dialoguy

I will venture to disagree. Broadly, I can't see the whole probelm of "remakes." The preferred version remains available, for reflection and viewing. The "remake" is either successful on its own or -- like most films -- not. Good for it if it succeeds. Of this list, I suppose Citizen Kane seems the most pointless to "remake" because it is so formal a film, hardly existing except in its construction... And perhaps The Wizard of Oz could be left alone for its place in time -- The Wiz suggests the problem -- and has its fans -- because those farm elements from which Dorothy escapes are really not relevant now. But Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, and All About Eve, seem pretty likely suspects for remaking, if some director got it into her head to do so... All About Eve is mostly a stage play -- put together a wonderful cast and make it go forward. Of course you may say, no cast more wonderful can be found, but that argument really ignores the serious mass of people who will NEVER watch an old black-and-white movie with Bette Davis... And if you want to tell me that no-one can outperform Gary Merrill, or even the very admirable George Sanders... well, you are wrong. Casblanca is a very strong story, with a good romance at its core, and good romance is pretty much lacking these days -- maybe noone would want to make it. But I can imagine a Spielberg or a Soderbergh taking an interest in the challenge. Again, remember, most movie-goers haven't seen this movie. Don't know the story. Have never even seen Isabella Rosselini, let alone her mom. I think most Civil War movies should be left to lie, but an 'A' production of that GWTW story might work as well as the Academy Award winner did in its day. The racial aspects are very daunting... but I think we do have performers who could step into and dominate these characters. Edited by: dialoguy on Jan 24, 2011 2:30 PM

Watched Downton Abbey last night and was shocked to see the entire episode about Lady Beldon's Flower Show in Mrs Miniver completely replayed! The author of this "original" screenplay is cited as having said "memories might have lingered in his subconscious but that this criticism was just carping from 'the left' " "Memories might have lingered!" The topmost "google" on this subject (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/nov/10/mrs-miniver-downton-abbey-julian-fellowes) likewise dismisses this theft, saying "So what if there's a resemblance? There's nothing new under the sun...." Well, there's quite a bit more than a resemblance here. I wonder what others feel about this. I have been enjoying Downton Abbey. I'm sure sure I will continue to do so, but I don't think this style of creation is to the credit of anyone involved with this production... Edited by: dialoguy on Jan 24, 2011 10:27 AM

Sure, I know lots of young adolescents and young adults. I'm with them every day, in many settings. I know plenty of shallow people, many silly people, but I find they can't be classified, by age, or religion, race, or job category. Not even by their fondness for old movies.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > >.... I've seen many other movies, I'm sure, which have done the same thing: shown portrait-oriented photos cut off in the same manner. ... > Well, feel free to name one such movie. These titles are pretty extraordinary in any number of ways. This was an era when titles were mostly laid on top of an edited title sequence, less dramatic than today's, but similar: lettering over relevant imagery. They were put together by Wayne Fitzgerald who has an enormous entry in the IMDb. In 1967 alone he did 4 out of the five movies nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. As well as several others that year (Cool Hand Luke, The Graduate, Thoroughly Modern Millie)... Most of these use grotesque typefaces, but B&C is a seriph face. And of course not placed over any sort of "scene" purely graphic, very formal. I was wondering, kriegerg69, if when you spoke of the little texts that close the sequence as being >"awfully small and "lost" within the black background surrounding each one." if you were watching it in the wide YouTube frame, that added black bars to either side of the picture? That might have added to your sense of things...

> {quote:title=johnbabe wrote:}{quote} > the young people of today are very shollow, self-centered and dumb, and i know a large number of them, it is just so sad, crawford was a gem and a diamond in the raw all at once...i love her and *no one should touch her oscar winning role!* Well, no one can touch her performance. I don't think roles win Oscars. What a strange lot of fearful protectiveness. No one takes this attitude in theater. A great performance, a great production, it's something to aim at, to try to better, to reinterpret. And in theater the original is always lost, lost every night, but in film, there is no loss! The original remains, available to all. The new one might or might not be great, or good, or fine. The earlier film remains stable. I don't get the outrage. And I reject the "shallow, self-centered, and dumb" generalization.

One thing that often strikes me is that when I was going to the Brattle in Boston to see The Maltese Falcon or maybe Mildred Pierce, that old movie was not thirty years old. Now it is almost 70 years old. When I was young, a 70 year old movie would have been older than Melies. Humphrey Bogart was an actor I knew from his later movies; I'd enjoyed Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind and Mad Mad World and even Bad Day at Black Rock, so it was less of a reach to see Boystown or Captains Courageous. Those links don't exist, really, for kids today. And think of the overwhelming amounts of "classic" movies. As I say, in college I looked back on 35 years of talkies, whereas today that past is 80 years of stuff. There've been a lot of 'classics' since my days at the Brattle -- where to start? Finally, I've had sixty plus years to develop my backlog of classic movies to love; this younger group is just beginning. Thank heavens for TCM for providing access to some good old films that younger people can savor -- when they find that moment. Meanwhile, why let remakes bother you at all? They may be good or bad, but they never displace an earlier film, good or bad -- unless we're thinking of that old story where Gaslight kept Angel Street off of American screens... Let them fight each other after they've been made; give 'em a chance to be wonderful!

What an adventure this is! What a novel. I'd like to hear from someone who actually remembers seeing Bonnie and Clyde in 1967. The carefulness of its creation was especially striking back then, its insistence on a place of equal footing with the classics of the past. Simultaneously breaking new ground while resisting anarchy. Oh well. It was not a movie that thought, what the hell, white margins, cut off, not cut off; who cares? Still, there you are: making it ALL subjective, with some additional weight granted to the DVD purveyors... Hey! Cutting off the margins is GREAT! It's better. Okay. Well, I think if you look at what I've written I have NOT insisted that the tv-fit format was the actual format used, or that 'full-frame' was what I was pushing for. I have said it is a superior representation of the original, superior to the 1.85 representation. And I believe the photos are a good support to this position. I hope I can find other testimonies to this. But I begin to wonder what sorts of evidence might be acceptable. Imagine the title designer speaking up, or even the director? Could we trust their memories at all, against the wisdom of the DVD makers, or Messrs. Theakston and Furmanek. If you haven't checked out the YouTube samples, here they are (And while you're at it you can observe, even in that small sample, how the DVD screws up the color as well): Square version at Widescreen Version at:

I have to listen to nonsense every day from people who are paid better than I am... what else is new? Yeah, maybe you're right about things feeling lost in the great big frame... That's a subjective notion, arguable. But to suggest that a designer would create so simple and formal a flow of images and type and would lay out some pictures in landscape mode and others in portrait, and would create a white border around each photo, and set it so neatly centered in a field of black, would create that entire series, but wouldn't really want the white border to run around the picture, just would do it for the camera, but intending, just on the portrait shots, for the white borders at top and bottom to be lost -- well that's nonsense. And you are -- for heaven knows what reason -- kidding yourself... What do you say? >.... Your initial complaint about this was in regards to some of those photographs being slightly cut off at the tops and bottoms...but I really think they were MEANT to be like that... Who can credit such silliness? Yeah, the designer meant for it to look stupid and careless... Really!

If anybody's still following this thread... Here are two links to the title sequence of Bonnie and Clyde, one in 1.85 format and the other in the more true-to-the-original tv formated version. I think you should watch the square version first -- and BE SURE to watch it in full screen mode! -- and then watch the widescreen version, to see how silly it is, chopping off the tops and bottoms of the old-timey photos. Square version at Widescreen Version at:

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > *It is just fun to discuss it. * Exactly so. I love Casablanca, and have surprised myself over the years to discover how highly I place it in the trove of good films. And in this thread I -- and others -- have been considering one small aspect of it, and that has been fun. I have been struck by that dissolve in the rear projection, and have wanted to bring it -- and its uniqueness -- to the attention of others. I'm glad I have.

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote} > > .... Owen (the editor) must have known that the method or style he used in the now famous memory montage had been done before. ... Perhaps Im overstating the whole concept to this memory montage, but from a technical standpoint, it was something that I felt might be easy enough to expose as a routine aspect to any film. I reject your insistence that Owen "must have known" anything. In most ways, if you ever managed to come up with ANY movie of the era or from the silent days, it wouldn't take away from the charm and craft of the editor's work, nor even its originality. But the truth is, I've not seen anything at all that says this little curlew was ever tried in any other film, whatever your friends may suggest.

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote} > Ok Fred . . . > > Still looking . . . Meanwhile, try the 1962 version of .... > I'm not trying to be impossible, but finding people who copied the Casablanca dissolve twenty years later will not be relevant. The point of this thread is to inquire whether there was some truly original work in Caasablanca that belies its reputation as a typical, however superb, example of the studio product, without anything outstanding or special, just a perfect coming-together of the every-day at Warners. I have pointed to that dissolve as something special, indeed: unique. You have suggested that such dissolves were commonplace, and now you point back to the mists of silent film, but we are all waiting for one single example of the technique (ever!) from the period predating Casablanca.

This series has been running a while now on TCM. But it seems very hard to find a complete list of films that have been deemed "essential." I think such a list would be pretty revealing. (For myself, I wonder what movie might NOT be deemed 'essential' on TCM.) Can anyone help me find such a list?

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > The 25th Anniversary DVD is in 1.66:1. The recent FMC screening was in 1.66:1. The IMDb lists the aspect ratio as 1.66:1, and it was shot in 35mm with spherical lenses, making the actual image on the film in the Academy ratio of 1.37:1. So, the showings you saw at 1.85:1 were cropped in a manner the director did not want, probably by using the wrong aperture plate. You was gypped. You should get the DVD so you can see the whole film. Well, clearly this is a problem, where the "correct" aspect ratio is in doubt, and there is no plain paper trail to reveal the original intentions of the filmmakers... "Aspect ratio" was never a credit item in the way "Color" was or "Running Time" I suspect if one could get a look at the original Technicolor, say, paperwork, there would be a note, or in the Title creator's notes... that would be revealing. I'd like to say, well, the IMDb must have it right, or TCM, but my experience with B&C prevents such trust. The notes with the Library of Congress List should be useful, but, oddly, there seem to be no such notes at all.

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote} > I dont see anything so unique about this typical projected-background dissolve. .... Well, please do me the favor of citing a couple of examples of a film from that era that showed continuous action in the foreground while showing a dissolve in the rear projection. That would settle the question of "unique."

> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote} > You seem to be neglecting the fact that variable-ratio movies do exist. As I've mentioned many times, some movies are shot with open matte but framed to be shown 1.85:1 in theaters. > > Movies filmed in Super 35 can be shown in anything from 2.35:1 ratio in theaters (although they're not true anamorphic widescreen films) and also in 1.33:1 for old-fashioned TV sets (and obviously they can also be framed for HDTV or in 1.85:1). If by "variable-ratio" you mean "projectionist's choice" I do deny their existence, yes. If you mean films are made filling the whole 35mm frame but intended by the director to be masked in some single way, then that is so. But my point here has been that Bonnie and Clyde was meant -- by the director! -- to be shown in a way that was not 1.85 or anything that might be called widescreen. Super 35? What has that got to do with anything? Yes, yes, a 35mm frame -- any image! -- can be masked in an infinite number of ways, but the director has chosen ONE way, and that is the way DVD distributors and TCM should choose as well. Do you disagree with that?

> {quote:title=tterrace wrote:}{quote} > Jack Theakston and Bob Furmanek are two widely-recognized, authoritative film historians... have demonstrated that not only had all the studios mandated widescreen photography for all their productions starting in 1953, but that by the end of 1954 95% of the nation's theaters had completed the conversion to widescreen exhibition. .... This thread has moved into a weird area. From wondering whether Bonnie and Clyde was or was not a widescreen film, we have moved on to asserting that ONLY widescreen movies were made after, say, 1955! I am sure the conversion to widescreen theatrical capacity was as you indicate, but I know from my own life experience -- what I lived! -- that standard format (squarish, whether it's 1:33, or 1:37 or whatever, reasonably contained by the format of a regular television) films were made long after 1954, 1964 and even today! I'll look around to find the interesting list of these things. My POINT is that any such list is suspect in a world where widescreen automatically means "authentic."

> {quote:title=tterrace wrote:}{quote} > It seems awfully unlikely to me that theaters in 1967 would be willing to show a film in Academy ratio, or in fact even be able to do so properly. The Academy ratio-shaped screens and the projection lenses of the proper focal length to fill them would have been long gone. Lenses that filled the wide screens would have an unmatted image spilling over the top and bottom. The only other option would be to have a lens that projected a smaller image, but it would be just that, a small image centered on the wide screen, which would not go over with audiences by then accustomed to, and expecting, a screen-filling image. Given that, it's hard to believe that a filmmaker would deliberately frame a film for a screen format it wouldn't be exhibited in.... Wow. This is almost scary. The vision that's laid out in these notes suggest that film education today is seriously awry. It is not the case that the introduction in the 'fifties of widescreen formats (VistaVision, CinemaScope, Cinerama and so on...) led quite quickly to the total elimination of the standard format. I'm picturing the Coronet Theater of that era, an East Side theater in New York, on an unusual block of theaters, that included as well the Baronet, Cinema I and Cinema II. They all had essentially the same screen concept which was wide, yes, but they had little black runners that ran down the wall when a standard format was required, as it often was. Yes, the wide screen was a popular format, but directors and producers made decisions about these things, and in their bag of tricks was, oh look, the 1.33 format. The Ziegfield Theater, I seem to recall, showed with good results Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon in exactly this format, in 1975. How did they do it? And let me ask you this: How would a theater show Barry Lyndon re-released today? Do you really think they'd be stumped by the challenge? How do you imagine all those foreign films that were so very often in standard format get shown; and how are they shown today, in theaters like the Film Forum in New York... and how does the TCM Film Festival possibly show old films from the glory days? What are you talking about? It's annoying, but I suppose it flows from a horrible ignorance. We've devoted too much time to talking about the old 'twenties movie palaces, and forgotten to describe at all the movie-going experiences of a more recent distant past... You are so wrong in your image of that time... So wrong about the films of that era... How very sad, and very odd.

No, it's a dissolve. Here's the YouTube clip: As to it's being a mistake, that just sounds crazy. I don't know what it means. The editor and lab prepared it. Presumably everyone on the set saw it; there's a camera move at the end and Rick responds to the new country weather... Maybe you mean, some people don't like it, which may be so. I like it, and I admire its originality...

While Casablanca is of course a much loved film, it is often given a strange dismissal, that somehow there was no "art" at work here, that it was just a culminated climax of the "studio system" that somehow happened, despite noone thinking much about it, or treating it in any way differently from any other Warner Bros product of the time. I've never been especially comfortable with this, as the film seems so many steps above the average product. I'd like to turn your attention to the flashback sequence when Ilsa and Rick are at their happiest, and they take a trip from Paris out to the French countryside, all of this represented in a single shot, of Ilsa and Rick in an open car, wind blowing Ilsa's scarf about, and behind a rear projection screen, giving the impression of driving around the Arc de Triomphe and then dissolving into a country road -- the rear projection is dissolving while Rick and Ilsa, and the windblown scarf, sit happily in the car, what fun to be together! Now this event, this film event, is unique in my memory. I cannot think of a single other film that uses a dissolve in this way, the rear projection going from one location to another while the shot remains continuous. I would be glad to hear of other examples, thus putting me in my place, although I do think it is at least an extremely rare technique, quite outside the normal.

> {quote:title=JefCostello wrote:}{quote} > I was talking about more revered foreign directors. > > Nothing against Ken Russell, who is underrated imo, but if Bunuel and Antonioni get little airtime, I don't think he should either. >Nothing against Ken Russell, who is underrated imo, but if Bunuel and Antonioni get little airtime, I don't think he should either. Well, this seems unreasonable. If Bunuel and Antonioni are to hold hostage all inferior directors, we will have empty air most of the time, unless it's John Ford's birthday.

Thanks for that. It's an awful story. I hope we'll see more like that, because I'm afraid it's not at all uncommon.

The thing that was incredible to me about this movie was the scene where the photographer came into the hotel room with his lighting guy and set up, took the pictures, and left. The character -- "Botzelberg" -- was played by Cliff Nazarro, a master of 'double-talk,' where nonsense syllables are interspersed with a few appropriate words, and the whole scene was played, by Nazarro, in this style! It was absolutely stunning, because noone was paying attention to the unintelligible lines, and the director laid absolutely no emphasis on what was going on. Really a unique experience. I instantly wanted to upload it to YouTube, but there is no DVD, apparently, of the film... There are some examples of Nazarro's work on YouTube, but nothing that matches this amazing scene.

Re: filmlover's post, 2:03... Okay, that's something of a fair question. Where I got the information was in watching the movie so many times, when it first came out and subsequently over the 40+ years since. When it first came out I was a film student at NYU and thought it was one of the most important films of American cinema; I saw it certainly 20 times [!] in that first year, at many theaters, sometimes sitting with notebook in hand, taking notes on the editing and the shooting. I interviewed the late Dede Allen in 1968 about her editing work, and later worked with her assistant, Jerry Greenberg, and so on. None of this can provide a link or a bibliographical reference. It's a shockingly old man's (61!) memory; is it unreliable? I've spent 30+ years handling film in editing rooms, and I'm very comfortable with the 35mm frame, and know how mattes work in a projector. This is my business, and this film has a special place in my view of the craft and art. I remember well going to different theaters and wondering at the beginning whether the matte would be in place to cover Bonnie's underwear, and sometimes it was not. But the difference between one and the other was not the difference between 1.33 and 1.85. I remember well conversations with a projectionist friend who talked about that matte and also (frowning) his cranking up the sound at the movie's climax. It's frustrating that even on this site the aspect ratio is said to be 1.85. Even intimidating. But I have a clear memory, and (if you look at my 11:54 post -- ET) the very clear evidence of the cropped photos in the opening title sequence... I am looking around for clearer evidence -- something that would be irrefutable, but meanwhile I am confident enough to take this stand, because it seems to me quite important, no different at all from the pan-and-scan issue, but perhaps harder to certify... Thanks for asking. Edited by: dialoguy on May 21, 2010 2:27 PM

Re: filmlover's post, 12:01... I'm not sure what you're saying is "not always quite true." Yes, there is often a "safety" area within the 35mm frame wherein can often be found hanging microphones and the like, and so there is a matte that should be placed in the projector that trims off just that area. It does not make the picture widescreen. And, yes, a faithful transfer of such a film would do well to matte the safety area just as was done in theatrical projection. However, none of that is really relevant to the question here at hand, that a classic film, blessed by the Library of Congress, has been distorted and damaged by a careless attempt to make it "fit" the modern tv screen Edited by: dialoguy on May 21, 2010 1:09 PM Edited by: dialoguy on May 21, 2010 1:42 PM