![The African Queen (Commemorative Box Set) [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/f/f0/50x50px-ZC-f0a19194_AQ_Comm_BD.jpg)
![The African Queen [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/4/49/50x50px-ZC-4950591b_B001UHOWWY-61cRzbpdD5L.jpg)
From all appearances The African Queen was definitely not a "fun" shoot. Encamped in the Belgian Congo for much of the time, and with other scenes taken in Uganda before returning to LA, the production played havoc with the cast, crew and apparently the film stock.
For those who might like to read about it, copies of Ms. Hepburn's The Making of the African Queen: Or How I Went to Africa with Bogart, Bacall and Huston and Almost Lost My Mind is available at all price levels at Abebooks.com. Want a copy signed by Ms. H. You'll find it there.
Look at any original dye transfer print, and certain things become extremely obvious. Contrast was always inconsistent -- I have no idea where the film was processed, how long it sat before getting shipped to the lab, under what conditions it was shipped -- color is occasionally on the murky side from natural lighting, and early matte shots combining the Queen with backgrounds look precisely like what they are. Keep in mind that The African Queen was produced six decades ago.
Over the following decades, the original elements sat in less than stellar conditions, until Paramount (through Viacom, which does not own all rights to the film) finally was given permission to scan the original elements in the UK.
Scanning is generally easy, as long as the elements aren't severely shrunken, have splices that hold together, aren't notched multiple times, and aren't held together by rolls of adhesive tape. Taking those scans and actually doing something with them can however, be a totally different story.
Some three-strip films fit together like butter. Properly stored nitrate (not acetate) can generally hold its dimensions and yield a superior image. Here, shrinkage was beyond that of the normal digital functions, and hand fitting had to come into play.
The audio, derived from optical sources, is what it is, and it sounds quite good.
What I'm leading up to here is the fact that after viewing Paramount's new Blu-ray of John Huston's 1951 classic (even more "classic" than The Princess and the Frog), that the Blu-ray essentially looks as the film has throughout the decades when properly printed. Some scenes can look brilliant in that way that only three-strip Technicolor can, and others, due to the necessities of filming in Africa in 1951, without a plethora of generators and banks of lights, look as they were filmed.
My point is that one should not expect a film that looks like either The Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind.
I've seen some comments on line regarding the Blu-ray not having uncompressed audio, and I'll throw my nickel's worth in on that situation. A digital track reproduces audio perfectly as what it is. If produced well, uncompressed audio makes everything cleaner, sharper and better.
But take an old track, that may not have been recorded under the best of conditions, especially in analogue, and the final playback can be heavily affected by the actual playback mechanism. I'll give you an example. When 70mm prints were struck on "Vertigo," all except for one, were produced in the new DTS 70 system, with DTS timecode printed along the edge of the film. The DTS system will produce whatever you feed it, and precisely. When we compared the DTS prints against the single magnetic print, it became very evident that the quality of the original tracks did less well in playback via the digital system than through magnetic analogue. The DTS system actually reproduced the old tracks too well. What we had lost was a smoothing that one gets in the analogue world. With neither compression nor analogue, the tracks were just a bit too revealing of problems.
That said, might an uncompressed digital track of a sixty year old film sound worse than a compressed track. Very possibly. Is there anything to be gained by going uncompressed in this particular situation? Possible, but doubtful.
As an aside, I've seen The African Queen with two different main titles sequences, one with clear lettering, as has been used here, and another with yellow titles. I have no idea which were originally used where or for what purpose.
Several years ago, an original print was taken to the UK and run for DP Cardiff, with notes taken by the studio's Barry Allen. These must have come in helpful toward bringing this disc to fruition.
So there you have it. The African Queen finally arrives in not only DVD, but Blu-ray from Paramount. And to my eye, it looks as it should. Grain has an overall natural appearance, with only an occasional hint of it holding in place. Color and densities are what they should be. Here is one of the true classics of the cinema, in rare and near perfect form, scanned in the UK, put together, color corrected and readied by Warner's MPI in Burbank. If you feel the need to write a letter to the studio and thank someone, aim it directly toward Ron Smith.
This will be one of the truly important classic releases of 2010, and should be in every serious library. Only a single decision remains. Does one purchase one of the Blu-ray editions that will emerge on March 23, or wait for the (still in process) 3-D version due in November, rumored to be inclusive of small vials of live leeches which can be used, a la Rocky Horror Show, while in a proper viewing environment.
I'd probably buy it now.
High Recommended.
RAH
For those who might like to read about it, copies of Ms. Hepburn's The Making of the African Queen: Or How I Went to Africa with Bogart, Bacall and Huston and Almost Lost My Mind is available at all price levels at Abebooks.com. Want a copy signed by Ms. H. You'll find it there.
Look at any original dye transfer print, and certain things become extremely obvious. Contrast was always inconsistent -- I have no idea where the film was processed, how long it sat before getting shipped to the lab, under what conditions it was shipped -- color is occasionally on the murky side from natural lighting, and early matte shots combining the Queen with backgrounds look precisely like what they are. Keep in mind that The African Queen was produced six decades ago.
Over the following decades, the original elements sat in less than stellar conditions, until Paramount (through Viacom, which does not own all rights to the film) finally was given permission to scan the original elements in the UK.
Scanning is generally easy, as long as the elements aren't severely shrunken, have splices that hold together, aren't notched multiple times, and aren't held together by rolls of adhesive tape. Taking those scans and actually doing something with them can however, be a totally different story.
Some three-strip films fit together like butter. Properly stored nitrate (not acetate) can generally hold its dimensions and yield a superior image. Here, shrinkage was beyond that of the normal digital functions, and hand fitting had to come into play.
The audio, derived from optical sources, is what it is, and it sounds quite good.
What I'm leading up to here is the fact that after viewing Paramount's new Blu-ray of John Huston's 1951 classic (even more "classic" than The Princess and the Frog), that the Blu-ray essentially looks as the film has throughout the decades when properly printed. Some scenes can look brilliant in that way that only three-strip Technicolor can, and others, due to the necessities of filming in Africa in 1951, without a plethora of generators and banks of lights, look as they were filmed.
My point is that one should not expect a film that looks like either The Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind.
I've seen some comments on line regarding the Blu-ray not having uncompressed audio, and I'll throw my nickel's worth in on that situation. A digital track reproduces audio perfectly as what it is. If produced well, uncompressed audio makes everything cleaner, sharper and better.
But take an old track, that may not have been recorded under the best of conditions, especially in analogue, and the final playback can be heavily affected by the actual playback mechanism. I'll give you an example. When 70mm prints were struck on "Vertigo," all except for one, were produced in the new DTS 70 system, with DTS timecode printed along the edge of the film. The DTS system will produce whatever you feed it, and precisely. When we compared the DTS prints against the single magnetic print, it became very evident that the quality of the original tracks did less well in playback via the digital system than through magnetic analogue. The DTS system actually reproduced the old tracks too well. What we had lost was a smoothing that one gets in the analogue world. With neither compression nor analogue, the tracks were just a bit too revealing of problems.
That said, might an uncompressed digital track of a sixty year old film sound worse than a compressed track. Very possibly. Is there anything to be gained by going uncompressed in this particular situation? Possible, but doubtful.
As an aside, I've seen The African Queen with two different main titles sequences, one with clear lettering, as has been used here, and another with yellow titles. I have no idea which were originally used where or for what purpose.
Several years ago, an original print was taken to the UK and run for DP Cardiff, with notes taken by the studio's Barry Allen. These must have come in helpful toward bringing this disc to fruition.
So there you have it. The African Queen finally arrives in not only DVD, but Blu-ray from Paramount. And to my eye, it looks as it should. Grain has an overall natural appearance, with only an occasional hint of it holding in place. Color and densities are what they should be. Here is one of the true classics of the cinema, in rare and near perfect form, scanned in the UK, put together, color corrected and readied by Warner's MPI in Burbank. If you feel the need to write a letter to the studio and thank someone, aim it directly toward Ron Smith.
This will be one of the truly important classic releases of 2010, and should be in every serious library. Only a single decision remains. Does one purchase one of the Blu-ray editions that will emerge on March 23, or wait for the (still in process) 3-D version due in November, rumored to be inclusive of small vials of live leeches which can be used, a la Rocky Horror Show, while in a proper viewing environment.
I'd probably buy it now.
High Recommended.
RAH
It ain't so great...
