[REL] Bödeln och skökan (1986)

[rune]

720p upscale version as discussed in this thread.

I'm genuinely curious, why would you think it's an upscale? The video and audio specs are completely identical to what was used by SVT way back, some 10 years ago: 1280x720 pillarbox video, 25fps, 2700kb/s fixed bitrate H.264, and so on. I'm pretty sure it's simply a remux of an old web-dl.

[Night457]

I have not had time to actually examine any of my recent FLM downloads because I spend too much time in the forums here.

Deadman is certainly capable of taking a sharp-eyed look at videos so I always appreciate his observations. I simply wanted to make sure this version was not lost, so people can make up their own minds. I have not seen the original SVT video either. Maybe the SVT version was itself an upscale and this is it, I don't know. I don't think we will get a true high quality version unless they are willing to put the money up to restore the film.

[rune]

The site svtplay.se was streaming this movie for a while (SVT is the studio that produced it). I believe that's where the rutracker file comes from. The movie's been taken down since then. That doesn't mean we won't see it again but it's gone for now. No DVD or blu-ray releases exist as far as I can tell.

The 720p file was cropped and upscaled from the webrip, and degrained (at the expense of image sharpness). If anyone wants the original file here it is, with the Russian voiceover audio removed. Subtitles are in English and Icelandic:

Your release contains English and Icelandic VobSub tracks. Is it possible that it might be a rip from the Icelandic DVD? The resolution 690x572 points to a PAL 576i source. The DVD would have a 25fps video frame rate though; the rip converts it to 24fps.

Has anyone seen the original DVD, or an untouched iso?

I watched the first analog broadcast of this movie a long time ago. Since then, there have been two digital public releases. One is the Icelandic DVD. The other is a 720p release on svtplay.se. Unfortunately the 720p release it's no longer available there. Luckily, though, the 720p file in Night457's post contains the untouched video and audio from the svtplay.se release. How do I know? Well, the specs alone proves it beyond a reasonable doubt: 2700kb/s constant bitrate 25fps avc1 video, 96kb/s AAC LC SBR audio, and so on. If the streams were manipulated in any way, why would they end up in the exact format and quality used by svtplay.se back then? (Maybe you'd expect better quality from the original release, but that's just wishful thinking.)

You say the svtplay.se release is cropped? I can understand why you might think that, the DVD release having a few more pixels at the top and the bottom. But the original (and correct) aspect ratio would be 4:3, which happens to be what you find in the svtplay.se release (more precisely, it's a 1.33:1 video in a 16:9 pillarbox format.) The DVD-rip video display aspect ratio is 1.287, which is less than 1.33. Thus you'll get black bars on the sides even on a 4:3 screen. Anyway, the difference between 1.287 and 1.33 is small. Let's just hope the next release won't be cropped down to 1.66:1! By the way, two similar films by the same director have recently been released on blu-ray: Hrafninn flýgur (1984) and Í skugga hrafnsins (1988).

You say the svtplay.se release is an upscale of a rip of an Icelandic DVD? I won't comment on that. Suffice it to say, we are clearly dealing with two very different releases. Neither is the direct source of the other.

You say the svtplay.se release is degrained at the expense of image sharpness? Again, we have two very different digital scans of the same analog source. Yes, the DVD scan is sharp whereas the svtplay.se scan is quite soft, with warmer colours. Who can say which is better or more correct? What I can say is that the svtplay.se release is not degrained; it sports a healthy amount of grain.

[deadman]

You say the svtplay.se release is an upscale of a rip of an Icelandic DVD? I won't comment on that. Suffice it to say, we are clearly dealing with two very different releases. Neither is the direct source of the other.

You say the svtplay.se release is degrained at the expense of image sharpness? Again, we have two very different digital scans of the same analog source. Yes, the DVD scan is sharp whereas the svtplay.se scan is quite soft, with warmer colours. Who can say which is better or more correct? What I can say is that the svtplay.se release is not degrained; it sports a healthy amount of grain.

It's impossible to entirely eliminate grain from a grainy film without trashing video quality. I didn't find the Icelandic DVD in my brief foray for information. I know svt releases have carried the SVT logo for some years but figured older releases might not. Given the existence of that DVD and the Icelandic subtitles, you're probably right - it's a rip of the DVD. I tend to prefer more detailed, even if noisier, picture. But yes, the only objectively true and correct version is the original theatrical film print itself. Even blurays make choices regarding color palettes, noise reduction, and cropping, as you can often see if you look at multiple editions of the same movie.

The 720p file above is not true 720p, as it would be if it were digitally mastered from the source. In that case the image would have more detail than the DVD rather than roughly the same level. This is why I presumed a common origin. It's the same with 1080p web-dl files. Some look no sharper than the DVD version of the same movie, others are obviously true 1080p. You can quickly tell the difference between upscales and genuine HD.

The svt version is more cropped than the one I posted - but is the Icelandic DVD zoomed all the way out, showing the entire image? The only way to know for sure would be to compare it to the original film (which I don't have). Open matte versions of films generally do have black bars on the left and right of the image so the disc doesn't necessarily have the wrong aspect ratio. The airing (this was made for TV) would've been 4:3 but was it actually filmed in 4:3 or cropped for broadcast?

[BugMeNot9999]

She absolutely does seem more like 16 or 17 than 14. For one thing, she's taller than most of the grown men in the film. But beyond that Stephanie Hockett was confident, seductive, and poised beyond her years. At least partly due I'm sure to the fact that she was a model - the career she ultimately chose to pursue instead of making more movies. She was already comfortable in front of the cameras. No awkwardness to get over.

Hi Deadman, I found some articles about this film.
Filming took place between October and November 1985, so Stephanie Sunna Hockett had just turned 15. She was noticed by the director's wife, who had seen a photo of her for a beauty pageant.
Contrary to what the IMDB trivia says, her appearance doesn't seem to have caused a scandal in Iceland (where she had been living for just two years). It was more talked about in Sweden.
She planned to continue acting, but evidently something went wrong.

https://timarit.is/page/2505452#page/n0/mode/2up
https://timarit.is/page/2509150#page/n14/mode/2up
https://timarit.is/page/1623204#page/n21/mode/2up

(The links can be downloaded in PDF format and then translated)

[deadman]

Hi Deadman, I found some articles about this film.
Filming took place between October and November 1985, so Stephanie Sunna Hockett had just turned 15. She was noticed by the director's wife, who had seen a photo of her for a beauty pageant.
Contrary to what the IMDB trivia says, her appearance doesn't seem to have caused a scandal in Iceland (where she had been living for just two years). It was more talked about in Sweden.
She planned to continue acting, but evidently something went wrong.

https://timarit.is/page/2505452#page/n0/mode/2up
https://timarit.is/page/2509150#page/n14/mode/2up
https://timarit.is/page/1623204#page/n21/mode/2up

(The links can be downloaded in PDF format and then translated)

Thanks, you are really good at tracking down documentation like this!

Many child actors didn't continue making movies simply because actor pay was never overly generous outside of Hollywood. This is why there are so many one hit wonders on this site. Regular jobs paid better unless you were highly successful and landed lots of roles. Absent some deep personal issue (like a bad experience on set) Stephanie probably just abandoned acting in favor of a more lucrative career in modeling.

Most American actors make peanuts too. You're in the starving artist category until/unless you have a breakthrough role that catapults you into a stable career - then you can earn big. If you look at some of the most successful child actors of recent times, like the Fanning sisters, Chloe Moretz, or Millie Bobby Brown, they almost always kick start their careers with child roles in edgy films aimed at adults. The Disney-Nickelodeon route that requires them to break out of their kid content image is harder to sustain (as an agent I certainly wouldn't recommend that path to my clients).

I was a little surprised that either Iceland or Sweden would be scandalized by Stephanie's appearance in this movie. Simple nudity ought to be no big deal. It's not like there was any passionate explicit sex involved. Maybe it was the kind of attention that boosts ticket sales and buzz around the young star rather than the type of publicity that prompts boycotts. What was your sense?