BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

Open, general discussion of classic sound-era films, personalities and history.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

brendangcarroll

  • Posts: 337
  • Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:15 am
  • Location: England

BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostTue Jun 26, 2018 2:17 am

According to IMDB (that fundament of accuracy), there are TWO versions of this film in existence.

One has a duration of 112 minutes and is available as a DVD on Warner Archive.

However, it is claimed b IMDB that another longer version exsts, lasting 121 minutes, that includes a rarely seen, cut scene between Ann and Tom and a few additional shots of the casino parts, that has apparently been broadcast by a few TV networks in the 2000s, in Europe and East Asia.

I have never seen this. Has anyone else here? Or is it spurious?
"Korngold has so much talent he could give half away and still have enough left for himself..." Giacomo Puccini (1921)
Offline
User avatar

Ray Faiola

  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:18 am
  • Location: Ellenville, NY

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostTue Jun 26, 2018 12:07 pm

Does "IMDB" claim this or does an IMDB "reviewer" claim this?
Classic Film Scores on CD
http://www.chelsearialtostudios.com
Offline

brendangcarroll

  • Posts: 337
  • Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:15 am
  • Location: England

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostTue Jun 26, 2018 12:14 pm

Hi Ray

This information is one of the 'Trivia' items about the film on the IMDB page for this title, so it was submitted by a subscriber and then 'vetted' by the IMDB "experts" before being approved for publication.

I have no clue who posted it or from where they got their information...but if true, it would be a revelation to me!
"Korngold has so much talent he could give half away and still have enough left for himself..." Giacomo Puccini (1921)
Offline

earlytalkiebuffRob

  • Posts: 3264
  • Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:53 am

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostTue Jun 26, 2018 1:22 pm

A new one on me, but don't forget 121 minutes in the cinema would run 116 m 16 s on tv, whereas 112 m would run 116 m 40 s in the cinema...

And yes, I know the running times aren't exact, but I'm just doing the maths!
Offline

brendangcarroll

  • Posts: 337
  • Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:15 am
  • Location: England

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostTue Jun 26, 2018 2:42 pm

The running time of 112 minutes is that which applied in the cinema I guess. This 121 minute version refers to a print shown on TV so one must assume it ran 116 minutes in the cinema according to your calculation. So that equates to an extra 4 minutes.

Perhaps the "foreign" version was longer? I wish someone from USC was in this group - we could ask them to look in the WB files on the title....
"Korngold has so much talent he could give half away and still have enough left for himself..." Giacomo Puccini (1921)
Offline

wich2

  • Posts: 1544
  • Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:11 am

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostWed Jun 27, 2018 7:37 am

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:A new one on me, but don't forget 121 minutes in the cinema would run 116 m 16 s on tv


Not here in the Colonies, cousin!
Offline

Paul Penna

  • Posts: 556
  • Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:02 am

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostWed Jun 27, 2018 9:44 am

brendangcarroll wrote:Hi Ray

This information is one of the 'Trivia' items about the film on the IMDB page for this title, so it was submitted by a subscriber and then 'vetted' by the IMDB "experts" before being approved for publication.

I have no clue who posted it or from where they got their information...but if true, it would be a revelation to me!


The AFI Catalog entry says 110 or 112 minutes but doesn't mention a 121 minute version. It does, though, list seven period sources - Variety, Hollywood Reporter, NYT etc. - with issue dates and page numbers. Perhaps those might help.
Offline
User avatar

Ray Faiola

  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:18 am
  • Location: Ellenville, NY

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostThu Jun 28, 2018 6:03 am

Well, I would be very surprised if this were accurate. For one thing, it suggests the possibility that the film would have been released in 13 or 14 reels. The AFI does not give numbers of reels so I will have to check my print, but I'm pretty sure it was released in 12 reels (6A-B).When Warners cut a picture after release or even after final preview (when scoring was in place) they did not reformat the reels. A STAR IS BORN was released in 20-some reels even at 154 minutes. RHAPSODY IN BLUE was released in 19 reels.
Classic Film Scores on CD
http://www.chelsearialtostudios.com
Offline
User avatar

Ray Faiola

  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:18 am
  • Location: Ellenville, NY

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostThu Jun 28, 2018 3:39 pm

Speaking of Korngold, has anybody seen the 132 minute version of JUAREZ?
Classic Film Scores on CD
http://www.chelsearialtostudios.com
Offline
User avatar

aldiboronti

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:55 am
  • Location: Portsmouth, England

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostTue Jul 03, 2018 1:41 pm

Put not thy trust in princes nor in IMDB.
Offline

brendangcarroll

  • Posts: 337
  • Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:15 am
  • Location: England

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostWed Jul 04, 2018 12:28 am

The 132 minute version of JUAREZ apparently exists in the WB archive on nitrate, but as yet....no DVD release has been announced. The ast dvd issue ran 120 minutes.

After the success of the 1939 Box set a few years ago, I had hoped for Vol 2 to include this + a restored ELISABETH & ESSEX, but so far...zilch!
"Korngold has so much talent he could give half away and still have enough left for himself..." Giacomo Puccini (1921)
Offline

ClayKing

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:35 am
  • Location: New England

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostWed Jul 04, 2018 8:47 pm

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:A new one on me, but don't forget 121 minutes in the cinema would run 116 m 16 s on tv, whereas 112 m would run 116 m 40 s in the cinema...

And yes, I know the running times aren't exact, but I'm just doing the maths!


Are you speaking of the PAL system? I'm not a technical expert, but as I understand it the NTSC 3:2 pulldown frame conversion results in the same running time on TV as 24 fps film.
-Rich
Offline
User avatar

Frame Rate

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: BETWEEN TWO WORLDS [1944] Alternate version?

PostThu Jul 05, 2018 12:15 pm

The PAL TV system, quite early on, motivated broadcasters (when they sought to integrate filmed material into their programming) to run the film at 25 frames per second, which matched the PAL-video frame rate and made for essentially flicker-free imagery. This always resulted in a slightly shorter running time for movies and TV episodes that were actually shot at 24 frames per second (the movie-industry standard since the late 1920s).

The NTSC TV system, also quite early on, posed an even more serious "flicker problem" when it was used to transmit filmed material projected at 24 frames per second, since the NTSC-TV frame rate was 30 fps. Accelerating the film-playback rate all the way to 30 fps was an unacceptable solution, due to the gross increase it would create in physical-movement speed and music/voice pitch, so a different playback method (repeating every fifth frame of the film) was employed to balance the frame rates and thus avoid flicker.

An early result of the difference between these two methods of video-transmitting filmed material was the relative ease with which PAL broadcasters could switch between live action and filmed action within a single program -- without the much more "visually jarring" effect that NTSC broadcasters would induce (in their viewers' perceptions) when such close integration of image sources was attempted.

At the heart of this difference was the seemingly "more live" impression made (upon the brain) by a stream of images with a higher number of increments of motion-change per second (30 fps) than one with a lower number (24 fps).
If only our opinions were as variable as the pre-talkie cranking speed...

Return to Talking About Talkies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests