Search results

Thank you, Jose. Some people have an open mind and like to learn, even if it means something they believed for most of their life is not true. Others? Well....

I think he was around during the booming New York repertory scene in the 1970's and probably believes every non-anamorphic film from 1953-1973 should be full-frame.

Mr. Lumenick also pointed out that ON THE WATERFRONT and TOUCH OF EVIL should only be seen in 1.37:1.

Lou Lumenick at the New York Post wrote that Delbert Mann preferred the film in 1.37:1. I wrote to Mr. Lumenick and asked if he would please provide either the direct quote or the source of the quote. He could not. He said that someone told him that was Mann's preference and he took the...

Hmm, I'm still waiting to read that direct quote from Delbert Mann. Funny how some people throw that around but can provide no direct source...

From DVD Talk: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/64953/marty/

I don't recall any direct quotes from MGM on this matter...

I knew it was an old transfer going back to early May. I wasn't going to share that publicly but when the widescreen documentation was dismissed on their Facebook page, I was left with no other choice than to support my findings and initial recommendation of 1.85:1. It put our research and...

There are some excellent and dedicated people at MGM. Sadly, their hands are tied.

Sadly, the members who screened the film sixty years ago in widescreen and voted for it are long gone.

Clearly, the Cinecon staff did their homework before the screening. It's a shame that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences continue to run the film - and to advise distributors like Kino - that it's 1.37:1.

That's excellent, Jim. Thanks very much for sharing that story!

Remember Jari, those are close-ups. In films of all ages since the dawn of cinema, close-ups do not necessarily mean the director/cinematographer want you to see the full head. They want you to focus on either the eyes, mouth, etc.

Not if the director and DP were composing for tight close-ups in order to draw attention to the eyes and other facial movements.

Truthfully, no I'm not. That's why we're trying so hard to get it done correctly now. A film like this MAY get another scan at some point, but what about the underdogs like THE ATOMIC KID, DUEL IN THE JUNGLE, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY, etc.

I agree, Luke. It's an important film and deserves better treatment. Hopefully, that can still happen with the next transfer.

Here's a spot-on review from Gary Tooze at DVD Beaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_62_/marty_blu-ray.htm

I've just posted similar frames from the trailer and the Blu-ray here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-documentation/?p=4113072

It might be better to see a shot that is not windowboxed on this edition.

Thanks, Jon Paul. That's enough manipulation to wreak havoc on the widescreen compositions, especially close-ups.

Such a shame. The film deserves better treatment, for sure.

Just in case some new readers have missed the documentation: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-documentation/page-239#entry4110690 I spent a lot of time researching this production. I'm still waiting to see one piece of evidence from documented, primary source materials...

That's an excellent review from Mr. Kauffman. He gets it.

Please see this post for updated information and documents on MARTY: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-documentation/?p=4110690

The DP was Joseph LaShelle , a man who certainly knew his way around a camera. He won the Academy Award in 1945 for his work on LAURA. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005766/awards?ref_=nm_awd In the widescreen era, he had previously lensed RIVER OF NO RETURN and four CinemaScope shorts, including...

Perhaps MGM has looked at the 35mm elements in the last few weeks? I don't know. My last contact with Kino on this matter was nearly a month ago. At that time,1.85:1 was to be the ratio on the Blu-ray. In fact, the Amazon page still lists that ratio. This is all very strange!

Nobody from Kino has examined film elements on MARTY.

Also, if you look at the article, you'll see that by mid-1953, even smaller production companies recognized the need to adapt to widescreen. Unlike the transition to sound in the late 1920's, widescreen happened VERY quickly.

IMDB is often wrong on early widescreen data. The documentation from primary source materials show that Hecht-Lancaster Productions were clearly on top of the industry-wide transition to widescreen. More information on that change can be found here...

If they were working with a truly open-matte transfer, the cropping for widescreen would have worked fine. Hecht-Lancaster Productions announced a two year/seven film distribution deal with United Artists on February 9, 1954. The first three features produced under this contract were...