I don't know much about cameras from the 40s, but doesn't it seem unlikely that they would be able to enlarge a print 500x to read the date on that newspaper?
shareBack then they used the monsterous size Graflex Reflex cameras, which had huge negatives, not like the 35mm we use today. I don't know about the 500x size, but if the shot was clear to begin with, and the paper wasn't far awa, maybe.
shareThey needed the drama of the photograph developing with the evidence before their eyes. They might have gotten that good a print from the negative, but I can't believe they could get it from a copy.
Besides, look at the logic. It is possible that someone was carrying around yesterday's newspaper. There's no proof here.
In the actual case, Majczek was exonerated, in part, because the trial transcript had the arrest on 23 December, but the Times investigation was able to get the original arrest report that noted 22 December. There were a number of other, exceedlingly non-dramatic items brought to the Governor and the pardon was made.
lontjr states: "It is possible that someone was carrying around yesterday's newspaper."
I believe the paper was being held by a newsboy who wanted to sell it. I doubt he would have been trying to sell old news, i.e. an edition from the day before.
What is irritating to me is that-- as far as the "truth" being depicted, as the beginning credits of the movie assert-- the dramatic climax of the movie in the photo lab of the newspaper is pure fiction. I wonder how this movie could have been written more "purely" today with all the facts in place. This means there would be no dramatic photo lab scene... Could it still be written as a great work of non-fictional drama? The movie itself reminds me of "All the President's Men," the Bernstein & Woodward book based on the their Chicago-Sun Times reporting that led to President Nixon's stepping down from the Presidency. Only Bernstein and Woodward didn't have to make up anything.
Flanagan
Bernstein and Woodward worked for the Washibgton Post........
shareEnlarging the small photo of the newspaper to make its date readable WASN'T NECESSARY AT ALL! Since the LAYOUT OF A NEWSPAPER'S FRONT PAGE changes daily, and this was VISIBLE IN THE PHOTO WITHOUT MAGNIFICATION, it wasn't necessary to see the actual date on the page. The layout of the front page, itself, would have been sufficient to tell which day's issue it was, especially since it could only have been from a few possible days
I've had the above accepted and posted as a GOOF for this film, on and off, over the past several years. I have no idea why IMDb uses it, then takes it off, then uses it again, etc. (right now, it's not posted - for some unexplained reason). I'm getting dizzy from all the back and forth changes.
In any event, the accuracy of what I state is absolutely true. Check it for yourself. IMDb is wrong not to have it posted!
Yes. I thought I remembered thinking the same thing on first seeing this movie. At this moment I am watching the scene showing the photo and the layout is shown. Good point.
ddhddh: "I thought I remembered thinking the same thing on first seeing this movie. At this moment I am watching the scene showing the photo and the layout is shown. Good point."
-------------------------------------------------------
I thought that as well; that all they would have to enlarge was the headline of the paper, not the date on the paper. I was rather surprised to hear my favorite, Jimmy Stewart, say they were going to enlarge the date!
Want to see a good parody of this? Check out Mel Brooks' 'High Anxiety' sometime, from the late 1970s.
That is, if you can stand Mel Brooks, but it had an interesting take on enlarging a photograph like that.
'High Anxiety' is so much fun!
But I generally like Mel Brooks, and his films.
Anyway, 'High Anxiety' isn't perfect, but it has some great scenes, and the enlarging of the photo is one of them. I saw it when it was first released, and as I was just a kid I hadn't seen most of the movies it was referencing. But it gave me an appreciation for Hitchcock, and movies like "Call Northside..."
I also love that it was filmed in San Francisco - it's a great snapshot of an era.
'High Anxiety' is so much fun!
But I generally like Mel Brooks, and his films.
Anyway, 'High Anxiety' isn't perfect, but it has some great scenes, and the enlarging of the photo is one of them. I saw it when it was first released, and as I was just a kid I hadn't seen most of the movies it was referencing. But it gave me an appreciation for Hitchcock, and movies like "Call Northside..."
I also love that it was filmed in San Francisco - it's a great snapshot of an era.
I have no idea what I was thinking about. High Anxiety was probably making fun of Northside 777.
shareIMDB has a great listing of the spoofs in "High Anxiety" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076141/trivia?tab=mc&ref_=tt_trv_cnn
It spoofed a lot more than Hitchcock.
lol - High Anxiety was making fun of everything!
Yes, I am sure it was riffing on "Northside ... ", but I still have no idea what the opening scene was riffing on - when Dick van Patten is killed by rock-n-roll, on the car radio. Same with Nurse Diesel - I know I'm missing references. But Cloris Leachman is beyond brilliant.
There's a lot going. I really need to watch it again, as I haven't really seen it since it's original run. What a fun movie it was!
I was just a kid at the time, and hadn't seen most of the Hitchcock movies referenced, but I knew I was watching something special. It's also a neat snapshot of San Francisco, in the late 70's.
/Enlarging the small photo of the newspaper to make its date readable WASN'T NECESSARY AT ALL!/
This film was shown on our local public television station last weekend and the host shared this fact.
"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne
Ok everyone knows that they did n't have to enlarge the newspaper to get the date (the layout would have done), but this is a film. The date is used for drama. It is not a goof.
shareIt is a mild goof, and not as dramatic - but you are right. Comparing the morgue copies of the papers being sold for that week (or library copies should the paper have gone out of business) would certainly be only slightly less conclusive evidence.
As far as the technology of that time not being up to the task, I determined the date of a copied photo taken some time in the 1920s by magnification of the scanned image on the computer screen. Far off in the background - too small to even notice at first - was small poster inviting audiences to "See it in Vitascope / Hear it in Vitaphone, Sat., May 17 and Sun May 18." The only year that had a May 17th as a Saturday when those Warner's products were being used was 1930. No other year within +/- 5 years had a May 17th Saturday. So yes, those sorts of details are visible, even in a 1930 photo of even moderately good quality.
I should have expanded on this a little...
Others may have mentioned this, but pixels do not enter into the equation, as some have suggested. Silver halide grain does, and it is very fine grained in a good film. Black and white photos way back then where taken with press cameras, either full or half plate, producing either an 8" x 10" or 4" x 5" glass plate negative. With a decent lens, the images these produced were and are quite amazing. From an 8 x 10" contact print of the from of a streetcar yard two blocks away, I was able to read all of the 2' x 3' advertisement on the front of one car. That would be a real challenge for any modern digital camera, but possible then with slow film and large negatives.
AN 1879 photo showing the Tay Bridge in Scotland was enlarged and used as evidence to show details in the investigation of the bridge collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Bridge_disaster That was a half-century before the events of the film...
Romarub is technically right - not necessary to see the date. But this part of the story is fiction. It is the climax of the movie, and we're after dramatic impact. So which has more dramatic impact? To see a layout that looks like the Dec 22 paper rather than the Dec 23 paper? Or to see the actual date there in black and white?
shareThey made it extra dramatic by blowing it up in about 3 steps and sending them all over the wire-photo machine.
Just a good loupe or magnifier would give you all the info you need, and could obtain by blowing it up.
Gee...one would think when someone falsely posts a fake goof over and over and over again that they'd get the hint and stop. What is wrong with you? Try and learn the difference between fact and opinion. Stop wasting people's time with trying to repeatedly fix YOUR goofs.
The people you idolize wouldn't like you.
I just watched the movie and was thinking the same thing... no need to see the date, just check the file copies for that week.
Mind you, I still enjoyed watching the story play out. (I've seen it at least once before btw, but always forget some of the details, so I'm still able to enjoy it)
I was intrigued by the idea that this might be accepted as a "goof" romarub, but I'm not 100% convinced that it meets the criteria. It's an interesting technicality I suppose, but I think a goof is generally something that happens in a movie that wasn't intended. The idea that they should use the date of a newspaper to discredit a witness, rather than just comparing the layout of the front page is something that was INTENDED. (the fact that it was rather more detailed than should have been necessary is perhaps a little fussy) This is probably why imdb keep changing their minds about it's inclusion.
Maybe!
The goof is listed there now (2016). Twice in fact.
shareThe check in the article Mcneil read in the taxi stated they enlarged that 1000x.
Also, Frank Jr being constantly referred to as "The Boy" was ingnorant, he had a name.
Another thing is that Honore Street is not pronounced as they did, its pronounced to sound like {Honor-rey}not HA Noray). Thanks.
There's many ways that that street and others can be pronounced. No it's not official but it's just the way it is. Like Goethe Street in Chicago is German but different people say it different ways. Correct them all you want but it's not going to change.
share'Bout the photograph, of course they couldn't possibly get the date from it. And not because they didn't have the technology, they couldn't do it today. If they had the negative, different story there, but with an ordinary picture, it's just like with the pictures in digital format today. Pixels make the image, and if you have a for example a 200x200 picture, there is nothing on it that you can't see right away without zooming in. The paper boy was too far away, and the "pixels" that made the date weren't large in number. And you cant define a number in one or two pixels, you need a lot more. Anyway a fun movie, love James Stewart.
shareIn spite of the fabrication of enlarging the date (which I agree was impossible from a newspaper print photo), I found the image transfer technology of that era quite interesting. I assume that was technically authentic.
BTW McNeil was a technical consultant on the film (I saw a letter from him to the Majczek family) that he sent during the production of the film. I wonder what he thought of this dramatic enhancement.
Pixels make the image, and if you have a for example a 200x200 picture, there is nothing on it that you can't see right away without zooming in. The paper boy was too far away, and the "pixels" that made the date weren't large in number.
in spite of the fabrication of enlarging the date (which I agree was impossible from a newspaper print photo)
Yeah I know what you mean since the dateline on a newspaper is usually only in 12 - 16 pt font...which to be able to see that in a photograph of a newsboy taken over 100ft away is nearly impossible in the real world today, and especially back then with 1940s technology. Even if you try to magnify the photo 500x or whatever.
shareIt's been a while since I've seen the movie but I remember they had to search the photo morgue of a paper that was long out of business. I've tried looking for copies of old NYC tabloids for specific references, but no libraries keep them. The Times, yes. The Graphic, no.
share