"AT LONG LAST LOVE" , "Where's Charley?" "Song of Norway" Status on musicals misfires

All of us who love musicals would love to have all of these films, whatever the flaws, missteps, and weaknesses they have.

 

I haven't seen Where's Charley in probably thirty years and Song of Norway since its original release.

Just finished posting this on that other thread, I once met a guy who was such a fan of At Long Last Love that he had discovered three different versions of it. Each one containing and missing things the others didn't. He gave me two of them on VHS and was planning to get ahold of the third so he could "mix them all together" and see what he got: the most complete possible version.

I always liked the film, even had Cybill's Porter album, I just didn't get far enough into it to know which cut was which. If it does come to disc (and I will be shocked if Fox does a mass-market Blu Ray - more likely MOD DVD) I hope they either use branching or leave in whatever is missing from his final cut as supps. Of course a commentary and retrospective interview with Burt and Cybill would be nice. Eileen and Hillerman are still around, too.

Can't WAIT for AT LONG LAST LOVE. I never miss a Duilio Del Prete musical! And of course
SONG OF NORWAY stars Mr. Excitement himself, the always electrifying Toralv Maurstad.
Best review quote for SONG OF NORWAY, from Pauline Kael: "It brings back cliches you
didn't know you knew - they're practically from the unconscious of moviegoers. You can't get
angry at something this stupefying; it seems to have been made by trolls."
As for AT LONG LAST LOVE, it's a tie between John Simon and Frank Rich.
Simon: "Sitting through this movie is like having someone at a fancy Parisian restaurant who
neither speaks nor reads French read out stentoriously the entire long menu in his best
Arkansas accent, occasionally interrupting himself to chortle at his cleverness ..."
Rich: " When the leads break into song and dance at a nightclub or cotillion, the extras just
stand there like goons, staring into space; it's like watching a musical unfold within THE
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.
Having seen both these upon their original release, I can testify that these reviewers were,
in fact, being kind. Naturally, I've wanted both for my collection ever since ...

An innocent typo in the thread title gave me an idea:
Cole Porter plus vampires:

AT LONG LESTAT LOVE!

(oh boy, do I need to get out of the house}

I have to say that the version of At Long Last Love that I watched a month ago from the Fox Movie Channel was different than the theatrical version I saw upon its initial release (two opening songs for Duilio Del Prete and Madeline Kahn I'd never seen or heard before), and while it's still a complete mess, I much preferred the revised version to the one I originally saw.

 

And joke about Duilio Del Prete all you want. He's playing the most interesting of the four principal characters, and I'd rather hear him sing than either of the two leads. At least he stays on pitch.

Here is the link that Digital Bits shared about AT LONG LAST LOVE.  It is a different cut and one that even Bogdanovich did not know existed.  Seems an editor at Fox made his own cut and it  some how got into rotation on FMC and STARZ.  Interesting story with a good ending in that Bogdanovich liked the cut and only wanted to make a couple small changes.  In the write up he gives credit to the editor, but not his name.  Very interesting read. 

 

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/peter-bogdanovich-screens-new-cut-of-at-long-last-love-and-tells-story-behind-it

 

Hopefully we will see a Blu-ray of this, maybe Stars and Stripes sold better than I expected.  Or Fox will push this to Twilight Time. 

 

Edit -

Again I did not read the full post and see that the thread starter also posted this.  Sorry. 

Edited by ahollis - 2/7/12 at 12:14pm

I'll never forget going to see AT LONG LAST LOVE at Radio City Music Hall. The vast house was practically empty -- both that fact and the jaw-dropping badness of the film gave the whole experience a truly other-worldly feeling -- like going to a private screening on Mars or Pluto.
Needless to say, just like PODER said in post #4, it will be an instant purchase for me as well.

Pauline Kael's reviews were/are  fascinating reads, and I have all of her collected works in her various volumes, but she was not very perceptive about lots of movies, and she was especially clueless often about musicals.

Yeah, I've read many of her reviews (probably hundreds) and she's always interesting, even if I often don't agree. And she did have her biases (as we all do). For example, she LOVED Brian De Palma movies a little too much and HATED Clint Eastwood with a passion. But I loved that she never had a problem trashing a movie that everyone else was raving about (like "Dances with Wolves").

The great thing about the Internet is you get to say things in public you could only think to yourself before. Like this:

Peter Bogdanovich is one of the worst movie directors of all time. He loved old movies and wanted to make up-to-date versions of the various genres, and seemed to have absolutely no clue as to what made the old movies good in the first place.

Thank you.

I think THE LAST PICTURE SHOW (if that counts), WHAT'S UP, DOC? and PAPER MOON are all quite successfully realized. AT LONG LAST LOVE and NICKELODEON, not so much--the strain really shows. And the success of DOC? and MOON helped fuel the so-called "nostalgia craze," which led to some very poor movies (LUCKY LADY, another dud Burt Reynolds survived, HARRY AND WALTER GO TO NEW YORK, etc.).

Song of Norway would probably need a lot of work It is a 70mm neg now over half a century old.

 

And on top of that it is owned by Disney/ABC and licensed to MGM.  Who would pay?  Neither party would. 
 

 

Why? We've heard it before that the negs that got the least use are in the best shape...

Pearson Entertainment released a Region 2 in 2002.  Previous to that it was released on VHS by Anchor Bay, who had the rights to the ABC film catalog.

 

I understand that has been seen in 70mm was at The Wide Screen Weekend in Bradford, England on March 15, 1999.  The one of the people that saw it said "The 70mm print was pin sharp but completely pink, but that is something you come to expect from older film."  I have heard their is a great IB Tech in a collector's hands, but the Internet is full of rumors. That IB Tech print might have been the one that was shown in Germany at the 2008 Schauburg Cinerama cinema 70mm Festival. I head it was a wonderful print and the 6-track sound was good also.

 

Now this does not explain what the negative would look like, but I had not heard there was any work on the film.  The Anchor Bay VHS caps I have seen looked dark and pink and of course pan-scan.  The whole thing rests with Disney/ABC and if they are willing to put any money into, whether it be a little or a lot.  MGM certainly will not do it.  If they will not put any money into Hawaii, The Alamo or IAMMMW, which they own 100% percent, then they will not put a dime into something that is just lease.   

 

ABC holds the rights to Song Of Norway.  They leased it to Anchor Bay with their other films, such as the Selznick titles and Krakatoa, East of Java, The Last Valley, Straw Dogs, Zachariah, and The Grissom Gang back in the middle 90's.  That lease was up in 2002 and Disney/ABC entered into a leasing agreement with MGM for those titles.  As long as MGM has the lease to the library, Song of Norway is included.  There will be no Disney, Image or Anchor Bay in the foreseeable future.  MGM has not released any ABC Pictures, or Goldwyn estate films that they also lease, on MOD.  Though MGM just released the three Hitchcock films that ABC owns on Blu-ray a couple of weeks ago.  But again MGM will not fork over the cost for Song of Norway and I don't think Disney/ABC will either.  Also think about all the full frame UA films that MGM has put out under their MOD program, knowing full well that they were filmed for exhibition in widescreen and they would not pay for new transfers.  Off the subject some, but the MGM MOD program leaves alot to be desired. 

 

Our immediate hope is for a region free Blu-ray from one of the international markets, where MGM does not hold rights.  Do you know anyone over there?
 

 

I've a question about another part of Greg's original post. What does, in fact, remain of PORGY AND BESS? On 9/27/07, DeeF posted on this Forum: "At a screening of a 35mm print of PORGY AND BESS last night at the Ziegfield Theater in NY, it was mentioned that the original elements all exist, and would cost about $2.5 million to restore the film." I attended a screening in Los Angeles a couple years ago where a dark and unimpressive 35mm print was presented. Someone in attendance mentioned that this was the only complete print in existence. Does anyone know more about these original elements? I'm sure that this would be a success if it were restored and released. A superb cast, gorgeous music, what's not to love? It's at the top of my BD wish list.

I saw that showing at the Ziegfeld.  I don't remember the print as dark and unimpressive.  As I recall, brightness, contrast and colors seemed fine.  The problem there was that keeping the image in focus, or in focus on both sides of the screen at once. seemed to be a severe and constant battle.  There were times that it settled down, but it was rough going.  I'm also remembering a very noticeable, intermittent hum.  They did state that that was the only complete print in existence.  The audience was small that night, but patient, understanding, and totally enthusiastic in hoping for a restoration and eventual release.

It has the same problems as Song of Norway.  It is owned by the Samuel Goldwyn estate.  MGM has a lease on the Goldwyn Sr. Films which they made when they purchased Goldwyn Jr. films and distribution company.  Up until last year, the major obstacle was the Gershwin estate did not like the film and refused to renew copyrights with the Goldwyn estate.  Now that problem is almost gone, but MGM will not put up the money for a title they do not own and the Goldwyn's don't want to since they don't have absolute control over the title now.  The agreement between MGM and the Goldwyn's should be up in the next couple of years.  Knowing where MGM business plan is, I don't see them renewing the agreement. 

 

I understand that the print at the Ziegfield was from a private collector.  I have read that the elements are all there for a rescue.  I wish I could win the lottery and have this restored along with Alamo, Hawaii, and IAMMMMW. 
 

 

Thank you, Allen, for the good news and information. That must have been the same print we saw at LACMA. I'd really love to see the other titles you mentioned restored, as well.

ne person here claims that Song of Norway had some success. But it would have opened throughout the country in 70mm and all of those prints would have been contact printed of of the 70mm negative.

Two - NO collector has an IB Tech 70mm of this film. Why? there are NO ib Techs of any 70mm film. Technicolor never geared up for 70mm.


Porgy and Bess- Tom Bodley, who was head of post production for Goldwyn did a restoration of the 70mm neg and the six track of Porgy around 1983.
No prints have been made since then. I don't see why it should not be in good shape now.

I'm not going to argue degree of success or boxoffice figures. A roadshow opening in the states and beyond would still be just a handful of prints, what, 50, 75 total, and not necessarily all off the OCN. There weren't so many Cinerama screens left, and not all roadshow houses could play 70mm... but however you look at it, it was no Sound of Music, nor My Fair Lady, etc. so the elements shouldn't necessarily be in such awful shape... unless they were also stored in the legendary Forum basement under six feet of water... ; )

I'm just sayin', I don't think they necessarily need "a lot of work done." We're not talkin' Joan Rivers, Michael Jackson kind of work done, more like, hmmm, Streisand or maybe Cher at most. I'm sure others could have picked better examples, but you get it, right? The difference between, "she looks nice" and when she sits down, her mouth snaps open. What's the celluloid equivalent to Botox, wet gate?
Edited by NY2LA - 2/7/12 at 1:02pm

Could it be because FOX handles MGM's video release catalog, and we know how careless they can be? When do the titles revert back to ABC?
Edited by NY2LA - 2/7/12 at 11:58am

I guess that IB Tech print of Song is sitting next to the complete cut of The Magnificent Ambersons and the only print of London After Midnight in South America. 

 

Great news about the Porgy & Bess negative.  Perhaps when MGM loses control of the Goldwyn titles, something will happen. 

 

 

 

Fox distributes the MGM titles, but has no control over what elements for transfer MGM gives them or what titles are to released.  The cases of West Side Story and The Greatest Story Ever Told tell that tale.  It is the same for Twilight Time.  The transfers that they release depend entirely on what Fox and Sony give them. 

 

ABC Pictures licensed their films first to Anchor Bay in the early 90's where they appeared on VHS and DVD.  That agreement ended in 2002 and Criterion picked up several titles for a one time release and released them in 2003, those titles included Straw Dogs, Rebbecca, Spellbound, and Notorious.  In 2004 MGM got the license and first started releasing the titles that Criterion had just released and the ones that were big sellers for Anchor Bay.  Over the few years, MGM released just about every title in the ABC library, except for The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Song of Norway.  Reasoning, let your mind come up with it for I have no idea, unless there was a problem with source material or they just didn't think they would sell. There are three films in the group which are in public domain and MGM expressed no use for them and they are Little Lord Fauntleroy, Nothing Sacred and Made For Each Other. 

 

This is the second licensing agreement between MGM and Disney/ABC for the films.  The first was from 2004 through 2008 inclusive or five years.  The agreement was renewed when both the DVD business and MGM looked a little rosier.  It was reported at the time to be another 5 year deal, so that would put the end of the agreement up in 2013.    With MGM releasing the three Hitchcock films in Blu-ray a couple of weeks ago, I give the expiration date some validity.