NitrateVille.com

Great film but so many errors! Film opens in 1952 and there's no apparent passage of years. Story involves a presidential election so that narrows it to 1952 of 1956 at latest.

The marquee in back advertises THE PIRATES OF TORTUGA (1961) and the 1962 re-release of PINOCCHIO. The marquee in foreground misspells Debbie Reynolds' name but I have no idea what the ... FROM HELL film is.

Two marquees here. On left A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, which ran on Broadway from 1961-63. On right NEW FACES which ran on Broadway in 1962. And notice the Cadillac.

drednm wrote:Two marquees here. On left A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, which ran on Broadway from 1961-63. On right NEW FACES which ran on Broadway in 1962. And notice the Cadillac.

[url=http
s://postimages.org/" target="_blank][/url]

These kind of things drive me nuts, but I'm told I'm being too critical. For an even more frustrating experience, watch CADILLAC RECORDS, a film where you see a man in 1955 buy a 1958 Cadillac, and, although it's been a while since I've seen it, the timeline of events in this film is really off.

There's a fairly famous shot where they left in what they must have thought was Sinatra's better performance, despite the fact that he's not actually in focus in it. (Sinatra was notorious for being his best in his first couple of takes, and then getting bored. This was a real problem working with Brando on Guys and Dolls, since Brando took 20 takes to find his character's deepest feelings.) Anyway, it's a movie made with the looseness and lack of concern for perfection of the French new wave, so none of that bothered me, nor did I try to figure what year it must be (though, since Iselin is basically McCarthy, I guess I assumed 1952).

What year did Commissioner Carstairs go after Harry and Mary Backstage? That's the real question.

Mike Gebert wrote:There's a fairly famous shot where they left in what they must have thought was Sinatra's better performance, despite the fact that he's not actually in focus in it. (Sinatra was notorious for being his best in his first couple of takes, and then getting bored. This was a real problem working with Brando on Guys and Dolls, since Brando took 20 takes to find his character's deepest feelings.) Anyway, it's a movie made with the looseness and lack of concern for perfection of the French new wave, so none of that bothered me, nor did I try to figure what year it must be (though, since Iselin is basically McCarthy, I guess I assumed 1952).

What year did Commissioner Carstairs go after Harry and Mary Backstage? That's the real question.

It didn't bother me. But I always look at the theater marquees in films. It's a great film and still (not-surprisingly) relevant.

Unfortunately, many films set in the past are notorious in their failure to accurately depict the time in which they're supposed to be happening. One that comes immediately to mind are the 1910 Ziegfeld showgirls in "Funny Girl" with their 1960s makeup and skyscraper hairdos.

busby1959 wrote:Unfortunately, many films set in the past are notorious in their failure to accurately depict the time in which they're supposed to be happening. One that comes immediately to mind are the 1910 Ziegfeld showgirls in "Funny Girl" with their 1960s makeup and skyscraper hairdos.

Just about any period Fox musical (THE DOLLY SISTERS, for a start)

Scott Eckhardt wrote:

drednm wrote:Two marquees here. On left A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, which ran on Broadway from 1961-63. On right NEW FACES which ran on Broadway in 1962. And notice the Cadillac.

[url=http
s://postimages.org/" target="_blank" target="_blank][/url]

These kind of things drive me nuts, but I'm told I'm being too critical. For an even more frustrating experience, watch CADILLAC RECORDS, a film where you see a man in 1955 buy a 1958 Cadillac, and, although it's been a while since I've seen it, the timeline of events in this film is really off.

So let me get this straight ... you can suspend disbelief enough to believe a guy could be brainwashed by the Commies into a conspiracy that turns him into an unwitting assassin, but you can't tolerate NEW FACES opening a few years later in this "alternate" world than in our world?

Technically there was a New Faces running on Broadway in 1956. Different theatre. The 1962 version didn't even last the month of February. From Hell is probably "Posse From Hell" a Universal second feature from 1961.

Lamar wrote:Technically there was a New Faces running on Broadway in 1956. Different theatre. The 1962 version didn't even last the month of February. From Hell is probably "Posse From Hell" a Universal second feature from 1961.

The 1956 NEW FACES played at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre. This 1962 version played at the Alvin Theater, as noted on the marquee.

There's another good one in QUADROPHENIA in which hordes of 1960s mods and / pr rockers rode past a cinema showing Warren Beatty in HEAVEN CAN WAIT...

THE CARDINAL(1936). This British film was set in 16th century England and on Olive Blu ray and Network UK DVD. The introduce a Police Inspector. Be bit hard pressed to find one of those even in 17th or 18th England. There are other liberties in this film also.

I remember in Quadrophenia there's also a point where you can see one of the 70s reissues of two older Who albums as a set. It's placed so prominently, and is so clearly not from the period (it looks very 70s), that I always thought it had to be a deliberate bit of Brechtian distanciation, as the academics say.

Mike Gebert wrote:I remember in Quadrophenia there's also a point where you can see one of the 70s reissues of two older Who albums as a set. It's placed so prominently, and is so clearly not from the period (it looks very 70s), that I always thought it had to be a deliberate bit of Brechtian distanciation, as the academics say.

Ha, that album cover drove me nuts when I saw it quite recently.

Then again, I got distressed recently when a character in a movie put on an LP that was clearly a 1960s Capitol Records "rainbow label" platter, and then the Zombies' Time of the Season came over the soundtrack (they were never on Capitol).

Well, taking errors back to a Frank Sinatra film, when Suddenly was colorized in the 1980s, his famous blue eyes became brown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suddenly_(1954_film" target="_blank)

"The film is widely available from a number of discount/public domain distributors. Suddenly was colorized for home video by Hal Roach Studios in 1986, rendering Sinatra's blue eyes brown.[10] A remastered colorized version by Legend Films was released to DVD on June 16, 2009, which also includes a newly restored print of the original black & white film.[11]"

Rick

s.w.a.c. wrote:I got distressed recently when a character in a movie put on an LP that was clearly a 1960s Capitol Records "rainbow label" platter, and then the Zombies' Time of the Season came over the soundtrack (they were never on Capitol).

Yes, this was a jarring mistake, especially from a filmmaker with so many resources. I mean why even bother to get a time appropriate Capitol label if you're going to pretend it's a Zombies album?

That made me think that the song was a late-inning switch, or a substitute for another song whose rights were too expensive to clear. But it couldn't have been that difficult to take the close-up of the record player out, especially since there were so many other changes going on with that production.

I said it before and I'll say it again: ZIP Codes in William Randolph Hearst's address book in The Cat's Meow.

Daniel Eagan wrote:

s.w.a.c. wrote:I got distressed recently when a character in a movie put on an LP that was clearly a 1960s Capitol Records "rainbow label" platter, and then the Zombies' Time of the Season came over the soundtrack (they were never on Capitol).

Yes, this was a jarring mistake, especially from a filmmaker with so many resources. I mean why even bother to get a time appropriate Capitol label if you're going to pretend it's a Zombies album?

That made me think that the song was a late-inning switch, or a substitute for another song whose rights were too expensive to clear. But it couldn't have been that difficult to take the close-up of the record player out, especially since there were so many other changes going on with that production.

I'm guessing it was probably a Beatles song originally, but what pre-Apple Beatles song would have suited that scene?

Baby, You're a Rich Man?

Mike Gebert wrote:Baby, You're a Rich Man?

Or possibly Got a Getty Into My Life.