Senior HTF Member
- Dec 20, 1999
- Real Name
- Peter Apruzzese
Somebody please tell me that this is some kind of elaborate Internet hoax:
I have an original onion skin of Hayes' story treatment and an original script (which interestingly includes a couple of scenes NOT in Stewart's apartment). Obviously there is no mention of 3D anywhere to be found, not that there necessarily would be if they'd already given up the idea. The point is, by the time Rear Window went before the cameras, Hitchcock and company certainly knew it was not 3D and it was certainly at no point designed for 3D - so, I'm not interested in this thing at all.Bob Furmanek said:If true, this does throw a monkey wrench into the theory that Hitchcock had no interest in 3-D.
In going through the trades from that period as extensively as I have, I don't recall seeing any mention of this. I would like to see more correspondence (and an early continuity or script draft) to see how far they got with this idea. DIAL M was announced for 3-D production on April 5 but didn't begin shooting until August 5. The announcement that Hitchcock was going to film in 3-D made the front page of the trades.
Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart acquired rights to produce the film in July. Warner Bros. was announced as the possible distributor.
By time he completed DIAL M on September 25, 3-D production was practically dead. The only films shooting at the end of September were PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE and THE MADE MAGICIAN. Paramount had finished their last dimensional feature in July. The last two films shot in October were CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON.
I can tell you that last September, WB was going through paperwork looking to document the aspect ratio for DIAL M...
Rear Window is not a public domain film.dvdvision said:It's not dated april first thought. I'm wondering, isn't Rear Window public domain? Anybody could reissue it in a changed form, if this was the case, providing they come up with their own transfert.
Here's their blog, the post is from april 26
I do find the video a bit strange, in that "it was the intent so please fans shut up" way. It looks borderly amateur, but not goofy enough to pass as a joke.
I'll dig it out and see if there's a date on it - the date on the script is December 9, 1953. I recently came into an incredible treasure trove of Hitchcock scripts, including Vertigo (still called From Among the Dead) and the very first attempt at a script to Vertigo by Maxwell Anderson, called Darkling, I Listen, as well as To Catch a Thief, Psycho (including the script for the trailer), an early draft of the 1956 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, and an early version of North by Northwest, titled The Man in Lincoln's Nose.Bob Furmanek said:Burks would have been on location shooting HONDO when they acquired the rights. With all the trouble they were having with the camera, I doubt Burks would have made the suggestion.
Can you tell me the dates on that treatment?
He's not on imdb. The only online reference to him is back to that PR and the vimeo page.Bob Furmanek said:Who is Clarence Joseph, ASC?
No, bad idea all around if the film was not designed, photographed, and edited for 3-D.rsmithjr said:Whether or not this is genuine, there may be a good idea here.
Yes, if it were supposed to be 3-D. But it doesn't appear to be that way.rsmithjr said:Rear Window is a film that could greatly benefit from 3D treatment. I can see many scenes being very effective.
I don't disagree entirely, but I still think they *wouldn't* hand this off to a bunch of Charlie-nobodies even if they had the idea to do such a disservice to the film.rsmithjr said:As to the argument that Universal would only use reputable labs for their work, I cannot say that I am overly enamored of the work they have been doing on Blu-ray, or in fact that they have any idea at all as to how it should be done.
Okay: It's some kind of elaborate Internet hoax.Peter Apruzzese said:
I would certainly take a look at it if done reasonably well in 3D. Obviously, I would still want the original version to be in circulation.Peter Apruzzese said:No, bad idea all around if the film was not designed, photographed, and edited for 3-D.
Yes, if it were supposed to be 3-D. But it doesn't appear to be that way.