I am quite pleased with the quality of the current DVD. However, this is the first time I've owned this movie in any format so I have absolutely nothing to compare it against.
My only complaint on the title is that when it was first announced they had put on the cover many different extra's that were not on the disc itself. To the best of my knowledge, that cover was then changed to represent the disc correctly. For example, one item that comes to mind was that it mentioned screen test were there, which they weren't.
I truly welcome the upcoming 'true' Special Edition of this title coming in the fall in hopes that it will be just what it says...special. Lesser films have gotten better represented and it will be great to finally have this done right.
The type of commentary offered by Roger Ebert on Citizen Kane would be nice. I'm not sure if the surviving cast members would be up to doing a commentary.
I know cast members like Cammie King, olivia DeHavilland and Alicia Rhett have tried to distance themselves from that movie--probably due to the fanaticism. Olivia probably feels she has don'e better work, and won Oscars for it, that she would rather be remembered by.
Wouldn't surprise me about de Havilland regarding her character; I don't think Melanie Hamilton is all that interesting. She was too much of a saintly figure throughout the movie. I definitely think de Havilland was better as Maid Marian, that was an excellent performance.
I don't think Ashley Wilkes is all that great a character, either. Scarlett, of course, is tremendous, and Rhett Butler is one of my favorite characters in any movie. Fabulous movie overall, but most of the supporting characters don't do much for me.
DeHavilland hasn't tried to distance herself......she appeared at the 98 re-issue and just loved it! Said that it brought back great memories. She is very proud of the film. As far as Alicia Rhett goes, she left Hollywood early on and is an accomplished artist. It isn't so much that she distances herself from GWTW than it is from the Hollywood community in general.
But, DeHavilland doesn't anwer autograph requests and such for GWTW. She may have mellowed with it in recent years, but she used to not want anything to do with the fans.
Since I've had some lengthy online dialogues with Mr. Harris about this particular movie, if I may be so presumptuous, I'd like to list here what I've learned from him about Gone With The Wind (and feel free to correct me):
1. The O-negs exist and are in pretty good shape. Mr. Harris said that, if offered the chance, he could make the movie look pristine and perfect. Of course, returning to the original color palette might be troublesome, because most people today wouldn't like the look of it.
2. The O-negs do contain some sections from the 1954 version, supervised by DOS himself and cut in to the negatives replacing very worn pieces. Since this version was slightly wider-screen (1.66:1?), some vertical panning was done, to protect the actor's feet, etc. When you see the 1989 print projected in theaters, you can actually see the ratio change on some shots.
3. The print was made from the O-negs by Turner's company in 1989, returning for the first time to the 3 separate negatives. But the color was altered to be more aesthetically pleasing to modern eyes. The original O-neg would have had an additional negative which served as a kind of key, say, 50% of the "green" which added contrast and sharpened up the picture. This key negative wasn't used after about 1940 for 3-color Technicolor prints.
4. The version of the film made in 1998 used completely different source materials (an interpositive) and it is not the basis for the current DVD. The current DVD is made from the same 1989 print made by Turner's company, the same print used for LDs and seen on television.
5. The "Ultra-Resolution" process used for Singin' in the Rain and Robin Hood so far, and now Meet Me In St. Louis, doesn't really have anything to do with resolution. The 3 separate negatives are scanned in, separately, and then composited in the computer, where the shrinkage problems can be addressed digitally. They are done at 2K. After this digital work is done, the film can be printed back to film from the computer (this was done for Singin' in the Rain). It isn't a restoration of the film at all, but for digital output, it's probably exemplary. All 3-color Technicolor movies could benefit from this process, at least for output on DVD.
6. I didn't know about the missing bits of dialogue. I wonder what could be done about that?
Go to the American Widescreen Museum to see a 1954 Technicolor frame. I'm not RAH, but I'm sure he can tell us whether this is an accurate representation of the intended colour scheme. There's also an example of what the cropping was like for the 70mm version here.
I would like to get all of your input on this subject:
Would you prefer to have a DVD transfer that is repreasentative of the original theatrical colours displayed on the screen, or a transfer that is just an improvement on the colours that we have all assosciated with the film?
I'd like to get one that is representative to 1939. I really don't think there would be an outcry. Let's face it, most of the public doesn't know or care about such things, because if they did, the current version wouldn't look or sound as it does.
I would prefer the look that the director intended.
Also, is this reissue coming this fall? Seems I remember the Warner chat ending with a quick flurry of forthcoming titles and could have sworn they typed GWTW.
If a new set of DVDs is being prepared for GWTW, it might be nice to have both versions (actually three) pictorially, to be synchronized with whatever track one chooses.
As a point of reference the original 1939 prints were not at all "muddy." They were flatter, with less contrast, had much less saturated color, while still retaining the entire color pallette, and had an overall sepia look.
I must side with Warners in their effort to make the film look more modern, as the original 1939 look is really only of interest to those who seek a techno-historical point of view.
The "look" of GWTW was very much decided by David O. Selznick and his production designer William Cameron Menzies.
Regarding this issue, those interested would become highly enlightened by reading Ronald Haver's superb and wonderful book "David O. Selznick's Hollywood".
Haver went into great detail about GWTW, its use of Technicolor, and Selznick's involvement with the original release prints as well as those made for subsequent re-releases.
From what I've read, Selznick himself supervised the 1954 version of the film, and he was very happy with the color, calling it superior to the original.
If only one choice can be made for the DVD, I would choose the color of the 1954 print.