|
Originally Posted by Ambassador
Cool! Thanks for checking on that for me. Looks like there's absolutely no excuse not to pick this up right away.
|
I checked out The King and I...
It's a new transfer of a new (2004) restoration based on the original 55 mm camera negative, augmented by Y-M-C duplicates for the missing frames and with some digital work on the parts of the negative that couldn't be duplicated with this method. This restoration was very necessary, judging from the state of surviving trailers and the result is stupendous: the velvets speak to you, the silks shimmer and the contrast is optimal. The extras include a deleted song and vintage TV footage of Patricia Morison and Yul Brynner. There are also six new featurettes of various lenghts, some of which are very detailed and almost leisurely while others are strictly no-nonsense, meat-and-potatoes, all-business, direct-to-the point, slam-bam-thank-you-mam. I had to watch the featurette called «Restoring CinemaScope 55» three times to take in all the information it contained. It offers all the facts but it goes by fast! This is one of three films in the set (the others being Carousel and The Sound of Music) to offer an Isolated Musical Score and it is a doozer. Some of the songs have their vocals, others don't. The ones that do have more presence (in 2.0 stereo) than the 5.0 regular soundtrack. It is also an occasion to delve into the very elaborate (and Oscar-winning) incidental music Alfred Newman devised from Richard Rodgers themes and with a lot of help from an army of orchestrators, choral master Ken Darby and Rodgers associate Trude Rittman who is responsible for the «Little House of Uncle Thomas» ballet music and infused the whole score with a lot of authentic-sounding instruments and rhythms. It is interesting to note that, in suggesting South-East Asia, Rodgers went the way of Puccini, whose opera «Turandot»'s very Chinese-sounding score was almost entirely suggested by a melody he heard on a music box, rather than use the extensive research film composer Bernard Herrmann had accumulated for his score of the 1945 Anna and the King of Siam and which he put at the disposition of Rodgers (who refused politely). The secret of this exoticism is in the orchestration and the result is lush and very satisfying. ***** out of ***** P.S.: I hesitate to mention one extra that is so ludicrous, it's only good for a cheap laugh, and that is the late sixties TV pilot of a half-hour sitcom based on «The King and I» starring Samantha Eggar (doing commentary) and Yul Brynner. I only watched the first few scenes, which is a recreation of the beginning of the film with a canned laugh track and I had enough. But it does show you how complete this set is. They stopped at nothing! |
Baracine said
"All six films, including their variants, the two versions of Oklahoma, the two versions of South Pacific, the two versions of State Fair and Liliom, as well as most of the extras are subtitled in English. All six primary films even have special singalong karaoke subtitles that move along with the sung words during the musical numbers." Amazon says that Carousel and South Pacific have "available subtitles: Spanish" and their Oklahoma didn't state. I don't count "closed captioning" as I have a projector and it doesn't decode captioning. Thanks for the info. |
Originally Posted by TexasDVDer
Amazon says that Carousel and South Pacific have "available subtitles: Spanish" and their Oklahoma didn't state. I don't count "closed captioning" as I have a projector and it doesn't decode captioning. Thanks for the info.
|
State Fair (1945):
The Technicolor on this film is so amazing, I suspect the colour registration has been digitally re-aligned. The fake stereo sound is also very good, as is the mono original. The film itself brings a special kind of nostalgia to me. Since I've discovered this film existed only recently, it brings all the wonder of a minor classic that nobody ever talks about - probably because it's not from MGM. But it's perfect in every way, especially in its evocation of small-town 40's Middle-America and its easy sensuality, sort of an Oklahoma for the masses. It's not too long and it's got lots of atmosphere, thanks in part to great art direction and unobtrusive special effects like the dreamy starry night sky and the fair grounds at night. It's a studio/backlot film that really feels like it was shot on location. The background feature «From page to screen to stage» is substantial and very informative and covers the novel, all three film versions as well as the subsequent stage play. State Fair (1962): This one has pacing problems. It's way too long and its attempt at «modernizing» the story and the orchestrations for «today's kids» seems just a tad forced. The beginning of the film, in particular, is so inauspicious and the characters so unlovable - except maybe the pig - it makes you wonder whether the characters are destined to be murdered in their beds like in some kind of prequel to In Cold Blood. But the print and the sound are A+, the actors give it their all, the dialogue that has been salvaged from the 1945 version still works, Alfred Newman is still music director, Pamela Tiffin sure is purdy, the songs are still by R&H, the discussion of sexuality is frank for the time, the prize pigs are twice the size they were in the previous film, the exciting car race is a definite inspiration for the ones in Cars, the Texas locations are lovely and the production values are high. The low point on this disc is not the song «Soo-ee-t Hog of Mine» sung by Tom Ewell to his pig but the pilot of an early 70's TV series based on «State Fair». Take all the problems of the 1962 version, multiply by 10, remove the sex (it's 10 years later and Marge's marriage has ended in divorce and a 9-year old problem child straigth out ot The Bad Seed) and dilute in afternoon soap-opera hogwash, complete with smalltown Jezebel... The only consolation is that it doesn't have a laugh track! ***** out of ***** |
The Sound of Music:
It's the crowd-pleasing 40th Anniversary Edition with great picture and lots of groovy extras - now in a 2-disc slim case. ***** out of ***** I'm still keeping my «Five Star Collection» 2-disc edition from 2000 because: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom.../cov-5star.jpg 1. Its extras have not been duplicated on the new set, including the 87-minutes documentary «The Sound of Music: From Fact to Phenomenon» and the original 1965 documentary «Salzburg Sight and Sound», as well as the 36-minutes audio supplement with scriptwriter Ernest Lehman. 2. The transfer is interesting for comparison purposes, since it actually has a higher bitrate than the 40th Anniversary edition and plays very well - and possibly better - except on giant-size monitors. 3. The 4.1 sound is different and has bigger bass than the new 5.0 mix. 4. I have a feeling that this edition will become a collector's item before long because of those differences. 5. I like owning both editions. From dvdbeaver's comparison (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...d-of-music.htm ): NOTE: The Anniversary edition has forced advertisements, a trailer and the Julie Andrews introduction - which almost made me throw this package in the garbage can. You cannot watch the film or any of the 1st disc extras without this almost 4 minute intrusion. Firstly, the Fire Star cover and the Digipak are the same editions, only with different labeling. The first The Sound of Music was issued under the "Five Star" label with a sliver jacket and in a double disc plastic case. Although a nice name, the idea never "took off". Fox came back with reinventing the packaging in a two disc digipack and then adding a numbering system on the spine. Perhaps in the same fashion as Criterion's spine numbers or the Classic Fox movies. Okay now that matter is cleared up... Well, the new 40th Anniversary release - we've been down this road before. In a nutshell - to remove the minor digital artifacts of the 5-star edition - the new release looks softer (black levels were slightly boosted in the old edition). The improvement in the new edition (and it is improved on many fronts) becomes most noticeable when projected larger than about 60-70 inches. It is at this juncture than the digital noise and artifacts of the 5-star release become more prevalent. The 40th has had manipulations and anamorphic molding (smoothing) and, possibly excessive, digitization. Brightness may have been slightly manipulated but it is very negligible and in most sequences colors are the very similar in both releases (see last capture for most prominent example). Occasionally skin tones look redder in the old 5-Star edition. The 5-star is slightly cropped on the left, top and even less so on the bottom edge. Subtitles and chapter stops are the same. Audio on the 40th Anniversary has a new 5.0 that sounds very nice. Both still have the 2.0. The new has also added a Spanish DUB along with the existing French one. Extras on the new edition are relentlessly extensive. They go on and on and on. I'm a fan of the film but I can only imagine a The Sound of Music fanatic immersing themselves in all of them. Still it is nice to have a choice. I liked the old commentary (still included) but the new one (although less technical) is a unique slant on the production. BOTTOM LINE: If you own a tube or less than 60 inch system - upgrade only for the extras (and audio). If you have a higher end system, that can detect the flaws of the 5-star, upgrading makes more sense. Interpolating these images on the web makes the new edition softer than it really is, or more accurately the 5-Star looks sharper and artifacts less invasive. Blown up and the differences seem to cross an axis - we noted it at around 60 inches. I suspect that the 40th anniversary may be a head of the times, but as system improve it will be the definitive until HD or BlueRay improves it beyond its present state. Gary Tooze |
I have yet to listen to the commentary for 'The King and I' but it's interesting to note from the supplements that the premier engagement of the film was presented in 'Grandeur 70' which later became known as 'Cinemascope 55' - why the change of name? Incidently, the featurette on 'Remembering Cinemascope 55' is fascinating if a tad too technical.
|
Originally Posted by Giles
I have yet to listen to the commentary for 'The King and I' but it's interesting to note from the supplements that the premier engagement of the film was presented in 'Grandeur 70' which later became known as 'Cinemascope 55' - why the change of name? Incidently, the featurette on 'Remembering Cinemascope 55' is fascinating if a tad too technical.
Interestingly, The King and I would be reissued as a roadshow in 1961, optically converted to spherical (i.e. non-anamorphic) 70 mm and advertised in Grandeur 70 with six-track stereophonic sound! BTW, the same 1988 book states: The 55 mm preprint of both films (Carousel and The King and I) has either been destroyed or has deterioratedto the point of unsalvageability. Even the 70 mm preprint on The King and I has turned purple. Fortunately, the pristine 35 mm reduction material for both films with the original stereophonic sound has been saved. |
Originally Posted by baracine
What you saw was a 1961 re-issue trailer. Fox abandoned CinemaScope 55 after the two R&H films and switched to Todd-AO. I quote from Carr and Hayes' book «Wide Screen Movies» (highly recommended!):
Fox owned the Grandeur name since it started experimenting with a Mitchell and Eastman Kodak 70 mm widescreen camera of that name back in 1929. |
Originally Posted by Giles
so Cinemascope 55 and Grandeur 70 are essentially the same thing, right?
CinemaScope 55 was a film whose image was squeezed two-to-one onto a 55 mm-wide piece of camera negative that had 4 times the area of a 35 mm cell. This 55 mm-wide anamorphic piece of film was optically printed (reduced) onto a conventional 35 mm film that all theatres could run, which was then unsqueezed to a 2.55:1 ratio inside the theatre. Because the 55 mm-wide piece of original film contained more information than any 35 mm film could carry, the results were extremely brilliant and even, some say, superior to films shot directly on 70 mm film (like Todd-AO). The Grandeur 70 process was a 70 mm blowup of the original 55 mm film, unsqueezed in the lab, onto 70 mm film, which was then reproduced, distributed and projected. When the 1961 reissue came around, Fox could very well have distributed a 55 mm to 35 mm anamorphic reduction to theatres, which would then have used their standard CinemaScope projection lenses to unsqueeze it into a brilliant 2.55: 1 format ( like they did in the original release) but, by that time, Fox had phased out its CinemaScope 55 product and trademark, had switched to 70 mm Todd-AO and, in order not to confuse the public (!), came out with a new name that carried the magical «70» mention, which was then considered the new standard of quality, simply because 70 is a bigger number than 55. This was purely marketing on their part. The original CinemaScope 55 projection probably yielded a better, clearer, sharper image than this 70 mm blowup. Why? Because in the original process the job of unsqueezing the image on the 35 mm piece of film was left to the theatre projection lens which projected the image over your head onto the screen, with practically no loss of information, whereas in the Grandeur 70 blowup process, the unsqueezing was done with mechanical (optical) means, in a laboratory, unto another, wider (70 mm) piece of film. No matter the quality control and the exquisite precision of that process, a copy is still a copy and some information is always lost in the process (except in the digital realm, of course). Besides which, the original 55 mm x 8 perforations frame was almost twice as large as the final 70 mm x 4 perforations frame, so that it wasn't so much a blowup as a reduction. Also, by the time 1961 rolled around, more and more theatres (the classier ones) were equipped to handle 70 mm film and a prestigious «roadshow»-type reissue like the one for The King and I naturally targeted that market, which could charge higher ticket prices. The DVD, by the way, was made from the original restored 55 mm negative, unsqueezed directly by your TV set to a 2.55:1 ratio and yields an optimal picture. Confused yet? |
Originally Posted by baracine
Well, in a word, no.
CinemaScope 55 was a film whose image was squeezed two-to-one onto a 55 mm-wide piece of camera negative that had 4 times the area of a 35 mm cell. This 55 mm-wide anamorphic piece of film was optically printed (reduced) onto a conventional 35 mm film that all theatres could run, which was then unsqueezed to a 2.55:1 ratio in the theatre. Because the 55 mm-wide piece of original film contained more information than any 35 mm film could carry, the results were extremely brilliant and even, some say, superior to films shot directly on 70 mm film (like Todd-AO). The Grandeur 70 mm process was a 70 mm blowup of the original 55 mm film, unsqueezed, onto 70 mm film. When the 1961 reissue came around, Fox could very well have distributed a 55 mm to 35 mm anamorphic reduction to theatres, which would then have used their standard CinemaScope projection lenses to unsqueeze it into a brilliant 2.55: 1 format ( like they did in the original release) but, by that time, Fox had phased out its CinemaScope 55 product and trademark, had switched to 70 mm Todd-AO and, in order not to confuse the public (!), came out with a new name that carried the magical «70» mention, which was then considered the new standard of quality, simply because 70 is a bigger number than 55. This was purely marketing. The original CinemaScope 55 projection probably yielded a better, clearer, sharper image than this 70 mm blowup. The DVD, by the way, was made from the original restored 55 mm negative, unsqueezed for your TV set to a 2.55:1 ratio and yields an optimal picture. Confused yet? |
Originally Posted by Giles
being at work and trying to multitask, I literally had to reread this around four times til it made somewhat sense. As I understand it, 'Carousel' and 'The King and I' were shot originally in Cinemascope 55, 'South Pacific' in Todd-AO.
The restoration documentary on The King and I explains (very fast) that this process has become unpractical because of all the proprietary equipment needed to manufacture, film, develop, handle, reproduce, etc. such an unusual film gauge as 55 mm-wide x 8 perforations high. More useless information: At one point, in 1957, Fox toyed with the idea of distributing CinemaScope 55 films in the 55 mm format directly to theatres (to be unsqueezed to a 2.55:1 ratio on the screen). This would have eliminated one step of the process, the 55-to-35 mm reduction, and thus have increased the quality of the picture but it would also have required American theatre owners to buy expensive equipment to adapt their conventional 35 mm projectors to this new, strange 55 mm gauge. I quote from Carr and Hayes' book again: De Luxe Tour, a short, was shot in 55 mm, shown in one Bronx theatre in 1957, and shelved until the 1960s when it would be screened, with new narration, in 35 mm only. and http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs7.htm . |
DVD Savant's review of South Pacific CE (he has mixed feelings):
http://www.dvdsavant.com/s2168paci.html DVD Savant's misgivings are about Joshua Logan's static direction, not the DVD or the transfer. He says he likes the extra footage of the Road Show version in the «Balai Haï/Boar's Tooth Ceremony» scenes. I've watched the DVD twice and I find it very difficult to distinguish between the yellow-filtered scenes of the standard version and the added extra footage of the Road Show version in those «island» scenes. This yellowed footage appears very similar to the yellow-filtered scenes and I, for one, couldn't tell the difference until it was pointed out by DVD Savant and the disc commentary. Very often only a few seconds are lifted, but almost four minutes has been leeched from the visit to Bali Ha'i. The Boars' Tooth ceremony is mostly phony "Ooga Booga" stuff that went out with Frank Buck, but quite a few mood moments in the jungle with Liat and Cable are sorely missed. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.