Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2008 - 11:29 AM   
 By:   manderley   (Member)

.....Monday evening. the American Film Institute's Silver Theatre showed a high definition video version of "El Cid." Each attendee received a copy of the 40-page program reproduction that will appear in the DVD boxed set. The screening was preceded by remarks from Mike Clark, film critic for USA Today, and by a spokesman for Genius Productions who worked with the Weinstein Company in producing the DVD.

The picture quality was only so-so. The left-most portion of the picture was somewhat blurry. The theater management attributed this to "keystoning" of the picture. I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I believe that it has to do with the projector being off axis with the screen. Otherwise the picture was OK, with good color. Even at its best, however, the picture was not up to the 35mm print I saw at the AFI in 1993.

Regarding the music--another mixed bag. The sound was excellent, the music bright and clear. But the AFI dispensed with the overture in its entirety, perhaps reasoning (incorrectly as far as I was concerned) that after the speeches, no one would be interested in listening to a 4-minute overture before the start of the film proper. At the intermission point, following the final notes of the first act (and true to the DVD mastering), the entr'acte immediately began. The entr'acte played completely through, while the intermission card stayed on the screen. Only then did the house lights come up. Following the intermission, the second act began without further introductory music, with Rodrigo bursting through the doors of Alfonso's throne room. At the end of the film, the choral exit music was properly played.

Despite its limitations, I fear that this may be the best "El Cid" we may ever again see. I despair that any good 35mm prints remain.....



Very sad to hear, Bob, but hardly unexpected, I'd say.

These Bronston pictures have been through the "independent ownership" mill for years and years and reflect, once again, the dangers of non-corporate ownership of negatives. Though the major corporations may ALSO not protect all their films from deterioration dangers, the percentage of losses by them is far smaller than those in the independent arena.

As for the missing "Overture" and misplaced
"Entr'Acte" --- after all these years of talk by those who KNEW how the old roadshows were assembled there are still those with cotton in their ears who don't want to listen and make it right.

That this kind of performance should take place at an AFI facility is just one more example of the ineptitude of that organization.

(If only the "real" stories of how the AFI got started 40+ years ago were to come out---it would all make sense.....)

 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2008 - 1:44 PM   
 By:   CH-CD   (Member)

That this kind of performance should take place at an AFI facility is just one more example of the ineptitude of that organization.

(If only the "real" stories of how the AFI got started 40+ years ago were to come out---it would all make sense.....)



Oh! DO tell M.......You've got me all agog !!!

(Of course, I know that you're too much of a gentleman.)

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2008 - 3:25 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

That this kind of performance should take place at an AFI facility is just one more example of the ineptitude of that organization.



Well, I agree that the AFI was to blame for the missing overture, but Weinstein/Genius is primarily to blame for the misplaced entr'acte, since they prepared the digital file that way. I suppose that the AFI could have corrected Weinstein's mistake by holding the entr'acte until its appropriate place, and cutting the visuals, so that the "Intermission" card would not be visible throughout the playing of the entr'acte. They did cut the visual "Exit Music" card after about a minute, even though the exit music continued to play to the end.

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2008 - 7:33 PM   
 By:   pp312   (Member)


Very sad to hear, Bob, but hardly unexpected, I'd say.

These Bronston pictures have been through the "independent ownership" mill for years and years and reflect, once again, the dangers of non-corporate ownership of negatives.


No doubt this is true, which makes the excellence of the WB King Of Kings DVD all the more mysterious. I only have a 32" LCD TV, but this transfer looks crystal clear to me, with few if any print faults. Does anyone have any info on that?

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2008 - 8:40 PM   
 By:   melmaz   (Member)


Very sad to hear, Bob, but hardly unexpected, I'd say.

These Bronston pictures have been through the "independent ownership" mill for years and years and reflect, once again, the dangers of non-corporate ownership of negatives.


No doubt this is true, which makes the excellence of the WB King Of Kings DVD all the more mysterious. I only have a 32" LCD TV, but this transfer looks crystal clear to me, with few if any print faults. Does anyone have any info on that?


MGM distributed that film after investing in the Bronston Production, so it was always under MGM care. That was not true of the other Bronston films.

Mel

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2008 - 10:55 PM   
 By:   pp312   (Member)

Thanks for that, Mel--it explains a lot.

And I was reading recently what a happy little money spinner KOK turned out to be for MGM. They may have wanted to get control of it to prevent it diluting the impact of Ben-Hur, but apparently it turned out to be a very sound investment in its own right.

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 30, 2008 - 2:05 AM   
 By:   manderley   (Member)

.....MGM distributed that film after investing in the Bronston Production, so it was always under MGM care.....


Well, yes. It was always considered MGM product.

And I suppose JOHN PAUL JONES is still considered Warners product as it has not, to my knowledge ever turned up in the "independent" Bronston library.

Lord knows WHO owns JACK LONDON anymore!

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 30, 2008 - 3:09 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

.....MGM distributed that film after investing in the Bronston Production, so it was always under MGM care.....


Well, yes. It was always considered MGM product.

And I suppose JOHN PAUL JONES is still considered Warners product as it has not, to my knowledge ever turned up in the "independent" Bronston library.

Lord knows WHO owns JACK LONDON anymore!


The copyright claimant on "Jack London" is "Samuel Bronston Pictures, Inc." The film was distributed by United Artists. "Samuel Bronston Pictures, Inc." seems to be a different corporate entity from "Samuel Bronston Productions," which was involved in the 1960s Bronston films.

The production companies/copyright claimants for the various Bronston films are as follows:

Jack London: Samuel Bronston Pictures, Inc.
John Paul Jones: John Paul Jones Productions, Inc.
King of Kings: Samuel Bronston Productions
El Cid: Samuel Bronston Productions
55 Days at Peking: Samuel Bronston Productions
The Fall of the Roman Empire: Bronston-Roma Productions
Circus World: Bronston-Midway Productions

 
 Posted:   Aug 1, 2008 - 12:23 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

This news deserves its own topic in the non-filmmusic section, where I'll post it next, I guess, but I wanted to make sure that N.Y.-area "El Cid" fans are aware that the Film Society of Lincoln Center is showing it on the big screen September 1st and 4th, 2008:

http://filmlinc.com/wrt/onsale/charltonheston/elcid.html

No excuses for missing it, this is your fair warning!

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.