DVD Transfer and Studio Pandering

In an article from the New York Times on Sunday, Fred Kaplan describes the differences in a 2001 DVD release of Yi Yi by Fox Lorber and its 2006 Criterion Collection counterpart. While I have not actually seen the film in particular, Mr. Kaplan's words about the state of Fox Lorber DVD releases ring true, given the offerings from the label I have seen. They spent years making unwatchable DVDs out of fantastic classic and modern independent films. Unfortunately, as soon as he makes these statements, he immediately backtracks to make excuses for why their releases are so poor; the worst of which that the label released more classic films during the early period of the format than any other label. The trouble with the statement is the majority of the films they did release are films they already had the rights to and already released on VHS. For their DVD releases, all they did was transfer the tape master to a digital one (remastering the print in the most tenuous sense) and put it in a different box. Quantity over quality when it comes to classic films does not hold. I have a collection of 50 "Western Classics" on 12 DVDs released by Treeline Films. The company is simply a manufacturer and distributor, and did nothing for the universally horrific prints except put them on a plastic disc. Just becuase many of these films have never otherwise been released does not mean that the company should be applauded for their preservation efforts. I was reviewing DVDs for two publications at the time Yi Yi was released to the home market, and I can say with full confidence that Fox Lorber was, even in the dark ages of DVD described in the article, at the very bottom of the barrel in terms of quality. My reviews always had to approximate 1/3 synopsis, 1/3 film review, and 1/3 technical review, and Fox Lorber's releases consistently were given dreadful scores in the latter category, and not just in my work.

Worse than this, however, is the statement Mr. Kaplan makes about other companies besides Criterion that are praised for their "fastidiousness." He lists Warner, Universal, Columbia TriStar, Fox, and Disney. Do I sense a pattern? These are the only five major distribution companies (no omissions) and he gladhands them, giving them a free pass for releasing films like Titanic and Braveheart in pristine form. Whoopdeedoo, these were new films when released and likely had digital prints made in the initial mastering process. It's not so hard to keep films in good condition when they haven't had the chance to deteriorate. Look at the original releases of The Maltese Falcon or The Wild Bunch for reference to see how much major studios cared about their own classic films. Criterion does deserve applause for the effort they put forth to produce that kind of quality, but so do other groups that, in many ways, go much farther than Criterion. Those that really deserve the applause are companies like Kino on Video and Image Entertainment. While the releases are rarely "pristine," the companies are often working with the worst possible original materials and turn them into, not just watchable, but quality releases. Additional note should go out to a number of genre film distributors, but none more so than Blue Underground, who remaster films that very few people care anything about and make DVD releases that look and sound better than when the film was originally released in theaters. This is a true technical feat and one that goes unnoticed. They aren't making much money off these films, but they care about the films and the enjoyment of the viewer who pays for them.

My hat almost always goes off to those who do more with less, as these small companies often do. It rings very hollow to hope that Disney/Pixar's release of Cars to DVD will look nice since it's from a digital print anyway.