A Few Words About A few words about…™ The Court Jester – in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Flashgear]

Funny Face should get a 4k release. It is visually so spectacular and while I don't have the bluray it got poor marks for video on blu-ray.com. But I'm not holding my breath.

Vincent,
Forgive me for going off topic, but if you really love Funny Face for the delightfully beautiful film that it is, you should buy the existing Blu-ray immediately! I got my Blu copy for $7!

I'm not going to bitch with a bunch of designated experts about the technical factors in a disappointing transfer for a VV film , but I would say that I thought the existing Blu looks very nice to my eye...and I'm 65 now and resolved to not hold my breath or stamp my feet for perfection to arrive or just something better to come along while I sit here listening to my arteries harden...2 cents...

 

[Reed Grele]

BTW, Every BD gets up rezzed to 4K on my system these days, so it's getting hard to tell the difference. Especially on titles with excellent mastering like The Court Jester!

So even though it's really 1080p, my Sony 885ES works its miracles and adds in all those extra pixels.

 

[Matt Hough]

Vincent,
Forgive me for going off topic, but if you really love Funny Face for the delightfully beautiful film that it is, you should buy the existing Blu-ray immediately! I got my Blu copy for $7!

I'm not going to bitch with a bunch of designated experts about the technical factors in a disappointing transfer for a VV film , but I would say that I thought the existing Blu looks very nice to my eye...and I'm 65 now and resolved to not hold my breath or stamp my feet for perfection to arrive or just something better to come along while I sit here listening to my arteries harden...2 cents...

I agree. I wouldn't think of not having this brilliant film in my collection even if the transfer is less than perfection.

 

[haineshisway]

You know what's funny? Everyone lists this as a 1955 film. Why is that? It didn't open until 1956, in March I believe. I understand it may carry a copyright of 1955 but that is NOT when it was released. It played the Paramount here in Hollywood - a six-week exclusive run with almost no advertising at all. After it closed it didn't go wide for at least a month, which I found odd, and then it only played in eleven theaters or something like that. And that was gone in a week and on to the nabes, where it did very well. I saw it at the Lido Theater in June of that year, and exactly two months later at the same theater I saw The Man Who Knew Too Much (which also played the Paramount) with Autumn Leaves as the second feature. And then at the same theater soon after I saw Diabolique, which was on a double bill with a low-budget film called Lollipops and Lovers. They wouldn't let me in to see Diabolique. But they said I could see the second feature but I had to leave before Diabolique. Of course, I hid and then saw Diabolique, which, I have to say, was a bit traumatizing for an eight-year-old.

 

[haineshisway]

The living proof, baby.

 

[titch]

The living proof, baby.

You and Robert Harris and Robert Furmanek must have the most amazing file cabinets, stuffed with clippings, documents and trivia, neatly filed away.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You know what's funny? Everyone lists this as a 1955 film. Why is that? It didn't open until 1956, in March I believe. I understand it may carry a copyright of 1955 but that is NOT when it was released. It played the Paramount here in Hollywood - a six-week exclusive run with almost no advertising at all. After it closed it didn't go wide for at least a month, which I found odd, and then it only played in eleven theaters or something like that. And that was gone in a week and on to the nabes, where it did very well. I saw it at the Lido Theater in June of that year, and exactly two months later at the same theater I saw The Man Who Knew Too Much (which also played the Paramount) with Autumn Leaves as the second feature. And then at the same theater soon after I saw Diabolique, which was on a double bill with a low-budget film called Lollipops and Lovers. They wouldn't let me in to see Diabolique. But they said I could see the second feature but I had to leave before Diabolique. Of course, I hid and then saw Diabolique, which, I have to say, was a bit traumatizing for an eight-year-old.

Not quite everybody, but I get your point. AFI and Leonard Maltin have it as a 1956 movie. Even the Paramount 1999 DVD has it as a 1956 movie which is ironically funny because the new Paramount BD has 1955 on the back of its BD box.

 

[Mark-P]

You can blame IMDB on that. They always list the year of release on the first year it was shown anywhere in the world. Their claim is that it was shown on Christmas Eve 1955 in Japan.

 

[Thomas T]

You can blame IMDB on that. They always list the year of release on the first year it was shown anywhere in the world. Their claim is that it was shown on Christmas Eve 1955 in Japan.

IMDb (and Wikipedia) has the annoying habit of listing films release dates based on their appearance at film festivals rather than the year of an actual theatrical (or cable or home video) release. If a film, say, does the film festival route and plays at Sundance and Toronto in 2019 but isn't released by its distributor until 2020 in theaters, IMDb uses the earlier 2019 as the "release" date. A good example is the Oscar winning film Crash which both IMDb and Wikipedia list as having a 2004 release date when in actuality it debuted at the Toronto film festival in 2004 but Lionsgate did not release the film theatrically until March 2005 and the film went on to win the best picture Oscar in 2006 which causes some people to wonder why a film "released" in 2004 won the 2005 best picture Oscar!

 

[Robert Harris]

You and Robert Harris and Robert Furmanek must have the most amazing file cabinets, stuffed with clippings, documents and trivia, neatly filed away.

Most of my material is on RAIDs.

 

[Robert Harris]

You know what's funny? Everyone lists this as a 1955 film. Why is that? It didn't open until 1956, in March I believe. I understand it may carry a copyright of 1955 but that is NOT when it was released. It played the Paramount here in Hollywood - a six-week exclusive run with almost no advertising at all. After it closed it didn't go wide for at least a month, which I found odd, and then it only played in eleven theaters or something like that. And that was gone in a week and on to the nabes, where it did very well. I saw it at the Lido Theater in June of that year, and exactly two months later at the same theater I saw The Man Who Knew Too Much (which also played the Paramount) with Autumn Leaves as the second feature. And then at the same theater soon after I saw Diabolique, which was on a double bill with a low-budget film called Lollipops and Lovers. They wouldn't let me in to see Diabolique. But they said I could see the second feature but I had to leave before Diabolique. Of course, I hid and then saw Diabolique, which, I have to say, was a bit traumatizing for an eight-year-old.

Agreed. However, a couple of mindsets here.

Released in US, Jan ‘56. 55 production.

Of greater importance to me is the fact that it’s 1955 stock and processing.

Does this make any difference? Only to the attribution of film stock and processing toward dye fade.

The earlier the specific production of 5248 stock and means of processing, the less apt to have dye problems. 1953-55 productions tend to answer back more easily than 56-60. During the 56-60 period, things seem to get progressively more problematic.

UK processing, especially Tech London seems to be a bit heartier.

Many interesting examples out there that have affected fade characteristics. Ben-Hur, released 1959 - stock dates go back to 57, and earliest production.

For public discussion, release date is the least confusing to go by.

 

[Robert Harris]

More important - Glynis Johns is still with us at 97.

 

[Matt Hough]

More important - Glynis Johns is still with us at 97.

So is Angela Lansbury. A little younger than Glynis but still a hale and hearty lady in her 90s.

 

[David Weicker]

That production date could account for Basil Rathbone’s spryness.
It’s so much easier for a 63 year old to run and jump than it is for a 64 year old

 

[moviebuff75]

I watched this over the weekend. Fantastic image and sound! I loved it, and it left me wanting more.

 

[john a hunter]

Looking at those adverts from 1956 makes you want to borrow Doctor Who's tardis and pop back.
Even without the virus , a much better selection than than now.