A Few Words About A few words about...™ It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Peter Apruzzese]

I'm going to the Lincoln Center show tonight and I am delighted that they're showing the general release version. My wife is going with me and the faux reconstruction is NOT for civilians. It's fine to have on video for reference, but brevity IS the soul of wit - even 154 minutes of brevity!
BTW, since it's unlikely we'll ever have the original radio calls on a home edition, here's a recreation I recorded (TALK ABOUT FAUX!!!!) for a screening at the Loew's Jersey a few years ago. I did my best to approximate the voices of Jenkins, Harris, Birch and Weinrib.
http://chelsearialtostudios.com/police_calls.mp3

They are showing the general release version, but they do also have the radio calls. Heard from someone who saw it the other day that they mistakenly played the radio calls as an ersatz entr'acte after intermission instead of during the intermission. You should mention it to the manager before the show to see if they'll do it correctly.

 

[Ray Faiola]

Well, frankly, I think more people will hear them as an ent'racte. Anyway, I don't know Mr. Reade and I wouldn't want to presume to tell him how to run his thee-ayter. But thanks for the heads-up Pete. Looking forward to it!
AFTER SCREENING:
First of all, my wife was in hysterics during the entire show. I had no idea she could laugh for that long. The print was excellent for a non-IB and the track was outstanding (although at times the voice mix was a bit low). The Academy leaders had been moved from a couple of their original reels, so there was incorrect advance track at a couple of changeovers.
The police calls were great. They played three sets at least three times throughout the intermission. The voices included Charles McGraw, Stacey Harris, Vic Perrin, Lennie Weinrib and James Flavin. I think Paul Birch was in there too but I'm not sure. Definitely not Allen Jenkins.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

The 154 minute version has always felt truncated to me, but I grew up with the Laserdisc version for years before I saw the short version.

 

[Robert Harris]

Well, frankly, I think more people will hear them as an ent'racte. Anyway, I don't know Mr. Reade and I wouldn't want to presume to tell him how to run his thee-ayter. But thanks for the heads-up Pete. Looking forward to it!
AFTER SCREENING:
First of all, my wife was in hysterics during the entire show. I had no idea she could laugh for that long. The print was excellent for a non-IB and the track was outstanding (although at times the voice mix was a bit low). The Academy leaders had been moved from a couple of their original reels, so there was incorrect advance track at a couple of changeovers.
The police calls were great. They played three sets at least three times throughout the intermission. The voices included Charles McGraw, Stacey Harris, Vic Perrin, Lennie Weinrib and James Flavin. I think Paul Birch was in there too but I'm not sure. Definitely not Allen Jenkins.

The police radio calls do not fit this cut of the film, and should not be played. Extremely distressing that MGM has no idea what they are or how they fit into the film.
I want to use the term "idiots," but will refrain from doing so. They were to be played ONCE, as part of the film's storyline, just prior to the entr'acte.
RAH

 

[Ray Faiola]

Well, this version originally had no intermission - correct? If they stick in the intermission then I have no objection to the police calls being heard (once) while folks wait for the seats to fill up again. When I play the film (I have a 16 IB/Scope) I use the intermission. It's the only true break in the action (fade-out and all) inthe film. And I enjoy the return of the chorus instead of the sustained chord on the fade-out.

 

[performing arts]

With Ethel Merman ,Miky Rooney and friends Mad Mad is still fresh as ever ..

 

[Techman707]

Well, frankly, I think more people will hear them as an ent'racte. Anyway, I don't know Mr. Reade and I wouldn't want to presume to tell him how to run his thee-ayter. But thanks for the heads-up Pete. Looking forward to it!
AFTER SCREENING:
First of all, my wife was in hysterics during the entire show. I had no idea she could laugh for that long. The print was excellent for a non-IB and the track was outstanding (although at times the voice mix was a bit low). The Academy leaders had been moved from a couple of their original reels, so there was incorrect advance track at a couple of changeovers.
The police calls were great. They played three sets at least three times throughout the intermission. The voices included Charles McGraw, Stacey Harris, Vic Perrin, Lennie Weinrib and James Flavin. I think Paul Birch was in there too but I'm not sure. Definitely not Allen Jenkins.

While I agree that the audience really enjoyed the film, your take is a bit different than mine.
If 70mm, as a format, really looked as bad as what was shown last night, it would have been junked before it ever got started. I’m not sure where to place the blame, on the theatre and their poor projectionists or the print. The best thing about this run of the mill theatre is its seats. After that, it’s all down hill.
The entire film had a muddy look. While part might have been because the light output being well below SMPTE standards, the print itself had no sharpness and looked brownish, as though it was made from a poorly timed 35mm element. Even 70mm prints that are liquid gate blowups look better than this. The print itself was dirty throughout, especially at reel ends and had EXTRA scratched in cue marks in addition to the black Technicolor cues. We would have definitely been better off watching a good original 35mm Technicolor scope print. The only thing worse than the out of focus middle of the picture on BOTH projectors throughout the film, was the poorly equalized sound that was much louder on the right channel than the left and center channels. However, they made up for the poor sound by blasting it so loud (and I don’t mean “clean” loud), some people near me had to cover their ears at certain points in the film.
I guess that the last time I’ll pay $35 to park, plus the cost of tickets to see a film there! If anyone else was there last night, I’d like to hear their opinion.

 

[haineshisway]

While I agree that the audience really enjoyed the film, your take is a bit different than mine.
If 70mm, as a format, really looked as bad as what was shown last night, it would have been junked before it ever got started. I’m not sure where to place the blame, on the theatre and their poor projectionists or the print. The best thing about this run of the mill theatre is its seats. After that, it’s all down hill.
The entire film had a muddy look. While part might have been because the light output being well below SMPTE standards, the print itself had no sharpness and looked brownish, as though it was made from a poorly timed 35mm element. Even 70mm prints that are liquid gate blowups look better than this. The print itself was dirty throughout, especially at reel ends and had EXTRA scratched in cue marks in addition to the black Technicolor cues. We would have definitely been better off watching a good original 35mm Technicolor scope print. The only thing worse than the out of focus middle of the picture on BOTH projectors throughout the film, was the poorly equalized sound that was much louder on the right channel than the left and center channels. However, they made up for the poor sound by blasting it so loud (and I don’t mean “clean” loud), some people near me had to cover their ears at certain points in the film.
I guess that the last time I’ll pay $35 to park, plus the cost of tickets to see a film there! If anyone else was there last night, I’d like to hear their opinion.

Actually, you wouldn't have been better off watching an IB print from back in the day because those prints, as you know, were timed knowing they'd be projected with carbon arc projectors - which is a whole different ball o' wax, light-wise, than the current lamp houses. IB prints projected on today's projectors look yellow and gross.

 

[Techman707]

Actually, you wouldn't have been better off watching an IB print from back in the day because those prints, as you know, were timed knowing they'd be projected with carbon arc projectors - which is a whole different ball o' wax, light-wise, than the current lamp houses. IB prints projected on today's projectors look yellow and gross.

I can assure you that an original 35mm print would have been much better than this print....even with xenon. The color spectrum of a properly adjusted xenon lamp virtually identical to a carbon arc and only an expert would be able to tell any difference. If you saw the same print and projection I saw of Mad World the other night, I’m sure you would feel the same. It has to be one of the worst 70mm prints I’ve ever seen or projected, there were no real whites and poor resolution (aside from being out of focus in the center.
Having run both 70mm & 35mm versions during the original run, I can’t imagine what this print was made from. One thing is for sure though, even a DVD looks better. To add insult to injury, the changeover from the 6th to the seventh reel was made out of frame. I can tell you one thing, If that happened years ago on a roadshow picture at any of the Broadway theatres, the projectionist(s) would have been fired.
As for print timing, I don’t know how they’re timing prints today, before I retired when there were many theatres still running carbon arc lamps as well as xenon, I can assure you that they never had dual inventory of prints for carbon and xenon (with the exception of specially timed prints for Radio City. In fact, if a carbon arc isn’t kept in proper alignment, the color temperature can vary, causing the picture to take on a brownish red hue. Naturally, if you don’t use a high enough wattage xenon bulb (or the bulb is worn out and blackened) for a given screen size, you won’t have the proper Foot Lamberts on the screen, which can also make whites appear muddy and brownish

 

[DP 70]

Also if this was projected in 2.76.1 using an original Ultra Panavision lens the light and focus would be affected in not looked after, as they must be as least 46 years old.

 

[haineshisway]

Perhaps Mr. Harris can chime in here, but I recall reading that there are two 70mm prints floating around and that are used for screenings - one of them, which I've seen at the Dome, is terrific - the other is the one you saw and something clearly went wrong with it. They should obviously retire that print immediately.
I've never seen a Xenon light source that looked like a carbon arc light source, but you have more knowledge that I on that point so I'm sure you're correct.

 

[Techman707]

Also if this was projected in 2.76.1 using an original Ultra Panavision lens the light and focus would be affected in not looked after, as they must be as least 46 years old.

The focus problem in this case was simply a matter of BOTHERING to turn the knob and balancing the focus across the screen. I'm pretty sure that a UP anamorphic lens attachments are still available from Schnieder (if you can afford their prices ) if you need one. A number of years ago I needed an anamorphic lens to go on the front of a 4" 70mm prime lens for a special installation and Schneider supplied a pair of lenses that were originally designed for "Cinemascope 55". They looked GREAT and worked perfectly. The only drawback was that they cost $25,000 for the pair.

 

[Techman707]

Perhaps Mr. Harris can chime in here, but I recall reading that there are two 70mm prints floating around and that are used for screenings - one of them, which I've seen at the Dome, is terrific - the other is the one you saw and something clearly went wrong with it. They should obviously retire that print immediately.
I've never seen a Xenon light source that looked like a carbon arc light source, but you have more knowledge that I on that point so I'm sure you're correct.

I’m really not a bug about these things. However, because I have COPD/emphysema and I’m normally on oxygen. When I go to the trouble of taking double dose of steroids to enable myself to breathe for short periods without the oxygen and drag myself (actually friends dragging me) from Queens into Manhattan, hoping to see my FAVORITE picture in 70mm with a live audience, for what will certainly the last time in my life, I expect to see REAL 70mm (with 70mm resolution) properly presented. I only wish I could have seen it when it was run at the Dome (but not this print). Although the last film I saw there was “Hair” in 1978. The Dome is a great theatre with great projection.
The “Film Society” of Lincoln Center? Hell, they “claim” to be a film society? Why would there be, or would ANYONE join a film society like that, if not to see classic films as they were originally meant to be presented? Having earned a living my entire life from movie theatres and projection equipment installations, I hate to say this (and can’t believe I am saying it), but, since EVERYTHING is available on Blu-ray or DVD, if they’re going to run a dirty print and not focus it, why not just stay at home and watch a BRIGHT, SHARP and CLEAN Blu-ray or DVD? As for projectionists that find it necessary to SCRATCH new cue marks onto a 70mm print that already has them printed in, after they have their eyes checked, they should have their hands cut off.
As for any issue of xenon vs. carbon arc (which is probably what killed my lungs), if the size of the xenon bulb used is matched properly to the screen size, color temperature shouldn’t be an issue. Properly projected, Mad World happens to be a VERY bright looking film. The screen at the Walter Reade Theatre isn’t even that large for 70mm, so Ft Lamberts shouldn’t even be an issue if the xenon bulb is properly sized, properly adjusted and the bulb envelope not blackened. All I can say is that if they were still shooting in 70mm and a director used that theatre to premiere a picture, he would have a stroke when he saw what his film looked like (of course it would never get that far, it would be cancelled after the technical screening).

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Frank Angel, a respected and knowledgeable operator and exhibitor, just shared his comments on the 35mm Forum:
I don't know which print this was, but it certainly had color issues. The color was muddy and muted and much too warm. In addition, this was the WORST presentation of a 70mm film I have ever seen. Here is the post I placed on Film-Tech:
It was at the prestigious Walter Reade Theatre at Lincoln Center. They were screening a number of 70mm titles and I went with a long-time projectionist/tech friend of mine to the 6pm screening. According to my friend, the WR has TWO Local 306 projectionists on board for all 70mm screenings.
I have been to other 70mm screening of IAMMMMW, at least three in 70mm, one in real Ultra Panavision on a deeply curved screen; I have run 35mm mag prints of it and even have seen a screening in 16mm IBT anamorphic. My friend, who is an avid fan of this title, also ran it for many weeks in its initial release and in subsequent rereleases as well, so both of us are quite familiar with the title. We both agreed after the show that if this is the best the Walter Reade can muster with 70mm, they should just pack it in and leave live ballet and symphonies to Lincoln Center and leave motion picture exhibition to venues that know what they are doing.
First off, with TWO union operators, they can't go on screen IN FRAME? With TWO operators, they leave the dowser opened for the overture music so all the white scratches and slash marks dance across the black screen? -- and there were PLENTY of them. And at this so-called "prestige" creme-de-la-creme venue, they don't have curtains so the audiences sits looking at a naked screen (the MORTAL SIN of exhibition when there was such a thing as showmanship not all that long ago), and now for the overture, the lights are dimmed so all the scratches and blotches show even more pronounced and when I tell you it looked like they had dragged that first 3 minutes of film overture over the projection booth floor, I am not exaggerating.
OK, that's bad enough, but now comes the opening credits and they are sharp on the corners and OUT OF FOCUS in the center of the screen. Never did either me or my friend see ANY attempt to focus the picture throughout the run. It stayed that way throughout. I did complain, but it was like taking to someone who smiled but you know they weren't going to do a thing about it. Evidently, they didn't.
Next we listen to terribly harsh and strident sound. It seemed unbalanced right to left, but that aside, it had no bottom end at all. Can you say transistor radio sound? And I KNOW this film and this mix -- it has PLENTY of bottom end; that rich music score should be FELT in your belly. How did they compensate? They turned the level up much too loud. You know how painful screechy, high frequency sound is when it's too loud? Just go to the Walter Reade and you will find out.
There are no visible surrounds on the theatre walls; the only time I thought I heard any surround at all was briefly, and that could very well have just been that the stereo imaging from the screen speakers can sometimes give the illusion of coming from on the side or behing you -- it happens all the time with my TV. It certainly didn't sound like the surround content that I remember is in this film.
Then comes the overall look of this print. I can't tell you if it was the print or the xenon adjustment, but everything was to much too warm -- it had a dirty look to it. As my friend pointed out, there were no whites. When I tell you, if you didn't know this was a 70mm print, you would swear you were watching 35mm -- it looked that ordinary (although I could have gotten better focus even with 35mm).
The WR screen can't be more than 40ft width, so with 70mm, this image should have been RAZOR sharp, bright, practically grainless and with deep, saturated colors. This was the opposite on each count. Now yes, this could have been the print (that's what managers will always say when you complain), but how do you account for coming out of intermission out of frame? Was that the print too? -- supposedly the top projectionists at a premiere house in Manhattan and he was out of frame, not to mention at the end of the final credits he let leader crap show as well! I have NEVER seen a 70mm presentation this mediocre.
Worst thing of it all, these are probably the very last times anyone will get to see these 70mm prints and to have the experience for that audience so much less than what it should have been is shameful. Give me a spanking new 35mm print and I could have done better than they did. Shameful indeed.

 

[Charles Smith]

Sickening.

Bob, are people posting there about any of the other 70mm presentations at the Walter Reade?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I agree. I'm SO glad I didn't make the trip in from New Jersey. I would have been very disappointed.
Some others have posted. My friend went to see LORD JIM and thought it looked good. He's not terribly critical of presentation though.
I agree with Frank's comments. If they're going to do it, by all means do it correctly!

 

[Frankie_A]

Agreed -- prints were not differently timed for carbon arc or xenon -- if you ever saw a spectrum analysis of both, the only difference is that xenon has some very ugly spikes in the the green and blue areas whereas carbon arc is a smoother waveform, but the xenon spikes are very narrow and not anything that changes the overall color temp very much to the eye; essentially they are the same so print timing was never required to be any different for either.
As for the screening at the Walter Reade last week at 6pm, I was there as well and agree 100% with Techman707 on all points -- the presentation was ATROCIOUS. While I have never run 70mm, I certainly have run 35mm prints and know what this title can and SHOULD look Iike, and this presentation certainly wasn't that! I posted this on 35mmFForum.com:
It was at the prestigious Walter Reade Theatre at Lincoln Center. They were screening a number of 70mm titles and I went with a long-time projectionist/tech friend of mine to the 6pm screening. According to my friend, the WR has TWO Local 306 projectionists on board for all 70mm screenings.
I have been to other 70mm screening of IAMMMMW, at least three in 70mm, one in real Ultra Panavision on a deeply curved screen; I have run 35mm mag prints of it and even have seen a screening in 16mm IBT anamorphic. My friend, who is an avid fan of this title, also ran it for many weeks in its initial release and in subsequent rereleases as well, so both of us are quite familiar with the title. We both agreed after the show that if this is the best the Walter Reade can muster with 70mm, they should just pack it in and leave live ballet and symphonies to Lincoln Center and leave motion picture exhibition to venues that know what they are doing.
First off, with TWO union operators, they can't go on screen IN FRAME? With TWO operators, they leave the dowser opened for the overture music so all the white scratches and slash marks dance across the black screen? -- and there were PLENTY of them. And at this so-called "prestige" creme-de-la-creme venue, they don't have curtains so the audiences sits looking at a naked screen (the MORTAL SIN of exhibition when there was such a thing as showmanship not all that long ago), and now for the overture, the lights are dimmed so all the scratches and blotches show even more pronounced and when I tell you it looked like they had dragged that first 3 minutes of film overture over the projection booth floor, I am not exaggerating.
OK, that's bad enough, but now comes the opening credits and they are sharp on the corners and OUT OF FOCUS in the center of the screen. Never did either me or my friend see ANY attempt to focus the picture throughout the run. It stayed that way throughout. I did complain, but it was like talking to someone who smiled but you know they weren't going to do a thing about it. Evidently, they didn't.
Next we listen to terribly harsh and strident sound. It seemed unbalanced right to left, but that aside, it had no bottom end at all. Can you say transistor radio sound? And I KNOW this film and this mix -- it has PLENTY of bottom end; that rich music score should be FELT in your belly. How did they compensate? They turned the level up much too loud. You know how painful screechy, high frequency sound is when it's too loud? Just go to the Walter Reade and you will find out.
There are no visible surrounds on the theatre walls; the only time I thought I heard any surround at all was briefly, and that could very well have just been that the stereo imaging from the screen speakers can sometimes give the illusion of coming from on the side or behing you -- it happens all the time with my TV. It certainly didn't sound like the surround content that I remember is in this film.
Then comes the overall look of this print. I can't tell you if it was the print or the xenon adjustment, but everything was to much too warm -- it had a dirty look to it. As my friend pointed out, there were no whites. When I tell you, if you didn't know this was a 70mm print, you would swear you were watching 35mm -- it looked that ordinary (although I could have gotten better focus even with 35mm).
The WR screen can't be more than 40ft width, so with 70mm, this image should have been RAZOR sharp, bright, practically grainless and with deep, saturated colors. This was the opposite on each count. Now yes, this could have been the print (that's what managers will always say when you complain), but how do you account for coming out of intermission out of frame? Was that the print too? -- supposedly the top projectionists at a premiere house in Manhattan and he was out of frame, not to mention at the end of the final credits he let leader crap show as well! I have NEVER seen a 70mm presentation this mediocre.
Worst thing of it all, these are probably the very last times anyone will get to see these 70mm prints and to have the experience for that audience so much less than what it should have been is shameful. Give me a spanking new 35mm print and I could have done better than they did. Shameful indeed.

 

[Charles Smith]

I'd wanted to get to several of them, but only made it to PLAYTIME, so I'd be very interested to read someone like Frank Angel's evaluation of that one.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

How was Playtime?
I wanted to go to several but $$$ issues kept me away.

 

[Paul Rossen]

All of these reports of less than stellar 70mm presentations do not surprise me. Unfortunately, at least here in NY there hasn't been a good 70mm presentation(that I've witnessed) since one of the numerous restored Lawrence of Arabia runs at the Ziegfeld. I've seen two 35mm revivals at the Walter Reade. First The Sand Pebbles where the sound blasted at very high decibels. Second where Kingdom of Heaven was advertised as the 'Roadshow version'. It wasn't. Also during the Ben-Hur showing in 8k, 4k or 2k depending on the source the Alice Tully showing was a disaster with lip sync problems for about 1/3 of the film. Just horrible. And that is the reason I avoided the recent showing of LOA at the same venue.
I had seen every 70mm and Roadshow film in NYC from 1960 on ...which looking back must have been the mecca of Roadshow theaters in the country showing 70mm with wide screens. Some of the screens were very wide indeed. The Loew's Cinerama/Capitol probably had the largest screen with the Loew's State showing of THE Bible the second largest. But the size of the screens was not the only special 'thing' when it came to the presentations at the Criterion, DeMille, The Rivoli, Warner/Cinerama as well as the aforementioned Capitol and Loews State. These theaters knew how to put on a good show. Overtures and curtain raising were properly timed. The prints were immaculate. Sound presentations were state of the art(for that time).
Unfortunately, those days will never return but theaters do know how to put on a good show with careful preparations. The Museum of Moving Image had a 70mm program some time ago. If they have another such program I'll try that venue and see how it goes. I'd rather have my 'memories' than spend the time, effort and money in less than stellar presentations. Especially if there is a good Blu-ray available!