-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong
But then, classic academy ratio images (and most 20th century TV programs and even very many current ones) would suffer the extreme in the other direction though.
While some might half-kiddingly argue that most of the affected TV programs are junk anyway,  still, they're trying to sell HD to the masses, not just to enthusiasts and cinephiles. Besides, what will all us OAR fanatics  be wailing and lamenting about our friends, families and neighbors even as the CE companies try to push superduper stretch-and-zoom modes for 2:1 ratio viewing? 
_Man_ |
The aspect ratio of HDTV actually had more to do with the fact that at the time the choice was made, manufactures of TVs didn't think that they could make a glass picture tube any wider than 16x9, and not have a high percentage of broken TVs in shipping. Of course this was about 10 years or so before the advent of the flat screen TV.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Simon Howson
There were fast stocks in 1987. I don't know what stock Storaro's 1987 films were shot on, but Kodak 5295 and 5297 were introduced in 1986 which were 400 and 250 speed respectively.
This really just cancels out anyway. There will be less depth of field with anamorphic, so you have to stop down the lens (or add more light) to increase depth of field. For Super 35 you get relatively more depth of field, so you can open the lens to improve exposure, then pull that back in the lab to avoid an excessively grainy image.
Top gun was made in 1986, and shown on 70mm prints. So Super 35 -> 70mm was being done by then. I can't think of an earlier example.
|
Yes there were fast film stocks in 1986 and 87, and they had golf ball sized grain before the introduction of t-grain films in 1988. All you have to do is look at Aliens to see the results of very fast film stock before t-grain.
Both Silverado (1985 and also had a 70mm blow up) and Top Gun used a process called "silvering" to try and reduce the visible grain with only moderate success. T-grain films are what really allowed Super 35 to catch on and be a viable format.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Neski
So much is made of storrao composing the film for this or that,If I were a Director,I would design the frame,and pick the camera angels ,
the cameraman should take care of the lights,and camera movement
How else could a Visual master like Berttolucci work,I can't belive he
just said "storraro you design the frame" Watch the BBC South Banks
show,Bertollucci says something like"Storaro takes care of the light
,he paints with light,I take care of everything else."
|
Most directors are not that technical and leave those things up to the DP after a general agreement on the camera angle. Of course some like Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg are more hands on.
In reality however it's Storaro's camera operator who ultimately decides what the final composition is going to be.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Zimmer
Storaro has an axe to grind, and I'm not sure that his stated opinions should count for anything, frankly. Ordinarily, fine, the director of photography knows what he's doing, but Storaro obviously has an agenda that has nothing to do with the proper presentations of movies on home theatre. So his credibility is zero.
And what's with the totally desaturated color on the screenshots on DVD Beaver for the Criterion disc? I remember this being a very colorful film, and this looks like it's virtually black and white.
A disaster from the word go, I'm afraid.
|
Storaro is one of the greatest visual artists in the history of cinema. His credibility is vastly more than zero.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Doug,
we all understand what you're saying.
However, it's not arrogance for a film enthusiast to want to be able to see the same framing that he saw projected in the theater... since obviously the director had approved that aspect ratio for public release. If 2.35:1 was not the proper aspect ratio for this film to be projected wide-angle for it's debut, then why wasn't it cropped to 2.0 at that time as well? Or did somehow the proper aspect ratio for this film just enigmatically change from 2.35 to 2.00 over the past 20 years?
Just like the Kubrik issue of open-matte for "home video", there is always a bit of suspician around re-framed films when directors start to say things like "loss of resolution on small TVs" and what-not. Many of these folks aren't tech-saavy and don't even realize that we're not watching their films on 27" NTSC 4x3 television monitors.
Hopefully HD media will make these matter moot, and we can view the *theatrical* presentation as the director had approved for large-screen display during his/her film's debut.
|
Yes but maybe the director feels that the theatrical aspect ratio isn't appropriate for home viewing no matter what the size or aspect ratio of the screen.
Honestly as a filmmaker myself, I have in the past prepared several version of work that I have done. Each version is just as valid as the others. For someone else to come to me and say "I like this version best" is fine, but to say "this is the only correct version" is rather presumptuous.
I personally wouldn't make a film with shaky cam shots like those used in The Bourne Ultimatum, but it's Paul Greengrass's film not mine and who am I to question his judgment.
As a society we seem to have developed a very strong sense of entitlement.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Just like Lucas was subconciously composing a trilogy for JarJar for many years before he realized it. |
Well like Jar Jar or not it was his choice to go that direction and I think a daring choice to try that kind of broad humor to see if it would work. I think even he was unhappy with the result or he would have pushed him more into the next two films.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: October 2001
- Location: Rensselaer, NY
- Post Count: 17,543
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Storaro is one of the greatest visual artists in the history of cinema. His credibility is vastly more than zero.
|
Which is why I have such trouble with this debate. But, to me, he seems to be losing credibility with some of his decisions with regard to bringing his work to the home screen..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Honestly as a filmmaker myself, I have in the past prepared several version of work that I have done. Each version is just as valid as the others. For someone else to come to me and say "I like this version best" is fine, but to say "this is the only correct version" is rather presumptuous.
|
But this would seem to be an unusual phenomena in the history of film. Maybe only recently (due to the advent of home video--especially DVD) have directors started to consider "extended editions" or "Director's Cuts" as counterpoints to the theatrical release.
But I think you would have a hard time arguing, Doug, that Storaro had prepared a 2:1 version of TLE in 1987.
So, to extend that thought, I guess the argument here is that I do feel a certain sense of "entitlement" to the original work. Or, at least, a certainty that that's the version I want to be able to see.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Yes but maybe the director feels that the theatrical aspect ratio isn't appropriate for home viewing no matter what the size or aspect ratio of the screen.
|
And that would be one of those decisions that would, in my mind, make me wonder about the credibility of the director or DP.
There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself. Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Doug,
just how many posts in a row does a guy need to make?
That would be due to his lack understanding regarding how home-cinema has evolved in the age of high-definition given the state of high-resolution wide-angle projection systems that not only provide the same viewing-angle as the theater, but also provide (arguably) the same image fidelity.
The very goal of "home theater" is to recreate, in the home, the reproduciton of sound and sight that approach or exceed what was presented in the theater. The very idea is that the director shouldn't have to have a secondary medium to worry about or compose for... unlike the days when directors needed to care about "dual use" to compose for zoom-ins and Pan-Scan for small screens. |
Sorry I just found this thread and was catching up on about 2 weeks of conversation.
According to Storaro he is taking into account HDTV as well as SD. Apparently he doesn't agree with the stated goals of home theater aficionados. Frankly I would rather have TLE and AN framed at 2.35:1 also, but thats not my choice and not my place to question the people who made the film in the first place if they want it that way.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
Which is why I have such trouble with this debate. But, to me, he seems to be losing credibility with some of his decisions with regard to bringing his work to the home screen..
But this would seem to be an unusual phenomena in the history of film. Maybe only recently (due to the advent of home video--especially DVD) have directors started to consider "extended editions" or "Director's Cuts" as counterpoints to the theatrical release.
But I think you would have a hard time arguing, Doug, that Storaro had prepared a 2:1 version of TLE in 1987.
So, to extend that thought, I guess the argument here is that I do feel a certain sense of "entitlement" to the original work. Or, at least, a certainty that that's the version I want to be able to see.
And that would be one of those decisions that would, in my mind, make me wonder about the credibility of the director or DP.
|
Artists have been changing their works for thousands of hears. The old masters would frequently go back and paint over a supposedly finished painting because the had a new or different idea.
In the days of 70mm road show films, the 35mm general release was almost always a different cut, and different framing from the 70mm version. This is nothing new at all.
Frankly Storaro has forgotten more about film than you and I will probably ever know. If the man thinks 2.1 is the right way to go for home display, I'm not going to question it. It's kind of like a guy with a Kodak brownie camera questioning the artistic choices of Ansel Adams.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: October 2001
- Location: Rensselaer, NY
- Post Count: 17,543
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
It's entirely one thing for a creative artist to take advantage of a second opportunity to revisit their work and present the uncompromised edition that they had always wished to deliver due to financial, political, or practical restructions during the initial editing/filming process.
It's entirely another thing for a creative artist to say "huh, I made it the way I wanted it, but now after 20 years, I suddenly changed my mind"
We can all think of examples that fall into each category. And we pretty much know that we support the first category, but view the second as revisionist.
|
David: That
was my point. I have heard many a tale of directors (and I think Jackson with the LotR trilogy is the high-profile example) who say maybe they'll release a different version now for home audiences--alongside the theatrical release. That's one thing to do while you are planning out the project...something different a long time after the fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Frankly I would rather have TLE and AN framed at 2.35:1 also, but thats not my choice and not my place to question the people who made the film in the first place if they want it that way.
|
I am beginning to think that this situation shows that maybe the people who created the original production are not the most-qualified to bring the material into the home. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but possibly they should stick to creating masterpieces for the screen and let others worry about how to adopt it to home use. This is probably a heretical statement to make.
There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself. Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!
- Joined: October 2001
- Location: Rensselaer, NY
- Post Count: 17,543
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
In the days of 70mm road show films, the 35mm general release was almost always a different cut, and different framing from the 70mm version. This is nothing new at all.
|
Of course, there will always be the exception to the rule. But I think the
rule was one final product per project. And in the case of roadshow pictures, it would be best to have both versions available for the sake of history and the enjoyment of the public.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Frankly Storaro has forgotten more about film than you and I will probably ever know. If the man thinks 2.1 is the right way to go for home display, I'm not going to question it. It's kind of like a guy with a Kodak brownie camera questioning the artistic choices of Ansel Adams.
|
I can't disagree with that at all. It is that VERY sentiment which makes me hesitate to even take part in this debate. But I don't mind asking questions when I don't know the answers or don't agree with an artistic decision and want to understand it.
There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself. Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
I am beginning to think that this situation shows that maybe the people who created the original production are not the most-qualified to bring the material into the home. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but possibly they should stick to creating masterpieces for the screen and let others worry about how to adopt it to home use. This is probably a heretical statement to make.
|
In my opinion they are the ONLY ones truly qualified to bring the material to home video.
You know honestly in the film industry there isn't this slavish attention focused on the kinds of things that people who visit this kind of forum look at. The DP isn't out measuring the frame dimensions to make sure they aren't off by a quarter of an inch. I don't think most directors would notice if their film was being projected at 2.35:1 or 2.2:1. I know that 90% of directors don't know the difference between lossy or lossless or would even care if it was explained to them. This is a level of minutia that most filmmakers are just not interested in.
Every film is a compromise. Everyday on the set you make thousands of compromises just to get the over all thing you are looking for.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
Of course, there will always be the exception to the rule. But I think the rule was one final product per project. And in the case of roadshow pictures, it would be best to have both versions available for the sake of history and the enjoyment of the public.
I can't disagree with that at all. It is that VERY sentiment which makes me hesitate to even take part in this debate. But I don't mind asking questions when I don't know the answers or don't agree with an artistic decision and want to understand it.
|
I don't mind asking questions either, but Storaro has given his answer, and while I don't agree with him I respect his obviously long thought over choices.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Neski
The Problem with this type of changing ,is that you can't move actors and sets around
in the frame 20 years after the fact,The transfer while very nice has plenty
of scenes where actors are cropped out of the picture,Why do people think
this dosn't matter,Sure a lot of shots can be cropped ,but some just can't be.
Just like someone thinking he can take any old compsition with a digital camera,thinking he could crop it when he gets it on the computer,
This just dosn't work most of the time.You have to have the right angle
and copostion before you can start cropping.
|
Well like I said I don't agree with Storaro's choices, but they are his choices to make and I fully support his right to make them.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: October 2001
- Location: Rensselaer, NY
- Post Count: 17,543
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
You know honestly in the film industry there isn't this slavish attention focused on the kinds of things that people who visit this kind of forum look at. The DP isn't out measuring the frame dimensions to make sure they aren't off by a quarter of an inch. I don't think most directors would notice if their film was being projected at 2.35:1 or 2.2:1. I know that 90% of directors don't know the difference between lossy or lossless or would even care if it was explained to them. This is a level of minutia that most filmmakers are just not interested in.
|
I wouldn't notice those things either. I'm not the pickiest HT guy here, for certain. But 2.35:1 cropped to 2:1
seems like a pretty sizeable difference--based on the screen caps I've seen.
I've already admitted that I will likely pick this release up and might not notice much of an actual difference as I watch it. But I am also worried that I might. I was so stricken with the images when I first watched TLE that I hesitate to wonder if the impact of the film will change for me as the images are changed.
I don't know yet, though, as I haven't seen it.
There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself. Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
I wouldn't notice those things either. I'm not the pickiest HT guy here, for certain. But 2.35:1 cropped to 2:1 seems like a pretty sizeable difference--based on the screen caps I've seen.
I've already admitted that I will likely pick this release up and might not notice much of an actual difference as I watch it. But I am also worried that I might. I was so stricken with the images when I first watched TLE that I hesitate to wonder if the impact of the film will change for me as the images are changed.
I don't know yet, though, as I haven't seen it.
|
I generally notice the aspect ratio on the company logos, after that if I'm paying attention to the ratio then the movie really isn't very interesting.
Granted if there is truly missing information or very awkward compositions, then it might pull me out. But for the most part I'm into the story and not watching the framing or anything else technical about the film. At least on the first viewing. Even after that when I'm really TRYING to study a film I find myself getting caught up in the story.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: July 2003
- Location: Lacombe, AB
- Post Count: 2,550
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
I am beginning to think that this situation shows that maybe the people who created the original production are not the most-qualified to bring the material into the home. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but possibly they should stick to creating masterpieces for the screen and let others worry about how to adopt it to home use. This is probably a heretical statement to make.
|
HERETIC! HERETIC! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!
I think a lot of this stems from our belief that we may be "missing" something if the full ratio isn't shown. There may be many scenes that back up this belief, but probably more that do not. It is, ironically, the same argument used by MAR advocates when discussing Super 35. We can talk all we want about intention and the like, but the essential elements of the two arguments are exactly the same.
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
- Joined: July 2003
- Location: Lacombe, AB
- Post Count: 2,550
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
And if the DP is telling us his intended ratio is 2:1 rather than 2.35:1 (which is what Storaro is claiming in the case of TLE), what's the correct answer?
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
that's not the crux of the argument for OAR.
The arguement for OAR is based on what the proper and intended aspect ratio was for the film during its original theatrical release.
That's what we want, and why we want it. Whether more or less image content is acheived by following that rule is a secondary issue. The fact that OAR advocates want their 1.85:1 flat films in 1.85:1 on home-video rather than open-matte (despite the added picture in 1.33:1) demonstrates this point.
|
Actually watching a 1.85:1 open matte film at 1.33:1 really doesn't bother me that much, as long as there aren't mics and lights in the shot.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: October 2001
- Location: Rensselaer, NY
- Post Count: 17,543
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
And if the DP is telling us his intended ratio is 2:1 rather than 2.35:1 (which is what Storaro is claiming in the case of TLE), what's the correct answer?
|
That's what makes this case so disappointing. None of the alternatives are feasible/practical.
Storaro says he won't do a 2.35:1 release for the home audience.
You can't have a dual release (in both 2:1 and 2.35:1) because that would be cost-prohibitive. (Besides the fact he says he won't do a 2.35:1.)
Yet it seems....doubtful...that he & Bertolucci would have released the film 2.35:1 in 1987 if that was not his/their "vision" at the time. This is where my disconnect with Storaro's version comes in.
And, even if 2:1
WAS their collective vision and whatever-outside-powers combined to "foce" them into a 2.35:1 release...as Robert Harris pointed out awhile back...we still don't have a good release of the film which was awarded the Oscar for Best Cinematography in 1987. And
that is a shame.
We're stuck...which is why I'll probably get this long-awaited release...and it will be bittersweet.
There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself. Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!
- Joined: October 2001
- Location: Rensselaer, NY
- Post Count: 17,543
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
If 2.00:1 is the correct aspect ratio for the film, why wasn't it projected as such? Why did the creative team chose to have release prints at 2.35:1, only to have someone change it for home-video 20 years later?
Even Blair Witch managed to keep a 1.33:1 aspect ratio in theatrical projection to maintain the intended, non-standard theatrical aspect ratio. Has 2.00:1 been what the creative team wanted, there would have been no difficulty in doing so.
|
This is one of the questions I have Dave. Especially since the "creative team" is none other than the great Bertolucci and the great Storaro. Who would ever have denied them?
There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself. Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Doug,
you're clearly not an OAR advocate.
And your latest comments make it clear why there's such a difference in perspective in discussing these issues in this thread. Most of us are coming from a very strong position of advocating for OAR.
How was it projected in the theater when it was released? If 2.00:1 is the correct aspect ratio for the film, why wasn't it projected as such? Why did the creative team chose to have release prints at 2.35:1, only to have someone change it for home-video 20 years later?
Even Blair Witch managed to keep a 1.33:1 aspect ratio in theatrical projection to maintain the intended, non-standard theatrical aspect ratio. Has 2.00:1 been what the creative team wanted, there would have been no difficulty in doing so. |
Actually I'm very much an OAR advocate. Your talking to the guy who got permition to go into a projection booth with a video camera in 1982 so I could get my own letterboxed copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark. But there is a point of taking it too far. If information is missing then I have a BIG problem. In the case of open matte, no information is missing and framing was done with open matte in mind then there is no problem. Is it preferable....no....but not something that I'll jump up and down about.
I very much insist that my own work be presented in its OAR. But I am the one that decides what that ratio is. In that case I'm god and I have the final say on what is correct. If I change my mind later that is my choice and tough luck if someone else doesn't like it.
In the case of TLE the appears that the intent is for a 2.35:1 presentation in the theater, and a 2.00:1 for home presentation. So the point is both are correct. This is the intent of the director of photography and approved by the director. Just as the intent in Ben-Hur was to have a 2.76:1 aspect for the 70mm release and a 2.55:1 ratio for the 35mm release. Again both are correct.
If the filmmakers are dead, unless there is something left in the will that states otherwise, I would say that the original theatrical aspect ratio is the only way to show what the filmmakers intended.
The problem David is that you want absolutes, and this is art, there are no absolutes in art.
Doug
Edit: After thinking about it some, I guess you could say David that you are right. I'm not an OAR advocate, I'm an artist's advocate. As far as I'm concerned what the artist says goes. If the artist says we should be watching it at 2.00:1 then thats what we should be watching it at.
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: August 2001
- Location: New York City Area
- Post Count: 3,476
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
If information is missing then I have a BIG problem. In the case of open matte, no information is missing and framing was done with open matte in mind then there is no problem. Is it preferable....no....but not something that I'll jump up and down about.
|
But Doug, information is indeed missing -- and even RAH has weighed in w/ additional thoughts that this new version of TLE is not the one that won the cinematography Oscar for 1987. See my post #160, which incidentally is one of a small handful that you did not comment on:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3324046
Quote:
| Edit: After thinking about it some, I guess you could say David that you are right. I'm not an OAR advocate, I'm an artist's advocate. As far as I'm concerned what the artist says goes. If the artist says we should be watching it at 2.00:1 then thats what we should be watching it at. |
Actually, I would consider myself an artist advocate also. However, when I go plunk down $40+ on a definitive DVD set for a great movie like TLE, I don't see why I should settle for something that looks to be an inferior version of the original just because the artist says so despite the fact that he might be doing this w/ an agenda/motive beyond artistic reasons. So far, I haven't seen anything that suggests that this move to crop down to 2.0:1 is for artistic reasons. And if his reasons for doing so is not artistic at all, then should he still be consider an "artist" in the process of making the transfer?
When we start splitting hairs and get philosophical about being OAR vs artist advocacy, I think we should then also consider carefully what that really means, including if/when someone should no longer be considered "artist" in certain capacities doing certain kinds of things.
That's IMHO of course...
_Man_
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,814
Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong
But Doug, information is indeed missing -- and even RAH has weighed in w/ additional thoughts that this new version of TLE is not the one that won the cinematography Oscar for 1987. See my post #160, which incidentally is one of a small handful that you did not comment on: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3324046
Actually, I would consider myself an artist advocate also. However, when I go plunk down $40+ on a definitive DVD set for a great movie like TLE, I don't see why I should settle for something that looks to be an inferior version of the original just because the artist says so despite the fact that he might be doing this w/ an agenda/motive beyond artistic reasons. So far, I haven't seen anything that suggests that this move to crop down to 2.0:1 is for artistic reasons. And if his reasons for doing so is not artistic at all, then should he still be consider an "artist" in the process of making the transfer?
When we start splitting hairs and get philosophical about being OAR vs artist advocacy, I think we should then also consider carefully what that really means, including if/when someone should no longer be considered "artist" in certain capacities doing certain kinds of things.
That's IMHO of course...
_Man_ |
Well the truth of the matter is I agree with you and I wouldn't crop a film of my own like that. And honestly I'm not sure I would want to watch it that way. But I can't really argue with the people who created the film if they say thats the way it should be seen.
With missing information I was actually talking about watching an open matte 1.85:1 film at 1.33:1.
As to the question of Vittorio Storaro being an artist or not, I think he along with the likes of Gordon Willis, Conrad Hall, Vilmos Zsigmond, Gregg Toland, James Wong Howe, and John Alton are some of the few people in the film industry who have earned the right to be called an artist.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
