Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[EddieLarkin]

There is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin, so I'll let others deal with its problematic portions, which is most of it. But I'll just say - directors were hired hands paid by the studios to make films. Only a handful had any kind of control over their films. If the studios told them 1.85 then it was 1.85 - the cameraman would have been directed to compose for whatever ratio the studios dictated and if you think a cameraman was going to silently buck the directive only to have the studio look at dailies to see that the directive was being ignored, they would have fired the cameraman and the director. By 1955 there were only a handful, and I mean a handful, of theaters that could show Academy ratio - so why on earth would films from that year to 1959 be presented open matte - because you think they should? There's documentation and there's common sense and there was the reality of who was running the show.

Further to this, it was only a few pages back we had a link to a post from a "40 year camera veteran" explaining why in the vast majority of cases the director wouldn't even know what ratio his film was being shot in:

http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?forumID=7&pageID=1&threadID=104065

The other MAJOR problem with today's ratio decision-makers is that they continue to subscribe to the auteur-directors theory and apply it to old Hollywood filmmaking. With the possible exception of George Stevens and maybe Hitchcock, I can't think of a single director---from DeMille and Cukor and Negulesco and Wilder and Koster to Thorpe and Mankewicz and Minnelli and Brooks and Sirk and beyond---who could actually tell you what ratio they WERE shooting in.

Very few directors actually knew much about the mechanics of camera operation and really had nothing to do with setting the ratio of their films. That was determined by the studio upper management (in collusion with the sales department---who had to deliver the proper-sized films to their theatres as they re-equipped for the change), each films's producer, and the production management team at the studio, who had to engage the camera, grip, drapery, art, title, lighting, and construction departments in the chosen studio ratio so as not to waste money or time in over-or-underbuilding the settings or budgeting the lighting requirements.

Those finished production elements arrived on the soundstage the same day the director did, with everything in place, and the ratio a given.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

The difference between Marty and Witness for the Prosecution is that MGM's master of Marty has always been 1.33:1 (perhaps zoomed?) and their master of Witness for the Prosecution has been 1.66:1 all the way back to its Laserdisc release.

Yes, but it is not the correct presentation for the latter. As pointed out in what Bob posted, the film should be in 1.85:1.

 

[ahollis]

How is it apples to oranges? Cukor and Luft had no say in the cuts to A Star Is Born, Stevens and Griggs had no say in the mutilation of their framing, Fleming had no say in misframing of the 1967 Gone With The Wind, sounds like we agree.

After re-reading your post again I may have mid interpreted it. I thought you were saying that the presentations should be how the public saw it. Not how the director intended it to be, either aspect ratio or cut. If I was wrong my apologies.

 

[Thomas T]

After re-reading your post again I may have mid interpreted it. I thought you were saying that the presentations should be how the public saw it. Not how the director intended it to be, either aspect ratio or cut. If I was wrong my apologies.

Apologies not necessary, we all misread posts, I do it myself frequently. No, I certainly was not recommending A Star Is Born should be seen in its cut version because that's how most of audiences in 1954 saw it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes, but it is not the correct presentation for the latter. As pointed out in what Bob posted, the film should be in 1.85:1.

Yes, but I suspect many of these MGM/UA titles are being presented as 1.66 ratio. I don't like it, but I can live with it. However, I can't accept Marty in 1.33 ratio.

I imagine that many of Kino's releases are going to be part of some heated discussions in this thread as well as some others on the forum. It's been that way with Olive and to a certain degree with Criterion. Even TT had their issues with Violent Saturday DVD release. Here we go again.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Theatrical ratios only matter when they match the photographed ratio. I really could care less if Shane was shown 1.66:1 if the only the credit overlays were framed for that ratio. A widescreen version is nothing more than a curiosity. The same reason why an open matte version of a film fully shot for widescreen is just a curiosity rather than a proper way to see a film.

 

[Paul Penna]

The idea since the laserdisc days is to protect the theatrical aspect ratio for home video releases.

I don't think the term "theatrical aspect ratio" back then was used in the same way that you are now in this "theatrical vs. intended" discussion. I was around in the laserdisc days when the whole aspect ratio/letterboxing issue first started being a hot topic. It was well before the more recent research by Bob and others brought forth the details of the transition period. In those days "theatrical aspect ratio" was just the common term in use when people were arguing that widescreen films should be letterboxed. It wasn't meant to imply a distinction between how a film was composed and how it was was projected in theaters because at that time very few people were even aware there was a distinction.

"Theatrical aspect ratio" in the laserdisc days meant widescreen if it was filmed that way, not literally how it may have looked in theaters because everyone assumed they were shown widescreen. The literal meaning of the term was irrelevant; it was just the common, everyday shorthand expression for the concept of presenting films in their correct aspect ratio.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Bob, quick question: What was the name of the very last 1.37:1 production from United Artists Corporation, and when exactly in 1952 and/or 1953 was it filmed?

This one may be tricky to find out, because even though UA is an American studio, they had a very long relationship with the British film industry, prior to the James Bond and Beatles movies. They distributed many of London Films Productions' titles.

 

[DVDvision]

Gone With The Wide doesn't need to be an exact replica of the original widescreen release. Just like Shane, it can be fixed with today's technology so that each shot look perfectly framed. Anyway I would view this as just a bonus.

 

[John Hodson]

But then you negate the whole 'historical curio' aspect by presenting the film as it would never have been seen theatrically. With Shane, as a bonus extra feature, I wasn't against including the widescreen version as it would have been seen by contemporary audiences, but the fact that it had been freshly reframed was, for me, disturbing, and a little pointless.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Gone With The Wide doesn't need to be an exact replica of the widescreen release. it can be fixed so that each shot look perfectly framed.

Each shot did look perfectly framed.........perfectly framed for a 1.37:1 aspect ratio.

 

[Douglas R]

I've just received a DVD checkdisc for Second Sight's edition of A Hard Day's Night, out in the UK on 21 July. You'll be glad to know the ratio is 1.75:1 anamorphic, i.e. with very slight pillarboxing inside the 16:9 frame.

Sorry to add confusion to the aspect ratio of A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, but Kine Weekly gives the aspect ratio of the film (shot at Twickenham Studios) as 1.85:1. And at a time when the majority of British features were shot 1.75:1.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Question: How often did film prints come with leaders specifying the AR, and why do we not have more of them?

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Sorry to add confusion to the aspect ratio of A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, but Kine Weekly gives the aspect ratio of the film (shot at Twickenham Studios) as 1.85:1. And at a time when the majority of British features were shot 1.75:1.

IMG_0348r.JPG

And yet, the frame of film still says 1.75:1! So which one is correct? Did Kine Weekly make an error?

 

[seangood79]

Question: How often did film prints come with leaders specifying the AR, and why do we not have more of them?

I'm not sure, I started working as a projectionist in 1996, but I've handled a good amount repertory prints, and I don't recall ever seeing aspect ratios printed on the film.
I think that fact, if I'm correct, is further proof that standardization happened fairly quickly.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Question: How often did film prints come with leaders specifying the AR, and why do we not have more of them?

I don't recall ever seeing one other than A Hard Day's Night (which I ran back in 1983). A few have had framing lines scribed in the countdown leader, but that's it.EDIT - That's not to say that other titles don't have that identification, but I never saw anything similar on the more than 350 repertory titles I've run. Including plenty of other UA films.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

My experience indicates the AR data was usually on the reel bands in the 1950's and would not be on prints struck after the initial release.

Here's a U-I band from ONE DESIRE:

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Bob, quick question: What was the name of the very last 1.37:1 production from United Artists Corporation, and when exactly in 1952 and/or 1953 was it filmed?

This one may be tricky to find out, because even though UA is an American studio, they had a very long relationship with the British film industry, prior to the James Bond and Beatles movies. They distributed many of London Films Productions' titles.

The last 1.37 UA title from the transition period is GO MAN GO, shot in New York in April/May of 1953 and released in late January 1954.

 

[Douglas R]

And yet, the frame of film still says 1.75:1! So which one is correct? Did Kine Weekly make an error?

A HARD DAY'S NIGHT was shown this evening on BBC TV and announced as the newly remastered HD version. It was shown in 1.75:1. Maybe Kine Weekly was given the wrong information but surely in 1964, in the U.S. at least, 1.85:1 was standard for non-scope films. By adjusting the picture to about 1.85:1 as I was watching it, the film was still well framed.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The last 1.37 UA title from the transition period is GO MAN GO, shot in New York in April/May of 1953 and released in late January 1954.

If I'm not mistaken that was the film about the Harlem Globetrotters with a young Sidney Poitier.