This is topic Il Gattopardo (The Leopard - UK rerelease) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000605

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-07-2003, 03:08 AM:
 
There's nothing like a good 10-reel epic to while away a Sunday afternoon. While the script rambles a bit and some individual scenes seem to lose their way, the overall pace of the film is very effective, I thought, in showing the ways in which members of a Sicilian family come to terms (and in some cases, fail to come to terms) with the aftermath of the revolution and the unification of Italy. I thought the direction lacked a bit of sparkle, especially in the scenes shortly after the family's arrival at Donnafugata, but the subtle and very effective acting made up for it (Burt Lancaster and Claudia Cardinale were very good, I thought). The final, 40-minute long ball scene was every bit as spectacular as the reviews I'd read said it would be.

Sadly, the new prints are nothing to get excited about. That orangy-yellow hue that Ferrania stock seems to fade to is evident throughout, negative emulsion crackling can be seen in places and the soundtrack overmodulates and clips badly in the HF range. Furthermore the Technirama to 35 'scope transfer is distinctly fuzzy round the edges of the frame and the depth of field seems to have suffered. The print itself was a bit battered, having gone round pretty much all the UK arthouses by the time it came to us. But it's still better than a video, and well worth a look if you can still catch it.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-07-2003, 05:30 AM:
 
One of my favorite movies.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-07-2003, 08:39 AM:
 
Leo,

knowing that so-called restoration, I can assure you that not a single frame of this miserable, grainy, off-color waste of film stock comes from a Technirama negative.

This version was done mainly for television, and if I recall it correctly, nothing was done except duping from existing 35mm prints and dupes. The horizontal 8-perf Technirama negative was never mentioned, and the low image quality speaks loud enough for that kind of pseudo restoration
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-07-2003, 09:43 AM:
 
I agree - that's why I used the term 'new prints' rather than 'restoration'. Looked to me like a straight contact print off a '60s 35 'scope interneg. That would account for the negative-image emulsion cracking and, if the interneg is a combined one which is also buckled or shrunk, the dreadful soundtrack. I guess shrinkage on the source neg could also explain the uneven focus.

And yes, it was grainy as hell.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-07-2003, 03:20 PM:
 
I had the impression that there were not only parts from old interneg, but also parts that were duped from Tech IB release print. Transferring a Tech IB to new interneg stock almost never results in a satisfactory image.
It is unlikely that the parts which were cut (and re-inserted now) here taken care of in form of internegative, so it seems likely that they duped the missing parts and cut them into a new internegative.

Even more disappointing than the PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG "restoration" where a Tech IB print from the director`s personal collection was entirely duped. Some kind of restoration work...
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-07-2003, 03:21 PM:
 
I had the impression that there were not only parts from old interneg, but also parts that were duped from Tech IB release print. Transferring a Tech IB to new interneg stock almost never results in a satisfactory image.
It is unlikely that the parts which were cut (and re-inserted now) were taken care of in form of internegative, so it seems likely that they duped the missing parts and cut them into the existing internegative.

Even more disappointing than the PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG "restoration" where a Tech IB print from the director`s personal collection was entirely duped. Some kind of restoration work...

BTW, have you ever seen the new print(s) of THE TRIALS OF OSCAR WILDE? Another Technirama film which exists only in a bad dupe and looks grainy/off-color.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-07-2003, 08:52 PM:
 
It's very difficult to obtain good color and tone scale when copying from projection-contrast material like a print. The high density range required for a good projected image (density range typically over 3.0, and up to 5.0) exceeds the latitude of both film duplicating systems and digital scanning systems, so typically shadow detail is lost, and highlights are compressed. At best, the images look contrasty and "dupey". In other words, the great density range that makes a film print look so good on the screen makes it less than ideal as a mastering material.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-08-2003, 01:47 AM:
 
Contrast range didn't strike me as a big problem (about the only thing which didn't in that print): detail was visible in clouds and dark suits. The yellow/orange hue was consistent throughout and I wouldn't have thought you'd get that by duping from a Tech print, unless they actually added a tint to those sections in order to make the whole thing look consistent. I do recognise that hue from other European tripack productions which have faded, from Nazi Agfacolor through to the mid '60s. I must have a look in Wilhelm & Brower's book on colour preservation when I get in this evening and see what they say about it.

I missed the Cherbourg rerelease (it was '97 or '98 here I think), but seem to remember that all the extant pre-print elements had gone so pink as to be beyond any redemption, hence resorting to a Tech release print as a last but necessary resort.

Presumably if you duped to separations you could record as much density as needed for each of the three primary colours and transfer through to a new combined interneg, I but I guess they didn't have the budget to do that.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-08-2003, 10:46 AM:
 
It`s good to see old films back to the big screen, and sometimes film restoration has to be done on a tight budget.
I am not again compromising, but there is a border between compromise and mutilation of a film.
With PARAPLUIES it may be acceptable, you can still see the color design, and although the picture is grainy, it still is a representation of the original work.

BUT I despise this ballyhoo about how a film has been saved for future generations and blah blah blah. Call it a rerelease, but not a restoration.

As for GATTOPARDO, IMHO this version mutilates the original work of art. The viewer cannot bridge the gap any more between the original cinematography and that miserable new prints. It`s like photocopying a Van Gogh, and while I personally do not like the film ( ), it surely has great cinematography and set design.

If that`s the way old films are rereleased, I say: Don`t rerelease them. After seeing bad rerelease prints, I often heard people say: "Oh, well, it`s an old movie, that`s how they looked back then..."
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-10-2003, 02:29 AM:
 

quote:

---

BUT I despise this ballyhoo about how a film has been saved for future generations and blah blah blah. Call it a rerelease, but not a restoration.

---