Maytime (1937) on DVD

[brendangcarroll]

I finally managed to acquire the WAC DVD of this grandiose MGM feature that was released back in 2005. It took me so long because of the considerable difficulty in actually purchasing WAC discs economically for delivery in the UK without ridiculous postage & customes charges.

Anyway...I was hoping to finally see a decent print of this film, having suffered so many dreadful TV screenings over the years.

What a HUGE disappointment.

The amount of wear & dirt on the image throughout makes me believe that this may be the only surviving print of the film in the Warner library, as there was no improvement whatsoever to what I have seen on previous viewings.

I do recall reading that, sadly, the original nitrate camera negatives of a number of MGM titles perished in a vault fire (Maytime included) so I appreciate that a full digtal restoration is proobably not possible, thereby making a 4k scan and blu-ray upgrade unlikely and indeed, superflous.

But surely there must be better prints around? Has anyone ansked the LOC, George Eastman House or archives outside the USA for possible copies? Anyone here having such information would be helpful in posting details.

It's such a beautiful flm visually (thanks to the knock-out art direction by Cedric Gibbons and the superb photography of Oliver T Marsh) that it would be so worth the effort.

If Mr George Feltenstein ever reads this forum, I do hope he might take note for a future release.....

[bobfells]

I have an old 16mm print of MAYTIME from the MGM lab. I assume it was made for TV at some point. Both image and sound are excellent. Same with a print of A TALE OF TWO CITIES.

Bob

[Richard P. May]

In checking a copy of the Eastman House (Now Eastman Museum) nitrate holdings provided to me in the Turner days, I find that the negative of TALE OF TWO CITIES is in their possession, but nothing listed for MAYTIME.
It could have been a victim of the fire, but I don't have anything to back that up.

[brendangcarroll]

Dear Dick/Bob

If Eastman House has ATOTC, this explains the superb digitally enhanced Blu-ray released last year.

Bob your print was presumaby derived from a decent copy if it looks and sounds so good. One of the problems with the MGM library is that sometime in the 80s or early 90s, all duplicate prints of old films were destroyed(there were literally dozens apparently) as part of a space saving economy, with just ONE print of each title being retained. Nobody I have asked can tell me just how the sole surviving copy was selected but I doubt that these prints were ever quality-checked. If your 16mm print predates this wholesale junking, then it was probably made from a fine copy no longer existing...

BTW, there are no prints of Maytime in the National Film Archive in London either.

~ BRENDAN

[Richard P. May]

Brendan,
I was VP-Film Preservation at Turner Entertainment from 1986 thru the merger with WB in 1996, until retirement in 2005. At no time was there ever a wholesale purging of prints during the period you mention. If so, I would have known about it.
Turner management was carefully following longtime MGM policy of preservation, resulting in one of the most complete libraries in the industry. When MGM entered into their safety conversion project, which took about 20 years, they duplicated everything available, and with help of other archives, obtained material not available in the U.S. Not only features, but shorts (both BW and color), cartoons, and trailers were copied to safety film. If there were color sections in some of these shorts and trailers, they were copied in color.
Obviously I haven't had anything to do with this in over 15 years, but what I read about WB's video availability, it appears that they have been very prolific about making things available.
If there are a few movies that couldn't be improved that's just bound to happen.
I'm glad to hear of your interest in the quality of these films.

[bobfells]

FWIW, the leader footage of ATOTC has embossed lettering stating, “MGM LAB.” For 16mm it sure looks like 35 on the screen. As a kid in the late 1950s I recall that MGM films on TV always looked better than films from any other studio. The few 1930s UK films that were on NYC TV always looked and sounded rather poorly.

Bob

[brendangcarroll]

Thank you Dick

My information came from my old friend Tony Thomas the film historian & broadcaster and must predate your time at MGM and also Turner's acquisition.

He was trying to acquire decent prints/clips for a TV documentary he was working on about Irving Thalberg (I cannot recall if it was ever made) and was told that the MGM library contained just one single print for most of the Thalberg titles. Incredulous, he asked why - and this was the answer he was given back then.

Whenever The Great Waltz (1938) is ever shown on TCM or indeed any channel, it is always the same, rather poor quality print which is a shame given that Ruttenberg's photography was so luminous. The DVD uses this same print (even the same very scratched leader is included!) so I guess that, in spite of attempts to bring (and copy) as many prints as possible back there during your tenure, it was unsuccessful with a number of titles from the 30s.

I am very interested in the available quality of films such as MAYTIME, particularly where their visual beauty was once so admired. Key examples of this include the Selznick 1937 version of THE PRISONER OF ZENDA which appears to survive only in a faded dupe, that was used by MGM as a guide for the 1952 remake, and the gloriously resplendendent MARIE ANTOINETTE (1938) which again, while quite serviceable for its DVD release, looks to be unlikely to get a HD Bluray upgrade owing to the lack of a fine grain or original nitrate camera negative.

I was absolutely thrilled with what has been achieved with THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELISABETH & ESSEX last year but of course, I know that WB do have a pristine nitrate original for that title and possibly even the 3 strip Technicolor individual separations.

Thank you for your additional information regarding MGM. It is very heartening indeed that such sterling efforts continue to replenish this archive of classic films.

[Richard P. May]

Hi Brendan,
I guess I can throw a couple more bits into this conversation.
MARIE ANTOINETTE was one of the negatives thought to have been destroyed due to decomposition at the time the MGM negatives went to Eastman House. It turned out this was not the case, and it had been sitting in their nitrate vault all along. As part of the WB preservation efforts around 2000 we made a new print and fine grain from the original, and it was one of the most beautiful BW prints I've ever seen.
PRIVATE LIVES OF E & E had never had any preservation done while under UA Classics ownership. After Turner took over these titles it was the first Technicolor movie that had new elements made. I remember this being done at the Metrocolor Laboratory. From what I'm reading about the recent video release, WB must have also used the 3-strip original negatives to get pristine results.

[Frame Rate]

The few 1930s UK films that were on NYC TV always looked and sounded rather poorly.

With the happy exception of some prestige productions from Wilcox, Balcon and Korda, most British flicks of the 1930s (that managed to cross the ocean at all) were handled stateside by third-rank distributors as mere "filler" for bottom halves of double bills. In addition to frequently being butchered to save a reel or two of duplication expense, the U.S. printing negatives were often sourced from mere release prints under minimal standards of lab quality, thus resulting in murkily boosted contrast, fuzzier imagery and muddy sound.

And then this degradation process was likely to be repeated when 16mm prints were later generated for American television.

[bobfells]

Quote: "...the gloriously resplendendent MARIE ANTOINETTE (1938) which again, while quite serviceable for its DVD release, looks to be unlikely to get a HD Bluray upgrade owing to the lack of a fine grain or original nitrate camera negative."

Of course, I'll defer to Richard May and his experience, but FWIW I once owned a 16mm print of MARIE ANTOINETTE. I suspect it was made for the rental market rather than TV distribution because it was rather worn and had a lot of splices. It also had what I would call replacement footage especially for the final scene. But the point I want to make is that while the sound was fine, the image quality was just average. I also recall that when watching many MGM films on TV back in the 60s I noticed that MA was definitely a step down with image quality by comparison

Bob

[brendangcarroll]

Dick - your details on Marie Antoinette are thrilling. I had no idea.

This may mean a new 4K HD Blu ray may be done for this title after all.
Thankyou so much!

If you have not seen Elisabeth & Essex (Blue ray version) you will be amazed!

B.

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

The few 1930s UK films that were on NYC TV always looked and sounded rather poorly.

With the happy exception of some prestige productions from Wilcox, Balcon and Korda, most British flicks of the 1930s (that managed to cross the ocean at all) were handled stateside by third-rank distributors as mere "filler" for bottom halves of double bills. In addition to frequently being butchered to save a reel or two of duplication expense, the U.S. printing negatives were often sourced from mere release prints under minimal standards of lab quality, thus resulting in murkily boosted contrast, fuzzier imagery and muddy sound.

And then this degradation process was likely to be repeated when 16mm prints were later generated for American television.

Wouldn't some of the cutting been for the purpose of fitting the films in as second features? And yes, some of the US copies have indeed been shocking, as I found out watching COURAGEOUS MR PENN the other week...

Some of this may have been to do with the fact that some British pictures became Public Domain in the US, much as THIS IS THE ARMY become PD around 1071, launching a flood of horrible-looking copies onto an unsuspecting market.

And indeed copies over here were sometimes far from ideal as witness showings of AN IDEAL HUSBAND and THE FOUR FEATHERS (Korda) at London's NFT way back. Mind you, back then, we were not as spoiled with restorations, Blu-Ray, etc, so were happy (sometimes) just to see the film on a big screen... Of course with some films it was indeed 'Hobson's Choice', but alas not the 1931 version...

[Frame Rate]

Wouldn't some of the cutting been for the purpose of fitting the films in as second features?...
Some of this may have been to do with the fact that some British pictures became Public Domain in the U.S....

In general, any Hollywood "B" film, back in the day, was usually considered fair game for "second feature" U.S. bookings as long as it didn't exceed nine reels -- hence all those ten or twelve-reel "A" pictures that later were re-issued (for double bills) in prints that clocked in at about an hour and a half.

But whereas so many imported British films of the 30s and 40s (and particularly before the Quota Law was amended) never came close to nine reels to begin with, their cheapjack American distributors' widespread butchery was (artistically anyway) inexcusable, adding insult to injury whenever a poor quality print also carried a story line that had become nigh incomprehensible via ham-handed deletions.

On the other hand, the abysmal, mega-duping-and-dubbing of supposedly PD British movies in America was a "plague of a later era".

[dede]

There's a copy of Maytime in the NFSA in Canberra, Australia.


Holdings
Nitrate Material Film 35mm

Title No: 43922
Title: MAYTIME : ORIGINAL RELEASE
Release Date: 1937
Produced as: Feature Film
Categories: Drama; Musical; Romance
Media: Film
Duration: 02:12:00
Country of Origin: U.S.A
Language: English

Link here. http://colsearch.nfsa.gov.au/nfsa/searc ... esCount=10

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

Wouldn't some of the cutting been for the purpose of fitting the films in as second features?...
Some of this may have been to do with the fact that some British pictures became Public Domain in the U.S....

In general, any Hollywood "B" film, back in the day, was usually considered fair game for "second feature" U.S. bookings as long as it didn't exceed nine reels -- hence all those ten or twelve-reel "A" pictures that later were re-issued (for double bills) in prints that clocked in at about an hour and a half.

But whereas so many imported British films of the 30s and 40s (and particularly before the Quota Law was amended) never came close to nine reels to begin with, their cheapjack American distributors' widespread butchery was (artistically anyway) inexcusable, adding insult to injury whenever a poor quality print also carried a story line that had become nigh incomprehensible via ham-handed deletions.

On the other hand, the abysmal, mega-duping-and-dubbing of supposedly PD British movies in America was a "plague of a later era".

Yes, I realise that was more to do with the 'home cinema' market, whether on 8mm or 16mm, then on VHS and DVD, explaining the ropey quality of VHS issues I saw in the 1990s. British films shown over here on TV were generally reasonably quality for the time and tended to be the fuller versions. In those days, audiences expected 'old' films to look old and weren't always used to the better quality we have now.

In addition British reissues were sometimes cut by a significant amount, with those edits sometimes being the only ones available. Artistically inexcusable, yes, but cinema management was a business and money was frequently the main consideration.

On a tangent, the only occasions I've seen BONNIE PRINCE CHARLIE (1948), the copies were considerably shorter than the original release. Does the original survive?

[brendangcarroll]

Dede...thank you so much for this information regarding a Nitrate print of this film . Duly noted & filed.