It is currently Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:46 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 170 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
The tinted Laser version of One Hour carried an opening "restored by UCLA" credit. I personally thought the tinting was totally anachronistic and incorrect given the movie was made in 1932, and in Academy ratio.

The Frenchj BAC disc last year reverted to untinted as does this, and the relief was palpable.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:45 pm
Actually, film tinting did not die out with silent movies. See the thorough Wikipedia article under Film tinting, which says, in part, "In 1929, Kodak added to their tinted stocks a brand known as Sonochrome — pre-tinted stocks for sound films that did not interfere with the soundtrack....Tinting was utilized for years up until the early 1950s in select sequences, full monochromatic pictures and short trailers and snipes." The splice bumps where tints changed can be readily seen in the laserdisc of "One Hour With You" and fortunately have been smoothed out in the Eclipse release. I suppose tinting is something of a personal taste today, and I tend to prefer inclusion.
And I would still appreciate knowing why the exit music is gone, although I am more ambivalent about the UCLA restoration credit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Captain Bill wrote:
Actually, film tinting did not die out with silent movies.

And there's the very recent tinted / untinted release of Wee Willie Winkie in Ford at Fox to support this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:38 am
Location: South Bend, IN
There are a few other 30s films released with full tinting, in addition to ONE HOUR WITH YOU....THIS IS THE NIGHT, also Paramount, and ZOO IN BUDAPEST at Fox. Supposedly some prints of FRANKENSTEIN were released with a green tint, but I haven't seen this actually confirmed.

I'd always thought that WEE WILLIE WINKIE was merely an overall sepia, as were a few other contemporary films such as THE GOOD EARTH and opening/closing parts of WIZARD OF OZ, and was surprised to see that it included several blue-tinted night scenes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
The Smiling Leutineant

What Lubitsch does in the last 8 minutes of this film--transforming Hopkins into Colbert's superior without any dialogue (after using 80 minutes of dialogue to make Hopkins Colbert's inferior)--is a master act and should be taught in every film school in the world. It's breathtaking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Incidentally Gringo I don't see the trait of "in and out of doors" entering/exiting running as a thru-line in Lubitsch, at least as far as his mise en scene. These may be "madcap" traits specific to the scripts (narrative pacing) in these early musicals (and hence not a directorial characteristic), but looking at his really accomplished works like Oyster Princes, Boleyn, thru Trouble In & SHop Around (or even Heaven Can) I don't see this at all. And certainly in these works we see characters very much reflecting upon themselves and their positions in the world: Trouble running a slightly melancholic undertone about identity (false and real), conscience and consequence and lost love; Shop Around being love, social position, loneliness, the desire for love and Something Better... Heaven Can is pure self reflection and introspection. Soul searching indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
HerrSchreck wrote:
Incidentally Gringo I don't see the trait of "in and out of doors" entering/exiting running as a thru-line in Lubitsch, at least as far as his mise en scene. These may be "madcap" traits specific to the scripts (narrative pacing) in these early musicals (and hence not a directorial characteristic), but looking at his really accomplished works like Oyster Princes, Boleyn, thru Trouble In & SHop Around (or even Heaven Can) I don't see this at all. And certainly in these works we see characters very much reflecting upon themselves and their positions in the world: Trouble running a slightly melancholic undertone about identity (false and real), conscience and consequence and lost love; Shop Around being love, social position, loneliness, the desire for love and Something Better... Heaven Can is pure self reflection and introspection. Soul searching indeed.

Since I introduced the Lubitsch doors thang, I'll tabulate the portal instances in Trouble and Shop, but I already sold my copy of Heaven because I think it's as big a piece of shit as you do.

I agree that Shop is Lubitsch's most introspective film, but I think it's an anomaly is his career (still a great film).

I think you're wrong in attributing the doors obsession to "madcap traits" rather than a Lubitsch style. He was the one inventing these traits. It's his mise-en-scene that so many others copied. There's a reason he was hero-worshipped by so many of his contemporaries. If you can point me out a film before Lubitsch's that has a portal opening and closing every 80 seconds, I'll concede the point.

I agree with you completely about the power of melancholia in Trouble, but I think it's power is a result of Lubitsch's aversion to self-reflection. It's his great dialectical excercise and one of my absolute favorite movies of all time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
GringoTex wrote:
[I think you're wrong in attributing the doors obsession to "madcap traits" rather than a Lubitsch style. He was the one inventing these traits.

That's pure, straight visual comedy straight out of the silent era, reaching back to to the teens & Mack Sennett, the Kops, Chaplin shorts, Keaton, in a thousand and one chase scenes with some sadsack buttlump being followed thru department store escalator, skating rink, battlefield, automobile, across streets, over roofs, stomping thru weddings (sometimes all in one one minute sweep), etc, where the in/out ratio (where not talking porn here, calm down everyone) speed of light narratives (that everyone's seen, and seen imitated a thousand times in cartoons) far exceed that of Lubitsch comedies.

Not to say that Lube didnt have moments where he did his own thing with it of course. But this particular device, to keep the audience amped up and involved in physical expectance, was old hat by the time of these musicals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Location: New Avalon KY
HerrSchreck wrote:
where the in/out ratio (where not talking porn here, calm down everyone)

Sorry, but speaking of comedy, this line really made me laugh. Can we start a HerrSchreck's greatest hits thread? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
DVD Times review


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Finally saw Monte Carlo for the first time. I actually found Jack Buchanan a welcome break from Chevalier (who gets on my nerves after a while). And Jeanette McDonald is pretty delightful in this. Most of the music was trivial, alas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Actually I made the mistake of starting the set with "One hour with you" where I found Chevalier completely annoying; in retrospect, after seeing the other films I guess it was more the film itself that annoyed me (I find it completely unnecessary if one compares it to its original, "The Marriage Circle") and I began to like Chevalier very much in "The Love Parade" and "Lieutenant", although his style is not much different there; it just fits those films much better.
I have no problem with Buchanan, though. His 'quieter' style helps a lot to give Jeanette McDonald her due, and "Monte Carlo" is a wonderful film in my view: it's frank, cynical in a good-natured way (which is not a contradiction in this case) and very,very stylish. I agree that the music is 'trivial', but I think it's intentionally so; making fun of all those 'high society' characters and reducing them to their petty bourgeois 'real selves'. And some of the tunes just stick in your head ("Trimmin' Women" for instance; a song that would probably have been impossible to put into a film a few years later, under the 'code').


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: Portland, OR
GringoTex wrote:
The Smiling Leutineant

What Lubitsch does in the last 8 minutes of this film--transforming Hopkins into Colbert's superior without any dialogue (after using 80 minutes of dialogue to make Hopkins Colbert's inferior)--is a master act and should be taught in every film school in the world. It's breathtaking.

I know I'm totally late-to-the-party with this one, but I just do not see this transformation. All Hopkins does is put on a superficial gloss: fancy clothes, jazz, slinky nightgowns, cigarettes, and a hard-to-get playfulness. Her character definitely had my sympathy more than Colbert, but for much longer than 8 minutes. Chevalier and Colbert's two-timing was hard to endorse when Hopkins was just as fooled into the arrangement as Chevalier. I was hoping for a resolution that set up Hopkins as an independent person, while Chevalier and Colbert reunite. The way the film plays out, Chevalier is a cad who likes women who wear certain things and act a certain way; he has no care for her at all, because she has in no way demonstrated herself as "Colbert's superior" other than her proximity to Chevalier (door-down-the-hall rather than country-next-door).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
I thought I had seen Monte Carlo years ago, but I wasn't sure and it wasn't in my list of films seen when I watched the others in this set. I popped it in and quickly realized I hadn't seen it. Just now, I quickly popped in here and realized I hadn't posted a thought months ago when I watched it. The music is terrible, and this might be the worst of the musicals aspects of the films in the set, the film, however, is better than one hour with you. The lead males were insipid and irritating, and the overall story was forgettable and drawn out. There was some okay humor and amusing scenarios, but nothing to recommend it, imo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Looks like that Lubitsch retrospective at Film Forum has now moved to the Harvard Film Archive, with The Love Parade screening this weekend (a 35mm preservation print from UCLA). I just revisited it myself and it's all the more impressive when you notice the release date is in 1929 - when I think of all the clumsy sound films from that year, it makes this one seem like a shock. Has any great silent filmmaker handled the transition to sound better than Lubitsch? It doesn't even feel like a transition. There's no awkwardness or clumsiness to it, quite the opposite - right out of the gate he has mastered the use of sound. What's ridiculous is the lengths he had to go to do what in a short while would be the simplest of tasks. From TCM's website:

Quote:
Cutting sound recordings in those early days was just this side of impossible. Typically, when a song would be sung onscreen in 1929, the camera stayed focused on the singer, without cutting away, while the performer sang along live to a real orchestra, playing off-screen. In one show-stopping sequence of outrageous ambition, Lubitsch not only cuts during a song, he cuts back and forth between two different couples singing the same song in two different locations. To even do this at all, he had to have the two sets built side-by-side, alongside a single off-camera orchestra, and two separate sound-proofed camera baffles aimed at the two sets. Ernst sat on a stool between the two sets and directed both scenes simultaneously. The soundtrack was recorded intact in a single pass--no cutting of it was required, and the synchronized images could be cut back and forth with technical impunity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Well, Gosho's Madamu to nyobo (The Neighbor's Wife and Mine -- an idiotic English name ), the first real talkie by a major Japanese studio, is remarkably sophisticated, sound-wise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:53 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
It's a good film, and often cited as the first truly successful talkie in Japanese cinema, but it also came two years later than The Love Parade - quite a few advances were made in the interim. (Fritz Lang's M had premiered months before Gosho's film.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Yes -- but Japan was starting "from scratch" -- with no internal industry expertise as how to do things -- and yet Gosho's sound use was WAY more sophisticated than the contemporaneous Little Caesar from Hollywood.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
I won't argue with that - I'm not much of a fan of Little Caesar. I don't want to turn this into an argument over which important innovator was greater though, the bigger point I wanted to make was that Lubitsch's film coming in 1929 seemed like he was writing a wonderful new guide book for filmmakers under the new rule of sound. If Gosho could independently do the same, that wouldn't be surprising. (Gosho was a huge Lubitsch fan though - I'd have to revisit his work, but it would be interesting if he caught Lubitsch's early talkies and actually reverse-engineered what he saw in his films without the aid of any technical counsel from Hollywood.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Having musicians hiding behind trees (and moving as needed) as they play the score -- while a character moves from his own house to the house next door -- was a pretty good trick by Gosho and his team. Not sure that Lubitsch had to do anything quite that demanding. ;-)

But I agree that the whole early 30s Shochiku directorial brain trust seemed quite taken by the work of Lubitsch.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 170 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection