Warner's Kiss Me Kate Mis-Framed (2 Viewers)

[PatrickL]

I'm very interested in how this turns out.

I don't own the LD and had only seen the movie once before, but I watched Kiss Me Kate tonight (which I found very entertaining, btw) before seeing this thread and thought the framing often looked very tight. For all I know it could be correct, but I did wonder if there was an issue.

It would be very helpful if someone who has both the LD and the dvd could do side-by-side screencaps.

--

Edited, to add that DVD Savant has a review up of the disc. It says the dvd transfer is "way over-cropped" compared to the laser and speculates that the film may have been composed for 1.66:1.

Dvd Savant: Kiss Me Kate

 

[Joe Caps]

Several years ago, I met Howark Keel and Kathryn Grayson and they too said that the filmhad been shot twice. But what do they know? Hell, Grayson, Keel and Miler are only IN the damn film. And comparing the widescreen ld to the DVD, you can easily see that there is stuff missing all over the place on the new DVD.

 

[DeeF]

This is fascinating!

I wonder what the answer is to the filmed-once-or-twice question. Is it possible that some of the movie was filmed twice, to cover the 3-D scenes more fully? And some of the more mundane scenes simply done once, and then the movie put together in post-production in two different ways?

There are moments in the current DVD (which I love) that seem oddly different than I remember, little subtleties in the performances. I could be completely crazy.

The DVD does seem to be cropped on the left -- probably it was originally matted wider, more like 1.66:1.

 

[Steve Phillips]

No, the film was not shot twice.

These films were shot with dual camera rigs; one shot the "left" eyes image and the other the "right".

They were exhibited with 2 interlocked projectors, with 2 complete prints needed for each theatre.

For flat bookings, the studio could simply split these up and the theatre would project them normally.

It wasn't necessary to shoot the films both flat and in 3-D.

I can see how the actors might have been confused. They might have thought that one of the cameras was the 2-D and the other the 3-D one.

Also, it is likely that they experimented with various camera set ups, and may have run through some of the musical sequences various ways. They may have shot it once with 3-D gimmicks and one without, so that they could decide later which one they liked best. Shooting alternate takes here and there is nothing new; but it doesn't mean the entire film was shot twice. Besides being unneccesary, the cost would have been prohibitive!

A similar "memory" was mentioned by Russell Johnson in his autobiograhy. He mentioned thinking that IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE had been shot twice, but it isn't true either.


Who can blame them? It was over 50 years ago, and they weren't cinematographers!

After all, two cameras were running, and 2 strips of film were being exposed, so maybe that's why they think the film was "shot twice".

The OAR on all the old 3-D movies in 1:37 to 1. Many of these were cropped in some theatres, but they look best without it. Some of them have gimmicks shots which were ruined by the cropping by all reports. Some of the later ones were probably shot with the knowledge that cropping might occur as widescreen mania was taking hold, and wouldn't suffer as much.

If you look at old metro newspaper ads of the time, you can see that many of these were advertised as widescreen in some theatres, but not in others in the same city.

When these get revived, they tend to be in 1:37 to 1. That's because they look best that way.

As for KISS ME KATE; I think some recent 3-D revivals have indeed been at a wider ratio. Is it possible that MGM might have steered away from traditional 3-D shooting here; and either through hard matting or some other technique used a wider ratio when shooting? Or are these prints simply cropped as with most of the other 3-D films?
I think it looks fine in 1:37 to 1 myself, but it is worth looking into.

 

[Peter Kline]

If the film was shot twice I'd expect the flat 2-D version to have been photographed without everything being in focus( a necessary parameter for 3-D films). All versions I've seen have the deep focus aspect to them. As Steve says, it wouldn't have made sense (cents) to film KMK in 3D and Flat. All the material on MGM that I have read has never indicated the film was shot twice (i.e. Brigadoon, 7 Brides.) My thoughts.

 

[SteveP]

When I last saw KISS ME KATE in 3-D two years ago at the Film Forum in New York City, it was framed at 1.37:1.

Doing a side by side comparision with the letterboxed LD yesterday, the LD did seem to have more side information, although the color on the DVD seems more saturated and true.

 

[Greg_M]

Quote: "Doing a side by side comparision with the letterboxed LD yesterday, the LD did seem to have more side information, although the color on the DVD seems more saturated and true. "

So, this is an acceptable case of mild Pan and Scan?

 

[Randy A Salas]

DVDLaser.com has an archived review of the letterboxed laserdisc (which replaced a full-screen LD) that says:

"True, the new version is letterboxed, with an aspect ratio of about 1.8:1, but the letterboxing adds just a smidgen to the side and lops plenty off the top and bottom in exchange."

This seems like a much different characterization than what is being posted here. Then again, he was comparing the picture gained/lost with the previous LD, which might not have the same framing as the DVD.

 

[Randy A Salas]

OK, here's what should be the final word on the framing issue with Kiss Me Kate. I solicited it for publication Tuesday (4/29/03) in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but have decided to post it verbatim here:

From Ned Price, Vice President of Technical Operations at Warner Home Video:

Regarding KISS ME KATE's new video transfer:

KISS ME KATE was photographed using two separate 35mm cameras to create the 3-D image, each using a 1.37:1 aspect ratio. Unlike films such as SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROS. or OKLAHOMA! which were shot separately in two completely different film formats, KISS ME KATE was photographed only once.

The two original camera negatives on KISS ME KATE (known as the "Right Eye" and "Left Eye") each contain more picture information than was used in the final, projected theatrical image. Earlier video transfers exposed more picture area than was intended for theatrical release. The new Warner Bros. video master faithfully reproduces the original aspect ratio, intended for exhibition when released to theaters in 1953.

 

[Greg_M]

Quote: DVDLaser.com has an archived review of the letterboxed laserdisc (which replaced a full-screen LD) that says:

"True, the new version is letterboxed, with an aspect ratio of about 1.8:1, but the letterboxing adds just a smidgen to the side and lops plenty off the top and bottom in exchange."


I've A/B the old Pan and Scan LD with the new DVD and there is more information of the sides, top and bottom than the DVD. It's hard to believe that much information should be missing. The film was shot to be matted for some theaters.
But I find it hard to believe the film was composed to be this tight. Me thinks Warners is just covering up :b

 

[Peter Kline]

Oh, the horror of it all!

 

[Conrad_SSS]

Amen, Peter....

Some Monday morning quarterbacks just can't admit when they're wrong

 

[Rain]

Can someone please post some screenshots from the DVD or something.

I've seen many instances of people claiming "tight framing," when it simply has not been the case.

So let's have a look and decide for ourselves.

 

[Thomas T]

The Robe, the film that ushered in the "wide screen" era opened in September 1953. Kiss Me Kate opened in November 1953, just two months later, making it extremely unlikely that it was ever intended to be seen wide screen since the filming of Kiss Me Kate was over by the time of The Robe's opening and the studios were all waiting to see how The Robe did before jumping into the "wide screen" business.

Logically, any wide screen showings of Kiss Me Kate were of the fake Shane (also 1953 and never intended for wide screen) variety where the mats where slapped onto the correct 1.37 full frame aspect ratio to give it a "wide screen" look.

 

[GregK]

Can someone please post some screenshots from the DVD or something.

I'll second that. I don't want to purchase Kate if it's overly cropped. If it is, WB certainly would never admit it. (Ben Hur anyone?) Can someone post a pic of the static opening title card after the credit 'fly-in' is completed?

 

[Peter Kline]

The Robe, the film that ushered in the "wide screen" era opened in September 1953

Noooooooooooo! The film on the poster below started it all in September of 1952 (and high fidelity 7 channel magnetic stereophonic sound - if you don't count Fantasia, which was rather primitive in that respect)

 

[Patrick McCart]

Still, it wasn't until the time around The Robe that films started to be faked into widescreen or filmed in widescreen (other than This Is Cinerama)

 

[Peter Kline]

The Robe and those "faked" widescreen films were the direct result of Cinerama. Cinemascope was an old process, sitting on the shelf at 20th Fox (invented by a Frenchman who still owed the patents). It was rushed into release because of Cinerama. Hollwyood had turned down Cinerama in the late 40s. Fred Waller who invented America -- oops Cinerama, was forced to go outside the system to get the process into a theatre. The fact is that Hollywood was content with the Academy ratio, mostly black and white films and optical sound. They were forced kicking and screaming into updating film technology.

 

[Thomas T]

With all due respect, Mr. Kline, it was the massive success of The Robe that ushered in the wide screen era as we know it today. This Is Cinerama was more of a "novelty" and it was a good ten years before a narrative dramatic film was shot in the Cinerama process before the process faded away.

From an artistic standpoint, Cinemascope was more viable as a format, both from a dramatic narrative standpoint and composition wise in the visual sense. Films as varied as How To Marry A Millionaire, East Of Eden, Brigadoon and Rebel Without A Cause made excellent use of the Cinemascope frame. It's unlikely they would have been improved dramatically or visually if shot in the Cinerama process.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I got some information from the 3D Archives about the theatrical release of Kiss Me Kate.

From Box Office magazine of May, 1953: (parapharasing) It was filmed with MGM's own 3D camera rig at a negative aspect ratio of 1.37; however, it would be available for playdates in 3D at full Academy ratio and could be matted for 2D "flat" playdates at any of *three* aspect ratios - 1.66, 1.75, or 1.85. So, the negative would be fully exposed and the theatres would soft-matte it to whichever ratio they preferred. So, if the reports are accurate, it appears that the DVD might be zoomed-in from its original full-frame and clipping off bits of the sides and top & bottom.

and

Here's a direct quote from George Sidney, the director: "My cameraman, Charlie Rosher, and I had to compose every shot three different ways at the same time. What would be good for one width would not be good for another. It was tricky, but we got around it by building more tops on sets, more floor and more sets in forced perspective to enhance the depth. The wider the screen, you see, the narrower; we had to compensate for those cut-off tops and bottoms. Same with the lighting: we used many more side lights than usual to relieve and bring out persons and objects at different distances from the camera. Even if you see 'Kate' flat, you'll notice that it seems to have more depth than the ordinary movie." - Interview from the L.A. Times, November 8, 1953

And, yes, Kiss Me Kate was only filmed once, the actors who say otherwise are mis-remembering the shooting. Remember, KMK was shot in only 35 days and there would not have been time (or reason) to shoot each scene twice.