Peter Bogdanovich

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.

Moderator: DarkImbecile

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
jazzo
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:02 am

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#126 Post by jazzo » Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:42 pm

Wait, wait. A bolognavich sandwich?

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#127 Post by knives » Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:59 pm

FrauBlucher wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:16 pm
Better to screw up the post than the meal. Btw... what’s for dinner?
Nothing as good as Mask which I wish we were talking about instead.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#128 Post by domino harvey » Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:53 pm

Image

🙌🏻

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#129 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:22 pm

Strange to see this get a thread bump just as I finish She’s Funny That Way to complete his filmography, as part of a personal project, thoughts soon to follow.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#130 Post by swo17 » Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:26 pm

This from the guy who put a Spider-Man clip in his Buster Keaton documentary

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#131 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:52 am

I finally finished off Bogdanovich’s narrative features, and as expected his post-They All Laughed work hits some sour notes, though not all are as bad as I had anticipated. Like many filmmakers, I think each of Bogdanovich’s films reflect his own movement through a series of stages of life, but his case is more unique than most because of the way trauma infected his soul and the turbulent effects had on his development. This emotional path is characterized by dynamic experiences of mood rather than content, and the vibe each film casts, from expansive and overwhelming love to muted apathy, insinuate his current processing of how he views his world. This shifting of perspective is completely revolved around his emotional state; whether as a young and vibrant filmmaker, a confident self-actualized man deeply in love with people and himself, a grieving man coping with trauma, or subsequent stages of gradual rebirth, as he accessed bits and pieces of his previous outlooks, sometimes hesitantly and almost always solemnly. His process is moving in an opposing direction to the norm (Wes Anderson’s own artistic movement of growth comes to mind) that emerges towards confidence in the security of self. Bogdanovich already had this security (and however cocky one may deem his formative years, he undeniably reached a clear sense of self quite young, a pattern that elicits reactive jealousy from many of us who see others like this - and probably explains why so many people in Hollywood hated him on a deeper psychological level), and so a foreign insecurity emerged, focally driven by the loss he experienced in Dorothy Stratten.

Starting things off, I was finally able to get to Daisy Miller, which was an absolute delight, and another addition to the small pile of wonderful period adaptations. I think the film only works because Bogdanovich made it during the period where he seemed to be channeling the playfulness of the nouvelle vague while implementing attentively assured technical methods simultaneously, to create a breezy flexible atmosphere despite aspects that could have made it heavy-handed. The entire cast is wonderful in their respective parts, but it’s Cybill Shepherd who is the perfect fit for the title role and the film relies on her acting talents, as well as image and personality outside of these abilities for its success. The script is quick-witted and Bogdanovich manipulates it to fit his own wild energy, while it may have translated as too serious in another director’s hands, or one who wasn’t so passionate about the filmmaking process during these specific years. Considering that this film is sandwiched between two of my all-time favorite films, I was surprised at how much I loved it, though it’s at no risk of placing close to his top five best.

One day I’ll write more about At Long Last Love, but after rewatching it again for perhaps the fifth time in the last three months, and who knows how many times over the last few years (it’s become a running joke at this point at the amount of times my girlfriend enters the room and shouts, “you’re watching that again?”) I’m feeling more confident than ever in declaring this my favorite musical, and only barely placing second to They All Laughed in his oeuvre, yet still within my personal all-time top 10 list. This is arguably the most playfully generous, loose comedy paired with the tightest of direction, filtered through the eyes of a hopeful romantic aimed as much at the cinema as at life and love. (I see it as the closest companion piece to They All Laughed, albeit utilizing more genre restrictions rather than taking a self-reflexive nose-dive). Nickelodeon would probably follow in the third spot for many of the same reasons, with Paper Moon and The Last Picture Show expectedly filling the remaining spots as perfect films in their own more grounded, but no less impressive, respective approaches.

I can’t say I have as much love for Targets as some, and What’s Up, Doc? is a hell of a lot of fun going full-screwball, even if I prefer how Bogdanovich blended his natural skill for this particular kind of comedy with other ideas in subsequent films.

Back to first watches, Saint Jack is proof that Bogdanovich can emulate his influences while also holding to his own stamps as he takes on Cassavetes. The joke here is that Cassavetes is known for his vibrant intensity in script, performance, camerawork, but Bogdanovich retains his own formal technique in camerawork, and applies his gentle kineticism to adapt ever so slightly to this style. It’s enough to demonstrate a change to qualify as an experiment but is unequivocally the same comfortable energy of the man’s hot period. I can’t say it’s as welcome as his lighter and more optimistic efforts, even though I admire his intentions and have a strong personal attachment to Cassavetes’ work and this realistic kind of human exploration. Still, if any filmmaker proved that one doesn’t need to produce ‘realistic’ art to hit notes of equal authenticity, it’s Bogdanovich during this decade.

And then I saw his first film to follow Stratten’s death, Mask... and well, it’s not bad - at least not the director’s cut which has a surprisingly appropriate use of Springsteen - but as domino so adamantly professes, the unique magic Bogdanovich once possessed is gone. There are brief moments of optimism present in the interactions of biker family unit but each of the scenes feels dormant, likely due to Bogdanovich’s numbed disconnect from these, or any, feelings. It’s a logical progression to see the man follow his most optimistic film with the saddest story he could probably find about loss, though while the film isn’t poorly made by any measure it’s clear to me that Bogdanovich was distracted with his own grief and the project ultimately failed to provide him with the creative outlet he sought to channel his own depression. This would be an obvious consequence to anyone except the one suffering, but it’s both heartbreaking and honorable to see him try to use film again to express his inner self.

Illegally Yours is a return to screwball but it’s also very much an attempt to ‘move on’ from the life-changing incident. Bogdanovich is no longer idle, but still in denial and not fully present. Lowe even declares in his opening monologue that one just has to let go and move on in life, and while Bogdanovich is not credited as having a hand in the script, we know from Lowe that he did a lot of rewriting and one can’t help but feel like this was his intention with the film. I actually liked this one quite a bit, with Lowe carrying the strengths and flaws of the script and overall story with charm and energy that was very amusing. The visual gags, especially those in the courtroom scenes, often work and most of the successful comedic moments owe all to the one-two lunch of Bogdanovich’s skills in the director’s chair and Lowe’s lively perf. If only the whole film was this consistent it could have been great, but there’s still an emptiness there between Bogdanovich and the material that’s only blatant if one has seen his earlier work and views this film in that context. As it stands, this is one of Bogdanovich’s better films in his later period, and a very entertaining and spirited picture.

Texasville was the right kind of sequel to make, completely at odds with the original in style, tone, and even character, much like how people, places, and the world changes throughout life. The film takes risks to hold onto its own kind of authenticity and simultaneously reflects Bogdanovich’s disillusionment with the world around him, a fitting decision and the first directing choice post-Stratten that feels like it comes from a place of acceptance.

Noises Off is a return to lighter fare, leaning heavily on slapstick, but sadly without much success. There is some clever blocking and Tati-esque implementation of multiple gags in a frame that shows some effort on Bogdanovich’s part, and the film graduates to a place of zany absurdity around the middle of the film that is more appreciated than its first half, but then sinks back down into muddled comic failures. The whole package is a misfire, even if it’s a well-directed misfire, and less forgivable after the wonderful Illegally Yours, though one could surmise that Bogdanovich’s denial had subsided by this point, revealing the 80s film as a fluke of faking unconstrained joy.

That is… until the very next year when he made The Thing Called Love, which I actually really enjoyed! While it’s nowhere near the quality of his best work, there’s a warmth present that has been missing since They All Laughed, even if it’s minute in comparison. This ode to music (significantly a return to country music) and the connective power of struggling artists feels natural and bright. If his 70s work through They All Laughed is his Summer period, this feels like Autumn, containing some pockets of magic but lingering in a sobering state of melancholic reality that bars a full dive into the fantastical area Bogdanovich used to call home. It’s nice to see him finally able to access parts of this place, no matter how small.

The Cat’s Meow is a commendable attempt at a more lavish period exhibition, but that’s about all the credit I can give to this presentation of historical fiction that is not very compelling and left me apathetic and disinterested. A shame because a lot of effort was clearly put into several areas of this mess. She’s Funny That Way was much better because Bogdanovich played to his strengths, but unfortunately the script leaves a lot to be desired in underdeveloped characters and wild setups that don’t deliver in comedy or connection to the material. Reminiscent of a weak Woody Allen film, there’s a lot of light fluff and some musing on the dreamy catharsis of happy endings in the movies that we don’t get in real life. I actually appreciated when the script ruminated in this space because in these moments Bogdanovich seemed to be authentically accepting his old worldview with wise eyes. It’s unfortunate that returning to one’s roots isn’t as easy as picking up where you left off after working through grief, but to me this film is a clear indication that Bogdanovich has grown as close to back to ‘normal’ emotionally as he ever will, and even in a weak film that’s a monumental achievement illustrated in the milieu of his chronological body of work.

For all the varying degrees of quality, this retrospective project still left me with a desire to see Bogdanovich make another narrative film, especially if it’s a comedy. It’s hyperbolic I know, but I don’t think anyone has been able to treat comedy with as much honesty and playfulness in America as Bogdanovich, who took all of his critical knowledge of filmic technique and genre form, and combined it with his own emotional surge of pure love for living, soaked it all up like a sponge and drained himself into every film he made for a good ten years. It’s one of the great tragedies of cinema that Dorothy Stratten died, first and foremost because by all accounts she was a kind and loving person, a human being who was taken from us too young; and also because in her death his identity was split, and the world likely lost decades of more art colored with optimism, something many of us not only seek but need to get through it all. And still I hope he keeps making movies, for even if Bogdanovich can’t bring himself to locate the level of passion to find and project this magic as he did half a lifetime ago, some talents don’t ever completely leave us, even if they fade.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#132 Post by domino harvey » Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:44 am

As a reward, enjoy this if you haven't seen it: "It Ain't Etiquette!", the only number from the theatrical release not to turn up in the much longer director's cut. I'm reasonably certain it was only cut from the Blu-ray version because the bored Fox employee that made the original fan edit left it out and Bogdanovich forgot about it when using that as a guide for his own cut. It came after the racetrack scene, if you're trying to place it in the film's narrative.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#133 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:05 am

That’s amazing, and curiously sounds different than the rest of the songs in the film, but in a good way. Thanks!

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#134 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:30 am

I didn’t expect to notice any correlative relationship between Bogdanovich’s docs and his progression of mental status, but while there’s only three and a gap in between his first and second, they still seem to be markers that reflect his attitudes. Directed by John Ford is very much the work of a young, excited filmmaker who is admiring a hero. The influence of Ford on his own work is limited to technical ambitions and Bogdanovich is strictly an admirer and student of film language here. The inclusions of interviews in the re-release portions, with Bogdanovich’s peers and his older self, serve a different lens of those who have lived this life, less eager for the future but still giddy over the past. It’s a welcome juxtaposition to the original interviews and a passionate work of professional interest.

I know many respect the Tom Petty doc Runnin’ Down a Dream and it’s definitely thorough, but I didn’t feel any personal attachment or energy in this expansive project, beyond clinical dissection and presentation of others’ ruminations of fond memories and factual events. Was Bogdanovich still emotionally removed at this point in his life or just to the material? Or did he simply choose to leave himself out and document in an uncharacteristically reserved style? I don’t know, but I’m going to guess both. His heart just doesn’t seem in it.

The Great Buster: A Celebration was a kind of inverse from the Ford doc, with Bogdanovich’s attention planted and excitement so apparent that he seemed to be reliving the reasons he made films in the first place, but from the same place of mature and wise acceptance as his last narrative feature. The dissection of Keaton’s gags provided a new narrative for me that pointed at perhaps more significant influences for his own comedic style in the 70s films than the more obvious talky 30s screwballs (though not too surprising considering his own fondness for visual gags). Equally moving was the detailed account of Keaton’s life, successes and struggles, with an optimistic thesis in his ability to move passed - or more aptly through - the pain and still achieve autonomy and legacy despite his own perceived failures. The similarities are hard to ignore and Bogdanovich’s involved exploration brought out his youthfulness and his developed insight from a man in the last act of a life of experience. This is arguably the first work from the man since They All Laughed to consist of pure joy, with a calm optimism and his heart and soul completely invested in the project. The doc gave me the impression that Bogdanovich has finally found an acceptance of his own timeline, gratitude for it, and comfort with his autonomy and legacy, as he hopes Keaton was. Even if Keaton wasn’t, Bogdanovich wants to believe that he was, for here he secretly makes some assumptions in between the facts and embraces his own motto from narrative features and life, exemplified throughout his earlier career (with a bobbing resurgence in She’s Funny That Way): Why not choose the happy ending?

User avatar
barryconvex
billy..biff..scooter....tommy
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#135 Post by barryconvex » Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:34 am

I think a big reason why people hated Bogdanovich so much was because he didn't need anyone's approval to live his life the way he wanted, he genuinely didn't give a shit what anyone else thought and he wasn't shy about speaking his mind. People don't know how to respond to a person that intelligent, with that level of self assurance and I would bet that the amount of jealousy he inspired in the 70s dwarfed the amount of outright hatred. He knew what he wanted and pursued it and if toes were stepped on or egos bruised in the process, that wasn't a primary concern. How many highly visible public figures would take up with a murdered girlfriend's younger sister? In the court of public opinion the absolute best possible layperson responses to something like that would be somewhere between, "that's fucked up" and "Hollywood is crazy" but Bogdanovich didn't just have the affair, he married the younger sister. His "I don't care what you think" attitude is best exemplified in his professional life by At Long Last Love, made at a time when he had the presence to will a Cole Porter inspired musical into existence and the clout to get it into theaters in the same year that movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Nashville and Dog Day Afternoon were the sort of thing Hollywood was producing. With the exception of Coppola to a lesser extent, no one else has won as much and lost as much by betting on himself as Bogdanovich.

And about At Long Last Love, the first thing that struck me was that nobody in the film can sing worth a damn except Eileen Brennan and Madeline Kahn (who is in tune but rather shrill) but even if Bogdanovich had hired the greatest voices he could find would it have made any appreciable difference to the finished film? I always respond to rough edges more than I do to polish in any art form and in a film as effervescent and kind hearted as this one, watching someone make the effort through the long takes and live sound that Bogdanovich favors is much more satisfying than sitting through a mix and match pastiche of boring, post synced aural perfection. These are pop tunes after all, originally sung in drunken speakeasies in any manner of slurred speech, that didn't become standards through the public's access to radio or recordings but by people hearing them whistled on the street or by kids hearing their parents warble through them while making dinner or while doing household chores, during family gatherings or road trips; by the same kind of off the cuff, impromptu versions heard in the film, versions that remind listeners of specific people or moments in their lives, versions that I'd wager are held in infinitely higher regard than any rendition by a professional singer. That's where the spirit of At Long Last Love resides, beyond the urbane settings and characters, in its maker's voice, singing as he hears it.

But having said all that, I'm not over the moon about it, for reasons of personal taste more than anything I find poorly realized on the film's part. I just don't really care for Cole Porter that much and I hate Burt Reynolds. Put anybody else in his role (Where the hell was Ryan O'Neal when you needed him? Shooting Barry Lyndon, I'm assuming) and my opinion of the movie probably goes way up as literally anybody else would've been an improvement on his smug presence. He can't be bothered with doing any more than absolutely necessary at this point in his career and so continually falls back on the self deprecating arrogance and awful, awful, forced, high pitched cackle he thinks makes him so relatable. Sipping champagne in a tux in mid-afternoon does not a complete character make and the only difference between the "suave" Reynolds seen here and the cretinous Reynolds of The Cannonball Run is that tux. The rest of the cast, who all bought into the the spirit of the film completely, pretty much cancels him out but as charming as they are, the film just goes on a little too long around its two classic moments- The Shepherd, Kahn, Brennan tap and kickline routine during "Most Gentlemen Don't Like Love" and the show stopping version of "A Picture of Me Without You" and the following medley that closes the movie. This isn't close to Bogdanovich's best work but it's still pretty damn good, the high points are intoxicating and the total lack of cynicism is infectious, going a long way in helping to re-create the aura of old Hollywood.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#136 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:17 am

Ha! Interesting, I think Reynolds may be the best ingredient into the four central actors’ dynamic here, significantly because he is smug but also self-deprecating and that breathes some humility in self-awareness and a willingness to playfully tease himself on his own persona. I was never the biggest Reynolds fan in the world when looking at his overall filmography, but between his comic chops that show generosity as a team player here and in Nickelodeon, as well as the excellent honest and muted comic riot Starting Over in which he tones himself down to walk a difficult line between apathy and deadpan, he really did emerge as a terrific actor who was more flexible than his big-star roles indicated.

I’m glad you got something out of At Long Last Love even if you didn’t love it, and I agree that the unapologetically rough edges are delivered with such confidence that seeing the actors’ vulnerabilities gives us a more intimate placement that allows a doorway into their own playful experience (I love moments of them holding back laughter and the collective consciousness that evokes in showing us the actors, not just the characters, having so much fun making movies) as well as implies an authenticity in imperfect humanity that we can relate to, while adopting a carefree attitude, inviting us in to engage in a practice of identification and then acceptance for ourselves for who we are too.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#137 Post by knives » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:25 pm

Reynolds is also great in his Aldrich films. He might actually be my favorite '70s star at least by the account of that era only.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#138 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:37 pm

Good point, there’s also his Deliverance role which I’ve come around to finding the most interesting of the bunch because it takes the machismo dismissiveness to a place where reality busts a hole in that identity’s stance, and his internal development is well portrayed by the actor through subtly external behavior changes. Also I can’t believe I forgot The End which is another solid black comedy role, all the more impressive for not only making the rare suicide joke funny but basing a whole film out of it, and easily for me the film that acknowledged his comprehension of cinema as a director the best, and another example of his own humility in restraint in that era.

It really is that self-conscious team player attitude though that makes those three best ones elevate in greatness in my opinion

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#139 Post by knives » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:42 pm

By the same token I adore Smoky as well as a few of his films as director because he so consistently works off of others. He's probably the great reactive actor of his age along with Bruce Dern. DeNiro and Pacino may have been universes in themselves, but Reynolds could mold himself to the film.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#140 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:07 pm

I don’t think too much of his work outside of the 70s but that trait you describe is definitely what makes his best succeed in spades. As much as his persona can come off as, or has been made into, pompous ego inflation, his ability to reflect himself off of others demonstrates a curious and outwardly focused position of comfort that begets humility in sharing the space and empathy in transforming as response to his costars. Since this is his priority through this period at least, it squashes that persona for me which by all accounts of Bogdanovich and others still was a shell of difficulty he wore, but that subtle knack for perceptive interest in that which is beyond himself still persists regardless and adds shades of color to dynamics in each film

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#141 Post by Roger Ryan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:16 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:07 pm
I don’t think too much of his work outside of the 70s...
I don't think one can dismiss Reynolds' performances in Bill Forsyth's Breaking In (1989) or P.T. Anderson's Boogie Nights (1997) as inferior. Now, having said that, I do think Reynolds is miscast in At Long Last Love where his looseness feels insubstantial for that particular part. He is much more winningly cast the next year in Bogdanovich's Nickelodeon.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#142 Post by knives » Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:25 pm

Outside his Citizen Ruth cameo I'm not sure if I like any of his post City Heat films/ performances so you're not alone there, but between Deliverance and City Heat I don't think there's a performance I dislike.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#143 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:38 pm

Roger Ryan wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:16 pm
therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:07 pm
I don’t think too much of his work outside of the 70s...
I don't think one can dismiss Reynolds' performances in Bill Forsyth's Breaking In (1989) or P.T. Anderson's Boogie Nights (1997) as inferior. Now, having said that, I do think Reynolds is miscast in At Long Last Love where his looseness feels insubstantial for that particular part. He is much more winningly cast the next year in Bogdanovich's Nickelodeon.
I like both of those films a lot, but I don't think he carries the same air in either performance as he does in the 70s work in regards to this specific analysis. I think those are more in line with his stereotypical attitude people go to, rather than a collaborative and self-reflexive one in At Long Last Love or in a hazier kind of anti-himself role of Starting Over. Your point about Nickelodeon fits a venn diagram of both as he gets to play that archetype while playing a character as an actor playing that archetype, and his ability to laugh at himself and come at the performance with confident energy helps offer springs for his costars to jump on at his own expense while still doing what he does best. Sort of like a thicker version of Norton in Birdman
knives wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:25 pm
Outside his Citizen Ruth cameo I'm not sure if I like any of his post City Heat films/ performances so you're not alone there, but between Deliverance and City Heat I don't think there's a performance I dislike.
That's more or less my position, though I can't say I dislike Roger Ryan's examples (especially, against my own grain as a PTA devotee, the Forsyth), just not finding the performances as interesting as the characters.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#144 Post by swo17 » Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:41 pm

Some boutique label really needs to put out Breaking In

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#145 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:46 pm

swo17 wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:41 pm
Some boutique label really needs to put out Breaking In
I can't imagine it's that far off as there seems to be a resurgence in attention to Forsyth that's been growing for a while, and I'd think this would be one of his most marketable even to those who don't recognize his name

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#146 Post by domino harvey » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:40 am


User avatar
soundchaser
No longer chasing skirts
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#147 Post by soundchaser » Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:53 am

Paging all Bogfanovitches (especially domino harvey and therewillbeblus):

I’ve been frustrated for a while that the only circulating copy of the “Etiquette” number cut from At Long Last Love is a video transfer with burned-in Cyrillic subtitles, PAL speed-up, and audio dropouts. So I made a sort of New Year’s resolution to try as best I could to restore the number to its full glory (or at least some semblance), in its proper context.

At the beginning of the year, I purchased a 16mm projector for a great price, and after testing to make sure the projector ran properly, I acquired a 16mm TV print of the film from a private collector. To make a long story short — most (if not all) 16mm prints of ALLL were made on Eastmancolor stock, which fades to red over time. Here’s a snap of “Etiquette” to demonstrate how faded this particular print is:

Image

I knew going in that I’d have to digitally restore the color, but I didn’t realize how challenging this would be. First and foremost, I had to find a way to digitize the frames. Pass one involved pointing my DSLR at a projector screen set across the room. This worked fairly well in terms of capturing the image, but because of the mismatched shutter speeds between my camera and my projector, there was a prominent band that rolled across the screen every few seconds and darkened the image. (More on this later.)

Having captured the segment I needed, I assumed adjusting the color would just be a matter of rebalancing the image so that it was less red, but this left it with a nasty cyan tinge that wasn’t any more watchable. I stumbled across a color matching tool online that, as far as I’m concerned, works miracles. I lined up a frame from the Blu-Ray with a frame from my capture, and the colors had magically returned. From there it was simply a matter of exporting a LUT and applying it to the whole scene.

The audio involved a few steps: adding a resistor and a new speaker jack to the projector’s amplifier so that I could capture a direct output, and replacing the main drive belt on the motor so that everything ran at the correct speed. (The original belt was slipping constantly.) Nothing too hard there.

Far and away the most frustrating issue was the banding I mentioned earlier. It made the colors and brightness vary every few seconds, which was just generally unpleasant. I tried experimenting with digital filters and the like every few days for nearly a month before I eventually found a way to cheat my DSLR’s firmware and adjust the shutter speed so that it was lined up perfectly with the projector’s. (This sounds like an easy task, but I assure you it wasn’t — I did at least three or four passes and was on the verge of tearing my hair out before I got it to work. My eventual solution involved projecting the film backwards.) So with that, “Etiquette” was finally done.

The print held another surprise, though: an extra verse of “Tomorrow” that I think may only have been a part of this particular TV airing. So I set out to restore that as well, with the same frustrations and joys along the way. I had to do the color manually, since I didn’t have a Blu-Ray reference to line it up with, but I think it’s probably close. I’m particularly thrilled about this bit because this is the first time the whole song has been publicly available, and possibly the first time it’s been heard in its entirety since test screenings. (The TV print is missing a verse that’s on the Blu-Ray.)

Now, I’m no film archivist — I don’t have access to a 16mm film scanner, and I can’t justify the cost of sending a 1600’ reel of film to be digitized by someone else for two small segments. If I could afford a scanner, no doubt the image would be clearer than it is now. On top of that, my print appears to have been cropped a little tighter than the existing YouTube copy. In an ideal world, I’d have access to an open-matte 35mm print and the proper scanning equipment...but given those caveats, I’m pretty happy with how everything turned out.

So, all that said...thanks for reading my saga, and please enjoy the reconstructions/color restorations of “Etiquette” and the full version of “Tomorrow”!
Last edited by soundchaser on Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#148 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:26 am

Wow, thank you soundchaser, it sounds like you put a lot of time and effort into this, great work! I will no longer dismiss New Years Resolutions

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#149 Post by swo17 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:30 am

Woah

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Peter Bogdanovich

#150 Post by domino harvey » Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:58 am

Very cool stuff, will have to check out later. Thanks for your work!

Post Reply