Kino Lorber Studio Classics

[justeleblanc]

Those Redheads from Seattle in 3-D coming soon and in it's original widescreen aspect ratio.

[*]It was also the very first Paramount movie in widescreen

Are you sure Shane wasn't the first Paramount film in widescreen? Shane was released in April, Redheads that September. But I might be wrong.

[domino harvey]

First filmed with the intention of being widescreen, not the first screened as widescreen, I believe

[Moe Dickstein]

Dom is correct. Shane first released, Redheads first conceived.

[justeleblanc]

So its being the first widescreen film from Paramount has to do with studio intention during production, not just its theatrical projection during release. Sorry for the confusion.

Though, to be fair, wasn't Old Ironsides in 1926 technically the first widescreen film from Paramount? \:D/

[Gregory]

Bosley Crowther's original NYT review of this jim-jam is great stuff—worth quoting in full:

The boast that "Those Redheads From Seattle," which came to Loew's State yesterday, is the first three-dimensional musical picture, is a dubious recommendation these days, in the light of the public's experience and general struggle with 3-D films. And there certainly is little in the offering to compensate for the discomfort of the system used.

To be sure, the cast of this jim-jam, which William H. Pine and William C. Thomas produced for the benefit of Paramount distribution, contains four persons who we are told are tops in the jukebox cognoscenti. They are Guy Mitchell, whose chief claim to fame appears to be his rare and unique rendering of "Feet Up, Pat Him on the Po-Po" (thats what it says, anyhow); Teresa Brewer, a television song-bird, and the singing sisters, Kay and Cynthia Bell. This may endear it somewhat to a specialized clientele, though why it should is hard to figure, since they're all strictly run-of-the-mill, without any vocal distinction or eye-opening beauty and charm.

It also contains Rhonda Fleming, who is one of the redheads advertised, and some occasional nice scenes of snow-draped mountains, which are enhanced by color, if not 3-D.

But the screen play, whipped up by Lewis R. Foster, George Worthington Yates and Geoffrey Homes, is a witless and hackneyed trifle about a mother and three daughters who win the favor of the Klondike with their virtue, gentle graces and feminine skills, and the musical numbers in the offering are right out of the second-class bin. The best is a slicked up rendering of the oldie, "Take Back Your Gold," which the Bell Sisters do with the decorum of a couple of streamlined Gay Nineties girls.

And, as for the 3-D projection—well, it is putting it mildly to say that it is strictly a snare and a delusion and an unspeakable strain on the eyes. At the first showing yesterday morning, the stereoscopic images were out of synchronization most of the time—that is, when they weren't fluctuating between very poor placement of the double images and no double-image at all. This viewer finally settled on looking through the glasses with one eye at a time. A better way might possibly be to look at it with both eyes closed.

[Moe Dickstein]

So its being the first widescreen film from Paramount has to do with studio intention during production, not just its theatrical projection during release. Sorry for the confusion.

Though, to be fair, wasn't Old Ironsides in 1926 technically the first widescreen film from Paramount? \:D/

No, Magnascope didn't adjust the ratio of the film. It just blew it up to a larger size.

[captveg]

First of the Paramount licensed silent films revealed - Zaza (1923)

[justeleblanc]

So its being the first widescreen film from Paramount has to do with studio intention during production, not just its theatrical projection during release. Sorry for the confusion.

Though, to be fair, wasn't Old Ironsides in 1926 technically the first widescreen film from Paramount? \:D/

No, Magnascope didn't adjust the ratio of the film. It just blew it up to a larger size.

In some theaters perhaps, but not in all theaters. Due to variations in lenses and proscenium sizes, Magnascope releases were not projected at a fixed aspect ratio. The following article suggests that within some theaters it would have been as wide as 1.6-to-1:
http://sfsilentfilmfestival.blogspot.co ... scope.html

[Moe Dickstein]

So its being the first widescreen film from Paramount has to do with studio intention during production, not just its theatrical projection during release. Sorry for the confusion.

Though, to be fair, wasn't Old Ironsides in 1926 technically the first widescreen film from Paramount? \:D/

No, Magnascope didn't adjust the ratio of the film. It just blew it up to a larger size.

In some theaters perhaps, but not in all theaters. Due to variations in lenses and proscenium sizes, Magnascope releases were not projected at a fixed aspect ratio. The following article suggests that within some theaters it would have been as wide as 1.6-to-1:
http://sfsilentfilmfestival.blogspot.co ... scope.html

Sure, but the ideal intent was to maintain the ratio. You can't say it was ever intended to be wider than 1.33:1

[justeleblanc]

No, Magnascope didn't adjust the ratio of the film. It just blew it up to a larger size.

In some theaters perhaps, but not in all theaters. Due to variations in lenses and proscenium sizes, Magnascope releases were not projected at a fixed aspect ratio. The following article suggests that within some theaters it would have been as wide as 1.6-to-1:
http://sfsilentfilmfestival.blogspot.co ... scope.html

Sure, but the ideal intent was to maintain the ratio. You can't say it was ever intended to be wider than 1.33:1

Well, we don't know the intention of Paramount outside of Harry Rubin's technical drawings, and from his drawings the ratio looks to still be wider than the standard 1.33. The screens that were specially installed in first-run theaters were also sized to be 1.5-to-1, which I'm guessing was in anticipation of a wider theatrical ratio. So a reasonable inference would be that Paramount's Magnascope releases like Old Ironsides, Chang, and Wings were all intended (if not by the directors, then at least by the studio) to project slightly wider than 1.33, much like Those Redheads From Seattle was.

Though, I guess the issue is whether or not the director's intention matters when determining if a film was a widescreen release. I tend to think it doesn't matter, which is why I took issue with the comment that Redheads, and not Shane, was the first Paramount film to be in their 1953 Paravision aspect ratio. But I see your point all the same.

[Moe Dickstein]

If you're talking about "widescreen release" then absolutely it was Shane, but the first film that was properly produced and intended for widescreen in its totality (which leaves out Magnascope which was only used for sections of those films), then we can say Redheads. I too see your point and it's totally legit

[AfterTheRain]

Alfred Hitchcock's Lifeboat is getting a Blu-ray release; a little surprised that Kino is handling this rather than Fox.

[domino harvey]

They also added a new Tim Lucas commentary for the film

[captveg]

Glad to finally get a US release of Lifeboat. Fox releases almost nothing on their own these days re: catalog titles, so I was just waiting to see which company licensed it.

[domino harvey]

Better anyone but Twilight Time at this point

[colinr0380]

Better anyone but Twilight Time at this point

Don't let the Code Red guy hear that!

[flyonthewall2983]

The Good Son

[domino harvey]

Turns out KL has Barton Fink, Blu-ray announced for next year with no street date

[captveg]

I gotta think it was perhaps one that Criterion had at one point but gave back to Fox because they didn't get around to working on it.

[Ribs]

Er, that seems weirdly embarrassing for Criterion. Why on Earth would they have rushed out the two Coen titles in such short order this year if it meant losing the rights to Barton Fink? Strange!

(Just general curiosity question that doesn't really relate to Kino: if Blood Simple had some weird proviso that resulted in its rights being reverted away from MGM, is there a chance that something similar could theoretically happen to Fargo (albeit twelve years from now if it were the same deal?))

[PfR73]

[dwk]

Other than the 2013 New Year's drawing, which could have been/probably was misinterpreted, was there any real sign that Criterion actually had Barton Fink, or was it just wishful thinking?

In any event, I'm mixed on this news. Happy it is coming to Blu-ray, and it isn't being released by Twilight Time, but there is no way Kino can, or will, produce an edition as great as Criterion's two Coen brothers releases.

[Noiradelic]

Pretty surprised. Assumed Criterion was eventually going to roll out all the MGM Coens save Fargo and maybe Raising Arizona. Barton FInk always felt like the most Criterion-y one because of it being about the film business.

[domino harvey]

I really can't understand how Criterion let it get away. All I can come up with is that the rights lapsed and KL through dumb luck got there first

[Jeff]

Fox's Home Entertainment's James Finn told me a year ago that Barton Fink was no longer a Fox title. I assumed that it had reverted to its production company, Working Title, and was now with their parent company, Universal. Suppose it could have ended up with another producer though. I would have sworn that everything about that New Year's clue pointed to Fink.

Just general curiosity question that doesn't really relate to Kino: if Blood Simple had some weird proviso that resulted in its rights being reverted away from MGM, is there a chance that something similar could theoretically happen to Fargo (albeit twelve years from now if it were the same deal?)

Blood Simple was an independent film produced and owned by a Minnesota company called River Road. It has had a number of distributors over the years, including Circle Films, Universal, October (which became USA, then Focus), MGM, and now Janus. Fargo is in a different boat, because it was a Polygram film, and MGM bought the rights to everything in their library prior to April 1996 outright.