ShaunoftheDead

I read Jamie S. Rich's DVD review of Playtime - Criterion Collection at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=23483 and...am I looking at the screen caps wrong? It seems the 2001 edition is first in comparison and therefore seems to show the colors are richer, especially the green glow than the other pic. Could it be that the description is turned around because the 2nd picture defintely looks murkier and ultimately uglier than the 1st.

Thanks.

ShaunoftheDead

It's a good review though and I am intrigued, but don't know if I would go for this film.

obscurelabel

SotD, I don't have either of these editions (although I have the new one on pre-order), nor am I the author of the review, but I suspect that the images are labeled correctly.

The original CC edition was known to be cropped quite a bit. The 2006 images appear to show a good deal more information on all four sides (note the man at the right in the pharmacy scene, also the additional window at the right of the garage scene ... I think these are valid examples even though the frames in each pair of images are not an exact match).

A lot of times an image that has been brightened and contrast boosted can have a superficially "better" look in a screen capture, where one that is truer to the original look of the film can look darker and more subdued in comparision, and I think this is what is happening here. I notice this effect a lot with the screen capture comparisions on the www.dvdbeaver.com site. I agree, on first inspection the 2001 images look brighter, but the 2006 may look better when actually played. Keep in mind also that these are very small 300x169 images and may not be much good for doing such a comparison.

Again, this is just my completely uninformed opinion and could be 180 degrees wrong.

pro-bassoonist

The image construction is correct. The newer edition is as labeled: bottom. And it does not look murky!

Ciao,
Pro-B

jamieoni

I was very careful not to mix them up, and as has been pointed out, you can see quite clearly the second captures actually go wider and show more detail. Sadly, it's not as vibrant of a way to see the images as when watching it on a standard television. You take the captures, shrink them, and then post them online. I do think, however, that what you are interpreting as murkier is really more color. The original had far more whiteness, and so things fade, like the first two plates of food on the top tray of the dessert cart in the foreground.

obscurelabel

Comparison is up at DVDBeaver (although it isn't on the comparisions page):

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare4/playtime.htm

These are pics from Gary's site. I reduced them to 75%, so go to the link to see them at full size.

Old:



New:



Even though the first image is superficially brighter, notice how much the whites "bloom", losing a lot of detail. I think the new version looks great. Also the framing looks much better, and the whole frame is important in this movie.

By the way, if anyone is wondering if the 1.85:1 aspect ratio for this movie, shot in 70mm, is correct, it is. Tati masked off the sides of the frame to reduce what would otherwise have been a 2.2:1 ratio. Here are some links to some info that I found through Google:

From Google newsgroups:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...=&rnum=2&hl=en

* * * * *
Peter Mason wrote:
> If it was filmed originally on 65MM stock why aren't the 70MM prints
> 2.2:1 rather than 1.7:1?

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/lfca/lfca.htm has an explanation:

"Tati shot it with 65mm cameras (Mitchell) with the sides of the 2.21:1
masked down to 1.85:1 to enable the use of a then-new 8-track
stereophonic sound playback system. It wasn't clear whether the film was
shown with that particular soundtrack, however."

The approx. 1.7:1 shown in the 70mm screenshot probably then becomes
1.85:1 when projected.

[unfortunately this link to in70mm.com does not work]

* * * * *
I have found a 25 page article about Jacques Tati in the March 1968
CAHIERS
DU CINEMA.

My French is somewhat rusty, but I have a fairly clear idea of what he
and the interviewer are saying:

> CAHIERS: Le tableau que nous voyons la, au mur, semble indiquer
> qu'avant le tournage, vous avez un instant hesite sur le format a
> employer.Or "Playtime"
> est un film que l'on imagine tres mal en Scope,par exemple.....

"The image we see up on the screen appears to suggest that before
starting production ['tournage' meaning/context is unclear -- CPJ], you
had some misgivings regarding which format to use. Or that "Playtime"
is a film which would have looked poor in Scope?

> TATI: Oui, au debut, j'ai hesite, j'ai fait des recherches sur
> tous les formats, et celui que vous voyez, en definitive, n'est meme
> pas un vrai 70mm.

"Yes, at the start I had concerns and studied all formats. What you see
is not, strictly speaking, true 70mm.

> C'est a-dire que j'ai triche, que j'ai rogne un peu a gauche et a
> droite de l'image en mettant de part et d'autre une petite bande de
> negatif.

"That's to say, I cropped a bit from the left and right sides of the
image, removing some of the [filmed] negative.

> Ainsi je me suis un peu rapproche du format Vistavision, l'ecran
> est un peu plus carre qu'il ne l'est reellement en 70mm.

"Accordingly, it was closer to VistaVision, and the image was slightly
more square shaped than standard 70mm.

> Ce sont des questions qui n'ont pas l'air de toucher les gens d'ici,
> mais les Americains, eux sont stupefaits par las qualite du 70mm
> obtenue.

These issues were not a concern for people here [ie, in France/Europe],
but by the Americans who are overwhelmed by the quality enabled by 70mm.

> C'est tout simplement parce que le budget considerable qie chez eux est
> devolu aux acteurs, dans les super-productions, ici a ete entierement
> consacre a la technique.

"It's fairly simple because the substantial budgets which for them
[Americans?] is allocated to actors for major films, here was set aside
for production and technology costs.

* * * * * * * * *
[These links to in70mm have some interesting photos, including some
showing the in-camera masking of the 70mm frame. Also extensive information on the restoration of the film.]

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2003/play...estoration.htm

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2004/playtime/restored.htm
* * * * *
* * * * *

Hiro11

I have to say, I LOVE this movie. I owned the original Criterion disc but sold it when it reached outrageous prices on EBay. I'm definitely going to purchase this new version.

The film is unique, almost every facet of the movie is unlike anything else I've seen. It's also one of the few movies I'd call a true masterpiece. It's almost dialogue free and works more as a "silent" movie than as a standard comedy.

To pick one particular element, the cinematography of this movie is, IMO, almost unparalelled. It's easily up to the standards of, say, Kurosawa. Because the dialogue is so reduced, every frame has to tell the story: the framing makes the jokes. How Tati was able to become such a master of camera moves, framing and composition after only three movies is beyond me.

The production design is also mind boggling, a sort of Mies Van Der Rohe wonderland.

It's not a movie for everyone. The jokes are very subtle and (as there's no dialogue), Tati leaves it up to the audience to figure out what he's getting at. There are good things and bad things to this approach: the film treats the audience as intelligent enough to grasp its point but, on the other hand, nothing is spelled out for you. I didn't really like this movie on first view because it's a little hard to grasp on first viewing. Once you've seen it a few times, get all the jokes, understand and appreciate the artistry of the production and absorb the story line, it becomes unforgettable. Just keep in mind: it's definitely a slow burn.

Giles

in regards to 70mm, I have only seen the movie as such. The recent AFI showing of the film was outstanding and took on a resolution that made it almost 3D'ish and windowlike. (seeing this in 1080p HiDef on home video would be pretty cool).

ladyjaye

I absolutely love that movie and have been waiting for so long for it come out on DVD (I never owned the first Criterion edition, and am now glad I never dished out the ridiculous price it used to fetch on ebay).

I agree that it's not a movie for everybody, that it warrants multiple viewings because of all the details in any frame of that film. In a way, it's something I've also found in Wings of Desire: the filming of observation that makes you pay attention to details.

A funny note: I discovered, a few years after I became a huge Tati fan, that I share the same birthday as him...

Giles

I watched the other night, the scene specific commentary track and found it to be very fascinating. The image btw is great.