 State-of-the-Art Laserdiscs and DVDs Under Scrutiny |
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. MGM 1968, Color, 149 mm. Comparison of the following video discs: MGM DVD #906309 ($24.98), MGM LD #ML1OOOO2 ($29.98), MGM LO #ML102233 ($29.98), MGM LD #ML103104 ($69.98), MGM LD #ML106348 ($39.98), Japanese Import LD-Herald Pony #G158F5509 (15,800 yen), CRITERION LD #CC1235L ($59.95), CRITERION LD #CC116OL ($124.95).
The 30th anniversary of this film passed much too quietly. A much-anticipated
DVD version hit the stores in 1998, but there was no major theatrical
re-release to mark the milestone. Perhaps MGM is waiting for this film's
title date-a year which is almost upon us, but still seems connected with
a distant future of casual space travel and technological marvels that
appeared so irrefutably real in Stanley Kubrick's universe. In reviewing
eight video disc releases of 2001 from the past sixteen
years, it occurs to me that an entire generation of film-goers have probably
never experienced the true 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY... on a
giant theatrical screen. They may not understand why some of us regard
it as the greatest achievement in SF cinema history.
2001 is one of the few films of its genre that you can point to without some degree of blushing. Kubrick had stated that his goal was to make the film "completely authentic, and to make it conform to what is known to physicists and astronomers," and then spent an unprecedented three years and 10.5 million of MGM's dollars "solving the previously unsolved problem of making special effects look completely realistic." The finished film appeared to be a genuine window-in-time, and one of those rare gems of science fiction cinema where the wonder of science is the primary awe-maker. Even more important, it was the first film to give SF a cultural respectability equal to that of any other cinematic epic.
Seen today, Kubrick's achievement is impressive. In 1968 it was astonishing. Accompanied by my father and brother to its April opening, I recall our surprise at encountering "roadshow" accouterments for a science fiction film, which included reserved seating, 7Omm projection, surround sound, and a full overture and intermission. Then, as the film unspooled its breathtaking space scenes, it was immediately clear that visual effects had taken a quantum leap. For once, everything looked absolutely convincing. Kubrick's "mythological documentary" storyline, however, was another matter.
The monoliths, Star Gate, cosmic bedroom, and Star
Child flashed before us with wordless abandon, bordering on a spiritual
experience. It was something akin to an art house film, shot on a megabudget.
Audience acceptance seemed divided by generation; the younger crowd (including
myself, age 15 at the time) loved it and went along for the ride, but
many older viewers felt confused and impatient with the purely visual
messages of 2001. Frankly, nobody could claim to
truly understand it all. Co-writer Arthur C. Clarke has frequently said,
"Read the book, see the film, and repeat the dose as often as necessary."
That's great advice today, but when the film was released, in April of
1968, we still had to wait three months for the book to come out! Personally,
I didn't want an explanation; the underlying mystery provided endless
fuel for fascinating speculation-and an excuse to go see it again!
There were many scenes that bowled me over in that first viewing, but the most vivid was of the colossal, double-wheeled space station, careening towards me in its final pass. As it grew closer, I was awed to realize that we (the audience) were actually going through it! I had been conditioned by other films to believe that such a shot was impractical; that the camera could not focus that close, much less fit within a model's structure. To my amazement, the sharp focus, the fine details, the sense of size and realism all held up as we slid between the massive, rotating wheels. Wow! The sense-of-wonder factor was off the scale.
I didn't know, at the time, that the space station model was a room-filling nine feet across; or that it was photographed with the camera aperture stopped all the way down (for deep focus), requiring an exposure of several seconds for each frame, as the huge model moved a mere three-eights of an inch per minute. ("It was like watching the hour hand of a clock," Kubrick later recounted. "If you were standing on the stage, you would not see anything moving.") All I knew was that the high definition of the images looked unquestionably real on the screen. And, by the sheer size of the projection in the darkened theater, there was a total "you-are-there" suspension of disbelief-the true 2001 experience.
Leaving the theater, I remember telling my brother, "That could never be shown on television." In essence, I still feel that way. 2001 is as much a theatrical experience as it is a visual experience. If you have not seen 2001 in a theater, then you have not seen it. That may sound like an exaggeration, but I could not be more serious in my conviction. It loses some of its awe on TV. Shot in Super Panavision 70 (2.2:1), the film's meticulously crafted images were intended to be magnified on a scale that is still beyond the limits of today's home theater. To work its magic, it requires a big screen-not 60 inches across, but 60 feet.
Does this mean that 2001 is not going to be appealing at home? Of course not! Just the opposite is true. As a film that emphasizes visual style over narrative, it is precisely the kind of movie that you want to own on home video-to watch over and over again. It is also the sort of film that challenges a home theater. An inadequate or uncalibrated display device will likely bury subtle picture detail. As you improve your rig (particularly screen size), 2001 is a movie you'll reach for to see if your upgrade has heightened the sensory effect of its spectacular visuals. Although you won't fully duplicate the impact of seeing it in a good movie house, 2001 can still be engaging on many levels when properly viewed at home... and that begins with a letterboxed video disc.
When the television rights were sold to the BBC in
1978, Kubrick prevailed upon them to broadcast it letterboxed. BBC executives,
fearing that viewers would be confused by the black bars above and below
the image during the space scenes, decided to superimpose star fields
in these blank areas. Kubrick was appalled. The effect failed miserably
and was discontinued after one broadcast.
Then came home video. In looking back at eight discs of 2001: A Space Odyssey, one can virtually trace the maturation of the video disc, as constant, incremental improvements in video and audio technology have spurred each new transfer of this popular film. If you own an LD or DVD player, it's very likely that you have already picked up one of these discs. But did you get the right one? "Newer," as we'll see, has never meant categorically "better."
When home video began to bloom in 1983, MGM/UA (as they were then known) released the first LaserDisc of 2001. It was in stereo, but with analog sound and no chapters. In keeping with the norm of home video at that time, it was also a panned-and-scanned transfer-which means that almost half of the image is missing. Today, this disc looks like somebody's idea of a bad joke.
Over in Japan, where the installed base of LD players is nearly triple that of the U.S., and LD producers have always been more adventurous, MGM released their first letterboxed 2001 LD in 1985. Formatted in CAV and encoded with Dolby Surround sound, it looked promising but the film element appears to have been a theatrical projection print-badly speckled and with reel change marks that sometimes flare annoyingly across the entire frame.
There is a little-known gag in this Japanese LD set: Many of the discs' chapters have been encoded and titled to pick out bloopers! Often, however, the alleged error doesn't exist. Here are some examples (followed by my observations): "KUBRICK MISSED MOVING STARS" (during Orion's docking-he didn't); "KUBRICK MISSED GRAVITY IN THE STRAW" (during the Aries flight-he did); "KUBRICK MISSED LIGHTING OF THE EARTH" (during the Moon Bus flight-he didn't); "KUBRICK MISSED POINT OF POD C" (indeed, Bowman asks HAL to "rotate C pod," when, earlier, he referred to the same pod as "B"). Other titles highlight trivia, such as "ED BISHOP AS ED STRAIKER IN UFO," (identifying the Aries captain for his role in the 1972 TV series). This disc is, at best, a curiosity, and only collectible to some 2001 completists.
In 1988, twenty years after the film's release, the Voyager Company came forward to do justice to 2001 with an outstanding "Criterion Collection" box set edition, approved by Stanley Kubrick. Mastered in CAV with Dolby-encoded surround sound, this was the first letterboxed LD for U.S. consumption, and is still available. The supplementary section is large, but contains mostly text material that has appeared in any number of books on 2001. (Read: Fans already have it.) There are three film excerpts from Thomas Craven's The Making of 2001, but I'd rather see the whole documentary.
The real value of the Criterion 2001 lies in the uniqueness of its feature transfer-supervised by Stanley Kubrick-which was quite a coup for Voyager. Since Kubrick would not leave England, he sent his film editor, Martin Hunter (Full Metal Jacket, 1987), to California to work with Voyager's video transfer supervisor, Maria Palazzola. Using a 35mm intermediate negative (telecine equipment back then couldn't handle 7Omm film), Hunter and Palazzola would prepare 3/4" digital video tapes (they referred to as "dailies") of their progress and send them to Kubrick, in London, to review. Kubrick would then approve the "dailies" or send them back with corrective remarks about the color, contrast, etc. The completed LaserDisc was state-of-the-art for its time, and established a lasting benchmark for 2001 on video. MGM's own Home Video division has been playing catch-up ever since.
In 1990, a CLV LaserDisc edition of the Criterion 2001,
sans extras, was issued by Voyager for $60. Its picture is essentially
identical to its big CAV brother.
By current standards, the resolution, contrast range, and color purity of Criterion's discs appear limited, though it's unclear how much of this has to do with the 35mm source or the advances in telecine equipment since 1988. Probably both. It is still a valuable reference, conveying a good idea of what Kubrick intended. Shots of the sun, for example, look like a properly blinding sun (originally photographed 11 stops overexposed) instead of the timid white disc seen on MGM's transfers. Also, anytime I had a question about color accuracy among these transfers, the Criterion served as my guide. In the future, perhaps Kubrick's instructions to Hunter and Palazzola can be used for a high-definition remastering.
MGM finally issued their first U.S. letterboxed 2001 LD in 1992, in CLV, made from a pristine 65mm interpositive (replete with Cinerama logo) using new telecine equipment that could handle the wide-gauge format. But troubles plagued MGM. In (the now-defunct) Video Review magazine (March 1992), New York movie critic Sedgwick Clark reported, "MGM/UA rejected its own first pressings, because of oversaturated reds, and held up the release for remastering." The final product sold well, thanks to the $30 price, but most buyers didn't know what they were getting. Although space scenes were sharper, and we could see more imagery at the sides and bottom (compared to Criterion's 35mm reduction neg.), the "Dawn of Man" sequence looked terribly soft, reds were still oversaturated, and hues throughout the film have been proven inaccurate when compared to Criterion and later MGM discs. The "cosmic bedroom" at the end, for instance, looks too blue. A Voyager spokesperson, Kim Berman, explained to me that their initial "dailies" looked this way, too, until Kubrick corrected them.
As the final nail in this disc's coffin, MGM's Home Video department inserted some cheesy still photos with titles, during the music interludes (overture, intermission, entr'acte, and exit music). It's an insult to every intelligent film-goer. Did they really think we would wonder where the picture went if they simply showed the original black screen?
For the 25th anniversary of 2001, MGM issued a CAV box set-attempting to rival Criterion' s-with a new and vastly improved transfer, a trailer, a still file of production photos, and a film of Clarke speaking at a press dinner. Of all the discs reviewed here-including the new DVD-MGM's CAV LaserDisc displays the brightest picture, the truest whites, and the greatest range of color. Compared to the Criterion, hues are on the warm side and Bowman's red space suit has a hint of orange, but flesh tones are more natural looking.
MGM's CAV LaserDisc would be my top choice today if they had not made three blunders: They used (again) non-original, video title cards during the music interludes; the "Dawn of Man" sequence still looks unaccountably soft; and the disc side changes are terribly disruptive-the worst coming at the end of Side #5, where the supplemental still file has been inserted immediately after the fade-out of the Star Child (!), forcing you to skip it, and flip the disc to see the closing credits. All needless and annoying.
As LaserDiscs led home video into 5.1-channel sound
in the mid-'90s, MGM issued a Dolby Digital 2001 LD with
little fanfare. (Probably the final 2001 LD, since MGM can-
celed plans for an announced DTS version some time ago.) Packaged in a
jacket that is virtually identical to their 1992 CLV disc, most people
assumed that only the audio had been upgraded. Not so. It is an entirely
new transfer, and the trio of problems I noted (above) on their CAV edition
have all been fixed: All video title cards have been eliminated from music
interludes; the entire film now exhibits an incredible degree of sharpness
that easily exceeds all previous LDs; and the side changes are fewer (in
CLV) and well-planned. That's the good news.
Here's the part that drives me crazy! The robust look of the MGM CAV transfer has been weakened on the Dolby Digital (DD) remaster-the latter now comparatively darker and colder. Flesh tones that look natural on the MGM CAV (or a little pink on Criterion) exhibit a slight olive complexion on the DD version. Out in space, the MGM CAV continues to display the truest white for space craft (shell-white on Criterion), while the DD looks as if the "Blue Danube" sequence was shot through a blue filter. (Did the music have a subliminal effect on the telecine operator?) Also, the spotless interiors of the space station and Discovery appear a bit drab on the DD without the extra luster that was captured on the MGM CAV.
Contrasts have been altered, as well. Stars that are easily visible throughout MGM's CAV LaserDisc look a little faint on the Dolby Digital transfer, and sometimes disappear completely (as they often do on the high-contrast Criterion). This lack of stars-particularly in the sequence where Bowman attempts to rescue Poole-makes it difficult to properly discern motion and believability. Another challenge for these transfers is the black monolith seen floating above Jupiter; it is revealed only by an occasional reflection of light across its surface on the Criterion and DD, whereas the MGM CAV shows it clearly at all times.
DVD to the rescue? Not exactly. MGM's 1998 DVD is identical to their Dolby Digital LD (as is the version shown on the Turner Classic Movies cable channel) in every respect, with the exception of looking about 10% sharper. And since the DVD lacks an anamorphic picture option for optimal resolution, it can hardly be called state-of-the-art. DVD supplements include those found on the 25th Anniversary CAV LD, plus a trailer for 2010; an optional French language (mono) soundtrack; and optional English, French, and Spanish subtitles...the usual fluff. I'd love to see something excitingly new, like the 19 minutes of footage that Kubrick removed after the "critics' preview" in New York, and a running commentary track with Douglas Trumbull (FX supervisor) and Arthur C. Clarke.
Let's talk audio. 2001: A Space Odyssey
was the first film where I can recall hearing distinct surround sound-at
the fade-out of the leopard attack during the "Dawn of Man,"
and again on the large space station, when the public address system softly
announces, "A blue ladies' cashmere sweater has been found..."
It was very striking, at the time. But such surround effects are not so
elaborate as to require the services of discreet 5.1-channel Dolby Digital
encoding for satisfactory playback at home-Dolby Pro Logic does just fine,
thank you-so any perceived improvements from DD will be subtle, at best.
The music tracks used by Kubrick were off-the-shelf orchestral recordings
of adequate fidelity, but the sound is not particularly transparent or
brawny. Today's audio engineers continue to want to "tweak"
it, though, and, in the case of the Dolby Digital DVD and LD, they managed
to make it worse by emphasizing the midrange frequencies-which could sound
good only to someone who has not heard a live orchestra very often. The
Criterion and MGM CAV discs sound comparatively smoother, richer, and
more natural.
Which disc is best? The ultimate edition would combine the strengths of the Criterion, the MGM CAV, and the DVD; but since that doesn't exist, you'll have to decide if you prefer the livelier MGM CAV, with all its presentation quirks, or the sharper-but-darker DVD. For me, it comes down to a matter of detail. 2001 is a fine-grain, big-negative film on which Stanley Kubrick recorded loads of detail, and as each advance in video technology reveals another layer, we move closer to the realism and impact of the theatrical experience. The crispness of the DVD image, therefore, gives most scenes added depth and a more three-dimensional quality. Factoring in DVD's capacity to present the film uninterrupted, I've found that I can tolerate its impaired color, brightness, and sound-which are, by no means, awful, but just not what they could be. With reservations, the DVD edition is what I'll reach for most often... until something better comes along.
The passing of Stanley Kubrick was a terrible loss to the creative art of film making and any future video transfers that might have had the benefit of his input. When it was announced that he would do a commentary track for Full Metal Jacket, I had hoped it might signal his willingness to do the same with 2001: A Space Odyssey. We'll never know. But his vision for 2001 will continue to inspire, and his film will be admired long after its title date has come and gone.
-Wesley G. Holt