- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Messages
- 6,708
- Real Name
- Bob
That quote says it all.enthusiastic amateurs working in their spare time with limited access to resources
Nick: please don't feed the troll.
That quote says it all.enthusiastic amateurs working in their spare time with limited access to resources
Thank you so much for the info, Crawdaddy.Robert Crawford said:Matt,
That film is definitely 1.37 as it was filmed from July, 1952 to September, 1952. It's release date was in March, 1953. I have the WA release of it and it's 1.37.
Brent: no luck. There's nothing on the AR in the U.S. journals I have from that period. This would be something our UK team may have to tackle...Brenty said:Blimey Bob, that research is bloody brilliant! Did you turn all that lot up only after I asked my question? A pretty definitive answer; the studios really should be making far more use of your talents...
I didn't notice any AR issues with any of the other Dwan films shown. As for the actual print used for the Silver Lode restoration, I'll do some digging myself. Am about to go away again though, so bear with me!
Here's another one, though I suspect this will be much simpler:
Chaplin's last starrer, A King in New York, has only ever been issued on VHS, DVD & BD in 4:3 AR, even though it was originally released in 1957.
Although I've accepted it at that AR for years, on checking, it now occurs to me that that it looks like it's been transferred OM - there's always loads of excess head & foot room!
It's on record that ol' Charlie was no fan of widescreen in general; indeed he lampoons it in this very film. However, I assume that it would still have been released theatrically in widescreen, no? Of course, the much-belated US release was years after the rest of the world...
I saw A KING IN NEW YORK on first theatrical release in the UK. It certainly wasn't shown 1.37 but I've got no documentary evidence.Brenty said:Thanks Bob, but do bear in mind that AKiNY was his first film made abroad, in London, & released everywhere except the US in 1957, following Charlie's 1953 exile to Switzerland.Its belated US release came in 1972, just ahead of his triumphant return for the 44th Oscar ceremony. I daresay it was likely screened then in 1.85, but what I'm more curious about are its 1957 play dates & intended AR.As I said before, all home video releases to date, thanks to what I've learned here, now look distinctly OM. With the caveat that DVD screenshots are not as conclusive as an actual print, there are many to be seen online, including at DVDBeaver:http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews17/chaplin_king_in_new_york_dvd_review.htm If I can get proof that it was originally composed & projected in widescreen, there's a good chance I can directly influence the AR of future releases...
I'm always more than happy to oblige.EddieLarkin said:Woah woah, you never mentioned about people from the BFI stating that they've never seen evidence for 1.75:1 as a common ratio before. I'd love some sources (seriously). Though I'm surprised you'd use this as a point when you yourself have seen evidence that proves 1.75:1 WAS a common ratio. The trades may not disprove your other points, but they certainly disprove this idea that 1.75:1 barely even existed.
Sorry Bob, but that's bang out of order.Bob Furmanek said:That quote says it all.
Nick: please don't feed the troll.
Of course, that particular thread also underlines the perils that rely on research conducted purely on the internet and on 'Chinese whispers'. This quote:first start work as projectionist in 1957 for rank organisation. odeons and gaumonts used to have wide screen ratio of 1.66 and prints were nearly all masked. ranks had funny idea of when we showed cinemascope the top mask on screen would drop and sides would go out. bit of a cop out.a.b.c. cinemas used to vary between 1.75 and 1.85 and sides would go out for `scope.if one can get grubby hands on some old prints you should find that they were nearly old masked.granada cinemas always seemed to have the really big screens and 1.75.seem to remember first mighty epic of wonder ranks showed in `scope was "sign of the pagan". there was some dispute with fox at the time.life is not perfect unless it is in vistaVisionmost odeons and gaumonts would have been showing 1.66 and a.b.c. showing 1.75/85 by end of 1954...
...I think that 1:66 was a compromise as it was easy to frame the shots and leave it rather then franticly rack the picture up and down. In those day we used to have a seperate show on a Sunday, which was usually pre-scope films. Also we also would be showing newsreels. Pathe News logo did appear to get changed for 1:75. Some of the Rank cinemas, eg Majestic. Wembley would show VistaVision via a 2:1 aperture plate and takes the sides out using a wide angle projection lens. This particular cinema had 50ft wide screen and stuff like Stratigic Air Command looked great. There was also ranks Anomorphic VistaVision which used a 1.5 expansion ration. Ranks used to make a Variomorph which could be used to adjust expansion ratio. This would some be used to make picture fit the screen....
...worked as projectionist at twickenham studios where [The Lonliness of the] long distance runner was edite[d] and we [showed] rushes at 1:75, same for tom jones.
We know much of this to be complete balderdash; the implcation that as late as 1959 widescreen productions were the exception rather than the rule? I'm afraid not. The Dam Busters at 1.37:1? Proven beyond doubt to be a Metroscope production. But the BFI's admission on OARs is completely understandable. For decades they, and us, have relied on nothing other than anecdotal evidence, the repetition of half-truths that have become blurry and obfuscated with each passing year. The belief that 1.66:1 dominated Europe is very deeply ingrained to the point that any other opinion is looked on with deep suspicion.In The Dam Busters: A British Film Guide (I.B. Tauris, 2002), John Ramsden talks about director Michael Anderson's framing and composition in two places. On page 41, Ramsden writes that Anderson was "already telling interviewers in 1955 that he was fascinated by the creative possibilities of colour and widescreen technologies, but that he had decided on a black-and-white format and a traditional screen-ratio for The Dam Busters because he wanted to achieve the documentary feel of a film of the early 1940s." On pages 82-83, Ramsden also suggests that Anderson's choices for composition and framing were dictated by original photographs that Cmdr. Gibson and his men took themselves in 1943. Both passages indicate to me that Anderson was consciously deciding against a widescreen format. And to tell the truth, the reason I stand so adamantly behind my original claim -- at least for The Dam Busters -- is because I attended a 35mm projection of the film at a revival showing in York a few years ago, and it was definitely framed at either 1.33:1 or 1.37:1. I didn't include this info in my previous post, as I figured it was simply anecdotal evidence.For The Maggie and The Ship That Died of Shame, I have no other evidence to offer. I actually e-mailed the Information Unit over at the BFI, and they point out that aspect ratios are very hard to confirm for 1950s British films simply because no single authoritative reference work lists OARs. (Apparently, British film historians have been less concerned about OAR than Americans, which suggests that there's at least one more major history of British cinema to be done. Any takers?) They do imply that, at least until 1959's "Expresso Bongo," widescreen was always the exception rather than the rule for UK-financed productions. Notable exceptions would be the last few Powell-Pressburger productions (Oh, Rosalinda!, Battle of the River Plate, and Ill Met by Moonlight); their names carried enough weight to get financing for larger-scale productions and wider distribution in America.
John, but as we've seen from the previous post I quoted, the prints from the era at the BFI have 1.66:1 on the labels, not 1.75:1.John Hodson said:.
But if that opinion is back by hard fact, by documentary evidence, then the BFI - all of us - must think again, and keep digging.
That avenue of thought pattern runs both ways as you seem to suffer from that as well.Yorkshire said:John, but as we've seen from the previous post I quoted, the prints from the era at the BFI have 1.66:1 on the labels, not 1.75:1.
Is that not evidence for you?
And if nor evidence enough, evidence which throws up some doubt?
Becauase the only alternative to those two is that it's evidence you've decided to simply ignore, because it doesn't fit in with your current beliefs.
Steve W
Robert, with all due respect, you're missing a very, very big difference in our positions.Robert Crawford said:That avenue of thought pattern runs both ways as you seem to suffer from that as well.
Go on then.John Hodson said:With the deepest respect - not that it matters a hill o' beans - I'd much rather state my own position rather than have it misintepreted for me.
The only thing I know Steve, is that some posters are thinking you're being argumentative for the sake of being that way. Furthermore, I think some posters are done arguing with you about this matter so I think it's going to be a one direction argument going forward with those individuals.Yorkshire said:Robert, with all due respect, you're missing a very, very big difference in our positions.
John, Bob, Eddie are saying "Here's the evidence for 1.75:1, and it's a fact which we should all accept it. End of story".
I'm saying "I accept that evidence, but there's also contrary eveidence for 1.66:1 too, so it's open to doubt."
I'm not the one placing my hands over my ears and screaming "LA LA LA!" as soon an anyone brings up a point which doesn't support 'my' position.
And that's because 'my' position is not that most film were 1.66:1, but that there's evidence for most British films of the era being 1.75:1, but there's other evidence for them being mainly 1.66:1, so I'm open minded to both.
The only thing I'm arguing against is a closed-minded, "it's a done deal" mentality on either side.
Steve W
I suppose it depends what you mean by 'argumentative'.Robert Crawford said:The only thing I know Steve, is that some posters are thinking you're being argumentative for the sake of being that way. Furthermore, I think some posters are done arguing with you about this matter so I think it's going to be a one direction argument going forward with those individuals.