Blu-ray Review A Few Words About A few words about…™ For Me and My Gal – in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

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

 

[bujaki]

I suppose Kelly was still contaminated by the "cesspool" that was his character in Pal Joey.
And Garland, much as I love her, always had a tendency to sniffle and pout a bit. So extraordinarily talented, but always needy, so very needy.

 

[bujaki]

So glad this release is a home run. Many people will be very happy to hear this.

 

[RobertMG]

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]

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]

I had a hard time deciding between a "love" and a "laughing face" for your brilliant review. Sentiment won out and you got a "love" but I won't always be so easy, young man.

In all seriousness, thank you!

 

[Will Krupp]

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.

 

[Richard Kaufman]

Bless you, Mr. Harris, for your wily ways. A big smile on this Saturday night.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bless you, Mr. Harris, for your wily ways. A big smile on this Saturday night.

I know it’s a dupe, but MPI may be in league with certain forces.

I’m thinking witches, cauldrons, eye of newt…

 

[DarkVader]

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]

Is Marta Eggerth's cleavage still blurred on the Blu-Ray?

For Me and My Gal -- censored??

I just watched the new DVD of "For Me and My Gal" and I noticed that during the scene in which Gene Kelly is in Marta Eggerth's private train car and she is at the piano singing to him, whenever there's a close up shot of her (with her skimpy dress), the breast area is extremely fuzzy, as if...

www.hometheaterforum.com

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Is Marta Eggerth's cleavage still blurred on the Blu-Ray?

For Me and My Gal -- censored??

I just watched the new DVD of "For Me and My Gal" and I noticed that during the scene in which Gene Kelly is in Marta Eggerth's private train car and she is at the piano singing to him, whenever there's a close up shot of her (with her skimpy dress), the breast area is extremely fuzzy, as if...

www.hometheaterforum.com

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[AnthonyClarke]

You almost had me there, Robert. Right down to the last paragraph.
My favourite Garland movie sounds too good to be true! Just like your review ....

 

[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.