Blu-ray Review Hair Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Techman707






Because I never saw the restoration in 70mm on a big screen, I'm not in a position to compare them. However, since the original 1964 MFL looked and was spectacular, in both color and sharpness, IMHO it would be virtually impossible to look any better than it originally looked in 1964. I can say that I was a little disappointed with the 1971 re-release of MFL that ran at the Criterion since that print was already beginning to appear a little purple, although the mag sound tracks still sounded great (without Dolby bass enhancement and losing the LC & RC channels).


A couple of years ago I was given an HD copy to watch, but not knowing its origin I can only assume it was of the restoration. Overall, it looked beautiful. My only real complaint viewing the HD copy was with the titles. Running it on my RS35 projector and blown up on a 9 1/2 foot wide screen, the titles weaved back and forth laterally, like a projector with bad guide rollers (it was bad enough that friends that know nothing, asked "why is it doing that"). It looked worse than it really was because the background picture itself appeared rock steady....too steady. The background shots of the opening flowers were so steady they looked like still shots or freeze frames (they seem to have lost their original "real" or "lifelike" look) with the titles weaving on top of them. It's as though the titles were on separate (but weaving and worn out) elements being optically superimposed over the background (which was obviously done originally). If this happened in the process of restoring the picture, which I believe must be the case since an original print doesn't display this problem, I wonder if it couldn't have been or in fact has already been corrected on the 70mm print you saw or at some other point in time? Otherwise, I don't recall noticing any "blotchy spots here and there" that you said you saw on the 70mm showing. Although I had a 16mm print for nearly 40 years and looked very good, I no longer run any film where I've been able to replace a film with a Blue-ray disc, which at this point has been nearly all the films in my collection. With all the junk Blue-rays that are released every month, for the life of me I can't understand why they haven't released the Blue-ray of MFL yet. What are they waiting for? (they're probably waiting for me to die)


All I can say is that the way "My Fair Lady" (which IMHO I consider to be one of the best pictures ever produced) has been cared for since its premiere, it makes me wonder if the people responsible for the storage and protection of films like MFL can begin to comprehend what could have been lost from their negligence? The condition of many great films is an American tragedy to say the least. It's just by luck that today's technology, that so many people take for granted, happened to coincide with this impending disaster and fortunately, allowed pictures like My Fair Lady and other classics made in the 50's, 60's and 70's to be saved. They could have just as easily been (and some will still be) lost forever!

Robert Harris has said right here that My Fair Lady needs more work to be Blu-Ray ready. And you are right, it is reprehensible that CBS allowed it to deteriorate so badly, but at least they saved it before it was too late.


IIRC, they did have to take still-frames of the titles with the restoration because the film elements for that part were in such bad shape that they even considered reshooting them! This was the best compromise available at the time.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by MattH.



I was only 8 years old when I saw the original producttion at the Hellinger with Sally Ann Howes and Edward Mulhare (Andrews and Harrison and Holloway had left the Broadway production and were doing it in London). I have only vague memories of the stars, but I remember that revolving stage that was so fascinating, and I remember "Get Me to the Church on Time" absolutely stopping the show cold and people standing and cheering in the middle of a performance which confused me somewhat (I'd never seen a showstopper before).


Yes, I saw the original movie at the Criterion in NYC and saw it a couple of times at the Capri Theater in Charlotte (where I live) during its many months there.

Sally Ann Howes was great in the role. Maybe I'm more senile than I thought I was, but I recall Stanley Holloway there even when I saw it with Sally Ann Howes and Edward Mulhare. But I certainly remember the revolving set changes. Being a movie person I've only been to about 6 Broadway plays in my whole life and MFL counts for two of them. I remember seeing West Side Story at the Winter Garden and South Pacific with Mary Martin at the Majestic theater, the Music Man, also at the Majestic and the Sound of Music at the Lunt Fontanne theater. I was also at the opening night preview of Oh Calcutta at the Eden theater in 1969, but that's not a Broadway theater, it's on 12th Street & 2nd Avenue and I was only there because I was invited by a cast member.
The marquee transparency you posted of MFL at the Criterion was from the 1971 run. The 1964 transparency was a little different and IMO looked much better. It was lit by vertical fluorescents that were were sequenced running from the center out to the left & right simultaneously. They did the same thing with Doctor Zhivago at the Capitol.


I believe that the photo from "HAIR" was only a publicity still.

 

[GMpasqua]

Forman filmed the song "air" and some others. At one point a director's cut of "Hair" was considered for home video release (in the late 190's)

a few years later a director's cut of "Amadeus" (also directed by Milo Forman) was released (the current Blu-ray is the director's cut)



I'm sure some where there must be a longer cut of the film if it was considered for release, I would guess sales weren't estimated to be high enough to justify the cost. The song "air" is in the shooting script as are a few others "My Conviction" - Martha Raye - there are stills also. I believe "Frank Mills" was a voice over while Berger asked for bail money around town before going to his parents

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by Techman707







The marquee transparency you posted of MFL at the Criterion was from the 1971 run. The 1964 transparency was a little different and IMO looked much better. It was lit by vertical fluorescents that were were sequenced running from the center out to the left & right simultaneously.

At one point I had a color still of the 1964 marquee but I have no idea what's become of it

 

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua




At one point I had a color still of the 1964 marquee but I have no idea what's become of it

I had the marquee on some 8mm film I shot during that trip, but that film is long gone.

 

[GMpasqua]

Quote: Originally Posted by MatthewA
Robert Harris has said right here that My Fair Lady needs more work to be Blu-Ray ready. And you are right, it is reprehensible that CBS allowed it to deteriorate so badly, but at least they saved it before it was too late.


IIRC, they did have to take still-frames of the titles with the restoration because the film elements for that part were in such bad shape that they even considered reshooting them! This was the best compromise available at the time.


What kind of work does My Fair Lady need to be Blu-ray ready? It looked pretty good at the Academy Screening

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

What kind of work does My Fair Lady need to be Blu-ray ready? It looked pretty good at the Academy Screening

The body of the picture is fine as far as I'm concerned. It was just the opening titles and the weaving of the title opticals that didn't look right.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Techman707






The body of the picture is fine as far as I'm concerned. It was just the opening titles and the weaving of the title opticals that didn't look right.

There were also some shots that were scanned digitally that could be redone, like the shot where Eliza is on the couch upset saying "What's to become of me". There was a huge, consistent white speck on her neck that had to be patched out digitally. With the improvements in scanning technology they could redo that.


He wasn't very specific on what needed to be done for the film to be ready for Blu-Ray. Obviously a new master is necessary (a pretty good 1080i one aired on HDNet Movies, but that's not good enough for Blu-Ray, and certainly not for this film). I doubt the restoration negative has accumulated significant further damage in 17 years.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Watched "Hair" for the first time in decades the other day. Liked it a ton when I was 12 - not so much now. Still enjoy a lot of the songs, though the lyrics are usually terrible.


Can't get over the fact this was PG-rated. I know PG was looser in 1979 than today, but this thing has FULL-FRONTAL MALE NUDITY in it, for God's sake! It'd be an R today.


BTW, I wonder if someone can explain logically how Claude ends up like he does:


When the tribe and Sheila get to Nevada to see Claude, they’re not allowed on the base. To circumvent this, Sheila seduces a sergeant in bar, steals his clothes, and has Berger imitate the soldier to get on base. When there, he switches places with Claude and unexpectedly gets shipped off to war, as Claude’s platoon moves out before he returns. The film’s ending shows the gang at a cemetery where we see Berger’s grave.

Even when I was 12 I had problems with these plot developments. So Claude’s been training for weeks – doesn’t anyone realize that Berger is someone else? We get the impression that the other privates know this but go along with it while it’s all fun and games – doesn’t anyone think to say “hey, that’s not Claude” when their superiors tell them to leave? Don’t any of those higher-ups know Claude either? At no point between leaving Nevada, arriving in Vietnam and dying in combat, did Berger ever think to say “you’ve got the wrong guy”? And if he did pass as Claude that whole time, why does his tombstone say “George Berger”?

All excellent questions, in my opinion – and all issues that I’ve had since 1979. I suspect the filmmakers want Berger’s death and apparent facelessness to be an indictment of the great military meat-grinder, but the choices don’t work; they just stretch credulity too much.

 

[GMpasqua]

Spoilers below:



Colin Jacbson - since it all happened so fast Berger probably fell through the cracks.


But when Claude gets back everyone's gone - but yeah, he would be in a lot of trouble - how does he get off the hook for desertion etc.Unless he took off and was in hiding (on route to Canada?)


My biggest questions has always been .. Why does he have to go to New York if he's from Oklahoma and the base is in Nevada? Seems pretty far out of the way for a medical exam

 

[ahollis]

GMpasque-


More than likely he went to Basic Training at Fort Dix - New Jersey. At that time there were three basic training camps, Fort Dix-New Jersey, Fort Polk-Louisiana, and one on the West Coast. Fort Dix was the main base for Airborne Rangers. After he completed basic training, he would have been sent to another post for additional training (AIT) and then orders for deployment. Him going all over the place before final deployment was normal. I was shipped from Mississippi to Fort Dix for Basic Training then to Fort Lee in Virgina for further training.

And yes he would be in trouble.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

Spoilers below:



Colin Jacbson - since it all happened so fast Berger probably fell through the cracks.


But when Claude gets back everyone's gone - but yeah, he would be in a lot of trouble - how does he get off the hook for desertion etc.Unless he took off and was in hiding (on route to Canada?)


My biggest questions has always been .. Why does he have to go to New York if he's from Oklahoma and the base is in Nevada? Seems pretty far out of the way for a medical exam

More spoilers!


Yeah, all that's possible, but it still doesn't make sense. The only slightly logical explanation is that Berger explained everything to the military and they were so pissed off - and interested in punishing a draft dodger - that they said "screw it - you wanted to be Claude, so you're Claude. Here's your gun!"

But then again, why would they want to throw a totally untrained goofball into combat?

And you're right that it makes no sense Claude just gets off without any problems. He can't be on the run - he's there with the others at (presumably) Arlington Cemetery!

I suspect we're analyzing this a lot more than the filmmakers - as I mentioned, I think Berger's just supposed to be a symbol for the ravenous war machine and we're not supposed to worry about logic 'n' stuff.

But it still bugs me - been bugging me 32 years since I was 12! It just makes no sense whatsoever...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by ahollis

GMpasque-


More than likely he went to Basic Training at Fort Dix - New Jersey. At that time there were three basic training camps, Fort Dix-New Jersey, Fort Polk-Louisiana, and one on the West Coast. Fort Dix was the main base for Airborne Rangers. After he completed basic training, he would have been sent to another post for additional training (AIT) and then orders for deployment. Him going all over the place before final deployment was normal. I was shipped from Mississippi to Fort Dix for Basic Training then to Fort Lee in Virgina for further training.

And yes he would be in trouble.

Thanks for the explanation of the geographical topic. I always wondered about that as well.


None of this lets the movie get away with the much-spoilerized massive logic gap, though!

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by ahollis /forum/thread/312077/hair-blu-ray/60#post_3825107

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson /forum/thread/312077/hair-blu-ray/60#post_3825205

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua Even the scenes for the medical exams on Whitehall Street were VERY accurate, I know because I had to go down there in 1965.

 

[Sam Favate]

We see George burn his draft card earlier in the movie, so his name was in the Army's files somewhere. Presumably, he didn't even get to tell anyone who he was til after he was in Vietnam (we see them get on the carrier), at which point, the officers might have done some checking and said "Well, you sure aren't Claude, but we have been looking for you, Mr. Berger."

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Techman707


I simply think the sequence strains credulity to such a degree that it's a distraction. It doesn't ruin the movie, but it creates an unnecessary disconnect in the viewer.


Cripes, it bugged me when I was 12, and I certainly didn't obsess over stuff like that back then...

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson /forum/thread/312077/hair-blu-ray/60#post_3825418

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Techman707 /forum/thread/312077/hair-blu-ray/60#post_3825435