Housekeeping

Bonjour precedent

By November 13, 2009No Comments

Tristesse

I’m break­ing a streak of five in-living-color screen caps to alert you to this week’s Topics/Questions/Exercises, over at the Auteurs’. Note that this is the first 100% snark-free install­ment of the pop­u­lar series (there isn’t even a White-ism Of The Week!), not because That Fuzzy Bastard made me cry or any­thing but just…because. Because I CAN, damn it. (So maybe it really IS because That Fuzzy Bastard made me cry.) 

Enjoy, and let me know your thoughts, here or there.

No Comments

  • While I believe that even Richard Schickel should be allowed to live in peace, and that swipes at oth­er crit­ics are mostly a bad habit in your oth­er­wise good writ­ing… I make an excep­tion for Armond White. His relent­less nas­ti­ness (I still haven’t for­giv­en him for ruin­ing Slate Movie Club) makes him total and abso­lute fair game, always.

  • Tom Russell says:

    Great discussion-starter; I think I’m going to spend my lunch talk­ing about scope, 3‑D, and mo-cap with my wife. Thanks, Glenn!
    We saw DIAL M FOR MURDER last night on TCM, and I remem­ber that the film was shot/exhibited in 3‑D. I’ve nev­er seen it in that format; any­one have an opin­ion as to how Hitch fared with it?

  • Sean says:

    I’m dis­ap­poin­ted that you’re column did­n’t bring up Jeffrey Wells dream of a Weekend remake by Wes Anderson 🙁

  • Brian says:

    One of my favor­ite Preminger films. Thanks for the screen­cap– it really made my day.

  • Randy Byers says:

    Wait, is that Ed McMahon dan­cing with the blonde in the background?

  • Jaime says:

    My favor­ite Preminger is IN HARM’S WAY, although DAISY KENYON may take the top spot on nights & weekends.
    Kehr made me look at Zemeckis dif­fer­ently with BEOWULF, which is one of the best American films of recent years. I’ve had an off-and-on rela­tion­ship with his work since I joined the cinephile club in the early ’90s. FORREST GUMP was such an over­whelm­ing exper­i­ence for me that I avoided revis­it­ing the film in the inter­ven­ing years, dur­ing which the peer pres­sure against it did some ser­i­ous dam­age to my ori­gin­al memory. In the mean­time, I’ve been a big admirer of CONTACT and CAST AWAY. Was luke­warm on POLAR EXPRESS, but Kehr is a very per­suas­ive guy, so the fact that I did­n’t see it on IMAX/3‑D stung a little after see­ing BEOWULF in that format.
    In passing, VistaVision deserves more cred­it than to stand in CinemaScope’s shad­ow, espe­cially its capa­city as a high-density film format. THE SEARCHERS is undoubtedly that form­at’s finest hour, and I can­’t ima­gine that mas­ter­piece in ‘Scope, Academy, 3‑D, or any­thing else but VV.

  • Brian says:

    Oh, and I want to add to my earli­er com­ment that the Auteurs piece is fant­ast­ic, Glenn– smart, con­cise and inform­at­ive, while send­ing off all kinds of sparks and cool con­nec­tions (Godard and Zemeckis and oth­ers) for fur­ther research.
    I should have men­tioned all that earli­er, but the Preminger screen­cap was just so seduct­ive that my mind cleared of everything else…

  • I ran Dial M for Murder in dual-projector polar­ized 3‑D back in 2004 at my 3‑D fest­iv­al at the Lafayette (and have seen it in 3‑D sev­er­al times pri­or). For all his bluster about not want­ing to use 3‑D, Hitchcock used it in a most effect­ive man­ner. He knew the rules of the ste­reo win­dow and exploited it bril­liantly with the scis­sors scene. The effect in that scene is start­ling because he had­n’t been con­stantly thrust­ing things off the screen before­hand. And he uses the neg­at­ive space of the win­dow to really isol­ate Grace Kelly dur­ing the tri­al mont­age. Incidentally, Dial M should also be shown in widescreen.

  • david hare says:

    Pete, oddly enough the PAL R4 (and prob­ably R2) DVD’s of Dial M mask it to 1.85. I was some­what taken aback as I’ve only seen in in Academy, The mask­ing struck me as arbit­rary if not hedge bet­ting as so many titles from 53 to 56 are. I cer­tainly don’t like the 1.85 mask­ing of Wrong Man for instance which cuts out valu­able visu­al inform­a­tion in the foot­room of the frame dur­ing the three way sequence between Quayle, Vera Miles and Finda in Quayles office. DiD the film cans you had hired con­tain pro­jec­tion mask­ing instruc­tions for widescreen? I know Warner did recom­mend 1.75 for Torch Song (also 53) which again one had onyl ever seen open matte.
    Glenn, on this sub­ject the AR of the new Bunuel DVD of la Mort en ce Jardin is pos­sibly insol­uble. I can only recol­lect screen­ings of it (includ­ing TV) in 1.33 or open matte but the com­pos­i­tion does leave ample head­room for mask­ing to 1.66 – you can play around with this on your dis­play and try zoom­ing it up. It plays per­fectly well either way, and I assume it was filmed with more than “com­fort­able” head­space to acco­mod­ate both open matte and masked 1.66 pro­jec­tion, as were so many titles in Europe in the late 50s. Sp I sus­pect both ARs are “cor­rect”.

  • David – the mask­ing on Dial M should prob­ably be 1.75 as I’m fairly cer­tain that was Warner’s stand­ard at the time of its pro­duc­tion (August-September 1953). Warner, like most majors, shif­ted pro­duc­tion to widescreen (either spher­ic­al or ‘scope) in the spring of 1953. The DVDs you men­tion could cer­tainly be too tight as they may be trans­ferred from an ele­ment that has already had a bit of zoom applied (unfor­tu­nately, all too com­mon). The cans for Dial M were not marked, the lead­ers had widescreen frame mark­ings inscribed on them. Regarding Torch Song, I don’t remem­ber off hand what MGM’s policy was at the time, either 1.66 or 1.75 might be correct.