A few words about...™ Gone with the Wind -- in Blu-ray - Page 4

I finally received the UK 2-disc edition. Looks like a solid package to me, now I just need to find three and a half hours of free time to watch this epic . Add a lot of hours to that for the bonus material.

Ditto, ditto and ditto.

 



Cees

If that were true, then what is all this nonsense about the original unaltered shots being lost forever because they were tossed out?

And the interview with WB where they explain what they did in regards to the shots for this new edition.

Eric is correct.  I did a Google search and came up with this Ned Price interview from a couple months ago in Motion Picture Editors Guild online.

In it (link below), Mr. Price says:

"For the widescreen release [here the article incorrectly inserts in brackets a reference to the 1967 70mm reissue, when Price is referring to the 1954 1.66 version], MGM Laboratories had the optical units and re-made the opticals where there were narrative text sections, such as the sign for Twelve Oaks, and recomposited, repositioned and cut them into the camera negative.  So the original optical sections, which were composited and framed for 1:37 or 1:40, are labeled as destroyed and we've never been able to find them.  The original optical units were destroyed. So what we were able to do was capture some of the original composition in the sense of the flat negative containing some picture information above and below what is normal projection aperture.  And we were able to reposition slightly to utilize whatever picture was still there."

 

According to colorist Ray Grabowski, who also worked on the previous 2004 DVD transfer, they had to counteract a linear X-Y movement for the Twelve Oaks sign that was made for the widescreen reissue.  "Because there was a dissolve into the sign, we had to add a movement to capture what additional image we could get and keep the image from looking like it was panned." A newly located original release print was checked on a light table for positioning purposes.

https://www.editorsguild.com/FromTheGuild.cfm?FromTheGuildid=128

Question for RAH:

Any chance of doing another Yellow Layer Failure interview with Ned Price on this, Oz and NxNW?

Oh my god. I didn't realize that they had actually cut those shots into the original negative. That's god awful. The film industry has never been a good parent to its creations. Look at the mess they made of Lawrence of Arabia. Even the Kansas sequences were lost for Oz.

In all fairness to the Kansas sequences, they were lost to a fire. I would like to see the original shots of GWTW from the print in a bonus feature. Probably would be dark, but they would be interesting to see.
Edited by eric scott richard - 12/14/09 at 6:25pm

I just purchased the original 1985 laserdisc of "Gone With the Wind" on Ebay.  I got rid of mine years and years ago, probably when the 50th Annivesary edition came out.

Some observations:

The second "I'll sell you south" line is NOT in the original 1985 video edition.  It is apparently exclusive to the 50th Anniversary restoration... which tends to make me believe it wasn't in the original 1939 release.

They definitely used a post-1954 print, as the cropped shots are present.  And you can REALLY see the pan-downs on the dissolves to the cropped shots in this edition.  The pan down to the Twelve Oaks sign is very obvious.  You can see the top of what's missing in the frame as the pan starts.  I had no idea there was THAT much tree above the Twelve Oaks sign... it wasn't in the middle of the frame in the original shot, it was slightly towards the bottom.  

They did something a bit different with the long train station shot.  Instead of centering it horizontally in the middle, they went all the way to the left, almost totally cutting out the building on the right of the frame.

You're right about that, Brian. Everytime I watch the film, especially now on BD, I know that there are some differences in dialogue. The Scarlett's second threat to Prissy, "I'll sell you south, I will!" is gone and so is Rhett's second "like me" to Mammy while saying, "You really don't like me. You really don't - " I certainly don't miss them, because they are redundant and lose their power being repeated one time too many, but it does violate the original integrity of the film, not having them. The endless explosions and music had at one point been removed from the shot of the collapsing (King Kong) wall of fire during the burning of Atlanta sequence, so that all you could hear was the roar of the collapse, but now that has been restored, with music and explosions over the roar.

And I am certain that the shot of Melanie stripping off her nightgown for Scarlett to use to wipe up the Yankee blood has been tampered with. In past releases, on all formats, one can clearly see the biege body suit Olivia de Havilland is wearing, but in the BD release the edge of the body suit looks like it's been softened to blend more with Melanie's skin. It can still be seen, but you would think that if it was really obvious in past releases, that it would be doubly so now with an 8k scan of all three negatives lined up more perfectly than the original Technicolor process could do. Just my opinion, I think; the shot does go by really quick and I haven't paused it to do a comparison, but to me it looks like it was manipulated.

Also manipulated are some of the flames in the burning of Atlanta. The glass plates they were painted on used to jump...now they are steady. I don't know how I feel about fixing things, especially since it isn't their work of art to fix.

Hmmm. I thought I noticed that, too. Yeah, I'm not sure about fixing such things. Negative damage, yes. But this, I don't think so.

Yes, Ned Price says that in the interview I linked to above -- that they "fixed" some of the matte work, not only the jumps, but adjusting the color/brighness to make them more seamless.

Hmmmm...

That line I was referring to earlier that used the live dialogue in the 1989 theatrical sound mix, the "India Wilkes, what a lovely dress line," I just discovered is in the "Making of" documentary on the Blu-Ray (and previous DVD), at about the 1:31:17 mark.  Very different reading from the overdubbed version in the final film, and obviously live dialogue.  Sure wish they would have released the 1989 sound mix as an optional track.

And I noticed this just last night (while viewing part of the BD again!), the Atlanta Ball sequence: the rear projection shot of Dr. Meade talking to the crowd, when he pushes the drummer away, Scarlett and Rhett (in black) can be seen in the rear projection (even though they haven't started dancing together yet!) and in past releases Vivien Leigh's face has been quite clear when she suddenly turns towards the camera. In the BD, her face is really fuzzy and indistinguishable. I'm not sure, but it looks like they did more manipulation. I hope I'm wrong.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the stereo channels are flopped? Sounds that should be on the left come through the right and vice versa. I've noticed this with GWTW since it's first release on DVD years ago and have never once seen a mention of it online. All other "stereoized" classics that I own, either on BD or DVD, have the sounds coming through the right channels except for this one. The first noticable flop is the "quittin' time" bell at the beginning of the film - it swings left, the clang comes from the right. It swings right, the clang come from the left. Perhaps it's just my set up; I should try it on our system at work and see what happens.

Based on the previous edition of Gone With the Wind, on The Searchers, on Rio Bravo, and other WHV / MGM classic releases, I have no faith in Ned Price.
But, I'm a good consumer.
I'm going to buy this Blu-ray in the morning.
If I get another yellow-biased, orange-distorted mudpie like on the last DVD, Ned Price is going to hear from me.
His superiors are going to hear from me, too.

Richard, the yellow-orange look is gone. There are some scenes that are warm, but that was the intent. I agree with you on other points, and a title you didn't bring up, but I will stay mum for now.

Thank you Eric Scott Richard, that's all I wanted to hear.
There can be no more conclusive evidence that the 2004 edition was arbitrarily and disengenuously color-timed than the fact that the new edition corrects the problems. I'm happy to buy the Blu-ray upgrade, but since the correction also appears on a 2-disc DVD, WHV should send out free replacement discs to everyone still stuck with the earlier offense.

They have yet to correct The Searchers, Rio Bravo, Ben-Hur, and a few other classic titles that were willfully mishandled.

Does anyone know what this is? During the lap dissolve shot from the cropped depot scene into the scene with Scarlett and Prissy and "birthin' babies," there is a weird blue/green vertical strip at the top of the frame. It isn't a scratch or anything but looks boxy. When the scene pans down (only in this new edition, because of the cropping) it disappears into the top of the frame. I don't ever recall seeing it before. This is very minor but it would be interesting to know what it might be.

 It seems to me that we ALL are ultimately doing nothing other than arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is what it is. PERIOD.!!! For me, the Bluray is NOT perfection. I'm in the minority...but there ARE others out there of my generation (70s) who feel the same way. There is what appears to be a too prominent black and white record underneath it all (similar to John Huston's experiment in MOBY DICK) and it occasionally muddies certain scenes and makes the blacks too impermeable (the hat scene, the proposal scene and it VERY definitely darkens CONSIDERABLY the N'awleen's scene which once was bright and glowed.) I can generally spot MY measure of a print of GWTW in the opening sequence of "...Cavaliers and cotton fields..." Originally the sky behind the workers was heavily blue with steaks of yellow. No more. And in the raddish scene on dollyback from Scarlett the sky was MOSTLY a very pale blue with the stronger yellow and orange tints at the horizon. This is NOT the GWTW of 1941, 1947 or 1954. But then NO 40's Technicolor prints of ANY film of that era have EVER again produced some of the luminous colors that once were in them. On the surviving prints of that era perhaps the color intensity in the bulbs used in projection is very different from the bulbs used in projection of higher quality theaters in the 40's. I do not know....but prints of Technicolor films of that era do NOT look as they originally did. Some come close....but the richness is missing and the gradations. The gradations in this release in the hat scene and the proposal scene especially are a disgrace. You cannot see the folds in the material no matter how much you fiddle with a superior set. Disney's films, in particular, in the 40's had a luminescent quality that has NEVER come through again, particularly in the blues. As for ALL of our mutual quibbling over these upgraded ("downgraded"???? Hehe) releases....I still maintain that everyone sees color differently. I do NOT believe that person A sees yellow or orange or blue the same as person B. In hearing we all DO hear different frequencies in different ways at different ages...why not color? Scientists now have found that dogs DO see in color, albeit a pastel color. So we wind up arguing over what is the CORRECT color and the truth is .....EVERYBODY is right. I have seen GWTW probably 150 times over the years....in endlessly differing prints. Natalie Kalmus had one idea of what the color should be...David O. another....and Louis B. Mayer at third. The fact that I do NOT like this release very much should have NO bearing or effect on someone else who may love it, or on Mr. Harris' own stamp of approval. We ALL see it differently. We always have. We always will. And there are 17 billion, four hundred and thirty-three million, 629 thousand, 892 angels on the head of a pin...unless they are carrying hymnals. Then there are fewer!!!!

I found something. I was watching the 2004 version on my pc and saw, during the famous last scene of Part One that the masking for the 1954 cropping actually starts fading in when Scarlett enters the garden! It slowly rises up the screen, then disappears for most of the scene, only to start creeping back up the frame for the final pullback! This is also interesting- The Intermission card also has the masking! Very interesting as I didn't know this shot was one of the infamous cropped scenes and that the video Intermission card would be presented with the masking! Also, you can see how much is cropped as the pullback of Scarlett and Gerald begins under the oak tree. Look at the clouds in the sky...as the pullback begins, the picture moves up and suddenly clouds disappear, and continue to disappear, and continue! What a shame...really, what they did to this in 1954.
Edited by eric scott richard - 1/7/10 at 10:32pm

I have seen what you describe before.  I saw the 1998 re-release three times in a vain attempt to find a decent print playing somewhere.  It was the worst presentation of the film I've ever seen since the terrible 1970s-era slidshod general release prints that were seriously out of registration and filled with heavy scratch lines.

The 1998 prints were a blurry mess and were postage-stamped in the middle of a standard anamorphic print in order to force theatres to project the entire frame.  Trouble was, whoever made the prints was overzealous with projecting the *entire* frame to the point that the edges of the frame retained the curved edges from the source print and *everything* was exposed at the top.  This revealed such things as the fact that the Wilkes' front porch railing did not attach to anything.  In addition, almost every scene with a dissolve or that contained one of Jack Cosgrove's matte shots had blue-green splotches at the top of the frame, including the dissolve you mention.  It clearly looked as if we were seeing things we weren't supposed to be seeing and things that should have been out of frame.

I think they've done such a fine job of properly framing the blu-ray for the bulk of the film that when they go to the problematic 1954 shots, you're briefly glimpsing that top part of the frame that should have been masked out.   Don't worry about it and just know that this means that you're seeing the rest of the film framed as it should be for the first time ever on home video.

Cool, thanks Rob.