A Few Words About A few words about...™ Suspicion -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

Watching SUSPICION today, it is difficult to imagine that Hitchcock actually intended for the ending to be other than what it is, that all of the cherry-picked "evidence" perceived and, in some cases outright conjured up out of whole cloth in the mind of the lady (The scrabble game? Her image of Beaky plunging off the cliff?), would be proven correct and, that's it, folks, you can go home now. I mean, it just wouldn't fit any other method of the Master for him to be so...well, pedestrian and uncomplicated/simplistic about it.

I don't think it's necessarily the fact that Johnny ISN'T a killer that's such a disappointment as is the abrupt, perfunctory way in which the climax is handled. Our hearts are in our throats and then, boom, you're just being silly. Fade out. How much more interesting, and haunting, would it have been if, fighting madly to save herself from Johnny, she managed to push HIM out of the car to his death? Thinking she just saved her own life she later could have found his diary, for example, in which he wrote of his undying love for her and his disappointment and alarm that she is behaving in an increasingly paranoid manner. It would have been Hitch's masterpiece nod to the "unreliable narrator" trope he used in one of his later films (I won't mention the name in case any one isn't familiar with the title I mean.) He doesn't HAVE to be a killer for the story to work, but the ending as is feels terribly abrupt and tacked on, IMO

 

[Will Krupp]

I hope Mr. and Mrs. Smith is somewhere in the pipeline. It's amazing to me that Hitchcock was able to an American screwball comedy so well, considering this was his first and only attempt at the genre, and he'd only been in America for a few years at this point. Of course having the lovely Carole Lombard as a lead surely helped...

He often, somewhat disingenuously, stated that he only made the film as a personal favor to Lombard. While it's true he was incredibly fond of her (she had been one of his first friends when he migrated to CA as well as his landlord, the Hitchcock's were renting her home in Bel-Air,) the assignment was important to his development at that stage in his American career as well because he needed to prove his versatility and economy (hallmarks of the most successful American directors in that era) to the Hollywood community. His first two American films, REBECCA and FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT were lavish, expensive, and had inordinately long, budget busting shooting schedules. While both films were critical successes and enjoyed big box office, he was already getting a reputation as a SLOW and expensive director and that reputation had the ability to hamper his future job prospects. Taking a studio assignment like MR. & MRS. SMITH (and pulling it off) would show he was capable of doing other things and doing them quickly and efficiently. Hitchcock was nothing if not pragmatic.

 

[Konstantinos]

I have a question:
Aren't the various aspect ratios' borders always fixed?
I mean why we see in the same aspect ratio this difference in cropping?
If we have 5 studios releasing the same film, they will crop however they see fit with 5 different results?
Shouldn't there be some fixed universal rules concerning that?

screenshots taken from DVDbeaver comparison:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/170571

Well, I guess the WAC release tried to avoid showing a bit of the rounded edges (as they are evident in the Japanese release), that's why they cropped more.
If you ask me I like the rounded edges (maybe I'm commiting a sin here?) as I have seen in another release, namely Gulliver's Travels (1939) from Thunderbean.
http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=3896&d2=3895&s1=36159&s2=36143&i=0&l=0

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There are some fixed rules, like the STMPE chart...but that doesn't mean everyone is going to follow it perfectly 100% of the time. In general, the rounded edges aren't meant to be seen, I would assume the Japanese one shows everything on the frame but that the Warner one is what's actually meant to be seen. But there are far more informed people than me who can explain it better!

 

[Tony Bensley]

I didn't get a chance to watch them yet, but the disc does include extras. It has a theatrical trailer and a featurette.

True, but unfortunately, I think many viewers consider these to be nothing extras. Of course, watch out if the Trailer isn't included! Then, the howling starts!

CHEERS!

 

[ScottHM]

I have a question:
Aren't the various aspect ratios' borders always fixed?
I mean why we see in the same aspect ratio this difference in cropping?
If we have 5 studios releasing the same film, they will crop however they see fit with 5 different results?
Shouldn't there be some fixed universal rules concerning that?

I've never failed to enjoy a film because the rounded corners of the frame were cropped out.

---------------

 

[Konstantinos]

I've never failed to enjoy a film because the rounded corners of the frame were cropped out.

Well, I didn't say that either.

 

[Tony Bensley]

I have a question:
Aren't the various aspect ratios' borders always fixed?
I mean why we see in the same aspect ratio this difference in cropping?
If we have 5 studios releasing the same film, they will crop however they see fit with 5 different results?
Shouldn't there be some fixed universal rules concerning that?

screenshots taken from DVDbeaver comparison:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/170571

Well, I guess the WAC release tried to avoid showing a bit of the rounded edges (as they are evident in the Japanese release), that's why they cropped more.
If you ask me I like the rounded edges (maybe I'm commiting a sin here?) as I have seen in another release, namely Gulliver's Travels (1939) from Thunderbean.
http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=3896&d2=3895&s1=36159&s2=36143&i=0&l=0

A lot of detail sure gets lost in the cropped corners version of GULLIVER'S TRAVELS! Was the cropped image taken from a previous DVD version, by chance?

CHEERS!

 

[Brian9229]

I have, and was Keen to keep, my Japanese copy. The rounded edges show in every corner throughout almost all of the film. I'd rather have a tick down in transfer quality, than a cropped image in the case of this film. I do own the WAC, and it is beautiful, but I also love the not so clean print of the JP copy. It even has several cigar burns throughout. I love it!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I have a question:
Aren't the various aspect ratios' borders always fixed?
I mean why we see in the same aspect ratio this difference in cropping?
If we have 5 studios releasing the same film, they will crop however they see fit with 5 different results?
Shouldn't there be some fixed universal rules concerning that?

screenshots taken from DVDbeaver comparison:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/170571

Well, I guess the WAC release tried to avoid showing a bit of the rounded edges (as they are evident in the Japanese release), that's why they cropped more.
If you ask me I like the rounded edges (maybe I'm commiting a sin here?) as I have seen in another release, namely Gulliver's Travels (1939) from Thunderbean.
http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=3896&d2=3895&s1=36159&s2=36143&i=0&l=0

I understand some people liking rounded corners, even if I can't agree with the position. To answer your first question: no; ratios' borders are not always fixed. When talking about film, the various ratios are produced by use of mattes, aperture plates and anamorphosis. In the case of hard matted films, the parts of the frame not intended to be seen are simply blacked out on the release print. Soft matted films would typically ship with the intended ratio scribed on the first few feet of the film reels, before you get to any actual picture. Matting in this case is accomplished by the aperture plate, and this is where we get into questions of negative ratio vs. intended ratio. Sometimes, the DoP will shoot with a hard matte, even though the intended ratio is even greater in width [example: Allen Daviau shot E.T. with a 1.66:1 hard matte in camera, but the intended ratio was always 1.85:1.

In answering your second question, when discussing classic films, particularly in the realm of international releases, ultimately the decision on what ratio and cropping to use lies with the person paying the bills. Lobster Films has chosen to show the rounded edges, and we don't know on what basis. I'm not sure how much of RKO's original documentation WB has, but the likelihood of having such documentation regarding intended ratio is far higher simply on the basis of geography [same state, close proximity of studios, etc.]. This also answers your third question, which is that, yes, whoever is paying the bills will crop however they see fit. Knowing the Warner Archive's reputation for high standards as of late, and especially with BD titles, I seriously doubt that this would have been authored in a ratio that hadn't been carefully considered and researched by George Feltenstein and company.

If you want to talk "fixed universal rules", the answer is that the ratios are arrived at by various bodies, from the Academy to the manufacturers of the equipment producing each process, A helpful diagram of these can be found here, courtesy of Martin Hart and the American Widescreen Museum: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/aspectratio.htm