A few words about...™ The Guns of Navarone -- in Blu-ray - Page 2

I'm still in for this title. Thank you RAH for taking the time to give us the history of this film and helping me to modify my expectations to accept what will likely be the best this film will look in home video.

Just a quick question to help with my knowledge base on such matters.

 

The "force field halo's." I have seen this on Vera Cruz too which i watched recently, is this a result of something they did at the lab when processing the film or an issue with the the camera lens and some abnormal lighting situation at the time of filming.

 

Is the issue with these force fields on the original negative of both Guns and Vera Cruz, i'm guessing yes with Guns but not so sure about the latter movie.

I think it is because the film didn't have anti-inhalation backing, which is a layer in the emulsion that stops light from reflecting off 'shallow' emulsion layers back out towards the lens, which creates the appearance of a pseudo back-light around dark objects.

The CinemaScope films in the Budd Boetticher set suffer from halation, that looks like really bad edge enhancement too.

But the quality of the films means it doesn't really bother me that much.

The other thing that is strange about this film is that it was still shot with clunky Bausch & Lomb lenses even though it was made in 1960. There is terrible distortion in all of the close-ups.

It is surprising that they didn't shoot with Panavision lenses.

Still it has some great cinematography by Oswald Morris.

Thanks so much (yet again) for these highly informative "few words", RAH -- precisely why we all huddle around waiting for them for each release, especially of such classic films.

 

I must again admit to being the "philistine" (in this crowd), who has yet to see this classic -- and never got around to owning the DVD either.  And it's especially good to be informed as such so I know what to expect and not be otherwise unduly disappointed by the PQ or be scared off to avoid this release.

 

Still, it's very unfortunate that fans of this classic may never see a better version than this.  Then again, film lovers couldn't even say that much about this film (and various others) for decades until now w/ all the efforts that have gone (and are still going) into preserving/restoring/etc. such classics, so in a way, I guess we're still relatively fortunate for this BD (and others).

 

And yeah, ditto that (rhetorical?) question about Universal possibly hiring Mr. Crisp to run their BD production operations, etc.

 

Thanks much again, RAH!  Will look forward to this (w/ tempered expectations)...

 

Best regards,

 

_Man_

 

Just finished watching The Guns of Navarone on Blu-ray.

 

First time viewing this film anywhere.  Actually caught RAH's thread 

on it this evening, post-viewing, so I can somewhat relate to some of

the element issues that he brings up.

 

First of all, I loved this film.  Exceptional cast and captivating story.

The film's final climax, within the German fortress, is impressive in

scale and quite exciting to watch.

 

Was never a fan of David Niven. For the few films I have seen him

in during my lifetime, he always came across as a rather dry, rigid

British actor.  This was the first time I saw Mr. Niven in a more

relaxed role, and I actually felt his presence here was a refreshing one.

 

Going into this film, I was unaware of any element problems.  There

were a few short snippets where grain was abundantly evident, but other

than that, I didn't really notice many of the anomalies that Robert Harris

mentioned.  

 

I would say that's a good thing.  For the most part, I thought the transfer

looked pretty damn good.  So, if I didn't notice any glaring problems, then

I doubt anything is going to stand out for the rest of you. 

 

I do agree that unlike other classics I have seen digitally restored for

Blu-ray, The Guns of Navarone does not have that pristine look of a

new film.  However, that being said, I saw virtually no dirt, scratches

or other artifacts that would suggest that it was not brought up to the

standards of looking the best it could.  Sony continues to do incredible

work with their classic releases.

 

I'm just very happy to have spent part of my holiday weekend discovering

this classic.  Really enjoyed this movie.

I remember seeing the raodshow version at The Odeon Leicester Square in 1961. I think it went on to The Columbia Cinema thereafter. Its good to see Adrian Turner posting on our forum but I think your 1959 date was a bit premature!I cannot remember if Guns was blown up to 70mm or shot in 70mm. In any event, I concur at the time ,despite the large screen and good projection facilities at The Odeon, the picture was not perfect even for 70mm.
Blu Ray based on RAH's comments is a must...

A great memory.  Saw the film at the Paramount Theatre in Jackson, MS and was blown away by the film at a young age and looking forward to the Blu-ray.  The film was shot 35mm with the 70mm prints being blow ups, if there were blow ups.  I guess you saw it with the international intermission intact.  I wish they would give the option either watching the film with the intermission or without. 
 

Edit: - Just read Richard's excellent review of the film and found that they do give you the option of watching the film with the intermission or not.  Excellent.

Edited by ahollis - 10/12/11 at 6:30pm

Thanks, Cultman. I remember now - Navarone opening at the Odeon and later transferring to the Columbia. By the way, I never said Navarone was 1959. I said the cinema was late 1950s. I don't think there was ever a 70mm blow-up in the UK.

memories can play tricks...I always thought the Odeon Leicester Square got 70mm for prestigious presentations whenever possible. Ill consult my Kine Weeklies and whats on for verification!

A 70mm blow up appeared in the UK early 70's at the Dominion in London. Didn't see it- silly me. This would have been its first 70mm screening.

Fascinating stuff Robert.!!!!

If you wanted the CinemaScope logo on your film, and in 1960 the CinemaScope name still carried weight, you were going to be using lenses from Fox. That meant the Bausch & Lomb lenses. By that time Panavision was a direct competitor to Fox's brand I don't believe you could use Panavision lenses and still call it CinemaScope. (in the late 60's Fox relaxed this a little)

Fox used those same lenses all the way until Caprice in 1967, which was the last film to carry the CinemaScope brand. (until "Down with Love" (2003) used it more as a gag than anything else)

Doug

I just watched the animated film Anastasia, it was made in 1997 and says on the end titles it was filmed in Cinemascope, i imagine they included that as a reference to the 1956 live action film version since the plotline of the animated version ( minus the songs ) reminded me a lot of that version. Mind you this animated film was partly based on the screenplay of the 1956 version so no surprise it reminded me of that film.

 

The other connection between these two films is that David Newman composed the music score for the 1997 animated edition and his father, Alfred Newman, wrote the music score for the 1956 version of the movie.

I think there were several MGM films in the late 50's that were advertised as"CinemaScope" and whose creditsalso stated "Photographic lenses by Panavision" which I always took to believe that they used the improved Panavision Anamorphics. I think "Green Mansions" was the first.

I think you're right. I believe this was when Panavision was not yet thought of as a threat by Fox, and they hadn't clamped down. To be perfectly honest, I don't know if it was Fox that put the kabash on the credits, or Panavision.

Doug

Me and my 2 brothers were all projectionists at the Columbia cinema in london, my elder brother did screen check a scope 4-track print and i now it was also screened at the NFT .

does anyone know why the film looks streched/squeezed?

e.g.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/vlcsnap2011100920h56m36.png/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/vlcsnap2011100920h55m10.png/

See post #47. The B&L lenses were notorious for causing "CinemaScope mumps", which is why most DPs familiar with the lenses would avoid putting close-ups dead centre in the composition.

 

The Wikipedia article is useful for explaining this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope#Technical_difficulties

Just spun it and it looked and sounded marvelous.  Played it with the Intermission and enjoyed the Entr'acte score.  Very happy with it and thank you Mr. Harris for your knowledge and insight to enlighten us on the ravages of time on the classic film.  I was able to just sit back and escape for a couple of hours. 

I'm glad you enjoyed it, Ronbo.  I finally got around to watching my BRD of it and and found the overall presentation of this fine film excellent considering the video issues already discussed in this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crawdaddy
 

 

I viewed the" Guns" the other night and found it to be as I remembered it with the exceptions of those discrepancies that my eyes are now trained to see. Mr. Harris explained them all
in his initial review. Overall it was a great success. The picture is clear enough to notice, for example, a cable that was secured to a truck that was pushed over a cliff. It seems a very dangerous stunt..

Reading all the comments about this, and going by my hazy recollections of what the original DVD release looked like, I was fully expecting a very underwhelming image. But what I got frequently. knocked my socks off. The force fields that would pop up from time to time, or the grainy optical dissolves were easy to accept anomalies as the film itself never failed to look analog and film-like.
For the vast majority of the run-time, it looked very sharp and wonderfully saturated to me. It may not be Ben-Hur, but as far as vintage widescreen adventure epics go, it wasn't that far behind.

I'm floored that I paid under $14 for this. Add to that the under $3000 I paid for the projector a couple years back + the under $2K I paid for the audio components, Has there every been a time in history where this relative pittance could get you a presentation of this quality? In fact, this disc was so nice it temporarily made me forget about the all the other Blu-ray underachievers I've bought in the past. Now that's a feat.

I just hope that Sony is still operating at this remarkably high level when 1776 streets next year.