- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,411
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
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
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
