Tweet Did Anyone Attend TCM's OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS screening?

Did anyone attention Turner Classic Movie Festival's Friday screening of OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS? The film was shown i a 35mm print. I'm just wondering if the print was noticably better than the one that TCM has long used for the movie on it's broadcasts?

No, I haven't heard a word about OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS, or WINGS either for that matter. Several people at the festival interviewed on TCM have mentioned Silent films, mainly Harold Lloyd and GIRL SHY. There has been one reference to THE THIEF OF BAGDAD. I'm disappointed that no one has said a thing about WINGS, and though it's not a Silent CALL HER SAVAGE as well. There have been people that have mentioned the 3-D rarities. Even A TRIP TO THE MOON.

I've heard from my friends that attended that most everything was a digital print and not 35mm.

No such thing as a digital print; it's video. The video they showed of Wings should've looked just like the BD and all its other recent big-screen video showings.

Our Dancing Daughters, however, was in 35mm. If the TCM guide hadn't said that it was a new print, I would've sworn it was the same worn-looking print that UCLA showed in 2008. The picture was pretty danged beat-up, but the replacement end title was gorgeous, steady, and spotless. All throughout, no more distracting than splices, shots paused to make up for missing frames, I guess to make the sound track play without hiccups. The wretched picture quality is nowhere near what I expect when I see the words "new print," but it's probably the best it's looked in a while.

No such thing as a digital print; it's video. The video they showed of Wings should've looked just like the BD and all its other recent big-screen video showings.

Our Dancing Daughters, however, was in 35mm. If the TCM guide hadn't said that it was a new print, I would've sworn it was the same worn-looking print that UCLA showed in 2008. The picture was pretty danged beat-up, but the replacement end title was gorgeous, steady, and spotless. All throughout, no more distracting than splices, shots paused to make up for missing frames, I guess to make the sound track play without hiccups. The wretched picture quality is nowhere near what I expect when I see the words "new print," but it's probably the best it's looked in a while.

It's my understanding--feel free to correct me--that when it was preserved in the 70s, it was done hastily from a beat-up nitrate print that wasn't even cleaned first (hence all the hairs in the gate and such). That preservation neg is apparently all that exists now, so any further restoration would have to be done digitally, which for a relatively marginal title is cost-prohibitive.

Mike S.