Robert Harris on The Bits - 4/14/03 column - OFFICIAL THREAD (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

BTW, Rain. Thanks for sending me the link to this thread.

 

[Rain]

It is a bit of a shame that for most people she has only recently become known for a couple less than stellar movies.

For another "stellar" movie with another "stellar" performance by Ms. Witherspoon, I would refer the crowd also to the hilarious satire Election.

 

[JohnRice]

OK, I don't want to hijack this thread, but I might as well mention another very dark comedy starring Reese that is definitely a must see, Freeway. Her supporting role in Pleasantville is quite good as well, and it's not a bad idea to see her second movie Wildflower, which is quite similar to TMITM in several ways, though it is a cable movie and does not have near the overall quality.

Until I read Mr. Harris' article, I did not know that Robert Mulligan never got to see this film. A real shame, since I think it is the culmination of his career.

 

[Brent Avery]

I just finished reading Richard Harris' article on Vista Vision and wonder if anyone has information regarding Paramount's 1955 release of Strategic Air Command ( directed by Anthony Mann) which was made available in 1998 as a 'remastered widescreen' presentation on laserdisc. I do not have anything terribly capable in regards to video quality - owning a Sony MDP 333 player and watching the movie on an older Mitsubishi 26" direct view tv - but would like to mention that the film itself looked better than alot of period films I have seen on dvd, in fact it is quite incredible when I think about it. I am sure that it was filmed in Technicolor - correct me if I am wrong as I seem to recall seeing that on the opening credits. Also, it mentions on the back cover that it "preserves the original aspect ratio of 1.75:1". Perhaps Mr. Harris could offer some insight on this particular film? I don't know what condition the original negative is in - if indeed it still exists - but it appears to me that this picture starring Jimmy Stewart would be a great candidate for release on dvd , it seems the laserdisc is quite rare and I am sure if viewed on a high end laserdisc player it would be even more stunning. An anamorphic dvd presentation would be something to see on a larger screen and would really show off the VistaVision process. There is some great aerial photography of aircraft (such as the B 36) during the early days of SAC, in flight.

 

[Robert Harris]

As far as I know, Mr. Mulligan is very much still with us, so I'm at a loss as to the statement that he had not seen MitM, unless the statement refers to the fact the I had not seen it in initial release.

SAC took beautiful advantage of the Vista process and hopefully, we should be seeing it in the near future on DVD. I doubt that the original neg is printable, and would think the the current cable offereing is derived from sep masters.

It looks as good as it does because it is of VVLA origination. All Vista films were shot on either color negative or black and white stock, with PRINTS made by Technicolor. They were never shot in Technicolor, although some did use the old cameras, which had been converted to the new purpose.

 

[JohnRice]

It was just a typo combined with me not checking that he is actually still alive. For some reason I automatically took the line "which never got to see" as "which he never got to see" when you meant "which I never got to see." I understood he hasn't directed anything since.

 

[Christian Appel]

Using the same basic 8 perf format, Technirama films were photographed with a 1.5 squeeze anamorphic lens (provided by Panavision), which yielded an uncompressed image (using the entire area of the negative frame of 1.5:1 aspect ratio) of 2.25:1.

Robert,

I believe the anamorphic adapter lenses on all Technirama cameras were made by the Dutch company "De Oude Delft" (later also manufacturer of the "Cinemonta" flatbed editing machines).

Some film credits say "lenses by Panavision" (as in SPARTACUS), but this refers to the printing lenses used in the process of printing the 35mm 8-perf camera footage (1.5x squeeze) to 4-perf Scope preprint (2x squeeze) and to blow up the 35mm 8-perf (anamorphic) to 70mm (spherical). I also have an old Panavision paper (have to search for it :b ) where the printing lens in mentioned, but no taking lens.

If you know of any camera lenses for Technirama manufactured by Panavision, I would be most interested to hear more about it!

Best regards,

CA

 

[Robert Harris]

An interesting point regarding the taking optics.

We'll check with Panavision.

 

[John Alderson]

Thank you Mr. Harris.

I took your advice and ordered Three Colors blind. The box set finally arrived today, and my wife got suspicious when she saw terms like "Sexy" and "Erotic" on the covers. Well, we just finished watching Blue, and we were both totally blown away. I was unprepared for how much I was going to love this movie. I'm now looking very forward to watching White and Red later this week.

So, thanks again... but go easy on those "blind" recommendations, I don't know if I'll be able to control myself

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Alderson...

If you've only viewed Blue, "you ain't seen nothin' yet!"

I'd like to know your feelings after you've viewed all three.

RAH

 

[Stephen PI]

RAH quote:
It is the .991 dimension which is reduced from 1.50 to reach the 1.85 aspect ratio.

Robert, when cropping the image to reach the 1.85:1 aspect ratio is the image cropped at the top and bottom equally or just the top. Is it possible that the camera operator added headroom only and did not intend any cropping at the bottom? If this is the case then in telecine if the image was cropped equally at the top and bottom the result would be a vertical image that is off center. I have two VV laserdiscs of "Strategic Air Command" and "Desparate Hours" that exhibit this very problem, not throughout however as some attempt has been made to compensate.

 

[Robert Harris]

Generally the cropping is designed to be equal top and bottom.

 

[John Alderson]

I finished watching the trilogy a couple days ago. Blue remains my favorite of the three; it just grabbed me and didn't let go. The other two took a little longer for me to get involved, but both my wife and I had the same reaction upon completing them--we immediately wanted to watch them again.

I was expecting White to be more similar to Blue in style, and the box claims it's an "Erotic Treat" which set me up for something quite different than it was. I really fell in love with this one when Karol makes his unconventional trip back to Poland. His "triumphant" arrival was genius.

Red made me wish I could speak French well. (I took 6 years of it, you'd think I'd remember a little more than I do.) The payoff at the end of this one had me grinning like an idiot. The worst part was that I was done with the trilogy.

I did try to find La Double Vie de Veronique at the local video stores, but no luck :frowning: I saw that one as part of a class 10 years ago, and was hoping to revisit it. I hope it gets a DVD release soon...

Anyway, needless to say, I couldn't be happier with a blind DVD purchase Thanks again!

 

[Seth Paxton]

Some more info...

The last film shot with Technicolor's 3-strip process was Foxfire (1954).

Eastman and Technicolor had partnered for many years in researching 35mm color negatives. The main cause of their split and eventual competition (which Eastman would win) was a 1947 government antitrust suit against them for monopolistic practices. Also in 1945 most of Technicolor's monopak patents expired.

Eastman was forced to license their monopak research to all companies with no favoritism to Technicolor.

Eastman's monopak color negative had the advantage over 3-strip because it's lack of special requirements (for camera and processing) that the 3-strip had.

Technicolor's dye imbibition (which I assume was their first monopak solution) was found to have poor resolution on widescreen films, which also gave Eastman a big advantage with the advent of anamorphic films, and by 1955 most widescreen films were being shot with Eastman's color negative.

This information comes from the very imformative The Classical Hollywood Cinema by Bordwell, Thompson, and Staiger.

Also from that book

In 1947, 90 per cent of 35mm color was Technicolor; ten years later, the firm met only half the industry's color needs. After 1953 Technicolor operated as primarily a laboratory and research firm (working for television, NASA, and the military).

One thing that helped keep them going was that during this time (50's into the 60's), Technicolor was the only Hollywood lab that could handle the processing and printing of 65mm and 70mm guage film.



Just think how much business practices affect the film arts, including the restoration problems that snuck in during this transition, something I'm sure no one at that time was worried about.


Also, I just watched the 2-strip Technicolor film The Black Pirate the other day. It's a pretty interesting process to see in action, yet it doesn't really carry that much more emotional weight than the use of color toned film stocks did, at least for me. Half the time Fairbanks looks almost B&W (ala Pleasantville) next to the pirates.

 

[Robert Harris]

I believe the earliest lab work done on 65mm in Hollywood was CFI and not Technicolor, for processing of 80 Days and Oklahoma!

 

[Seth Paxton]

I stated that in an awkward fashion. Here's exactly how they put it, which does not imply anything about first

Moreover, until the 1960's, Technicolor was the only Hollywood laboratory with the capacity to process and print 65mm and 70mm guages.

Anyway, their article is very interesting. I had never thought of Technicolor as the little guy versus a giant Eastman Kodak, but I guess that's basically how it was.

Robert, you are obviously very familiar with how much the technology affects the art, but it just amazes me the more I study it the extent by which the film arts have ALWAYS been driven by technology and business. In fact, it could well be argued that it was actually worse before 1940 or 1920, than it is today. People like to reflect back before CGI and front-loaded releases and pine for the pure days, but there is no such thing.

Right from the start alliances for production and distribution were being made and films catered to the technologies at hand, or were driven by them. So the next time we complain about some studio making a film that is nothing more than a chance to market some CGI we might consider the fact that artists like the Lumieres were "mass" producing hand painted films because that's what the people wanted too.

Just imagine how cinema might have been had the Eastman/Technicolor thing gone differently.



Also, I just watched White last night finally and am getting ready to watch Red. Nice touch having Blue and White interact in the courtroom like that (with the lawyer mistress from Blue as the wife's (Delpy) lawyer in White). I went back to see the scene in Blue again since it had been about a month and I obviously wouldn't have recognized the guy at that point when Binoche passes him.

I understand Red has something similar but I don't know what it is. Guess I'm going to find out.

It sure is interesting to think about color film and the original requirements placed on lighting, makeup and set direction by Technicolor (they insisted that a Technicolor color consultant be on set for all Technicolor based productions) and then think about the freedom to use color that filmmakers have today, enough to create films like Blue, White, and Red.

 

[Robert Harris]

Time is sometimes more kindly to our historically "great" people than it should be.

One case in point would be dear 'ol Mr. Edison of New Jersey.

While history speaks of him as the great "inventor," we now find that many of "his" inventions were actually the work of others, in many cases his employees.

And that recognizing that the emerging flickers industry was dependent upon something called the "sprocket hole," whatever that was in its many and various forms...

patented the sprocket hole.

And then hired Pinkertons to find and destroy the cameras of any small motion picture companies who weren't paying him a license fee.

Apparently he did have a patent on a sprocket hole, but it was not precisely the same as used by the Lumiere's, and that found on many imported cameras.

No one knows for certain how many cameras were destroyed by his hired Pinkerton goons or how many people were beaten, but the early history of our industry ain't pretty.

 

[JohnRice]

Good observations from Robert and Seth. Thomas Edison's "personal" contributions to technology get more interesting all the time.

Remember that in the time of "classic" movie making, actors were really no more than indentured servants to the studios. Imagine what films would be like today if that were still the case.

Robert brings up an interesting word. I wonder how many folks here are aware of where the slang term for movies, "Flicks" came from.