Universal preps 'Flower Drum Song' for November (1 Viewer)

[Joe Lugoff]

It's odd that this is still being debated at this late date. But I've heard that "I can't see their faces" thing before.

I have always argued that the mutilation of movies is the only mutiliation of art that (some) people seem to think is ok. If you went to a museum, and part of each painting was hacked off, and the rest made larger, to show faces in more detail, I think you'd think it was strange, outrageous, weird, stupid and very unfair to the artist.

I would also like to add that some people just don't have an eye for the composition of the frame in movies (especially classic movies), which means they're missing part of what makes movies "art." So when someone says they don't care about the aspect ratio, they're really revealing something about themselves which suggests they lack a certain artistic sense.

As for "Flower Drum Song": I saw it when it was new, in one of those old, beautiful downtown theatres that really don't exist any more. The (Oscar-nominated) cinematography was gorgeous, and I'd hate to miss even a square inch of it.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Bernie, your stance makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If you truly prefer the original ratio on only SOME shots, I just don't know what to say to that except that that is a remarkably misguided way of looking at things.

OAR is ALWAYS paramount, not just some of the time.

 

[BernieV]

I don't want to start a WS/FS war, however eager the righteous may be to defend the true faith. I just want to make the point that I think the mixed AR for the LD version of Flower Drum Song was well done and made sense in a film that might have easily been shot in academy ratio but for the production numbers.

If everyone has a right to their own choices, then permit me mine. All video is a compromise in some sense. Film is intended to be presented on a massive screen in a full sized theater. What one person considers an essential element, another may judge less important. Let us each enjoy these works of entertainment as best we see fit.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Of course you can enjoy your LD of Flower Drum Song to your heart's content. No one will challenge that. You can buy all your DVDs in "full screen" if that's what you choose to do.

When I wrote that your idea wouldn't "swim in these waters" I was just making the point that the HTF is not a place to advocate MAR. It is, in a sense, part of the ground rules.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'm of the opinion that if one doesn't respect the OAR of a film, then they don't respect the film or those who worked hard to bring it to them.

The OAR, and by that I mean the cinematography, of a film is every bit as crucial as the actors, sound, script and narrative, you cannot separate any of those things IMO because to do so would weaken what was intended.

There is a reason they give awards for cinematography.

Bernie, let me ask you, do you think that less attention and affection for the material was paid to the rest of the film by the director and DP? I would hope that you don't think that way, every shot in that film was painstakingly planned and shot in a very specific manner, not just the stage numbers but every second of the film's running time.

IMO your doing the film, a film that you love I assume, an enormous disservice by ignoring what went into it's compositions. As you stated you can watch any way you see fit, however watching 90% of a film in pan and scan and only the remaining 10% in it's OAR is extremely odd.

In post #55 you state that your not yet "sold" on HD, well, how much resolution do you require in order to consider watching a film in it's OAR? Also, standard def DVD offers more than adequate resolution for presenting film's in their OAR's.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

First of all, as I'm sure a moment's reflection will show you, everyone does not have a right to any choice they might make. Many things are against the law, you know. (And mutilating movies should be one of them.) However, everyone does have a right to his opinion -- even though many opinions are misinformed and highly debatable (and that's what Internet forums are for, to debate them.)

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I love you.

Seriously, though, i'm glad that someone came out and said it.

 

[Greg_M]

A lot of people still dislike OAR, (I am NOT one of them - buying the first laserdiscs presented in the letterboxed format back in the late 80's) But if people buy bigger tv screens they won't mind films being presented in their original OAR.

So for those who don't like letterboxing : Buy a bigger TV and don't ruin it for the rest of us. SONY has already stopped pressing widescreen versions of some of there films on DVD and it sucks!

 

[Joe Lugoff]

If only I had spelled "mutilating" correctly. :frowning:

I went back and changed my original message, but the typo still shows up in your reply.

That's what comes from typing when I'm mad!

 

[RobertSiegel]

How about using a different forum for the "aspect ratio" war, this is about Flower Drum Song!

 

[Mike Frezon]

Robert: We're kinda talking about Flower Drum Song here.

I'm well aware we're not directly on-topic. But, this all got started with talk of preferring MAR scenes in FDS.

I think this skirmish in the war is just about over.

 

[Ethan Riley]

What's the big deal about WS vs P&S anyway; if the screen is too wide for you, just press "zoom," make it into a fullscreen movie yourself, and watch it that way. I don't see what the big controversy is.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Ethan:

In the absence of emoticons, I'm going to figure you're not kidding in your comments.

Zooming in on a 2.35:1 movie to fill a 16:9 screen (or a 4:3 screen) does a few things:

--it eliminates part of the image. An image that was carefully plotted out by the director, cinematographer, and others.

--it also, in most cases, distorts the image by decreasing the resolution at which you are viewing the image. It's just like using those digital zooms on a camcorder that will get you incredibly close to a far-away object...but sacrificing the quality of the object you are trying to capture.

In an earlier post you were complaining about a TCM airing of the film re: bad picture and sound quality and looking forward to a restoration. It wouldn't make sense to lobby for the best picture available and then zoom it into worthlessness.

 

[Simon Howson]

For people interested in widescreen style, this film could be interesting. The director, Henry Koster, is of course famous for directing The Robe. From that film until the late 1960s he tended to shoot CinemaScope films using long takes. In fact, he proposed that CinemaScope made film making more theatrical, by emphasising actor movement, in favour to editing.

Some of his 'Scope films such as A Man Called Peter, and The Virgin Queen feature average shot lengths over 15 seconds, which is nearly double the Hollywood norm of the period. However, I noticed that The Story of Ruth (1960) features much faster cutting, in part because Koster started to shoot a lot more close-ups.

It is possible that this was partly influenced by the use of better lenses. Curiously there is no photographic credit on SoR, which suggests to me it was at least party shot with the better Panavision, rather than Bausch & Lomb CinemaScope lenses. These lenses made it easier to produce better quality (less distorted) facial close-ups, and hence, the inclusion of more tight framings lowered the average shot length.

Apparently, Flower Drum Song was shot exclusively with Panavision lenses, so it will be interesting to see if Koster changed his style for the film. The fact it is a musical adds another dimension to things, because I'm yet to see a Koster musical. Such films to tend to feature somewhat longer takes than non-musical features.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Simon: I'm glad you popped in with that information.

Not only is it extremely interesting and will give me something more to think about while I watch Flower Drum Song, but it also goes to show just part of the thought process that goes into movie-making: AR decisions, camera equipment decisions, lenses, filmstock, edits, staging/blocking...so much of which is rendered moot by MAR home presentations. Even the selection of the director him/herself completely changes the final look of the movie as each director would be making different decisions along the way as they would each have a different approach.

Personally, this will be my first time (for all practical purposes) seeing the full Flower Drum Song. I'm a huge fan of Hammerstein (& Rogers). While I may have seen the film in my youth...and I know some of the songs...the experience of watching the film start to end will be new to me. Boy, am I looking forward to it!

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Koster's philosophy of making films in a "theatrical" manner sure is out of date now, where filmmakers seem to avoid that like the plague. However, I prefer that style of filmmaking. Directors such as George Cukor and Mervyn LeRoy made some very "stagy" movies, which enables one to concentrate on the actors, dialogue, sets, costumes, music, etc. more easily than in modern, frentetic MTV-inspired movies, where no image stays on screen for more than a few seconds, if that. (And that MTV style has been around for so long now that I consider it to be trite and old-fashioned.)

 

[RobertSiegel]

Has anyone seen a review of the dvd online yet? Anxious to see if it is really 5.1 which some resports claim, or just 2.0 dolby surround. If I find one I will post a link.

 

[Brent Avery]

I just finished an enjoyable evening watching Flower Drum Song in all it's widescreen glory - and I am indebted to Universal for finally releasing this wonderful Rogers and Hammerstein musical and in doing so giving all of us who love this film a beautiful transfer to dvd. At this time I have not been able to use my projector - that I plan for the weekend with eager anticipation, but what I did see on a 35" crt tv just brought a smile to my face. The colors are so nicely saturated it made the film a entirely new experience. I have owned the pan and scan laserdisc version for some time and will be gladly replacing it! The dvd is leaps and bounds above that version. Detail is great and the various sets have so much color in them it is simply a treat to see. Wonderful blacks as well with night scenes looking especially nice - there was also a complete lack of dirt, speckles and scratches - at least, I could not detect any.
Along with a gorgeous picture is a remixed soundtrack in 5.1 that overall brings out the musical numbers in a very satisfying way. The only limiting factor is, of course, that the recording is 45 years old. In that sense it cannot really compare to film scores of today in sheer dynamics - I guess we all get spoiled in that regard. But that doesn't take away from the musical numbers in anyway. The 5.1 mix is spread evenly across the front and center speakers with dialogue coming firmly from the center. The L&R fronts are used effectively to keep everything open - backup vocals and instruments are well placed and the surrounds help to add some ambience to the music. One cannot expect too much in the way of lower frequencies of course but what is there helps to add some good punch to drums and the bass instruments. This was quite apparent when listening to "Chop Suey" , "Love Look Away" and "Grant Avenue". I didn't do any extensive comparison between the available 2.0 and 5.1 soundtracks except for the opening score during screen credits, and I definitely preferred the 5.1 version. Simply put everything sounds great, the higher frequencies sound detailed and free of distortion. I really do not think most of you will find much to fault if any. I think Universal has managed to do a very good job with this soundtrack.
Last but not least are the Special Features. Alot of information is presented within the five "featurettes". Those interviewed include Cy Lee-the author; Patrick Adiarte- who played Wang Sam; Ted Chapin- President-Rogers & Hammerstein Organization; Pat Suzuki-Linda Low (Broadway Show 1958); Laurence Maslon- Film Historian; and of course Nancy Kwan. It is unfortunate they could not get James Shigeta as well. I'll list their appropiate running times. There are many scenes from the film used in all the features but much is discussed by those interviewed. Well worth viewing. Also, as a passing mention, the dvd case comes with an identical slip cover the has a metallic finish - shield your eyes in bright light!

Features: A Classic Evolves:From Print To Stage To Screen- 19min. 5sec.
Forces Of The East:Casting Flower Drum Song- 9min. 9sec.
The Songs Of Flower Drum Song- 11min.
An All Access Pass To The Sets And Costumes of Flower Drum
Song- 5min. 50sec.
The Legacy Of Rogers & Hammerstein- 4min. 27sec.



For those of you eagerly anticipating this musical, I can only say that if only some others looked as good as this one does. In a way it is a positive note that it was released later than sooner - the studios at least can give us a much better transfer than they were capable of in the past. I will update this post later on the weekend as to how it holds up on the big screen.

 

[Richard M S]

I love musical films, but I have always refrained from watching (or purchasing)the Flower Drum Song laser disc since it was partially in pan and scan, so believe me this properly restored version is definitely one of my most anticipated releases. And with the upcoming release of Yentl almost all of the non-MGM musicals I have wanted to see will be released. Now if Warners would kindly release Fred Astaire in Damsel In Distress and Ginger Rogers in In Person, that would be perfect!

 

[Mike Frezon]

Brent: Thanks for the report!

My appetite is further whetted!