The King and I (Blu-ray) Single Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

Might this indicate that the Blu-Ray was faithful to the film makers' intentions after all?

Wouldn't THAT be a kick in the pants?

 

[Reed Grele]

We're still comparing The King and I BD with previous home video transfers.


I'm still curious though... If he's had a chance to view the 16mm IB Tech print, I'm hoping for some observations from Mr. Kimmel.

 

[haineshisway]

I'm not sure what this means, but the laserdisc box set version of "The King And I" has the same colours as the Blu-Ray does, with less resolution of course, but those questionable blue overtones occur in seemingly all the same places. I hadn't really watched the laserdisc since that first, non-anamorphic DVD of "The King And I" came out, and I was surprised, to say the least. Might this indicate that the Blu-Ray was faithful to the film makers' intentions after all?

Well, well, well

 

[rsmithjr]

I'm not sure what this means, but the laserdisc box set version of "The King And I" has the same colours as the Blu-Ray does, with less resolution of course, but those questionable blue overtones occur in seemingly all the same places. I hadn't really watched the laserdisc since that first, non-anamorphic DVD of "The King And I" came out, and I was surprised, to say the least. Might this indicate that the Blu-Ray was faithful to the film makers' intentions after all?

I have the LD boxed set, which is still my reference for this film. I have compared it to the Blu-ray and also to the version playing on the streaming services.


The LD boxed set looks nothing like the Blu-ray to me. It is a little bluer than the streaming version (which I believe to be too yellow by a small amount). I can easily correct the streaming version to something that I like.


The industrial-strength blueness of the Blu-ray is like no version of this film that I have ever seen.

 

[rsmithjr]

Well, well, well

Have you been able to watch the 16mm archive dye-transfer print yet?


Thanks in advance.

 

[MatthewA]

And what if those blue tones actually are in that 16mm IB Tech print? How are the rest of us who won't be watching it supposed to know that?

 

[davidmatychuk]

I have the LD boxed set, which is still my reference for this film. I have compared it to the Blu-ray and also to the version playing on the streaming services.


The LD boxed set looks nothing like the Blu-ray to me. It is a little bluer than the streaming version (which I believe to be too yellow by a small amount). I can easily correct the streaming version to something that I like.


The industrial-strength blueness of the Blu-ray is like no version of this film that I have ever seen.

The odd (to me) blue lighting in the laserdisc comes and goes the same way the Blu-Ray does, scene by scene. It isn't as noticeable on the laserdisc because of the lower resolution, but every time I notice it on the Blu-Ray it's right there on the laserdisc, muted by comparison to the Blu-Ray, but still there. The DVD has better resolution than the laserdisc, but the bluishness (if that isn't a word, it is now) is noticeably not the same as on the Blu-Ray. Take a look at Deborah Kerr's grey dress turning blue in scenes throughout, or the early scene where she visits the wives; less resolution, same blue lighting effect (or whatever it is). I wouldn't believe it myself if I wasn't looking at it right now. I may lose what's left of my mind if somebody with access to an original print doesn't clear this up.

 

[haineshisway]

And what if those blue tones actually are in that 16mm IB Tech print? How are the rest of us who won't be watching it supposed to know that?

Because I'd be telling you? So, you either believe me or you don't - it makes no never mind to me. I'm hoping the guy will finally show it to me this weekend. Those who know me here know I call it as I see it - if it doesn't resemble the Blu-ray I will have no problem whatsoever saying so.

 

[ROclockCK]

The odd (to me) blue lighting in the laserdisc comes and goes the same way the Blu-Ray does, scene by scene. It isn't as noticeable on the laserdisc because of the lower resolution, but every time I notice it on the Blu-Ray it's right there on the laserdisc, muted by comparison to the Blu-Ray, but still there. The DVD has better resolution than the laserdisc, but the bluishness (if that isn't a word, it is now) is noticeably not the same as on the Blu-Ray. Take a look at Deborah Kerr's grey dress turning blue in scenes throughout, or the early scene where she visits the wives; less resolution, same blue lighting effect (or whatever it is). I wouldn't believe it myself if I wasn't looking at it right now. I may lose what's left of my mind if somebody with access to an original print doesn't clear this up.

One of the reasons I've sat this one out is that the last time I saw The King and I in any form was that very same Laserdisc set David. The other reason is that I'm not a big R&H fan (understatement), so the movie itself has never drawn me back. If I ever do feel compelled to see it again, it will probably be for Deborah Kerr, a fave performer, and Leon Shamroy, among my short-list hero cinematographers.


So when I first saw the Blu-ray caps and this subsequent discussion about The King and I, I was a bit baffled by the extreme reactions to its transfer...I mean, nothing I saw seemed all that off to me, at least for a Shamroy picture. The guy just loved his splashes and pools of blue light, frequently accented by golds in his kicker and back lighting. Through Shamroy's lens, set elements which might 'normally' appear white or grey in other hands, often had some kind of gel-induced colour bias. You can see this stylized use of colour in so much his work.


Anyway, I still haven't seen this Blu-ray David, but I'm not terriby surprised by your Laserdisc comparison. Also like you, I'm curious what someone viewing an original IB Technicolor* print has to say on the subject.


* Although being a different colour print system, would even that be conclusive for an Eastman-originating negative?

 

[davidmatychuk]

There's a lot more blue on the Blu-Ray, and a lot more of every other colour too. This evening, I played more of the first laserdisc in the set, starting with the "Small House Of Uncle Thomas" sequence on side two. On the Blu-Ray, there are fleeting blue highlights all over the place that aren't in evidence on the laserdisc, but every other colour on the laserdisc in that sequence is pale and fuzzy by comparison too. The shots of the King and his guests watching the presentation are practically drained of every colour compared to the Blu-Ray, which has a lot of blue, but a lot of every other colour too. Perhaps the 1996 telecine operator for the laserdisc just dialed down the blue more at some times than others, because going back to side one and the opening scenes on the boat, the amount of blue shot-to-shot right from the start is precisely the same amount as on the Blu-Ray, though all the colours are, as I've said, pale and fuzzy in direct comparison. It is a letterboxed laserdisc, after all, so I'm comparing the balance and intensity of colours of a very low-resolution image (a thin 2.55:1 strip centred in a 4X3 picture) to a 1080P Blu-Ray image. But if it turns out that the Blu-Ray that has generated all this controversy really is an accurate reflection of how it was meant to look by the filmmakers, blue lighting effects and all, you won't be able to colour me surprised any more. Wouldn't it be something if this widely-criticized Blu-Ray was really a great Blu-Ray after all? Here's hoping we know, one way or the other, soon.

 

[Brian Sharp]

Gave this a spin yesterday and thought, to the best of my memory, that it was a good representation of the film.

 

[davidmatychuk]

It occurred to me that the 1996 laserdisc box set has a substantial still-frame section, but unfortunately the stills are almost all in black and white. However, a 1956 theatrical trailer is included, and it looks like this:

Unscientific for sure, and the iPod shots add a greenish tint to any pictures of my JVC TV, but it's that blue, all right.

Also, I noted Nick Redman's involvement in putting together the supplementary section; I think he did some narration, too. Has anyone asked him where he stands on the whole blue lighting issue?

 

[OliverK]

Obviously Fox have changed their mind on how this should look more than once!


I think I also have an LD of The King and I so maybe I'll give it a spin.

 

[Robert Harris]

One of the reasons I've sat this one out is that the last time I saw The King and I in any form was that very same Laserdisc set David. The other reason is that I'm not a big R&H fan (understatement), so the movie itself has never drawn me back. If I ever do feel compelled to see it again, it will probably be for Deborah Kerr, a fave performer, and Leon Shamroy, among my short-list hero cinematographers.

So when I first saw the Blu-ray caps and this subsequent discussion about The King and I, I was a bit baffled by the extreme reactions to its transfer...I mean, nothing I saw seemed all that off to me, at least for a Shamroy picture. The guy just loved his splashes and pools of blue light, frequently accented by golds in his kicker and back lighting. Through Shamroy's lens, set elements which might 'normally' appear white or grey in other hands, often had some kind of gel-induced colour bias. You can see this stylized use of colour in so much his work.

Anyway, I still haven't seen this Blu-ray David, but I'm not terriby surprised by your Laserdisc comparison. Also like you, I'm curious what someone viewing an original IB Technicolor* print has to say on the subject.

* Although being a different colour print system, would even that be conclusive for an Eastman-originating negative?

A dye transfer print, even a bad one can tell the viewer many things, if you know what to look for. A 16mm print, can still be helpful, albeit not as much as 35, as acceptable color quality in 16 was generally less of a factor than for theatrical prints.

Much of what is being seen, perceived and understood, for 5248 color negative, comes down to dye fade, available elements, and how said fade is handled.

The problem becomes far more of one when one uses digital tools, as far too many people use them, yet don't understand the underlying problems of multi-layer dye fade, and how attempting to manipulate one, unbalances the others.

The above comment refers to to 5248 problem, in general, and not how it may (or may not) have been handled for King.

RAH

 

[David Weicker]

A question for RAH.

Is there a reason you have not weighed in on The King And I Blu-Ray?

Your silence on this issue has been deafening.

 

[SFMike]

Much of what is being seen, perceived and understood, for 5248 color negative, comes down to dye fade, available elements, and how said fade is handled.

The problem becomes far more of one when one uses digital tools, as far too many people use them, yet don't understand the underlying problems of multi-layer dye fade, and how attempting to manipulate one, unbalances the others.

The above comment refers to to 5248 problem, in general, and not how it may (or may not) have been handled for King.

Thanks Mr. Harris for adding some insight into this very problematic transfer which has raised much controversy due to the state of the current blu-ray transfer of this beloved film. I feel that there are, of course, multiple issues related to the negative causing problems with the image we now have to work with but it has been my opinion that misuse of digital tools and poor judgment have left us with a transfer that on the whole is adequate but is overall unappealing and not a good representation of the original intent of the cinematographer or how the film looked when first released. As you can see the discussion has dragged on and on with no real consensus as to the integrity of this transfer. I realize that you are not referring directly to the digital manipulation of this specific film and it's problems but thanks for bringing up the idea that misuse of digital tools may be what has resulted in, to me, a disappointing viewing experience. It would be great if you could give this blu-ray a spin and give your rough opinion as to it's overall quality.

 

[Robert Harris]

A question for RAH.

Is there a reason you have not weighed in on The King And I Blu-Ray?

Your silence on this issue has been deafening.

There is.


Very problematic elements, and I'd have to actually spend some time, hands on, to give any cogent opinion. A major film, with rather unique elements, and I don't like to guess.


The only thing that I can tell you is that Fox went through a great deal of trouble and expense to create what they have.


RAH

 

[MatthewA]

Giving credit where it's due,


There is much I like in you,


But you're also very…blue!

 

[Reed Grele]

Unfortunately, we don't have a time machine to be able to go back to 1956 and view The King and I at a first run theater. But there are movie reviews from that time which can be found in various newspapers available online (some are free). I found a New York Times review By Bosley Crowther, Published: June 29, 1956. He mentions that he saw it at the Roxy theater, and that it was "Done with a taste in decoration and costuming that is forceful and rare, the whole thing has a harmony of the visuals that is splendid in excellent color and CinemaScope."

I wonder if there are other reviews from 1956 out there that might shed some light on the subject of the color scheme. I don't expect that we'll uncover a review by some critic saying something to the effect that the color was unacceptable, or too blue, but who knows? Does anyone have a subscription to Newspapers.com (or a similar service) that allows a search of old newspaper archives?

 

[haineshisway]

Unfortunately, we don't have a time machine to be able to go back to 1956 and view The King and I at a first run theater. But there are movie reviews from that time which can be found in various newspapers available online (some are free). I found a New York Times review By Bosley Crowther, Published: June 29, 1956. He mentions that he saw it at the Roxy theater, and that it was "Done with a taste in decoration and costuming that is forceful and rare, the whole thing has a harmony of the visuals that is splendid in excellent color and CinemaScope."

I wonder if there are other reviews from 1956 out there that might shed some light on the subject of the color scheme. I don't expect that we'll uncover a review by some critic saying something to the effect that the color was unacceptable, or too blue, but who knows? Does anyone have a subscription to Newspapers.com (or a similar service) that allows a search of old newspaper archives?

Well, unlike today with people who sit at home and view in their "home theaters" and who look at screen caps, we went to the movies to watch the movie. We appreciated nice color but we weren't looking for it, we were obviously not comparing it to anything, we were MOVIEGOERS, not movie experts, not experts who sat looking for "grain management" (that's become the new "grain is well resolved" for 2015), or grain at all, we did not look or care about the Cinemascope mumps, we didn't know from film stock, we watched the movie. And certain styles were obvious - including the lighting of Mr. Shamroy and other great cameramen. Especially at that time from that studio. For the too blue brigade I say again - IF there were all these problems, how do you account for the first scene in the palace and all the shots of Mr. Brynner in which there is not an ounce of blue anywhere and which has perfect color? That scene escaped unscathed from the ravages of whatever? How do all the incredible and rather perfect OTHER colors get accounted for? In today's world, I suppose we can reproduce color with much vividness and exactitude. Color timing preferences has changed from decade to decade. I can barely watch today's movies because I don't like their look. And it's always amusing when someone says The King and I is timed like today's films. I can't even. But back in the day? Different world and, for me, a better one because I just went to a movie and got lost in whatever world was being presented, whether in scope or widescreen, in color by Technicolor or DeLuxe or whatever.