This scene, filmed indoors, was a technical and a physical challenge. Film speeds in 1930 for movie camera film was in the single digits so for a black and white production enormous amounts of light were required. BUT for a two strip Technicolor film over seven times MORE light was required to expose the film properly, for the light had to go through filters before reaching the film. Trying to get the settings blue enough was difficult with only 2 colors to work with; but the poor actors had to deal with a set lit up brighter than normal daylight with temperatures approaching 100 degrees, in full makeup and costumes! Thanks for a glimpse of the past!
What I love about this sequence is the gigantic art-deco set in colour. Even though it's green instead of blue. (yes I know the two-colour technicolor couldn't reproduce it). Wonderful celebration of 1920s film-making still coming to terms with sound!
Most likely, the greens would have looked significantly closer to blues in 1930, because this movie would have been printed on nitrate stock, on which the colors display differently.
Somebody must be cutting onions... I don't know what it is about this sequence, but it nearly moves me to tears every time I watch it... thank you for posting this masterpiece. There will never be anything quite like this again.
Jacques Cartier dressed like a monochromatic Christmas caroler and playing the clarinet like he's doing his best impression of the Zatarins box is hilarious!
Well, they generally refer to the same year. Both forms represent the year 1924, but the difference lies in the style and preference of pronunciation. "Nineteen-twenty-four" is a more common and concise way of expressing the year, while "nineteen-hundred-and-twenty-four" is a more explicit and descriptive way of stating it. That's why Paul Whiteman pronounced it "nineteen-hundred-and-twenty-four" for a more explicit way of stating it and it's the same thing.
@@LegendaryMrIncredible69 I don't know if I've ever heard the "nineteen-hundred-and-twenty-four" pronounciation used anywhere else than in this movie. I do like the more descriptive "hundred-and" pronounciation of years, just like the more descriptive "first day of January" pronounciation of the American "January 1" and the European "1 January". It would be strange if he had said "one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-twenty-four" instead.
This scene, filmed indoors, was a technical and a physical challenge. Film speeds in 1930 for movie camera film was in the single digits so for a black and white production enormous amounts of light were required. BUT for a two strip Technicolor film over seven times MORE light was required to expose the film properly, for the light had to go through filters before reaching the film. Trying to get the settings blue enough was difficult with only 2 colors to work with; but the poor actors had to deal with a set lit up brighter than normal daylight with temperatures approaching 100 degrees, in full makeup and costumes! Thanks for a glimpse of the past!
What I love about this sequence is the gigantic art-deco set in colour. Even though it's green instead of blue. (yes I know the two-colour technicolor couldn't reproduce it). Wonderful celebration of 1920s film-making still coming to terms with sound!
Most likely, the greens would have looked significantly closer to blues in 1930, because this movie would have been printed on nitrate stock, on which the colors display differently.
Somebody must be cutting onions... I don't know what it is about this sequence, but it nearly moves me to tears every time I watch it... thank you for posting this masterpiece. There will never be anything quite like this again.
You are a saint for uploading the full remastered version!
A really lost world of sight, sound, culture!! Unbelievable .
The great masterpiece of music
Thank you for posting this. Beautiful sequence
Jacques Cartier dressed like a monochromatic Christmas caroler and playing the clarinet like he's doing his best impression of the Zatarins box is hilarious!
rhapsody in teal 😉
nice to see a restored version
As you can hear, Paul Whiteman pronounced "1924" as "nineteen-hundred-and-twenty-four" instead of "nineteen-twenty-four".
Well, they generally refer to the same year. Both forms represent the year 1924, but the difference lies in the style and preference of pronunciation. "Nineteen-twenty-four" is a more common and concise way of expressing the year, while "nineteen-hundred-and-twenty-four" is a more explicit and descriptive way of stating it. That's why Paul Whiteman pronounced it "nineteen-hundred-and-twenty-four" for a more explicit way of stating it and it's the same thing.
@@LegendaryMrIncredible69 I don't know if I've ever heard the "nineteen-hundred-and-twenty-four" pronounciation used anywhere else than in this movie. I do like the more descriptive "hundred-and" pronounciation of years, just like the more descriptive "first day of January" pronounciation of the American "January 1" and the European "1 January". It would be strange if he had said "one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-twenty-four" instead.
Wow!! 😲
💖💖💖💖
Is that Gershwin at the piano??
No