Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I think it is absurd to say that a film's director is responsible for every single creative choice made on a film. That is an extremist application of the auteur theory that bares little relation to how films are actually made. Even if a director thinks he is controlling every aspect of a production, it is likely they are actually guided by pre-existing industrial conventions, and the technical capabilities of the tools being used. You can't do absolutely ANYTHING on a film, because certain things are proscribed by when and where the film is being made.

At any rate, you state that the film's DIRECTOR should make all the choices, if that is the case, why do you accept that the film's cinematographer chose to reframe the film to 2:1, and not the director?
Well, it obviously wasn't. Because The Last Supper has a 1.91:1 aspect ratio, which is closer to 1.85:1 than 2.00:1.

Moreover, I don't buy the proposition that filmmakers primarily rely on subconscious decision making. I think filmmakers sometimes THINK in retrospect that they did something for unconscious reasons, but it is more likely that they were actually applying pre-existing stylistic norms. To put it another way, they don't have some mythical intuition guiding their hand, they are applying skills learned by watching and making other films.
LOL! This is a good demonstration that if revisionism is acceptable, then it can be used to justify almost anything. We no longer have the film itself existing as a single artifact. We no longer have "the 1987 Academy Award winning film for best cinematography", instead we have something subject to change based on the illconsidered whims of a filmmaker. So if some directors aren't hands on, why should we trust them unstintingly when they choose to change 'their' films? Well this would be silly, hopefully such filmmakers are ignored! I can't think of an artist who finishes a painting, then a few years after the fact cuts the sides off the canvas.
This isn't the same because when Storaro was shooting the film he would've had the 35mm anamorphic, and 70mm safe areas marked on the hour glass. So he knew in advanced what would appear in either format. In my opinion it looks like he was going by the 2.21:1 70mm marking. You are making the mistake of assuming that EVERYTHING a filmmaker says makes sense. You are being far too extreme, instead of considering other factors. For example, Storaro has repeatedly said that he thinks different colours have direct emotional affects, and unitary symbolic meanings. This is an absurd proposition that is not accepted by any branch of psychology. Do you think that the colour RED means the SAME THING in every single film ever made, simply because that is what Storaro thinks?

Should we still consider Storaro's opinion as true, even though it has no basis in fact? I think not. Well, Storaro doesn't think 2:1 the right way to go. He thinks 1.91:1 is the right way to go, but for some bizare reason he doesn't use that ratio! That's how ridiculously absurd this whole situation is.
This is absurd! Are you honestly saying that a film by a long deceased filmmaker can never be properly presented on home video? I concede that in times go past limitations in technology could render some very wacky versions of films on home video. But these days professionals who do conversions day in day out are generally able to produce very faithful representations of film on home video. You do not need the original filmmakers to be there, Criteron's Last Emperor DVD shows how bad things can go when the filmmakers are invited! Perhaps this tells us more about contemporary film making standards than anything else! This is weird, to me composition is one way films tell stories. What is on or offscreen determine some of the inferential moves audiences make when figuring out what is happening. Generally films don't have particularly complicated stories, so it isn't very hard to understand the story, and make note of how the film is constructed at the same time. Or to say this another way, the compositional choices made by filmmakers have effects on the audience, whether they can describe those choices and effects or not. We consider evidence for or against the proposition. In this case there is a lot of evidence against:

His inspiration for the 2:1 ratio doesn't have a 2:1 ratio
There is no codified exhibition format with a 2:1 ratio, only 2.21, 2.4:1, 1.85:1
The film was filmed in 35mm anamorphic, when Super 35 would've made more sense because they contractually had to produce a 1.33:1 version for TV.
The film was never shown theatrically at a 2:1 ratio
The film was never presented on VHS or LaserDisc with a 2:1 ratio
If the film is ever shown again theatrically, it will be shown at a 2.4:1 ratio.
It does not make sense to assume that everything a filmmaker says is true just because they are a filmmaker.
I think that it looks like Storaro was primarily composing for a 2.21:1 ratio. Which isn't surprising, because the 70mm prints would've been used for the premieres. Most 70mm Ben Hur prints were 2.21:1.
Most original 35mm Ben Hur prints were 2.5:1 Well, this is crazy. What if the filmmaker went nuts, and said all their black and white films should be shown colourised, all all their colour films should be shown in black and white? What if they said all their films should be projected upside down? Should we still agree with them, and endorse their preferences?
Of course there are SOME absolutes in art! We can talk about what technologies were used to make the film, when the film was made, who made the film. Regarding the film itself, we can describe what is on the screen and what is not, what part of the screen is brighter than another, what colours are used. Which direction the camera moves, and how fast. We can describe the staging of a scene. We can talk about things with relation to other aspects of a film. The only limitation of how precise one can be is determined by the skills of the critic, and those skills improve based on how many films one watches. If the artist says we should watch the film with everything flipped left to right should we do so? Sometimes filmmakers make DUMB propositions, or say things that are UNTRUE. I think filmmaking is the art of telling stories with moving pictures. I think all the people you mention are examples of GOOD artists who have made excellent films. But that doesn't mean someone making straight to video films isn't also a film artist. They may not be particularly good or compelling at what they do, but they are a still working in the medium - and business - of telling stories with pictures. I think "artist = good" "non-artist = bad" devalues what people do in the film medium. It leaves things too much to reputation, rather than forcing people to concentrate on the qualities of FILMS.

Sarris tries to square this circle in his his history of Hollywood. He warns critics against the simple proposition that good filmmakers make good films, and bad filmmakers make bad films. That approach to film history means we can't learn anything new.

After all, even Paul Schrader made a direct to video film called Forever Mine, which is a lot better than some films that make it to the cinema.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

The director of a film is the final arbiter of every creative choice made for a film. Some directors are lazy and let other people make those choices for them, or the simply trust their collaborators enough to let them make those choices but ultimately it is the director who says yes or no.


In this case Bernardo Bertolucci, who could hardly be called a slacker creatively, approved this transfer. As did Francis Coppola for Apocalypse Now.


Well its closer to 2.00:1 than it is to 2.35:1.


There are MANY things that influence filmmakers consciously and subconsciously. Not all of them are pre-existing. All one has to do is look at Storaro's work to realize that he is not the kind of person who thinks inside the box.


Are films set in stone? I don't know. I really don't think so. At what point does that stone set? The day of release? If thats the case then forget about directors cuts. When is a film finished? In my opinion, when the filmmaker is either bored with it or dies. Ill considered or not its the filmmakers film to play with and I don't think anyone has the right, other than maybe the people who paid for it, to tell him that his choices are wrong.


Some directors aren't as hands on because frankly they don't have the kind of technical knowledge needed to be so. But technical knowledge isn't needed for a director to say yes I like that or no I don't.


I never said that what Storaro said made sense, I simply said that as the director of photography in consultation with the director they are his choices to make. I think a lot of Storaro's ideas about color and emotion are goofy, but then most great artists have goofy theories. I think Frank Lloyd Wright was a great artist, but he was also a nut with a capital N!




No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if changes are going to be made to a film, the original filmmakers are the only ones who are qualified to do that. Yes a lab tech can do an excellent job of presenting a film on video, but no one is better qualified than the original filmmakers to look at that transfer and say "yes thats what it should look like."


Composition is, or should be for the most part, a part of the story telling that is not noticed by the audience. Not unlike editing, it shouldn't draw undue attention to its self, unless some dramatic effect is desired. This of course is just my own opinion and philosophy.


What does truth have to do with it?


Ben-Hur was shot in MGM Camera 65/Ultra Panavision 70. An anamorphic 65mm process. The 70mm roadshow prints were 2.76:1. Some roadshow houses however had to crop it at 2.5:1 because of screen limitations.



Thats a big what if.


I didn't say I liked Storaro's choices, I just said that they are his to make.


This is just my opinion but I think there are probably less than 2 dozen people in the history of cinema that I would refer to as an artist. This is not at all to take anything away from other filmmakers. For the most part I consider filmmaking to be a craft that very rarely rises to the level of art. With in those films that are not art are artist who's work sometimes rises above the film that it is in. Storaro's work in Ladyhawke comes to mind. Great artists tend to fail more often than they succeed. But that is the reason they are great artist, they dare to do something different and sometimes fall on their face in the process.

Doug

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

This says it all, I think.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Sure, but you use the term "arbiter" which implies they are making choices among varying and divergent pressures. They don't make films in a historical vacumn. Pick any two Warner Bros. films from 1941, and they will have many similarities as well as differences. Who ultimately makes the decision is less important than the effect of the decision itself, which can be noted based on the properties of the film. Sometimes the director has more influence, sometimes they have less. But they don't have total influence. Two bad decisions. I don't see how that means it makes more sense! So he uses art-cinema conventions rather than, say, Hollywood conventions. Sure I'm happy to concede that. Maybe the director has chosen NOT to be hands on, maybe that is part of their aesthetic choice. Like how Godard very rarely told Coutard how to frame a shot. Of course. Which is further evidence to not trust him when he is commenting on his own work, especially when he is arbitrarily revising it. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how good their memory is. Who wrote the rules that said composition and editing aren't allowed to be noticed by the audience? I don't agree that SOMETIMES filmmakers are looking for dramatic effects, so they do something that is more exaggerated or noticeable. Filmmakers are always trying to create EFFECTS, that help move the story along. You can't say they switch on and off between doing nothing, and doing something. Because the camera, lighting, staging, acting, set design are always organised in ways that acheive an effect of some sort.

It may be your PREFERENCE that filmmakers seek out a smooth continuous style, but that doesn't mean there are hard and fast rules about what does and what does not constitute "film", let alone a good one. I don't think film has an essence, film is a medium that is constantly being redefined by people making new and different films.

At any rate, saying that composition should generally be unnoticed, in the context of a discussion on Bertoluci and Storaro, is a bit funny. Look at the famous tilted swinging gate shot in The Conformist, or think of the famous tracking shot showing all the leaves blowing in the wind.


Moreover I can't see how this audacious framing can go unnoticed by the audience. This film s full of similar shots.


These are prime examples of of the filmmakers (be it Storaro, Bertolucci or both) raising style to a level of artifice, the approach to style is decorative - why does the camera tilt when the gate swings? Well because it CAN. These shots OBVIOUSLY aren't designed to be subliminal, because they are just too audacious. Furthermore, they are so frequent that it would be hard to argue that they are adding to the drama. Rather, they are divorced from it. In fact, if that shot isn't noticed by the audience, then they are missing part of the pleasure and effect of the film.
I'm not sure that ALL 70mm prints of Ben Hur were anamorphic. I believe that some were 2.21:1 prints, because not all cinemas with 70mm projectors had access to the ultra panavision projector lenses. Maybe they were all anamorphic in the U.S., but I don't know if that was the case internationally. I could be wrong though.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

BTW,

I contacted Criterion and sent them a link to my DVD review and asked if they could answer some of the details concerning this DVD regarding the image cropping/zooming from 2.35:1 to 2:1.

I'll report back if they respond.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

IIRC, Stanley Kubrick once said that he would never release any of his films on home video in widescreen, so there is some precedence for two different aspect ratios between the theatrical and home release. Of course now we have all of his titles in glorious widescreen and in a sense are going against the directors wishes.

I feel bad for Criterion as this puts them in an ackward poistion because what are they really to do? Should they ignore the filmmakers and release exactly what was seen in theaters? Or do they go with what they're told is the true vision of the film for home video? It's a double edged sword.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

[quote=Simon Howson]
I didn't say that the directors choices weren't influanced by the conventions of the era in which he is making his movies, or by things that came before for that matter. Of course if you watch any movie, even if it is a period film, you can almost always tell when that film was made by particular stylistic choices.

.

Of course directors have pressure put on them by studios and the people who control the money. But ultimately, by definition those choices are the director's job.



In your opinion. I happen to agree with your opinion, but its not my film, so I don't get to make that decision.



Exactly my point.


Again I don't think its a matter of trusting or not trusting, its his work to change or not to change, right or wrong.


Everything in movies is an effect. Just the fact that they move is an effect. But I happen to be a proponent of classical film making where the technical parts of the process should be as invisible as possible. That doesn't mean boring, just seamless. The screen captures you showed are great. I have composed shots like that myself. By themselves they look really dramatic, but in the context of the story they maybe almost invisible to the audience. But their effect will be there none the less.


Of course. Rules were made to be broken. But my own opinion is that they shouldn't be broken with out a good reason. Breaking the rules tends to pull the audience out of the story so you better have a good reason for doing it.


Of course but in the context of the story, most people won't know why they are excited about what they are seeing, they will just be excited.



I don't think 2.21:1 prints were made until the reissue in the 60s.

Doug

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I think our disagreement here is that I think long takes, smooth tracking shots, seamless cuts that obey principles of continuity editing CAN ELEVATE the drama. They can be "dramatic".

It seems to me that you think to increase the tempo of a film you have to cut faster, and use bizarre angles. I don't think that is necessarily the case. It is certainly one option, and an extremely common one in contemporary films, but it isn't the only way to achieve that effect. The classical continuity style is powerful for the very reason that it helps support drama. It just depends on how it is deployed, and there are numerous ways to do that. No matter what you do with the camera you will achieve an effect, you can't say that some shots have less effect than others, they all have an effect of some sort. Maybe the filmmaker screwed up and didn't achieve the desired effect, but it still achieves something.
If a person watches that sequence the starts with a tilted shot, and tilts to a level shot when the gate swings open, and they DON'T notice what has just happened, then they aren't watching the film closely enough!

Seriously, it is a very audacious shot, that is effectively stating "look at me, look at me!" It is trying to give the audience a different type of pleasure divorced from simply telling a story.
I was actually trying to explain that there ARE NO RULES! You can't break something that doesn't exist.

There are preferences, some filmmakers make some choices, other filmmakers pursue other options. But you can't say stylistically that there is a right way to make a film, and a wrong way to make a film - whatever you make, it is still a film.

Of course filmmakers are subject to the influences of pre-existing stylistic conventions. They can be considered different solutions to a range of practical problems. But again, they are just conventions which can be either used or ignored.
If people are really into films and watch a lot of them, those alternate levels of pleasure become more and more apparent, and they will be able to explain WHY a certain shot or sequence creates an additional - non-narrative - effect.

The primary function of narrative films is to tell stories, but that isn't their ONLY function. This principle seems to be an important guide for filmmakers from the 1960s and beyond.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Option 1: Insist that the film be released at a 2.21:1 ratio, preserving the 70mm release format

Option 2: Not bother releasing the film. There are thousands of other films they could've released.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

[quote=Simon Howson]
I really don't disagree with anything you've said here. There are many ways to achieve a particular dramatic effect. Kubrick's films are particularly effective when they are being static, almost removed from the action. The point about a shot having a particular effect however really depends on the shots that are around it. If they are all like that then the audience becomes numb and it loses its effectiveness. That is why I say break the rules for a good reason, because it will have a huge effect on the audience if it is surrounded by things that other wise follow the rules.


There are surely shots in films that jump out at you. Shots in Blood Simple come to mind. I'm not saying I'm apposed to that kind of thing when it's really done well, but for the most part I'm not a big fan of showing off just for showing off's sake.


Actually there are some very specific rules that if you break them the audience will become confused. For instance if you "cross the line" in a dialog scene it may suddenly look like the two actors aren't looking at each other. Jump cuts while they can be effective have to be used with great care or again people can become confused about what they are seeing. Of course sometimes you may want to confuse them.

There is a vocabulary to film that audiences understand and are comfortable with but are not conscience of. When you alter that vocabulary it may have an interesting effect, or it may just confuse or anger people.



Of course the more sophisticated the viewer the more aware he will be of the filmmakers craft, but I think that is a relatively small part of movie audiences. Jody Foster said that though she had been in the business for 35 years, she was unaware of the power of editing until she directed her first film and was actually in the editing room herself.


I wouldn't disagree with that.

Doug

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I understand what the system of continuity editing is. But continuity is just a set of conventions that came together around 1917 to help Hollywood filmmakers tell increasingly complicated stories.

However, as I said in my previous post, continuity is just one set of (very broad) conventions that can either be employed or rejected. Continuity isn't the only way to make a film, and different films will adopt different aspects of the system to varying degrees.

This is blatantly obvious because even Hollywood films in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s frequently cross the line, have poorly matched cuts, and don't keep screen direction consistent.

Or Soviet Montage films, which completely junk the idea of seamlessness, in favour of the alternate extreme of aggressive overtness and exaggeration.
Well of course. But have you considered that sometimes the effect filmmakers desire is to disrupt or confuse the audience? Again, using jump cuts isn't right or wrong, it is just an OPTION.
I would be very careful using language analogies with film. Films tell stories with pictures, it is very difficult to argue that pictures are structured like a language. Of course some theorists tried to used a bizare mixture of semiotics, psychoanalysis and Marxism to argue this case, but it all turned out to nothing. Or it may be innovation that extends what we believe the film medium to be. Sure, but just because some people in the audience aren't aware, or can't explain, the range of ways a film is shaping their experiences, doesn't mean the film isn't working in those ways.

The more films one watches the more they are able to detect these things operating. You just need to be able to see the similarities and differences between films, and have a knowledge of the technologies in use, and stylistic conventions in effect, in the time and place the film was made.
So in those 35 years she wasn't watching films closely enough!

I understand that it is difficult to study and learn about the construction of classical Hollywood films. I think this is because they are (generally) constructed in a very clean classical style that prioritises story telling. It is easy to get engrossed in the story, without questioning about the choices the filmmakers have made. But just because it is hard doesn't mean it is impossible! Many people get taken in too much by story, and the emotive experience of a film, and are unable to have a more critical stance to the film's properties.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

[quote=Simon Howson]
No of course its not. But it is surely the most well recognized and popular way of making a film. Almost every film made uses these conventions to some degree or another.


Sure they do. And there are many situations where you can get away with breaking the rules. Sometimes you just have to because you don't have enough coverage not too.

Yes, and while interesting I'm not a huge fan of Soviet films for the most part.


yes which is exactly what I said. Sometimes you want to confuse the audience. I never said it was wrong, I just said you have to be careful.



The first thing that happens when you goto film school is they start talking about the vocabulary of film. You hear that term every day for 4 years. And to a degree it is a very accurate term. If you had never seen a modern film before, you might have a very hard time understanding what you are seeing, because you don't know the vocabulary. This has been shown with isolated tribes that had never seen a film before. The just didn't get it at all.

And yes film isn't a dead language so to speak. The "vocabulary" is constantly growing.


It has been my experience that most people, even after years of watching movies and TV, really don't know why they are reacting the way that they are, until the mechanics of film are pointed out to them. Then they often tell me that I've ruined films for them.



Yes you can learn to see the construction of even very smooth Hollywood films, but most people never bother to look closely at why a movie is working the way it does. Like a car, they only notice it when there is a problem.

Doug

Edit: I know we have gotten pretty far a field here. I hope we haven't totally side tracked this thread!

Sorry if we have.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Whew!

c'mon guys,

Doug is not going to change his mind (I have pages and pages about debates regarding lossless audio to prove it! )

Doug has his opinion and others have theirs. Everyone has expressed themselves well... but there's no way to express yourself that's going to change the other person's point of view... so resist the urge to "right the wrong" when you see an opinion posted... because in this case it just creates page after page of the same back/forth.

Anyone want to talk about lossless audio?

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Sorry I didn't think of it so much as a debate as a friendly conversation about film theory.

Doug

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Oh yeah I'm sure lots of people at film schools use that term, but that doesn't stop it from being vague, imprecise, and at worst just plain wrong.

Films are not structured like a language. Pictures aren't words. How can 4 shots in succession be in any meaningful way called a sentence, let a lone a paragraph or a chapter?

Film schools possibly still use the term due to those bizarre applications of semiotics, Marxism and psychoanalysis that used up so much time in the 1970s. This sounds great in theory, but in practice it isn't true. Cinema was innovated because it excited the visual capacities that humans already have. Humans didn't have to learn new perceptual capabilities to make sense of films. Films were designed in a way so they made sense immediately.

The reason for this relates to the capacity of a film camera to record something that ROUGHLY approximates the way we view the real world. We can see shape, density, implied depth, and of course later colour and sound in a way that on the face of it seems to be realistic. It doesn't have to be perfect, just close enough.

I agree that later people had to learn things like transitions, scene changes etc but these are extremely easily to learn. Even young kids watching cartoons can tell when one scene ends and another begins. If you see a scene change once or twice it is basic to judge those later. I know this is considered common knowledge, but it is actually untrue! The overwhelmingly anthropological evidence suggests that films, photographs, and paintings can be very easily understood by all people. This is because there are some universal capacities that all humans posses due to biology, not cultural influence. It seems that those universal factors (the ability to judge colour, shade, depth) are more important to over all perception.

Some people may not know every single feature of a given artifact, but they can identify people, and familiar objects, i.e. those things they are familiar with in their everyday lives. You don't actually mean vocabulary or language, you mean STYLE. Sure, but just because people aren't aware of the ways a film creates effects doesn't mean the film isn't creating effects in those ways.

And obviously filmmakers should be fascinated by the ways style generates effect, because that helps them make better and more interesting films.
I thought it was quite a cordial discussion. It wasn't based on personal attacks, just evidence and examples.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

My bad. It had. After the first few dozen back/forth posts I lost track!

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. While its not exactly like word or sentence structure, there is a definite language to film. If there weren't you wouldn't be able to tell stories with no dialog.

If I take 4 shots, and cut them together in particular order and particular lengths, I'm going to tell a fairly specific story. If I change the order and lengths of those shots, I'm going to tell a different story. It maybe a similar story, but the emphasis and there for the meaning will be different. If I re order them again, it may just be giberish and won't make any sense at all.

If there were no language, you could put shots up in any order and it wouldn't matter. But the fact is the method of putting together the shots can radically change the way the viewer perceives whats going on on the screen.

Doug

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

So let's get back onto the topic for a moment, shall we?

Although there is probably nothing we can do about *this* Criterion DVD release, is there something we can do about an eventual HDM release? I know, I know. This topic is in the SD section. But it seems like at least 1/2 of us who are still interested in the topic have already made the jump to HDM. If it's not appropriate to talk about that here, is there anyway we can talk about it over in the HD section w/out losing all the discussion that's already posted so far. Afterall, much of this stuff would actually be relevant for that eventual HDM release, especially if there's good likelihood that the likely 2.0:1 cropped HD transfer made by Criterion (under Storaro's guidance) will be reused for the HDM release unless something can be done about it.

Personally, judging from Peter Neski's report on the R2 PAL version in an earlier post, I really am leaning toward just going w/ that (and save a few bucks), instead of going for the Criterion DVD. Hopefully, we can eventually have an HDM version that won't be cropped, but that's not likely to happen unless we can somehow voice are displeasure w/ that as paying customers.

RE: the question about whether "truth" matters, well, sure it does (to me anyway). If Storaro's gonna convince me that his 2.0:1 vision for TLE is the best way to go (so that I would spend my $ on it), his reasoning for making that crop needs to be more solid than simply just "I said so" under the circumstance. There are just too much here that don't jive, including exhibit A, the composition of certain scenes in the film itself, IMHO. Of course, he can do whatever he likes w/ his own work, but then, we don't necessarily have to like it or buy it though. That was the case when the film was originally released theatrically and then on home video before now, and that's gonna be the case again now w/ this cropped (re)vision in spite of being a Criterion release.

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I had forgotten to reply to this point (after trying to follow the somewhat OT chat ).

Maybe my point wasn't clear, but what I was saying was not whether Storaro can be considered an artist at all, but whether Storaro is actually being an "artist" when he made the choice and went through the process to crop these films to 2.0:1.

There *is* a difference here, IMHO. Some might think I'm splitting hairs, but I would obviously disagree.

And in fact, here is where the "truth" would help us know better whether Storaro's act to crop these films were made as an "artist of these films" vs someone who has some (later) agenda other than to do what's truly best for these films as an artist should. And if he is really not acting in the best interest of these films, then why should we support this???

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I understand your point, but I don't think it proves that film is a language.

It is possible to tell a story without dialogue because the camera is able to record complicated relationships between actors and objects in space and time. This enables the audience to draw inferences about causes and effects. It has nothing to do with film being a "language", it is more about the inherent capabilities of the camera to record things. Sure, but again, that doesn't explain how film is like a language. Language has very specific rules of syntax that enable a reader to generate a meaning. In cinema you can assemble shots in any sequence you wish and you will at least generate something. This is because we are able to make more abstract inferences when looking at images, we can find continuities between the colour, shape, depth of shots, but we can't do that with words which need to be organised in precise ways to be intelligible at the most basic level.

I write "The cat on the mat" I have successfully communicated something. If I arbitrarily change the order "cat mat on the the" I haven't created a different meaning at all, I've just created garbage.

But in films, the order of images can be screwed around with to an extremely abstract degree, but still generate powerful effects. The Soviets did this, the ordering of images often made little sense, like showing horses collapse twice or three times in a row. Godard made a film where someone leaves in such a rush that they are shown driving away in a car, before they are shown leaving the house. It would make no sense explaining that sequence in that order using words, but on the screen audiences just seek to make sense and to put things in order inside their heads.

I know it sounds counter intuitive, but some film makers especially European Art-Cinema filmmakers have shown how outrageously discontinuous a film can be, yet still render a desired meaning from the audience. For some films like The Limey the discontinuity seems to be one of the desired effects of the film - how fragmented can the film be temporarily and spatially, but still make intelligible sense?
This still isn't LANGUAGE with all the rules of syntax that go along with it. I think you are saying film is a language, or has a "vocabulary" metaphorically. What's the film equivalent of a full stop or a comma? Language, vocabulary, grammar are vague terms when the topic is moving pictures. Perhaps it is a good introduction to thinking about film, but it quickly runs out of analytical power.

We can be a lot more precise by concentrating on precise descriptions of style and form, and the inherent systems of film - editing cinematography, staging, mise-en-scene, because these are a film's fundamentals. Not language, letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, punctuation, and rules of grammar. Leave those for people who write books, films in many ways work differently, and need to be approached with different analytical tools.

There is ONE important thing we can do. DON'T BUY IT. Because if the films keep selling, then Storaro is going to keep cropping them.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Here, here! Not that I haven't been enjoying some of the OT discussion and learning at the same time....


I am doubtful since the report is Storaro supervised the HD transfer and insists on his 2:1 AR for home use.


This is where I am really torn. I have been waiting for this particular release--like no other (except, perhaps the OAR release of The Sting)--since getting into the hobby. This, for me, is one of the "big ones", a "holy grail" if you will. I get this feeling that most everything else about the transfer--outside of the cropping--will likely be beautiful.

With the only other release on the horizon an eventual BD release, this is probably the best we're going to get until some other format comes along--and who know when that's going to be. There's already a spirited debate on that subject taking place elsewhere on the HTF.

The last thing I want to do is support Storaro's decision to crop this film for home video. I do not agree with his decision and anything I've read about his motives. But to be "thisclose" to a four-disc Criterion treatment yet "so far" is extremely disappointing. I am having a tough time making my own decision on what-to-do.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I love post after post of people dissecting each sentence.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

"Originally Posted by Simon Howson
There is ONE important thing we can do. DON'T BUY IT. Because if the films keep selling, then Storaro is going to keep cropping them. "


Well other than Ladyhawk ,which for some reason is out in 2.35:1
I think most of his other films which one would want on new Dvds films like
"Spiders Sradegen""Last Tango in Paris""Luna""Little Budda" ect.
arent 2.35;1,



"With the only other release on the horizon an eventual BD release, this is probably the best we're going to get until some other format comes along--"

This version might be the best when it come to color,but the Pal version
which is too yellow at times is only a tad less sharp and has the full frame.
I haven't tried changing the color on my tv while playing the Pal version
Maybe that would fixit.

The Criteron version has the best collection of extras,while I think the
commentary is the same as the Britsh version


Like Apocayle Now ,Storraro has srewed up two of his best films,I wish he
would have lelt them in their OAR

also it does seem like any new HD Versions of these films will be cropped too.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I don't even know what to make of this. Amazon, on its' TLE page ($41.99 BTW) has an embedded video of the TLE trailer...in 1.33:1!!! And, it is pan-and-scan!!!

Click HERE.

Watch it and experience none of the grandeur of the beautiful photography of this film.

For some reason, watching it makes me even more angry with Storaro's decision...and more concerned about my reaction if I were to go ahead and by his 2:1 version of this film.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Well personally I won't support it because I'm not really interested in seen this film at 2.00:1. I'm not really sure there is much that can be done about it other than just to not buy the film if you don't agree with his choice.

Doug

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

You can email Criterion and let them know the reason that you're not purchasing this DVD set. That will send a message.

This DVD is a "holdover" anyway... it's the 1080p Blu-ray Disc where we really have to worry, bcs that would be the definitive version and possibly the last release for a LONG time. Criterion needs to get the message now so they can work to help bring this out in its original OAR on Blu. Maybe they could help convince a certain someone that large-screen HD home-theater is more like "theater" than it is like "home video".

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

FWIW (and I don't think its worth much)...

Here is another 1.33:1 trailer of the old R1 Artisan release I found on YouTube (even though it touts the widescreen versions of the film--including videocassette! ):



And, while I couldn't find a WS trailer, here are some widescreen images from a Spanish-language TCM featurette on TLE:

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Again I'm not sure that it will have much effect. Bertolucci clearly has some contractual rights to approve the final version of the film and he has done so. There may be nothing that Criterion can do because of this.

Doug

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

You are correct. My review will be coming up this afternoon, and the trailer is definitely 4:3.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

The trailer on the Criterion release is 4:3?! What the heck kinda sense does THAT make?!?!

Some wag on CriterionForums.org posted this image a while back of Storaro with 2:1 "vision":



When asked if it was "Storaro approved", he re-posted the corrected image:



HERE is the link to the discussion there. It pretty much mirrors the discussion here.

Matt, I very much look forward to your review!