Blu-ray Review Summertime (1955) Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

Originally posted here on April 25.

Producer/exhibitor Ilya Lopert had planned THE TIME OF THE CUCKOO for widescreen cinematography before the start of principal photography.

His initial plan was to use the complex Mobilia lens system which would allow for variable image size on-screen throughout the film, depending on the intended mood and visual needs of each individual scene.

Variety: November 4, 1953

Variety: June 16, 1954


Without access to production documents, it's not clear what decision was ultimately made on-set with use of a Mobilia lens. What is certain is that widescreen presentation was definitely the intent for this film by its production company before the start of principal photography on July 12, 1954.

By time of the world premiere in Venice on May 29, 1955 and the US premiere in New York on June 21, 1955, plans for the Mobilia lens in theaters had been dropped and the intended aspect ratio was 1.85:1.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Not in at least a dozen years.

Well I feel old.

 

[RICK BOND]

Is this the Trailer from the New Criterion Bluray ? The PQ looks Great ! I hope the movie looks even better.

 

[RobertMG]

Is this the Trailer from the New Criterion Bluray ? The PQ looks Great ! I hope the movie looks even better.

Got it from imdb --I was stunned by the quality not sure if it from new transfer - notice it is not widescreen - this is so strange ---the posters mention Wonderful Venice or whatever you think they would say captured in widescreen etc

 

[haineshisway]

The original concept from the producers was to emulate MagnaScope presentations (and THIS IS CINERMA) by opening in standard ratio and then expand the image for dramatic effect. That would explain why opening titles are not adequately blocked for widescreen.

I shared this information several months ago and will repost it. Criterion does not address this on the new release?

That's very interesting. Please repost the information.

 

[Douglas R]

Got it from imdb --I was stunned by the quality not sure if it from new transfer - notice it is not widescreen - this is so strange ---the posters mention Wonderful Venice or whatever you think they would say captured in widescreen etc

That’s obviously not the original theatrical trailer.

 

[OliverK]

Originally posted here on April 25.

WOW! Not surprised that this did not take off but at least Criterion could have implemented the zoom from 1.33 to a wider aspect ratio after the opening credits. Now the question is: Do they know this and did they go ahead with their release anyway or is it probable that they aren't aware of it?

In any case in the present situation there is not much to be done about the Criterion release so it may be an idea to start watching it in 1.33:1 and then to zoom it up to some degree.

 

[andersmo]

That’s obviously not the original theatrical trailer.

You're probably right. It may be a recent recreation of the original trailer. Since it was published on YouTube in 2018, it's not from Criterion's new transfer either. It was published by Screenbound Pictures, a British company. Their logo is visible at the top right corner all through the trailer.


Here's what I think is more likely to be the original theatrical trailer. Note that unlike the trailer above, all the titles have been formatted to allow for cropping to widescreen. (Disregarding the French subtitles.)

 

[Robert Harris]

The original concept from the producers was to emulate MagnaScope presentations (and THIS IS CINERMA) by opening in standard ratio and then expand the image for dramatic effect. That would explain why opening titles are not adequately blocked for widescreen.

I shared this information several months ago and will repost it. Criterion does not address this on the new release?

I don’t believe the system was ever used on this production. Two and a half years later, the same team was using an Arri with a scope adapter, and keeping things basic.

The film was shot in (and fully protected for) 1.37. MT and production footage do not work together in 1.85. Better in 1.66.

How many theaters actually ran Magna? RCMH was capable. But how many actually ran it in the 20s?

If you’re able to come up with tech specifics on the Mobilia system, I’d be interested. But it sounds very much akin to Magna, possibly using a zoom adapter for projection, and 4-way maskings.

But the concept of controlling the system in production via the camera sounds insane at best, as it could wreak havoc on the production.

And as far as projection, the changing aspect ratios and sizes from the booth would also add a variance of illumination.

When sizing was used via Magna it was during changeovers, and generally with raised amperage as well as a shorter lens.

I can just envision DL going for performance and perfect imagery, whilst some poor soul just off set, trying to tell him “We’re going to need 2.75 in this shot.”

I don’t believe they’d survive the initial communication.

Did it work for This is Cinerama? Certainly.

But I don’t see it beyond a presentation gimmick.

 

[andersmo]

What I find somewhat amusing is that as Katharine/Jane falls into the water, Mauro neatly catches her film camera. In real life, it would probably have been more likely for the camera to go into the water with her.

The camera was a pretty nice and expensive 16mm one for an amateur movie maker like Jane Hudson. But Jane wasn't a real person who had to pay for her props herself. A few extra cameras wouldn't have added much to the total budget. So why didn't they sacrifice the camera to make that scene more realistic? Did they consider it too valuable? Were they being considerate, not to litter the canals with scrap cameras?

You may note that after that scene, we don't get to see her camera anymore. Mauro does ask for it, but Jane replies that she's forgotten to bring it. So, did the script originally specify for the camera to be lost? Maybe those lines of dialogue were added as an afterthought to explain the absence of the camera...

 

[OliverK]

I don’t believe the system was ever used on this production. Two and a half years later, the same team was using an Arri with a scope adapter, and keeping things basic.

The film was shot in (and fully protected for) 1.37. MT and production footage do not work together in 1.85. Better in 1.66.

How many theaters actually ran Magna? RCMH was capable. But how many actually ran it in the 20s?

If you’re able to come up with tech specifics on the Mobilia system, I’d be interested. But it sounds very much akin to Magna, possibly using a zoom adapter for projection, and 4-way maskings.

But the concept of controlling the system in production via the camera sounds insane at best, as it could wreak havoc on the production.

And as far as projection, the changing aspect ratios and sizes from the booth would also add a variance of illumination.

When sizing was used via Magna it was during changeovers, and generally with raised amperage as well as a shorter lens.

I can just envision DL going for performance and perfect imagery, whilst some poor soul just off set, trying to tell him “We’re going to need 2.75 in this shot.”

I don’t believe they’d survive the initial communication.

Did it work for This is Cinerama? Certainly.

But I don’t see it beyond a presentation gimmick.

I would think that David Lean may have been OK with the credits being in a different aspect ratio but for the rest of the movie he would have wanted to concentrate on making the movie - without any gimmickry.

And I also would have liked to see the poor projectionists who would have been responsible to accommodate for varying aspect ratios according the changing mood / scenery or whatever. Thankfully somebody seems to have come to their senses before this was implemented.

 

[Nick*Z]

IMO, Criterion has come down a peg over the last several years.

I've thought this for some time too. Not only has their selection process of movies to include in their collection of 'socially significant' pictures become highly questionable, but they seem to be willing to accept whatever 'quality' is currently available to produce their hi-def transfers.

Big glaring moment for me, in terms of quality, was the release of The Philadelphia Story from Warner which was the same transfer as the DVD release, even having the same glaring edge effects and digital combing in several scenes. The same was true of Criterion's release of Swing Time. Neither received the necessary video upgrades before arriving on Criterion's doorstep.

And Criterion - once the Tiffany of the home video industry - was just 'okay' with that. Not good. They've also slipped in producing homegrown extras. The Leave Her To Heaven disc in particular was starved for extras.

I think Warner thought it might market older transfers to Criterion while keeping the higher end goodies for their own WAC line up. NOT impressed.

Criterion needs to get back to doing better work with a better spate of 'socially, culturally and historically significant' pictures that deserve to see the light of day in hi-def/high end releases.

Thoughts on what films, docs and television, they might consider, most that are still MIA on most video formats:

Star!
Porgy and Bess
Around the World in 80 Days
Marie Antoinette (1938)
Greed
Kevin Browlow's HOLLYWOOD: A History of the Silent Cinema
The Thorn Birds
The Prisoner of Zenda (1938)
The Pleasure of His Company
The Night of the Iguana
The original unaltered Star Wars Trilogy (now, wouldn't this one be a money-generating coup?!?)
Song of the South
Wilson
Stormy Weather
Cabin in the Sky
Island in the Sun
Anna and the King (1999)
North and South
Emma (1996)
Young and Innocent
Alfie
Wuthering Heights (1939)
State Fair (1945) - new transfer
Anchors Aweigh - new transfer
The Desert Fox
The Rains Came
The King and I - new transfer
Anastasia (1956) - new transfer
Strangers When We Meet
The Millionairess
The Long Good Friday
Murder, She Said
The Towering Inferno
The House on Telegraph Hill
Harriet Craig
Queen Bee
The Country Girl
The Marrying Kind
The Solid Gold Cadillac
It Should Happen To You
Footsteps in the Fog (restored)
The Shoes of the Fisherman
The Cardinal
The Red Badge of Courage
Experiment in Terror
The Gay Divorcee
Holiday in Mexico
Bathing Beauty

 

[andersmo]

I would think that David Lean may have been OK with the credits being in a different aspect ratio but for the rest of the movie he would have wanted to concentrate on making the movie - without any gimmickry.

And I also would have liked to see the poor projectionists who would have been responsible to accommodate for varying aspect ratios according the changing mood / scenery or whatever. Thankfully somebody seems to have come to their senses before this was implemented.

It would also have been confusing for the audience and detracting from the story.

 

[Mark-P]

What I find somewhat amusing is that as Katharine/Jane falls into the water, Mauro neatly catches her film camera. In real life, it would probably have been more likely for the camera to go into the water with her.

The camera was a pretty nice and expensive 16mm one for an amateur movie maker like Jane Hudson. But Jane wasn't a real person who had to pay for her props herself. A few extra cameras wouldn't have added much to the total budget. So why didn't they sacrifice the camera to make that scene more realistic? Did they consider it too valuable? Were they being considerate, not to litter the canals with scrap cameras?

You may note that after that scene, we don't get to see her camera anymore. Mauro does ask for it, but Jane replies that she's forgotten to bring it. So, did the script originally specify for the camera to be lost? Maybe those lines of dialogue were added as an afterthought to explain the absence of the camera...

Seriously, you think the catching the camera bit was because they didn't want to ruin a prop camera? Trust me, if the script had called for the camera to be dunked, it would have been. This was exactly how it was supposed to be, a clever trick of the kid saving the camera (since when are movies supposed to be realistic?) and it's an amusing gag. And what's more it's not even a real rescue, shot 1 is him reaching for the camera, and shot 2 is a reverse angle where he's grabbing another camera, and the shots don't even match. In shot 1 he's grabbing with two hands and in shot 2 he grabs with one hand.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The Mobilia system was designed to work automatically with punched holes, there was no need for human adjustment on the fly. It was installed at the Astor for Gilbert and Sullivan, please read the articles linked yesterday.

That was the presentation intent for Summertime.

 

[Robert Harris]

The Mobilia system was designed to work automatically with punched holes, there was no need for human adjustment on the fly. It was installed at the Astor for Gilbert and Sullivan, please read the articles linked yesterday.

That was the presentation intent for Summertime.

I'm aware of the paper tape format. The article notes a system being used on set.

While I can understand the entire film being projected in Magna, and maskings automatically cropping to different ratios. any purposeful use on set would have been worse than insanity.

 

[JoshZ]

Criterion needs to get back to doing better work with a better spate of 'socially, culturally and historically significant' pictures that deserve to see the light of day in hi-def/high end releases.

If you don't care about some of the titles they've been releasing (and I don't either, to be frank), you could always just not buy them.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I suspect what would’ve been done during production was to note the intended presentation ratio for the various scenes and that would in turn be translated to the Mobilia presentation format.

Where are the surviving production documents? I would’ve thought the research team at Criterion would access those for this release.

 

[Will Krupp]

The camera was a pretty nice and expensive 16mm one for an amateur movie maker like Jane Hudson. But Jane wasn't a real person who had to pay for her props herself.

Now you sound like Arthur Laurents!

 

[Robert Harris]

I suspect what would’ve been done during production was to note the intended presentation ratio for the various scenes and that would in turn be translated to the Mobilia presentation format.

Where are the surviving production documents? I would’ve thought the research team at Criterion would access those for this release.

I don't believe there are any relevant production docs, as I don't believe this ever occurred, and
was nipped in the bud.

It would not have worked.

Do you presume that someone was on set during G & S, dictating frame sizes and aspect ratios on
a shot-by-shot or scene-by-scene basis - using a non-reflex camera?

I do not.

Seems like a means of getting publicity, and nothing more.