A Few Words About A few words about...™ Oklahoma! -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Matt Hough]

Ron:

Closely watch Gene Nelson's (and Charlotte Greenwood and cast's) dance routine during Kansas City. Imagine how difficult it would be to recreate the same exact staging, blocking and footwork when filmed twice.

Well, they do a really great job of matching things up. But there's an instance when Nelson jumps up on top of a wooden crate. I'll let you discover and enjoy the rest. Viva la difference!

The very example I was going to relate.

You'll also notice a frisky butterfly fluttering around Laurey and Curly during "The Surrey with the Fringe on Top" but at different moments of the song.

 

[Reed Grele]

Also during "The Surrey with the Fringe on Top" (Or very near abouts) the Todd-AO includes various fine feathered friends in the background pecking away at whatever is on the ground for them to be pecking away at. No fowl to be seen on the CinemaScope version. Must have run out of feed?

 

[Mark Booth]

I also find this astonishing.

Same question: From going to one version to another,
can you spot differences in the film takes? This is outside
of the opening sequences.

Ron, As Mike mentions, the 'Kansas City' number is one of the good places where you can see a pretty glaring difference. During the number, when Gene Nelson's character (Will) jumps up onto the wooden box, in the TODD-AO version only one foot goes through the box. He almost loses his balance and one of the other characters actually helps prevent him falling. This is the moment:

If you watch the Cinemascope version, you'll instead see both of Gene Nelson's feet go through that wooden box!

Mark

 

[Techman707]

I think the scope version is actually the even wider 2.55:1 ratio if I'm not mistaken and my memory serves me correctly. While the scope version, as you said, appears wider, in the reality of the presentation at the Rivoli in 1955, the Todd-AO screen was just as wide as the CinemaScope screen it replaced but was much TALLER.

For me, I prefer the Todd-AO version hands-down in terms of performances with the SOLE exception of Gloria Grahame and Gene Nelson's "All or Nuthin"' I think Gloria is much fresher, cuter and more on the money in the scope version of their duet, for some reason. Other than that it's Todd-AO all the way.

You're right, my error. The original scope prints of Oklahoma (magnetic only) were 2.55:1. I was thinking of the last time I saw a print of Oklahoma. It was run as an special showing, with the regular evening show, to demonstrate the "D-150 All Purpose Masking System" for the opening of the first (and last) D-150 theatre opening in Queens, NY. The theatre's name was the UA Lefrak and [sadly] is now closed. They had expected to get a 70mm print, but, unfortunately wound up running a 35mm "Dual Magnetic/Optical print that was only 2.35:1.

When it comes to an aspect ratio of 2.55:1, I could probably count the total number of theatres in NY that ACTUALLY ran scope pictures on a screen that was 2.55:1, on my hands and toes. Just to install Cinemascope, many, if not most theatres, had to move their screen in front of the proscenium in order to even run 2.35:1. If I had a dollar for every theatre that cropped the picture to nearly 2 to 1, I could buy a new car.

Someone mentioned SuperScope, which had a basic aperture plate stamped @ .650 x .650 and for all practical purposes was the same as Technicolor's TechniScope, which was also a camera that had a 2 sprocket pull-down. While it did save film, the final picture always looked too grainy to me. If I had my choice of any ONE format, 35mm or 70mm, I would select a PLAIN OLD FLAT 70mm picture, 5 sprocket holes. Because we could eliminate the mag stripes, we could play with the width to get the best aspect ratio.

 

[Will Krupp]

When it comes to an aspect ratio of 2.55:1, I could probably count the total number of theatres in NY that ACTUALLY ran scope pictures on a screen that was 2.55:1, on my hands and toes. Just to install Cinemascope, many, if not most theatres, had to move their screen in front of the proscenium in order to even run 2.35:1. If I had a dollar for every theatre that cropped the picture to nearly 2 to 1, I could buy a new car.

Wow, I had no idea!! That's fascinating stuff I never knew

 

[Techman707]

Wow, I had no idea!! That's fascinating stuff I never knew

I see you like the 2.20:1 AR, which is a 70mm Super Panavision 70 aspect ratio. That happens to be my favorite aspect ratio for 35mm scope films also. When you crop a 35mm film to get a 2.20:1 aspect ratio, you're not really losing anything of importance. They've been doing stuff like that for years, because unless you have something to compare it to side by side, there is NO WAY to really tell it's cropped.

 

[Doug Bull]

The Robe was filmed twice....just in case Cinemascope didn't work as expected or there weren't enough theatres converted. Conversion was a BIG DEAL at the time. The original Cinemascope prints only had magnetic tracks, NO OPTICAL. So if you wanted to run a Cinemascope picture, you had to convert and install magnetic penthouses and amplifier racks. After the independents sued, they finally made dual soundtrack print having both magnetic stripes and an optical track. The only problem was that half of the optical track was covered by a magnetic stripe that cut the volume in half and presenting a real problem for some theatres.

I worked at UA from 1955 onwards and from day one of Cinemascope we offered the choice of separate Optical or Magnetic prints.

Here are the two separate "Sitting Bull" options that were available to exhibitors at the time. (Faded Eastman)

20th Century Fox also offered both types to the exhibitors at that time. (at least they did here in Australia)

An original Fox Optical only Technicolor Scope print of "How To Marry a Millionaire" which was available to exhibitors here in Australia from day one.

The dual track prints as you mentioned did come in later and were indeed badly compromised by the tiny optical track which offered a very soft, poor quality sound. I don't recall UA ever having these dual sound prints (We always offered the choice)

Dual Optical/Magnetic print of "South Pacific"

Even Superscope prints gave you the choice of separate Optical or Magnetic prints.

"Vera Cruz" optical.

Doug.

 

[DP 70]

Thanks for the great pictures Doug.I know the optical tracks were poor quality but were good for backup on magnetic prints.

 

[David Mahlan]

Ron, As Mike mentions, the 'Kansas City' number is one of the good places where you can see a pretty glaring difference. During the number, when Gene Nelson's character (Will) jumps up onto the wooden box, in the TODD-AO version only one foot goes through the box. He almost loses his balance and one of the other characters actually helps prevent him falling.

I agree that "Kansas City" is one of the easiest places to spot differences between the versions. The wooden box moment is much cleaner in the CinemaScope version, but the thing that really irks me is the editing at the end of the number. In CinemaScope, the timing of Nelson's leap off the end of the train and onto his horse is perfectly in time with the music, so there's a cymbal crash just as he hits the saddle. The scoring highlights the moment so perfectly I can only believe it was done intentionally. In the Todd-AO version, the cymbal crash comes a full 5-6 seconds before he leaves the train and the moment is lost.

Having been introduced to and grown up with the film via repeated semi-annual PBS broadcasts in the 1970s, the CinemaScope version of the number had been burned in my memory. The first time I saw the Todd-AO version, "Kansas City" seemed rather flat to me - largely because the climactic moment I'd grown up loving was all out of sync.

 

[RolandL]

I think the scope version is actually the even wider 2.55:1 ratio if I'm not mistaken and my memory serves me correctly. While the scope version, as you said, appears wider, in the reality of the presentation at the Rivoli in 1955, the Todd-AO screen was just as wide as the CinemaScope screen it replaced but was much TALLER.

Marty Hart's Widescreenmuseum web site has some pictures of the Rivoli theatre before and after Todd-AO was installed.

 

[Techman707]

I worked at UA from 1955 onwards and from day one of Cinemascope we offered the choice of separate Optical or Magnetic prints.

Doug.

First, I made no reference to "United Artists Pictures", my reference was to a United Artists Theatre (which was the former Skouras theatre chain), so I'm not sure why you mention UA pictures? What WAS UA Pictures first scope picture to be offered OPTICAL ONLY?

You're referring to a much later date in time when the film companies finally made dual inventory optical and magnetic prints. The magnetic only print issue was the reason 20th Century Fox was sued in the first place. I have no idea when UA Pictures started to supply dual or optical only prints, but, it sure wasn't at the start of 4 track stereo.

 

[Reed Grele]

Also interesting about "Kansas City" are the framing choices at the beginning of the sequence.

In Todd-AO it's a static wide shot of the train arriving on the left, the train station in the middle, and the horse drawn carriage arriving on the right.

In the CinemaScope version the same sequence is done as a pan shot, starting left from the train, across the station to the carriage.

 

[JoshZ]

I wish they would do it for 3D movies shot today, go to town and create a great 3D experience with depth in and out of the screen and also shoot a specific 2D version with shots composed to look best for 2D, best of both worlds and two different productions optimised for your viewing. I know it's wishful thinking and cost prohibits this but it would be great.

What you're asking for is more involved than just moving one camera out of the way and bringing another camera in for the next take (which is mostly what was done for Oklahoma!). Creating two completely separate versions of a movie, one optimized for 2D and one optimized for 3D, would require different composition and staging of the scenes.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Creating two completely separate versions of a movie, one optimized for 2D and one optimized for 3D, would require different composition and staging of the scenes.

Why do you think i was asking for it, for that precise reason in your quote, i want two versions optimised for each format.

Cost be damned, make it and make it good.

 

[Will Krupp]

Also interesting about "Kansas City" are the framing choices at the beginning of the sequence.

In Todd-AO it's a static wide shot of the train arriving on the left, the train station in the middle, and the horse drawn carriage arriving on the right.

In the CinemaScope version the same sequence is done as a pan shot, starting left from the train, across the station to the carriage.

There wasn't a Cinemascope lens with a wide enough angle of view to match the bug-eye shot in the Todd-AO version, hence the need for the left/right pan.

 

[Mark Booth]

Also interesting about "Kansas City" are the framing choices at the beginning of the sequence.

In Todd-AO it's a static wide shot of the train arriving on the left, the train station in the middle, and the horse drawn carriage arriving on the right.

In the CinemaScope version the same sequence is done as a pan shot, starting left from the train, across the station to the carriage.

I much prefer the wide TODD-AO shot! It's breathtakingly gorgeous on my big 110" projection screen!

Mark

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I wish they would do it for 3D movies shot today, go to town and create a great 3D experience with depth in and out of the screen and also shoot a specific 2D version with shots composed to look best for 2D, best of both worlds and two different productions optimised for your viewing. I know it's wishful thinking and cost prohibits this but it would be great.

They're kinda sorta doing a version of that with some native-3D films, where the 2D version isn't the left eye or the right eye, but was created shot by shot using the best elements from each eye. (Got the Criterion disc for "Pina" as part of the Barnes & Noble sale and they mentioned in the "about the transfer" notes that Pina's 2D version was created that way.) I think a big part of the problem with a lot of modern 3D, and I'm willing to bet you'll probably agree, is that it's an afterthought, even if it's natively shot in 3D, it seems that all of the design work and location scouting and costumes and everything else was done the same as if it were 2D, and they only think about 3D when they show up at the set and have the camera set up. Like they've mentally composed and designed for 2D, and then at the last moment go, "and let's just throw a little depth behind them, and done!" While I'd never suggest these as potential award winners, Paul W.S. Anderson's 3D movies have some pretty great uses of 3D, and it's probably no coincidence that he talks of the importance of thinking of the 3D as early as the scripting. We're not going to get consistently fantastic 3D until filmmakers stop trying to make a 2D movie with 3D cameras, and actually start rewriting film grammar. The way filmmakers use 3D now is almost as unimaginative as if the first widescreen filmmakers still staged everything in a 1.33:1 frame inside the scope frame. Fortunately, the early widescreen pioneers seemed to have a better sense of adventure than the current 3D filmmakers do.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

After having grown up with the Cinemascope version, I tried watching the Todd AO version when it first surfaced, and found I preferred the performances in the Cinemascope version. I fully admit that the reason for that is most likely bias towards the version I'm familiar with.

 

[Doug Bull]

First, I made no reference to "United Artists Pictures", my reference was to a United Artists Theatre (which was the former Skouras theatre chain), so I'm not sure why you mention UA pictures? What WAS UA Pictures first scope picture to be offered OPTICAL ONLY?

You're referring to a much later date in time when the film companies finally made dual inventory optical and magnetic prints. The magnetic only print issue was the reason 20th Century Fox was sued in the first place.

Not wishing to get in too deep, I'm forced however to point out a couple of things that you seem to have missed.

Firstly you need to read your own original posting again as highlighted in my previous post.
Nowhere do you mention any Theatre.
You make no mention of 20th Century Fox.
Your posting only refers to CINEMASCOPE films in a generalised term. (To me meaning all Studios)

I mentioned United Artists because you said that there were no CINEMASCOPE Optical Sound prints
When you said that, then I was quite entitled to give my involvement and the United Artists side of the story. (There would be many members here who may find that interesting)

If you read my post properly you would have clearly observed that I referred to Australia only.(we were always several months behind the US)
I'm not disputing what happened in the USA in 1953. I'm well aware of that situation.
It never really happened here, that's all I'm saying. Maybe we were privileged.

Those "HTMAM" Optical sound clips i displayed are from the very first shipment of "HTMAM" prints supplied by 20th Century Fox to Australia.
I obtained them early to mid 1954 from a friend who worked at Fox. (HTMAM opened here in February 1954 at Sydney's Plaza theatre)

So for us, Optical was available from the very beginning of Cinemascope here in Australia. (The Robe was still running at the time)
It's less than a year from the original US release , but it certainly wasn't a long time after, as you seem to infer. (remember freight to Oz took about 3 months)

You ask what was the first UA movie to offer the exhibitor both Optical and Magnetic prints?
Take a look at my 35mm frame clips.
"Sitting Bull" was our first UA Cinemascope release and the separate op or mag prints were available at the very beginning.
Those early Scope frames have survived in my collection after being removed by the UA cutting and repair department from a very original release print.

Our second Anamorphic release was 'Vera Cruz" in Superscope and with both optical and Magnetic prints being available.
Other titles at that time were "The Indian Fighter"(c/scope), "Desert Sands" (s/scope), "Gentlemen Marry Brunettes"(c/scope)
all had separate optical and Mag sound prints available.
Actually the Optical prints were most in demand at that time.

So I repeat that here in Australia when CINEMASCOPE was first introduced, the exhibitors had the choice of either Optical or Magnetic Prints.

If February 1954 is regarded as 'my reference to a much later date in time', then so be it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside, being a collector has it's moments.
Here is the immediate history of that dual optical/Magnetic frame clip displayed on my previous posting.

An elderly collector recently gave me a small collection of 35mm reels that he said were no good.
He was right, there was a lot of useless stuff (skateboard riding, political stuff from India, etc) but then I put on an unmarked reel and up comes "South Pacific" unfortunately faded, but wow! South Pacific no less. The hairs on my back stood on end, ah, the joys and discovery of Film Collecting. ( I'll bet Allen and others like that story)

Doug.

 

[Mark Mayes]

After having grown up with the Cinemascope version, I tried watching the Todd AO version when it first surfaced, and found I preferred the performances in the Cinemascope version. I fully admit that the reason for that is most likely bias towards the version I'm familiar with.

I also grew up with the Cinemascope version--and listened to the entire soundtrack quite often--having used a cassette recorder to tape it from television. When I saw and heard the Todd-AO version in the early 80s at a revival premiere in Oklahoma City, with no explanation that it had been shot twice, I thought I had gone nuts. Not only were there variations in every line-reading (some dropped, some added lines), but entirely different shots.

I loved it and instantly felt it was superior, as much as I loved the version I had always seen.

I would agree with Will Krupp that Gloria Grahame has some better moments in the Cinemascope version ("I hope we'll be very happy" reads a lot more like she's voicing what Laurey should have said--very funny. Charlotte Greenwood is a little more touching in her "hardy" speech with Laurey.) Gordon McCrae puts more into the Todd AO, IMO.

I will be showing the Todd AO to newcomers to the film.