2.35:1 movies reframed at 1.33:1/1.78:1 on DVD (1 Viewer)

[Grady Reid]

Another Super 35 film composed for 1.85 was "The Fisher King" shot by Roger Pratt. Fortunately, the old Criterion Laserdisc and the Sony dvd retain that aspect ratio. This is as far as I know the only Gilliam film shot in S35.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is 2.35:1 Super-35.

By the way, Goodfellas was also shot in Super-35 for 1.85:1. Also, the end credits of Casino mention that it was filmed in Super-35... which seems to be rarely done.




About Kubrick, if the books confirm 1.85:1, that's fine. What aspect ratios are used on Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon? We should have more great sources like this for films.

 

[ArthurMy]

I've looked at the photos and there don't seem to be any identifying things like the ones I've posted about. I'll look more carefully. The one thing we do know is that those are all app. 1:66 on DVD, but were projected in the US at 1:85.

 

[Simon Howson]

No, it simply looks like a European film shot in the 30's or 40's, which is certainly a style Kubrick liked.

The introduction of matting in the early 50's altered shot composition by making standard frmings look much tighter. The fact 2.4:1 films are now so reliant on close ups is possibly an extension of this phenomena.

If the Shining was only meant to be shown 1.85:1, why didn't Kubrick shoot with hard mattes in the camera, and have all release prints hard matted to that aspect ratio? There is no doubt that he felt theatrically 1.66:1 was a legitimate option for European theatres.

 

[ArthurMy]

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly, at least from my perspective. It is clear from the examples I've given that he shot The Shining and Full Metal Jacket for 1:85 - I don't see where one can argue this. Why didn't he hard matte them - it's really quite simple: Because then they would have had to pan-and-scan the image for broadcast and video. He was, as is perfectly clear in the examples given, "protecting" for Academy, so that when the films hit broadcast or video they'd simply open the mattes rather than pan-and-scan. I'm sure he felt comfortable with 1:66 in Europe, but the matte lines in the camera and on his video monitors were for 1:85.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Another Super 35 film composed for 1.85 was "The Fisher King" shot by Roger Pratt... This is as far as I know the only Gilliam film shot in S35.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is 2.35:1 Super-35.

To prevent confusion, it's always best to describe the 2.35 version of this process as Super 35 and the 1.85 version as Super 1.85. Leonard Maltin's 'Movie Guide' book fails to distinguish between the two ratios when listing 'Super 35' movies, and there are quite a few 1.85 films in that book (such as THE FISHER KING and THE TWO JAKES) which are confusingly listed as Super 35. No wonder there's so much disinformation floating around on this issue!! (NB. The last edition of Maltin's book in my possession is from 2003 - he may have modified those particular entries in subsequent editions).

Also, the end credits of Casino mention that it was filmed in Super-35... which seems to be rarely done.

Panavision and all the other camera companies could eliminate any and all problems with format identification by insisting on a single unifying credit, something along the lines of: "Filmed in Super 35 [or Super 1.85] with Panavision [or Technovision, etc.] cameras & lenses." But they've been muddying the waters for years with misleading credits like "Filmed in Panavision" on 1.85 movies, and other such nonsense. It's as though they realize the issue of visual quality has gone down the tubes, to be replaced by sound formats as the dominating technical factor in theatrical presentation (hey! the picture's crap, but at least you can hear every syllable!!)...

 

[PeterTHX]

Which is one reason I can hardly wait for HiDef discs like Blu-ray. I saw "Full Metal Jacket" in HD and it was 1.78. The composition was PERFECT. The additional headroom in the DVD version is distracting to me.

What bothers me is HBO and IN-HD's practice of P&S 2.35 films down to 1.78. Showtime and HD-Net Movies do OAR presentations. I thought DVD, with it's P&S and letterbox capability (NEVER USED!) would have put an end to full frame releases. I pray to whomever may be listening to make HD discs an OAR ONLY format!

 

[Damin J Toell]

I think that's a bad idea, actually. Super35 is the process of exposing the old 1.33:1 pre-sound full aperture (just like Super16 exposes the entire 16mm aperture, including the area otherwise reserved for sound). The 35 just refers to the size of the film, not the final extraction AR. It can be used for various final ARs. It is still used, for example, for 1.33:1 for television productions. Alfred Hitchcock used it that way. Super35 isn't inherently designed for 2.35:1 extraction, so limiting the term's use to that methodology alone would be erroneous. If you want people to be more specific, asking them to say "Super35 for 2.4:1 extraction" would be fine, but there's nothing incorrect about calling other uses of the process Super35, as well.

DJ

 

[Gary Palmer]

Super35 is the process of exposing the old 1.33:1 pre-sound full aperture... The 35 just refers to the size of the film, not the final extraction AR. It can be used for various final ARs. It is still used, for example, for 1.33:1 for television productions... Super35 isn't inherently designed for 2.35:1 extraction, so limiting the term's use to that methodology alone would be erroneous. If you want people to be more specific, asking them to say "Super35 for 2.4:1 extraction" would be fine, but there's nothing incorrect about calling other uses of the process Super35, as well.

I hear what you're saying, but perhaps there's another way of looking at it: As you say, 'Super 35' refers to a particular way of capturing images on film (which is probably why 99.9% of all S35 films don't actually credit the term) which allows for a variety of AR's (unlike 2-perf and anamorphic formats, where the AR is fixed from the outset). Describing the 2.35 version as 'Super 35 for 2.4:1 extraction' is a bit of a mouthful! And for various TV shows composed for 1.33, perhaps the phrase 'Super 1.33' could be used (no more or less an accurate description than either Super 35 or Super 1.85)? Of course, this also begs the question: Why not 'Super 2.35' for those movies which use the wider ratio? Why not indeed? What do you guys think?

I actually preferred the name applied to this process when it first emerged - Super Techniscope - though I understand this moniker had to be discarded for political reasons (the name 'Techniscope' is too closely associated with the Technicolor company, which was responsible for the development of Techniscope in the early 1960's).

Of course, one could also change the name 'Super 35' to 'Craporama', which would be no less accurate...

 

[Kai Penttila]

Patrick, your two sources are inconclusive, and neither is first-hand.

According to the American Cinematographer piece, producer Walter Wanger would have wanted the film to be released in Academy ratio. As I wrote in an earlier post in this thread, Don Siegel makes no mention of an incorrect AR in the interviews I have read.

It seems conceivable to me that the AR was one of several disputed elements in the production, in addition to, e.g., the inclusion of a prologue and an epilogue. That is, the director and the studio might have preferred one ratio and the producer another. Providing, of course, that Wanger is quoted correctly; he died almost 30 years before the article was published.

 

[GerardoHP]

Laserdiscs were in widescreen as early as the late 80's and, before that, in Europe, movies were sometimes issued on video in widescreen as well. I'm not convinced that Kubrick wanted anything other than avoid black lines on video, just like (no offense to anyone) your average Target shopper.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I think someone was being facetious...

DJ

 

[Patrick McCart]

If you don't believe Wanger's own words or American Cinematographer, just look at the film! There isn't one shot that looks like it was framed for 2:1. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if it were protected for 1.66:1, but the compositions almost always look like an overmatted film.

In fact, just look at the opening titles and how they barely fit within the 2:1 frame.

 

[Kai Penttila]

I have watched Invasion of the body snatchers many times, last time was only recently when I managed to purchase a copy of the Criterion LD--and as I wrote earlier in this thread, the film looks pretty good to me in Superscope.

And I'm not the only one; e.g. listen to prof. Yacowar's commentary on the Criterion LD where he mentions the elegance of the Superscope compositions.

Of course, I can only conjecture as I wasn’t there when the film was made, but I can’t think of any reason why Siegel shouldn’t have mentioned it in interviews if his intended ratio was indeed so drastically altered when he always seemed to voice his objections to other changes (i.e. deletion of humour, addition of prologue and epilogue).

 

[Gary Palmer]

More reframed movies on DVD:


THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS (2003)
[Buena Vista - US R1]
Filmed in Super 35 and reframed at 1.78. The film is available on disc outside the US at its original 2.35 (Artificial Eye released it in the UK).

A BOY AND HIS DOG (1975)
[Arrow - UK R2]
Filmed in 2-perf Techniscope and cropped to 1.78 on DVD (the film has been released on disc by various companies in the US, all correctly framed at 2.35, but without 16:9 enhancement). As with a number of other DVD's released in the UK, this appears to have been derived from a TV print (the majority of widescreen movies are transmitted in 1.78 format on UK TV, regardless of the OAR). Others include THE CARS THAT ATE PARIS (as mentioned by Kai in an earlier post), and TRUE BLUE.

DRUNKEN MASTER (1978)
[Hong Kong Legends - UK R2]
Filmed in an unspecified anamorphic format and reframed at 1.78 on DVD (Columbia Tristar have since released a 16:9 enhanced version in the US, correctly framed at 2.35). When Hong Kong Legends first entered the business of DVD distribution, they seemed to do everything right. They wanted to rescue Hong Kong cinema from the video doldrums and treat each release with all the pomp, ceremony, bells and whistles of a Hollywood blockbuster. They were committed to 16:9 enhancement, newly created English subtitles, and all the extras they could cram into a single disc. But with DRUNKEN MASTER - one of their first releases, and one of Jackie Chan's most popular 'old school' movies - they dropped the ball in spectacular fashion: They reproduced the scope frame at 1.78, and indicated they would be doing this for all their subsequent scope movies, because (get this) they were concerned that such images would be too 'small' for viewers watching them on home computers! To date, I can think of no other DVD company who has ever used this reason for cropping/reframing 2.35 movies to 1.78!! Fan response was swift and decisive: HKL were wrong, the fans wanted OAR at all costs, and anything less would be unacceptable. Within weeks, HKL had dropped this nonsensical stance and agreed to present any and all scope movies at their original AR. However, the story took another twist...

A number of their subsequent scope titles (including POLICE STORY PART II and ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA) are presented at 2.35 but horrendously cropped; in other words, 'zoomboxed' (to borrow a phrase from Video Watchdog). HKL has ignored a number of e-mails I sent them on this issue, and those fans who have gotten a response have been told that HKL do not crop their movies, despite all evidence to the contrary (the POLICE STORY PART II disc even includes a 'textless' credits sequence amongst the supplemental features which proves conclusively that the image used in the main feature is badly cropped). Reports suggest that a number of other HKL titles - including some Bruce Lee titles, which I haven't seen - are similarly reframed, and I suspect this was done for the same reason DRUNKEN MASTER was cropped to 1.78; to make the images 'readable' on smaller monitors. Add to this state of affairs a contractual agreement with Media Asia which basically forbade them from including original mono soundtracks on the relevant films (they're all revamped in Dolby 5.1), and you have a recipe for disaster. I admire the company's commitment to HK cinema, and I love the extra features and beautifully animated menu designs, but their failures are too significant to ignore. To be fair, HKL has begun including mono tracks on recent releases, but there are dozens of back catalogue titles which have been compromised by cropping and/or soundtrack issues (A CHINESE GHOST STORY, BULLET IN THE HEAD, FULL CONTACT, etc.). And their refusal to answer enquiries about this issue (despite inviting feedback on their DVD packaging) means their product cannot be trusted.

EL CID (1961)
[Universal - UK R2]
Released in Super Technirama 70 and cropped to 1.33 on DVD. The packaging claims 16:9 enhancement, but it isn't true.

ESCAPE FROM ABSOLOM (1994)
[Columbia Tristar - Australia R4]
Filmed in anamorphic Arriscope and cropped to 1.78 on DVD. This is actually the Ray Liotta movie NO ESCAPE, retitled for Australian release. The US version (released by HBO) is correctly framed at 2.35 (without 16:9 enhancement), and various retail sites lists Pathe's UK edition as cropped 1.33, though I haven't been able to confirm it.

SNAKE IN THE EAGLE'S SHADOW (1978)
[Hong Kong Legends - UK R2]
Filmed in an unspecified anamorphic format and cropped to 1.78. As with DRUNKEN MASTER (see above), this early HKL disc was cropped because the distributors were concerned about how such 'small' images would play on computer screens. Revamped versions of both discs were promised long ago, but middling sales of the originals probably put paid to that idea! Columbia Tristar have since released a 16:9 enhanced version in the US, correctly framed at 2.35.

 

[PeterTHX]

Hmmm. no comments on my post about HD Kubrick? :frowning:

 

[ArthurMy]

Well, you know I'm with you, Peter. No, no one has responded because no one likes to admit they've been led down a wrong path for years and years. I can't tell you how often I've put forth my argument about the headroom and the framing, only to be told ad nauseum, "That's what Stanley wanted." Only now we have the proof. And suddenly - the sound of silence.

 

[MarcusUdeh]

If you two do a search you’ll see that this subject has been debated to death. If you don’t care for the manner in which Stanley’s films are presented by all means don’t purchase them. I support first and foremost the director’s wishes.

 

[Simon Howson]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a film being shot that features 1/3 of the frame height above an actors head left "free". This is simply an older form of composition which was very popular in European cinema in the 30's and 40's. It was imported into American cinema by William Wyler, and Orson Welles, particularly on their work with Greg Toland. Not surprisingly Kubrick raises directors like Jean Renoir, Wyler, and Welles as being influences.

Just because such compositions are different or unusual does not mean it is "wrong" or not the director's intent. The idea that films should be framed so the top frame line is only marginally above the actor's heads is something from the 50's and 60's and beyond, and reflects the general trend of Hollywood films being reliant on closer and closer framings.

The idea that because The Shining looks fine in 16:9 doesn't mean much, because I've seen The Shining in 4:3 and to me that looks fine as well.

 

[ArthurMy]

My heavens, do you people just not read the posts in this thread? There's no debate anymore. Scroll up, you two, and read my posts about The Stanley Kubrick Archives. If you don't understand what those posts mean, then by all means keep watching the full frame transfers forever. But you're not seeing the films the way Mr. Kubrick framed them. Scroll up, it's all there. You can't deny the storyboards. You can't deny Mr. Kubrick's own notes. It's all there. He was PROTECTING for broadcast TV and video - he framed the movies for theatrical presentation. Even though his editor and cameraman have been saying this whenver asked, people have chosen not to believe them (astonishing, when you think about it). Now we have a book loaded with proof.