With the advent of the new 4K restorations of WKW's movies, I've decided to give this neglected blog some attention once again. But where do I start? I can't feel I can comment on the new 4K restorations yet since I haven't watched any of them yet. (However, I'll try to collect some of the information that's available online so far in a post in the near future.)
Very well then. In order to get myself ready for the new 4K versions, I've decided to start by taking another look at the previous remasters of WKW's movies. I've done this before in a rather brief manner, so I will probably update and expand my posts about the HD remasters of Chungking Express and Fallen Angels. For Happy Together, I decided to start from scratch as there are lots of things I neglected or missed when I first wrote about it in 2010.
Let's take a look at what's available first. Here's a list of the official remasters of Happy Together that we've had so far:
1) The first proper remaster made its debut on DVD in 2004, released by Kino International (US).In this incarnation, the film had a 2.0 dual mono soundtrack. Two years later, the same remaster could be found on the 10th Anniversary Edition DVD/CD box set by Kam&Ronson from Hong Kong. There, it was labelled the "International Version" and had a new 5.1 soundmix. Interestingly, the accompanying booklet called it a "high definition remaster"; so I suspect that it was created from an HD scan, although it has only ever been released in standard definition.
2) The second remaster arrived in standard definition in 2009 on DVDs by Kino International (US) and Artificial Eye (US). It got its first release in HD in 2010 on Bluray by Kino International (US). This one was accompanied by a 5.1 soundmix from the start, the mix being different to the one from the first remaster.
3) The third remaster is the one carried out in 4K that will receive its first release on physical media in March by Criterion (US). It has already been reviewed by DVD Beaver.
(Notable mention: A Bluray from Japan by Kadowaka Entertainment contains the original Japanese theatrical version of Happy Together. There are some differences between that and the international version that I've discussed here. Aside from that, the Japanese theatrical is a good opportunity to watch Happy Together in its unaltered, "unremastered"form.)
I'll now take a look at the differences between the first and second remaster. I will write a follow up post once I've received the 4K version.
Credit sequences
Originally, the opening credits, title card and end credits were white text on red background. This was kept for the first remaster, although the background for the end credits looks more orangey now. For the second remaster, the text appears in white before a black background.
 |
| title card - Japanese theatrical version |
 |
| tite card - first remaster |
 |
| title card - second remaster |
 |
| end credits - Japanese theatrical version |
 |
| end credits - first remaster |
 |
| end credits - second remaster |
Cut
In terms of video, there are no differences in editing between the first and second remaster. Yet there is one missing piece of monologue in the second remaster. By the end of the movie, Chang has a drink at the 3 Amigos bar before he departs for Taiwan. There, he hopes to meet Lai Yiu Fai.
"I want to say goodbye to Fai, but nobody knows where he is. I thought I'd hear his voice here. Maybe the music's too loud, I can't hear anything."
While this monologue appears in full in the Japanese theatrical version as well as in the first remaster (despite subtitle differences on the two DVDs, see below), the second remaster omits the last two sentences from Chang's narration.
 |
| first remaster - DVD by Kino International (2004) |
 |
| first remaster - DVD by Kam&Ronson (2006) |
 |
| Japanese theatrical version - BD by Kadowaka Entertainment (2012) |
 |
| second remaster - BD by Kino International (2010) |
Picture
Happy Together's visual appearance changed dramatically with the second remaster. In terms of visual quality, it's clearly the superior version. After all, the first remaster still contained instances of dirt and damage. Contrast was bad, especially in shadowy, darker scenes where details were swallowed by black areas. The standard resolution of 720x480 pixels (NTSC) didn't help either.
All this certainly improved with the second remaster! But one thing was very obvious: The color scheme of the movie had been changed dramatically. It seemed as if the saturation of colors had been increased and the yellows were now much more pronounced than before. Take a look at the shot above of Chan in the bar and you'll see what I mean. (The look reminds me of the desert scenes in Ashes Of Time Redux.) Even less yellow scenes received a yellow tint.
UPDATE (2020-02-07): Contributor Benjamin has shared some very interesting information about the sources for the 2004 DVD (first remaster) and the newer remasters in the comments. With his insights, it can also be explained why the visuals of Happy Together went through such a drastic change:
What you see on the old DVD version was a scan of a POSITIVE PRINT. Doyle – as he had done previously with Fallen Angels & Chungking Express – made use of photochemical processes to achieve the result. I can't remember anymore what he used exactly, but it looks like a combination of push-processing (overdeveloping the film stock that you have underexposed, producing more grain and saturation) with one of the bleach-bypass inspired silver-retention techniques which were very fashionable in the mid-to-late 1990s. […] In addition, Doyle deliberately dragged the film (I'm guessing internegative or interpositive) over the ground to pick up dust and other artifacts. He then printed with certain interpositive/neg approaches, including the scenes shot in colour but printed (converted to) black and white, and the first clip of Iguazu in the film which was printed into a cyan/blue duotone. It also looks like he deliberately made use of "flashing"/fogging during the development process, and I even think he deliberately screwed with the printing lights or something because if you notice in the black & white scenes in the original DVD, there is a reverse vignette effect going on in many of the shots - instead of the luminosity/exposure of the image dropping off at the edges of the frame as you normally encounter with lens vignetting, the center of the image is darker and the edges are lighter. You only get this with a negative-to-positive conversion somewhere.
The "remaster" is clearly a scan from the negative, and digital colour correction applied to approximate the original look (and in some cases, "revise"). […] It's not possibe for a digital telecine, irrespective of what resolution it is capable of scanning in, to replicate photochemical looks. You can approximate, or you can go in a different direction (as they clearly did in a lot of shots), but you cannot properly replicate it. Being a scan from negative, this is why, unsurprisingly, there is no dust and the image is sharper. But, as I have explained above, the softness and dirt/dust specks you see on the "old dvd" weren't an accident or mistake, they were an intentional aesthetic choice and look.
(For more information, please read his full words in the comment section.)
 |
| first remaster |
 |
| second remaster |
 |
| first remaster |
 |
| second remaster |
 |
| Japanese theatrical version |
 |
| first remaster |
 |
| second remaster |
 |
| Japanese theatrical version |
 |
| first remaster |
 |
| second remaster |
As a sidenote, the shot you see below appears in black and white in the first remaster while it appears in color in the other versions. If this was an accident or intentional, I don't know.
 |
| Japanese theatrical version |
 |
| first remaster |
 |
| second remaster |
Sound and soundmix
I'm more prone to notice changes in the visuals of a movie than I do notice changes in the sound mix but I'll say a few words anyway. The 5.1 mix of the second remaster sounds fuller than the previous mixes. The 5.1 mix on the Kam&Ronson DVD (first remaster) sounds similar in quality to the dual mono soundtrack of the Kino DVD (first remaster as well), so maybe it is just an upmix.
I suspect that the 5.1 soundmix for the second remaster was done from scratch, as it was done for Chungking Express and Fallen Angels around the same time. For those two, I think the changes were more obvious than for Happy Together. One thing I noticed upon comparing the scene with Chang in the bar is how different his voice sounds in the second remaster. It is much deeper there. I don't have an explanation as to why that is. (The one thing I realised as I heard Chang's voice in the other versions is that the way it sounded originally resonated with me much more as that's the way I first heard it.)
You couldn't be more wrong, I'm sorry.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called "remaster" of Happy Together is as much of a compromised, visually-degreaded step-down as the 4K transfer of Saving Private Ryan. People might believe that's "better" because it's "clearer" or "more saturated", while being ignorant of all the deliberate work involved in achieving the original look through photochemical processes, which cannot be replicated through digitally.
The original version (closest we have is the Japanese International) which was distributed and screened in theatres is by far the best, and only *correct* version. Contast, saturation "better"? No, *different*, and stylistically compromised for the reasons described above.
I will explain why:
The dirt and softer focus were a deliberate stylistic effect achieved by Doyle through manual, analogue efforts and OPTICAL processes.
(cont...)
What you see on the old DVD version was a scan of a POSITIVE PRINT. Doyle — as he had done previously with Fallen Angels & Chungking Express — made use of photochemical processes to achieve the result. I can't remember anymore what he used exactly , but it looks like a combination of push-processing (overdeveloping the film stock that you have underexposed, producing more grain and saturation) with one of the bleach-bypass inspired silver-retention techniques which were very fashionable in the mid-to-late 1990s. Famous examples are Saving Private Ryan (1999), which used ENR, or Seven (1995) which used CCE. In addition, Doyle deliberately dragged the film (I'm guessing interegative or interpositive) over the ground to pick up dust and other artifacts. He then printed with certain interpositive/neg approaches, including the scenes shot in colour but printed (converted to) black and white, and the first clip of Iguazu in the film which was printed into a cyan/blue duotone. It also looks like he deliberately made use of "flashing"/fogging during the development process, and I even think he deliberately screwed with the printing lights or something because if you notice in the black & white scenes in the original DVD, there is a reverse vignette effect going on in many of the shots - instead of the luminosity/exposure of the image dropping off at the edges of the frame as you normally encounter with lens vignetting, the center of the image is darker and the edges are lighter. You only get this with a negative-to-positive conversion somewhere.
DeleteThe "remaster" is clearly a scan from the negative, and digital colour correction applied to approximate the original look (and in some cases, "revise"). The thing is, however, I've done this process myself. It's not possibe for a digital telecine, irrespective of what resolution it is capable of scanning in, to replicate photochemical looks. You can approximate, or you can go in a different direction (as they clearly did in a lot of shots), but you cannot properly replicate it. Being a scan from negative, this is why, unsurprisingly, there is no dust and the image is sharper. But, as I have explained above, the softness and dirt/dust specks you see on the "old dvd" weren't an accident or mistake, they were an intentional aesthetic choice and look. This is also why Saving Private Ryan in 4K, although having a very crisp image, just does not look quite right. The desaturation isn't right, the contrast isn't right, and most of all, the dense and noticeable film grain and edge contrast you see in DVD and Blu-Ray versions (and when it screened in the cinema, I was lucky enough to see a brand-new print I think in 70mm projection the week or day the film came out in 1998) — which are characteristic of all silver-retention processes — is gone, instead you have the original camera negative grain which is more "sparkly" and distributed evenly, rather than clumping together in dark dots as a result of the silver-retention processing (ENR).
And for Happy Together Doyle/WKW made very creative use of these and other analogue techniques in the lab, going much further than Janusz Kaminski did for Saving Private Ryan. This is lost in every single side-by-side example you showed in your article. It's the reason why the "remaster" doesn't even preserve the original white-on-red titles, because those only exist on the release print.
Look, you don't even have to take my word for it, just compare the releases of Fallen Angels on DVD & Blu-Ray with those for Happy Together. See how Fallen Angels DVD & BluRay versions only differ in sharpess of additional pixel resolution, but not colour and tonality? That's because they are from the same source.
Side note: there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have scanned the same preserved positive print with ENR applied for a 4K UHD release. The issue is that the 4K/UHD market is still an enthusiast market by comparison, and — I believe — this market expects an increased level of detail and sharpness compared to the Blu-Ray version of the movie they likely also bought many years prior. They expect that as a validation of their investment in 4K/UHD playback technology, and 8K/4K scans of positive prints (I've never seen it the process on a motion picture print, but I have on negative 35mm stills converted to transparency (positive) at that resolution) likely offer little in the way of an obvious increase in detail and sharpness over a 1080p upres to 4K. The 4K/UHD disc would have more resolution, more pixels, more tonal and colour subtleties (which most people will never have the capability to see - they would only be able to pick it out on professional equipment), but not enough in the way of sharpness and clarity that pops on their 4K consumer displays they have dumped a lot of money into (especially after the x265 compression, I bet it you were looking at a raw scan of the positive running at 4K you would likely notice it). And that jump in detail is what sells UHD releases. Hence why even a gargantuan seller on DVD and Blu-Ray in Saving Private Ryan was released in 4K/UHD from a digitally colour-corrected negative scan which approximates the original look.
DeleteHello Benjamin, thanks for your comments, even though they start with "You couldn't be more wrong".
DeleteThanks for detailing the background behind the HD versions. I have to admit I am not very knowledgeable about the technical aspects which you have detailed. Good to receive some more background info which answers the question how the drastic change of the look of the movie came about. You also raise an interesting point when you say the 4K market is most interested (or is at least expected to be most interested) in increased levels of detail and sharpness, above other things.
Still, I think you took some of my positive words about the second remaster a bit too seriously. ;) My main goal is to document the changes that have been made to this movie (and others) because I think they are worth documenting. I'm not promoting any version
I do think that comes across when you read my words.
(My very own preference would be to have the original theatrical version on Bluray so people could enjoy it as it was originally envisioned by WKW and Doyle. The DVD version is rather unsatisfactory because of the low resolution and the Japanese theatrical version is not English friendly, unfortunately.)
As far as the credit sequences are concerned, those were changed for Chungking Express and Fallen Angels as well, maybe to give them a more cohesive look. IIRC the end credits were all changed to white text before a black background.
I would like to add a shortened version of your comments to the article if that's OK with you?
Best
Nighthawk
Hey man, yes, thanks for asking, please steal the technical details at will. I got them from years of being an obsessed young filmmaker devouring everything I could on this stuff, but there's nothing original about anything I mentioned, it's just what's so. Steal at will. Here's an archived version of a short article in American Cinematographer in the late 90's detailing the silver retention processes in use at the time: https://theasc.com/magazine/nov98/soupdujour/pg2.htm
DeleteSounds like I did misinterpret, indeed.
I just read an interview with WKW where he said part of the negative was lost for Happy Together, and that he used the "remaster" opportunity to change the look of some things, while also giving a really pretentious justification for it rather than admitting that his production company also likely doesn't have the internegative anymore with which to use or strike a new print which you could then scan.
There is also a detail I forgot to mention: it's quite possible that the film scanning technology at Ultra High Resolution is probably optimised for negative scanning, especially when you consider that the contrast range of positive film stocks is always reduced compared to that of negative ones. Still, especially for a movie like Private Ryan, where Spielberg can do anything and they have the budget to do anything because that film has always been a reference-grade thing since the time of DVD and will always sell, it's really really disappointing that he didn't just strike a fresh print with ENR and just do it properly.
Cool, thanks for your permission and the article! :)
DeleteHave you got a link or scan of the interview with WKW that you mention? I'm sure it would be an interesting read. FRom when is it? Does it refer to the recent 4K remaster or the one from about 12 years ago? To be honest, I always wonder how bad the masters of his movies are stored. Ashes Of Time was rotting in a warehouse, parts of the negative for Happy Together were destroyed in a fire... One wonders whether these are mere ploys to justify the changes he's made to his movies in recent years.
I'll try to condense your comments for the main article now - please let me know what you think!
Best
Fabian
TL;DR version:
ReplyDelete"Details swallowed by dark areas" was intentional.
The softness and contrast was intentional.
Have you managed to get your World of WKW copy by now? Will you do comparisons? I've seen some examples on bluray forums and even on yt. They seem very disappointing.
ReplyDelete