A few words about...™ The Guns of Navarone -- in Blu-ray

Any list of the best war films, not simply WWII films, is going to include The Guns of Navarone, directed by J. Lee Thompson, and released in April of 1961.

A great film.  An important film.  Unfortunately, a case study for questionable decisions in post-prodution, and the care and handling of film elements, and a poster child for archival restoration and preservation.

But let's begin at the beginning.  To the best of my knowledge, TGoN was photographed on the new Eastman 5250 stock, the first to have high level anti-dye fade characteristics.  My comments are personal opinion, and some may disagree, but here goes.

The film was a UK production, with some photography in Greece and L.A.  Originally handled by Technicolor London, with the OCN cut for auto-select.  Original UK produced dye transfer prints show what the film looked like before the alternations.  The OCN was later moved to the Colonies and entrusted to Movielab. I presume there was a financial savings.  The OCN was re-cut from auto-select to single strand, with all printer functions duped in. Fortunately, Columbia's Grover Crisp was able to locate materials not found in 1989, and was able to better things a bit.  But it should be understood that any restoration of this type is like attempting to climb the proverbial greased flagpole.

I'm unaware of the production of separation masters to protect the show.

In 1989, Columbia went to UCLA for aid to save the film, and archivist Robert Gitt performed the necessary tasks to the best of analogue abilities.  The final result at least stabilized the image problems, while protecting the original mag tracks.

Two decades later, a return to the original surviving elements in 4k was in order.

But a return doesn't guarantee the superb image that this film could have had, had everything been done correctly back in 1961, and the elements properly handled over the decades.

As I recall, the final reel of original negative may also be missing.  Dupes are built in throughout, and color, for the most part is, well... acceptable.

I'm taking the long way around to make the point that there is nothing further that can be done to make the film look any better.  And everything goes back to those early decisions.

What does TGoN look like?

Pretty much as the knowledgeable eye would think.  Grainy in parts, occasional contrast problems along with optical anomalies, plus what some here will refer to as "force fields" around certain objects, normally in high to low contrast situations.  Flesh tones range from decent to awkward brownish green with red highlights.

And there is very little that can be done about it.

The technical folks at Columbia have used all the tools at their disposal, but one cannot make a proverbial silk purse from old Eastman stock processed by Movielab.

There you have it.

This is a terrific and important film, beautifully acted and extremely entertaining.  It stands the test of time.

But the point needs to be made that not only does this Blu-ray not look like a new film, it isn't going to look like what many will perceive a high quality, important 1961 production should look like.  Know that going in, enjoy the show, and you won't be disappointed.

They don't make them like this anymore.

Highly Recommended.

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianTurner 

I think I first saw The Guns of Navarone in its opening run at the Columbia, Shaftesbury Avenue, a late 1950s, claustrophobic cinema that was built beneath an office building. The problem with this cinema was a fairly flat floor and little rake to the seating and a rather small screen. Anyway, I was at that time devouring all the 70mm roadshow releases such as Ben-Hur, Mutiny on the Bounty, West Side Story, El Cid, Lawrence of Arabia etc and thought I knew what a good picture looked like. So when it came to The Guns of Navarone I was sorely disappointed by the way it looked. Even to my untutored, fairly ignorant eyes, I thought this picture looked fairly crude, with some terrible back projection and a lot of ugly compositions. The colour was washed-out and grainy but not in a Band of Brothers sort of way. Greece, I thought, was bright blue Technicolor sky and white marble, not this dull-looking thing. And in fact I have never seen The Guns of Navarone look any different and in time I did put this down to the basic choice of colour process, 35mm over 70mm, etc etc. Like all Carl Foreman productions I think it suffers from Big Message Syndrome and I'd rate it less of an achievement than The Great Escape which also happens to be a pretty good-looking picture. I think maybe that The Guns of Navarone should have been in black and white, like The Longest Day.

Guns looks a bit different (as one might expect) in dye transfer prints, which helped. I would presume that you would have seen one of the Tech London prints.

I should make the point that my words re: Guns will hopefully defuse any negative comments which may appear, as some reviewers will not understand what they're seeing, and relate to it extremely negatively.

Based upon the extant elements, and the look of the film, this is a superbly produced Blu-ray.

RAH
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattH. 

That's one of the reasons your articles are so valuable. Most of us know nothing of these behind-the-scenes technical deals and snafus. I'm not reviewing this title; I'll only be a consumer, but it's nice to know this background before I spin the disc and wonder what went wrong with the authoring. 

 

If word can get out to other sites, everyone can be aware that the transfer, authoring, etc. are perfect.

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Anthony 

Hi, RAH,
I realise this is a bit of a crystal ball question, but is there any restorative techniques currently in development, that may be able to improve this in the longer term, or is this basically as good as it gets or is ever likely to get?

Might it be possible to use alternative technologies to help a handful of shots?  Possibly.  I've not examined the original elements, but knowing Columbia's Grover Crisp, my take would be that it's as good as it gets.  He leaves no stone unturned when it comes to saving their library.

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by marsnkc 


I've been following the thread and hoping someone would ask a question like this. I thought all things were possible with today's technology (color correction and all the rest I keep reading about) - assuming little or no constraints on time or money. I bought the last DVD set in early 2007 but never got around to watching it (though I've seen the movie umpteen times). It seems I didn't miss much. I preordered the BD on day one, but the thing that most concerns me about the transfer are the horrendous-sounding 'awkward brownish green with red highlights' skin tones you describe. I'll still get the BD, but nothing takes me out of a movie faster than skin tone issues. As long as they're consistent, I can live with a sub-par rendition, otherwise.......
I mentioned the infamous first laserdisc editon of My Fair Lady on another thread; the one that was so washed out it looked almost sepia. That and the image that reminded one of anaglyph-3D without the glasses resulted in a mass return to the stores, who took them back without question. Then came the gorgeous laser box-set in late1994, following your miraculous restoration.
It would seem, to this tech-illiterate, that if you were able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, restoring - with tools that must seem primitive by today's standards - images and color to such an astonishing degree, why couldn't the Navarone techs at least be able to correct the skin-tone problems here? Was even that part an insurmountable tech issue, or a money one (understandable in today's climate)? My question is no reflection on Mr. Crisp. I'm just very curious.
(Miramax's Talented Mr. Ripley, English Patient and Quiet American have been released on BD in the UK in what are said to be 'phone-in' jobs. This with BDs in Canada being transferred - lazily or cheaply? - in 1080i feeds into whatever skepticism I have concerning 'unsalvageable' catalog titles. Also available in the UK are El Cid and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I'm afraid to touch them!)

Totally different situations.  Although MFL had a myriad of problems, inclusive of incomplete tracks, optically defective sep masters, missing shots and quite a bit of OCN damage, Navarone began life as a toad, and things didn't get better from there.  A film the quality of Navarone shouldn't, hadn't, oughtn'ta had to have gone through that.  Mr. Crisp takes no prisoners, which is why I'm very happy with the way that Navarone looks.  There's little else to go back to.

My  advice is to enjoy what we have.

RAH