Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
If one looks at the physical realities of the situation, TLE was shot at 2.35 and projected at both 2.35 as well as 2.21 for 70mm.
With nominal 5% cropping as seen in most quality theatres, the image is down to around 2.2 for 35mm presentations.
I would never think of going against the wishes of quality filmmakers, who in this case have decided that 2:1 is the best format for home video.
Does one lose a bit of information from each edge? A bit.
Does it matter when it comes to the enjoyment of the film?
I really doubt it.
What matters is that you are viewing the film as the filmmakers wish it to be seen.
|
Robert:
I have a lot to learn about film and it's intricacies. In fact, most of my knowledge has come during my 6+ years as a member of the HTF. So I have a rather skewed perspective of what's supposed to be important when it comes to film presentation for home video. One of the things I have learned is important is in the opening of the HTF rulebook:
Quote:
We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended. We respect the integrity of all artists involved in creating the original film as well as those who helped bringing the product to a form suited to be used in a home theater environment.
The main goals of the discussions on the Home Theater Forum are to learn and to share: to learn more about the cinematographic art-form and the best techniques to present the films, and to share our knowledge with anyone who sincerely wants to benefit from the knowledge of his or her fellow members. |
One of the things I always appreciate about your posts is that I learn quite a lot about film presentation...both theatrically and for the HT.
Could you further explain your thoughts about the change in the AR for The Last Emperor? I have read so many debates on this forum about the importance of correct aspect ratio that I am surprised to read you so easily dismiss this change.
What I don't understand is the reasoning by the filmmakers which would lead them to think that 2:1 would be better for this film in an HT environment than 2.35:1. Is it, as Mr. Aubrey suggests in the link above (re: Apocalypse Now), simply to better fill the display screen?
Quote:
| Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV. |
It seems that the change is more than just "a bit" and seems to fly in the face of hoping to re-create the film experience in one's home. It would seem quite unfortunate if all such widescreen films (or wider) were given the same treatment. Why excuse this particular set of director & cinematographer when I doubt the same would be forgiven of William Wyler and Robert Surtees (Ben-Hur)?
This shot is taken from Criterion's own site and is roughly 2:1.
This shot was taken from another reviewer's site (of the old R1 release) and is roughly 2.35:1.
Maybe I have just been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid in the HTF lunchroom!
