Oh damn, you went deep with this lol. All very valid & interesting points!
Well good! This makes me less angry at the filmmaker/cameraman for that creative decision lol
Glad to hear you're feeling less angry at those who created the film.
Here's the process one followed that leads to the suspicion as to why they used the BLURRY IMAGES of the ACTRESS:
In the PLOT SUMMARY Wikipedia basically says this:
*
He hypnotizes himself ...
* a penny with a 1979 mint date .... breaks the hypnotic suggestion, pulling Richard into the present.
* attempts to return to 1912 are unsuccessful. After despondently wandering the hotel grounds for weeks without eating, he dies in despair. Richardâs spirit then joins Elise in the afterlife.
--------------------
Then found this other info in the LEGACY section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somewhere_in_Time_(film)#Legacy
the International Network of Somewhere In Time Enthusiasts (I.N.S.I.T.E.), an official fan club, was formed in 1990 and continues to meet regularly.[17]
Which leads to this other link ... which also contains another LINK to the "WISDOM of the HEART" Soliloquy:
https://somewhereintime.tv/article_faq.htm
And reading the words of that IMPROVISED SOLILOQUY ... where the actress isn't saying what she's supposed to say in the play ... is what seems to suggest that what you've said so wonderfully has VALIDITY:
all of the "past" scenes exist solely in Richard's hypnotized mind so Elise could just be a completely made up/romanticized version of whatever he dreamt up whilst staring at that photo on the wall.
And isn't it also SAD that he became so OBSESSED with that PHOTO that he STARVES himself to death.
POOR RICHARD.
reply
share
pepetoony (1744)
5 months ago
My only confusion is: If Elise was purely a figment of Richard's imagination then what was the whole deal with the old lady showing up to his play in the beginning with the pocket watch and the "Come back to me" message? And then Richard does indeed find the photo of that same woman ("aged" Elise) when he goes to the library. He wasn't dreaming about any of that stuff. Idk...this movie hurts my brain!
reply
share
joi2049 (5562)
5 months ago
If Elise was purely a figment of Richard's imagination then what was the whole deal with the old lady showing up to his play in the beginning with the pocket watch and the "Come back to me" message?
Great question & I myself don't have an answer, just still another instance where the same kind of a situation takes place in the row boat:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/jkhjp4/in_somewhere_in_time_1980_a_subtle_but_key_clue/
In the beginning of âSomewhere In Timeâ, an elderly Elise McKenna finds a young, naive Richard Collier, hands him a pocket watch and says "Come back to me!" - HOW did she find him 68 years in the future? There are decades separating them and he NEVER once uttered a single word about being a time traveler. HOW did she figure out that the man she's recently fallen in love with is really from 68 years in the future? Because without the pocket watch hand-off scene, Richard would not, in turn, recognize Elise in an old photo album and he would not have had the mental strength to make the trip through time... and ... the movie is ruined.
My first thought was the 1979 penny. If only Richard had simply dropped it back in 1912 it would have all made sense. But he didnât. In fact, screenwriter Richard Matheson (and director Jeannot Szwarc) makes a huge point to have Richard dropping it on the floor once he's returned back to 1980. So... no.
In a very, VERY short throw-away scene, Richard and Elise are in a row boat in 1912 and he starts humming his favorite song. She comments how lovely it is and asks, âWhat is it?â âRachmaninoff, Rhapsodyâ he replies. She says she loves Rachmaninoff, but she has never heard that piece. He smiles and says âIâll introduce it to you sometime.â - And thatâs it. End of scene. That's all there is to the movie's very subtle explanation for how Elise found Richard later on. You see, Rachmaninoff did not compose Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini until 1934. So, when Elise eventually heard it, recognized it, and realized there was only one way Richard could have known about the same song 22 years earlier, she knew where she could find him⌠somewhere in time.
She just needed to sit still and wait for a playwright named Richard Collier to come along. Which is exactly what people said Elise did for 68 years.
Please forgive me for adding still more CONFUSION to your already Confused state of mind!!!
đ
reply
share
joi2049 (5562)
5 months ago
FOUND another explanation for the reason why the SCENES with Elsie are so BLURRY:
https://cinemascholars.com/somewhere-in-time-1980-a-love-story-for-the-ages/
Cinematographer Isidore Mankofsky filmed the modern scenes with longer lenses and used more contrast-full Eastman film stock. Scenes that were set in the 1920s, however, were filmed using wide-angle lenses with Fuji film stock. Thus creating a different color palette and visual effect for the film. Mankofsky spoke with American Cinematographer in 1980 about the decision to create two distinct visual styles for the film:
ââŚWe had to make sure that, in terms of visual presentation, these two periods would not look the same. The objective was to carry the audience back in time subtly but with a definite difference in the âlookâ from one era to the otherâŚWe used Eastman color negative for the contemporary sequences because it tends to be a little harder in the shadows and to have a crisper, more solid look to itâŚWe decided to go with Fuji color negative for the period sequences because it seems to be a bit more pastel. It doesnât appear to have quite the resolving power of the Kodak stockâŚâ
reply
share
pepetoony (1744)
5 months ago
Yea, in the director commentary he talks about how he used different film stock for the modern shots vs the 1912 shots. But still, there's a scene in the hotel (set in 1912) where it keeps switching back and forth between showing Richard's face (which is perfectly sharp) and Elise's face which is all blurry. Both were filmed with the same Fuji stock so it's definitely a camera lens decision.
I just watched it again--it's the scene right after Richard wakes up on the outdoor porch chair and goes up to Elise's hotel room. The blur effect is just overly jarring/obvious because it ONLY happens when there's a closeup of Elise and the camera keeps cutting between her blurry shots and his sharp ones. I don't think it can be explained away as being the way Richard is viewing her either because in some of the shots we're looking over his shoulder at blurry Elise, so it's not as if we're seeing her through his eyes. I really think they just got a bit heavy-handed with the Vaseline in an effort to make her look etherial! There's nothing wrong with that but it becomes super obvious when it's interlaced with other, razor-sharp shots.
reply
share
joi2049 (5562)
5 months ago
it's the scene right after Richard wakes up on the outdoor porch chair and goes up to Elise's hotel room. The blur effect is just overly jarring/obvious because it ONLY happens when there's a closeup of Elise and the camera keeps cutting between her blurry shots and his sharp ones.
Where or how are you watching it???
At the 58:30 TIME MARK at TUBI it's not that bad:
https://tubitv.com/movies/641581/somewhere-in-time
Since Jane was about 30 something back in 1980, is it possible she also preferred to have them using some kind of a SILK SCREEN effect for her close ups???
She definitely also looks much better now at age 72 or 73??? than the other OLDER Woman does who plays the part of the OLDER ELSIE in the film.
Since the 80's was also before the BOTOX INJECTION PHASE began, maybe Jane wanted to try to HIDE some lines that were starting to form around the eyes, mouth, or on the forehead???
đ¤
https://tubitv.com/movies/641581/somewhere-in-time
reply
share
pepetoony (1744)
5 months ago
I have it on blu-ray. And yea--the woman they used as 'old' Elise definitely could've been cast better! Or at the very least they could've given her some contact lenses that matched Jane Seymour's eye color!
reply
share
joi2049 (5562)
5 months ago
It would be interesting to see them make a version of the film where they could superimpose Jane's current face onto the face of the other OLDER ACTRESS (but maybe doing that would also be against the contract rules or something)???
And yes some colored contacts should also have been used as well.
I'm also thinking they deliberately tried to find the LEAST ATTRACTIVE woman they could for that role in order for the viewer to be as FREAKED OUT by her appearance as the character Richard was the first time he sees her at the gathering for the celebration of his play when she hands him the watch & tells him to COME BACK to her again???
With Jane's current face that scene would be much less effective with her still looking too attractive for the alarmed kind of a reaction that she gets from Reeve.
reply
share