Ben-Hur Rip
I've never seen a really good-looking 70mm presentation of William Wyler's Ben-Hur in a good-sized theatre, so I went to what I assumed would be a showing of same at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian (which has projectors than can show 70mm) last Friday night. There are two or three 70mm prints kicking around, or so I've heard. It stands to reason that at least one would be here, and viewable.
But they showed a 35mm anamorphic print, projected with a typical 2.35 to 1 aspect ratio. The problem was that every so often the framing looked wrong -- slightly side-cropped -- due to the film having been shot in MGM Camera 65, which ultimately allowed for a 2.76 to 1 aspect ratio (which you can see in the most recent four-DVD box set) which meant a portion of what was shot and obviously intended to be seen was missing at the Cinematheque.
The other issue, of course, was that a 35mm print can't look as sharp and clean as a 70mm print. The sound was pretty good though.
The older crowd that attended the show (some looked like family types who'd driven in from Pomona) may have been content, but not this horse. It was like the Louvre hanging a photocopy of the Mona Lisa instead of the real thing. I don't why I stuck around until the intermission but I did, sitting there with that sinking, suckered-again feeling that I've come to know all too well.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
comment #1
Edward
says ...
Ben-Hur has not aged well IMHO, but I loved it back in the day. The chariot race, however, is still amazing.
Posted by Edward
at June 8, 2008 12:25 PM
comment #2
gruver1
says ...
Wells to Edward: The chariot race sucks! It's the long (at times interminable) dialogue scenes that give Ben-Hur relevancy today. All right, I'm kidding -- just wanted to see if anyone's paying attention.
Posted by gruver1
at June 8, 2008 12:45 PM
comment #3
D.Z.
says ...
I thought it was weird, because I rarely read reviews from critics with the word "sucks" in them.
Posted by D.Z.
at June 8, 2008 12:50 PM
comment #4
Craig Kennedy
says ...
You weren't suckered because nothing in the American Cinematheque write-up says anything about it being 70mm. If it had been, they would've trumpeted it in bold letters.
The reason you've never seen one is probably because (at least as of a few years ago) the only screenable 70mm print was in Australia, which the American Cinematheque got a hold of and showed in 2000.
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at June 8, 2008 12:53 PM
comment #5
Wrecktum
says ...
You could have, you know, ASKED when you were there what type of print was used.
Posted by Wrecktum
at June 8, 2008 12:55 PM
comment #6
Mark
says ...
Heston horse whipping Quintus with the latter's own whip is one of the great cinematic moments, but it's still second imo to "I know this man! He gave me water and a will to live." Them ripping out the religious subtext in any remake is about as silly a thing i've heard. It would just be a hollowed CGI version with worse actors and fake horses.
Posted by Mark
at June 8, 2008 1:35 PM
comment #7
rgmax99
says ...
In the mid to late 90s I caught a 70mm print of Hur with a packed house at the now-closed AMC Glen Oaks in Dallas. (At least, I'm pretty sure it's closed.)
Also saw Last Picture Show and Hard Boiled at the same theatre before their appearances on video/DVD, and I caught a ravishing presentation of the first 70mm restoration of Lawrence of Arabia at the Glen Oaks.
Question: do you think AMC or any other major theatre chain would devote screen time to specialized reissues today?
Posted by rgmax99
at June 8, 2008 3:32 PM
comment #8
rgmax99
says ...
Ooops. It was the AMC Glen Lakes in Dallas. And yep, it's closed.
Posted by rgmax99
at June 8, 2008 3:37 PM
comment #9
TheJeff
says ...
It's never safe to assume that something will be shown in 70mm just because you know prints exist and the theater has a projector. Showing something in 70mm is requires substantial extra work to obtain the print and exhibit it. It's a big deal and the theater would trumpet it loudly if that were the case.
Posted by TheJeff
at June 8, 2008 4:42 PM
comment #10
Richard2001
says ...
Ned Price at Warner Brothers is too damn cheap to strike a new 70mm print in either 2.20:1 or 2.76:1 on Ben-Hur. He’ll end up doing another 2k scan, cleaning the grain and dirt from the neg, and projected it digitally, which will be softer than a 70mm on the big screen....but it will be digital! Big deal! I just saw the 2k digital restoration of “How The West Was Won†(yet WB is calling it a 6k, because each Cinerama panel was scanned at 2k, then they added the three of then together to come out with 6k image. Whatever, Ned--that is NOT a true 6k restoration) last night at an AMIA screening, and walked out 45 minutes in because it wasn’t that sharp on the big screen.
Posted by Richard2001
at June 8, 2008 5:32 PM
comment #11
CinemaPhreek
says ...
Cinematheque just finished a 70mm series only last Sunday (ironically, another Heston film, KHARTOUM), so Wells can be forgiven for thinking this would be shown 70mm as well.
I was at that 2000 screening of BEN HUR with Heston giving a great pre-screening talk about it. Heck, we even let him cut the bathroom line at the break.
Posted by CinemaPhreek
at June 8, 2008 5:58 PM
comment #12
corey3rd
says ...
I prefer the chariot race in the silent version.
Posted by corey3rd
at June 8, 2008 6:54 PM
comment #13
Walter Sobchak
says ...
I was bit by the Egyptian a few weeks ago with a so-so print of "2001".
It was good for New Beverly standards but rather subpar for Cinemateque's criteria.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at June 8, 2008 6:59 PM
comment #14
lazespud
says ...
Sounds like you got ripped off a bit, Jeff. but it might not have been so much of a rip off; depending on when they made the 35 mm print. Film stock had improved so much in the last decade, that current 35mm stock completely rivals 70mm of decades ago. Think about all of those 35 mm movies blown up for imax films; they scale up pretty nicely these days.
That said, it's pretty ridiculous to go to a revival house that has a 70mm projector, and they show the damn thing in 35. Being able to see a 70mm film is one of the few reasons to get the hell out of the house and see a grand old movie instead of watching it in a home theater.
Posted by lazespud
at June 8, 2008 8:41 PM
comment #15
Edward Havens
says ...
Maybe Wells needs to get on Margot Gerber's press emailing list, so he won't have to assume anything about the AC screenings, since he'd have all the details weeks and even months in advance.
Posted by Edward Havens
at June 9, 2008 3:01 AM
comment #16
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
That's sad about How the West Was Won. I saw it in Dayton in Cinerama about 10 years ago and it was stunning-- you could see every thread on the jackets, three stories high.
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at June 9, 2008 6:54 AM
comment #17
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
Them ripping out the religious subtext in any remake is about as silly a thing i've heard.
No Jesus picture ever made a dime.
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at June 9, 2008 6:56 AM
comment #18
corey3rd
says ...
Them ripping out the religious subtext in any remake is about as silly a thing i've heard.
No Jesus picture ever made a dime.
Was it The Passion of the Chris?
Posted by corey3rd
at June 9, 2008 8:14 AM
comment #19
TheCahuengaKid
says ...
I was there with my son on Friday night. Actually I would have had no problems with a good, restored 35mm print, but the print they showed was in HORRIBLE condition. The head and tail of each new reel looked like it had been dragged beneath poor Messala during the chariot race scene (...and the chariot race still rocks nearly 50 years later!)
Posted by TheCahuengaKid
at June 9, 2008 8:36 AM
comment #20
akstanwyck
says ...
According to the Cinematheque, the one existing 70 mm print of Ben Hur resides in Australia--they'v epaid the $15,000 it costs to ship it here for their 70 mm series, but in this case they went with the 35 mm.
Posted by akstanwyck
at June 11, 2008 6:43 PM
comment #21
jany
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql server high availability
Posted by jany
at April 22, 2011 6:40 AM