|
I think you will find that the majority of
1.85 ratio films shot today and for some years past are actually shot full frame
and matted for "widescreen".
Reportedly, Mr Kubrick preferred the full
frame ratio (again matted for 1.85 theatrical release) for his later films
because it more closely approximated the format of still photography (he was,
after all, an extremely successful young professional photographer before a film
maker) and suited his compositional eye for certain subjects (THE SHINING, FMJ,
EYES WIDE SHUT). If one watches Mr Kubrick's films strictly from a point of
framing and composition within the frame (even in moving camera shots) one can
observe the work of a master artist using film as his canvas. THE SHINING, and
EYES WIDE SHUT in particular, have an extraordinary use of spatial relationships
in virtually every shot. It's as bold a dramatic device as script and
performances. And despite the action scenes of FMJ, all three of these films are
basically intimate and psychologically claustrophobic stories. Similarly,
observe the slightly elongated "canvas" format of BARRY LYNDON and the big as
space itself canvas of 2001 in its original 70mm single frame Cinerama
presentation.
Many directors when shooting in 2.35
anamorphic (and again for some years past) have their video split (this is the
video monitor split from the vision from the camera while shooting) showing a
framed "video essential". This is used for ensuring that "video essential"
dramatic scenes can be composed in such a way that when the version is made for
what we think of as pan and scan DVD/TV screenings then the minimum of in-shot
re-editing is required. Very few films are panned and scanned as they used to be
when 2.35, 1.66 and true 1.85 films were first shown on TV and released on
video, where literally the widescreen frame was panned and scanned. This "video
essential" concept from a the early '80s was an attempt to eliminate the
original 2.35 films being (often) shots of people's noses talking to each other
from one screen edge to the other with little in between. The effect, as we all
know, in seeing that mechanical move across a frame seemingly scrambling to
capture the action is incredibly jarring - visually and dramatically. It
can also be very disorientating psychologically as it disrupts the natural
rhythm of the editing.
Where in-shot editing of the 2.35 frame
actually changes the editing rhythm of the original theatrical version or a
widescreen version, it is now done with a level of sophistication considerably
more adept than in previous years. It remains, however, no way to see a
movie.
Today, editing within the shot to create a
full frame version of 2.35 films is much more common. The ancillary markets
(DVD, cable, free-to-air, in-flight etc ad nausea) are often as great and
sometimes far greater than the original theatrical release. In the great
soul-less synergy of film production today, where whole scenes are shot
deliberately for "the deleted scenes" section of the DVD release and sometimes
totally inane background commentaries have little relationship to the way the
film was actually made, it's an important and cost efficient marketing tool that
film production companies get right as early as possible for their bottom
line.
I'm sure that film makers are pleased that
"widescreen" is more generally accepted (little choice with the advent of
digital delivery systems) and of course it means we get to see more and more
2.35 films in their original format.
Now, who wants to talk about original full
frame (Academy ratio) films that have been "wide-screened" to 1.85 for laser
disc or video version, and then been side-cropped to make them back to "original
theatre presentation"?
Regards,
Phil
Phil Edwards Cinema Arts Pty Ltd 26 Vista Avenue Soldiers
Point NSW 2317 AUSTRALIA Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Phone/Fax
(International Dial) 0011 61 2 49847233 Phone/Fax (Domestic Dial) 02
4984 7233 Website: www.cinemarts.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 4:40
PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Letterbox Loons
Dear JR et. al.
No indeed!!! AMC (when they were American Movie Classics!)
were not making it up about the rampant letterbox-itis in America. It's just
unbelievable!!! Obviously citizens of the US (I don't know about Canada.
Folks up there?? Weigh in.) cannot understand the concept of a rectangle
versus a square (or alMost a square.)
My friend who has worked in a reasonably mentally upscale (if such
exists in the Big Easy) Blockbuster in New Orleans testifies that
Letterboxing is one of the biggest bugaboos there. People just scream about
it! They really did it more so before the DVD made widescreen more
available.
You simply canNOT convince these people that what they are seeing in
p&s (or especially "mid-screen") is not the whole picture.
I have two friends who are connoisseurs of antiques and
brilliantly-tasteful decorators but who are notoriously cheap and clueless
about tvs, etc. They steadfastly refused to drive the thirty miles to Clinton,
Ms. and see TITANIC on the big screen with all the sonic trappings. But
they rented it on the p&s vhs tape when it came out and watched it on a
13" screen with the model's tinny mono sound. They told me the next day
that it "wasn't much" and that they didn't see what the fuss was about.
I told them that there was no discussion-- that they simply hadn't seen
the picture!!!
Apparently in Europe and the UK (correct me if I'm misinformed,
folk-to-the-east) letterboxing has been common on TV for years.
Steven Spielberg has been criticized forever for using 1:85 to 1 (approx.
VistaVIsion ratio) in most of his films as opposed to 2:35 to 1 (approx.
Panavision ratio) as he did in Jaws, Close Encounters and the Indy Jones
films. But it's obvious to me that Spielberg as well as Coppola in
the Godfather films, uses 1:85 to 1 Ratio because it isn't so butchered in
television pan & scan versions. I don't mean to read these
directors' minds, but I truly believe that's one of the prime
considerations.
In recent years there has been controversy over several director-ordered
full-screen dvd releases from the Kubrick catalog-- specifically Full Metal
Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining. But I believe that Kubrick knew
exactly what he wanted. I recently acquired The Shining. The
disclaimer on the box and the disc says that it was an "unmatted" version that
Kubrick called for in home theatre. And I believe it. Because the
picture is PERFECTLY framed in the full television screen. When I saw
Eyes Wide Shut on pay-per-view when it was released that way it was the same
thing.
James Cameron is a disliker of letterboxing and plans his own
pan&scan versions for video. I suppose the tape of Titanic that my
friends saw would have been acceptable on a reasonable-sized tv screen.
I watched part of the p&s on HBO or one of the other costly
non-letterboxing services that I won't subscribe to because they won't give me
ALL the movie I'm paying for. The Titanic was perfectly watchable
because Cameron had shot it in a matted form ala Kubrick-- wherein the
"masked" parts of the top and bottom of the screen were removed, actually
offering More information and the sides lost much less than usual. Not
my choice as a viewer, but if the director prepared it, well... I can't argue
with that.
My sister was here a couple of years ago and said, looking at my system
in action, "I suppose you want films letterboxed."
I replied, "I want the film the way I saw it in the theatre. If it's
full-screen that's fine with me. But if it's Ben-Hur, I want to see ALL
the horses at once!"
But, believe me, pan and scan is infinitely preferable to the
"mid-screen" mish-mash that my young friend was watching on their new
system. I have to have them come over here and shove letterboxed films
down his throat.
Or at least some good, old-fashioned black and white masterpieces.
They recently watched The Night of the Hunter with me. The kid was
fascinated.
Next will be Sunset Boulevard!! And then he gets Ben-Hur--- with
ALL the horses!!
Joe B.
PS-- Redneck Video Rental Cackle for all: In Vicksburg one day
about seven or so years ago one of the rental clerks told me about a
coveralled ole'boy type who brought back the rented vhs tape of an Italian
Oscar-winner (name escapes me, but NOT Cinema Paradiso.). He complained that
it wasn't in English and you "had to READ it!" The girl explained that
the fact that it was in Italian with English subtitles was written on the
box. The old neck (who had obviously only ogled the Lollabrigida-clones
on the box) grumbled, "I didn't READ the box!!!"
Arghhh!!!
Joe
"JRS MoviePosterBid.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Y'know, I always thought AMC was just making it up when they said
during their promos that "some viewers feel cheated when they view a
film in letterbox format because of the black bands at the top and bottom of
the screen..." But apparently they were telling the truth -- some
people actually object to viewing a letterbox version of a film and complain
to the station when they see it (!)
This is what comes from lifting films like "Dumb and Dumber" to the
status of social acceptability folks.
How can anyone object to being shown the WHOLE picture?
Why would they ever want to see less then the whole picture? They want
to loose half the scene, just so what's left "fills the screen" of their TV
set? That is what matters to them?
And now, just to please these idiots and coddle them in their
lunacy, the manufacturers are putting a button on DVDs to
automatically cut off the left and right sections of a widescreen movie --
just so the middle part will "fill the screen"? Unbelievable...
To think that it has come to this, after 50 years of Cinemascope and
70mm -- and these kids growing up on widescreen. After letterbox
showings on TV have been around for over 20 years. Yet they still don't
understand that is it a *good thing* when they see a letterbox image on
their TV screen?
I do believe there is no hope left for western civilization.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004
18:04
Subject: Re: [MOPO] The Stooges in
color? Soitenly!
Hi from Joe B.
JR is absolutely right on this one. It's a frustrating
situation.
It's true that the colorization-- no matter how clever or well done--
subverts the original. But-- Three Stooges shorts or Little Rascals
shorts or Roy Rogers westerns are NOT "The Maltese Falcon," "Citizen Kane"
or "Night of the Hunter"-- films whose mood would be totally destroyed by
colorization.
So if it will encourage younger folk to see these classic funnies, I
have no problem-- particularly since a pristine black & white
restoration can be toggled back and forth (for those of us who remember
Gabby Hayes fondly in monotone). After all many young people will
check out the b&w original and maybe like it. Our friend Tom
Martin's son made a very respectable black and white film and enjoys
working in black and white and he's still in his teens.
It's the letterboxing thing that gets me. Many mainstream films
are releasing separate pan and scan and letterboxed discs so they can
include all the extras. At least when both versions are available on
the same disc or in the same set it allows for choice and those with
letterbox-itis may be converted when they can instantly see what they are
missing-- particularly if they are young.
But there's a new feature on many newer dvd players that is really
tacky! It' is an automatic "letterbox-defeat." And it's called
just that.
This is worse than pan & scan because at least p&s is planned
for and engineered. But the letterbox-defeat merely cuts out the
sides and shows just the middle of the picture without regard to anything
else.
At my friend's house recently his teenaged son was showing off their
new system (purchased at Target!!) and treated me to the Pod-Race from
Star Wars Phantom Menace in glorious "mid-screen" (I refuse to call it pan
and scan 'cause it Doesn't!!). It was, of course, wretched and one
could barely make out what was going on. I told him not to expect me
to waste two seconds watching a widescreen movie like that when I come to
visit.
But he got "his" in a couple of minutes. He dropped in a
widescreen teen flick, put the letterbox-defeat on and within two minutes,
saw the girl of his dreams in a bikini-- disappear from the screen
"off-stage-left."
You never saw a teen reach for the remote so quickly in your
life!!
Joe B.
"JRS MoviePosterBid.com"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The legal argument on this was resolved long ago -- whomever
"owns" the film can colorize it if they want and there's nothing anyone
can do to stop them. Whether they should or not will be debated
forever, but there's no question that a colorized version of a
black-and-white film is something that a lot of younger viewers will
watch while they would not watch the black-and-white version. Sad but
true.
Since that is the reality of the situation, I applaud the fact that
these producers are including BOTH a nicely-restored black-and-white
version and the colorized version on the same DVD. That actually
satisfies both young consumers and older purists. It's a far better
solution than just putting out a colorized version only and leaving the
purists out of luck.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004
11:41
Subject: [MOPO] The Stooges in
color? Soitenly!
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 10, 2004
The DVD
era is resurrecting the great colorization
debate of the 1980s, and
at the heart of the matter
are Moe, Larry and Curly.
Sony's
Columbia TriStar home-video unit is releasing
two Three Stooges
DVDs that allow viewers to watch the
original black-and-white or
digitally colorized
versions. Purists consider it desecration,
while Sony
executives say the process can introduce
movie
classics to young audiences reluctant to watch
anything in
black and white.
The Stooges discs coming out today also give
die-hard
fans better black-and-white versions, the
studio
insists.
To prepare for the colorization process,
Sony did a
more extensive restoration than it had with
previous
black-and-white- only Stooges DVDs, said Bob Simmons,
a
technical specialist who worked on the project.
"The best thing
about this DVD release is it gives the
consumer the ultima! ! te
choice," said Suzanne White,
vice president of marketing for
Columbia TriStar.
"They can watch the very best, the finest
restored
image of the black-and- white version, or watch the
new
colorized version and switch instantaneously
between the two." The
new DVDs, "Goofs on the Loose"
and "Stooged and Confoosed," contain
four shorts each
featuring Moe and Curly Howard and Larry
Fine.
Offering a choice does not appease
colorization
critics, who include Sam Raimi, director of
Sony's
"Spider-Man" blockbusters. "I don't think they
should
mess with black and white," said Raimi, who is such
a
Stooges fan that credits on some of his movies label
extras as
"fake Shemps," a reference to doubles used
to complete Stooges
shorts after the death of Shemp
Howard, who both preceded and
succeeded brother Curly
in the act.
"I think they should
just leave it as they are and try
to preserve them as best they
can," Raimi said. "I
f! ! eel like it's an artistic interpretation
that's not
anybody's right to make except the
director's."
__________________________________
Do
you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB
messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing
List
Send a message
addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF
MOPO-L
The author of! this! message is
solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
Do you Yahoo!?
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
New
and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
Do you Yahoo!?
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check
it out!
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
|
