MovieChat Forums > Around the World in Eighty Days (1956) Discussion > This was a different experience in 1956.

This was a different experience in 1956.

posted 16 years ago by virgiltx
13 replies | jump to latest

Seeing it in big screen 70mm Todd-AO must have been something. That's a kind of curved, wrap-around screen, so it's something like Cinerama. It had a super wide angle lens capability that gave up to 128 degrees for a field of view.
I think part of the 'action' in this movie was provided by your own eyes looking over all the scenery on the screen.

Also 6 channel stereo sound.

It was meant to give people something they couldn't get on TV.

Also, numerous cameos that people today don't recognize, so they mean nothing.

Cast of thousands; not CGI people either.

[–] ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight 16 years ago

Yeah, good call. It gets a bad rap now because everyone thinks it was an undeserving Best Picture winner, but in context it was quite a marvel.

www.arresteddevelopment2009.com

[–] thj-3 16 years ago

I saw with my dad a while a go, and while I fell asleep my dad enjoyed. He had seen it when he was a child, and enjoyed for seeing all the diffrent parts of the world and all the stars.

[–] virgiltx 16 years ago

One of the major differences in the experience was that on a large screen, due to the 65mm camera format and 70mm release, you saw a very clear, detailed scene. Your eyes could just gaze all over it and see details, faces etc. So the seemingly slow-paced shooting style wasn't noticed because your eyes could keep busy looking over the scene. It might even seem like you didn't have enough time to look around as much as you wanted.

[–] onepotato2 15 years ago

Yes, and the Todd-AO sound would help too. It was experiential, like Imax. However, that doesn't mean that stupid intro with the boring guy instructing us about Melies is good film-making. It's didactic, autoritarian, and lifeless like the conformists of the 50s preferred.

[–] traveller007 14 years ago

Exactly! To an 11 year old boy in 1956....it taught me everything about life...and the world.

Also seeing it at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood....it was spectacular then.

I grant you it is dated now, but the above points are very relevant.

Best Wishes, Traveller

[–] rsgre 14 years ago

Nice comments everyone, thanks. I saw this movie in 1957 at the age of 9, and enjoyed it very much, but would never see it intact again until the VHS issue. Every subsequent release was cut severely, and the reception suffered for it. A big screen production that needs to be seen in it's entirety to be appreciated.
Today, the stereotypes are obvious, and the cameo appearances have lost all their impact. Interesting as a cultural phenomenon of it's time, still lovely score by Victor Young (his last), and a few memorable scenes. Might have more...

RSGRE

[–] fredericoribeiro 14 years ago

I'm watching this right now on my 60" plasma. I was lucky enough to have watched this for the first in a special screening in the cinema in Portugal in 1989, so that will always be imprinted in my memory. This is still a wonderful film, well worth watching and much better than the appalling 2004 remake. If for nothing else, it's worth watching for the score, as someone has already commented here.

[–] RichN36 13 years ago

Something I noticed tonight while watching the film. This movie really payed homage to the Silent Films. Not really a whole lot of Dialog in the film. And the soundtrack was a big part of the Movie.

Still enjoyed it even if it did drag at times.

This sonic transducer is I suppose some kind of audio-vibratory-physio-molecular transport device

[–] DonMachiavelli 13 years ago

I saw it in 2003, and think it is a great movie and a great story. The 2004 version was a slap in the face.

[–] JacintoCupboard 9 years ago

To be fair, the 2000's version is a kids' movie and works wonderfully in that regard.

I don't think the 1956 movie is slow paced at all.

[–] pgharett-676-553123 8 years ago

Also, numerous cameos that people today don't recognize, so they mean nothing.

If someone watches this without having seen many other classics from thay era, they mean nothing. But if you watch classics regularly or semi-regularly, you will recognize some. I'm a big John Wayne/John Ford fan, so I recognized Victor MacLagen and John Carradine, just for 2 examples.

[–] CalibMcBolts 8 years ago

I recognized quite a few of the cameos, not all ofcourse

[–] CalibMcBolts 8 years ago

I would love to witness this film on a big screen once, this is such a great film IMO, people who say it's the least deserving best picture winner are crazy