CineSage_jr
-
Posts
3,852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by CineSage_jr
-
-
Ah, but at whose head is Glenn Griffin's (Bogie's) gun pointed, and who plays the Hilliards' daughter (seen next to March)?
-
In this case, "credit" goes to those who were most neglectful, since it guaranteed that the negatives were not handled as often as typical U.S. studio elements.
Still, I wish that Osborne had addressed this issue in his intros. I suspect that some of these films' elements may have been deposited with the British Film Institute, which woud explain why some survived in pristine condition, while others -- presumably not stored at BFI -- didn't survive at all.
-
No. MY SIX LOVES was released in 1962, ONE-EYED JACKS in 1960.
Call it Technirama, if you like, but all horizontal-format cameras are not VistaVision.
And the two Disney films were not, repeat, not shot in VistaVision.
-
You've heard the Carl Stalling chase music in countless classic Warner Bros. cartoons.
Obviously, the genius of Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, et al ensured that the cartoons made
better use of it.
-
At the time of her death on Saturday (9/15), Somers (real name: Audrey Johnson) and Klugman were still married. They separated in 1974, but never divorced.
-
To paraphrase Mary Poppins (another Disney film shot in VistaVision), I never reveal sources. Very old-fashioned to my way of thinking! Besides, I only post facts that I know. And, I was able to substantiate it, on the very first hit I got on my search.
1962's MY SIX LOVES was the last film to employ VistaVision for its principal photography.
While the special effects for either or both MARY POPPINS and BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS utilized VistaVision cameras, neither film was photographed in VistaVision. Period.
-
Many, if not most, of the these films were released once, meaning that the original negatives were handled during the short window of the films' release, and then stored away, largely forgotten. As is often the reverse case, the very popularity of a movie may doom its original elements to abuse and wear.
It's an unfortunate irony that these Teddington productions, forgettable and forgotten, assured their survival, while far more worthy films are lost, or available only in severely compromised form.
-
It sounds a little bit like YOUNG TOM EDISON.
-
Sorry about the multiple postings, but I kept getting a "server error" message every time I submitted it, and thought that it wasn't getting through.
-
It's not really a good rule-of-thumb. During the 1950s, and into the early '60s, a lot of films, especially lower-budget productions, chose to shoot film at the old 1.34: 1 Academy-Ratio, and then crop the image for release, either by "hard-matting" the image on the release prints, or by issuing instructions to theaters to adjust their projectors' internal mats and screen scrims to crop out the unwanted image.
Looking at, say, the 1956 INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, one would think that the Academy-Ratio negative was a pan-and-scan of a Scope original, but you'd be wrong; the 1.34: 1 neagative contains all the information that was ever shot, though it was never meant to be seen in those dimensions. Which to show, then?
-
It's not really a good rule-of-thumb. During the 1950s, and into the early '60s, a lot of films, especially lower-budget productions, chose to shoot film at the old 1.34: 1 Academy-Ratio, and then crop the image for release, either by "hard-matting" the image on the release prints, or by issuing instructions to theaters to adjust their projectors' internal mats and screen scrims to crop out the unwanted image.
Looking at, say, the 1956 INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, one would think that the Academy-Ratio negative was a pan-and-scan of a Scope original, but you'd be wrong; the 1.34: 1 neagative contains all the information that was ever shot, though it was never meant to be seen in those dimensions. Which to show, then?
-
It's not really a good rule-of-thumb. During the 1950s, and into the early '60s, a lot of films, especially lower-budget productions, chose to shoot film at the old 1.34: 1 Academy-Ratio, and then crop the image for release, either by "hard-matting" the image on the release prints, or by issuing instructions to theaters to adjust their projectors' internal mats and screen scrims to crop out the unwanted image.
Looking at, say, the 1956 INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, one would think that the Academy-Ratio negative was a pan-and-scan of a Scope original, but you'd be wrong; the 1.34: 1 neagative contains all the information that was ever shot, though it was never meant to be seen in those dimensions. Which to show, then?
-
The rule of thumb is that pratically everything made in 1954 and later is some form of widescreen. TV movies are made in the standard TV format. There are quite a few different widescreen formats so they won't all look alike.
It's not an infallible rule-of-thumb: during the 1950s, and into the '60s, many film, especially lower-budget productions, were filmed in the standard 1.34: 1 Academy Ratio and then cropped down for widescreen release prints, either by doing a "hard mat" cropping on the release print, itself, or by issuing instructions to theater projectionists to use their projectors' mats and screen scrims to cut off the unwanted material.
An example of this is 1956's INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. Looking at the original Academy Ratio negative, one would think that it's a pan-and-scan of a Scope negative, and that information is missing at the sides but, in fact the 1.34: 1 negative contains all the image that was photographed, though it was never meant to be seen that way. Which to view (and issue on DVD), then?
-
After he learns Scarlett is pregnant, James Cagney moans, "Mother of mercy, is this the end of Rico?" This was Edward G. Robinson's famous line from Little Caesar (1931).
The line in LITTLE CAESAR was, as scripted, "Mother of God, is this the end of Rico?" (as, one presumes, any hypocritical Roman Catholic mobster killer would invoke the Virgin Mary at the moment of his death), but the Breen Office demanded that the explicit religious reference be removed. The agreeably alliterative "Mother of Mercy" was substituted in its place.
-
Cagney's farm was in Stanfordville, NY, in Dutchess County (a couple of counties north of where I grew up), about 85 miles due north of New York City.
-
Well, it's not exactly an either/or proposition. There're a lot of qualified folks out there; all TCM needs to do is go out and engage one.
-
There's also the question as to whether it was the original, 117-min. release version, or the 139-min. cut that Disney "restored" in 1996 (the film is unwatchable in any version).
-
And she didn't even have to dance a lick.
-
If she didn't "give a hoot," she wouldn't sit there and gush about how wonderful a film is when it isn't deserving of such praise, but she does.
-
His Uncle is responsible for some of the most beloved films of the golden age, but Ben deserves to work at TCM because he is a classic film expert himself.
Ben's uncle is actually Don Mankiewicz, Oscar-nominated screenwriter of 1958's I WANT TO LIVE!
Joseph L. Mankiewicz was Ben's great-uncle.
Joe's brother, Herman, the author of the screenplay to CITIZEN KANE, was Ben's grandfather.
Ben's father is longtime Democratic political consultant Frank Mankiewicz.
Ben's cousins, once-removed, are screenwriters Tom and Chris Mankiewicz (Joe's sons).
The only one I'm not certain about is Dateline NBC's Josh Mankiewicz; he's either Ben's brother or his cousin. I'll have to ask Don.
-
I still have a "Z Channel" T-shirt I won in one of their contests (still unworn).
-
There's a clear lack of chemistry between Osborne and Fisher, which is odd, because Fisher has got to be about the oldest fifty-one-year-old I have ever seen. She seems older than the seventy-five-year-old Osborne or her mother (who is exactly 32 days older than Osborne).
-
Thanks so much for the clarification. I know that in the silent days it was the UA lot and Doug Fairbanks, Sr filmed Robin Hood there. The Robin Hood set was the largest set built in its day.
ROBIN HOOD's interiors were shot at the future Goldwyn Studio; the mammoth castle exterior set was, I believe, built in the Los Feliz district of L.A., where Griffith's INTOLERANCE set had stood six years earlier, near the six-way interection of Sunset Blvd., Hollywood Blvd., Hillhurst Avenue, Virgil Avenue and Sunset Place.
-
The film is available on DVD; if TCM hasn't shown it recently, it's only because they haven't felt like it (frankly, I feel like replacing all their programmers with...me; unfortunately, I don't have the power to effect such change).
Way to tell if film was originally in widescreen format?
in Information, Please!
Posted
Definitely not THE KILLING. Kubrick and James Harris couldn't afford it, and the director eschewed anything wider than about 1.66: 1 until he did 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (and few of his films afterward).