A Few Words About A few words about...™ Bound for Glory -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

Robert Harris · Jan 21, 2016

Hal Ashby's Bound for Glory, a bio-pic about the legendary musician and activist, Woody Guthrie, is a superb film. As photographed by the late Haskell Wexler, it was also a gorgeous example of can be done with a motion picture camera.

Unfortunately, the master that MGM has chosen to deliver to Twilight Time would have been perfect for a DVD, but isn't up to snuff for a Blu-ray.

Nothing horrific. But nothing particularly good, either. The overall look is one of a film print that been through the mill a bit. Occasional marks and light scratches, and continuous, intermittent dirt, are a part of an overall image that doesn't have the requisite stability to show off the Blu-ray format.

How was Blu-ray sold originally? Was it the look and sound of something? Or was that HD?

Regardless, Bound for Glory ain't it.

Bottom line, a wonderful film, that should be added to one's library, especially as it's not apt to get any better until some other entity controls MGM.

We can only be thankful that Twilight Time is offering it.

Image - 3.5

Audio - 4.5

4k Up-rez - 3

Pass / Fail - Pass

Recommended (for content)

RAH

Peter Neski · Jan 21, 2016

I didn't care much for the MGM HD transfer,My friend claims this looks fantastic in the Theater when it came out ,Just wish we had that version

PMF · Jan 21, 2016

Peter Neski said:
...My friend claims this looks fantastic in the Theater when it came out ,

Just wish we had that version

Your friend was right.

What a disappointing let down.

lark144 · Jan 21, 2016

Yes, it looked amazing first run in a theater, and some of those images are still burning in my brain. First off, the color and light, like a WPA photograph merged with a 17th Century Dutch landscape painting. So, while the film itself (in terms of the story and performances) may be one of the best films of its decade, Haskell Wexler's use of the stedicam really brought the film to another level, like a living diary, with the cameraman's slight movements transformed into a feeling of being present, breath by breath, but also floating through time and space, as in a dream. In particular, if my memory serves, a scene in farmland with migrant workers, I believe, beginning as a helicopter shot and then when it reaches the ground, the cameraman seems to jump off and become surrounded by a crowd. I saw this like 40 years ago, so my memory is vague & I was hoping to re-acquaint myself with this Blu Ray. Oh, well. I'm glad it got released.

ljgranberry · Jan 21, 2016

Any chance that other entity will buy MGM soon and give film buffs some hope?

davidmatychuk · Jan 21, 2016

I'll go for it. I have the DVD from 2000, but it isn't anamorphic. Nice little collectible booklet, though. It's a reminder of when MGM gave a damn about what people thought.

PMF · Jan 22, 2016

Robert Harris said:
...it's not apt to get any better until some other entity controls MGM.

Is it publically known to anyone why Gary Barber wants to control an enterprise to which he seemingly doesn't want to protect nor maintain?

Or is he simply a case of that type of man who covets the ownership of a Rolls Royce; and yet has never heard of a Dip Stick.

ljgranberry · Jan 22, 2016

PMF said:
Is it publically known to anyone why Gary Barber wants to control an enterprise to which he seemingly doesn't want to protect nor maintain?
Or is he simply a case of that type of man who covets the ownership of a Rolls Royce; and yet has never heard of a Dip Stick.

Unfathomable.

ljgranberry · Jan 24, 2016

As bad as Gary Barber is, it sill comes down to the shareholders and the Board of Directors of MGM. They are the ones who set the culture of an organization, and obviously they don't see the value in film preservation. Hopefully a sale to a responsible film company will happen soon.

PMF · Jan 25, 2016

ljgranberry said:
As bad as Gary Barber is, it sill comes down to the shareholders and the Board of Directors of MGM. They are the ones who set the culture of an organization, and obviously they don't see the value in film preservation...

PMF · Jan 25, 2016

PMF said:
Is it publically known to anyone why Gary Barber wants to control an enterprise to which he seemingly doesn't want to protect nor maintain?

Or is he simply a case of that type of man who covets the ownership of a Rolls Royce; and yet has never heard of a Dip Stick.

ljgranberry said:
As bad as Gary Barber is, it sill comes down to the shareholders and the Board of Directors of MGM...

The inventory of Dipsticks seems to be growing.

PMF · Jan 25, 2016

ljgranberry said:
...Hopefully a sale to a responsible film company will happen soon.

Perhaps we, at the HTF, ought to join forces and buy up some of those shares.

PMF · Jan 25, 2016

But, for the record, I will support Twilight Time and buy myself a copy of "Bound for Glory".

haineshisway · Jan 25, 2016

I've watched about half this now - I was expecting a four-star disaster, but Mr. Harris's grading is spot on. Yes it would look better with a new scan off the negative. But that's not what it looked like in theaters, I'm afraid. This transfer, as Mr. Harris states, looks like what you would have seen in theaters - something a few generations from the camera negative and you know what? I'm okay with that because that's the way I saw it back in the day. It's a beautifully photographed film, yes, but there are a lot of opticals and I found this transfer's color fine and it's a lot better than Hawaii. It's one of the conundrums of this hobby - everyone shouts to the high hills how they want it film-like and to look like it did when it came out - but we weren't viewing a 4K transfer when it came out. We were viewing one of hundreds of prints made off some internegative. As I said in the other thread, I think if people went to a theater and were shown a 35mm print from that era (presuming one exists that hadn't faded) I think it would be a real eye opener.

rsmithjr · Jan 26, 2016

haineshisway said:
I've watched about half this now - I was expecting a four-star disaster, but Mr. Harris's grading is spot on. Yes it would look better with a new scan off the negative. But that's not what it looked like in theaters, I'm afraid. This transfer, as Mr. Harris states, looks like what you would have seen in theaters - something a few generations from the camera negative and you know what? I'm okay with that because that's the way I saw it back in the day. It's a beautifully photographed film, yes, but there are a lot of opticals and I found this transfer's color fine and it's a lot better than Hawaii. It's one of the conundrums of this hobby - everyone shouts to the high hills how they want it film-like and to look like it did when it came out - but we weren't viewing a 4K transfer when it came out. We were viewing one of hundreds of prints made off some internegative. As I said in the other thread, I think if people went to a theater and were shown a 35mm print from that era (presuming one exists that hadn't faded) I think it would be a real eye opener.

Absolutely! Many of the Blu-rays we get are better than any normal 35mm release print made back in the day. And the sound is so much better!

ROclockCK · Jan 26, 2016

I haven't seen this yet, but all other 'perfect world' considerations aside, MGM's out of print DVD still fetches upwards of $20.00...used...and it's 2.35:1 letterboxed! Considering that sorry alternative, I can't imagine TT's release not being an improvement.

Richard Gallagher · Feb 8, 2016

I have the laserdisc of Bound for Glory, with the cover autographed by the late David Carradine. He told me that I look like a Pete Seeger fan!

Mark-P · Feb 8, 2016

ROclockCK said:
I haven't seen this yet, but all other 'perfect world' considerations aside, MGM's out of print DVD still fetches upwards of $20.00...used...and it's 2.35:1 letterboxed! Considering that sorry alternative, I can't imagine TT's release not being an improvement.

2.35:1??? Seriously? How did that happen?

david hare · Feb 8, 2016

haineshisway said:
I've watched about half this now - I was expecting a four-star disaster, but Mr. Harris's grading is spot on. Yes it would look better with a new scan off the negative. But that's not what it looked like in theaters, I'm afraid. This transfer, as Mr. Harris states, looks like what you would have seen in theaters - something a few generations from the camera negative and you know what? I'm okay with that because that's the way I saw it back in the day. It's a beautifully photographed film, yes, but there are a lot of opticals and I found this transfer's color fine and it's a lot better than Hawaii. It's one of the conundrums of this hobby - everyone shouts to the high hills how they want it film-like and to look like it did when it came out - but we weren't viewing a 4K transfer when it came out. We were viewing one of hundreds of prints made off some internegative. As I said in the other thread, I think if people went to a theater and were shown a 35mm print from that era (presuming one exists that hadn't faded) I think it would be a real eye opener.

Bruce the DP was none other than the late Haskell Wexler. First run screenings were a blast and it had a glorious sunny, highly lit patina, it was a joy to watch, but I've never seen it down the track in rep. I have the DVD which is, to put it mildly, crap. By now god only knows what the elements are like but but it's a shame TT could not have accessed a new scan or done one themselves. So much for Wexler's reputation anyway.

lark144 · Feb 8, 2016

david hare said:
Bruce the DP was none other than the late Haskell Wexler. First run screenings were a blast and it had a glorious sunny, highly lit patina, it was a joy to watch, .

I can agree with that, as I saw the film a number of times first run in NYC & it was dazzling. The prints, at least what was shown first run in NYC, were really beautiful. I don't really have any faith in screen caps, but all of them look grey and grimy and faded, nothing at all like what David & I saw first run in theaters in NYC. Frankly, I would rather keep the memory of those dappled, sun-struck images in my mind, so I'm passing on this particular Blu-Ray. Bruce, I'm glad you enjoyed watching the Blu, it's a wonderful film, David Carradine is fantastic, but for me, and this is just me, the essence of BOUND FOR GLORY was in that dazzling color, and it wouldn't be the same. But for those who haven't seen the film, you owe it to yourself to pick up a copy, as I think it's one of the best films of the 1970's, and a real revelation.

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

A Few Words About A few words about...™ Bound for Glory -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

Archivist

Screenwriter

Second Unit

Second Unit

Second Unit

Screenwriter

Screenwriter

Supporting Actor

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Similar Threads

Forum statistics