Rouben Mamoulian's Applause (1929) and Love Me Tonight (1932) on November 25th (1 Viewer)

[Rob Ray]

I watched the first few minutes of "Counsellor at Law" again last night to refresh my memory on the print quality. Gee, Bill, you're hard to please. While it's true that the source was not a fine-grain taken directly from the negative and digitally facelifted (a la 42nd Street), it is a generally nice, clean 35mm print, probably from one of the archives. Not flawless, but nice. It's grainier than most vintage DVD sources because it's a release print and not a fine-grain interpositive and it's a low-contrast print at that. But it's definitely 35mm and well above average. I'd bet audiences in first-run houses in 1933 didn't see a better print than this.

There are many films from this era for which we'd love to have material this nice. To bring this back on topic, I doubt "Love Me Tonight" is going to look much better than this.

Remember, the look and grain texture of films varies from studio to studio as well as from year to year. A 1933 Universal is not going to look like a 1933 MGM or a 1933 Warners. And a 1933 MGM is not going to look like a 1936 MGM.

I'm very happy with "Counsellor at Law" and am thrilled it's on DVD. It's one of Isabel Jewell's best roles. -- "Simon and Tedesko! One moment and I'll connect you!"

 

[Bill Burns]

I'd bet audiences in first-run houses in 1933 didn't see a better print than this.

I'd bet you're wrong by a country mile. If the source here is anything better than badly preserved third or greater generation 35mm, perhaps a safety print made in the 50's, by no means 35mm release nitrate, why then I'll salt and pepper another hat and chow down. My best (which is to say, most generous) guess is standard 16mm reduction, possibly first generation reduction, possibly second generation duped -- preserved in mediocre shape at that, though if a dupe the quality of preservation may not be so much an issue (I'm unsure if the murky visuals here are fading or duping, but I'm inclined to the latter). That element may have been copied to 35mm safety as a blow-up, if so. Detail and contrast are far too poor to suggest anything else ("low contrast" print? Yep, they call those dupes in film preservation circles -- perhaps one that overcompensated for the usual build-up in contrast seen in the duping process, perhaps one that was simply poorly printed! This isn't Alien, Rob, they weren't after a dark, murky visual aesthetic in that brightly lit office building, and blacks should be black, rather than stone cold gray -- in the recreation of black levels, the mediocre but acceptable Trouble in Paradise easily bests Counsellor, and it's of a better quality for detail and highlights, as well ... from memory, I'd actually say The Lady Eve could give Counsellor a run for its dupey money, but I'd have to revisit that disc to say with certainty -- I'm hard pressed to come up with a presentation as lacking as that of Counsellor in major studio B&W classic product, and you need only look ... let's see, an obscure release, hmmm ... ah yes, at Image's UA Street Scene to see a film that one should expect to look worn, yet nevertheless looks vastly more like 35mm nitrate than Counsellor, released two years before Counsellor, and, I doubt, ever re-released in its era -- though that's strictly an assumption).

"I'm happy that you're happy," however, to borrow from a slightly more recent film. If Counsellor looks like vintage 35mm nitrate to you (a first release print, no less!), I don't think there's a studio licensed or studio issued classic on disc that's going to bring ya' down, and maybe that's a good thing.