This is such a fascinating process to watch. Both personnel & equipment talent at Criterion to be able to restore these great classics. Films with Charlie Chaplin are (often) the favorite of deaf/hard of hearing people I know. It's great to see these films in even better condition today.
In the 1925 version, the soundtrack is presented in 5.1 surround sound and the score for the 1925 version was adapted and expanded by composer Timothy Brock from Chaplin’s score for the 1942 version. It was recorded by Timothy Brock and the Orchestra Citta Aperta in Fossa, near L'Aquila (Italy).
Watching this makes me angry that Criterion doesn't have a million subscribers. A lot people don't believe attention really matters; but I don't care, EVERYBODY needs to see what Criterion goes through to restore some of the most important films in history. This video makes me cinegasm.
The amount of work required to restore old films to a high level of quality is incredible, as are the results when it is done well. Keep up the good work, Criterion!
I've gotten to the point in which i'm disappointed that every release isn't a Criterion release. As film fans I think we need to rise up to Criterion so they can branch off, buy rights to every film and TV show ever, and release them in the beautiful way they do. If only..
My only concern is when they use the 1942 version to restore the 1925 and they just re-frame to whatever they want. I mean: the original scene is being distorted just to avoid placing a black bar on top of the sound, so they end up with things like 2:04 where you can see the "original" silent film, there was a separation between the head and the "scene border" (so to call), making the scene pleasant to view. When restored, 2:28 , the scene is off, really off, and its original intention is warped as the focal point is destroyed.
I agree with all the restoration efforts EXCEPT re-cropping more of the image to make up for the area lost to the sound track. A relatively small slice of the frame is lost to the sound track, so rather than insert a black bar in the already missing area to fill out the aspect ratio, you cut off even MORE of the surviving image? That's as daft as slicing off parts of Gone With The Wind to make it play in 70mm in the 60's. Fortunately, when METROPOLIS was restored the restoration team had the good sense to window box the frame on the sections where the surviving copy had been re-framed oddly. The window boxing preserved both the surviving image within the aspect ratio as well as the continuity without sacrificing more of the image.
Amazing! Hats off guys, you are doing a remarkable and very very important job to make the old masterpieces the most enjoyable again. I saw Rashomon and Seven Samurai and some more of your work and the quality is superb and it just gives that repsect to those marvel of films that we keep watching again and again! Thank you, I am sure many people appreciate your hard work as much as I do.
Was there no other ratio you could’ve gone with to keep more of the image in frame? I feel too much was cropped out. I guess you’re always going to loose image when doing these things.
What I really like about this restoration, that it maintains the characteristics of the films of the era. I wateched two dvd versions of Vitorio de Sica's 'Bicycle Thieves'. One I got from a basket full of cheap dvds. It had some of the scars, the filme was had a bit of sepia. The second was a new retored copy and it was almos like a digital video. So bright and silver. I found the first one better despite all its flaws.
Theeee Gold Rush movie here => twitter.com/1a7ef01d320eb30dc/status/795842512065699840 TThe Gold Rush 1925 Versioon Restoration Demo The Criterion Collection
Hello- its interesting that long before George Lucas "restored" the original Star Wars trilogy for their theatrical re-releases from Feb to May 1997 Chaplin was doing the same thing. the current available silent features Chaplin directed are available only in the "restored" sound versions supervised by Chaplin himself and not the original silent prints.
I wonder if, in 2021, we are at the point where the missing pieces can be digitally recreated without. For example, can the visual information that had been replaced by the audio strip in 1942 be digitally recreated? It would be interesting to let digital effects artists have a go at something like this - same with fully fixing the scratches that couldn't be completely removed before.
@@dunebasher1971 Yes it would take time - like all film restoration. But what is really expesnive about it? Criterion could even partner with a universities - thus cutting costs. It's wrong to poo-poo things so quickly as "taking too much time" or "costing too much". Usually neither of those are actually true.
@@dunebasher1971 let's remember that CBS thought putting 'I Love Lucy' on film was "far too expensive to be justifiable". The series turns 70 on October and has made CBS more than $1 billion.
Thank you Criterion for preserving the work of one of the very few geniuses who ever worked in the field of cinema; I look at the preview for the next Adam Sandler movie and wonder how things have deteriorated this much.
Amazing job. Im thankful , but this is the internet, sooo.. here's my unconstructive comment: You're shaving a little too much of the original image with that aspect ratio for my taste. And that digital stabilization doesn't hold up for today standards. I wonder if there will be a second pass of the scanned film in the future using new advances in digital restoration technology.
Just wait Until machine learning gets involved in restoring footage, it would make any frame sharper and better looking based on the training data and understanding of what it´s looking at.
But the dirt and scratches give the film character. I shot a 16 mm silent film on reversal B&W and edited it in my barn just so I could get dirt on the film. I am about to shoot 35 mm B&W film in an original hand-cranked camera and I want the dirt and scratches. I don't want someone 100 years from now taking the dirt off my film.
+John Gilbert Well, when 70% of silent films are lost, you want to make the ones we DO have look as good as possible. You adding scratches and what not is an artistic choice.
