A Few Words About A few words about... The Sting (1 Viewer)

[Dave Hahn]

I'm no expert, but I do believe that between say, 1947 and the present, millions of children went to thousands of theaters to see the re-releases of Disney movies like Snow White, Bambi and Pinocchio.

IMDB states that these films were only released in 1.37:1, while they do report that other Disney films like Fantasia was first released in 1.37:1 but was re-released at 2.00:1.

Maybe showing a film in 1.37:1 was not a "virtual impossiblility" after all.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

If not a "virtual impossibility", it was at a minimum a "horrible compromise". Wide-release reissues of 4:3 films, at least since the 70s (the end of my living memory as I was born in late 1968), and when they even bothered to try to get the AR correct, were generally accomplished by windowboxing in the middle of a 1.85:1 frame. This uses only about 50% of the available frame area (and resolution) of the 35mm prints. In at least one case that I saw (the GWTW quasi-restoration from the late 90s), they made Tech IB anamorphic prints with the image windowboxed in the 2.35:1 frame. Very strange. I guess the thinking was that while poorly run multiplex theaters had large matting irregularities with how they presented 1.85:1 films (sometimes matting to as wide as 2.0:1, with vertical centering a hit and miss affair), their presentations of scope films tended not to be cropped too severely at the top and bottom.

Regards,

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

And many viewers saw those movies improperly cropped to 1.85 during the later re-releases because few - if any - multiplexes had lenses/aperture plates/screen masking to show Academy ratio films. When I showed Snow White and Cinderella in 1983, the prints were indeed Academy ratio, but the theatre did not have the abiltiy to project them that way, so I ran them cropped to 1.85. I spent a lot of time in the booth doing manual framing on many scenes in order to try and not crop off anything significant.

If Hill had wanted The Sting in 1.37 in 1973, he would have had to make the prints reduction-style (ala Blair Witch), which he did not do.

 

[Dave Hahn]

I think there can be a big difference in technology over a ten year span. As an example, in 1995 most offices still had a few typewriters around; in 2005, nada. You're talking about 1983, where the pertinent date is 1973.

In 1973 the multi-screen concrete bunkers people now call movie theaters were still rare. Local, one screen theaters were still the majority. In my small town of 50,000 we had two such theaters to choose from, never mind those next door in New Haven, (pop. 250,000+). I'm willing to bet that those theaters had the proper equipment to show 1.37:1 films and did so whenever necessary. I'm talking about theaters in the Washington D.C. -- Boston metroplex. Do you really think that the theaters in the 80% of the country that was still rural threw out their 1.37:1 projectors?

If you watch the "making of" documentary on the new SE of The Sting, you'll hear either Redford or Newman say something to the effect, "George was a very powerful director, big executives, high up in the studio, would actually quake when they had a meeting with him." This might help exlplain why he thought he could have the film released in 1.37:1. George Roy Hill usually got his way with the studios, no matter what he wanted. As we know, this time he did not, but we still don't know for sure if he composed the framing of the film for 1.37:1 or not. We need historical proof, not opinion.

The cinematographer, Robert Surtees is gone as is the editor, William Reynolds. Henry Bumstead should know, and it's a good bet that Redford and Newman know as well. The problem is people who still need to work with studios on projects don't like to make waves, even legends like Redford & Newman. I think the person who would know and who could document it is Andrew Horton, author of The Films of George Roy Hill.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think you're seriously reaching if you think Redford and Newman would conspire regarding this issue. Anyhow, it seems like some of us are sure of the widescreen intention while a few believe otherwise.



Crawdaddy

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Many larger single-screen houses lost the ability to properly project Academy ratio beginning in 1953/1954 when they did construction to alter their proscenium (generally, wider and shorter) to accomodate Cinemascope and 1.85 presentations. Few theatres built from the late 1950s forward have had the equipment to show Academy ratio since no new films were being produced in that ratio. The non-anamorphic widescreen ratios (1.66/1.75/1.85) became standard across virtually all US studios starting in 1953/54. Since, in 1973, Universal's widescreen standard was 1.85, The Sting is most likely intended for 1.85 presentation. As RAH has mentioned, even the original 1973 prints were hard-matted 1.85.

This does not mean the new DVD is correctly framed, however. It is certainly possible that they have have mis-framed some of it (ala Back to the Future).

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well, there would be no such animal, anyway. They wouldn't need a "1.37:1 projector," just a 35mm projector, along with the appropriates lenses, plates, and screen configuration. Theatres enaging primarily in the business of showing new releases would have little reason to maintain 1.37:1 plates and lenses 20 years on from the mainstreaming of widescreen. As you say, disused technology disappears quickly in ten years.

As Mr. Harris eludes to, in 1982 Francis Ford Coppola personally prepared theatres that were to exhibit One From the Heart, as these venues were not typically able to do a 1.37:1 exhibition. I think there's little reason to believe the situation was much different in 1973, as 20 years had already passed since Academy fell into disuse.

DJ

 

[Dave Hahn]

Crawdaddy, I don't think I came anywhere near suggesting anyone was "conspiring" to anything. For Redford and Newman to conspire on this issue: 1. They would have to be asked; they have not. 2. They would both have to answer the question the same way; again, never happened because they were never asked.

Peter and Damin, I stand corrected. Your statements make perfect sense. It would be improbable that Hill intended The Sting to be 1.37:1, as it would have been difficult to have it shown properly.

But as Peter suggests, I strongly believe that the Special Edition DVD has serious framing issues. Does anyone have the laser disc or perhaps a 35mm print we could compare with?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Then you need to clarify your inclusion of both actors in your previous post because I don't understand your comment about them not making waves.





Crawdaddy

 

[Steve Tannehill]

HTF Review:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...06#post2792026

- Steve

 

[Jeff Adkins]

This is precisely the argument I make in regards to the MGM transfer of Robocop. Many make the argument that Verhoven prefers 1.66, which is probably true but he had to know the film was going to be shown 1.85 on far more screens than it would at 1.66.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Another example of a film optically reduced to accomodate the current multiplexes is Metallica: Some Kind of Monster. The print I ran was masked at the sides, resulting in a 1.37:1 ratio.

It would be nice if Universal would stop screwing up like this. I guess I won't be picking up The Sting until corrections are made. Does anyone have screencaps yet?

 

[ChristianLiemke]

All Dogma95 movies are meant to pe projected in 1.37:1, too.