OMG Just received this from Gershwin Estate 1959 Porgy and Bess! They want it restored! (1 Viewer)

[RobertMG]

He is some info they claim the Academy has the negs interesting reading
Gottlieb sees it differently. In the late 1990s, he says, he and Sam Goldwyn Jr. asked the Gershwins to renew the rights to the music so the negative could be restored. And Gottlieb knows the negative still exists because it’s just where he and Sam Jr. put it: in the Academy library. But after many months negotiating with “a lot of lawyers and family members” who represented the Gershwin interests, he says he suddenly got only silence, with no explanation. “I decided from a frustration perspective, emotion perspective, and business perspective, there was no benefit to showing a poor-quality [print] to an audience,” he says.

Brothers John and Tony Goldwyn, who now control the family trust with Gottlieb, say they have no objection to restoring the film in the right circumstances. “We would all as a group be completely open and enthusiastic if all the parties could come to agreement, in a financial sense, to restore it,” says Tony, best known for playing President Grant on ABC’s Scandal. In other words, the Goldwyn family does not intend to finance the restoration but insists on retaining its rights to release the film in all formats. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...e-holy-grail-of-missing-movies-160332593.html

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Brothers John and Tony Goldwyn, who now control the family trust with Gottlieb, say they have no objection to restoring the film in the right circumstances. “We would all as a group be completely open and enthusiastic if all the parties could come to agreement, in a financial sense, to restore it,” says Tony, best known for playing President Grant on ABC’s Scandal. In other words, the Goldwyn family does not intend to finance the restoration but insists on retaining its rights to release the film in all formats.

This is exactly what some of us have been saying and trying to explain.

The people who own the film are not willing to pay to restore it, nor are they willing to relinquish the rights to the film in exchange for someone else to fund the restoration.

Why in the world would anyone be willing to give these people, who are wealthy in their own right, free money to take care of what is their responsibility?

That would be like me demanding that you buy me a car and then not let you drive it, except the car costs a million dollars.

 

[RobertMG]

This is exactly what some of us have been saying and trying to explain.

The people who own the film are not willing to pay to restore it, nor are they willing to relinquish the rights to the film in exchange for someone else to fund the restoration.

Why in the world would anyone be willing to give these people, who are wealthy in their own right, free money to take care of what is their responsibility?

That would be like me demanding that you buy me a car and then not let you drive it, except the car costs a million dollars.

I am in total agreement - that was from 2017 - a page claims in 2019 the negative was examined for possible work - the biggest sadness is that the further you get from the people that made the film the heirs have no interest and eventually some foundation or the Academy will restore and the film might be locked away thank u sir each day though more is found out about the sad fate of this I love just reading the posts and history after all I wrote two history books

 

[mark brown]

Let’s change the subject.

 

[Will Krupp]

The people who own the film are not willing to pay to restore it, nor are they willing to relinquish the rights to the film in exchange for someone else to fund the restoration.

I think the Goldwyn Family position is a little different from the Gershwin Family position though, isn't it?

"“We would all as a group be completely open and enthusiastic if all the parties could come to agreement, in a financial sense, to restore it.” The Goldwyn Family at least seems to be saying they'd would agree to restore it as long as ALL of the rights holders, themselves included, agree to share in the funding.

It makes some sense, since the Goldwyns are a "film asset" family while the Gershwins are mostly a music family. If anything, it seems like an issue between the two of them since the Goldwyns don't seem willing to pony up the all the money and then have the Gershwins take a share of any profits. I can't blame them for it, either.

 

[RobertMG]

Let’s change the subject.

Great reading

 

[RobertMG]

I think the Goldwyn Family position is a little different from the Gershwin Family position though, isn't it?

"“We would all as a group be completely open and enthusiastic if all the parties could come to agreement, in a financial sense, to restore it.” The Goldwyn Family at least seems to be saying they'd would agree to restore it as long as ALL of the rights holders, themselves included, agree to share in the funding.

It makes some sense, since the Goldwyns are a "film asset" family while the Gershwins are mostly a music family. If anything, it seems like an issue between the two of them since the Goldwyns don't seem willing to pony up the all the money and then have the Gershwins take a share of any profits. I can't blame them for it, either.

SO much drama over there - one of the family in the Gershwin side says the film is a piece of you know what and the prints were all ordered destroyed Michael Feinstein that did not happen. Will you and Josh and RAH pegged it just hoping it is restored b4 its a lost film and think we have another 37 years till the copyright expires!

 

[Robert Harris]

SO much drama over there - one of the family in the Gershwin side says the film is a piece of you know what and the prints were all ordered destroyed Michael Feinstein that did not happen. Will you and Josh and RAH pegged it just hoping it is restored b4 its a lost film and think we have another 37 years till the copyright expires!

Copyright does not come into play here.

 

[RobertMG]

Copyright does not come into play here.

Why?

 

[Robert Harris]

Why?

Time to let this rest

 

[RobertMG]

Time to let this rest

Okay ---- the gators are circling My last post on this article says a print left with the LOC in 1960 has been digitized and can be seen there if you have a researcher card maybe someone here will go to the LOC and view it and tell us about it

 

[Robert Harris]

Okay ---- the gators are circling My last post on this article says a print left with the LOC in 1960 has been digitized and can be seen there if you have a researcher card maybe someone here will go to the LOC and view it and tell us about it

There is no mystery. No need to have anyone do anything. And a print is of little to no value.

It appears that you’re attempting to re-invent the wheel.

None of this matters.

Time to let it rest.

I’m done here.

 

[RobertMG]

There is no mystery. No need to have anyone do anything. And a print is of little to no value.

It appears that you’re attempting to re-invent the wheel.

None of this matters.

Time to let it rest.

Done on this subject! As they say money talks . . . . .u know the rest See I get it!!!!!!!! Love to you RAH love to all!

 

[uncledougie]

Thanks, Bob, now onward to other worthy projects!

 

[Matt Hough]

I hadn't watched it in quite a while, so I re-familiarized myself with it tonight so I could make some comments. I suspect the estates probably don't think the film is worth the effort. While the vocal performances are wonderful (both the dubbers and the few actors like Pearl Bailey, Sammy Davis, and Brock Peters who do their own singing), the film is rather wretchedly directed. I don't know if Preminger was intimidated by its sweeping opera quality (shouldn't have been since he did a fine job directing Carmen Jones which is just as operatic) or Todd-AO got the better of him or he was just lazy being a replacement rather than the original director of choice, but apart from some dolly shots and an occasional pan, the camera remains statically in medium shot through most of the scenes. There are no real close-ups that I can recall. Apart from three location sequences (which includes the "It Ain't Necessarily So" Sammy Davis Jr. still offered above by RAH and is the best number in the film), the camera is glued to the floor of the Catfish Row soundstage set making this one of the most visually uninteresting musicals ever filmed.

I remember reading somewhere that Samuel Goldwyn spent $6 million on this movie (his own money or some investors, I wonder?), but I'm sure he didn't recover a fraction of it in rental income.

 

[OliverK]

I hadn't watched it in quite a while, so I re-familiarized myself with it tonight so I could make some comments. I suspect the estates probably don't think the film is worth the effort. While the vocal performances are wonderful (both the dubbers and the few actors like Pearl Bailey, Sammy Davis, and Brock Peters who do their own singing), the film is rather wretchedly directed. I don't know if Preminger was intimidated by its sweeping opera quality (shouldn't have been since he did a fine job directing Carmen Jones which is just as operatic) or Todd-AO got the better of him or he was just lazy being a replacement rather than the original director of choice, but apart from some dolly shots and an occasional pan, the camera remains statically in medium shot through most of the scenes. There are no real close-ups that I can recall. Apart from three location sequences (which includes the "It Ain't Necessarily So" Sammy Davis Jr. still offered above by RAH and is the best number in the film), the camera is glued to the floor of the Catfish Row soundstage set making this one of the most visually uninteresting musicals ever filmed.

I remember reading somewhere that Samuel Goldwyn spent $6 million on this movie (his own money or some investors, I wonder?), but I'm sure he didn't recover a fraction of it in rental income.

Preminger is getting a bad rap for this one and I am not sure it was all his decisions in this one. As you say the camera is uncharacteristically immobile for long parts of the movie which makes it a rather stagey affair.

Rentals were 3.5 million by the way in the US alone. Unlike Fox who made sure that Cleopatra made back its money over the years Porgy and Bess was apparently dumped on the market and quickly forgotten when it certainly had some replay potential by virtue of its story and mostly black cast alone. It would also have helped that it was shot in 70mm.

 

[Matt Hough]

Preminger is getting a bad rap for this one and I am not sure it was all his decisions in this one. As you say the camera is uncharacteristically immobile for long parts of the movie which makes it a rather stagey affair.

Thanks for the info on its rentals.

At this stage of his career, Preminger pretty much called his own shots and was well known as a martinet on the set. I'm not sure even the powerful Goldwyn would have interfered especially since Preminger was brought in after the fact and likely would have set strict conditions for his hiring at a late date. Just theorizing, of course, but I'm thinking Preminger maybe thought the staged theater approach to the direction might be appropriate for this folk opera. If so, he couldn't have been more wrong.

 

[cinerama10]

It is really not a very good film is it ?

I agree with you but it has such unforgettable music and a superb cast.

 

[midvalleyguy]

I watched my copy again recently and have to agree with the comments by Matt Hough and OliverK. It has a great cast and music but it often looks like a filmed theatre performance with acutely uninspired direction – no close-ups, people mostly singing and acting in medium to wide shot, and a very artificial Catfish Row studio set with a seemingly bolted-down camera that rarely moves in any meaningful way. I wish there had been more exterior sequences. I wonder whether watching it in 70mm in a cinema would be a major experience, apart from picture quality.

I’m unlikely to be around for a restored Bluray release, so I’d be quite happy with a good quality print (if available) on DVD in the meantime. At least I have the soundtrack I can play.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

I saw that famous private print screened at LACMA years ago, the one where Sammy Davis Jr's son was in attendance. Compared to what was available for home viewing it was a revelation. The hideous low-rez monstrosity of a pirated DVD I do own is plain unwatchable. Unfortunately, I do like the film quite a lot and the staginess of it really never bothered me that much. Preminger was brave enough to include Bess' "nose candy" thing, which I understand was in the original story not the opera. The music and performances are phenomenal, however. I've seen some really horrible movies I abhor that some people adore so I claim my right to like this one. I'd pay a helluva lot for a disc of that LACMA print. Beggars can't be choosers I guess.