NitrateVille.com

Mega epic in Cinemascope that apparently went through a revolving door of cast announcements and offers. One source states that early news on the film boasted Marlon Brando, Kirk Douglas, and Burt Lancaster as the male leads. The leads ended up as Edmund Purdom, Victor Mature, and Michael Wilding. Brando was apparently to play the pharaoh (Wilding) but dropped out. Farley Granger and Dirk Bogarde both passed.

Other stars are Jean Simmons, Gene Tierney, Bella Darvi (I thought she was awful), Peter Ustinov, and Judith Evelyn.

Gorgeous sets and costumes and color photography. The music has a curious history: "Owing to the short time available in post-production, the composing duties on the film score were divided between two of 20th Century-Fox's best-known composers: Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann."

How common was this? Can anyone think of other major non-musical films that sported two composers?

Anyway, saw this at the drive-in in the '50s and have always remembered it.

Think I first saw it on TV, a long time ago. (So glad Brando declined!) However, what I recall more vividly was reading the novel in high-school, during the same time I was devouring Mary Renault's books, & being immensely impressed with the books imaginative recreation of the ancient Near East. Goes without saying that many, if not most, of the fascinating cultural details in the novel did not make it into the film, or it would have been as long as Gance's Napoleon.

I think the only one of her novels I read was the one about Alexander the Great.

Fascinating history. I had remembered the temple to the "one god" and how the praying people got wiped out by the invading army and all. The closing comment about how it all happened 1300 BC was a surprise. While watching, I just assumed it was closer to the "christian era," but then I wasn't watching for its historical accuracy.

There is quite a detailed and well-illustrated write-up about the production of THE EGYPTIAN, including the use of two composers, at http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6811" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank although much of it appears to be sourced from studio publicity of the era. Here's what relates to the music score:

Writers and scorers worked in pairs on "The Egyptian"

So big a production was The Egyptian that it took many craftsmen working in pairs to bring it to the screen. Working in two's were the screenwriters and musical scorers, a unique feat for all involved. Both Philip Dunne and Casey Robinson, two of Hollywood's most distinguished scenarists, contributed to the screen play — their first such dual effort—and Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann collaborated on the music, a new move for both. Dunne said this procedure illustrated his theory that making a movie is rarely a solo trick, and that screen credits often don't reflect who made what contribution to an overall project. "That brilliant line of dialog in a given film may have been inserted by the director on the set, and that exquisite directorial touch typed into the script long before a director was even assigned," he wrote recently on that subject in an article for the Screen Producers Guild Journal. "All we have to do is learn to say 'we' instead of 'I.'" Seven stars and a dozen important featured players adorn.

While the film admittedly has some pacing, scripting, and casting issues, it's still an impressive historical epic (especially the art direction) greatly enhanced by the Blu-ray edition from Twilight Time, which looks spectacular and sounds great (It was the company's first Blu-ray release back in summer of 2011, and I reviewed it about a year later in the "Old Movies in HD" thread). Unfortunately both the Blu-ray and DVD limited editions (of 3000 units each) are finally now sold out, so copies go for quite a premium now.

And here's what the Blu-ray looks like projected on the screen in my basement theatre...

You have your own Egyptian Theatre??

I saw some reviews od the Blu, which were quite excellent...

Interestingly, there are several instances in the film, where the music is definitely Herrmann's ... which gets you wondering who wrote what. I thought I saw on one review of the Blu that there were separate music tracks for the composers' work on this film????

drednm wrote:You have your own Egyptian Theatre??

I saw some reviews of the Blu, which were quite excellent...

Interestingly, there are several instances in the film, where the music is definitely Herrmann's ... which gets you wondering who wrote what. I thought I saw on one review of the Blu that there were separate music tracks for the composers' work on this film????

There are three audio tracks on the Blu-ray -- the regular soundtrack remastered to DTS-HD 5.1 from the original magnetic 4.0 stereo, the audio commentary track, and an isolated music score track. There are not separate music tracks for each composer. I've not listened to the entire isolated music track for this disc, but on the isolated score feature for some movies you can hear the conductor's announcement of the cue and take number followed by the clicking of the baton before it begins, and on others you can hear some limited sound effects with the music. As I recall the commentary track does discuss the music score at some point, but I forget the details.

Regarding my basement theatre, it's a converted former bedroom with a 4 x 10-foot slab of sheetrock painted matte white for the screen, 17 old theatre seats salvaged from two now-demolished area theatres (12 attached to three risers I built myself), and the Egyptian theme comes courtesy of some of the props left over from two digital mummy-themed movies that I made about 13-14 years ago (trailers to both are included in a chronological set of trailers to the features I've made at http://myweb.midco.net/christopher.jaco ... ebsize.mp4" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank ).

Very impressive.....

Christopher Jacobs wrote:

drednm wrote:You have your own Egyptian Theatre??

I saw some reviews of the Blu, which were quite excellent...

Interestingly, there are several instances in the film, where the music is definitely Herrmann's ... which gets you wondering who wrote what. I thought I saw on one review of the Blu that there were separate music tracks for the composers' work on this film????

There are three audio tracks on the Blu-ray -- the regular soundtrack remastered to DTS-HD 5.1 from the original magnetic 4.0 stereo, the audio commentary track, and an isolated music score track. There are not separate music tracks for each composer. I've not listened to the entire isolated music track for this disc, but on the isolated score feature for some movies you can hear the conductor's announcement of the cue and take number followed by the clicking of the baton before it begins, and on others you can hear some limited sound effects with the music. As I recall the commentary track does discuss the music score at some point, but I forget the details.

Regarding my basement theatre, it's a converted former bedroom with a 4 x 10-foot slab of sheetrock painted matte white for the screen, 17 old theatre seats salvaged from two now-demolished area theatres (12 attached to three risers I built myself), and the Egyptian theme comes courtesy of some of the props left over from two digital mummy-themed movies that I made about 13-14 years ago (trailers to both are included in a chronological set of trailers to the features I've made at http://myweb.midco.net/christopher.jaco ... ebsize.mp4" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank ).

Wow awesome! I would love to eventually buy a blu-ray projector. Are they expensive? And are they easy to run?

I don't have a basement, or a loft or cellar so am thinking of having a pull-down screen from the ceiling in my lounge. Not sure what size they do? But it would be good.

David Alp wrote:

Christopher Jacobs wrote:

drednm wrote:You have your own Egyptian Theatre??

Regarding my basement theatre, it's a converted former bedroom with a 4 x 10-foot slab of sheetrock painted matte white for the screen, 17 old theatre seats salvaged from two now-demolished area theatres (12 attached to three risers I built myself), and the Egyptian theme comes courtesy of some of the props left over from two digital mummy-themed movies that I made about 13-14 years ago (trailers to both are included in a chronological set of trailers to the features I've made at http://myweb.midco.net/christopher.jaco ... ebsize.mp4" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank ).

Wow awesome! I would love to eventually buy a blu-ray projector. Are they expensive? And are they easy to run?

I don't have a basement, or a loft or cellar so am thinking of having a pull-down screen from the ceiling in my lounge. Not sure what size they do? But it would be good.

Well, actually I've never heard of a Blu-ray projector yet, just separate Blu-ray players and video projectors (though there may be some, like there are some DVD player/projector combos).

Any video projector with 1080p or better resolution should be able to project the full 1080p HD image from a Blu-ray player through an HDMI cable. Lamps typically last 2000 to 5000 hours and cost $200-$500 each (about 10c per hour to run). Projector costs (for full 1080p projectors) range from about $600 to $2000 and up (including a lamp), though I've seen some advertised on ebay for under $100 (when native-1080p projectors are that cheap they're likely discontinued models, demo models, returned units, units without a lamp included, units with dim light output usable only for very short throws and pictures not much bigger than the size of a large-screen TV set, or "fell off a truck" items).

Just do a simple Google search on 1080p projectors for more links to more details than you can possibly go through. Many people are satisfied with a 16x9 shape screen with letterboxed images for wider ratio movies, but many others insist on a single height for all movies. If you want a constant screen height so that widescreen movies are actually wide and not letterboxed, you'll need to get a projector with a good zoom lens range, which will add to the cost. You'll also need an HDMI cable to a compatible amplifier to get the full uncompressed multichannel DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD audio. You can buy a screen (for lots of money) or make your own or just paint a wall matte white. You can use whatever seating you've already got or invest in elaborate home theatre seats or look around your area for theatres shutting down to get used real theatre seats at a bargain.

While a dedicated room works best, any room can be turned into a projection home theatre, as you can see in the hundreds of examples at http://www.blu-ray.com/community/?actio ... lerytype=0" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank and you can read about (and ask others about their experiences) at http://forum.blu-ray.com/forumdisplay.php?f=89" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank and especially http://forum.blu-ray.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44" target="_blank" target="_blank

This all may be useful information for anyone wishing to switch from watching a TV set to projecting movies on a screen, but it no longer has much to do with the 1954 film THE EGYPTIAN. Any continued discussion should really be moved to a new thread in the "Tech Talk" forum instead of this thread. (Unless maybe you're putting together an Egyptian-themed theatre.)

The FSM CD of the original music tracks relates the collaboration between composers Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann: Zanuck wanted Newman, head of Fox's music department, to score the film. Newman was already involved in the music for "No Business Like Show Business," and ultimately Herrmann was selected to score the film. However the release date was moved up by two-and-a-half weeks leaving Herrmann only five-and-a-half weeks to score the film instead of the original eight. (Herrmann did his own orchestrations, rather than the common expedient of using an orchestrator). At that point Herrmann proposed that he collaborate with Newman, who had just finished his responsibilities on the musical. While the composers shared some thematic material, the original sketches have apparently been lost, so it's impossible to know which themes originated with either composer. The CD listing identifies which cues Herrmann or Newman composed, respectively.

It is fairly rare for a major production to have more than one composer (other than the many instances where a finished score was rejected and a new composer brought in). It was not uncommon in the 'thirties for a studio to use two or more composers in a film. Universal even did this in the early 'fifties, with many of their films divided among two or more composers, but the titles crediting only the music department supervisor Joe Gershenson.

As to "The Egyptian," I think the film was weak, especially the ending with the poisoned cups and the renunciation. Historians generally seem to interpret pharaoh Akhnaton as a zealot who used his sun god Aton as a means to break the power of the Amun priesthood, not as the dreamy "single god" ascetic depicted in the Waltari novel and in the film. Of course, how often has Hollywood followed history in historical epics?

I had the laser disc version from a long time ago. The image quality was outstanding for the times but the film was not much. Victor Mature was very impressive playing Victor Mature.

drednm wrote:I think the only one of her novels I read was the one about Alexander the Great.

Fascinating history. I had remembered the temple to the "one god" and how the praying people got wiped out by the invading army and all. The closing comment about how it all happened 1300 BC was a surprise. While watching, I just assumed it was closer to the "christian era," but then I wasn't watching for its historical accuracy.

" but then I wasn't watching for its historical accuracy." I hope this comment was made in jest. That will be the day that conventional Hollywood ever puts out a blockbuster "Historic" Epic that even remotely comes close to the truth.

Norma Desmond wrote:

drednm wrote:I think the only one of her novels I read was the one about Alexander the Great.

Fascinating history. I had remembered the temple to the "one god" and how the praying people got wiped out by the invading army and all. The closing comment about how it all happened 1300 BC was a surprise. While watching, I just assumed it was closer to the "christian era," but then I wasn't watching for its historical accuracy.

" but then I wasn't watching for its historical accuracy." I hope this comment was made in jest. That will be the day that conventional Hollywood ever puts out a blockbuster "Historic" Epic that even remotely comes close to the truth.

When it comes to the historical accuracy of cinema, I limit my credence to the films of Oliver Stone, who as everyone knows gives viewers the hard facts & nothing else. (From what I've been hearing, the director of Selma took him as her exemplar.)

With other pictures, I try to make myself content if the details of costume, weapons & other artifacts, architecture, etc., reflect what's known from the best historical evidence. Since so many of the details of everyday life in ancient Egypt are well-illustrated in wall-paintings & papyri, copied & reproduced in books since the early 19th C., film-makers wanting to depict that era have little excuse for error. For that reason, the egregious absurdities in Loves of Pharaoh, for ex., are quite unforgivable--Lubitsch didn't even try to get it right. (And Germany, before the 8th Air Force did its work, possessed some superb Egyptian collections.)

On the other hand, the less one knows about such details, the easier of course it is to be satisfied, & since it can always be safely assumed that the great general public knows nothing about anything, the "why bother?" attitude of most studios isn't hard to comprehend.

Norma Desmond wrote:

drednm wrote:I think the only one of her novels I read was the one about Alexander the Great.

Fascinating history. I had remembered the temple to the "one god" and how the praying people got wiped out by the invading army and all. The closing comment about how it all happened 1300 BC was a surprise. While watching, I just assumed it was closer to the "christian era," but then I wasn't watching for its historical accuracy.

" but then I wasn't watching for its historical accuracy." I hope this comment was made in jest. That will be the day that conventional Hollywood ever puts out a blockbuster "Historic" Epic that even remotely comes close to the truth.

They aren't historians. They're storytellers. Different goals.

Thanks for making that clear.

drednm wrote:Thanks for making that clear.

You're welcome.

Frederica wrote:They aren't historians. They're storytellers. Different goals.

Yes, but... When the storyteller opts to make well-known historical figures protagonists in his tale, that "goal" shouldn't be construed as a license to outrage generally accepted historiography...unless you take the view that mendacity is itself an art worthy of practice & respect; in which case, such a film as the 1940 Jew Suss deserves high marks.

The best storytellers, like Tolkien & Thomas Hardy, invented not only their own characters but their own geography.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Frederica wrote:They aren't historians. They're storytellers. Different goals.

Yes, but... When the storyteller opts to make well-known historical figures protagonists in his tale, that "goal" shouldn't be construed as a license to outrage generally accepted historiography...unless you take the view that mendacity is itself an art worthy of practice & respect; in which case, such a film as the 1940 Jew Suss deserves high marks.

Richard II is a well-known historical figure but there is nothing about how he's portrayed in The Adventures of Robin Hood that is historically valid. There's nothing about that film at all that is historically valid. It's still a great film and I wouldn't change a teeny minute of it. Films, novels, epic poetry--the storyteller can do anything he or she wants.

I have to say, I think LAND OF THE PHAROAHS is a helluva lot more fun. Including Tiomkin's outrageous, infectious score.

Ray Faiola wrote:I have to say, I think LAND OF THE PHAROAHS is a helluva lot more fun. Including Tiomkin's outrageous, infectious score.

And William Faulkner's bonkers script. And Joan Collins's belly button jewel. Although I keenly felt the lack of Anne Baxter swanning around in turquoise chiffon.

Frederica wrote: Richard II is a well-known historical figure but there is nothing about how he's portrayed in The Adventures of Robin Hood that is historically valid. There's nothing about that film at all that is historically valid. It's still a great film and I wouldn't change a teeny minute of it....

That's Richard I Coeur de Lion. The way I look past, or rationalize, that distortion is by regarding the film as a picturization of the medieval myth of Robin Hood...because in that myth, Richard was as depicted in the film; mental gymnastics of course.

But reading Kendall's magnificent bio of Richard III has somewhat impaired my great love of Shakespeare's play; not merely because Shakespeare twisted the facts--I've always known that--but the degree to which they were twisted is truly stunning: white changed to black, up to down, north to south. I'll still always enjoy Olivier's Richard, but I'd enjoy it more if I could imagine there was even a grain of truth in it.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Frederica wrote: Richard II is a well-known historical figure but there is nothing about how he's portrayed in The Adventures of Robin Hood that is historically valid. There's nothing about that film at all that is historically valid. It's still a great film and I wouldn't change a teeny minute of it....

That's Richard I Coeur de Lion. The way I look past, or rationalize, that distortion is by regarding the film as a picturization of the medieval myth of Robin Hood...because in that myth, Richard was as depicted in the film; mental gymnastics of course.

Yes, of course, I not II. And yes, mental gymnastics. If one is really concerned with historical inaccuracy, however (and I am), it's best to confine the concern to actual history, rather than to get fussy over inaccuracies in efforts where history is not a concern. I would NEVER recommend that a person watch a movie to find out about an historical event; historical process is entirely different than is the process of storytelling, the methodologies are entirely different, and the goals are entirely different. It's best to keep the iron door closed between the two.

Possibly the biggest bit of "poetic license" in The Egyptian was in bypassing Tutankhamun altogether. I don't remember a single reference to him, the son of Michael Wilding's Akhenaten (Akhnaton in the film). Tut's tomb, discovered in 1922, caused a huge surge in interest about ancient Egypt. But for dramatic reasons (I guess) the filmmakers skipped over Tut and installed Horemheb (Victor Mature) on the throne. Although a commoner, he solidifies his "royal" bloodline by marrying the rather butch Bakethamun (Gene Tierney) who in the film was Akhnaton's sister but in reality may have been his daughter (and Tut's sister), thereby legitimizing Horemheb's rise to Pharaoh.

drednm wrote:...the rather butch Bakethamun (Gene Tierney)...

Gene Tierney goes butch? Say it ain't true!

She makes a comment about her being the "hard" daughter, while the "soft" son got the throne. Sort of a warrior princess type...

Speaking of the distortion of known history, nothing beats that piece of dog roll, Quentin T's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, a movie designed for the exponentially growing world-wide population of Homer and Homera Simpsons. The sole political beneficiaries of this grotesquely dreadful movie are Holocaust Deniers and neo-Nazis: if one can lie about one historical event, why not all historical events?