Smileboxed THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM -- Will it ever make it to Bluray? (1 Viewer)

[NY2LA]

Carter, after some deliberation, I decided what the hell and bought a ticket for tomorrow afternoon's digital screening of SOUTH SEAS. I figured no one could be a better judge of whether it was an effective presentation for me than ME! So I am giving this one a chance, but most likely will not go to any of the other digital showings unless I am very impressed.
Of course, the best seats were taken already the day before the screening, but I got an ok one. For the other three screenings I am going to, GRIMM, SEARCH FOR PARADISE and THIS IS CINERAMA Anniversary screening on Sunday night, the seats are only fair, with the latter being the worst one. Well, I had been traveling most of the summer and didn't know anything about the festival until three days ago when I saw a promo on TCM for it. Wherever I sit I will have a good time and enjoy the shows. 
I'll report back here on the screenings and hope others will too!

When tickets went on sale, Search for Paradise was advertised as a faded pink print (3 strip I guess) and now ArcLight's site says nothing about the format. You have been warned. Frankly if it's pink I think it should be substantially discounted, but then again they did nothing last time I saw HTWWW when the sound had an awfully annoying loud groan through the last 3/4 of the movie and they said and did nothing about it. I would have offered return passes or at least concession vouchers. That would have been the classy thing to do, but I have never found the operation or administration of this venue (or its chain) to be anything remotely close to that word.

 

[Professor Echo]

Just returned from the Dome. A massive traffic jam coming from Burbank this morning caused me to miss most of the free screening of IN THE PICTURE, but judging from the last ten minutes, I don't think it was such a great loss, sorry to say. Unfair to base an opinion on just that though, so maybe someone else who saw the whole thing can weigh in.

The digital presentation of SOUTH SEAS ADVENTURE looked ok, but it was very sharp and glossy and, for lack of a better word, cold looking compared to film. Also the image must be squeezed a bit as everyone appeared to be just a little too thin and stretched vertically, not just on the sides of the screen, but in the center as well. Sorry I don't know the proper terminology to describe it nor know what causes it, but I am not as technically savvy about the format and venue as most are who post in this thread. The sound seemed good, but a bit shrill at times, very little bass and, for me, too loud for the relatively small space of the Dome.

As for the movie itself, man was it ever dull, dull, DULL. It starts off as a kind of fun and funky 50's issue of National Geographic come to life, but soon descends into endless aerial footage and perpetually drawn out scenes of island pageantry, i.e. LOTS and LOTS of native singing and dancing . I would have preferred less people and more flora and fauna, or at least some scenery from the ground level to balance out all the ethnography. I have been to some of the islands explored in the film and I think many opportunities were missed by rarely showing just how stunningly beautiful they are beyond the people who live there.

Having only seen HTWWW prior to this, and THIS IS CINERAMA in 70mm many years ago, I was surprised at how boringly stodgy this was. Are all the Cinerama travelogues like this or is one or more better than the others? If anyone has seen a number of these I would appreciate some recommendations beyond GRIMM and SEARCH, both of which I am attending tomorrow.

 

[NY2LA]

The digital presentation of SOUTH SEAS ADVENTURE looked ok, but it was very sharp and glossy and, for lack of a better word, cold looking compared to film. Also the image must be squeezed a bit as everyone appeared to be  just a little too thin and stretched vertically, not just on the sides of the screen, but in the center as well. Sorry I don't know the proper terminology to describe it nor know what causes it, but I am not as technically savvy about the format and venue as most are who post in this thread.

I just don't think the idea of projecting a smileboxed image onto a curved screen is going to turn out very well. Remember the extreme keystoning from the projection angle of the dome, and where real 3 strip Cinerama gets away with it more or less by being divided in 3, single projector spread across that screen is going to be a problem until they relocate the digital projector to the back of the mezzanine where it should be. The geometry is so unlikely to come out right on the Dome's compromised screen and from that high booth. Focus is going to be a problem, as is the big belly you get in the middle with a sheet screen that's pulled tight not just at top and bottom but at the sides as well.
Louvers would solve all that but ArcLight Pacific refused to commit the budget and patience to install and maintain such a screen. The story is legendary about how Seattle initially forgot to align and anchor their louvers on their first post renovation Cinerama shows, and the result from the loose louvers fluttering in the AC blast made it look like a rainstorm, which reportedly scared the hell out of Pacific, who reportedly do not like to do maintenance.

As for the movie itself, man was it ever dull, dull, DULL. It starts off as a kind of fun and funky 50's issue of National Geographic come to life, but soon descends into endless aerial footage and perpetually drawn out scenes of island pageantry, i.e. LOTS and LOTS of native singing and dancing . I would have preferred less people and more flora and fauna, or at least some scenery from the ground level to balance out all the ethnography.  I have been to some of the islands explored in the film and I think many opportunities were missed by rarely showing just how stunningly beautiful they are beyond the people who live there.
Having only seen HTWWW prior to this, and THIS IS CINERAMA in 70mm many years ago, I was surprised at how boringly stodgy this was. Are all the Cinerama travelogues like this or is one or more better than the others? If anyone has seen a number of these I would appreciate some recommendations beyond GRIMM and SEARCH, both of which I am attending tomorrow.

Of course we have to allow for the advances in entertainment technology, and the pervasiveness of media and ephemeral attention span as a result. Watching much of TIC, which was originally thrilling because TV and movies didn't show such things, is like watching grass grow or paint dry. The languid pace was not an issue then. I've heard the most fun of the docs was Cinerama Holiday but I've never seen any of them. The one they should really have scheduled was Best of Cinerama because that maybe left out some of the dull points.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I'd say the only title I would have gone to see would be This Is Cinerama, but when I looked for tickets 3 weeks ago all the good seats seemed to be gone, so I decided not to bother. I've always avoided the Dome because of how curved I know the screen is but I didn't know about the keystoning until I was there to see The Master recently. It was the only place I saw with a 70mm print, and so I figured it was worth it to see the damn place at least once. But I was SHOCKED at how off the angles are, and how much the curved screen messes things up for non-Cinerama. It was the first time I was glad PTA had framed for 1.85, because the wider a film you put on that screen the worse the curve hurts you. I bet without the louvers you get some reflections too.
It seems that some of you have an issue with Arclight/Pacific, but I will say that other than the Dome, every Arclight show I've been to has been pretty damned good. I guess if they do another festival like this that isn't happening on Carmageddon weekend, then I'll be sure to get my seats way earlier.
But not if they're going to project a digital smilebox version on that curved screen, don't they get how dumb that is if it's true? No need to replicate a curved screen when there's one there... For home purposes smilebox is essential for Cinerama titles though.

 

[NY2LA]

I've always avoided the Dome because of how curved I know the screen is but I didn't know about the keystoning until I was there to see The Master recently. It was the only place I saw with a 70mm print, and so I figured it was worth it to see the damn place at least once. But I was SHOCKED at how off the angles are, and how much the curved screen messes things up for non-Cinerama. It was the first time I was glad PTA had framed for 1.85, because the wider a film you put on that screen the worse the curve hurts you. I bet without the louvers you get some reflections too.

Blaming the curve is a mistake assumed by a lot of people. It's the throw angle. There have been plenty of venues where the screen curve was a selling point and distortion was never an issue. If you shoot straight or slightly up into the curve (DC Uptown) especially if it's louvered, the picture wraps straight around you and it's fine.
There was less of a problem with the "old dome" because they had a more appropriate sense of proportion, using the full screen area for only 70mm or Cinerama (which is as it should be) and 35mm widescreen was scaled back enough to lessen the distortion and graininess of blowing up a postage stamp sized image onto a 90 foot screen.
Since the reno, someone in ArcLight management decided that ALL PICTURES MUST LOOK THE SAME regardless of source, and insisted on filling the entire screen (at least height-wise) at all times. As a result, all regular movies are compromised, and big gauge films look less special. That dark, dark gloomy interior was intended to fool the audience into not realizing how dim the picture is. They used a lowgain screen to minimize cross reflection (making the image dimmer still) have also done a weird thing to try to hide the keystoning. They shoot higher into the screen (thinking that would lessen the severity of the throw angle) and curved the masking UP on the ends, so it looks flat along the bottom. Even with this there have been digital screenings in which the picture fell far short of meeting the bottom of the screen.

 

[Charles Smith]

I was just about to say that I went to the Dome quite a bit in the 1970s and 1980s and don't remember these problems! I saw one new feature after another, projected brightly with no undue distortion

I guess the above laundry list is the reason -- they did things right then, and have inexplicably abandoned the expertise and sound projection practices in favor of ... what? And why? It's shocking to hear, for a unique venue that to my silly way of thinking should be one of the last bastions of quality.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Well I think current theaters are geared to a multiplex mentality where things are homogenized and interchangeable. This is fine if the theater architecture supports this, but when you have individual houses with "quirks" then it's not so good...

 

[NY2LA]

Well I think current theaters are geared to a multiplex mentality where things are homogenized and interchangeable. This is fine if the theater architecture supports this, but when you have individual houses with "quirks" then it's not so good...

What i hate about today's plexes, including at least one converted ArcLight, is the tendency to make the screen less wide - more like Imax than Cinerama or even CinemaScope. The plex screens I see today are about the same proportion of today's TV screens, and slight curves make them narrower still, they now all have TOP MASKING and fixed WIDTH, so when a widescreen movie comes on the screen gets SMALLER. Hello Letterbox! And of course the screen is exposed and playing commercials when you walk in, so what have you got? Just a big room TV.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

What i hate about today's plexes, including at least one converted ArcLight, is the tendency to make the screen less wide - more like Imax than Cinerama or even CinemaScope. The plex screens I see today are about the same proportion of today's TV screens, and slight curves make them narrower still, they now all have TOP MASKING and fixed WIDTH, so when a widescreen movie comes on the screen gets SMALLER. Hello Letterbox! And of course the screen is exposed and playing commercials when you walk in, so what have you got? Just a big room TV.

Well if the auditorium is less wide you can fit more of them in lol.
Personally, I'm more a fan of the shape of 2.4, so top or side masking doesn't matter to me, but I think it's valid to miss the "scope" so to speak of side masks.

 

[bryan4999]

What i hate about today's plexes, including at least one converted ArcLight, is the tendency to make the screen less wide - more like Imax than Cinerama or even CinemaScope. The plex screens I see today are about the same proportion of today's TV screens, and slight curves make them narrower still, they now all have TOP MASKING and fixed WIDTH, so when a widescreen movie comes on the screen gets SMALLER. Hello Letterbox! And of course the screen is exposed and playing commercials when you walk in, so what have you got? Just a big room TV.

I agree. I was rather disappointed with arclight's restoration of The Egyptian. While I am pleased that the landmark was saved, the new screen is so much smaller than the original. Even though the projection itself is usually exemplary at that venue, it doesn't have that broad scope of vision that the original had (especially with TODD-AO projection).

 

[NY2LA]

Well if the auditorium is less wide you can fit more of them in lol.
Personally, I'm more a fan of the shape of 2.4, so top or side masking doesn't matter to me, but I think it's valid to miss the "scope" so to speak of side masks.

If you prefer 2.40 then top masking would be the last thing you want, as the 2.40 would be SMALLER than 1.85, therefore defeating the purpose and giving you letterbox. Only place I've seem a workable compromise is the Paramount Theatre on the studio lot, where they chose a screen shape that splits the difference and makes scope and flat roughly the same size, as the side AND top masking offer full width for scope OR full height for flat... And I believe 70mm opens both a bit more. But since I grew up in the widescren era, I'd prefer a 2.2 widescreen with side and masking so 35mm scope goes 2.35 with a little top off and 2.2 from 65mm/70mm gives full screen.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

If you prefer 2.40 then top masking would be the last thing you want, as the 2.40 would be SMALLER than 1.85, therefore defeating the purpose and giving you letterbox. Only place I've seem a workable compromise is the Paramount Theatre on the studio lot, where they chose a screen shape that splits the difference and makes scope and flat roughly the same size, as the side AND top masking offer full width for scope OR full height for flat... And I believe 70mm opens both a bit more. But since I grew up in the widescren era, I'd prefer a 2.2 widescreen with side and masking so 35mm scope goes 2.35 with a little top off and 2.2 from 65mm/70mm gives full screen.

I wasn't clear enough. If you read it again, I was saying that, to me, the shape is more important than the size.

 

[NY2LA]

I wasn't clear enough. If you read it again, I was saying that, to me, the shape is more important than the size.

I just got that you said top or side masking didn't matter to you.
to me if wider ends up being smaller than the regular size then it's letterbox, like TV. Wider should be bigger.
Speaking of which, I have just returned from seeing Grimm in CInerama.

 

[RolandL]

I was at the Dome yesterday and saw In The Picture, South Sea Adventure and Cinerama Holiday. I was surprised to see my name in the ending restoration credit for Cinerama Holiday but, I guess that's for the extras they might have on the Blu-ray release if that happens.
I enjoyed all three of them. The stars of In The Picture were sitting next to me so that was fun to talk to them.
South Seas Adventure and Cinerama Holiday elements that they were able to work with were in terrible condition so they did wonderful work on them for the digital restoration. I'm sure the join lines and color matching of the panels looked better than the original presentations in the 1950s,

 

[NY2LA]

Since the Cinerati regard and treat Grimm as CInerama's bastard blacksheep, it was gratifying to see the film get some love today.
There were long breakdowns and new damage to the print, but while it was on screen it was wonderful. People enjoyed it. Even people who didn't grow up with it or hearing about it.
Details later.

 

[haineshisway]

I just got that you said top or side masking didn't matter to you.
to me if wider ends up being smaller than the regular size then it's letterbox, like TV. Wider should be bigger.
Speaking of which, I have just returned from seeing Grimm in CInerama.

I'm endlessly confused by all these posts. Again, when I was a kid every single neighborhood theater had two screen sizes - scope and flat. Flat was taller than scope and the size you'd expect. Scope was MUCH wider than flat but not as high. That's not letterboxes - the sides of the screen opened to the full width of the proscenium while the top masking came down to make it a correct 2.35. When it went back to flat, the side masking came way in and the top masking went up and made it 1.85. So, however you want to look at it, in my LA theaters in the 1950s and 1960s, scope ALWAYS seemed huge because of the width. And 1.85 sat in the center of the masking as it should.

 

[NY2LA]

The show begins on the sidewalk.
The thin side boards on the far ends of the Dome marquee usually display what's at the Dome, while the other movies playing in the plex are reduced to inch high letters on a lit LED board in the old boxoffice windows. You just know Pacific has been aching to put ARCLIGHT on those side panels and leave it there, but I think the studios pay for the display. Usually when they run Cinerama events they have tiny stock letters on a readerboard in that space. This time the CINERAMA logo is on those boards, as large as it can possibly get within that space. Shortly after noon there are already people milling about. You can spot the fans from across the street, literally. I fit into the same general category, BTW, so am just as easily spotted.
Inside the ArcLight lobby at the giftshop they are dying to turn into a starbucks, there is a long long line of guys buying the few Cinerama items: Souvenir books, of the anniversary festival, (which look like they were assembled and printed on a low res computer: fuzzy images, jaggy type, many grammar errors and misspellings) and This is CInerama, each $5. Nice color postcards for every Cinerama feature, most of which are pristine reprints of the original "I saw Cinerama" cards they did when the movies came out. These were only 50 cents. I figured they'd make nice inserts for the DVDs...
So, wondering if these are on sale in the Dome itself, I grab the Anniv book and 3 PCs and get in line. There are about eight people ahead of me and it took about 20 minutes because people are buying every picky variety of coffee, and even movie tickets, (strange because there are like a dozen boxoffice stations open and another handful of auto kiosks.) It would be nice if they had a merchandise only express lane but management didn't want that. Also on sale are baby blue polo shirts or heather grey fleece hoodies laced up at the neck with HUGE red hiphop shoelaces - both with the CInerama anniversary logo. There was a lonely unattractive ArcLight 10 year anniversary T Shirt nobody wanted. There were thermal beverage containers, too.
Inside the Dome lobby are enough alert staffers to help you get in. Right at the point of entry is a very, very handsome framed one sheet for WWOTBG that features the beautiful paint and fabric portraits of the stars around a curved screen shape at the bottom and the title treatment at the top. It looks original but it's way too nice to be, and if you look closely at the bottom, there is a thin line of type identifying it as being designed by Martin Hart of American Widescreen Museum. This is the perfect thing to meet your eye as you check in, in fact, a young thirtysomething couple are taking pictures in front of it. Well actually, the girl takes a shot of the guy holding his ticket up next to the poster, he looks so pleased to be there maybe they aren't a couple, but this is heartening enthusiasm from folks too young to have seen this movie when it came out. If you preprint your own ticket they now tear the top of it when they scan you in (not sure why).
The Dome inner lobby is full. As always John Sittig, who was the longtime Dome manager and Cinerama/roadshow enthusiast back when I moved here 20 years ago, is standing next to one of the original Cinerama cameras, happily answering questions. He is wearing a white lab coat that, while it does have a Cinerama logo on it, makes him like like he is delivering somebody's test results. The dome's two display cases are loaded with memorabilia, including the record albums, one of which included the Grimm souvenir book I brought with me from home. There is a table selling only the anniversary souvenir book with not much of a line. I suggest they sell the postcards there too and a lot of us wouldn't have had to wait for everyone else to get their caffeine infusions in the other lobby. There are about four well staffed lines at the concession stands, popcorn popping away, and the line moves pretty fast.
The place is definitely full, lots of excited chatter all around. "I saw it in..." "I've been waiting..." "Did you see..." etc. The auditorium is as dark as most theatres are when the movie starts. Navy blue draped walls lit with blue tinted floodlights along the ring between the curtain and the dome ceiling. Several of the lights are burned out which doesn't help. You have to wait for your eyes to adjust or stumble along. I bought my ticket very early, in one of the few coveted spots, so I am surrounded by others who did the exact same thing. Everyone within a twelve foot radius really wants to be here. For THIS film. That's pretty cool right there...
A couple minutes after showtime John, still in his labcoat, makes his way to the front. He looks like he's about to say "it's a Boy!" or your dog died. A spotlight appears at the top of the curtain and zigzags around looking for him. He announces that this is the one and only known surviving 1962-3 print and that it is WORN. He explains it came from John Mitchell in Australia, via Bradford. He mentions one of the guys responsible for the print, named Coles, is here. This guy stands up and enthusiastically waves his arms. Sittig also says we have a new soundtrack courtesy of another guy, who is standing on the left wall aisle. Applause applause. Sittig mentions how originally it took five projectionists to run a Cinerama show, and today, given advances in technology, we have SIX people in the booth. Laughter. All the better, he says to keep the picture on the screen.
One cast member in the house: Russ Tamblyn, who has brought his friends from West Side Story - George Chakiris and Rita Moreno. Warm applause. Tamblyn ambles up and proceeds to talk on and on about how awful it was to work in Cinerama. The cameras, the focal points, no close-ups, "an another thing I hate about Cinerama..." We figure he means to be amusing, but he walks off before saying anything he likes about it. Sittig shakes his hand and heads for the booth.
We then sit for a couple minutes in silence. (most likely the time it takes Mr. Sittig to walk from screen left to audience right then up the stairs to the booth) The movie, scheduled for 12:45, will now go on just after 1PM. Finally the overture begins, sounding nice and clear, and analog, but very pleasant. Remember so far I have only heard this on TV, home stereo or an iPod. I am happy to finally be sitting in a Cinerama theatre about to see a Cinerama print of this movie I've known of for about 44 years. People keep turning around and staring at the booth, where you can't really see anything. Not sure if they're curious about the projectors or wondering why there is music and no picture. Toward the end of the overture, the house goes to black and the curtain opens. The first thing to hit the screen is the MGM logo, which looks like a Vegas slot machine because all three panels are moving around trying to line up. B and C are fine but A is about 2-3 feet higher than it should be. You imagine there should be a knob right by the gate to adjust the framing, but apparently it doesn't work.
The prologue begins, and A panel is still off. Suddenly the screen goes dark, and you can hear the soundtrack rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrslowing to a stop. Not something most of us have heard since the 16mm movies back at school. The lights come back up. Curtains remain open. We remember how all the previous Cinerama movies had a breakdown reel, and we're just starting to say that when a live equivalent, Mr. Tamblyn, stands back up again and says "And another thing I hate about Cinerama..." He mentions he is the only one to have been in two Cinerama productions. Before he thinks to invite Ms. Moreno and Mr. Chakiris to recreate the famous Gym Mambo from WSS, the screen lights up again... We have missed some of the narration over the prologue, but here come the credits.
Okay, the beginning is a little dodgy, but there it is, wrapping around you on a big, face filling screen! Two of the three panels match in color, the third is a shade off, but the picture is nice and clear, save for some splotchy bits here and there, mostly on the right. You are alternately aware of the panels, then aware of how artfully they're hidden, and a lot of the time you don't notice them at all. The three panels on this screen don't quite line up straight. The join lines curve too, revealing the belly sag in the middle of the screen. Given all this, the bottom line is, it all looks damn good, and you don't really care about the fleeting flaws.
Again having only seen this movie on a TV screen, even if letterboxed, there are so many details you never saw, like the writing above the door to the orphanage in the Cobbler and the Elves story actually says "Unwanted Children." There are sight gags, and bits of blocking that didn't read on TV. "The Dancing Princess" is fun because of the cast, familiar or not, the traveling shots that exploit the process, the gypsy camp, which looks great... The dated humor still amuses, (the sleeping plant gets a laugh when it drops off and another when Tamblyn does a take at it) the sentiment still charms, and a lot of it looks just gorgeous. The puppets may seem primitive by Pixar standards, but the scene sweeps you away nonetheless.
As we come to the intermission this print has a surprise we haven't seen before. Where TCM just fades out and plays the Entracte, the film has a built-in Intermission title, accompanied by a lovely piece of play-out music that goes on for several minutes, much like that in Gone With The Wind. The buzz at intermission is people are having a great time. A young woman nearby who had just seen one previous Cinerama movie (West) says she likes both very much and thinks this one should be seen by as many kids as possible. After some nice conversations with nearby moviegoers, who've been remarkably civilized through all this (I'd forgotten this was possible) the Entracte begins.
Now I digress for a moment. When I was a projectionst many many moons ago there was something called a douser, which closed off the light source from the film gate. I don't know if modern Xenon lamphouses still have one, but it is something I would use for overtures, entractes, etc, especially for older films, when you would otherwise see scratches, errant light frames, etc. projected onto the curtain. Had there been a douser closed, I imagine what happened next would not have happened.
Toward the end of the entr'acte, the unmistakable image of a burn hole opens up on the right panel. You remember what those look like, when a film slows down and stops long enough for the extreme heat from the lamp to melt a hole through it? This is quick but bright enough to show on that dark closed curtain. Seconds after the picture comes on, (a ship at sea) all three panels go dark. "RRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmp"
I don't know if the black leader had frame lines before the picture faded in on Act II, but imagine the problem when it's not just one reel you're dealing with. Hopefully they caught it before the actual picture footage got burned, and thank heaven this was non-flammable safety film. But even if you can splice in some replacement leader, how the hell do you make sure that it matches the EXACT number of frames in the other two reels? The lights come on. This will be a long one.
In order for the light to burn a hole into a print, it has to have stopped moving, so I wonder what it was that stopped moving the film through the gate. I'm not so sharply tuned to Cinerama right now that I can correctly identify the names of the 3 projectors/panels, as the one at the left of the booth shoots onto the right of the screen. In this case it was apparently the left projector affecting the right panel on the screen. First thing one might think to blame would be the platter, but the gate would have to have sprockets to move the film past it, so that casts a doubt there. In this case however, it was still black leader, so I can't help but think having the douser closed until one knows the picture is about to come on would not only have made a cleaner presentation, but would have prevented the burn at that moment.
Behind me someone is explaining to someone else how it's not so simple to fix, and the pleasant conversations from intermission resume. I can only imagine what's going on up in the booth. You can put off the splice for now, but how do you count exactly how many frames when you rethread to match the other two. We kept hearing the soundtrack rumbling, some of us thought maybe they were winding it back to where it cut off. Can you DO that on a platter? (apparently not)
The screen lights up again, this time it looks like maybe folks are getting off the boat or just have, there is a lively crowd scene where we quickly get that the third panel is not in synch with the other two. This becomes quite obvious when Lawrence Harvey is on two parts of the screen at the same time. The screen goes dark again. Nobody is pissed. Anyone with even a clue as to what's going on is amazed that it's all gone as well as it has, we're all still having a good time, and way too invested in the movie to even think of leaving. I would estimate that Act Two was delayed at least 20 minutes.
It takes a couple of tries, each one farther along in the act than before, but suddenly the screen is filled with dour looking young boys singing. (are we back in Vienna with This Is Cinerama?) Ten years after those profoundly unamused boys singing in the inaugural feature, we are looking at another boys choir who don't look any happier. Well, I imagine, they can't be more than a couple arm's length from the camera, which was plenty weird looking then, how could you not look... maybe it's hot, and they may have had to do it a few times... The camera cuts to a clergyman admitting how boring the Duke's history is, and trying not to notice as a string of boys flee out the door. He tells Jacob Grimm where they're going and we're back in the story.
The Singing Bone is the only fairy tale in the second act, but framed with the scenes of the old woman storyteller, it's captivating, and more stop motion animation of a green bejeweled dragon keeps it interesting. At some point when Terry-Thomas and Buddy Hackett are singing about the dragon, we see German subtitles in the center panel. Only while they are singing. Then they go away. Big deal. The rest of the picture looks nice, and we're too amused to care. That is the overall fact about this movie and this print.
It may be dated and quaint, but it's also charming, delightful, and nice to look at. You can imagine how gorgeous this would look in a new print. The final anomaly comes at the very end, where we are used to seeing, from TCM and the video, the title "and they lived happily ever after" scrolling up the screen before the picture fades. That part is apparently missing, replaced by the phrase in simple B&W titles, followed by an acknowledgment of the print source. Okay.
Curtains close and exit music plays on, some of us say goodbye, others stand up and chat. When the music is over, Mr. Sittig is back up front, apologizing profusely, poking fun at his own joke about having six projectionists in the booth, saying maybe that was not enough. We interrupt him at least once with applause. It IS important that he say something, but we empathize, we've still had a nice time and appreciate the effort. They are now so far off schedule, they have to clear to be able to set up and immediately let in for the next show, but we aren't all rushed out the door, everyone is very nice.
I am thrilled to have finally seen this movie on a big screen in Cinerama, warts and all, and equally thrilled that people around me not only liked the movie but were discussing ways they might get the movie on video! That was before I said anything to them on the subject. I just mentioned the petition and suggested TCM.
I would pay to see this movie, even this print, again. More people want it on video. In the new anniversary souvenir book, Sittig says that this was the most requested title at the festival. The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm has won a few new fans, and enchanted many old ones, even 50 years later.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I just got that you said top or side masking didn't matter to you.
to me if wider ends up being smaller than the regular size then it's letterbox, like TV. Wider should be bigger.
Speaking of which, I have just returned from seeing Grimm in CInerama.

I don't disagree with you, but prior to saying I didn't care about the method of masking was that was because the 2.4 ratio was what was important to me. I get that it's like letterbox, and that's fine to me, so long as it's the right shape. Totally fine with that being a fringe opinion though =)

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I'm endlessly confused by all these posts. Again, when I was a kid every single neighborhood theater had two screen sizes - scope and flat. Flat was taller than scope and the size you'd expect. Scope was MUCH wider than flat but not as high. That's not letterboxes - the sides of the screen opened to the full width of the proscenium while the top masking came down to make it a correct 2.35. When it went back to flat, the side masking came way in and the top masking went up and made it 1.85. So, however you want to look at it, in my LA theaters in the 1950s and 1960s, scope ALWAYS seemed huge because of the width. And 1.85 sat in the center of the masking as it should.

I've worked in several different theaters for different chains across the midwest before moving to LA. Some theaters are like you describe, a little taller for flat and a little wider for scope.
Others have a constant height, so the flat and scope are the same height, but the scope image is far wider.
Many newer screens are designed for constant width, so that flat is the same width as scope, just much taller. These are the screens that Carter takes issue with, because they are like mattes moving down to cut the picture from the top and bottom like letterbox bars at home.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Carter, could you tell us a little bit about how you feel about the management of the Pacific Theater company and Arclight? I'm not sure I can tell from your posts...