BFI shows rare IB Technicolor print of original Star Wars

[Benjamin Ruder]

I'm 48 and wondering if I've ever seen a technicolor print projected, even though film on film was very much a part of my movie watching experience growing up.

You could travel to Chicago and be guaranteed of it at.... Technicolor Weekend 2025

[Mark Ogden]

Interesting line-up. Mary Poppins in Technicolor, wow, that must reach an acid-trip level experience.

There is still a holy-grail Technicolor screening that will probably never happen again, and that is Porgy & Bess, the musical from 1959. This was a 70mm shoot where 35mm IB prints were made. But both the producer and the film's writer/composer were so unhappy with the picture that some time after the original release, they made an effort to have all copies destroyed. But three 35mm IB prints are still around, one in Finland, one in the Library of Congress, and another in the hands of a private collector in Southern California. This last print was shown in NYC at the Ziegfeld many years ago, and it wasn't in good shape.The thing is, the 70mm negative still exists and is said to be in printable condition, but nobody wants to make the effort.

[Jim Cassedy]

Over the weekend, I was invited to a private screening of an IB-Tech print of "The
French Connection"- projected with carbon arcs and a meticulously restored late
1950's vacuum tube sound system. Unfortunately, I got the invitation too late for
me to attend. Last year I did see an original IB-Tech print of "Bonnie & Clyde"
there, and I've loaned them one of my films once.

> I have an appointment I need to get to, and am running up against the clock,but
if someone here has time, maybe you can find and post this story which appeared
in The Hollywood Reporter over the weekend. The headline was:
'Star Wars' "Looks Terrible" In Screening Of Long Lost Original 1977 Version"

[Ryan Gallagher]

Here is a link to that article, it does not appear to be pay-walled:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...ew-1236291808/

I have fondness for the near original on VHS myself, from childhood, but I'd probably experience much of what the article commenters did too. The headline is a bit misleading, it's not that the screening or print looked terrible, it's that the film was so vastly different from the new ones everyone suddenly realized what the starting point was for this classic that has been constantly "improved" over the years.

[Leo Enticknap]

Also, back then, films were cheap to buy, imagine picking up an excellent condition IB print of Shane for $300.

There are likely a lot fewer prints like that in existence now than there were "back in the day," both because acetate decomposition will have taken their toll on them, and, I'm sorry if this comes across as morbid, the collections of private collectors are often at grave risk when that individual passes, if he or she has not made careful plans in advance. When I worked in archiving I would frequently be approached by relatives of someone recently departed, offering us the "boxes and boxes of old movie films" that they had no idea what to do with, because the person who died was the only film enthusiast in the family. Often I was in the position of having to reply that 200 16mm prints of railroad maintenance training films from the 1950s through '70s (for example) did not fall within our collecting remit. In that situation I would either have to spend hours trying to find another institution that might be interested in them, or live with the fact that those films would end up in a dumpster. I spent those hours whenever it was possible, but sometimes it wasn't.

These stories occasionally have a happy ending, though: a few years back, the collection of someone who was likely the world's leading expert on 9.5mm was acquired by an archive on the other side of the Atlantic after he passed. I suspect that he had the foresight to set this all up while he was still with us: all kudos to him if so.

As for the "looks terrible" response to the Star Wars show, I'm not surprised. When digital restoration first emerged around the turn of the millennium, it was widely speculated by archivists that the aesthetic look of original release prints in projection would eventually be perceived as defects by mainstream audiences. Even analog restoration techniques caused that, to a more limited extent. Seeing that misregistered Jungle Book reel when I was an archiving student was very much a wake up call. Another one was working at the Egyptian, just after the booth had been retrofitted to enable nitrate projection, and we played a weekend of nitrate prints. Most of them were pretty bad. We showed what was claimed to be Selznick's personal print of the 1935 The Man Who Knew Too Much, which he apparently had shipped over from the UK in order to decide whether or not to hire Hitchcock. It looked like about a 10th generation dupe to me: thin, blurry, no detail at all in the midtones, underexposed VD track so noisy as hell, etc. etc. Then there was an original release print of Laura, which was so badly scratched as to be barely watchable (a pity, because photographically, it was crisp and beautiful). There was a blizzard going on for around 30 seconds either side of each changeover. After that came Black Narcissus, which I suspect was a mix 'n match print, because some of the reels were not bad, but others were misregistered almost into North of Watford territory. Only Casablanca was a real treat: sadly, I was told a few years later that two of the reels have now decomposed as to become not safely projectable anymore.

While all of these prints gave us an insight into what original audiences might have seen, only Casablanca even came close to showing us what the filmmakers likely wanted them to see. With Star Wars, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the filmmaker is still around, and actively trying to remove evidence of the original presentations from public accessibility.

[Steve Guttag]

Like so many things in life, I tend to look at things in the context that they existed. When I saw the 1977 IB print I was around, it looked like what I saw in 1977. I don't judge it based on what aesthetics may be present today or any point in time. I enjoy things in their time and context. In 1976, Logan's Run is what Sci-Fi was. In 1977, the world changed. What Sci-Fi looked like, how films were made and an enthusiasm for going to a cinema changed. It cannot be overstated how monumental a moment Star Wars was. For that reason alone, the original version(s) (there were different mixes...mono, Dolby Stereo, 70mm) should be preserved and studied for what they meant in their point in history.

Now, personally, I MUCH prefer practical effects, with all of their flaws, over CGI with all of their sanitation. Yeah, you can see the "garbage mattes" on Star Wars. So? It was of its time and there is no shame or need for apology for that. It still changed the world.

I dare say that anyone that watches an original 1977 version of the movie and comes away thinking "It's not as good as you remember" is someone that :

1. Doesn't "get it."
2. Wants to elevate their perceived importance by critiquing a classic (everyone's a critic).
3. Wants to find flaws (they're in every movie) and in doing so is blinded to how many successes exist in the movie...from effects, to music and to just the fun nature of the movie.

I think everyone should have the opportunity to see/experience the original form of Star Wars, if they want to. If possible, from a 1977 print (obviosley, those opportunities are now rare with few prints in existence but fortunately some are IB prints). If you like the Special Editions better, that's fine too. Those just aren't the versions that changed the world and captured the imaginations of a generation of filmmakers.

BTW...my position on original theatrical releases of all titles is that those should be the reference. All subsequent re-imaginings of the titles are fine for co-existing but they don't replace what people saw and experienced on the original release.