SCREEN-L Archives

September 2001, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:27:43 +0100
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Comments:
RFC822 error: <W> MESSAGE-ID field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained.
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
Ken Mogg writes:

>Jeremy, it occurs to me: how do you know that you have ever seen and
>heard TMWKTM (1934) in its original condition?  Maybe all of the prints
>and video copies that have been available in recent decades have been
>inferior (as is often the case with old films)?  I heard that the BFI
>released a new print in 1999 that was excellent, however.  Perhaps it
>was struck from an original print?  And maybe the DVD is of that print?
>Do you have additional information?

I've seen a nitrate (i.e. original release copy) print of reel 2, and don't
have any particular memories about the track, so I guess it must have been
average for the time.  But the early generations of Movietone/Western
Electric (variable density) tracks were (i) very susceptible to
generational fading, and (ii) needed very precise densitometry control in
the lab.  Very fractionally overexposing or developing the print stock and
all you'd be left with was a frying egg noise.  So I can well believe that
when we got to the 60s and 70s, the dupes that were going around must have
been pretty bad.

As for the BFI restoration, again, I have no particular impression one way
or another about the sound.  I did think that in the picture, they were a
tad overzealous about wet-gating out scratching and dirt, which meant that
the sharpness and density of the image suffered.  It just didn't look as
crisp as 1930s studio shooting should.  I'd have gladly lived with some
light neg scratching for a sharper picture overall.  They made the same
mistake, IMHO, when they did 'The Edge of the World' a few years back - OK
they might have put back the extra footage, but the visual quality of the
cut-down 1960s prints was amazing.

Leo

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

ATOM RSS1 RSS2