Why The Sound of Music Still Looks Like a Billion Bucks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- In this video, we explore why The Sound of Music still looks visually stunning decades after its release.
From the breathtaking 70mm Todd-AO cinematography to the use of natural lighting and real Austrian locations, we break down the film’s technical brilliance.
Discover how Ted McCord’s camera movements and lighting choices elevated the film's emotional storytelling, and how the transition from light, joyful scenes to darker, tension-filled moments helped make this classic an enduring masterpiece. Get ready for a deep dive into what keeps The Sound of Music looking like a billion bucks!
Download My Free Ebook! How to Make Stunning Films on a Budget. My Proven Secrets: wolfcrow.com/f...
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Something in our collective humanity peaked with this film. It was and always has been magnificent.
As someone who was old enough, and lucky enough, to see a theatrical reprint on the big screen in the 1980s, the film left a huge impression on me. It was visually stunning and 7 year old me felt completely immersed. The Sound of Music was my gateway into classic films and began my love of musicals.
I remember as a 7 year old traveling to Nova Scotia for a few weeks to visit my cousins. First time on a plane, first time travelling anywhere more than 100 miles from home. We were free range kids in those days, pushed out the door in the morning and we would just run around and explore. There was a movie theater playing "Sound of Music" and in a week we must have watched it 3 or 4 times. If it wasn't the first movie I had seen in a theater, it certainly was close to being the first. I remember the beauty of the movie and it was so big, the screen. Those were good times, more gentle times and the Sound of Music always reminds me of those days.
Photographed on Eastman's 50T with Bell & Howell 2709, Mitchell BFC, & the Modern Cinema Systems MCS-70 cameras by Ted D. McCord, the precision that went into these scenes had no other choice but to be visually priceless.
I was taken by my great Aunt, against my wishes I might add, to see this in the old Capitol cinema in Cardiff when I was about 13 years old. I wanted to go to see The Guns of Navarone instead but Auntie Nancy was paying so to The Capitol we went. We sat upstairs in the Circle and the screen looked vast. Needless to say the impact of this film was huge too - aurally, musically and visually. It played at the Capitol for 2 years and whenever I went to stay with my Aunt and Uncle part of the treat was to go into Cardiff and see this again. That happened 3 or 4 times if I remember correctly. On TV it's ok but on the big screen it blows your socks off !
Very nice
I don't know if people today know that there weren't multiplexes then. A movie would play at one theater for months sometimes if it was a hit. Sound of Music played for years in many cities. It was a massive hit.
"Imagine you are watching The Sound of Music on a big cinema screen in 1965." I don't have to imagine it, I did. Even better, I was attending a Catholic elementary school at the time. The nuns loved the movie, and they took us on a field trip to see it when it first came out.
That's so neat to hear they loved the movie!
@@good1day726 I think, deep down, they all wanted to be Maria.
@@stflaw Ha! I don't blame them!
Thank you for looking at this film through an entirely different lens, figuratively speaking.
Couldn’t have said it better.😊
You’re welcome!
Why am I so early?
This is one of the greatest movies ever made.
There is so much to praise about Sound of Music, the pinnacle of movie musicals (almost, but not quite, rivaled by the original West Side Story). But this video specifically is easily one of the best UA-cam videos I've ever seen. Brief but extremely informative, it celebrates everything that went into the filming of the movie that made it a cinematic masterpiece. I wish more videos were like this. I don't mind longer videos, but so often they feel at least partially stuffed with filler and often could benefit from some major editing. This video did exactly what the title promised in a way that makes me want to watch Sound of Music immediately for the fifteenth time? The twentieth?
Wonderful job and much appreciated!!
A Wise masterwork.
this "series" is great. keep it up
Thank you!
No. Michael Todd did not say that Todd-AO - the "AO" stands for American Optical - was "cinema out of one hole". He said it was "CINERAMA out of one hole". He and his partners developed it to compete with Cinerama, which famously was shot on three strips of film and required three projectors to show it in special theaters. Todd wanted something much easier to film and project - and much cheaper. It used 65 mm film, just like standard 70mm, but filmed at 30 fps instead of 24.
Absolutely correct. Cinerama -- with jaw dropping visuals -- was expensive to produce, difficult to film. Todd wanted a process that would simulate Cinerama without the cost or inconvenience (of filming).
Thank You for clearing this up. I watched this clip 5 times trying to clearly hear what he was explaining, but it still sounded incorrect to me. Your explanation makes much more sense i.e, 65mm original and 65mm prints with 70mm aspect ratio projected at 30fps. However, with the theaters with only 35mm projection equipment at 24fps, was the frame rate somehow adjusted on the print or were the 35mm prints projected at 30 fps? Just curious?
@@timemachineguy1 Only the first two Todd-AO productions _(Oklahoma!_ and _Around the World in 80 Days)_ were shot at 30fps. To allow for compatibility when shown at non-Roadshow engagements, "at popular prices", these films were shot simultaneously at 24fps using 35mm cameras equipped with CinemaScope lenses. The balance of Todd-AO productions were shot at the traditional speed of 24fps.
Yeah I like his videos but sometimes it’s just a wall of words and lacks clarity. This one almost sounded non-sensical.
TSOM had its world premiere at New York's Rivoli theater on Broadway. As prestigeous a film theater as any in the world. Todd had designed the curved screen in this theater for his premiere film in Todd AO Oklahoma! which was then followed by his Todd AO Around the World in 80 Days so this was indeed a Todd AO curved screen and Music was presented in Todd AO here.
I understand you were discussing the film purely from a visual perspective but the film primarily owes its success to the Rodgers and Hammerstein(who you never once mentioned) score as arranged by Irwin Kostel in which the visual aspects beautifully work as a supporting player.
We saw this with the family a few months ago. I was shocked at how beautiful this film really is-visually, musically and thematically. Yes, I had seen it many times as a child, but I had a fresh appreciation for just how exceptionally good this film is.
I recently got to see this classic in a theater with a large screen and lounge seats. I never thought that viewing this movie on a TV screen would give it justice. I'm glad I waited. The movie was projected on DCP format and actually didn't look bad. Unfortunately DCP's don't include the stereo tracks, do only got the sound from the theater's front speakers. The screen luckily was big enough that a true 70mm print could have been projected on it. Still holding my breath for a 70mm print to show st the Loft Theatre in Tucson, where I got to see another classic West Side Story in 70mm.
Thank you for teaching me what I didn’t know about a film I’ve watched at least a dozen times.
You’re welcome!
First time saw it during my grade school days in Theater at wide screen i already love it every time it return in theater still watching it, now I'm 69 last saw it was in the 80's later on in DVD.Thank you for sharing this video what a brilliant movie! was a masterpiece also timeless.
You’re welcome!
So cool! Now I DEF need to watch it
I watched it for years in full screen vhs and when I finally saw it on DVD widescreen my god, just saw it in 4K recently and it’s just flawless
I’ve never seen this movie. Now I’m looking forward to it!
Thanks for a stunning reveal. What a masterpiece of film making craft, and your narrative was a wonderful guide. (Don't worry about the Orks. Virtuecrats who damn us for mistakes that don't matter are quickly revealed as dicks. Usually they're not old enough to have noticed that life is about making mistakes so we can learn from them and be happy.)
You’re welcome!
i saw SOM in 196?? in a movie theatre with wide curved screen. I also saw most wide spcreen and Cinerama films too in theatres, and now, IMAX is as good, except the aspect ratio, but the sound systems of modern theatres is without peer. i can't be sure if what makes imax more vibrant is the post processing or digital films, its beyond me but remastered digital versions of 'wide screen' film movies is fairly faithful to the movie experience as can be at home, with a 80' HDTV.
I was actually speaking about IMAX film projected on large flat screens. SOM was released in a few curved screens.
it is a bit weird that this really famous film is not known by people in Austria or Germany.
Austrians don't particularly like this film. And in Salzburg they are more interested in their Mozart, than the tourists enquiring on Sound of Music.
Great video and I'll add one correction. At the time of its release I don't know of any theaters that had adopted the Todd AO screen with the deep curve, maybe none ever did. However, there were plenty of cinemas with curved screens in the United States. Both Cinemascope and Cinerama had curved screens. Many of those theaters showed The Sound of Music either in 70mm or in Cinemascope 2.35.
I did read a few cinemas did show the film on curved screens. I think in Atlanta, if memory serves right. But by then the curved screen idea was already a lost cause.
@@wolfcrow Hi. What I meant was that even though Cinerama never took off, there were a lot of Cinerama theaters built all over the country with the curved screen that went with that format. Those theaters operated well into the '80s and '90s and showed many 70mm films. In L.A. for example The Sound of Music and 2001 could be seen at the Cineramadome on a highly curved screen.
What a wonderful effort these older movies were. Now I guess mostly its sat in front of a computer.
That is a beautiful looking movie
Van Tropp family
Wonderful video.
All that and why can we not get a 4K copy anywhere? Anyone???
Go to the movie theater and spend money. Keep movie theaters alive.
My ONLY disappointment with this film is at the very beginning when unfortunately Steadicam technology had not yet been invented and there was some minor distracting camera shake from the vibration of the helicopter as it was flying over the mountains. I imagine with today's advanced technology that problem could be corrected in the original film.
Fun fact: when they flee over the alps, in real life they would have ended in Germany. 😂
In real life they would have ended up in Bertesgarden... Hitler's home.
Never realized how unsteady helicopter shots used to be 😉
It actually doesn’t look like a “billion bucks” because Disney killed the already finished 4K disc project the studio had already done the scan for and shown in theaters when they bought the studio during the process. They don’t even stream it in 4K despite having to do no work for it.
To bad, last year I was looking for it in 4K and couldn't find it. I was starting to look for film classics in 4K, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001 Space Odyssey...etc. Seems crazy that they didn't go through with it. I suspect it would be one of those movies that people would pay top dollar for disc.
I'm not sure that Eastman was a technical advancement over three strip Technicolor. With very few exceptions, most movies shot on Eastman were basically just muddy brown with some faint cyan for blue, until the late 1970s. Not to mention that all pre 1982 Eastman prints have faded to red. I also didn't understand why the image of the 70mm print is smaller than that of the 65mm camera neg. If it's because of the projector gate, it would be considered in the viewfinder. If it's an optical reduction, it would defeat everything. I always thought that the 65mm camera frame is 100% the same as that of the 70mm print.
Yes, using Eastman dye coupler technology to produce positive release prints often resulted in an array of colors you suggest. But let's not forget with the introduction of Eastman 5247 color Monopack Negative film in 1950, filmmakers were freed-up from relying on the cumbersome Technicolor Three-Strip Camera - which quickly vanished - except for effects work, and in some cases, converted for horizontal, 8-perf use for VistaVision photography. In many ways, the high point for Technicolor was referred to as Technicolor System #5, which utilized the Eastman Monopack Color Negative stock for shooting, and then turned over to Technicolor Labs to allow for the tried-and-true (if not a bit soft) *Dye-Transfer* imbibition printing process, producing stellar colors and release prints [essentially] free of fading.
As to your question about the "reduced size (image) width" of the 70mm release print, that's needed in order to accommodate two of the six magnetic soundtracks, which are located *inside* the perforations.
Eastmancolor is sharper than a Technicolor dye transfer print.
Projector apertures are always slightly smaller than camera apertures for the same format to ensure a clean sharp edge to the image. Projector aperture plates are normally supplied undersize and custom cut for each projector in each theatre to correct for any distortion of the image due to keystoning etc., so you may be seeing slightly less than even the theoretical projector aperture. Then there is the screen masking to consider.
Old cinemas typically had projection rooms located high up, with a steep projection rake. This caused serious distortion when films were projected onto wide curved screens. In some cases new projection rooms were constructed lower down, as was done at the Dominion Tottenham Court Road in London for example, and sometimes special ‘rectified’ prints were made with a distorted image to correct for the distortion caused during projection. The Odeon Leicester Square still has its high projection room with a projection rake of I think from memory 18 degrees, and distortion can clearly be seen, particularly during scrolling credits.
This film is so good it made WW2 worth it
All good, but (4:00) a 'narrow aperture' does not mean open aperture, it's quite opposite, so I guess what you were meant to say was 'for emotional moments they actually did not use a narrow aperture, but more open aperture' ;)
You seem to think this guy knows about cameras
You can't use the samw title again and again, man! It only works for Lawrence of Arabia
Haha
The name is VON TRAPP - Jeez have you even seen the movie?!
He does also get it right several times, as well as wrong.
Nice video.
When a beautifully shot film on celluloid is transferred to digital, will the colours lose some original quality?
Film editing software has enhancement features to make anything look like anything, in the proper hands.
We even have auto de-noisers.
Some, also detail is lost. But it's still necessary to make sure this films are watched and, with rhe views, they can keep peotecting them and remastering so they are still available in the future
Nice try wolfcrow, but your 'Cinema out of one hole' misquote indicates a real lack of quality research into the history of large format cinema. That really was a very basic cock-up. 🙄
Film
💙💙💙💙💙
How about Alien and Aliens? They look like a billion dollars
But that's mainly done in black, much easier to get away with.
They used shiddy film stock
Extra props for not using the obvious opportunity to virtue signal while still conveying the important topic in a relevant manner.
I've never heard anyone say what a great movie this is.
I've never watched it.
I thought it was a god-awful, C-rate, bullshit musical.
I simply had _no idea_.
What looks bad are the interiors, the lighting is industrial and generic.
If you think the sound of music looks great, you need to run to your nearest optometrist.
Every sound in the film is dubbed, and the dubbed dialogue is not in sync. What a fucking clunker.
Thank you for reminding us what a masterpiece The Sound of Music is. Seeing all these moments reminds me that I haven't seen it in a long time. I will have to track it down to watch it again soon. I hope it sees a theatrical re-release in the theaters one day.
You’re welcome!
I watch it just about every year. Probably have seen it over 40 times. Enjoy it every time😌
Perhaps next year (2025) for the 60th Anniversary Disney will rerelease it in theaters.
“I’m sorry, Captain- but I do not know YOUR whistle.”
Man, this makes me want to watch The Sound of Music for the thirteenth time. Thank you for bringing exposure to this classic. Everyone deserves to tear up when Christopher Plummer sings Eidelweiss. 💗
You’re welcome!
In the movie Christopher Plummer's voice was replaced by that of Bill Lee. Plummer's Edelweiss tracks are available on TSOM DVD collections -- and (probably) UA-cam.
@@roxiesdad9804 🤯
Or be awed when he cuts in to dance. Stunning.
The effort that went into the opening “Hills are Alive” shot was incredible - the helicopter and camera had to arrive and then descend in near autorotation with Julie Andrews running up at exactly the right time - the music for synch being blasted from speakers behind the background trees.
A terrific video essay, and a much needed corrective for this important movie which is generally over praised by its fans and unfairly dismissed by its detractors. Looking at it from a craftsmanship perspective makes me appreciate it all the more. Thank you!
.....church wedding for me was one of highlights...soo beautiful and solemn with powerful music
My mum took me to see this, at the biggest cinema in Manchester, when it came out. I was 11. I remember being very impressed by its look. I am sure it gave me my love of motion pictures.
One of the best! Julie should have won another Oscar 💯♥️🌟
A wider aperture (not narrower) results in shallow depth-of-field.
I was in my early teens when I was persuaded to see this film somewhat against my own feelings and couldn’t believe how much I enjoyed it. Yes the photography and projection on to a huge screen was awesome even after I had already experienced Cinerama. The 60’s was the last decade of going to movie theatres to see spectacular productions in large auditoriums unlike today’s boring boxes. So lucky to have experienced the end of the golden age.
You can see the remastered blu -ray version and it looks great but nothing compares with seeing it on the big screen in a cinema. For years it used to be shown at The Prince Charles Cinema off London's Leicester Square on a regular basis. Some more extreme fans would dress up as nuns to 'sing-a-long'! Not sure if they still put it on their schedule. Whatever, that aerial shot is still stunning. Director Robert Wise did a similar shot a few years before over New York City at the beginning of West Side Story.
Of all the great movie musicals, this and West Side Story, left a lasting impression. One, of beauty and elegance. The other gritty and earthy. For me, I think you can always spot movies that were made digitally, as opposed to actual film.
It does still look so stunning. This and Lawrence of Arabia were the pinnacle of real film beauty of the 1960s.
I first heard the soundtrack played countless times by my mom, then it was re-released in '73 in theaters and I was 10. What a privilege to get to see it on the big screen though it came out when I was 2 and I wouldn't have seen it yet. My daughter just saw it for the first time recently and loved it. It's just timeless, great cinema.
I first saw this film when I was 9 years old. It ran in the same theatre for over a year. I am now just about 71 and have watched The Sound of Music at least once a year since it was first broadcast on TV and personally owned several copies over the years as technologies have changed. I have travelled to Salzburg and visited many of the locations filmed for the movie and been thrilled to see it is all so real and relatively unchanged. It is definitely my favourite film and for me the very best filmed musical based on a Rogers and Hammertstein show. The cinematography, the songs the drama the comedy the humanity the darkness and the light all blend together in the perfect story of the struggles and dangers so many people have faced and still face today and yet there is still love and hope. This film has always given me so much - especially hope. I hope someone out there who has never seen it, gets that opportunity soon.
Of course, you have to take into consideration what Disney was doing in live-action at the time, which was still using standard film stock, cartoony stock sounds, whimsical music (sometimes stifling even Jerry Goldsmith from doing an epic score), and using '60s special effects for big backgrounds instead of shooting on-location, and the special effects were as obvious as ever. This was perfectly fine in the '60s, but as the '70s arrived, they kept on doing it with little effort, which is why a lot of Disney's live-action film from the '70s are easily mistaken for '60s films. It made them feel dated on arrival instead of "timeless". Disney didn't improve their film tech until 1982, the year of Tron, and didn't try to do better until about 1977.
That being said, The Sound of Music is a vast improvement over what Disney was doing at the time.
Hey I actually did see the first run of Sound of Music on the big screen in a movie palace, twice (I was 5). I saw it several more times in the theater growing up. Unforgettable. Also, Star Wars. I saw that on the big screen so many times I fell asleep the last time.
It still doesn't quite compare to 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'.
There used to be a multiplex here that had a huge theater here that was built in the early 1970s, built for the 70mm films and such -- it had a huge screen and lots of speakers. Back about 30 years ago, they had a series of the 70mm films there -- Ben-Hur, Ten Commandments, the first Star Trek film, and The Sound of Music, among others. I saw Ben-Hur and this one at that festival, and it was an experience you can't duplicate, even with a home theater.
I hated musicals as a kid and I hate now, but I liked Sound of Music and was captivated by the visuals. I admired it as a moving painting.
Magnifcent review and explanation. Brings tears to my eyes in how you admire these films. It puts down in words why it is marvelous, better than I could have described. Thanks a lot!
Today they would add a blue filter and make all the backgrounds CGI
Why? Because it's a beautiful movie with a beautiful script and songs and, last but not least, because it's not all passed! 😁
.......this movie was shown for a straight seven months daily without stop in Cebu City during my childhood
Saw the original theatrical release in the 1960s. The craftsmanship on this film is incredible.
My mum worked at a cinema when I was young and I got in for free. I saw this movie at least 10 times.
Because people of REAL TALENT made it.
That intro of Maria, certainly made an impression on me as a kid.
Great video, thanks! No nonsense and lots of interesting info. Well done 👍
Pity narrator keeps saying Van Tropp instead of Von Trapp!
Wow, that was really good. Thanks.
Thanks for this wonderful analysis
Great analysis! Thank you.
Another GREAT breakdown
Well, not really like a billion bucks. Maybe more like 699 million bucks, don't ya think.
Classic in all aspects!👍
I saw it with my parents at a drive-in when I was six. I didn't know who Julie Andrews is, but I knew she wasn't 16!
She wasn’t 16 in the movie. She was an adult in her late 20s. The daughter in the family was 16.
@@hrussell9677 I could swear I heard her sing, "I am 16 going on 17". My older sisters, both preteens, loved the movie and were constantly singing from it. The guy who played the father called it, "The Sound of Mucus".
@@allengreg5447 that was Charmian Carr as Liesl von Trapp, not Julie Andrews' character.
Hello from Austra!
As I never saw this film, I thought to take a look at your video.
At 2:25 is a scene where the sit at the table eating. OMG so inaccurate! No Austrian is eating like that. We are holding fork AND knife at the same time. No cutting with the knife, laying it down, grabbing the fork, taking a bite, laying it down, using the knife, laying it down, grabbing the fork,…
That’s complete monsense.
One split second and now I know why this movie is never shown on our broadcast. We would totally roast it. 😂
That jarred with me in 1965; I wonder if Julie Andrews mentioned it to the director, but was over-ruled for the American actors or audience. It reminded me of seeing sailors in 1950's US combat gear aboard KMS Graf Spee (USS Salem) a decade earlier.
You must be really fun in a party.
Relax. Most of the actors lived in the U.S. and the European way of holding a knife and fork were considered uncivilized.
I watch it once as a kid and I will never watch it again. Not my thing.