Nothing Sacred (1937) - new Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) restoration (1 Viewer)

[Stefan Andersson]

In August, 2021, MoMA is showing a new restoration of "Nothing Sacred".

Relevant quote:

"This new MoMA restoration is based on the original Technicolor separations in the Museum’s collection, and is the first to reflect the experimental color design of the film’s first 1937 release. Backing away from the harsh tones of early two-color Technicolor, cinematographer W. Howard Greene uses Technicolor’s new three-strip process to create softer, paler color washes, an intriguing effect that later reissues obscured by pumping up the hues to the standard Technicolor intensity."

Source: https://www.moma.org/calendar/film/5335

 

[Will Krupp]

Hmmmmmm. I'm listening....

 

[Will Krupp]

I mean, I have MANY questions but I'm interested.

Questions such as, how did these separation masters come in to MOMA's possession and are they the same separation negatives that Scott MacQueen used 20 some odd years ago to restore the film for Disney at that time. If so, the first 8 minutes had to be digitally recombined (a fillm restoration first, I believe) using the magenta positive because the 1st reel green/magenta negative didn't exist. Is this a new scan of the same negatives, in essence, a fresher take? I'm all for a new version, but the existing MacQueen/Disney/Cinetech 1998 (ish) restoration is already represented on the second KINO blu-ray of the title.

It doesn't help that the showing is premiering on August 10th but MOMA seems to be keeping the details of the restoration pretty close to the vest.

 

[Robert Harris]

There are no separations. There are negatives and masters.

There is nothing to separate.

 

[Will Krupp]

There are no separations. There are negatives and masters.

Scott MacQueen refers to the original negatives as "separation negatives" in the article about the 1998ish restoration, text of which can be found here: http://www.ruscom.com/cinetech/news9.txt and MOMA refers to their elements as "separations" so perhaps it's a case of them using easier to understand but less than technically correct terms so the masses (of which I am one) will grasp the concept? Maybe it's a case of terms creeping into our film vocabulary (like "roadshow" or "film emulsion") that are less than accurate but have taken hold anyway?

I have no idea, but if we can't trust Scott MacQueen to tell it to us straight, what hope have we?

 

[Robert Harris]

Scott MacQueen refers to the original negatives as "separation negatives" in the article about the 1998ish restoration, text of which can be found here: http://www.ruscom.com/cinetech/news9.txt and MOMA refers to their elements as "separations" so perhaps it's a case of them using easier to understand but less than technically correct terms so the masses (of which I am one) will grasp the concept? Maybe it's a case of terms creeping into our film vocabulary (like "roadshow" or "film emulsion") that are less than accurate but have taken hold anyway?

I have no idea, but if we can't trust Scott MacQueen to tell it to us straight, what hope have we?

Mr. MacQueen knows his stuff. My perceptions of “seps” are b/w masters protecting an Eastman element via…

Separation.

 

[Stefan Andersson]

In the Venice Classics section of the 2018 Venice Biennale, there was a restoration of "Nothing Sacred" credited to MoMA. Maybe this restoration is not brand new.
Source: https://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/2018/lineup/venice-classics/nothing-sacred

See also Dave Kehr´s tweet here:

Relevant discussion from 2018:

Nothing Sacred (1937) - NitrateVille.com

 

[warnerbro]

Looking forward to this because this is a great film and Lombard is at her best. The other bluray was good but I can't help but think it can be much better.

 

[battlebeast]

This is a William Wellman film! My fav director! KINO released this twice before?

Disney own this film?

 

[J. Casey]

The film itself is public domain. Disney owns the Selznick Studio elements. Kino's first blu ray edition was Selznick's personal nitrate print and their second edition was from Disney owned elements. Personally, I prefer the second edition, which unfortunately is on Kino's "while supplies last" ongoing sale, then will be OOP.

 

[battlebeast]

A STAR IS BORN is also PD. Are all Selznick films PD? (Except GWTW)

 

[Stephen_J_H]

A STAR IS BORN is also PD. Are all Selznick films PD? (Except GWTW)

It depends. The two examples you cite are PD because Selznick International [or its successors in interest] failed to renew copyright in the 28th year after publication [1965].

Update: a total of 4 Selznick International titles are in the public domain for this reason. The other two are Little Lord Fauntleroy and Made for Each Other.

 

[battlebeast]

.

 

[battlebeast]

It depends. The two examples you cite are PD because Selznick International [or its successors in interest] failed to renew copyright in the 28th year after publication [1965].

Update: a total of 4 Selznick International titles are in the public domain for this reason. The other two are Little Lord Fauntleroy and Made for Each Other.

Thanks for that!

 

[Robert Harris]

It depends. The two examples you cite are PD because Selznick International [or its successors in interest] failed to renew copyright in the 28th year after publication [1965].

Update: a total of 4 Selznick International titles are in the public domain for this reason. The other two are Little Lord Fauntleroy and Made for Each Other.

From what I understand, the company was in disarray as
DOS passed away.