lzcutter
-
Posts
12,344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by lzcutter
-
-
where was Chuck Workman this year? Did he do the "in memory of "montage?>>
Ben,
His name was in the credits but I don't know if it listed what montage he did. The credits for the show aren't up on the Oscar website yet but when they are, I'll check it out and let you know.
The In Memory montage is not usually done by Workman.
He may have done the Writers in Movies montage that I forgot about.
I'm still trying to find out more about Jack Nicholson. Is he sick or is his new look for an upcoming movie? Today's LATimes wrote about him being backstage but didn't say anything about his new look.
-
Cinemascope and Jim2,
O'Toole received an honorary Oscar for his body of work in 2003.
-
A Personal Journey Through American Film
-
Hate to say this to a friend but...
you're mistaken. >>
No problem. Now I remember it.
Thanks to all!
-
Thanks Ayres,
I must have thought it was the one on America by Michael Mann. Duh! I guess why it didn't really register with me is that there was no lead-in introduction about screenwriting and the joys and pain the writers go through.
On a different note, what was up with Jack Nicholson? Is he currently filming a new film or about to? I almost didn't recognize him.
-
But there was a montage about writers in the movies, wasn't there?>>
Not during the show. There was a montage of characters from different movies answering the phone but that was an Apple commercial (and quite a good one).
There was a montage for Ennio, a montage of America by Michael Mann and the montage of those who passed away.
-
I remember it, too. I believe it is a remake of a Will Rogers film.
Either way, I saw the film in question on the afternoon movie on either the NBC affilate or CBS affiliate in Las Vegas during the 1960s and have been looking for it ever since.
-
Larry,
I think Yvonne De Carlo passed away in 2007 and the montage usually highlight those who passed away in the previous year.
I would hope they include Ms De Carlo in next year's montage.
-
Replying to the topic,
Don't get me wrong, I've been watching the Oscars for forty years.
For a year when the Oscar promoted screenwriters and famous quotes: where was the love during the ceremony. They couldn't spare a montage?
Half way thru the evening I turned to Mr Cutter and asked where are the film montages that usually celebrate their film history.
Boos to whoever did the Ennio tribute. Next time, hire someone who appreciates his music and his contribution to film scores.
The montage of those who passed was actually quite moving. More so than in years past.
Liked the Michael Mann tribute to American film but it ended too abruptly .
I love Alan Arkin but Eddie Murphy should have won.
As for the Best Song, should have been "Listen" from Dreamgirls. It is really a great moment in the film.
As for "Patience" one of the other songs from the film, why wasn't Murphy there on stage singing with them?
Hope Ellen gets invited back next year. We really enjoyed her as the MC.
No matter what, I'll be watching next year.
-
Couple of things,
I hope everyone else's broadcast of the ABC half hour leading into the Oscars is in sync because out here on the West Coast the sound is so badly out of sync as to be almost unwatchable.
Also, I miss Roger Ebert. Regardless of anything else, the man knows film and he knows the questions to ask the men and women on the red carpet.
The quota of vapid questions being asked is almost as painful as the out of sync sound.
I think the Producers of the show did us all a favor by having that exhibit of Golden Age Oscar fashions on display this winter. With the exception of Sally Kirkland, it looks like the ladies took the exhibit to heart.
And, I may be the only one, but I like that Meryl Streep went with a Southwest look. She probably thinks she doesnt' stand a chance to win so why not be comfortable for five or six hours this evening.
Get well, Roger!!!
-
Melanie,
I have seen the prints since 1967 and prefer the 2005 restoration. So far.
-
Cinesage,
I was wondering if it was possible if Selznick tied up a couple of cameras to have as back ups in case of malfunction?
Just thinking out loud....
-
Hollis,
I think the problem may have been a shortage of Technicolor cameras available. Selznick used all seven Technicolor cameras in Hollywood to film the burning of Atlanta.
It took over two years to shoot the film and over a half a million feet of film was shot.
So, I am sure other films that were slated to be shot in color may have been shot in black and white because the cameras weren't available.
Also, being shot during this time was The Wizard of Oz, another Technicolor extravaganza.
So, I think there may not have been enough cameras to go around.
-
Melanie,
Back when GWTW was made, the standard format for films was 1:33.
From wikipedia;
The aspect ratio of an image is its displayed width divided by its height (usually expressed as "x:y" or "x?y," with the joining colon or multiplication symbol articulated as the preposition "by" or sometimes "to"). For instance, the aspect ratio of a traditional television screen is 4:3, or 1.33:1.
In the 1950s, the standard format for most films became 1:85.
So, for the 1967 re-release of GWTW, the picture had to be blown up and cropped to accomodate the bigger frame size.
By most accounts, this was not done properly for the 1967 re-release resulting in cut off body parts.
-
I wonder if GWTW was originally filmed this way, or if the print has faded? It doesn't seem like a mere faded version, the color is still vibrant, but it's got light and shade, instead of just full-on in-your-face color. I love the olive-green and brown tones in some of the scenes. >>
Melanie,
Here's a post I did last year regarding the prints of GWTW:
Regarding GWTW and Technicolor, an archive group that I am a member of, had a long discussion about this very matter awhile back. This group is made up of primarily archivists, film historians and such.
The gist I gathered from that conversation is that there are at least 7 different prints of GWTW that have been done over the years.
1 The original nitrate that had the color controlled by Natalie Kalmus at Technicolor. This print might appear with more saturated yellows if not projected on a carbon arc projector which was the norm for projecting back in the day.
2 A 1954 re-release where the color was much more saturated per Selznick's instructions and without Kalmus' input.
3 A 1961 re-release with saturated color and mag sound. The mag sound is now prone to vinegar syndrome. This was the 100th anniversary of the start of the Civil War and a reissue was done to commerate the date according to press releases from that time. Others say it was re-issued because The Ten Commandments had surpassed GWTW as the top box office film of all time and MGM put it back in circulation to maintain its #1 status. Is said to have been made from the 1954 re-issue master neg.
4 A 1967 re-issue in Eastman Color and blown up to 1:85. Was said to be nothing special. Others maintain that it was made from the 1954 re-issue master neg.
5 A circa 1974 reissue.
6 A 1989 50th anniversary reissue that many refer to as "infamous" and "toned down" in terms of color. Is said not to look like any of the other prints. Some say it was intentionally printed that way on orders from higher up the food chain.
7 A 1997 reissue which was Cinemascope and a dye-transferred Technicolor print. The master used for this reissue was the "infamous" 1989 master.
8 The recent WHV DVD boxed set (2005) is said to be the best of the transfers since 1954 but often what happens with artifacts and such are the legacy of previous printing and restoration.
As for the color of the print that TCM is showing, I would think it would be from the most recent restoration in 2005.
-
Welcome back, daddysprimadonna!
We have missed you!
-
We can go on arguing semantics for days, weeks, months, if you like.>>
No, I'm done.
-
The point I was trying to make is that Eastwood was not an unknown actor when he worked for Leone.
Leone knew of his work from Rawhide and some of the other films he had made while at Universal. By hiring Eastwood, Leone was hoping to appeal to more than the Italian film goers. He wanted to make films that would be seen by movie goers all over the world. The Dollar series made that possible. Hiring Eastwood helped make that possible.
Americans certainly knew who Eastwood was, just as we knew who Steve McQueen, James Garner and Eric Fleming were because of their work on television.
Working with Leone made it possible for Eastwood to say good-bye to television work and work in movies. The westerns he made with Leone certainly propelled his career upward and made it possible to work with his mentor, Don Siegel.
Message was edited by:
lzcutter
-
BHFan,
Western Front is one of the great anti-war films of all time. I am glad that you finally had the chance to see this terrific film.
Just curious, what were the other two films that got you crying?
-
Well he'd certainly have been an unknown to anyone who didn't watch television!>>
Well the number of people who watched television back then was huge. Much more so than watches television today and today we have almost 100x the channels.
-
Um looks like I missed this one when originally posted.
It doesn't take a very long time to look reviews up, especially when there are links on imdb.com. It certainly takes less time than wasting 2 hours of your life, plus tickets, parking, etc., watching a movie you won't enjoy, and which a critic could have warned you about.>>
I can't speak for anyone else here but I am trying to tell you that a critic's recommendation on a film doesn't matter to me.
I go to the movies based upon whether or not the subject matter interests me, whether or not the trailer interests me and whether or not the actors and/or director interests me.
What Roger Ebert, Leonard Maltin or anyone else says about a film doesn't sway me. If I miss a movie in the theater (and it's likely given my busy travel schedule) we catch it on Netflix.
I don't have time to read blogs (especially about movies by people I don't know) and I don't have time to search the internet looking for reviews to decide whether or not to see a film.
After over forty years of film going, I am capable of making that decision on my own. Do I sometimes miss a good film? Yeah. But if I decided to see a film based on what a critic said about it, I'd probably miss some good films as well.
I live in Southern California where we don't exactly have a dearth of critics. I put more stock in what my friends say about a film than whether or not Kenneth Turan and the folks at the LATimes or the LA Weekly think I should see it.
I'm not alive to see every film ever made. But I try to enjoy the films I see. Sometimes I'm lucky and I do. Other times, it's two hours or more of my life I won't get back.
But, it's my choice.
-
Just got back from seeing Dreamgirls.
Supporting Oscars to Eddie Murphy (it's been sooo long since he had an adult role to sink his teeth into we almost forgot how good he can be in a dramatic role) and Jennifer Hudson.
The woman has a wonderful voice and you feel for her every step of the way on her way up and down the ladder.
Added bonus: Danny Glover who I did not realize was in the movie.
-
Kyle,
Thanks for posting this. It is one of the regrettable things that has come to pass with the ceremony.
I don't understand why it is becoming a popularity contest. "Oh, Oh, I recognize or knew that person."
They all helped contribute to film making and should all be recognized equally for their contributions.
-
Hollis,
Another good one is The Americanization of Emily with Julie Andrews and James Garner.
And if you haven't seen it, The Great Escape!
Also, I know there are those here who don't like it (and it took subsequent viewings for me to appreciate it) but Gladiator is a another.
Also, Geronimo with Wes Studi, Robert Duval and Jason Patric. Not John Ford but good.
He'p me, he'p me, I'm in P&P withdrawl!
in Information, Please!
Posted
Klondike,
Wanted to let you know that I read an interview with Scorcese that he did last night after winning the Oscar.
Looks like the Film Foundation (the film preservation foundation he started a few years back) is going to be restoring The Red Shoes sometime this year.
The Hollywood Foreign Press is helping foot the bill for the restoration.