FOX WESTERNS ON MAY - And The Gunfighter is among them!!!!! - Page 3

Simon Howson · 02-29-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-T-C Tim

So what is 'Garden of Evil' like, it sounds very interesting.

It is very good. Susan Hayward hires Gary Cooper, Richard Widmark and Cameron Mitchell to go save her husband who is trapped in a Mexican goldmine. After trekking for days from a small town to get there, they find him in a very sick state, then have to try to carry him on horses to the town, all the time they are being pursued by Indians. There is of course tension within the group between those that think he should be saved and others who think his sickness is risking the lives of the entire group.

It's a great Western from an underrated director. It features some brilliant CinemaScope compositions, like this one of Hayward walking towards an old Church.

It also has an excellent score by Bernard Herrmann. I'm sure Fox will produce a better transfer than the Optimum UK DVD that the frame capture was taken from. Hopefully it will have 4.0 audio. You can't go wrong with that set, 3 films for $20 is a bargain, let alone the fact two of them Garden of Evil, and The Gunfighter are classic Westerns.

**HTF Ads**

DanMel · 02-29-2008, 09:35 PM

I prefer Garden of Evil a hundred fold to the MGM Gary Cooper movie Vera Cruz (not a Lancaster fan), but would say that Anthony Mann's Man of the West and The Westerner would be favored by myself to Garden of Evil slightly. As a Gary Cooper extreme fan, I think The Spoilers (1930) is my most wanted to be released western title of Coop's but that is owned by Universial and may not ever be released eventhough there is a very good print of it in the vaults. It actaully was planned to be released in a Vol 2 box set this May but I guess they decided to re-release a box set of a bunch of James Stewart westerns already on dvd instead.

Simon Howson · 02-29-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanMel

I prefer Garden of Evil a hundred fold to the MGM Gary Cooper movie Vera Cruz (not a Lancaster fan), but would say that Anthony Mann's Man of the West and The Westerner would be favored by myself to Garden of Evil slightly. As a Gary Cooper extreme fan, I think The Spoilers (1930) is my most wanted to be released western title of Coop's but that is owned by Universial and may not ever be released eventhough there is a very good print of it in the vaults. It actaully was planned to be released in a Vol 2 box set this May but I guess they decided to re-release a box set of a bunch of James Stewart westerns already on dvd instead.

I'm a huge fan of Vera Cruz. For me it's on par with Garden of Evil.

But I completely agree with you that Man of the West is superior to both of those films. It is one of the best westerns ever made, and surely a huge influence on Leone.

I haven't seen The Westerner, but I have it on pre-order. Gregg Toland + William Wyler, how can you go wrong?

Mark-P · 02-29-2008, 10:56 PM

I've been waiting forever for "The Big Trail" in grandeur. I once watched it years ago on American Movie Classics in letterbox and I refused to buy the flat version that came out on DVD. Lets just hope this 65mm transfer gets better treatment than the Oklahoma! Todd-AO transfer!

Simon Howson · 03-01-2008, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark-P

I've been waiting forever for "The Big Trail" in grandeur. I once watched it years ago on American Movie Classics in letterbox and I refused to buy the flat version that came out on DVD. Lets just hope this 65mm transfer gets better treatment than the Oklahoma! Todd-AO transfer!

I can't see how it could be worse than Oklahoma!!

I can't wait to see the widescreen version of The Big Trail as well, and I'm glad they are including the 35mm version, because I never bothered to buy the old edition. I imagine it will be a new transfer, so it should be worthwhile for people who bought the earlier copy.

Curiously, IMDB.COM says that the Grandeur version was restored to 35mm anamorphic prints. I wonder if the DVD transfer will be from that restoration, or is this a new restoration going back to the 70mm negative? Will the transfer be from an optically derived 35mm anamorphic element, or will it be mastered from 70mm? Either way, I am just very pleased that a Grandeur film is being released to DVD.

Raoul Walsh made some interesting CinemaScope films, so The Big Trail in Grandeur is ripe for comparison. I don't think much of Battle Cry, but the exteriors in The Tall Men are brilliant - he goes long shot crazy to emphasise the big and wide screen.

Grandeur was shot on a 70mm negative, but unlike Todd-AO/Super & Ultra Panavision, each frame was 4 instead of 5 perforations high. I believe Sovscope 70 - the 70mm format used in the USSR - also used 70mm negatives and prints, but in a 5 perf high aperture.

It was only U.S. 70mm print systems that decided to used 65mm negatives. Which is kind of strange considering that Todd-AO initially just converted the 70mm Mitchell cameras made for Grandeur and Realife in the 1930s.

King Vidor shot Billy the Kid in MGM's competitor 70mm Realife system, then promptly pleaded with the studios to keep using 70mm. He thought it was far superior to the 35mm Academy format, but it failed to become a standard because (as people like John Belton argue) it was too expensive so soon after the conversion to sound.

This article is fascinating. It is by the cinematographer on The Big Trail, who says:

Quote:

I can confidently say that the wider film is not only the coming medium for such great pictures, but that it will undoubtedly become the favored one for all types of picture. It marks a definite advance in motion picture technique, and from it will undoubtedly be evolved the truly stereoscopic picture of the future, toward which so many people have long been striving.

Well, here we are ~78 years later, but there is still no concerted push for 3D in cinemas as a standard like widescreen. 3D remains a novelty, rather than a common feature of filmmaking. Rather than 70mm, and other widescreen systems, leading to 3D features. In the 1950s widescreen competed against 3D, and seemingly relegated it to its novelty status.

But who knows what the future holds?

Richard--W · 03-01-2008, 03:33 PM

If only MGM would release BILLY THE KID.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Howson

I can't wait to see the widescreen version of The Big Trail as well, and I'm glad they are including the 35mm version, because I never bothered to buy the old edition. I imagine it will be a new transfer, so it should be worthwhile for people who bought the earlier copy.

Curiously, IMDB.COM says that the Grandeur version was restored to 35mm anamorphic prints. I wonder if the DVD transfer will be from that restoration, or is this a new restoration going back to the 70mm negative? Will the transfer be from an optically derived 35mm anamorphic element, or will it be mastered from 70mm? Either way, I am just very pleased that a Grandeur film is being released to DVD.

Raoul Walsh made some interesting CinemaScope films, so The Big Trail in Grandeur is ripe for comparison. I don't think much of Battle Cry, but the exteriors in The Tall Men are brilliant - he goes long shot crazy to emphasise the big and wide screen.

Grandeur was shot on a 70mm negative, but unlike Todd-AO/Super & Ultra Panavision, each frame was 4 instead of 5 perforations high. I believe Sovscope 70 - the 70mm format used in the USSR - also used 70mm negatives and prints, but in a 5 perf high aperture.

It was only U.S. 70mm print systems that decided to used 65mm negatives. Which is kind of strange considering that Todd-AO initially just converted the 70mm Mitchell cameras made for Grandeur and Realife in the 1930s.

King Vidor shot Billy the Kid in MGM's competitor 70mm Realife system, then promptly pleaded with the studios to keep using 70mm. He thought it was far superior to the 35mm Academy format, but it failed to become a standard because (as people like John Belton argue) it was too expensive so soon after the conversion to sound.

This article is fascinating. It is by the cinematographer on The Big Trail, who says:

Quote:

I can confidently say that the wider film is not only the coming medium for such great pictures, but that it will undoubtedly become the favored one for all types of picture. It marks a definite advance in motion picture technique, and from it will undoubtedly be evolved the truly stereoscopic picture of the future, toward which so many people have long been striving.

Well, here we are ~78 years later, but there is still no concerted push for 3D in cinemas as a standard like widescreen. 3D remains a novelty, rather than a common feature of filmmaking. Rather than 70mm, and other widescreen systems, leading to 3D features. In the 1950s widescreen competed against 3D, and seemingly relegated it to its novelty status.

But who knows what the future holds?

Excellent, informative post Simon. Thank you for posting those links.

I've been comparing my home-recording of the 70mm widescreen broadcast of THE BIG TRAIL to the 35mm full-frame DVD. It is a fine film in both versions. Unless Fox screws up the transfers -- and I can't imagine they would -- film buffs can't go wrong in buying this new special edition. I think most people will find the pictorial values of the 70mm widescreen alternate preferable to the 35mm full-screen, but it's a wonderful film and a rewarding film in either aspect ratio.

It does seem as if the industry has taken two steps backward in evolution. One step backward in terms of aesthetics, with desaturation and murky lighting, and another step backward in terms of technology. Today's audiences are accustomed to poorer quality than yesterday's audiences. Arthur Edeson's hope for widescreen stereoscopic films becoming the standard is more feasible and economical now than ever before, and the only real obstacle to it happening are ignorance and prejudices within the industry. Studio execs and exhibitors should ask themselves, what progress would Walt Disney have made in 1937 if he had listened to warnings that audiences would get headaches from watching a feature-length film in color? To much color or too long an exposure to color will make you go blind. The stereoscopic film faces the same fundamental misunderstanding.

Lord Dalek · 03-01-2008, 04:25 PM

According to Wikipedia, the original Grandeur negative for Big Trail fell apart in the 60's so I assume they're going to use the CinemaScope version.

john a hunter · 03-01-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Dalek

According to Wikipedia, the original Grandeur negative for Big Trail fell apart in the 60's so I assume they're going to use the CinemaScope version.

That's what I recall at the time. It only now exists in 35mm Scope.

Simon Howson · 03-01-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W

If only MGM would release BILLY THE KID.

Excellent, informative post Simon. Thank you for posting those links.

I've been comparing my home-recording of the 70mm widescreen broadcast of THE BIG TRAIL to the 35mm full-frame DVD. It is a fine film in both versions. Unless Fox screws up the transfers -- and I can't imagine they would -- film buffs can't go wrong in buying this new special edition. I think most people will find the pictorial values of the 70mm widescreen alternate preferable to the 35mm full-screen, but it's a wonderful film and a rewarding film in either aspect ratio.

It does seem as if the industry has taken two steps backward in evolution. One step backward in terms of aesthetics, with desaturation and murky lighting, and another step backward in terms of technology. Today's audiences are accustomed to poorer quality than yesterday's audiences. Arthur Edeson's hope for widescreen stereoscopic films becoming the standard is more feasible and economical now than ever before, and the only real obstacle to it happening are ignorance and prejudices within the industry. Studio execs and exhibitors should ask themselves, what progress would Walt Disney have made in 1937 if he had listened to warnings that audiences would get headaches from watching a feature-length film in color? To much color or too long an exposure to color will make you go blind. The stereoscopic film faces the same fundamental misunderstanding.

It seems to me that many technologies introduced these days are designed to improve production efficiency (i.e. find cheaper ways of doing something) rather than adding novelty. For example, surely 35mm anamorphic (Panavision) cinematography is the highest quality film format still commonly used. But many productions (roughly 1/4 to 1/3) are shot on Super 35, because the image quality is considered good enough. Especially considering most people watch films on TV, rather than at the cinema.

Perhaps CGI sits in the middle of these two motivating factors. On one hand, using CGI to create massive crowd scenes is much cheaper than filming hundreds or thousands of extras. But alternatively, sometimes it seems to me that CGI as special effects are designed to be noticed. They want the audience to be amazed by what the computer artists can do.

I may eat these words, but I don't think 3D will ever take off in a big way until they figure out a system that doesn't require glasses. If they could use holograms or something so the image seems to hang in front of your eyes, but without having to wear something on your head, then I think it will take off, and become a standard.

You mention colour which of course was very high quality (and expensive) when the first full colour system 3 strip Technicolor was introduced. This is a fabulous book on three strip Technicolor style. It argues that the earliest films were all about exhibiting what colour could do, followed by a couple of years of more restrained films that tried to make colour a "normal" feature of Hollywood filmmaking, and then a third, mature stage that tried to find a middle way between these earlier tendencies. The author's point is that a new technology like sound, colour, or widescreen has to offer something that is attractive to audiences to justify its introduction, but the new technology can't be so complex that filmmakers can't find a way to integrate it into pre-existing production norms.

Lastly, I forgot to mention the title of King Vidor's biography: A Tree is a Tree. Because he once requested to film something on location in the south, but was told by his producer "A tree is a tree, go film it in central park".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Dalek

According to Wikipedia, the original Grandeur negative for Big Trail fell apart in the 60's so I assume they're going to use the CinemaScope version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by john a hunter

That's what I recall at the time. It only now exists in 35mm Scope.

Any ideas when it was restored to 'Scope?

It's sad the 70mm negative couldn't be saved, but I'm still very excited about this release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard--W

If only MGM would release BILLY THE KID.

I assume Warner own this. They should hop to it! Fox are leading them in the 70mm 1930s film department 1 - 0

Russell G · 04-14-2008, 03:29 PM

Saw this on Amazon:

Amazon.com: John Wayne: The Fox Westerns Collection (The Big Trail / North to Alaska / The Comancheros / The Undefeated): John Wayne,Lee Marvin,Rock Hudson,Stewart Granger,Capucine,Ben Johnson,Raoul Walsh,Michael Curtiz,Henry Hathaway: Movies & TV

John Wayne: The Fox Westerns Collection (The Big Trail / North to Alaska / The Comancheros / The Undefeated)

Looks like a good collection for $20, the new Big Trail (anyone know that for sure? I'm hoping it's the same version as the single release as I haerd of no other versions being released.) and a repack of some others.