The Singer Not the Song (1961)

[DocRobertPepper]

Due for release on 20 June 2011 - £8


The Singer Not the Song - DVDs at Play.com (UK)

[julian_craster]

Widescreen ?

[DocRobertPepper]

According to Movie Mail its sadly in 4:3

The Singer Not The Song DVD | Classic Movies | Films by Movie Mail UK

[julian_craster]

This will ruin all Roy Baker's careful compositions.....I think I will wait for this one....

[narabdela]

Bogarde himself described this film as "beyond camp". I don't think that even the correct aspect ratio would tempt me to ever endure it again.

[theuofc]

This will ruin all Roy Baker's careful compositions.....I think I will wait for this one....

Hello, Julian,

I agree, It's a shame that Strawberry Media didn't go to the expense of restoring the print to its original Cinemascope, 2.35 : 1 aspect ratio for this new release. But it takes money and if they do that, they probably won't make any profit. Yet, the CEO has said that he will consider doing it for a Collector's Edition DVD....depending on how this one sells.

You probably saw the film in the theatre and can "wait for this one." But what do new generations of film viewers do? Hold out for a DVD in original aspect ratio which may never come and thus never see the film?

To my knowledge, none of the prior commercial (not theatrical) releases were in the original 2.35:1, including the German and Australian releases. They are in the 4:3 aspect ratio. Certainly, a viewer doesn't have to "shell out good money" for the 4:3 version, but if a fan wants to see the movie, it's either that or not at all. The film is rarely screened in theatres, and I can't think of one in recent years in the States, except possibly at a film festival.

TV: here's a question for you: what aspect ratio is The Singer Not the Song in when it is aired on UK TV? If it's also 4 x 3, then even recording it leaves us in the same boat: watch the 4 x 3 or not at all. Yet, even if it is in proper aspect ratio, what do fans who can't record UK TV do?

One of these days, companies will see the light and take the leap of faith that there are discriminating viewers who will pay more money to defray the costs of restoring a film to its proper ratio. Criterion is our best hope, assuming they decide to do a restored version which may sell for about £16 or more. Julian, will you pay that for TSNTS in its proper aspect ratio? I would. But how many will?

Best,

Barbara

[julian_craster]

Imagine (horror of horrors...) watching a scene in which Dirk speaks, but you only see the face of John Mills !
This would be frustrating indeed...

As a CinemaScope negative is in the ITV/Rank archives, I am not sure that the costs of issuing this would be any greater. It was
shown on ITV (UK) in widescreen about 15 years ago, I recall...

More a cynical attempt by ITV to hold this back, so fans of the movie have buy it again in a few years time ?

[Cheeky Bob]

Bogarde himself described this film as "beyond camp". I don't think that even the correct aspect ratio would tempt me to ever endure it again.

Roy Ward Baker also thought it was crap:

I hated it. It broke my heart. It put me completely out of kilter for years afterwards, it was a disaster. I'm told it's a cult picture and quite probably in countries with large Catholic communities it has some special reference. I should never have made it. I actually turned it down once and said if they really wanted to make the picture they should get the great Spanish/Mexican director Luis Buñuel to do it. I fought it off for over twelve months but the Rank Organisation pressured me to make it. I can't think why they wanted the damned thing. It wasn't a good book, it was the old phoney story of a little girl falling in love with a priest and it's been done so many times. It has not been financially successful, and if I go to France I have a much bigger reputation there than I do here - principally for that film and for Quatermass and the Pit, which they loved. But as far as I'm concerned it just gives me the horrors.

(Interview with Brian McFarlane, June 1991)

[julian_craster]

Bogarde himself described this film as "beyond camp". I don't think that even the correct aspect ratio would tempt me to ever endure it again.

Well Dirk should know, having added considerably to the camp quotient by insisting on wearing his tight leather pants... !

[Kitty Whiskers]

I LOVE this film, it's as camp as camp can be and a hoot from beginning to end.

But I totally agree it'd be a waste in anything but widescreen. I wonder why TPTB bother? Surely it can't be harder to produce a widescreen copy?

[Cheeky Bob]

Surely it can't be harder to produce a widescreen copy?

It's a lot more expensive to commission a new 35mm-sourced telecine than it is to just pull an existing one off the shelf.

[Kitty Whiskers]

It's a lot more expensive to commission a new 35mm-sourced telecine than it is to just pull an existing one off the shelf.

But you could ask a better price for a superior copy - wouldn't that make it worthwhile?

[Cheeky Bob]

They're already charging £12.99 RRP, and I doubt they can realistically go much higher with a back-catalogue title like this.

Just look at the way people moan about the BFI charging £19.99 for their Adelphi titles - even though they genuinely do create brand new transfers (and high-definition ones at that) from 35mm source materials and package them in double bills!

[Kitty Whiskers]

They're already charging £12.99 RRP, and I doubt they can realistically go much higher with a back-catalogue title like this.

Just look at the way people moan about the BFI charging £19.99 for their Adelphi titles - even though they genuinely do create brand new transfers (and high-definition ones at that) from 35mm source materials and package them in double bills!

Very true - but people will moan just as much when they have a couple of nostrils having a conversation rather than whole people.

I watched a Bruce Lee movie like that once - a 5 minute conversation that could have been quite meaningful in Widescreen, but all I was looking at was the red lamp in the middle.

[Number Six]

Roy Ward Baker also thought it was crap:



(Interview with Brian McFarlane, June 1991)

Interestingly, Cheeky Bob, producer Earl St John was the one who insisted, much against Bogarde's wishes, that John Mills be cast as the priest. Bogarde, in his last film under his Rank contract, wanted a Paul Newman type to play him and other actors considered included Harry Belafonte, Anthony Perkins, John Cassavetes and Richard Burton. St John insisted on Mills however and Bogarde was as good as his word in making the whole production a miserable experience for RWB. He hated the film so much he even refused to introduce it when it was shown as part of a Baker retrospective in Dinard in 1993. "I loathe it and couldn't bear to see it again" he said. He was always of the opinion that TSNTS ruined his career, feeling that he never fully regained the professional standing he enjoyed before that film.

[JamesM]

I agree, It's a shame that Strawberry Media didn't go to the expense of restoring the print to its original Cinemascope, 2.35 : 1 aspect ratio for this new release. But it takes money and if they do that, they probably won't make any profit. Yet, the CEO has said that he will consider doing it for a Collector's Edition DVD....depending on how this one sells.

-'Strawberry Media', now happier to go by the name 'Sprint Entertainment' hive not re-released anything as a special edition. I don't think they are going to start doing that now. And what does the CEO mean by "depending on how it sells". Let us hypothesise
that it means if sales are not what they were expected to be as a result of failing to release the film in its correct aspect ratio. The CEO had talked of a 'special edition'. If that hypothesis was correct the special editions would be made of all poorly selling similar titles. That is not likely, is it. If the CEO means if it sells well they are going to make it a special edition then they are not going to re-release it because it is not going to sell well. Let me save the CEO further contemplation. You have just released a feature film in a frowned format / ratio that has already been available. It is not going to generate many additional sales. If you look at the business's other releases we see the same pattern. Flame in the Streets, Sapphire and Tiara Tahiti are all in the dreaded 4:3 aspect ration when they are all originally released in widescreen ratios. Look at the best selling classic British titles, Theirs is the Glory, So Long at the Fair and Once a Jolly Swagman. They are also in the aspect ratio of 4:3 but that is acceptable because they were released originally in a very close ratio of 1.37:1. You will be getting an upgrade in picture quality from a VHS release. With a feature that has previously only been released in 4:3 on VHS but had a widescreen theatrical ratio, you can now capitalise on a DVD release. People can get two upgrades, picture quality and presentation ratio. This lesson was half learnt for No Love for Johnnie. Widescreen but, wait for it, 'non-anamorphic'. No-anamorphic widescreen releases have been a no no for a long time. This results in a loss of picture quality as you have to zoom in and lose about a 1/3 of the resolution.

This has nothing to do with the unavailability of source materials and has everything to do with laziness. When I heard VCI were putting out Flame in the Streets, I warned them that ITV might try and present a 4:3 master. They did but VCI endeavoured to see if there was a widescreen master available, which there was and resulted in a release in the 2.35:1 ratio. The same applied to Tiara Tahiti, released by VCI in the 1.66:1 ratio. I am sorry but I don't think we are going to see A new edition of The Singer Not the Song any time soon from Spirit Entertainment (ITV DVD).

[theuofc]

-'Strawberry Media', now happier to go by the name 'Sprint Entertainment' hive not re-released anything as a special edition. I don't think they are going to start doing that now. And what does the CEO mean by "depending on how it sells". Let us hypothesise
that it means if sales are not what they were expected to be as a result of failing to release the film in its correct aspect ratio. The CEO had talked of a 'special edition'. If that hypothesis was correct the special editions would be made of all poorly selling similar titles. That is not likely, is it. If the CEO means if it sells well they are going to make it a special edition then they are not going to re-release it because it is not going to sell well. Let me save the CEO further contemplation. You have just released a feature film in a frowned format / ratio that has already been available. It is not going to generate many additional sales. If you look at the business's other releases we see the same pattern. Flame in the Streets, Sapphire and Tiara Tahiti are all in the dreaded 4:3 aspect ration when they are all originally released in widescreen ratios. Look at the best selling classic British titles, Theirs is the Glory, So Long at the Fair and Once a Jolly Swagman. They are also in the aspect ratio of 4:3 but that is acceptable because they were released originally in a very close ratio of 1.37:1. You will be getting an upgrade in picture quality from a VHS release. With a feature that has previously only been released in 4:3 on VHS but had a widescreen theatrical ratio, you can now capitalise on a DVD release. People can get two upgrades, picture quality and presentation ratio. This lesson was half learnt for No Love for Johnnie. Widescreen but, wait for it, 'non-anamorphic'. No-anamorphic widescreen releases have been a no no for a long time. This results in a loss of picture quality as you have to zoom in and lose about a 1/3 of the resolution.

This has nothing to do with the unavailability of source materials and has everything to do with laziness. When I heard VCI were putting out Flame in the Streets, I warned them that ITV might try and present a 4:3 master. They did but VCI endeavoured to see if there was a widescreen master available, which there was and resulted in a release in the 2.35:1 ratio. The same applied to Tiara Tahiti, released by VCI in the 1.66:1 ratio. I am sorry but I don't think we are going to see A new edition of The Singer Not the Song any time soon from Spirit Entertainment (ITV DVD).

I agree with you, JamesM. I urged Strawberry/Spirit to release the Bogarde films in the correct aspect ratios. I can't speak to their motives, but to me it comes down to their, and other companies, not wanting to put out the money to do so. Yes, VCI has been excellent in trying to find masters in the correct aspect ratio in order to release the best print.

[christoph404]

Bogarde hates it, Roy Ward Baker hates it, and opinion is divided on this forum as to its merits...I quite like it for all its faults and most of all I think its a visually very interesting film, one that cries out for a wide screen presentation so I would say that the new release is just ripping people off, Sprint Entertainment have commissioned new art work for the DVD cover which I have to say looks stunning, the contemporary feel promises a lot so what a let down to find that its the same old 4x3 transfer, thats just so disappointing and quite annoying which is why I use the term "rip off" as this is simply a repackaged version of that tired old 4x3,..... pointless.

[dicky2006]

Some years ago John Bentley, who was also in this film, told me he too did not like it and that filming it was not much fun either. Just thought I'd add his name to those of a seemingly similar opinion.