Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jane Eyre Hermann score butchered 01-30-12


Recommended Posts

I guess the obvious thing to ask - forgive me if someone has mentioned this already - is does anyone have the Fox DVD of this film issued in 2007? If so, is that score messed up the way this one is? I looked on Amazon and nobody is complaining about the score, so I would assume the DVD is OK.

 

I get Fox Movie Channel and I can't remember it ever airing there.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

casablancalover: I am in heaven thanks to you! Besides that beautiful music I got to see scenes not only fron our version but about six of the others as well. Most of them were the non-wedding and meeting with Bertha so I had the chance for some real comparisons. All had their good points but I'll stick with our movie.

 

 

One odd thing was the various differences in costumes. Just what did an 1840 bride look like? I've always loved Joan's lacy full one but would have considered some of the others. The headdresses with the sun-visor hats and veil were a hoot. I remember the A&E version of Pride & Prejudice had Elizabeth married in one and that was about twenty or thirty years previous. I'll go back for more later. Thank you, sir.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like Fox took the optical music tracks and tried to create a stereo soundtrack for the film by combining them with the optical composite track.

 

Fox used to ruin their soundtracks by having Chace Sound proces them, sucking all the life out of them. Now they're getting creative using recently-discovered music tracks and expanding the original composites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the DVD and don't remember anything wrong with the music score. Also, I have seen it before on television and everything seemed fine to me. Can't imagine FOX would "butcher" a score from one of their classics. Haven't seen the print that TCM ran so I really can't comment, but what is meant by butchering? Music cut out??

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote}No. Their child doesn't grow up to fight in the US Civil War either. I can't be the only one who's read this?

As Groucho Marx said to Margaret Dumont: "Why must you bring the Civil War into it?"

 

From the wikipedia synopsis of Jane Eyre: She learns that Mr. Rochester's wife set the house on fire and committed suicide by jumping from the roof. In his rescue attempts, *Mr. Rochester lost a hand* and his eyesight

Link to post
Share on other sites

*I can't be the only one who's read this?* - cl

 

I finally read it a few years ago. The movie left out Jane's rescue by St. John after she left Thornfield, and the news of her enormous inheritance, instead substituting her return to Gateshead, which happened earlier in the novel, in its place. With such limited time, that part of the story was expendable. And Welles is the perfect Rochester.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Jonny, I pulled my copy down; it does allude to Rochester's damaged limb, but as it continued to the end, Charlotte doesn't mention it again. She is more enraptured with Rochester's visual faculties and their healing. A pox upon me..

 

Smileys, The whole storyline about the St John and her rediscovered wealth (all a little too contrived in the telling for me) I found myself glossing over it again as I was reading.. It's like reading GWTW, and instead of Rhett and Scarlet, we read at length of Miss Pittypat..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that as much as I loved seeing this movie again, the audio and music score drove me nuts! I didn't know the score had been tinkered with, but I knew something was wrong. The dialogue audio was so low in many spots, almost as if they were all talking in hushed tones, and then the music audio seemed to fight with the dialogue, making the music the clear winner in that battle. I kept raising and lowering my tv volume to catch what was being said, only to be blasted by the music. Ugh.

 

The most recent Jane Eyre version I have enjoyed was the one with Maggie Smith's son, Toby Stephens, as Rochester, that aired on PBS about 3 or 4 years ago. Since it was a two-parter, much more information was included. Both the tv and movie versions have their merits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>It sounds like Fox took the optical music tracks and tried to create a stereo soundtrack for the film by combining them with the optical composite track.

 

It's been common for years for Fox to issue DVD's of their old films with 3.1 or 5.1 simulated stereo (as I recall, the "improved" track on their THE MARK OF ZORRO was so full of shrill distoryion as to render it utterly unlistenable). You're probably right, and Fox prepared a video copy for transmission with one of those reworked tracks instead of the original straight, original optical audio track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote}Ah, Jonny, I pulled my copy down; it does allude to Rochester's damaged limb, . A pox upon me..

S'allright.

 

Something I found a trifle hard to swallow in the novel, and vicariously in the film version is WHY THE HELL DOES ROCHESTER TRY TO SAVE THIS DROOLING LUNATIC WHO HAS RUINED HIS LIFE, TRIED TO KILL HIM, DRIVEN HIS LOVE AWAY, CHAINED HIM FOR LIFE AND IS APPARENTLY SOMETHING OF A BITER AS WELL????

 

I mean, I know there's this noble idea of chivalry and the British idea of "doing the decent thing and all, you know" but KEE-RIPES, here she is: dancing on the edge of the ledge, forty feet up, flames all around her, nutty as a Stuckey's log and howling at the moon. If ever there was a gift from God with a big bright bow wrapped around it- this is it.

 

For the love of God man: let her fall. I don't think anyone would think the worse of you for it.

 

Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Feb 1, 2012 8:44 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Jonny. Apparently there was a unspoken sense of grace (meant in it's full spiritual practice) that seems all but forgotten now. I had a hard time with this novel the first time I read it; locking up the mentally ill seems cruel in itself. But diseases of the mind were so little understood we have to take on faith that Edward was treating her very well and had her in the separate wing for her own protection as well as his and little Adele.

 

As far as the why go back and rescue, it is that sense of duty that Rivers talks about in the film -- in fact, the reason Jane returns to Edward isn't solely for passion either. I believe, dear reader, it was her deep call of duty to him. She didn't balk at this duty, for she loves him deeply. That is the difference. Edward no longer loved his wife; His understanding of the difference between infatuation and deep love is brought to light with the introduction of Jane at Thornfield. But he still had his duty, and it was the conventions of the time in England about the constraints of marriage that were really imprisoning him.. Or, maybe he had a twinge of Stockholm syndrome.. I find the whole discussion of morality, ethics and justice in the 19th Century fascinating.

 

This morning I read a letter on the internet written by a former slave to his former master, in response to the master requesting he return to Tennessee and work for him again for wages. His response is so worth reading.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/letter-freed-slave-former-master-draw-attention-151653952.html

 

h6. These ideas of pity, duty, responsibility echo today... But are often drowned out at the Tea Party events (wink)

 

Edited by: casablancalover on Feb 1, 2012 9:19 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=smileys wrote:

> }{quote}*...the next time they show the film...* - dusty

>

> It's a Fox movie, and not back on the schedule in the next three months. Could be a one-and-done.

It is on the March 2012 TCM schedule, to be shown on March 23.

So, let's hope they have a different print then, with the soundtrack sounding as it should.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*It is on the March 2012 TCM schedule, to be shown on March 23.* - mn

 

Thanks for that, musicalnovelty! Weird that it didn't show up on a site search, and the movie's database page only listed Monday's airing whenever I checked. Yesterday's the first time the March airing has shown up for me. Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Did you hear the scene with Blanche singing? In the scene at one point, there are two soprano voices singing different songs!!

 

I finally found that part on my copy.

 

Sounds to me like the same girl, singing the same song, several seconds apart. Maybe 3 to 4 seconds.

 

Sounds like old audio tape print-through. On .5 mil tape, it sounds like about 30 to 40 years of print-through.

 

Could we be hearing the same music twice, once in the right place, and another either advanced or delayed by about 3 to 4 seconds?

 

---------------------------------

 

I don't know why any of this audio would be on old fashioned 1/4- inch audio tape, but it sounds like print-through.

 

With a thin audio tape, such as .5 mil Mylar, if a tape is stored for a long time, such as 30 to 50 years, without being moved or unwound or played, loud passages of music will print-through to the next layer of tape. This is because the highly magnatized iron oxide sound track will send magnetic force fields through the .5 mil plastic tape and that will imprint on, upon, the layer of iron oxide that is beneath the loud passages of music.

 

An old audio tape in storage is layer after layer of magnatized iron oxide. If the tape reels are small, the print-through will sound like an echo. If they are large, the print-through will be further apart in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any ideas about how this happened?

 

I'm not sure, but it seems like maybe some kind of accident to me.

 

I mentioned audio tape, but surely none of the track would have been on magnetic audio tape. Maybe the old optical sound track left a ghost image on itself while being stored for many decades. Maybe some of the black silver coming off the optical and sticking to another part of the optical track as the film was tightly wound onto a film core (a plastic core, not a metal reel).

 

Any ideas? This is some sort of science mystery.

 

I noticed the double singing voice did not start until the two men started talking, then it lasted only a short time and it stopped by the time the camera panned over to the girl who was singing. But that second voice is her voice, singing that same song. It is a kind of "echo", with the faint one being the extra track and the loud one being the one that matches the image on the film. The faint sound is a few seconds ahead of the loud sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so busy lately with many so irons in the fire, I feel like a reporter with a broken arm. But let me respond.

 

I appreciate your observations, but there is the issue of the additional, different source music that I hear on the soundtrack. I am not excusing the awful print TCM received. I hope it's corrected.

 

Don't you think showing this print would reflect on TCM's quality? I am certain that it bothers them as well.

 

Now, back to my treatments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not at all familiar with Herrmann's music for this film. I played just about the entire film all over again and I could not hear any echo in the music. I could not tell where the music was messing up, except during the singing. You would be familiar with the music.

 

I did notice that the music seemed to be much too loud and not very melodic in places, sort of a jumble of notes, but I couldn't hear any duplicate double image of optical sound except that brief segment when the girl is singing.

 

I suppose someone could have tampered with the sound, maybe so that Fox would have the only clean copy (??), but what we hear seems like an odd way to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

it sounded (and looked) pretty good to me...but again, i'm so happy to see new blood in the line-up that i can excuse soundtrack/picture issues that i know drive the rest of you guys nuts.

 

i did not realize that the screenplay was (in part) by Aldous Huxley. Between this and his work on the 1940 Pride and Prejudice I wish he had done the adaptation for every classic novel turned into a film ever.

 

He really got to the meat of a story with no fat and no B.S.; ace dialogue too (of course he had two other "collaborators" this time, so who knows what the real story is.)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...