criterionforum.org

AfterTheRain wrote: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

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.

justeleblanc wrote: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/

Moe Dickstein wrote:

justeleblanc wrote: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.

justeleblanc wrote:

Moe Dickstein wrote:

justeleblanc wrote: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 wrote:

justeleblanc wrote:

Moe Dickstein wrote: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

domino harvey wrote:Better anyone but Twilight Time at this point

Ribs wrote: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?)