clore

I responded to your inquiry over at the IMDb Classic Film Message Board where, as here, there was only one other response. Hopefully you'll get more of them.

No you didn't say so....and that's beside the point. Your comment was it not being shown in its intended theatrical aspect ratio. Well, it was supposed to be seen in the 1.85:1 ratio and it was aired in the 4:3 format. Thus, it wasn't in the intended theatrical aspect ratio and my comment was not invalid. When two figures are on the opposite sides of the screen, and are chopped in half, it's obvious that it wasn't going through and panning and scanning and no self-respecting cinematographer would frame a shot that way. I'd be glad to see a film shot in full frame for masking in the projector presented in full frame. I can always zoom in to get it closer to what was intended. It's a compromise, but if it happens, I wouldn't even mention it here. I did that for both PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE and THE STRANGER WORE A GUN this week. As for lobbing vs. lopping, yes, you caught me. I used the wrong phrase.

Did I say it was panned-and-scanned? Yes, sometimes you get the image as shot - as in the case of yesterday's PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE which just had plenty of headroom, but no chopping off of the sides. That wasn't the case with today's film where the framing made it obvious that we were supposed to see all of both characters on the opposite side of the screen. Even the credits showed some lobbing off of the sides.

We can add MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT? to the list of films shown in the Academy ratio. Since I never got to sleep last night, I opted to take a nap instead.

When you get the chance, check out Diana Wynyard in the British version of GASLIGHT. She has the role that Ingrid Bergman played and you may even end up preferring the original version.

You might enjoy reading the NY Times review of the film. It must have been quite a coup for Universal to get a film booked at Radio City Music Hall: August 10, 1934 h1. Diana Wynyard, Frank Lawton and Colin Clive in a Film of John Galsworthy's Last Novel. By MORDAUNT HALL. Boldly concentrating their attention on one of the two dominant angles of the story and accelerating the action when it was deemed necessary for dramatic purposes, R. C. Sherriff and James Whale, who distinguished themselves as a team by their skillful handling of the film of H. G. Wells's book, "The Invisible Man," have fashioned a grand picture out of thelate John Galsworthy's last novel, "One More River," the third of the triology of the Forsytes. In this Radio City Music Hall's presentation the noteworthy accuracy in detail is of vast assistance to the impact of the narrative. Mr. Whale, as the director, not only reveals his painstaking efforts in this regard but he has also selected his cast with unusual discernment, each player being especially well suited to the character he or she is called upon to portray. Although the principals are Diana Wynyard, Frank Lawton and Colin Clive, all the supporting performers rise to what is demanded of them. It is interesting to note that when the picture was screened in its first form it met with censorial objections and certain scenes had to be retaken. This has been accomplished so shrewdly that the changes cannot be detected by those who have witnessed the production only as it stands. From reports concerning the original aspects, it might be ventured that the alterations and eliminations have improved the picture, for it is understood that unsavory incidents were overstressed. The film ignores the unhappy experiences of Dinny Cherrell and concerns itself with the story of her sister Clare, the wife of Sir Gerald Corven. Even those who may regret the differences between the novel and the picture, may be gratified to discover such an intelligent drama, particularly when they give thought to the exigencies of such an adaptation. One might hazard that this film can boast of one of the finest court room episodes ever projected on a screen. This comes at a climactic point of the pictorial narrative and is concerned with the proceedings in the trial of the divorce suit instituted by Sir Gerald, with Tony Croom, who is desperately in love with Clare, named as the corespondent. It happens in London, and there are the bewigged judge, barristers and others in the court. It is a remarkable sequence and one endowed with considerable vitality, truth and imagination. In the opening scenes Clare is discovered returning from Ceylon. She has left her husband because he beat her with a riding crop. On the vessel she meets Tony, an impecunious young fellow, who does not hesitate to declare his love for her. Subsequently Sir Gerald arrives and he pleads with Clare to return to him, acknowledging the sadistic side to his nature, but promising her that there will be no further outburst of ferocity. He persists later in following her and one is given to understand that she experiences further cruel treatment from him. Clare is innocent of the charges of infidelity, but she is shadowed by a private detective, who makes notes of the time Tony spends in Clare's apartment and also of their trips in the country. All these scenes are set forth with admirable restraint and with occasional bits of gentle comedy relief. Miss Wynyard gives a stirringly sincere personation as Clare. Frank Lawton is excellent as Tony and Colin Clive is splendid as Sir Gerald. Mrs. Patrick Campbell makes the most of some witty lines and Jane Wyatt is ingratiating as Clare's sister, Dinny. Lionel Atwill gives a capital performance as Sir Gerald's counsel and Alan Mowbray serves well as the defendant's lawyer. Gilbert Emery is impressive as the judge. Praiseworthy work is done also by C. Aubrey Smith, Henry Stephenson, Tempe Piggott and Kathleen Howard. The Radio City Music Hall's stage attraction this week is known as "After Midnight," and the entertainers include Nina Whitney, Arthur Mahoney, Ben Dova, Alice Dawn, Robert Henderson, Moore and Revel, the Rockettes and the ballet corps. *ONE MORE RIVER,* an adaptation of the late John Galsworthy's last novel; directed by James Whale; a Universal production. At the Radio City Music Hall.

That's ROCKY MOUNTAIN, a Flynn western from 1950. Might even be his last western.

Rula Lenska. This was a manufactured celebrity who had TV spots where she came on, announced her name and endorsed Alberto VO5 as if her endorsement meant something to a U.S. audience that never heard of her. It turned into a running gag on Johnny Carson's show for a while.

I really enjoyed seeing the first two films tonight. I haven't seen THE GREAT GARRICK since the mid-60s and it's a fun romp with the usually unheralded Brian Aherne in great form. The film was a financial disaster and such a sore point with Jack Warner that legend has it that he banned Whale from ever setting foot on the lot again. ONE MORE RIVER was a gorgeous print, enough to keep me watching through the rather melodramatic plot line that isn't normally my thing, especially as I'm not particularly fond of Frank Lawton. But there were also the two British Empire archetypes in C. Aubrey Smith and Henry Stephenson, Colin Clive, Lionel Atwill (also in the first film) and Diana Wynyard who didn't make enough films in my perspective. I was just about rooting out loud for her when she was on the stand and loved the responses she gave to the determined Atwill as he was trying to prosecute. When she came back with "May I be protected from these sarcasms" not long after Atwill said the same thing, I just may have shouted "yes" out loud. Great stuff.

Well then thank you for the information, I'll put it in the circular file.

Don't you understand that just because YOU mentioned it does not mean that I can't question or comment upon it? You're commenting upon what I've written, allow me the same privilege. If you're refering to previous threads on the same subject, then why not link it as a courtesy so that I may further my awareness than to appear to be trying to stifle the dialogue by declaring that's it has been discussd already?

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} Chill out...I simply pointed out the subject has been talked about previously...and not "five years ago" but very recently. I'm perfectly chilled, enjoying some nice cold pineapple. To be quite honest, I didn't see the point of your stating that this was brought up before. Why haven't you been telling those posting for a Joel McCrea month that that had been discussed before if you're so insistent on "simply" pointing out such things? In other words, any subtleties you may have intended weren't apparent. If I oeverreacted, I apologize, but your intentions appeared less than simple.

The sets used for the interior of Diana Wynyard's home in ONE MORE RIVER (airing right now) appear to be the same ones used for Henry Frankenstein's home in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > That's the whole point regarding incorrect running times like that...if the studio has promised or intended to send a print with a particular running time, and TCM puts that time into their print schedule and into the program info sent out over cable systems (like when you look at your cable guide on-screen with a program information that includes a running time), and the studio is only able to provide a certain version of a movie...there isn't much that TCM can do about that. It's either the different version of the movie or no movie at all...and they can't do a thing about changing the listed running time, at least until the next time it's shown. > > This same subject has popped up before here on the board. > Well, you'll have to excuse my duplication of a thought that has already appeared and I haven't searched through how many years of posts before stating something covered perhaps five years ago. I do like to spend some time watching the channel as opposed to posting about it. For the record, I do a search before starting a thread on a fil or personality, but this thread started about the subject of last night's films, thus nothing more that a glance at the first page was necessary. My point is that such things may occur less frequently if the distributor IS at fault and forced to rectify the situation at no cost (or a lesser cost) to TCM. For example's sake, let's just say if they're supposed to get two runs of a complete REACH FOR THE SKY, then last week's airing should not count since TCM didn't get what was promised. They should not have to pay the same price for getting less any more than you should if you buy a pound of ham and the seller gives you twelve ounces because that's all that is on the shelf but charges you for sixteen. As far as on-air programming grids go, they're notoriously inaccurate and I don't use them. Too often they disagree with what a channel offers on its own site. Since the one that Time Warner uses on my system doesn't even include running times (slot time yes, but not running time), they're of no use to me. My system had REACH FOR THE SKY listed as being 2 hours and 30 minutes since it started at 130pm and the next film started at 4pm.

DeMille's last silent film THE GODLESS GIRL was set in a reformatory. This was one that had an adjoining one for females and the story concerned a young couple sent to this instituition..

I'll have to get into the habit of checking HBO now that I have HD boxes, other than a couple of series, I hardly watch it. I was once over a relative's house in November 2010 and while there he put on AVATAR which was airing on HBO. It was letterboxed and that's my only experience with such on HBO. On the other hand, The Movie Channel seemed to have a catch-as-catch-can policy on letterboxing on the SD channels. Thus my viewing of it followed a similar pattern. Those are the only two premium channels that I subscribe to and I may be sacking TMC soon as I may watch one film per month there. I may opt for the Encore package instead if the cost is comparable.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I hope that you do understand that in a way, this is only frustration borne of TCM having created its own monster. I won't claim to have counted every instance, but it seemed to happen less often in the days before digital servers. I've only had HD boxes for the last two months. While I do get HBO, I only watched a few things on it as TCM has spoiled me for widescreen films, something which I was not able to experience with HBO. There's no letterboxing done there for those who don't have widescreen TVs. However, since between TCM and DVDs I am so spoiled by seeing films as they were intended to be seen, I completely avoided any film on HBO being presented in the wrong format. I don't know, maybe the thing to do is hit the suppliers where it hurts. When negotiating, try to have it read that failure to supply the proper ratio or length will affect the price level. If TCM is to be penalized by fewer viewers when a hack job is the only option, the distributor should be penalized also. Maybe delivery dates could be advanced so that TCM gets films with enough lead time that you won't be setting in print in your "Now Playing" magazine that something such as REACH FOR THE SKY is 124 minutes and you end up with a film twenty minutes shorter. Again, there should be some penalty for your source also when you guys are made to appear less than you intend to be and it happens through no fault of your own. But I will admit, that last night's disclaimer was a step in the right direction. It let me know that you folks were as disappointed as you expected the audience would be.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}It's not "cropped" if you're referring to how the original ratio was filmed, which was likely that it was composed for a 1.66:1 ratio, but filmed full frame and then matted theatrically in the projector. > > Unless you mean iit was "cropped" because it got shown on TCM in a 1.85:1 ratio? Or do you mean something else? Well. let's take the case of last night's INTENT TO KILL. This was filmed in 2.35:1, a genuine "Cinemascope" film. The sides were cut off, if that doesn't quailify as being cropped, then perhaps I am using the wrong phrase. Now BAND OF ANGELS was a 1.85:1 film, thus it was shot full-frame and intended to be matted during projection. It wasn't as if we got the unmatted image because when Gable and Knowles were squaring off in a duel, they were facing each other, but one character was cropped off at the side. I can't call it pan-and-scan as that didn't happen during the exchange of dialogue.Thus the image does appear to be "cropped." Now there were two incidents last week where while watching ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN and MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN, we're talking Academy ratio-shot films intended to be shown in that format. They both aired on TCM HD with the tops cropped off, giving the appearance of being a wide-screen presentatrion. But on TCM SD, they appeared as intended. ON TCM HD, my choice was either having the top and bottom cropped off at 16:9, or a skinny Costello at 4:3. OnTCM SD, the TV's 4:3 setting gave me the film as it was intended to see, and the 16:9 setting stretches the sides a bit, giving a Costello who gets even heavier when he's out of center on either side. Meanwhile, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY, which was theatrically matted to 1.85: aired on both TCM SD and TCM HD in the 4:3 ratio.

While I'm not a fan of cropping by any means, if it's the only way to see a film that may not otherwise be available then show it. I could agree with that, but only to a certain degree. When that's the excuse for running a cropped BAND OF ANGELS, I have to say that I don't buy it because the sister division of the same parent company has it out on DVD in letterboxed form. When they run a cropped copy of REACH FOR THE SKY that's also cut of 30 minutes, I don't want to hear that's all that's available when the DVD is in widescreen and complete. Better to just substitute another title than to violate your own declared policies of uncut films in the proper aspect ratio. Why does every fest occupy four nights in a month and until 6am? Scrap the cropped titles and give Jack Cardiff a three night salute that at least presents the films that way he shot them. Or just play them until 2am and spread the titles over four weeks. I couldn't help but notice that they aired the "heebie-jeebie" promo tonight during the Cardiff fest at 325am.

In the case of YOUNG CASSIDY, the film was meant to be shown at 1.66:1. So, while it is cropped, there's less damage done. But again, we're supposed to be saluting a director who knew better than most how to compose a frame as he was also a cinematographer. Showing cropped films in such a case is like saluting Judy Garland without a soundtrack.

With INTENT TO KILL, the credits were squeezed together. There was action going on underneath them and the humans and autos were a mite skinnier than they should have been.

Funny how so many people have latched on to Pollack's Heebie Jeebie phrase... In my case it's because I'm sort of reminding the powers-that-be that I've seen the promo that touts TCM as the place to see movies in the proper format. There have actually been a couple of times that i saw the promo right before TCM aired a pan-and-scan feature. It's the first time that I ever saw such a disclaimer also but given the number of widescreen TVs out there, the language needs to be altered somewhat. That may have worked for TNT twenty years ago when 4:3 was prevalent, but those days are over. I did like the way that it said "TCM tried to get a copy..." That almost had me thinking that it was in response to those of us who complain about such things here.

First INTENT TO KILL comes on with a warning that it has been formatted to fit this screen. Well, not mine, I have a widescreen TV. While the disclaimer is appreciated, that it was necessary isn't. I did see the film on FMC a few years ago in widescreen, so I passed on it. Now THE LION is airing in a 4:3 ratio despite having been shot in 2.35:1. I didn't tune-in early enough to see if it too had a disclaimer and I tuned out right away. If I want to see a widescreen movie butchered, I have enough old VHS tapes that can also accomplish that. There's a certain irony that in celebrating the career of a man known primarily as a cinematographer, that when they air films he directed, we're not seeing the whole image. It's enough to give one the heebie-jeebies.

These boards are very inconsistent with that quote function. I usually hit the "enter" key three times before typing and sometimes it formats properly, other times it doesn't. I was only doing that as I learned that one "hit" does not space things correctly.

> {quote:title=cigarjoe wrote:}{quote}*The Brasher Doubloon* (1947) Director John Brahm, with George Montgomery, Nancy Guild, Conrad Janis, and Roy Roberts. Nothing to go running out to find very talky and studio set bound. Probably the worst film based on Chandler's Marlowe P.I. character. Didn't like Montgomery at all nor the rest of the cast for that matter. Fox had John Payne, Richard Conte, Mark Stevens and Richard Widmark on the lot at that time and the best that they could come up with was George Montgomery. The film makes you wonder what the very talented John Brahm must have been thinking of while making it as it shows none of the flair of THE LODGER or HANGOVER SQUARE. Even the earlier adaptation TIME TO KILL with Lloyd Nolan, while no great shakes itself, was a better film.