I've actually been through the Lloyd box set (not to mention a few hundred other silents). I know a little bit about how the makeup and lighting was done, and better (and worse) examples of it. My question was more because I didn't remember it being *that* noticeable in Safety Last! before.Brianruns10 wrote:As to the first point....it is a bad idea to make snap judgments from one frame. You've gotta see it in motion on a monitor that is properly calibrated. I have. Just yesterday in fact I saw a special screening of the new Criterion master, complete with their logo on the front. And it looked astounding. I can't say what the source material is, but I'd wager it's a fine grain master positive, which is one generation from the camera neg. In other words, pretty damned good. The makeup has always been there, and I've always been able to spot it in Keaton or Chaplin's films. It's not meant to be a realist makeup per-se, but stems partly from silent cinema's theatrical and vaudeville roots (just look at the makeup of the two thieves in "The Kid" and you'll see what I mean), and partly from the limitations of the camera stocks and its ability to "capture"color in gray scale.
I did go back after posting and look at the picture again. The issue may be more that the picture at DVD Beaver is enlarged compared to what it would be watching the actual DVD (it blows up pretty nicely). And my DVD box is packed away right now, so I'm not going to dig it up to check.
Which is why I asked. I was curious whether it was something with the screenshot, or the Blu-Ray was showing limitations in the original cameras / film (and I don't know specifics around Blu-Ray technology).
It's not a question of who I'd have distribute Lloyd's films. Suzanne Lloyd has always been very strict about what was done with her grandfather's work; she in fact turned down several fairly prominent offers before the earlier box came out. The last I'd heard (which was some years back now) was that she had crafted a deal to further promote the box and perhaps do some extra things, none of which seems to have panned out (and I haven't been keeping up since). It was more a question of what had happened in the intervening years to end up with Criterion, not a complaint that she had.As for the second point, as far as I know, the license with New Line expired, and Janus/Criterion picked up the rights. Why is it so strange to you that Criterion would be the one to distribute? They're pretty much the best in the biz, so who else would you have distribute Lloyd's work?