What does the word "Restored" mean to you? (re: film restorations and "Horse Feathers")*

I have been involved in a debate recently about the use of the word "restored" as related to films.

What sparked this discussion was Universal's recent work on the classic Marx Brothers 1932 comedy "Horse Feathers". First some background...the only known copies of the film are missing a couple of minutes of footage, dating from a late 1930s re-release, when material was cut to conform to the Hays Code. Apparently Paramount (who produced the film), cut the master negative, so all prints made afterwards are incomplete. Still, prints made beforehand continued to circulate, with the last verified sighting in the UK in the 1950's (there are unconfirmed screenings in the US reaching into the early 70's).

The most obvious portion of the film that has been affected is the scene with the brothers in Connie Bailey's apartment, where many lines have been chopped and there are numerous jump cuts...virtually destroying the fast-paced scene. There are also gags with Harpo as a dog-catcher that have been excised.

Flash-forward to 2015, when word leaked that Universal was attempting to restore the five Marx Brothers (Paramount) films they now control. A worldwide search for elements was conducted, and while they were able to locate an uncut "Animal Crackers" (which had been missing footage for the same reasons), no uncut version of "Horse Feathers" was found.

So Universal, to their credit, did upgrade "Horse Feathers", cleaning it up, steadying the picture and reworking the sound. All great. The problem is that this version of the film is being shown at the TCM Film Festival in LA, and is being touted as "restored". I think every Marx fan who hears that term will assume the missing footage has been located, which is just not the case, and that the use of the word here is misleading. Some people who work in the industry are defending the use of the word, while others disagree. At best it should be called "partially restored". I think the term "restored" should be saved for works which have been put back to their full original state.

Your thoughts?

 

I think "restored" is... qualitative.

Is anything truly "restored"? I think it's just "upgraded quality" with the best elements they can find at the time.

As you say, the Thelma Todd scenes in Horsefeathers will still be a mess because elements aren't found..

Now where'd I put those Beach Boys "Good Vibrations" vocals? They must be around here somewhere...

Jeff

 

I agree with Captain Groovy. I don't think the definition of restored is that exact. It is qualitative.
Is the Wizard of Oz film restored, as it is missing scenes originally shot?
Was the Yellow Submarine DVD restored (as was claimed) when it was first issued on DVD?
When it was restored again (on BluRay) the colors on some scenes were quite different.
The matching of the 3 technicolor negatives in GWTW and WOZ were actually done BETTER than the original. So were those two films restored. They didn't look quite like originally shown in theaters. They might have looked MORE crisp. Is that restored?

 

To me, it implies that some re-assembly from original elements was involved.

 

whenever I see "restored"attached to a DVD, Bluray I think of PQ...

 

Damn, now I want to see that scene, mainly because Connie Bailey was so hot in those flimsy. practically see-though outfits. I mean. talk about a change in the times. Today there is free po#n on tap, and back in the 70s Thelma Todd in a silk dress sent me out of this world! A pre-Hayes code film from the 30s was a titillating as it got!

 

I agree with you its more remastering than restored .

 

I tend to see a restoration as trying to improve the film from the best elements available where possible--particularly given films as old as The Marx Brothers movies. That's my take on it and that's what a Universal has tried to,do here.

Having said that, I would still mention that it is still missing a scene because it doesn't exist any longer.

 

Not on topic of the Marx brothers but on topic for film/TV restoration: Now these guys know a thing or two about restoring! The Doctor Who Restoration Team Website »

Even when something can't be fully restored, they've worked with what they have. See their entry for "The Time Meddler" and note the list of DVD extras.

I will say, scroll down a fair way under the DVD section before clicking on anything in there as the older articles are more comprehencive and interesting, especially the articles about working off the filmed telerecordings/kinnescopes and some of the PAL to NTSC to PAL conversions. I've seen their work, not just on a DVD before and after, but the public broadcaster screened "Doctor Who" from 2003 to 2006 and they used nothing but old copies, so I got to see first hand a full before and after restoration. Suffice to say, I would use the phrase "fully restored" in these cases!

 

Now that I think about it, I suppose both ways: remastered from original elements or the addition of missing material. And I guess if the term "remastered" were used I'd think an upgrade in PQ but not necessarily from the original elements maybe via new software or something.

 

I suppose that restored, to me, implies something being put back together so it's like (and I don't want to say 'like' because I guess it will be misinterpreted) the original release. These days we can have something restored that includes material that wasn't used in the original release or restored can simply mean 'cleaned up' - or mastering, I guess.

I have to say, if I went to see Horsefeathers restored, I would expect to see it with the formerly cut pieces, but I'd probably enjoy seeing it cleaned up on the big screen too!

 

I watch TCM a lot lately, or scan from the DVR to see what I recorded that I may never sit through but I want to keep and watch "someday".

I have noticed a lot of their silents have opening credits calling them "restorations", the ones done mainly from the mid-1990s through maybe 2010. But I don't consider those fully restored, or I am disappointed in the quality, mainly because the picture is not stabilized. Maybe they used 35mm elements, or 16mm, or a mix, and chemically and/or electronically corrected the contrast and levels--but the picture still jumps or wanders noticeably and irritatingly, since I know that can be corrected or at least very greatly improved now.

There are many "restorations" of silents where every cut or splice from picture to title and back has a jump. That's called "restored"??? One had used decent computer stabilization, I believe based on what I saw, but the cuts to and from titles still jumped. And I know such cuts can trick computer stabilization, and I know that can be fixed.

A few on TCM are really hideous in tonal quality and even TCM does not even bother to adjust the contrast at least. They show them not in "black and white" but in "gray and white". Sometimes even in "darker gray and lighter gray".

Compare to something like "Metropolis" with the Argentina material (as shown on TCM), they did what they could to frame correctly, stabilize the picture, and match tone levels. But even there I see things I could do myself to make the Argentina material, as I am seeing it after whatever they did, a bit better.

There was one about a month ago where mostly the tonal range was nice, and the picture was rock steady, but every few minutes there could be just a few frames, from 1 to 8 frames let's say, where the picture was virtually pure white and pure black, like a litho. I get it that the only material they had for those frames was from some 14th gen film copy that was that way, and that was interesting to me, and I am glad someone took the detailed effort to include those frames and match them in perfect position to the better material. But all the titles jumped.

Sigh.