The Country Girl (1954) coming from Kino

[whiteberry]

The Country Girl Blu-ray

The Country Girl (1954) 70th Anniversary Edition
• 2023 HD Masters by Paramount Pictures – From 4K Scans
• Audio Commentary by Professor and Film Scholar Jason A. Ney
• Theatrical Trailer
• Optional English Subtitles

The Country Girl (1954) B&W 104 Minutes 1.66:1 NR
Three legendary performers at the peak of their screen careers joined forces in this riveting film adaptation of Clifford Odets’ acclaimed play. Bing Crosby (Going My Way, Road to Utopia) is Frank Elgin, an alcoholic, guilt-ridden former music star desperate to make a comeback. William Holden (Stalag 17, Sunset Boulevard) is the hotshot Broadway director in need of a “name” star for his new stage production. And Grace Kelly (High Noon, Rear Window) is The Country Girl—Frank’s long-suffering wife, who’s both weary of her husband’s weaknesses and wary of the director’s motives. Nominated for 7 Academy Awards including Best Actor (Crosby) and Best Picture of 1954, this sterling melodrama from writer-director George Seaton (Miracle on 34th Street, The Proud and Profane) earned Kelly an Oscar (Best Actress, 1954) for her strong and passionate performance as well as one for Seaton’s spellbinding screenplay.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...2#post22115352

The Country Girl (1954) ORIGINAL TRAILER [HD] - YouTube

[whiteberry]

While it is nice to see Kino not presenting The Country Girl full screen, 1.66:1 isn't right. The Boxoffice magazine review from December 1954 says it was shown at 1.85:1.


https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/vi...december041954

[whiteberry]

Grace Kelly presenting the awards for Best Documentary Short Subject and Best Documentary Feature at the 1955 Oscars [go to 14:29 in the video]:

Bob Hope and Grace Kelly Open the 1955 Oscars - YouTube

Grace Kelly winning the Best Actress award at the 1955 Oscars (presented by William Holden):

Grace Kelly Wins Best Actress: 1955 Oscars - YouTube

George Seaton winning the Best Screenplay award at the 1955 Oscars (presented by Audrey Hepburn) [go to 3:06 in the video]:

Writing Winners: 1955 Oscars - YouTube

[Shane Rollins]

I literally just bought this...

With a 1954 release date, while it's possibly KL just got it wrong, it's also possible that it was one of those early widescreen movies where it could've worked at multiple ARs (usually 1.37, 1.66, and 1.85). There was one movie that either KL or Imprint dropped where you could literally see the marks on the element where the projectionist could line up the matte wherever they wanted it, and I believe it was from 1954.

Also, this was the movie where Grace Kelly beat Judy Garland's role in A Star Is Born for Best Actress. Garland had just delivered Joey Luft, and a television crew was in her hospital room with cameras and wires to broadcast her anticipated acceptance speech. When Kelly won instead, the camera crew began packing up before Kelly could even reach the stage. Groucho Marx then sent Garland a telegram after the ceremony that said "Dear Judy, this is the biggest robbery since Brink's".

Nonetheless, it's great to have this movie on Blu-ray, even if it is missing the documentary from the Imprint disc. Now if only WB could finally give us High Society, we'd be set.

[Kenneth M]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

Now if only WB could finally give us High Society, we'd be set.

One of the GOATs. Truer words were never spoken.

[koberulz]

Are we just forgetting that The Swan, Green Fire, and 14 Hours exist?

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

Nonetheless, it's great to have this movie on Blu-ray, even if it is missing the documentary from the Imprint disc.

The Hollywood Collection documentaries are all officially on YouTube, so which release to go for is down to preference over aspect ratio or region coding.

[Torgon]

Never seen it, but the star power is enough to make me pick up a copy.

[Fresca]

Really excited about this one! William Holden is my favorite actor, so I'm trying to watch all of this movies and this one seems right up my alley.

[whiteberry]

Hopefully when Warner Archive gets around to releasing High Society (or any one of her other MGM/Warner Bros movies) on blu-ray, they include MGM's 1956 "The Wedding In Monaco" featurette as an extra.

THE WEDDING IN MONACO (Part 1) - YouTube

THE WEDDING IN MONACO (Part 2) - YouTube

Poster:


An advertisement for it that appeared in Boxoffice magazine (May 5, 1956) and Motion Picture Exhibitor (May 9, 1956):


https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/vi...fice-may051956
https://archive.org/details/motionpi...e/n53/mode/2up

[PerfDamage]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

I literally just bought this...

With a 1954 release date, while it's possibly KL just got it wrong, it's also possible that it was one of those early widescreen movies where it could've worked at multiple ARs (usually 1.37, 1.66, and 1.85). There was one movie that either KL or Imprint dropped where you could literally see the marks on the element where the projectionist could line up the matte wherever they wanted it, and I believe it was from 1954.

You're absolutely right about the aspect ratios. The OAR for films from the 1950s are tricky to determine sometimes (especially between 53-54), and unfortunately you can't always trust that printed material is correct. Sometimes you have to use your eyes to make the call.

I worked on this film, and believe it or not, we originally framed it for 1.85! However, when we reviewed it, everything just looked wrong. The shots felt crowded and tight, as if the film had been zoomed in. When it was reframed for 1.66 the shots looked properly composed. In the 50s, people probably saw it in different aspect ratios depending on the theater's screen shape/size.

Nevertheless, the film has never looked this good and thank you to Kino for giving it the release it deserves!

[Flapperdame16]

Is the current DVD of the Country Girl, from Paramount (in the USA that is) in the wrong aspect ratio??

I have the KL blu pre ordered, as I am a major fan of Grace's and Bill Holden's. I admit I was unaware there was something wrong with the dvd presentation, all this time? Apart from the AR, it's got so many specks on the print, almost unwatchable. I was thinking of keeping it, for a backup, but it looks so distracting and if presented in the wrong AR then its certianly a tosser.

[emw107]

My wife and I watched Kino's release of "The Country Girl" last evening. I can't believe I've never seen this film until now. From a blind-buy perspective, I felt I couldn't go wrong with Bing, Grace and Holden. I wasn't disappointed. It was fascinating to see both Bing and Grace portraying characters that they wouldn't normally tackle. Holden was very good as well - but the character, Dodd, is in his wheelhouse.

I'm not an expert on reviewing blu-ray transfers, but Kino's release of "The Country Girl" looks VERY nice and clean. Only a few times does the overall crispness subside slightly. And only for a few seconds.

I'm not an authority of the history of the film's 1.37:1 (negative?) to 1.85:1 (intended?) aspect ratio. But this is definitely presented in 1.66:1. I had not seen the film prior, so the 1.66:1 did not detract from my viewing pleasure.

I've not had a chance to listen to the commentary yet.

[Afriendofours]

Originally Posted by emw107

My wife and I watched Kino's release of "The Country Girl" last evening. I can't believe I've never seen this film until now. From a blind-buy perspective, I felt I couldn't go wrong with Bing, Grace and Holden. I wasn't disappointed. It was fascinating to see both Bing and Grace portraying characters that they wouldn't normally tackle. Holden was very good as well - but the character, Dodd, is in his wheelhouse.

I'm not an expert on reviewing blu-ray transfers, but Kino's release of "The Country Girl" looks VERY nice and clean. Only a few times does the overall crispness subside slightly. And only for a few seconds.

I'm not an authority of the history of the film's 1.37:1 (negative?) to 1.85:1 (intended?) aspect ratio. But this is definitely presented in 1.66:1. I had not seen the film prior, so the 1.66:1 did not detract from my viewing pleasure.

I've not had a chance to listen to the commentary yet.

Thanks for posting. Can't wait to pick this up. The review on here made it seem, at least to me, like the aspect ratio makes it a pain to watch. Since this was sourced from a 4k that was just done, I wonder what the chances are that PARA might release a 4k that corrects the aspect ratio?

[mdo7]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

While it is nice to see Kino not presenting The Country Girl full screen, 1.66:1 isn't right. The Boxoffice magazine review from December 1954 says it was shown at 1.85:1.


https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/vi...december041954

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

I literally just bought this...

With a 1954 release date, while it's possibly KL just got it wrong, it's also possible that it was one of those early widescreen movies where it could've worked at multiple ARs (usually 1.37, 1.66, and 1.85). There was one movie that either KL or Imprint dropped where you could literally see the marks on the element where the projectionist could line up the matte wherever they wanted it, and I believe it was from 1954.

Also, this was the movie where Grace Kelly beat Judy Garland's role in A Star Is Born for Best Actress. Garland had just delivered Joey Luft, and a television crew was in her hospital room with cameras and wires to broadcast her anticipated acceptance speech. When Kelly won instead, the camera crew began packing up before Kelly could even reach the stage. Groucho Marx then sent Garland a telegram after the ceremony that said "Dear Judy, this is the biggest robbery since Brink's".

Nonetheless, it's great to have this movie on Blu-ray, even if it is missing the documentary from the Imprint disc. Now if only WB could finally give us High Society, we'd be set.

Originally Posted by Afriendofours

Thanks for posting. Can't wait to pick this up. The review on here made it seem, at least to me, like the aspect ratio makes it a pain to watch. Since this was sourced from a 4k that was just done, I wonder what the chances are that PARA might release a 4k that corrects the aspect ratio?

I want to add something about the aspect ratio of The Country Girl, and I want to mention this, from DVD Talk's 2004 review of The Country Girl's 2004 DVD release:

First things first: Paramount's DVD of The Country Girl is presented in the wrong aspect ratio. The DVD is full frame, but the movie, first released at the end of 1954, all too clearly was shot for widescreen exhibition. The titles are a dead giveaway: full frame there's an acre of empty space above and below the text. Conversely, in 1.77:1/1.85:1 format the framing of the actors looks just right, without the awkward remoteness of the full-frame version. Almost across the board studios fail to understand that by 1954 (and even before that on some titles), almost every non-'scope movie was shot for widescreen exhibition, and that even way back then generally this meant 1.85:1, though during 1953-55 theatrical aspect ratios did vary widely, from about 1.66:1 to 2:1.

So yes, if there was speculation about how this movie was shot, it was originally 1:85:1, and I'm not sure why Kino Lorber chose to use 1:66:1, but it doesn't look that compromise, but I understand some people frustration with the aspect ratio for this blu-ray release.

[AnthonyGG]

Just watched Kino's release of this and it looked and sounded fantastic. The framing didn't bother me at all but in the past I have only seen and owned the Paramount VHS from the 1990s. Still, a worthwhile release for fans of the film and its cast.

[Robert Furmanek]

When determining the correct aspect ratio intended by the creative team behind the camera, you must go by studio policy at the time of production. You cannot go by release date.

Paramount converted to 100% widescreen production in March 1953 and this title went before the cameras in February 1954.

These articles will answer your questions.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207...-of-widescreen

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207...-documentation

[AnthonyGG]

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

When determining the correct aspect ratio intended by the creative team behind the camera, you must go by studio policy at the time of production. You cannot go by release date.

Paramount converted to 100% widescreen production in March 1953 and this title went before the cameras in February 1954.

These articles will answer your questions.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207...-of-widescreen

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207...-documentation

Mr Furmanek, what is your verdict on this release? Does the 1:66 framing do it justice?

[noirjunkie]

Here's a lengthy explanation for using the 1.66.1 AR from Charlotte Barker, the Director of Film Preservation and Restoration at Paramount who oversaw the decision: link. For those without Linkedin, here's the text.

[Show spoiler]

On this day, November 12, 1929 Grace Kelly was born.

Also on this day, November 12, 1981, was the day that we lost William Holden.

Grace Kelly and William Holden intersected in life and death on this day, but their careers intersected in THE COUNTRY GIRL (1954). We preserved this film last year and there’s an interesting tale with the aspect ratio, and today just feels like the perfect day to share it.

During our new transfer of THE COUNTRY GIRL from the 35mm original negative, we initially framed the film in 1.85:1. However, upon our first review of the picture, we felt that the widescreen image looked crowded and tight. Granted, they were just “learning” to shoot in widescreen, but the composition just wasn’t there. Heads were being cut off in weird places, hands were oddly out of frame and everything just felt…wrong.

We stopped the review and had the film reframed for 1.66:1, a widescreen ratio used by Paramount in their pre-VistaVision years. Unanimously, we agreed that 1.66 gave the film a more balanced look. It allowed the image to breathe, unlike the tightly cramped frame of the 1.85 image.

We compared our new 1.66 framing with the previous 1.37:1 transfer and still agreed that the 1.66:1 offered the best presentation.

Earlier this year, Kino Lorber released our new transfer of THE COUNTRY GIRL on disc. However, after one fan posted a box office magazine ad listing 1.85:1 as the aspect ratio, many became convinced that our 1.66 aspect ratio was wrong. While this is a nice historical find, it’s worth noting that during the early 1950s, studios like Paramount often advertised films with multiple aspect ratio options to stay current with widescreen trends. One ad doesn’t necessarily reflect the final choice for every screening, and depending on the movie theater’s equipment and screen, the film may have been shown in any number of aspect ratios. To complicate matters further, interoffice memos from this era often show studio executives requesting that films be shot so that they could be shown in multiple aspect ratios, which makes finding a single “intended ratio” even more difficult. Another complication? This film began shooting only a month before Paramount officially converted to an “all widescreen” production house.

I’ve included images with this post, including the cited advertisement and comparisons of the film in 1.66:1 versus a mocked-up version of the frame at 1.85:1 (sourced from a raw scan for better framing authenticity). They might not perfectly represent our viewing experience, but I’m confident in our decision to go with 1.66, a choice informed by historical context and aesthetic balance.

From my perspective, her reasoning makes sense. Having seen both the 1.37 and 1.66 versions, it's clear this was one of those films with flex framing meant to accommodate theaters that both had and had not made the changeover to widescreen, which is proven by one of the documents she shared (see below). Additionally, I can easily see how some shots look overly cramped in 1.85.

[Robert Furmanek]

Mr Furmanek, what is your verdict on this release? Does the 1:66 framing do it justice?

I have not seen it but Charlotte Barker is an expert and I trust her judgment implicitly.

We've run into this exact same issue on occasion, especially with films that were photographed in the second half of 1953. Two that come to mind: GOG and THE GLASS WEB. GOG was recommended for exhibition in 1:85 but 1:66 worked best, and GLASS WEB was recommended for 2:1 but 1:85 was correct.

You have to pay VERY close attention to the composition and camera movement.