Disclosure: This page contains affiliate links. If you purchase a product from one of our links, we could receive a commission from the seller. Rest assured, we only recommend products we believe in, and all opinions are 100% truthful. Learn More »

I smell a rat.

I’ve always had a feeling that we were getting absolute honesty from Warner Archive as to film elements, but now…

There’s a huge problem that I’m seeing with For Me and My Gal, a vaudeville-inspired musical from 1942. It’s in black & white, and has a decent cast and some nice musicals numbers.

All’s well, but viewing the disc in projection, I’m sensing a…

let’s call it a bit of a deception on the part of WB.

I know, as a fact, that the films original cut camera negative was lost in the Rochester fire, and what is being pushed upon us is something purportedly derived from a fine grain – but it doesn’t look correct.

I’m presuming that there may be a bit of grain management, which has the disc appearing to be what it isn’t.

But I’m having other problems.

The film appears too highly resolved.

The gray scale is too perfect.

Black levels are too rich.

The image is too stabilized.

Shadow detail is far too intact.

I’m believe we’re being hit with a fraudulent release, and that this isn’t a dupe from a fine grain. We’re being set up.

What I’m seeing looks like it’s right off the camera original.

Or possibly a ghost.

Warner Archive should be ashamed of themselves.

For Me and My Gal is way too perfect, and we’ll not be treated in this fashion.

This is a fun film all these years after its original release. Bosley Crowther, one of the great curmudgeons was not enthused.

”Miss Garland is a saucy little singer and dances passably. She handles such age-flavored ballads as “After You’ve Gone,” “Till We Meet Again” and “Smiles” with Music-hall lustiness, and sings and dances nicely with Mr. Kelly in the title song. She also teams with George Murphy to do quite well by “Oh, You Beautiful Doll!” But she is not a dramatic actress. She still sniffles and pouts like a fretful child. And Mr. Kelly, who has a dancer’s talents, has been pressed a bit too far in his first film role. He has been forced to act brassy like Pal Joey during the early part of the film, and then turn about and play a modest imitation of Sergeant York at the end. The transition is both written and played badly. Mr. Kelly gets embarrassingly balled up.”

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 2.0 monaral)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD – Without a doubt

Works up-rezzed to 4k – You better believe it!

Recommended

RAH
Post Disclaimer

Some of our content may contain marketing links, which means we will receive a commission for purchases made via those links. In our editorial content, these affiliate links appear automatically, and our editorial teams are not influenced by our affiliate partnerships. We work with several providers (currently Skimlinks and Amazon) to manage our affiliate relationships. You can find out more about their services by visiting their sites.

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

View thread (22 replies)

RobertMG

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
2,741
Real Name
Robert M. Grippo
I smell a rat.

I've always had a feeling that we were getting absolute honesty from Warner Archive as to film elements, but now...

There's a huge problem that I'm seeing with For Me and My Gal, a vaudeville-inspired musical from 1942. It's in black & white, and has a decent cast and some nice musicals numbers.

All's well, but viewing the disc in projection, I'm sensing a...

let's call it a bit of a deception on the part of WB.

I know, as a fact, that the films original cut camera negative was lost in the Rochester fire, and what is being pushed upon us is something purportedly derived from a fine grain - but it doesn't look correct.

I'm presuming that there may be a bit of grain management, which has the disc appearing to be what it isn't.

But I'm having other problems.

The film appears too highly resolved.

The gray scale is too perfect.

Black levels are too rich.

The image is too stabilized.

Shadow detail is far too intact.

I'm believe we're being hit with a fraudulent release, and that this isn't a dupe from a fine grain. We're being set up.

What I'm seeing looks like it's right off the camera original.

Or possibly a ghost.

Warner Archive should be ashamed of themselves.

For Me and My Gal is way too perfect, and we'll not be treated in this fashion.

This is a fun film all these years after its original release. Bosley Crowther, one of the great curmudgeons was not enthused.

"Miss Garland is a saucy little singer and dances passably. She handles such age-flavored ballads as "After You've Gone," "Till We Meet Again" and "Smiles" with Music-hall lustiness, and sings and dances nicely with Mr. Kelly in the title song. She also teams with George Murphy to do quite well by "Oh, You Beautiful Doll!" But she is not a dramatic actress. She still sniffles and pouts like a fretful child. And Mr. Kelly, who has a dancer's talents, has been pressed a bit too far in his first film role. He has been forced to act brassy like Pal Joey during the early part of the film, and then turn about and play a modest imitation of Sergeant York at the end. The transition is both written and played badly. Mr. Kelly gets embarrassingly balled up."

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 2.0 monaral)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD – Without a doubt

Works up-rezzed to 4k - You better believe it!

Recommended

RAH
Some of us here refer to Mr. Crowther as "THE" Bosely Crowther. he really had quite a few missfires in his reviews
 

Joel Arndt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
3,844
Location
The Western Reserve, Cleveland, OH
Real Name
Joel Arndt
So looking forward to this release and glad to hear it's what we've come to expect from the WAC.

And I love your dry sense of humor Mr. Harris.

As far as Judy Garland's performances are concerned? For me it's summed up in the song written by Cole Porter for The Pirate which she introduced, You Can Do No Wrong.
 

Will Krupp

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
3,707
Location
PA
Real Name
Will
Some of us here refer to Mr. Crowther as "THE" Bosely Crowther. he really had quite a few missfires in his reviews

He DID deign to proclaim from high (as in high up in the New York Times Building) that she dances "passably" (!) which is passably nice, in a backhanded sort of way.

But yeah, mostly he was just a curmudgeonly snake.
 
Last edited:

DarkVader

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
186
Real Name
Carlos
I smell a rat.

I've always had a feeling that we were getting absolute honesty from Warner Archive as to film elements, but now...

There's a huge problem that I'm seeing with For Me and My Gal, a vaudeville-inspired musical from 1942. It's in black & white, and has a decent cast and some nice musicals numbers.

All's well, but viewing the disc in projection, I'm sensing a...

let's call it a bit of a deception on the part of WB.

I know, as a fact, that the films original cut camera negative was lost in the Rochester fire, and what is being pushed upon us is something purportedly derived from a fine grain - but it doesn't look correct.

I'm presuming that there may be a bit of grain management, which has the disc appearing to be what it isn't.

But I'm having other problems.

The film appears too highly resolved.

The gray scale is too perfect.

Black levels are too rich.

The image is too stabilized.

Shadow detail is far too intact.

I'm believe we're being hit with a fraudulent release, and that this isn't a dupe from a fine grain. We're being set up.

What I'm seeing looks like it's right off the camera original.

Or possibly a ghost.

Warner Archive should be ashamed of themselves.

For Me and My Gal is way too perfect, and we'll not be treated in this fashion.

This is a fun film all these years after its original release. Bosley Crowther, one of the great curmudgeons was not enthused.

"Miss Garland is a saucy little singer and dances passably. She handles such age-flavored ballads as "After You've Gone," "Till We Meet Again" and "Smiles" with Music-hall lustiness, and sings and dances nicely with Mr. Kelly in the title song. She also teams with George Murphy to do quite well by "Oh, You Beautiful Doll!" But she is not a dramatic actress. She still sniffles and pouts like a fretful child. And Mr. Kelly, who has a dancer's talents, has been pressed a bit too far in his first film role. He has been forced to act brassy like Pal Joey during the early part of the film, and then turn about and play a modest imitation of Sergeant York at the end. The transition is both written and played badly. Mr. Kelly gets embarrassingly balled up."

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 2.0 monaral)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD – Without a doubt

Works up-rezzed to 4k - You better believe it!

Recommended

RAH
You almost got me there Mr. Harris! Thanks for this review! :)
 

Kanny Daye

Grip
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
18
Real Name
Joseph Marten
Is Marta Eggerth's cleavage still blurred on the Blu-Ray?
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,826
Is Marta Eggerth's cleavage still blurred on the Blu-Ray?

I can look tomorrow when I fire up my TV again, but given that the blurry boobs were part of the original theatrical release, I'm betting the answer is yes.
 

lark144

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
1,796
Real Name
mark gross
He DID deign to proclaim from high (as in high up in the New York Times Building) that she dances "passably" (!) which is passably nice, in a backhanded sort of way.

But yeah, mostly he was just a curmudgeonly snake.
But he's so curmudgeonly, it's kind of entertaining, especially those long run-on sentences that go nowhere in particular, as if he's pounding the typewriter attempting to ward off the effects of a three day drunk. If you have no idea what you're talking about, the best solution is to attack everything with equal contempt. Makes you appear to be an expert. And when he does actually LIKE something, it's so incredibly lame, like Red Skelton's comedy routines in ZIEGFELD FOLLIES, which haven't aged well at all. And he also has a tendency to raise a moist finger to see where the winds of critical opinion are blowing--for instance, panning PSYCHO and then after all the praise and box office, placing it at number one in his ten best list in December, or insisting Doris Day had no talent, and then praising her to the skies thereafter. And yet, in spite of all that, or maybe because of it, I really enjoy reading him.
 

lark144

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
1,796
Real Name
mark gross
"But I'm having other problems.

The film appears too highly resolved.

The gray scale is too perfect.

Black levels are too rich.

The image is too stabilized.

Shadow detail is far too intact.

I'm believe we're being hit with a fraudulent release, and that this isn't a dupe from a fine grain. We're being set up."

Mr. Harris, are you proposing a boycott of future Warner Archive Blu-rays because they're too good to be true? You might have a point there. Perfection is very wearying, especially when it's not supposed to be. But it's good enough for me, even if it's perfect. After all, I think the wait will be too long for them to issue a corrected disc of lesser quality. So I guess I'm stuck with this one.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
15,807
Real Name
Robert Harris
"But I'm having other problems.

The film appears too highly resolved.

The gray scale is too perfect.

Black levels are too rich.

The image is too stabilized.

Shadow detail is far too intact.

I'm believe we're being hit with a fraudulent release, and that this isn't a dupe from a fine grain. We're being set up."

Mr. Harris, are you proposing a boycott of future Warner Archive Blu-rays because they're too good to be true? You might have a point there. Perfection is very wearying, especially when it's not supposed to be. But it's good enough for me, even if it's perfect. After all, I think the wait will be too long for them to issue a corrected disc of lesser quality. So I guess I'm stuck with this one.
No boycott.

Just a bit of re-thinking.

Another line may be added to the scores, for situations in which digital technology is used well on a problematic dupe, to create something that appears far better than it should - yet not appearing totally original.

In some cases, better.
 

Kanny Daye

Grip
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
18
Real Name
Joseph Marten
I can look tomorrow when I fire up my TV again, but given that the blurry boobs were part of the original theatrical release, I'm betting the answer is yes.

Many thanks. From all what RAH wrote, I also assume the blurring will be there. As such issues are done in the post-production, there would have been a chance that it was absent from the original negative or the fine grain but only present in the release prints. But as there's no negative and no fine grain it would be another miracle if the blurring is gone. In spite of what they did to make this release look like as it looks, "re-creating" Marta Eggerth's cleavage nevertheless would have been a little too much effort for Warners I guess...
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
15,807
Real Name
Robert Harris
Many thanks. From all what RAH wrote, I also assume the blurring will be there. As such issues are done in the post-production, there would have been a chance that it was absent from the original negative or the fine grain but only present in the release prints. But as there's no negative and no fine grain it would be another miracle if the blurring is gone. In spite of what they did to make this release look like as it looks, "re-creating" Marta Eggerth's cleavage nevertheless would have been a little too much effort for Warners I guess...
Whatever this may be, it would have been in the conformed negative.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,826
Many thanks. From all what RAH wrote, I also assume the blurring will be there. As such issues are done in the post-production, there would have been a chance that it was absent from the original negative or the fine grain but only present in the release prints. But as there's no negative and no fine grain it would be another miracle if the blurring is gone. In spite of what they did to make this release look like as it looks, "re-creating" Marta Eggerth's cleavage nevertheless would have been a little too much effort for Warners I guess...

Wouldn't people complain that they didn't represent the original film if they unblurred the cleavage, though?

The blur is part of the released film. Kinda feels like it should stay that way!
 

Glenn__Kenny

Auditioning
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
1
Real Name
Glenn Kenny
I smell a rat.

I've always had a feeling that we were getting absolute honesty from Warner Archive as to film elements, but now...

There's a huge problem that I'm seeing with For Me and My Gal, a vaudeville-inspired musical from 1942. It's in black & white, and has a decent cast and some nice musicals numbers.

All's well, but viewing the disc in projection, I'm sensing a...

let's call it a bit of a deception on the part of WB.

I know, as a fact, that the films original cut camera negative was lost in the Rochester fire, and what is being pushed upon us is something purportedly derived from a fine grain - but it doesn't look correct.

I'm presuming that there may be a bit of grain management, which has the disc appearing to be what it isn't.

But I'm having other problems.

The film appears too highly resolved.

The gray scale is too perfect.

Black levels are too rich.

The image is too stabilized.

Shadow detail is far too intact.

I'm believe we're being hit with a fraudulent release, and that this isn't a dupe from a fine grain. We're being set up.

What I'm seeing looks like it's right off the camera original.

Or possibly a ghost.

Warner Archive should be ashamed of themselves.

For Me and My Gal is way too perfect, and we'll not be treated in this fashion.

This is a fun film all these years after its original release. Bosley Crowther, one of the great curmudgeons was not enthused.

"Miss Garland is a saucy little singer and dances passably. She handles such age-flavored ballads as "After You've Gone," "Till We Meet Again" and "Smiles" with Music-hall lustiness, and sings and dances nicely with Mr. Kelly in the title song. She also teams with George Murphy to do quite well by "Oh, You Beautiful Doll!" But she is not a dramatic actress. She still sniffles and pouts like a fretful child. And Mr. Kelly, who has a dancer's talents, has been pressed a bit too far in his first film role. He has been forced to act brassy like Pal Joey during the early part of the film, and then turn about and play a modest imitation of Sergeant York at the end. The transition is both written and played badly. Mr. Kelly gets embarrassingly balled up."

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 2.0 monaral)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD – Without a doubt

Works up-rezzed to 4k - You better believe it!

Recommended

RAH
Watched this the other night with the missus and we were charmed despite the various infelicities of the scenario. Must have had a bit to do with those ingenue leads….

Interesting…while Berkeley of course did not get to do his usual stuff here his use of moving camera and particularly his crane work are really beautiful as is his wont. Just immaculate staging and shooting.