 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I meant above by the terms, "plodding" and "pretentious" referred to the presumably directorial choice of having, at pivotal points in the story, freezing the frame on a shot of Alfred's head and shoulders, then turning it, so that it's in profile, as I recall. This was to show the various transitions in Alfred's life, from monk to warrior, from warrior to king, from king to legend. It seemed pretentious to me at the time. (I think, in retrospect, the film presumes that we have an idea who Alfred is from the beginning. At the time, I'd heard of him, but had little actual knowledge of him. Also, this effect I described above may be lost in pan-and-scan versions of the film, as Alfred's head appears on one side of the screen, then turns to the other, as I recall.)
I'm listening to the CD now; reminds me of Rosenthal's music for BECKET.
Would be great if it could be remastered and re-released, with more music of course!
BTW: The CD I have is the promo mentioned above, and for cue #7 - Queen Aehlswith Leaves Alfred/Intermission/Beginning of Part Two - the liner notes state, "There was an intermission in 70mm-Roadshow-Version here. Part two of this track is the beginning of Part Two of the film."
In "Movie Roadshows A History and Filmography of Reserved-Seat Limited Showings 1911-1973," author Kim R. Holston states ALFRED THE GREAT was "roadshown in Great Britain but not the United States. Stateside, it debuted at various theaters, including the Yonkers in New York City, because MGM decided that the mixed British reviews and merely fair grosses necessitated a "showcase" playoff geared toward the action market. Did MGM misread the market. The New York Daily News thought the film 'demands the intimacy of an art house.'"
I collect souvenir programs, but have heard of none produced for ALFRED, which, of course, doesn't mean there weren't any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 12, 2016 - 7:22 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
What I meant above by the terms, "plodding" and "pretentious" referred to the presumably directorial choice of having, at pivotal points in the story, freezing the frame on a shot of Alfred's head and shoulders, then turning it, so that it's in profile, as I recall. This was to show the various transitions in Alfred's life, from monk to warrior, from warrior to king, from king to legend. It seemed pretentious to me at the time.
Lol, it sounds like you're describing the MATRIX sfx. They were live posed shots, not freeze frames, and also functioned as transitions from one geographical scene to another.
Buy yeah, they do make you stop and think...."wtf?" Luckily they only did it 2 or 3 times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I meant above by the terms, "plodding" and "pretentious" referred to the presumably directorial choice of having, at pivotal points in the story, freezing the frame on a shot of Alfred's head and shoulders, then turning it, so that it's in profile, as I recall. This was to show the various transitions in Alfred's life, from monk to warrior, from warrior to king, from king to legend. It seemed pretentious to me at the time.
Lol, it sounds like you're describing the MATRIX sfx. They were live posed shots, not freeze frames, and also functioned as transitions from one geographical scene to another.
Buy yeah, they do make you stop and think...."wtf?" Luckily they only did it 2 or 3 times.
That, and the small amount of extras in the battle scenes, as well as not so imposing sets. (Although, what did I expect from the 9th Century A.D.? It's not like we're roaming around Constantinople...) I kept comparing this to fairly recent competition, like FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE and CLEOPATRA, or THE VIKINGS from the 50's, and felt like it was about the squabbles of local chieftains, with no idea it was so important to British history. I guess MGM should have started with a title card, announcing how Alfred eventually unified Britain, but I don't remember any such thing, and, presumably, British audiences wouldn't need it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That, and the small amount of extras in the battle scenes, as well as not so imposing sets. (Although, what did I expect from the 9th Century A.D.?
What you're missing is that the sets on Alfred are REAL!
The film was shot in Ireland, and those sets, like the round tower at Kilmacduagh (the ruins of whose monastery were ingeniously thatched for the movie) are famous tourist attractions. Also the Castlehackett site. The round towers all over Ireland were built to keep out the Vikings, and what you're seeing is the real deal, not cardboard sets. That would have been a plus rather than a minus in Europe.
So it was actually visually quite special. Perhaps in the US that might not have seemed obvious and needed highlighting. Alf didn't unify Britain, just England.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
