22 The Prisoner of Shark Island

[peerpee]

An MoC-exclusive full length audio commentary by Scott Eyman is confirmed, and already recorded.

[otis]

Whatever happened to the Gloria Stuart interview?

[devlinnn]

Still Feb Nick? Palms are sweaty.

[peerpee]

looking like it's slipped a couple of weeks into March... TWENTY FOUR EYES is still on track for Feb.

[What A Disgrace]

Folks should be receiving this one soon...but I can't even find any reviews for it. Furthermore, the MoC website doesn't even list the final specs (indeed, the page itself still lists the disc as a February release).

I'm very eager to see this, but I have the disc tacked on to my pre-order of The Red and the White, and Amazon seems to be honoring the agreement. Has it shipped to anyone yet?

[peerpee]

It came out on Monday, and is in the distribution stream. Review copies were sent out late because we were working on it right upto the last minute.

[rollotomassi]

Mine arrived today, just watched it. Very decent print, though not perfect. One concern, though. Around the fifty minute mark the sound synchronisation seems slightly off, the words just preceding the movements of the mouth. It may be me imagining it, but especially in the sequence where Gloria Stuart explains her rescue plan to the old General in the presence of Claude Gillingwater. I hope I imagined it. Check it out, guys, when your print comes through.

[peerpee]

Can't see any problems at this end. Anybody else?

[nyasa]

Around the fifty minute mark the sound synchronisation seems slightly off, the words just preceding the movements of the mouth.

I've just watched it today. I paid special attention during the scene you mentioned, but can't say that I picked up on it. However, I noticed another instance, at around the 1:17:43 mark, where the sync was definitely out.

SPOILER
Specifically, when Mudd is warning the soldiers of the consequences of their mutiny, his words and the movements of his mouth don't correspond. This may, of course, be a problem with the source material.

[Matt]

Superb commentary on this. And boy, is Carradine's performance a treat!

[antnield]

DVD Times review

[GringoTex]

I just watched this for the first time and was amazed by its political relevance today. Citizens are arrested, declared enemy combatants and tried by a military jury who have been given orders from the very top, "with public opinion in its present inflamed state," to ignore the Constitution. Given life inprisonment in a prison for Confederates on the southern-most island in the Florida Keys because it is not on U.S. soil and thus, not subject to American law, where they are abused. I'm not sure a mainstream Hollywood director would touch this today.

As an aside- excellent menu screen opener.

[addz]

Saw this for the first time two days ago. Not just a great film but great entertainment. It really beggers belief that this film has received so little attention and I genuinely believe it would be considered a classic today.

John Ford has always been one of my favourite directors but I don't think I've ever seen such powerful work by him as in this film. Some of the shots actually gave me goosebumps they were so beautiful. As Scott Eyman points out on the commentary the film is very evocative of the silent era and the influences of Lang and Murnau are clearly seen - particularly Lang's; just look at that particular shot during the jailbreak when Mudd hits the ground to evade being seen. Looks like it could have been a shot from Spione. I definitely need to check out some more of Ford's earlier work.

I was very impressed with the set overall and I watched the whole disc in one sitting - the film first followed by David Ehrenstein's appreciation then the gallery and finally the film with Scott Eyman commentary. Not a bad way to spend a morning.

One thing that puzzled me though was Scott Eyman, a considerable expert when it comes to Ford, states in the commentary that Ford never really liked the film, yet on the blurb (and possibly the book) it is inferred that the film was "Regarded as a personal favourite by the director, it was also the film he was said to be most happy with". I'm just wondering where this notion came from and to what extent it is accurate. Surely if this was the case Scott Eyman of all people would know.

I've just watched it today. I paid special attention during the scene you mentioned, but can't say that I picked up on it. However, I noticed another instance, at around the 1:17:43 mark, where the sync was definitely out.

SPOILER
Specifically, when Mudd is warning the soldiers of the consequences of their mutiny, his words and the movements of his mouth don't correspond. This may, of course, be a problem with the source material.

I noticed this - it was clearly bad post-dubbing rather than the sound being out of sync. It looks as though an alternate take of the line was used or it was completely redubbed. Either way it was definitely not a problem with the transfer.

[peerpee]

One thing that puzzled me though was Scott Eyman, a considerable expert when it comes to Ford, states in the commentary that Ford never really liked the film, yet on the blurb (and possibly the book) it is inferred that the film was "Regarded as a personal favourite by the director, it was also the film he was said to be most happy with". I'm just wondering where this notion came from and to what extent it is accurate. Surely if this was the case Scott Eyman of all people would know.

Both sides of the story can be backed up. Eyman's comment came from Ford's son, the blurb comment on the back of the box came from a French interview with Ford. Ford often claimed that many of his films were his favourites at many points in his long life. He claimed that WHEN WILLIE COMES MARCHING HOME was his crowning achievement because it was so damn funny. Other times, he would say WAGON MASTER was his best, or THE SUN SHINES BRIGHT, and he's on film saying his favourite was THE SEARCHERS. He liked to throw such comments at interviewers a lot.

[Matt]

Yeah, the more you learn about Ford, the more you realize he was an inveterate tale-spinner. It's almost impossible to discern the truth among all of his pronouncements. But that's part of what makes his such a character. "Print the legend," after all.

[OliverB]

Hey perpee, can I ask if you sourced the transfer for this DVD from the same source as Fox's restoration which they will be releasing next month in their John Ford series?

I ask because I'm wondering if there's any point in buying the new Fox disc since I already own this and do not plan on buying the big Ford At Fox set but getting the smaller individual boxes (of which this title isn't included).

Is there any reason to spend money on this one a second time or will this be similar to the Nightmare Alley release in which the transfers are basically the same? Thanks.

[The Digital McGuffin]

DVD Beaver comparison

[manicsounds]

I see now that with the MoC being out of print, this film is out from Odeon in the UK, as well as "Nightmare Alley".

According to DVDBeaver, the "Shark Island" MoC and the US Fox discs looked quite different, but does anyone know how the Odeon compares?

[manicsounds]

Another question about the discs, but watching the MoC disc, whenever there is on-screen text, the image freezes, like it's just 1 frame of the film put on pause. No grain at all. What about the Fox or Odeon?

[Emak-Bakia]

I took a quick look at the disc from my Ford at Fox set and did not notice the same problem. The text moments that I sampled were all obviously in motion, with changes in grain and print damage.

This is actually a topic I've been meaning to post about on here for a while. I've seen discs from the most respectable labels (I haven't kept track of which ones, but I know at least some of the films in MoC's Lubitsch set fall into this category) take this approach to intertitles, and I've never understood why. When a single frame of intertitle is frozen and repeated for the duration of a sequence, I've always found the stillness of the grain to be really distracting. It sucks the life out of the images, usually taking me out of the experience of watching a film and making it feel more like I'm watching a digital reconstruction (which is actually the reality, most of the time.)

I've tried to reason why otherwise good quality prints would be presented on disc in this manner, but haven't been able to figure it out. Does it have something to do with stabilizing the text? Or are there instances where intertitles in their original language are taken from a battered print to be placed into a better foreign print? Any help would be appreciated.

[peerpee]

It's simply because it's easier, quicker, and less costly to extract one reasonable looking frame, clean it up, and hold it in place for the duration, than it is to restore 7 seconds x 24 frames of the same titlecard.

It's a lazy "restoration" technique that was used mostly during a certain era of "SD restoration" by companies that should know better. The later Fox DVD of SHARK ISLAND was made from a later Fox HD master which was done properly. At the time the MoC edition was released, the only master available was Fox's SD master with the lazy static screen problem.

[MichaelB]

The BFI restoration team is highly conscious of this, and when they restore titles they typically create a new card from the original film frame deemed to be in the best condition, clean that up so that it's absolutely pristine, and then reshoot it on 35mm film. After much experimentation with digital tools, they found that the old-fashioned method was still the best way of recreating the grain and slight instability that made it look suitably authentic.

The Great White Silence and the silent Hitchcock restorations are good recent examples.

[peerpee]

Some amazing tools have appeared in the last 2 years alone (ie. since THE GREAT WHITE SILENCE) – I'm sure it must be possible now to recreate just about any grain and make it look super authentic? There are some incredible real 35mm grain overlays that can be applied in FCP now, and they weren't really around until recently. Recreating slight instability, to a very high standard, shouldn't be a problem either.

Reshooting in 35mm is an incredibly dedicated solution though!

[Emak-Bakia]

Thanks for clearing that up, Nick. I was way overthinking it, but it's good to know that the static titles are no longer common practice.

And, Michael, I would have never guessed that the BFI went to such lengths to get accurate titles. It's comforting to know that there are organisations like BFI doing that kind of work!