A Few Words About A few words about...™ Khartoum & Zulu -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[lark144]

That's a viewpoint which the British critics didn't go along with at the time. When the film was released in the UK the majority opinion of the major newspaper critics was that Olivier gave a very hammy performance whilst Heston was praised (and surprised the critics) for his performance.Seeing the film in Cinerama it seemed very plodding but I think I had hoped for more of an action film. Seeing it again more recently in HD on TV it was better than I remembered, partly due I think to a realisation that such epic historical films unfortunately are not made today.

Primed by the article about the desert battle scenes in TRUE MAGAZINE, i was also expecting more of an action film, but was completely wrapped up in the film's tragic story of complimentary yet antagonistic personalities I also though Mr. Heston's performance as Gordon was deeper and more three-dimensional than in 55 Days in Peking, which is much more of an adventure film, and less about the actual people involved and the changes they go through.

 

[ROclockCK]

That's a viewpoint which the British critics didn't go along with at the time. When the film was released in the UK the majority opinion of the major newspaper critics was that Olivier gave a very hammy performance whilst Heston was praised (and surprised the critics) for his performance.

Interesting critical reaction Douglas. Now, Olivier in Inchon is something I would tag "hammy"...but here, I thought he was remarkably restrained. Heck, for long stretches of shots, he remaining eerily still and mute, just staring enigmatically. Very creepy. Yet also mesmerizing.

Seeing the film in Cinerama it seemed very plodding but I think I had hoped for more of an action film. Seeing it again more recently in HD on TV it was better than I remembered, partly due I think to a realisation that such epic historical films unfortunately are not made today.

Might be a factor in my reaction too...I mean, I did pass on this picture in both its CINERAMA and 70mm engagements.

But I agree, this type of epic historical filmmaking has become an increasingly rare bird...especially in high definition, the home video format ironically best suited to showcasing the sheer physical presence of that *lost* style.

 

[ROclockCK]

Steve, loved your post and glad you finally caught up with Khartoum. I was lucky enough to grow up in a town with a Cinerama theater (the Eckel, in Syracuse, NY) so I originally watched Khartoum as a 15 year old on this gigantic curved screen. For me, the images and colors on this Blu are pretty close to what I remember seeing way back then.

I'm still trying to wrap me wee ole noggin around how this one looked rectified for CINERAMA. Generally, when I watch one of these Ultra Panavision epics I can kinda-sorta see why they originally chose to go curved screen with it, but nothing in Khartoum really seemed particularly suited to what CINERAMA did best.

 

[lark144]

The opening scene in the desert worked really well on a curved screen, along with the scenes on the Nile The rest of it, though, is mostly talk, but somehow seeing it on that big curved screen was a memorable experience. Being American and not ever having been taught the history, (In fact, it was only last year that I saw Korda's The Four Feathers for the first time) for me it was compulsive viewing, beautiful to look at and extremely involving because of both the performances and the way it was shot. Unlike Leonard Maltin, I don't find the film static at all. Though it certainly didn't need to be seen in Cinerama. However, without the lure of Cinerama, I might have never seen it. I made it a point of honor to see every film presented in Cinerama, beginning with the multiple projector travelogues & of course How The West was Won & The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. (I remember feeling very disappointed when I discovered that It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World was only being shown on one projector in the back of the theater and the other two booths were empty.) However, by the time of Khartoum, I had become used to it.

 

[Malcolm Bmoor]

My copy arrived in the UK from the US yesterday and I've had time to see the first half. I'm really enjoying it, as a first view since the original presentation. The pictures are of exceptional quality and despite the sound being restricted to two tracks it too is of such exceptional quality that I don't mind very much.

I imagine that comments about it being, in part, far more static than modern zero attention span pictures is possibly owing to the filmakers respect for immersion in the massive image (in Cinerama & other 70mm presentations) , which would be compromised by over rapid movement and editing. That may be true, and it was a genuine concern at the introduction of Cinemascope, but in those days ALL films were less frenetic.

I reccomend this issue of KHARTOUM and were it ever reissued with these pictures but the original multitrack sound I'd be happy to buy it again.

 

[Alan Tully]

Is the isolated score of Khartoum stereo? I've read two reviews & one says mono & the other says stereo.

Thanks.

 

[DP 70]

The i score is Mono.

 

[ROclockCK]

As I understand it, this is only surviving track, graciously provided by the Cordell estate for this limited edition Blu-ray release.

 

[Alan Tully]

As I understand it, this is only surviving track, graciously provided by the Cordell estate for this limited edition Blu-ray release.

I have the soundtrack CD on the FSM label, it's the album version released on LP at the time & it sounds great.

 

[ROclockCK]

...as does this IST. Sweet.

Perhaps Twilight Time could elaborate, but I don't recall the complete Khartoum score being available before. To whit, does the FSM CD contain all music cues? We are talking about a 136 minute picture here, and that's all I was referring to, the completeness of this IST.

 

[trajan]

...as does this IST. Sweet.

Perhaps Twilight Time could elaborate, but I don't recall the complete Khartoum score being available before. To whit, does the FSM CD contain all music cues? We are talking about a 136 minute picture here, and that's all I was referring to, the completeness of this IST.

I asked this question on their facebook page and they said it is the complete score for the first time ever.

 

[AdrianTurner]

Khartoum isn't a favourite of mine and I probably won't be buying this Blu-ray. I saw it in Cinerama at the Casino (I have the brochure of course) and thought it stodgy and theatrical. Nice music, though.

The movie was designed to capitalise on the success of Lawrence of Arabia - it had a lot of sand, thousands of camels, it was written by a heavyweight playwright and dealt with one of those curiously self-destructive heroes the British a seem to specialise in. It was to be shot in Sudan with Burt Lancaster and Laurence Olivier, it was to have been shot in 35mm by Freddie Young and the director was to have been Lewis Gilbert. And it never happened. The eventual film was always a bit of a compromise. Basil Dearden never liked the 70mm/Cinerama idea because he regarded the story as rather intimate and character driven and he feared that critics were prejudiced against widescreen epics. Apparently Dearden urged UA to have the press shows in regular theatres with 35mm prints.

 

[RolandL]

The review by Bosley Crowther in the New York Times lists the running time as 138 minutes, with no mention of an intermission.

The LP soundtrack has Intermission Music as one of the tracks.

The review from Boxoffice magazine:

 

[OliverK]

Khartoum isn't a favourite of mine and I probably won't be buying this Blu-ray. I saw it in Cinerama at the Casino (I have the brochure of course) and thought it stodgy and theatrical. Nice music, though. The movie was designed to capitalise on the success of Lawrence of Arabia - it had a lot of sand, thousands of camels, it was written by a heavyweight playwright and dealt with one of those curiously self-destructive heroes the British a seem to specialise in. It was to be shot in Sudan with Burt Lancaster and Laurence Olivier, it was to have been shot in 35mm by Freddie Young and the director was to have been Lewis Gilbert. And it never happened. The eventual film was always a bit of a compromise. Basil Dearden never liked the 70mm/Cinerama idea because he regarded the story as rather intimate and character driven and he feared that critics were prejudiced against widescreen epics. Apparently Dearden urged UA to have the press shows in regular theatres with 35mm prints.

I think that like with Cleopatra the movie benefits from its action scenes and sweeping cinematography. No matter what the director has intended, the movie surely looks better for it.Khartoum might not be a brilliant masterpiece but the two times that I saw it so far I have to say that the time passed far quicker than I would have anticipated. But then I have a soft spot for large format films and historical epics - even with Lawrence Olivier (imo) hamming it up and sporting a fake tan...

 

[RobHam]

even with Lawrence Olivier (imo) hamming it up and sporting a fake tan...

At last, someone actually dares criticise Larry's lack of cinematic craft.

He was just off a theatrical run of Othello - but for a performance of similar excellence see Fisher Stevens in "Short Circuit".

Anyone with any doubts about acting prowess in front of a camera should compare Ghassan Massoud's performance as Saladin in "Kingdom of Heaven" with Olivier's here.

Olivier once did a movie called "The Entertainer" - this is the one and only time (imho) that he managed to restrain the OTT theatrical flourishes, and produce a cinematic performance worthy of applause.

Perhaps strangely, Khartoum is all Heston. And perhaps even more strangely, he chose to thrown it away with an inconsistent accent throughout the movie.

It's worth seeing in this new blu ray, but it's no classic of the genre.

 

[Rick Thompson]

I hadn't seen Khartoum before this blu-ray, though I'd read about the siege and "Chinese" Gordon. Enjoyed the picture a lot, though agreed it's not a classic. However, it doesn't bog down to glacial pace like the second half of Cleopatra. (I have to add that Cleo's entrance to Rome is worth the cost of that disk all by itself!)

 

[JoHud]

I didn't have much issue with Olivier as The Mahdi. I had always figured that The Mahdi was kinda hammy and pompous in real life, so Olivier's eccentric portrayal didn't bother me.

 

[David_B_K]

I've never had a problem with Olivier as an actor. He is one of my all-time favorites. I didn't find him hammy as The Mahdi. He was the sort of actor who liked to use makeup and accents and props to disappear into his roles. He brings a theatricality to the screen that I for one do not find out of place. Were he to have appear in an ultra-realistic low-key independent film featuring minimalist acting, he would probably have seem incongruous.

I think the same can be said of Orson Welles. Welles is almost never strictly realistic in his film acting. Like Olivier, he often uses lots of makeup to take on a role. The acting of Welles and Olivier is often larger than life. I happen to find this type of acting somewhat thrilling. It may be acting for acting's sake; but it is entertaining (IMO).

 

[OliverK]

I didn't have much issue with Olivier as The Mahdi. I had always figured that The Mahdi was kinda hammy and pompous in real life, so Olivier's eccentric portrayal didn't bother me.

When he first speaks up looking like he does and saying "oh my beloved" I almost fell off my seat laughing so I guess it did not work that well for me.
So it was entertaining but probably not in the way Olivier intended it.

 

[OliverK]

Olivier once did a movie called "The Entertainer" - this is the one and only time (imho) that he managed to restrain the OTT theatrical flourishes, and produce a cinematic performance worthy of applause.

Just a quick comment on this, I fully agree on your other points.Olivier was quite convincing and restrained in Spartacus, maybe he was trying to be less theatrical next to Ustinov and Laughton?