No 4K release for Gone With The Wind’s 80th Anniversary? (1 Viewer)

[darkrock17]

I still don't buy that argument regarding the latter film, and neither does this author.

The Children's Hour also bowdlerizes its source material less than the first film version, 1936's not-even-in-name adaptation These Three which removes all references to lesbianism and turns it into a heterosexual love triangle.

I'm not saying I agree, but that's what I've seen for why it's being considered problematic in today's eyes. I think it's a good drama and that buy suggesting about the characters tells more about them than just coming out and saying it.

 

[RobertMG]

I have never seen this footage on any release of the film am I mistaken? https://www.eastman.org/gone-wind-makeup-and-wardrobe-tests also do any deleted scenes exist from the film?

 

[Will Krupp]

I have never seen this footage on any release of the film am I mistaken? https://www.eastman.org/gone-wind-makeup-and-wardrobe-tests also do any deleted scenes exist from the film?

Though it isn't presented in full (the Susan Hayward clips were new to me, for example) a lot of that test footage (as well as other footage not in this particular group) is part of the making-of documentary that accompanies the blu-ray release.

The Selznick family was heavily involved in the TNT documentary made shortly before the 50th anniversary in 1989 (I believe it's Daniel mimicking his father's voice) so they were able to use quite a bit of the behind the scenes footage included in the family holdings. All of that footage was donated to the Eastman House ten years later and it would be interesting to revisit all of it to see what other treasures it may reveal.

Stills from those tests were also included in Ronald Haver's DAVID O. SELZNICK'S HOLLYWOOD published in 1980 ( I think I have the date correct) so it's been "out there" for awhile.

I don't believe that deleted scenes have ever turned up anywhere, but the documentary includes a few alternate trims (Scarlett in the original "green dress" walk with her father, for example) that must be sourced from the same family footage.

 

[RobertMG]

Though it isn't presented in full (the Susan Hayward clips were new to me, for example) a lot of that test footage (as well as other footage not in this particular group) is part of the making-of documentary that accompanies the blu-ray release.

The Selznick family made the documentary shortly before the 50th anniversary in 1989 so they were able to use quite a bit of the behind the scenes footage included in the family holdings. All of that footage was donated to the Eastman House ten years later and it would be interesting to revisit all of it to see what other treasures it may reveal.

Stills from those tests were also included in Ronald Haver's DAVID O. SELZNICK'S HOLLYWOOD published in 1980 ( I think I have the date correct) so it's been "out there" for awhile.

I don't believe that deleted scenes have ever turned up anywhere, but the documentary includes a few alternate trims (Scarlett in the original "green dress" walk with her father, for example) that must be sourced from the same family footage.

Thank you for all the great info! I never got the blu ray but have just about every dvd and vhs release. So frustrating that no deleted scenes from GWTW or even OZ has surfaced. I was told years ago a collector in TX had the deleted scenes from OZ and he found them in the garbage on the MGM lot, do not know if that is even believable!

 

[Will Krupp]

Thank you for all the great info! I never got the blu ray but have just about every dvd and vhs release. So frustrating that no deleted scenes from GWTW or even OZ has surfaced. I was told years ago a collector in TX had the deleted scenes from OZ and he found them in the garbage on the MGM lot, do not know if that is even believable!

My pleasure! The documentary was also also included in the DVD release and is WELL worth a look if you're interested in the behind the scenes saga of how the movie was made!

For my money it's right up there with the CLEOPATRA documentary as one of the best "making-of" docs I've ever seen.

 

[Garysb]

When Ron Haver wrote his book " David O Selznick's Hollywood" he did a lecture at MOMA in NYC where he showed the screen tests in full as well as excerpts of the film from Selznick's print. It was exciting to see as I believe this was before the Turner "making of "documentary. It's a shame no one has thought to release everything in full that still exists perhaps with commentary on an alternate track. I guess they believe the interest is not there.

I remember one part he ran multiple versions of the scene where Scarlett goes to Ashley and asks him to run away with her, each time with a different Scarlett. The last shown, of course, was Vivian Leigh, and the place exploded with applause.

 

[Will Krupp]

When Ron Haver wrote his book " David O Selznick's Hollywood" he did a lecture at MOMA in NYC where he showed the screen tests in full as well as excerpts of the film from Selznick's print. It was exciting to see as I believe this was before the Turner "making of "documentary.

I'm so jealous you got to see Ron Haver's lecture. When I was a teen I wanted to grow up to BE Ron Haver!

Yes, the book was published almost ten years before the documentary was made. I remember being 13 years old when it came out and it was an incredibly lavish book with an equally lavish price tag of $85 (in 1980 money!) which almost made my poor mother choke. I managed to snag a copy for $20 by joining one of those great movie book clubs that used to exist back in the day, thereby saving her some money (in the short run, anyhow, lol) It's been re-released over the years with minimized production values to reduce costs but it the original edition still sits on my shelf today and has been an invaluable resource over the years.

 

[ShellOilJunior]

Maybe this is where Criterion steps in and releases the movie on UHD? If Warner Bros is willing to license Kane, anything is possible.

 

[Mark Mayes]

Maybe this is where Criterion steps in and releases the movie on UHD? If Warner Bros is willing to license Kane, anything is possible.

That would be terrific! WB has no idea what to do with this moneymaker. They don't want John Ridley hopping on their case again.

But Criterion has come under fire for not releasing titles featuring enough black artists: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/20/movies/criterion-collection-african-americans.html
They probably would pass on it, thinking it's too controversial.

I am inclined to believe that it's a hot potato title.

 

[Lord Dalek]

They won't wait that long. They just want the 4K market to be larger than it is now.

Two years later that market has actually shrunk thanks to coronavirus and price gouging.

 

[GWTWTOO]

GWTW needs to be released in 4k. I understand the controversy, but the theatrical digital prints now include an introduction placing context to the film. So does HBO MAX and it offers some enlightening panel discussions. The video should include these, of course. The film still has millions of fans - young (yes) and older. It should not be cancelled, swept under the carpet, etc. We should be able to see both the good and bad in films of the past and learn from them. Without a doubt, there is much we can learn from GWTW, but there is still much to appreciate.

 

[Robert Harris]

GWTW needs to be released in 4k

It would need some detailed massaging.

 

[GWTWTOO]

It would need some detailed massaging.

Mr. Harris, to begin with, I respect you tremendously and look forward to reading all your disc reviews. I have followed you for years and appreciated your restoration work. I know and fully agree about the massaging that would be needed. I am assuming you are saying this because of the many matte paintings and process shots in the movie. WIth all the marvelous work WB has been doing with their vintage catalogue titles, however, I am hoping this might still be possible. I have seen the film over 225 times, know every line, and have see it in every imaginable incarnation. In fact, I remember the Metrocolor prints (the first time I saw it was when I was ten years old in 1970), the 1989 reissue (I went to Atlanta for the 50th), the 1998 Technicolor reissue, as well as the digital prints. I also saw a 1954 Technicolor print at the Dryden Theater at the George Eastman House.

In the past, I corresponded with Richard May and also recently with George Feltenstein. I greatly admire them both. I am so happy Mr. Feltenstein is back at WB - they have done such a marvelous job with their restoration work.

I guess my hope is that it might still be possible and feasible for WB to do a 4K release. Given the expertise I have seen from WB thus far, I am keeping my fingers crossed...

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Harris, to begin with, I respect you tremendously and look forward to reading all your disc reviews. I have followed you for years and appreciated your restoration work. I know and fully agree about the massaging that would be needed. I am assuming you are saying this because of the many matte paintings and process shots in the movie. WIth all the marvelous work WB has been doing with their vintage catalogue titles, however, I am hoping this might still be possible. I have seen the film over 225 times, know every line, and have see it in every imaginable incarnation. In fact, I remember the Metrocolor prints (the first time I saw it was when I was ten years old in 1970), the 1989 reissue (I went to Atlanta for the 50th), the 1998 Technicolor reissue, as well as the digital prints. I also saw a 1954 Technicolor print at the Dryden Theater at the George Eastman House.

In the past, I corresponded with Richard May and also recently with George Feltenstein. I greatly admire them both. I am so happy Mr. Feltenstein is back at WB - they have done such a marvelous job with their restoration work.

I guess my hope is that it might still be possible and feasible for WB to do a 4K release. Given the expertise I have seen from WB thus far, I am keeping my fingers crossed...

Absolutely, possible. There can be gains in many shots, but the film was never made to be seen in even 2k. That’s the early Technicolor dye transfer process.

I had a 1954 print for many years, and enjoyed examining it on a bench.

A balance would have to be struck, especially cutting from shots that have enough resolution to add to the imagey vs those that reveal too much, or need digital work to hide production or process anamolies.

Again, it can be achieved, but might best be handled with digital massage and limited resolution, ie 2.5 or 3k.

It’s overall, a film that was designed to be viewed soft and velvety.

Take a look at these examples:

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

If you peruse examples, you’ll see both original and re-prints, with slightly modified color. The frames from 1940 are those with a light gray (density) track. Those with a single area modulation are mag/opt from 1961.

 

[GWTWTOO]

Absolutely, possible. There can be gains in many shots, but the film was never made to be seen in even 2k. That’s the early Technicolor dye transfer process.

I had a 1954 print for many years, and enjoyed examining it on a bench.

A balance would have to be struck, especially cutting from shots that have enough resolution to add to the imagey vs those that reveal too much, or need digital work to hide production or process anamolies.

Again, it can be achieved, but might best be handled with digital massage and limited resolution, ie 2.5 or 3k.

It’s overall, a film that was designed to be viewed soft and velvety.

Take a look at these examples:

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

If you peruse examples, you’ll see both original and re-prints, with slightly modified color. The frames from 1940 are those with a light gray (density) track. Those with a single area modulation are mag/opt from 1961.

Were the original prints really so yellowish? I actually have seen this website before, but it's been a while. Although I have never seen a 1939 print, even the 1961 print looks really yellow.

 

[RobertMG]

Absolutely, possible. There can be gains in many shots, but the film was never made to be seen in even 2k. That’s the early Technicolor dye transfer process.

I had a 1954 print for many years, and enjoyed examining it on a bench.

A balance would have to be struck, especially cutting from shots that have enough resolution to add to the imagey vs those that reveal too much, or need digital work to hide production or process anamolies.

Again, it can be achieved, but might best be handled with digital massage and limited resolution, ie 2.5 or 3k.

It’s overall, a film that was designed to be viewed soft and velvety.

Take a look at these examples:

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

Filter | Timeline of Historical Film Colors

filmcolors.org

If you peruse examples, you’ll see both original and re-prints, with slightly modified color. The frames from 1940 are those with a light gray (density) track. Those with a single area modulation are mag/opt from 1961.

Is there an actual record in which version Mr. Selznick endorsed as his vision? 1939,1950's or 61'?

 

[Robert Harris]

Is there an actual record in which version Mr. Selznick endorsed as his vision? 1939,1950's or 61'?

It changed over the decades. He gave the 1954 a bit more color, and a reduced sepia appearance. The 1961 was very similar. 1968 was Eastman Color, and the 70mm blow-up in stereo, produced from the stems. They're all relevant. I'm most used to the 1954.

 

[RobertMG]

It changed over the decades. He gave the 1954 a bit more color, and a reduced sepia appearance. The 1961 was very similar. 1968 was Eastman Color, and the 70mm blow-up in stereo, produced from the stems. They're all relevant. I'm most used to the 1954.

Thank you! One thing that confuses is for Technicolor to create three color process and then have Kalmus's goal seem to limit the colors to a very yellowish palette this is clearly visible in the frames from 1939 GWTW frames you shared too from The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex too - then we get to see the really over the rainbow colors of Fox's musicals! Check these frames out - what do u think is the source?

 

[darkrock17]

Gone With The Wind and The Adventures of Robin Hood colors never pop like do in The Wizard of Oz. Both GWTW and Robin Hood look like they've been not completely "Turnerized" but look like they were never in color to begin with and color was then added later on.

 

[HankQuinlan]

My wife has *never* seen Gone with the Wind and has zero interest in ever seeing it. I just don't understand that. I first saw it in the 60s when my parents took my sister and I to a revival showing. I thought it was quite long and a bit boring in places but overall really enjoyed it (and Clark Gable cussed!). I have a one of the DVD releases as well as the 70th Anniversary BR and have never been able to talk her into a viewing.

I would get divorced if my wife couldn’t watch this beautiful movie