NitrateVille.com

Regardless of the (in my opinion) unwarranted drubbing this film has received from so many others - notably Richard Barrios - I've always found it to be a fascinating and entertaining slice of history. My God - the Ziegfeld Follies, location photography in New York, Helen Morgan, great songs, Mary Eaton.....what more you one want?
My question to one and all is which is the best quality of all the various DVDs of this movie floating around out there? Naturally, I don't hope to find one with the color sequences intact, unfortunately, but I'm looking for the sharpest, clearest transfer I can find. The footage included in the extras on the Kino release of APPLAUSE is dreadful. Surely there must be a better copy available.

busby1959 wrote:...Mary Eaton.....what more could one want?

To live forever in good health is the only thing that comes immediately to mind. Breathtakingly beautiful girls cut no ice with Mr. Barrios.

But you'll have to search diligently to find one of the '29 or '30 musicals in his book that doesn't rate an unwarranted drubbing, or at least some snarky put-down. Applause may have been one of the few which escaped his censure.

I have both the Grapevine & Alpha editions & recollect no differences between them. If something better exists, I'd sure like to have it. It's possible, however, to enjoy a brief glimpse of the finale in all its Technicolor glory--and glorious it is!--by getting your hands on Part 1 of the old PBS Broadway series. The PBS producers obtained that part of it from a restored copy of the picture locked up in some archive...UCLA possibly. I'd already seen the B&W rendition a dozen times before viewing it in color, & it still left me breathless.

Ethan Mordden is also very scathing on GLORIFYING in his book on musicals. I suppose another problem is that these authors will see some of these films en masse or perhaps alone in screening rooms, which can make a difference. The copy I saw was from a PD upload, and far from ideal, but I was very grateful to have it in any format at all. One just has to accept any defects due to print quality and take what is there. At least here seem to be plenty of folk, especially on Nitrateville, who are capable of enjoying such fare. And of course some the enjoyment is in the interest that is to be found in such movies.

Certainly it's good to know that many of these films are enjoyed and appreciated, despite their less than perfect reputations. And at least they are becoming more accessible to those without the wherewithal to travel to see these films in ideal circumstances.

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:Ethan Mordden is also very scathing on GLORIFYING in his book on musicals...

He, too, can go to hell; I wish I could tell him so in person. Probably loves Seven Brides & Oklahoma, which...but I'll not go there.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:Ethan Mordden is also very scathing on GLORIFYING in his book on musicals...

He, too, can go to hell; I wish I could tell him so in person. Probably loves Seven Brides & Oklahoma, which...but I'll not go there.

Must admit to liking the style of what I've read of his book. Agreeing with his tastes and opinions is another matter. By the time I acquired his book I was old enough not to care too much what others said. His scathing comments about GLORIFYING THE AMERICAN GIRL and SHOW BOAT (1929) (to name just two) did not put me off seeing those long-sought-after (and now found) movies and his enthusiasm for the more pop influenced films from the 1970s and 1980s did not make me want to see them any the more. Little short of (heavy) bribery or the direst threats would...

Will have to check him out on SEVEN BRIDES and OKLAHOMA!, which I actually saw in the cinema around 1970. Not seen them recently enough to comment, and gave up on SEVEN BRIDES last time round - though was on a small TV. Perhaps he logs on to Nitrateville, as was still with us when I checked him on Wiki...

* Checked out Mr Mordden. Certainly praised SEVEN BRIDES, not sure about OKLAHOMA as little comment there. As the book came out in 1981 he may have revised his opinions...

Will have to check him out on SEVEN BRIDES and OKLAHOMA!, which I actually saw in the cinema around 1970. Not seen them

I think I saw these at the pictures when they first came out. Haven't bothered to see them again since.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:Ethan Mordden is also very scathing on GLORIFYING in his book on musicals...

He, too... Probably loves Seven Brides which...but I'll not go there.

I agree! I'd much rather watch anything from 1929 or '30 than SEVEN BRIDES...

entredeuxguerres wrote: ...a restored copy of the picture locked up in some archive...UCLA possibly. I'd already seen the B&W rendition a dozen times before viewing it in color, & it still left me breathless.

The restored print is from UCLA. It was shown in 35mm on the big screen at the annual Capitolfest in Rome, NY on August 13, 2011. It looked great - obviously better than any copy I'd ever found on video, DVD or TV broadcast. I hope some day it will be made available on DVD.

Double post. Moving on...

To me GLORIFYING is the go-to musical if you want a real 1929 fix. Music is wonderful, Mary Eaton is total charm. Toss in Eddie Cantor and other bonuses and all is well. Wonderful opening sequence too.

I must though put in some praise for the restored TODD-AO OKLAHOMA! on Blu- Ray. Spectacular looking in every way, and glorious music. Plus Charlotte Greenwood!

Richard Finegan wrote: The restored print is from UCLA. It was shown in 35mm on the big screen at the annual Capitolfest in Rome, NY on August 13, 2011. It looked great - obviously better than any copy I'd ever found on video, DVD or TV broadcast. I hope some day it will be made available on DVD.

Some day? Not sure I can count on immortality.

I first saw GLORIFYING on Boston's WBZ at 1:00 AM, July 4th 1973. I was fascinated by the weird, grainy look of the B/W printed Technicolor scenes. I wanted to see more, but it wasn't going to be on TV in '73.

antoniod wrote:I first saw GLORIFYING on Boston's WBZ at 1:00 AM, July 4th 1973. I was fascinated by the weird, grainy look of the B/W printed Technicolor scenes. I wanted to see more, but it wasn't going to be on TV in '73.

Can't even remember where I was living in '73. But the murky, low-contrast, quality of early Technicolor scenes printed B/W is not merely the result of the lack of color--has something to do with a loss of focus. Don't pretend to understand the technical explanation, but read about it on Wiki's Technicolor article, I think; maybe some one else will elucidate.

The B/W printed scenes in The Vagabond King are even murkier than those in this picture.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:Ethan Mordden is also very scathing on GLORIFYING in his book on musicals...

He, too, can go to hell; I wish I could tell him so in person. Probably loves Seven Brides & Oklahoma, which...but I'll not go there.

I'm sure the Misters Barrios and Morden will cry bitter tears over your rebuke.

I still scratch my head over this either/or mentality. OKLAHOMA! - in Todd-AO - on a big screen with an appreciative audience remains one of the most enjoyable movie-going experiences of my life. And few things give me more joy than seeing the barn-raising sequence from SEVEN BRIDES. And what's not to love about a musical that includes a sung ballet with lyrics like "A man can't sleep when he sleeps with sheep." Add to that Keel and Powell and Tamblyn and Newmar and ...

As for GTAG, I find it a frustrating affair. While it has many things to recommend it (Morgan, Cantor, the Technicolor tableaux, most goat-glanded on after initial shoorting) I mourn what *could* have been: a silent with Clara Bow as Gloria ... and/or direction by Von Stroheim ... or a full talkie ziegfeldian revue. And, sadly, Astoria had issues with sound recording, especially with big musical numbers - which didn't help matters any. Add to that, Paramount held it up for a Christmas 1929 release. It might have been better received and have a better reputation today had it been released earlier.

Donald Binks wrote:Will have to check him out on SEVEN BRIDES and OKLAHOMA!, which I actually saw in the cinema around 1970. Not seen them

I think I saw these at the pictures when they first came out. Haven't bothered to see them again since.

Coincidentally enough, I was having a conversation just yesterday touching on an aspect of this (I was lobbying someone to take in Mamoulian's Applause). As my interlocutor and I have discussed many a time, some people like the lush "101 Strings Orchestra" sound of the orchestration typical of more modern movies, some (such as myself) prefer the thinner and edgier "pit band" sound typical of earlier films; and members of each camp will largely claim that the music of the other camp actually irritates them (in other words, they don't just find it less preferable--they emotionally despise it). I'd be tempted to say that it's something psychological; but then one would have to look into the psychology of taste . . . and that way madness lies . . . The typical movie musicals of the 40s and 50s, I can now and then appreciate in a dispassionate way, but I just can't like them; meantime, I've been thoroughly delighted with Glorifying the American Girl each of the half-dozen times I've seen it. Has anyone in either camp ever been "brought around" to actually like the music of the other camp? In either direction, the best outcome I've ever seen is that they agree to endure it in civil and Stoic silence.

odinthor wrote: Has anyone in either camp ever been "brought around" to actually like the music of the other camp? In either direction, the best outcome I've ever seen is that they agree to endure it in civil and Stoic silence.

I don't believe I was ever "brought around" on this. I grew up with 40s-60s orchestrations of musicals, both on stage and their film adaptations. That's what they SOUND like and that's part of experience. As I became increasingly aware of recordings, on 78, film and radio, from the teens, 20s & 30s, I enjoyed them as being part of that era.

Again, I don't get the whole either/or thing. I like Verdi and Wagner equally as well.

Harlett O'Dowd wrote: I'm sure the Misters Barrios and Morden will cry bitter tears over your rebuke.

Not at all...they have the acclaim of ignoramuses to revel in.

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:...I mourn what *could* have been: a silent with Clara Bow as Gloria ... and/or direction by Von Stroheim ...

Well, that would be a picture I'd like to see...though not exactly a musical. But why for Heaven's sake "mourn" the best exhibition on film of Mary Eaton's phenomenal beauty & talent? Don't get that at all.

Harlett O'Dowd wrote: Again, I don't get the whole either/or thing. I like Verdi and Wagner equally as well.

So do I, & always have. Your concurrence somewhat troubles me.

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:

odinthor wrote: Has anyone in either camp ever been "brought around" to actually like the music of the other camp? In either direction, the best outcome I've ever seen is that they agree to endure it in civil and Stoic silence.

(snip)

Again, I don't get the whole either/or thing. I like Verdi and Wagner equally as well.

I'm with you on the either/or thing. I'd widen that a bit and say "I like Verdi and Wagner, and I also enjoyed the bejesus out of AC/DC on the Grammys." I also don't think anyone has been harangued into changing their minds on anything, but definitely not on personal taste issues.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Harlett O'Dowd wrote: Again, I don't get the whole either/or thing. I like Verdi and Wagner equally as well.

So do I, & always have. Your concurrence somewhat troubles me.

Previously, you wrote:

entredeuxguerres wrote:

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:Ethan Mordden is also very scathing on GLORIFYING in his book on musicals...

He, too... Probably loves Seven Brides which...but I'll not go there.

As it reads, you (and others here) suggest that Seven Brides is an inferior work when compared to GTAG. Not unlike the opera snobs who *only* care for Wagner (and in some cases only a few of his more mature works) while dismissing the best of Italian ... and French ... and Russian ... and English ... and Czech entries. Likewise, those lovers of Verdi who find Wagner too pompous, teutonic and "tuneless."

By dismissing later works for not being as ______________ as musicals from the 1929-30 season, aren't you guilty (in reverse) of what you accuse Barrios and Morden of doing?

Frederica wrote:

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:

odinthor wrote: Has anyone in either camp ever been "brought around" to actually like the music of the other camp? In either direction, the best outcome I've ever seen is that they agree to endure it in civil and Stoic silence.

(snip)

Again, I don't get the whole either/or thing. I like Verdi and Wagner equally as well.

I'm with you on the either/or thing. I'd widen that a bit and say "I like Verdi and Wagner, and I also enjoyed the bejesus out of AC/DC on the Grammys." I also don't think anyone has been harangued into changing their minds on anything, but definitely not on personal taste issues.

mmmmmm. Hogfather.

I don't know that it's 'coming around' as such, but it's possible to come to appreciate forms of music that once did nothing for you. My parents used to loathe Dean Martin, possibly because it reminded them of the music their parents listened to, at a time when they were consumed with rebelling against everything their parents' generation stood for.

Now, they've really come to enjoy his music. Whether it's because the blinkers of their rebellious youth have been removed, or out of nostalgia for their childhood, or a combination of the two, I don't know.

(I should add that their music tastes are eclectic to say the least ... Cole Porter, Eminem and Bob Dylan all jostle for attention in their CD cabinet. In much the way that Gershwin, Annette Hanshaw and Nine Inch Nails jostle in mine, acutally ).

Brooksie wrote:I don't know that it's 'coming around' as such, but it's possible to come to appreciate forms of music that once did nothing for you. My parents used to loathe Dean Martin, possibly because it reminded them of the music their parents listened to, at a time when they were consumed with rebelling against everything their parents' generation stood for.

Now, they've really come to enjoy his music. Whether it's because the blinkers of their rebellious youth have been removed, or out of nostalgia for their childhood, or a combination of the two, I don't know.

(I should add that their music tastes are eclectic to say the least ... Cole Porter, Eminem and Bob Dylan all jostle for attention in their CD cabinet. In much the way that Gershwin, Annette Hanshaw and Nine Inch Nails jostle in mine, acutally ).

Eh, sometimes your tastes just change. Also the older you get, the more types of music you're exposed to and have a chance to develop a taste for...assuming you're the kind of person who is open to that. I know a lot of people my age who have musical tastes that start in pop music 1967 and end in pop music 1969, which is as tiresome as young people not knowing much about music history. Except that young people have an excuse (i.e., "they're young") and people my age don't.

Catholicity of taste is admirable up to a point, but that point has been left behind when it becomes so undiscriminating as to embrace everything. "Discriminating"...now there's a word, & an attitude about life, that's fallen upon hard times; prior to, I don't know, about the '60s, to be described as "discriminating" was regarded as an accolade; now it's become virtually a term of opprobrium.

So now we have the sad, immensely sad, spectacle of Renee Fleming endeavoring, as several of her recent public appearances suggest, to "prove" her lovely self as a pop singer; I hang my head in dismay.

As far as musical tastes go, I was always the odd one out - preferring the music of the '20's and '30's rather than any current popular warblings (or should I say screechings?). My peers would look at me incredulously as I was prepared to discuss the merits of Paul Whiteman or Al Bowlly - whom they had never heard of - rather than discuss the "The Excited Mice" or "The Banana Trolls".

In the '50's and '60's I might have listened to more, then current, popular music as the wireless was always on then - but, as the decades flowed on I have become more remote from it - knowing the names of some artistes mainly for their exploits covered on the news rather than what they actually perform.

As to the different sound of orchestras? I think that a lot of the difference was in orchestration. Those bands or smaller orchestras back in the 1920's and '30's could benefit by brilliant orchestrations - later orchestrations tended to boost the string section, particularly Mantovani who created that "floating strings" sound. The same is true in the theatre where the operas of Wagner and Richard Strauss require orchestras of 100-110 players as opposed to the "normal" 70-80.

My not wishing to see "Oklahoma" or "Seven Brides" is not from the musical content per se - but the subject matter. It's the storyline and setting of rustic Americana that I can't be bothered with. I'm afraid it just doesn't interest me and I apologise for that fact to those who might be offended.

To summarise. Good music will always sound good, whilst rubbish will always be rubbish.

entredeuxguerres wrote:Catholicity of taste is admirable up to a point, but that point has been left behind when it becomes so undiscriminating as to embrace everything. "Discriminating"...now there's a word, & an attitude about life, that's fallen upon hard times; prior to, I don't know, about the '60s, to be described as "discriminating" was regarded as an accolade; now it's become virtually a term of opprobrium.

So now we have the sad, immensely sad, spectacle of Renee Fleming endeavoring, as several of her recent public appearances suggest, to "prove" her lovely self as a pop singer; I hang my head in dismay.

Again, I don't get the point. Caruso, McCormack, Pinza, Melchior - to name but a few - all crossed over into "popular" music and culture. Good is good is good.

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:

entredeuxguerres wrote:Catholicity of taste is admirable up to a point, but that point has been left behind when it becomes so undiscriminating as to embrace everything. "Discriminating"...now there's a word, & an attitude about life, that's fallen upon hard times; prior to, I don't know, about the '60s, to be described as "discriminating" was regarded as an accolade; now it's become virtually a term of opprobrium.

So now we have the sad, immensely sad, spectacle of Renee Fleming endeavoring, as several of her recent public appearances suggest, to "prove" her lovely self as a pop singer; I hang my head in dismay.

Again, I don't get the point. Caruso, McCormack, Pinza, Melchior - to name but a few - all crossed over into "popular" music and culture. Good is good is good.

And so did Richard Tauber - prolifically. When asked why he sang popular music he once replied "I don't sing popular music, I sing Lehar!" His attitude was always - if it is good music - I will sing it. It's a pity that some musical snobs don't have this same attitude.

Donald Binks wrote:And so did Richard Tauber - prolifically. When asked why he sang popular music he once replied "I don't sing popular music, I sing Lehar!" His attitude was always - if it is good music - I will sing it. It's a pity that some musical snobs don't have this same attitude.

Yes, but you'd surely not equate Lehar with what passes for popular music today!!! (A rhetorical ejaculation only, because I know you don't.) Popular music in the time of Caruso et al.--much of which I love--can't be compared to the sonic garbage blaring forth endlessly on TV, over the PA systems in almost every store, etc.; it's inescapable, short of deafness.

Harlett O'Dowd wrote: Again, I don't get the point. Caruso, McCormack, Pinza, Melchior - to name but a few - all crossed over into "popular" music and culture. Good is good is good.

My only point would be that between then & now, times have changed, & standards for popular music have changed; surely that's not debatable, is it?

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Donald Binks wrote:And so did Richard Tauber - prolifically. When asked why he sang popular music he once replied "I don't sing popular music, I sing Lehar!" His attitude was always - if it is good music - I will sing it. It's a pity that some musical snobs don't have this same attitude.

Yes, but you'd surely not equate Lehar with what passes for popular music today!!! (A rhetorical ejaculation only, because I know you don't.) Popular music in the time of Caruso et al.--much of which I love--can't be compared to the sonic garbage blaring forth endlessly on TV, over the PA systems in almost every store, etc.; it's inescapable, short of deafness.

Again, unless I'm missing something, like, say, a Fleming cover of "All About That Bass,"
I don't get your point. Surely you don't consider Fleming's turn in THE MERRY WIDOW ... or singing the
US National Anthem ... or her opera parodies on LETTERMAN and SESAME STREET to be "sonic garbage."


Do you consider any of these celebrated Carmens to be slumming?



1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKLbBHNU3EQ
(cannot get it to embed)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKLbBHNU3EQ[/quote]


2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaF7kT5Moc0
(cannot get it to embed)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaF7kT5Moc0[/quote]

3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJQIL2GdKeA
(cannot get it to embed)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJQIL2GdKeA[/quote]