even arguably get parallels between the two cars, with Bobby driving his car (suggesting a dangerous freedom to go anywhere and do anything) contrasted against Byron being chauffeured from meeting to hotel to public engagement. It is a very car-centric film (the boot being the best place to hide the arsenal, though it means the wife will have to use the mother's car instead; the random death on the freeway; the eventual drive-in massacre), which may be suggesting something dangerous about the mid 20th century American psyche of car ownership that allows people to exist in their own private bubbles whilst simultaneously out and about in public. The radio and the speakers at the drive-in piping in the one way (and often aggravatingly tinny!) communication. But that may be reading too much into things! Although an issue I may have with the film is that they have that extremely annoying radio announcer playing throughout during Bobby's many car driving sequences (perhaps to suggest how addled and harassed by the witless witterings of others he is even on his own?) and then in another parallel we see the (extremely groovy, man) announcer in Byron's hotel room in preparation for introducing Orlok's appearance at the drive-in that evening. But we never get the what would have seemed mandatory pay-off of this eminently annoying guy getting casually offed during the random killing spree that goes on there!

And then we get to the big climax at the drive-in, where the screen shoots back! The director is left running disconnected from everyone else through the panic and darkness (in abstract shots of Bogdanovich that I find strangely moving) whilst the actor, faced by being usurped in the middle of his own performance, improvises a better ending to his story (though one just as casual about whether he lives or dies) than the one he had been making painstaking plans for. The two 'stars' face off and we get an ending that again parallels the two characters whilst also implying a lot about the nature of celebrity. Bobby becomes childish, cowering in the corner after receiving the beatdown from Byron that he needed from his father but collects himself as he is being led away by the police enough to start cockily talking about how he "never missed a shot" (calling back to the scene out shooting cans with his father, and suggesting he is still trapped in wanting to make daddy proud, again thankfully just another implication added to the pile to ascribe his motivations to), as if he knows that he is going to become (in)famous for his actions. Bobby has a new persona now, a new existence that whatever it will be, will be different to waiting his life away in suburbia. Similarly Byron has survived and maybe confronting his fears of the young head on and being able to handle what they threw at him better than many others might prompt a change of heart about retiring. Maybe he will make that film that Sammy wants to do with him, about a very modern kind of horror, after all.

Either way, we get that great, pointed, shot of both celebrities (newly minted and reinvigorated) being led by their handlers to their separate vehicles before being driven away from the scene to a new phase in their lives which will presumably involve an endless roundelay of interviews inevitably entirely fixating on this one nexus of time where their paths briefly crossed each other. Only Bobby's car remains at the end, a rather poignant relic of an old way of life left behind in a forever empty drive-in lot with a marquee advertising a forgettable B-movie.

[ballmouse]

I also watched this for the first time recently and was pleasantly surprised by it. I suppose my expectations were not too high given I'm not a huge fan of Bogdanovich, this was his first film, and that this was sort of a B movie from Roger Corman. But I found this film is shockingly (post)modern (in a good way), and not just in the discourse of guns.

As the previous poster mentioned, the film focuses on 2 characters and a crossroads in their lives. But rather than try to tell their life stories, it cuts the beginning and ends and focuses on the few scenes directly leading to the climax. I think the removal of progression does a better job of allowing the audience to become immersed in the story. It probably does a better job of mimicking life in this way too. All too often I think we retrospectively assign cause and effect relationships to certain events when in actuality and in the moment they are tenuous connections between events. We believe a logical causation helps us to 'understand' our past and the lives of others because the absence of understanding or logic in decision making is frightening, confusing, and maddening. And yet so much of what we do actually is illogical and inconsistent in the moment. It's only in hindsight do we try to make sense of what we do.

So rather than try to explain or show why the characters have made their decisions, Bogdanovich doesn't and films their decisions. The same concept is applied to the supporting cast. They are on screen, but little to no backstory is provided. The audience is seeing life as it happens and not a story with traditional exposition and introductions. I suppose was not necessarily revolutionary as sort of style was probably more common to non-US films at the time. But seeing an American film, directed by an American in this style was a breath of fresh air for me.

[colinr0380]

I would definitely agree and like that idea that we are just getting the middle part of the 'direct action' rather than the lead up process that has brought a person to that action and/or the 'explanatory' context that will be layered onto the action afterwards (although we see Bobby just beginning to get into doing that as he is being led away). Along with the decisions reached by Byron and Bobby we could also add the relationship between Sammy and Jenny too, as something which we get no particular context for as to how it started or how deep their feelings for each other are, such that if Jenny does go back to England with Byron (or will she? Even that is left ambiguous. This could be seen as a film about variables and vagaries of fate in all its forms, seeming so concrete in retrospect (or after being concretised into a set of fixed, unchanging images on film) but which have been mainly randomly improvised in the moment by all parties involved) will the end of the relationship with Sammy be a major event in their lives, or something minor? We never really know and with that lack of knowledge about the depth of their feelings for each other we are perhaps more in Byron's shoes in that situation, of casually wondering what effect his decision is going to have on them but getting no particular definitive response from either Sammy (who is more in a crisis over his upcoming movie) or Jenny (because she is rather annoyed at Byron for his decision, and its none of his business anyway). In the end, Byron Orlok only has authority over his own actions and behaviours, even if they affect others, but is still left inquisitive and probing but getting nowhere in his casual enquiries about how they will react in response to his rather selfishly blunt behaviours.

Maybe that punchy, unflowery, direct action quality about the film is what most shows the Sam Fuller touch to the script? (Although this also gets somewhat addressed in the Polly Platt interview where she talks about her and Bogdanovich seemingly wanting to shy away from 'motivations' because of not feeling it correct to make any sweeping conclusions in that direction)