Black and White in Color
On October 11th, the American Cinematheque will be showing John Huston's Moby Dick ('56) with Eugene Lourie's The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms ('53) as a creatures-from-the-sea double feature. Not to trash Lourie's film, which was the first '50s flick about a radioactive prehistoric monster invading a big city (a year before Gojira opened in Japan), but this pairing feels like a kind of light-hearted mockery of Huston.
Moby Dick, after all, was a flawed but in many ways admirable example of literate, authentic, epic-scale filmmaking in the classic mode; The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms had Ray Harryhausen's effects, fine, but it was primarily a fast-buck popcorn movie.
I'll always worship Moby Dick for its luscious monochrome color scheme -- a decision by Huston and cinematographer Oswald Morris to blend the coior-shot film with a "gray" negative in post-production and thereby creating a unique sort of faded steel-gray color. (The idea was to try and duplicate the faded color in those 19th Century Currier and Ives etchings.)
This monochrome color look was simulated for the Moby Dick DVD that came out in '01, but will the American Cinematheque show a 1950s collector's print that has the same immaculate look of the 1956 release prints, or will they just show a plain color print (i.e., one from the original negative but not blended with a gray negative). That, Mr. Starbuck, is the question.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM
comment #1
Efron
says ...
Point of interest: Moby Dick also has Ray Harryhausen effects.
Posted by Efron
at September 20, 2008 2:46 PM
comment #2
Mr. Peel
says ...
Since the Cinematheque is showing Something Wicked This Way Comes the previous night, it looks like this is all part of some kind of Ray Bradbury tribute. No mockery involved. Check out the Aero schedule for the month, they're showing a few Huston films as well.
Posted by Mr. Peel
at September 20, 2008 3:55 PM
comment #3
gruver1
says ...
Wells to Mr, Peel You're telling me the AC programmer didn't say to him or herself, "Yeah, let's put the two together...they're both about sea monsters, why not?" Of course this is what they said. Of course it is.
Posted by gruver1
at September 20, 2008 6:21 PM
comment #4
Mr. Peel
says ...
I think as far as the Cinematheque goes it's a nice bit of happenstance since it looks like there are only three films in what I assume is a Bradbury tribute. And if he's there to speak that night (there's no info about that on the site yet) there'll probably be some joking comments made about how different the two films are. So yes, in a sense I'm sure it was intentional.
Posted by Mr. Peel
at September 20, 2008 6:37 PM
comment #5
TheCahuengaKid
says ...
Gergory Peck's portrayal of Captain Ahab was much maligned in its day but I always thought he was great in the role... a very deranged, obsessed dignity.
Posted by TheCahuengaKid
at September 20, 2008 6:48 PM
comment #6
TheCahuengaKid
says ...
P.S. to Wells - I still haven't forgiven the Cinematheque for showing that shitty print of BEN-HUR over the summer. You were there, no?
Posted by TheCahuengaKid
at September 20, 2008 6:50 PM
comment #7
Cadavra
says ...
Instead of blaming the Cinematheque for the shitty print of BEN-HUR, why not direct your anger at Warner Bros., which sent it to them?
Posted by Cadavra
at September 20, 2008 11:36 PM
comment #8
Rich S.
says ...
I don't think it's particularly odd, or a rip on Huston. The Bradbury connection jumped out at me immediately. Of course, I don't spend 98% of my time obsessing about hidden agendas and conspiracies, so that doesn't get in the way of my movie recall.
Posted by Rich S.
at September 21, 2008 3:26 AM
comment #9
TheCahuengaKid
says ...
Cadavra - point well taken. Don't get me wrong, I love the Cinematheque's programming. But it was still a shitty print...all 212 minutes of it. It's the responsibility of exhibitors to insist on good print quality, no? And this is friggin Hollywood, not a church basement in Wasilla! I recall seeing a superior print of BEN-HUR at the Cinerama Dome. (Now that I think of it, that was over 10 years ago. Probably the same print!) WELLS - BACK ME UP !
Posted by TheCahuengaKid
at September 21, 2008 7:37 AM
comment #10
Cadavra
says ...
And what if it were the only print?
Posted by Cadavra
at September 21, 2008 9:33 AM
comment #11
gruver1
says ...
I've been told -- but don't know for sure -- that a decent, projectible 70 mm print of Ben-Hur may not be available.
Posted by gruver1
at September 21, 2008 10:46 AM
comment #12
moviemaniac2002
says ...
Don't remember who wrote it, but the funniest
line I remember associated with the making of
"Moby Dick"...that Orson Welles was intensely
unhappy and jealous...because he had to settle for playing the second largest mammal in the film.
Okay, "Beast From..." doesn't have a high
literary pedigree (except for the Bradbury
connection),but it's every bit as iconic as
"Moby". Who doesn't remember Harryhausen's
dino gulping down a New York City cop like a
cocktail weinie? Best of all: Harryhausen didn't
need 780 sub-contracted CGI-ers to create his
wonders. Sadly, he was something we'll never
see again in fantasy/sci-fi filmmaking...an old-school artist-craftsman.
(Just another random thought....Clint Eastwood
napalmed the giant spider in "Tarantula", Lee Van
Cleef took out the "Beast From 20,000 Fathoms"
Now if only Eli Wallach had killed a l950's monstrous mutation, we would have had a perfect retro sci-fi "Good, Bad and The Ugly")
Posted by moviemaniac2002
at September 22, 2008 10:09 AM
comment #13
janee
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 cluster high availability
Posted by janee
at May 18, 2011 3:33 AM