Just saw "Gone With The Wind" for the 1st Time! "Spoilers" (1 Viewer)

[Peter Kline]

Should be Metrosepia!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

By the way, I've been told that the previous restoration of Gone With The Wind, circa 1989, when it was 50 years old, is superior to the current, 1998 version, which is on the DVD. Any opinions about this?

Bringing the DVD into it makes it a trick question. The DVD was considerably cleaned up in the video domain and looks better than any previous video incarnation despite the presence of numerous digital video artifacts.

The quasi-restored theatrical release that preceded the DVD had numerous problems, and could very well have been inferior in many ways to the 50th anniversary prints (which I did not see, so I cannot offer an informed opinion).

Regards,

 

[Peter Kline]

David, the dynamics are "opposites attract".

 

[James D S]

I'd recommend to anyone who digs GWTW and hasn't seen the documentary on it's creation yet, check out The Making of a Legend (1988). Very indepth with many insightful interviews (Evelyn Keyes, Ann Rutherford, Butterfly McQueen, among others), and it's narrated by Christopher Plummer.

And my personal favorite: The collection of screen tests. These are simply fascinating. (Paulette Goddard doing Mammy is priceless!)

How about getting it to DVD already, MGM/Turner?

 

[David Ruiz]

David, how could YOU call The Godfather the worst film ever "because it was boring" and not call Gone With the Wind boring?

I wouldn't call "Gone With The Wind" boring, because it wasn't, but I *WOULD* call "The Godfather" boring, because it WAS! (At least in my opinion!)

 

[Rob Tomlin]

There it is. By the way, I've been told that the previous restoration of Gone With The Wind, circa 1989, when it was 50 years old, is superior to the current, 1998 version, which is on the DVD. Any opinions about this?

Well, Robert A. Harris called it an "out of focus cartoon", which I completely agree with.

 

[Marty M]

Just a couple of rambling comments. Comment #1: Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz were directed by the same man, Victor Fleming and both were released in the same year. It is quite an accomplishment to have directed two classic movies in the same year.

Comment #2: Is there any need to hide the spoilers in the postings. I can't imagine there are many people who have not seen this movie.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Well, Robert A. Harris called it an "out of focus cartoon", which I completely agree with.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The "out of focus cartoon" was in reference to the 1998 release. It was not in reference to the DVD which, based on his previous comments on "The Sound of Music" DVD, I would bet a nickel he would describe as "suffering from digititis", but not as an "out of focus cartoon".
Regards,

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Then in 1998, following the success of the digital restoration of Wizard of Oz, where I guess they removed scratches from every single frame of film, the same guys did GWTW (at its original aspect ratio, 1.37:1).

The GWtW re-release (June 1998) preceded the Wizard of Oz re-release (November 1998). The only full digital restoration preceding that I can think of was Disney's Snow White project. I don't think GWtW or Oz were primarily digital, although they did a lot of digital work on certain scenes of GWtW such as the "God as my witness..." monologue before the intermission.

Regards,

 

[SteveP]

I personally prefer the more pastel palette of the CAV Laserdisc of the 1989 restoration to the somewhat brown palette of the current DVD, however sharp the DVD.

The 1998 theatrical release acheived it's 1.37:1 ratio by putting the frame in the center of an anamorphic print and was marred by lots of scatches on the sides of the unmasked screen as well as consistant mis-registration of the three Technicolor negatives, resulting in unpleasant "halos" throughout.

The CAV laserdisc also carried the isolated musical score, as well a pre-release and reissue trailers.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The print I saw in Southfield, Michigan well into the second week of the GWTW re-release had all of the problems described by SteveP, except for the "lots of scratches". Either they took much better care of their print, or I was not paying attention to the areas of the screen that were supposed to be black. The "anamorphic 1.37" windowboxed approach actually uses slightly more negative area than the "double matted 1.37" flat approach, which could still carry scratches on the sides. Of course, if theaters could figure out how to show a 1.37:1 film properly, we would not have to settle for either compromise which use only around half of the 35mm frame area.

Regards,

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

David,

I'm not sure I fully understand your suggestion, but it would probably be more practical for the theaters to just readjust their gear for 1.37:1 projection than to acquire some new kind of lens for their projectors. The point of the compromised windowbox releases is to not require theaters to use new equipment or rearrange their projectors or mattes vs. the 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 standards.

BTW, I think there was a full digital restoration of Metropolis, but I heard it was not pretty. I never saw it for myself.

Regards,

 

[Ryan L B]

one question, in 1937, was this movie originaly in full color like it is today, but overtime, it faded and turned into a sepia color. For more classic film recomendations, try Citizen Kane (best movie ever made IMO), Casablanca, It's awonderful Life, and psycho.

 

[Chad R]

If I remember correctly in 1939 it was 3 strip dye color technicolor. Beautiful. But over time the three strips have shrunk differently, meaning they don't align properly - and I'm not sure, but I think the original negative is gone.

Robert Harris explained all the problems with restoring GWTW in a post awhile back and I REEAAALLY want him to get a crtack at restoring this movie. He's the only one who seems to have a love of the movie enough to restore it properly.

 

[Stacey]

Another take on the Ashley/Scarlett argument:

IMHO: Throughout the whole movie I see Scarlett as a very spoiled type person, always getting what she wants. When she can't get Ashley it just makes her want him more.

Personally I've seen the movie about 6 times and I'm the last peson in the world to watch a dramatic film and I love this one!

 

[Todd_Brown]

But I think there is a flaw in the movie, quite large, which nobody talks about, but I'll put it here in a spoiler.

Another point to this; Ashley represents the Old South that Scarlett loves and holds dear, all the old, grand times. Rhett is the new order, that is another reason she clings to Ashley, and rejects Rhett. Much like her obsession with Tara, she doesn't want to let her old way of life (the parties, the fun, etc...) die.

Todd

 

[TedD]

Ken:

A theater can't "readjust its equipment" to project 1.33. The required steps are:

1. Buy a new lens of a different focal length.

2. Insert a 1.33 aperture plate (I'm not even sure that they are available, but could be produced if the demand was present).

3. Remask the screen (Optional, since most of todays theaters masking is done very poorly anyway).

4. This is the hard part: Retrain the concession candy sellers/projectionist wannabes to deal with this new environment and present it properly.

Ted

 

[Robert Harris]

Wow!

A great deal going on this thread.

I'll attempt to deal with as many issues as possible.

1. Setting up theatre to run 1.37 is a no-brainer. Rent or purchase the proper focal length lens, cut a aperture plate. Maskings should not be a problem.

2. GWTW was photographed in three strip Technicolor -- three black and white negatives, which means that there is no fading, and the look as printed in 1939 -- very flat, very sepia (originally printed with a silver mask, actually a fourth silver (b & w) layer originated from the green record-- 1954, without the silver record to lower contrast, but still printed quite sepia, but still with full color beneath the sepia look, 1961 -- similar to 1954. All of these releases were in 1.37 aspect ratio. In 1954 a handful of shots (5 or 6) were replaced with dupes, basically raising the shots by one perf, thereby protecting the bottoms of the frames.

3. In 1989 Turner returned to the Onegs, which are still in printable condition. YCM did a nice job of creating a new Eastmancolor interpositive. To the best of my knowledge, no additional work has been done to the film since then.

The recent abhorrent dye transfer release was created from a dupe neg derived from the 1989 IP, which was created squeezed. The less said about this "restoration" the better. The old laser disc release and the new DVD are both based upon the 1989 IP, and have nothing to do with the newly "restored" recent elements.

Re: Oz...

The recent prints were made via matrices directly from the original negatives. I have been informed that new protection elements were made at that time. The pity of the situation being that Technicolor never had the opportunity to experiment and print from the new dupes rather than running the originals.

The only restoration work done to OZ that I'm aware of was the prologue and epilogue, which were cleaned up digitally. The Oneg of the prologue no longer survives.

GWTW is generally considered to be the high water mark in three strip technicolor. Also see Duel in the Sun. The film can be restored to near perfection. The incorrect aspect ratio shots can be corrected with original material, and new prints can be produced to replicate either the look of the original release ( which might not be looked upon with pleasure by modern audiences), the 1954/61 look or in modern "blazing" Technicolor -- which was never considered by the films' creators and would not be suggested.

As a point of reference, although Victor Fleming did direct both OZ and GWTW, the latter was begun by George Cukor, who was generally thought of as a womens' director, which may have well made Mr. Gable feel like an also ran.

RAH

 

[Todd_Brown]

Mr. Harris,

Thank-you for your contributions to this forum, I have learned a ton about film from reading your posts. Also thanks for your continued efforts to save and preserve these classic films.

Todd