Blu-ray Review Summertime (1955) Blu-ray Review (2 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

Maybe because our focus should be on her and not the lost horizon? And again look to the opening credits for your answer. As it was shot in the prior year maybe it was simply shot for 1:37 but projected diff to fit screens and the image opened up after the credits? But the credits are definitely composed for 1:37 as the full drawn images show. However an argument could be made for it either way IMO. Maybe it’s Lean’s preferred way?

The MT cannot be projected at 1.37, and then miraculously go wide-screen at production footage.

 

[Vegas 1]

Watched Summertime last night, the AR did not bother me as I was drawn into the film, a lovely little film by Mr. Lean glad I bought it as I have never seen it before.

 

[JPCinema]

I literally have no idea why Criterion chooses to die on the 1.33:1 hill for this film. I mean the fact that there are VISIBLE GATE HAIRS in the transfer should have been enough of a clue.

View attachment 144323

I was looking forward but now I've cancelled my order

 

[Noel Aguirre]

The MT cannot be projected at 1.37, and then miraculously go wide-screen at production footage.

Understood. What I meant was if the credits were windowboxed into a wider image like the opening of The Girl Can’t Help It. But such a print looks like doesn’t exist so I still don’t understand why the opening credits of Summertime would be shot matted in that way when you can barely read them or appreciate the full artwork as drawn.

 

[jayembee]

Rights are owned by Janus which I believe is part of Criterion.

Other way around.

 

[jayembee]

hoping for Gunga Din but getting tired of their artsy fartsy picks more CLASSIC Hollywood!

That's fine, but you're not their only customer. I love "Classic Hollywood" as much as the next person, but I also love a lot of their "artsy fartsy picks". Variety is the spice of life.

 

[RobertMG]

Hope for some great titles as the year winds down

 

[RobertMG]

That's fine, but you're not their only customer. I love "Classic Hollywood" as much as the next person, but I also love a lot of their "artsy fartsy picks". Variety is the spice of life.

I agree!

 

[richardburton84]

I received this today as a birthday present (along with Kino’s Lion in Winter Blu-ray) and watched it for the first time tonight. There were definitely a bunch of shots that could have benefited from matting. But that aside, I really enjoyed the film, especially the cinematography and Hepburn’s exuberant performance.

 

[Kenneth_C]

I mean... what on earth makes Lee and Maria think this:

View attachment 144336

...is somehow more artistically composed than THIS!

View attachment 144337

The horizon line is all wrong on the open matte. I swear to god. And this is a film that features a lot of horizon line shots.

Maybe because our focus should be on her and not the lost horizon?

Perhaps there is more to the scene than the single frame selected above.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Oh noes. Katherine Hepburn stretched her arm slightly past the 1.66:1 safe area...

...for literally half a second.

 

[Robert Harris]

View attachment 144948

Oh noes. Katherine Hepburn stretched her arm slightly past the 1.66:1 safe area...

View attachment 144954


...for literally half a second.

Katharine

 

[uncledougie]

Thank you, that’s a pet peeve of mine when people misspell her first name - was one of hers, too. It happened during the credits of State of the Union I recall (per IMDb current credits are replacement for original ones, attached to prints after MGM distribution rights expired).

 

[John Skoda]

Understood. What I meant was if the credits were windowboxed into a wider image like the opening of The Girl Can’t Help It. But such a print looks like doesn’t exist so I still don’t understand why the opening credits of Summertime would be shot matted in that way when you can barely read them or appreciate the full artwork as drawn.

I have to think even many people who saw this in theaters in 1955 saw some of the credits lopped off the screen, right?

 

[Lord Dalek]

I have to think even many people who saw this in theaters in 1955 saw some of the credits lopped off the screen, right?

If UA really did insist on 1.85:1, it seems likely

 

[Will Krupp]

I have to think even many people who saw this in theaters in 1955 saw some of the credits lopped off the screen, right?

I can't imagine that would be the case.

If UA really did insist on 1.85:1, it seems likely

You're assuming that we're seeing the full aperture in the current "full frame" (sic) transfer and that the area we're seeing today is the same exact area used to matte to 1.85 during its theatrical release. I'm in no way convinced of that.

 

[haineshisway]

I can't imagine that would be the case.



You're assuming that we're seeing the full aperture in the current "full frame" (sic) transfer and that the area we're seeing today is the same exact area used to matte to 1.85 during its theatrical release. I'm in no way convinced of that.

And I would agree. Also, never a good idea to post one frame from a movie as if that proved anything when there's action in the frame.

 

[RobertMG]

is the actor that played the boy that befriends hepburn still alive maybe someone should ask him his memories on seeing the film

 

[uncledougie]

is the actor that played the boy that befriends hepburn still alive maybe someone should ask him his memories on seeing the film

A little research shows the boy to be Gaetano Autiero (b. 1941), whose last listed appearance was in 1956 in I Girovaghi (English title The Wanderers) starring Peter Ustinov. Buona fortuna tracking him down. But I’m certain his recollections would be fascinating.

 

[Lord Dalek]

You're assuming that we're seeing the full aperture in the current "full frame" (sic) transfer and that the area we're seeing today is the same exact area used to matte to 1.85 during its theatrical release. I'm in no way convinced of that.

In 1954, they would have been exposing 4-perf for open matte, not five like most post-1980s ones. If the Criterion is "inaccurate", it would be that their scan is showing less on the width than the height.

And that missing information would never have been visible in the first place.