New version of "Mad World" out this week? (1 Viewer)

[Mark Cappelletty]

Uh, unfortunately my copy of one of my "most prized possessions" decided to shed its paper labels when I put it in my player yesterday; I had to use a pair of needle-nosed pliers to grab one of them out from within the machine!

I got my LDs used in 1997, BTW.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Jeff and Robert,

Tell us what you need to do.

We'll help put together a live chat here
or promote some sort of awareness campaign
to urge the folks at MGM to do what is right.

You may email me privately on this if you wish.

 

[Tino]

Of all the It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World threads that have been started, this is by far the most informative yet. Kudos to Mr. Harris and Mr. Krispow for sharing their incredible amount of knowledgeable information.

I too bought the LD the day it came out
some 12 odd years ago and was delighted to see it widescreen with the added scenes and supplements. Some of the additional scenes were fun, but for the most part, I felt that they didn't really add much to the film, going on a bit too long as others have mentioned.

Perhaps because I grew up with and fell in love with the General Release version as most of us here have, I prefer the shorter version which I believe flows better, although I am happy to own the extended LD version.

I sincerely hope that MGM takes heed and realizes what a potential goldmine exists for them if they properly restore It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World back to it's deserved complete as possible Roadshow glory.

 

[Bill Burns]

Ron wrote:

It just surprised me that with all the attention
we have given to this film on this forum (and we
know the folks at MGM are reading this thread),
that no-one at that studio has recognized the
importance of this issue (and the demand for a
roadshow release) and offered financial assistance
in putting a restoration effort underway.

I'd buy a DVD of it in a heartbeat, if taken from large format (as per Jeff's earlier post), and see it in a heartbeat if it were given a nation-wide theatrical re-release. It's not among my favorite films, but it's unique, something few films can claim, and richly deserves to be seen at its best. Anything else I might say has already been said -- I hope this comes to pass.

Incidentally, as a suggestion/question for the admins, would it be worthwhile to mirror this thread (or at least the essential posts thereof) in the Studio Feedback forum, or will M-G-M see it here? If a chat comes to pass, I trust a rep from M-G-M will either participate or offer feedback after the fact. M-G-M has been very good (particularly in their pricing structure) to classic fans on DVD, but there are a few high profile titles that continue to slip through the cracks. This is obviously one of them.

Sourced from large format at its full aspect ratio + no visible, artificial edge enhancement (please do away with this, all studios, M-G-M included) = enthusiastic sale. I'd love to see any DVD* release of a restoration on DVD-9s, though; I find DVD-14s and DVD-18s difficult to keep free of dust and scratches, given that both sides are "read" sides with relevant data (unlike the many DVD-10s on which one side offers a P&S version of a widescreen film; only one data side is of interest on such titles, of course, and scratches and smudges on the other side matter not at all).

* It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that a film restoration, which is to say a restoration to film, is the essential call to action, so that not only DVD, but all future home video formats and all future theatrical showings/re-releases may be best served, and the best and most enduring elements made available to posterity. In the short term, if the financing for true restoration isn't forthcoming, either copying to safety or scanning the elements currently at risk as a back-up to those elements might be wise, and perhaps offer an interim solution to the time crunch under which they now seem threatened. Something along these lines may have already been done, but if not, and if it would represent a fractional cost to full restoration, such a step should be suggested to M-G-M as a "bare minimum," until the money for further work can be found. To fail to restore a film in need of it is unfortunate; to allow the only surviving elements to continue to deteriorate when a stop-gap is within reach is far worse. Once again, I hope something positive soon comes to pass for this unique chapter of film history.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

There's a gentleman by the name of Eric Federing who launched the "Mad World campaign" to restore this film back in the 1980's. He was promoting restoration of this film (at his own personal expense) long before anyone else joined this cause. Where is Mr. Federing at this stage in the project?

 

[Brian Kidd]

If anyone is interested in the LD release, it appears on eBay quite frequently and for next to nothing.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of this film, but I certainly recognize its importance and hope that a restoration will somehow get funded. As I recall, we're only talking about a couple million bucks here....a ton for most of us but a catering budget in Hollywood. Have Spielberg and Scorsese been tapped for this?

 

[RolandL]

Going back to the original running time:

I have a copy of the review of the film when it premiered - http://cinerama.topcities.com/1963iammmmwreview.jpg (sorry I need to put up a better scan) and it has a running time of 197 minutes plus the intermission. If the intermission was 13 minutes, the total would be 210 minutes.

The movie program gives a total running time of 210 minutes.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Roland!

Wow!

That review was a real treat to see.

Thanks for posting that.

 

[Bill Burns]

Have Spielberg and Scorsese been tapped for this?

That reminds me of some very disheartening material I read or heard re: a meeting between Spielberg and Orson Welles, but that's another thread (or an entire book, actually, which is I believe where it originated). Spielberg certainly has the passion and the money, but I'm not sure if Scorsese has the latter -- in an interview with ... someone, maybe Roger Ebert, I'm not sure now, he said he had to get started on The Aviator, no time to rest, because he'd recently had a child. I want to save It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, but if it means taking Gerber's off the plate of Marty Jr., forget it! A line must be drawn!

Seriously, though, Scorsese is a tremendous film preservation activist, and of course someone who might be approached to lend his name to such a cause. There are many others, too, not quite so outspoken or famous. I remain hopeful that this will come to fruition before it's too late (and speaking of good causes and good timing, with a remake due to hit theatres this Christmas, Wayne's The Alamo, mentioned earlier in the thread and a project I recall Robert Harris mentioning in passing once or twice elsewhere, is another prime candidate, and another of the big titles that somehow find themselves overlooked or de-prioritized at the studios; I believe an extensive laserdisc set was also released for it -- in fact, I had it in my hand to buy sometime in the 90's, but at the last moment returned to the bins for something else :frowning:. Like IAMMMMW, The Alamo's not among my favorites, but it's a unique enterprise in filmmaking, and one I'd love to see at its very best).

 

[Jeff Krispow]

Roland,

Thanks very much for scanning and posting that review! By the way, do you recall where the review was published? It looks like a Daily Variety review, but I'm not sure. Definitely a great read, plus it answered some long sought-after questions regarding the premiere running length. Of course, it also creates a few more questions…

As I stated in a slightly earlier post, all the "evidence" I'd collected gave a total showtime of ~210m, with the film itself running ~195m. And here's a new review I'd never seen before that also corroborates that (plus, as you said, the original program book also quote a total showtime of 210m). So according to this "new" information, we'd be back up to ~32m of missing footage from the current 70mm prints, as has always been stated over the years.

Yet on the other hand, Robert Harris recently posted the exact feetrame breakdown of the 70mm Roadshow Premiere version, which gave a total length of 190:07 (with the film portion running 175:22.

Now frankly, I'd trust Mr. Harris' figures ANY day over anyone else… but, um, certain things don't quite "add" up with his figures. Sorry to bring this up Robert, but please bear me out on this for a minute.

Your archive source(s) stated that the Roadshow Premiere ran 175m (film) /190m (total showtime). Then, there are various few original reviews which gave a length of ~195m + an added intermission. Now we have this new review from Roland that quotes a running time of "197m + intermission," plus the original program book which quotes a total showtime of 210m. Therefore, if the Premiere Roadshow really did only run 190m total as Robert's source gives, then what version were these various reviewers watching during the Premiere Roadshow engagement?

Also, Robert, I just realized that the footrame timing breakdown you provided doesn't actually match the 70mm Ultra Panavision specs — unless there is something about 70mm Ultra Panavision that I'm overlooking. The conversions you provided in your previous post are identical to those used for 35mm film — 16 frames per foot (90 feet per minute).

However, IAMMMMW was obviously NOT filmed in 35mm, nor shown that way during it's Premiere Engagement, but was 70mm — which runs at 12.8 frames per foot (112.5 feet per minute).

Therefore, applying the proper 70mm conversion to the feetrm breakdowns provided, we would instead get:

_______Feature: 15783:09 (feetrm) = ~140:18 in 70mm
_______Music:___ 1327:08 (feetrm) = ~ 11:48 in 70mm
_______Total:___17110:17 (feetrm) = ~152:05 in 70mm

Which doesn't even come close to the original Roadshow Premiere length (but which seems to come really close to the timing of the 35mm General Engagement version)… Sorry to ask again about this Robert, but I'm sure you can see my concern regarding the figures given. They can only be accurate if the 70mm Roadshow Premiere ran at the exact same speed as standard 35mm (90 feet per minute) instead of standard 70mm (112.5 feet per minute). Or I'm seriously missing something here…

Thanks in advance for any answers or other clarification you can provide!

Jeff

 

[Brian W.]

I've only seen IAMMMMW once -- in 1984, at a showing at Bellevue Community College up in Washington, with Stanley Kramer and his wife Karen sitting directly behind me. I had attended his wife's five-week drama program at the college the year before, the summer after high school, and Mr. Kramer had directed the variety show we put on. I remember cocky little 18-year-old me arguing with him about a piece of blocking!

He was hosting a showing of his films at the college and doing talks afterwards, so I decided to attend the series.

They had set up a big sheet, probably muslin, at the the back of the stage to show the film on. When Mr. Kramer got up there and introduced the film, he gestured to the sheet and said, "We have attempted to provide you with widescreen."

At age 19, I must say I didn't find the film particularly funny. I'd like to see it again -- there's lots of movies I hated at that age that I love now. I kept hearing Stanley and Karen laughing behind me. I only laughed out loud twice -- once when Spencer Tracy said he wanted an ice cream cone, and I can't remember the other part.

I don't recall much of the talk afterwards. He said the scene where they're up on the fire engine ladder utilized the largest rear projection screen in existence at the time. He said that all of the shots of Spencer Tracy running around were a stunt double, because Tracy was very sick at the time. One thing I specifically remember him saying: "Tracy was actually a lot closer to death during this film than he was on Guess Who's Coming To Dinner."

Someone asked about the dog licking Tracy's face at the end -- why did they loop it? He acted puzzled and didn't seem to know what the guy was talking about. A few other audience members chimed in that it obviously had been. "Well, you're very observant if you noticed that," Stanley said. "I don't remember if we looped it or not, but if we did...it's very difficult to get a dog to keep licking someone's face for a long time."

That's about all I remember. But it's a real treat (and somewhat nerve-wracking) to watch a classic film with its director sitting right behind you.

I kept in occasional touch with Mrs. Kramer for a few years after that. We weren't close friends or anything -- it was very much a teacher/student relationship -- but she and Mr. Kramer were both very encouraging of my acting career when I was young.

I hadn't talked to her in over a decade when I heard Mr. Kramer died, but I felt compelled to send flowers and a note, telling her how much I had appreciated their encouragement. She sent me an invitation to his memorial celebration at the Director's Guild, but it was booked up by the time I RSVP'd, so I couldn't go.

But I'll always remember my experience of being directed by Stanley Kramer.

 

[Bill Burns]

That's a great remembrance, Brian -- thanks for sharing it.

I wonder if Mr. Harris might have any updates concerning The Alamo? Both it and IAMMMMW are UA M-G-M titles, I believe, large format, with multiple trims/missing elements, both in need of restoration. I know he's mentioned The Alamo elsewhere ... is that still coming together, or are both of these efforts in limbo? As I mentioned in an earlier post, the upcoming release of a remake (who'd a thunk Billy Bob Thornton and John Wayne could reasonably play the same role?! Yet I like what Thornton's doing with the part, based on what I can see in the trailer) seems to make this an excellent occasion to really fan a flame (figuratively!) under The Alamo project.

UPDATE: I see it was Jo_C who mentioned The Alamo earlier in the thread.

 

[Robert Harris]

Jeff...

Film footage is related as 35mm; laboratory footage as 70mm. Cutting continuities are based on 90 fpm.

I would suggest that those of you who read reviews not believe everything in print. As of mid to late October 1963, when Mad World was screened for not only initial long lead reviewers, but entities such as NY State censorship, the running time was 210 minutes.

The production was cut as it was test screened in half a dozen various cities throughout late October and through a few days short of its opening at the Dome.

We have footage for every screening during the final weeks and as well as the final approved cut at the Premiere which was as posted.

This is not a matter of opinion, but rather, hard facts.

RAH

 

[RolandL]

As always, Mr. Harris is correct on the running time. In the 6/24/63 issue of Boxoffice magazine they say – “What is believed to be the largest theatre sign ever painted - 265 feet log and 8 feet high - surrounds the building site of the new Cinerama Center Theatre in Hollywood, where on November 2 over 250 reporters from many countries will gather for the world press preview of It's a Mad , Mad, Mad, Mad World."

The review - http://cinerama.topcities.com/1963iammmmwreview.jpg is from an 11/11/63 issue of Boxoffice magazine. I’m guessing that Boxoffice reviewer Don Mersereau attended the 11/02 world press preview.

The world premiere at the Cinerama Dome was on November 7, 1963 - http://cinerama.topcities.com/iammmmw.htm .

To view some pictures of the dome, go to http://cinerama.topcities.com/ctdome.htm .

 

[Paul Linfesty]

Actually, the colors of the film itself aren't off much at all. It is only in the opening credit sequence that the background has been changed to red. This is not indicative of a color timing issue at all. It had to have been a deliberate decision by someone who produced the DVD. Why, I haven't a clue.

 

[Jeff Krispow]

Roland… Robert…

Thanks for filling me in on the "fine details." As I said, I'll easily trust your figures over anyone else, but that little 35mm/70mm thingy (plus the press notices) were just niggling in the back of my head too darn much. So I guess I was correct when I said I was likely overlooking something big time. Thanks again filling me in on the pre-premiere details — that was (and still is) a rather large gap in my own notes.

I knew that Kramer was still editing down the film fairly close to the World Premiere, but I had always assumed (wrongly) that it had been "completed" immediately prior to the World Press Screening — i.e., it was always my belief that the World Press Screening and the 70mm Roadshow Version were the exact same prints. Plus, the fact that the "early" reviews appeared several days AFTER the Roadshow opened only fueled that assumption more, that run times were correct or properly adjusted. Those wacky reviewers… (and you'd think I know better, since I was one for many years).

Also, as was rather obvious, I had assumed that the film footage as related by you, Robert, was as per the lab, thus my confusion. However, I really had no idea that the cutting continuity was based on a standard 35mm 90 fpm timing, again assuming that since is was 70mm, it adhered to those 70mm specs.

But in the end, I really appreciate your input on this, plus the added details from you, Roland. Again, there is so much conflicting information on the film, especially Roadshow and pre-Roadshow, that it's been a nightmare trying to get it all sorted out properly. I've been updating my notes for years in an attempt to get a precise, detailed roadmap of the various versions and cuts. Thanks to this new information, I hope you don't mind if I expand my previous, detailed "Different Versions" posting with this latest information, just to keep it all in the same place for the readers.

A couple final questions for either Roland or Robert — there are a few exact dates that I've been unable to find after all this time, that I'm hoping you (or someone else) might be able to provide. Do you have an exact release date for the following: when the 162m 70mm General Engagement version first appeared; when the 154m 35mm General Release version first appeared; and the release date of the 1970 reissue. I only have very generalized information on this — such as the year and "maybe" a month listing — but I'm looking for more exact dates. As usual, any help would be most welcome and appreciated.

Plus, as I said just above, my notes are really hazy on the pre-Roadshow Versions. Can anyone provide any information on the various extant versions/cuts that existed between Kramer's first cut (the 5 to 5-1/2 hours long version) and the World Press Screening? I'm interested in the length of these versions plus any dates (if not exact, then as close as possible) as to when they were completed or first "screened" at the studio. (Re: Kramer's first cut — are we any closer to knowing the exact length, rather than "between 5 and 5-1/2 hours or so…"?).

And one final question — is there any proof that the film ever reeceived a Public Preview Screening in any version? I have heard over the years that both Kramer's first 5+ hour cut and "the 210m cut" MIGHT have both had a single public preview screening, but I've never seen any proof that this actually occurred. This came up again when I was talking with Josh Berman, who had heard the same hazy rumours, but who had also never seen any concrete evidence. So, if anyone have any additional details about this one, I'd would love to finally have a final answer on it (plus, of course, whatever film length/cut was shown, the date if possible, and the theatre).

Thanks folks!

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Head...spinning...hours...seconds...minutes...hund redths of a minute...all jumbled...how many feet in a minute...didn't get this confused in 6 years of engineering school...

All kidding aside, this is one of the best threads I've read on HTF in the 4 years I've been a member. I've loved this movie ever since seeing it on TV with my dad back in the 70's (the formative years, or salad days, as they say). I've got the DVD and enjoyed it immensely...until now. I guess sometimes ignorance IS bliss. Would love to see it properly restored by you-know-who.

 

[Silas Lesnick]

I work for the AFI Silver theater in MD and we just released our new preview with this "Coming Soon" on the back:

"It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" 40th Anniversary Special Edition Print in 70mm and, for the first time, in digital sound with the legendary intermission and "police calls" voiced by Spencer Tracy and William Demarest. In the fall of 1963, Stanley Kramer created the ensemble kitchen-sink-and-all comedy IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD. This holiday season, the AFI Silver will continue its ongoing 70mm showcase with the newly struck, 40th Anniversary Special Edition print of this all-time favorite, featuring Spencer Tracy, Johnathan Winters, Milton Berle, Sid Caesar, Buddy Hackett and more...

My guess would be that this restoration will appear on DVD sometime next summmer...

Silas

 

[Tino]

The thing is Silas, there hasn't been a restoration yet. That's what we are all complaining about.

The version being shown is the (spruced up) General release version.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread?