Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I just read that Wiki Page (thanks, Dave!). If the info on that page is true, I would find Mr. Storaro to be rather presumptuous to be modifying earlier works to suit his model.

If he wanted to lobby whatever cinematographic societies to which he belongs to try and convince all filmmakers that 2:1 is the way to go from now into the future, I'd wish him well (and good luck with that BTW!). But to go back and change older films to fit his "vision" just seems rather arrogant.

I'm sure this has been discussed in other threads on this forum before, so I apologize if my inquiries amount to a re-hash of prior discussions...but this is new to me and I regret that the upcoming Criterion release is not going to have the full effect of those unbelievably beautiful widescreen shots for which the film (and Storaro himself) was honored and is reknown). It is an absolute shame.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Sticking with one "golden" aspect ratio is just not necessary. I really hope Ben-Hur comes to BluRay in 2.55:1 or even 2.40:1 instead of the excessive 2.76:1. Even if you say it in a theater in 1959, the widest you would see it would be 2.55:1. Like it's been said, if 1960 70mm prints at 2.20:1 were fine then, it should be fine for now. It's sort of like how a lot of people throw a hissy fit over 1.85:1 films being shown at 1.66:1 or 1.78:1. Even in the finest theater, you would probably not get an exact aspect ratio.

Storaro is simply choosing to lose some side image in order to increase detail for the rest of the image. I feel confident with his decision since he was there during filming and supervised the transfer. It's either we take his advice on how The Last Emperor should be seen on home theater screens or we'd get an unsupervised, unapproved DVD that keeps the aspect ratio of the 35mm prints.

Also, even the average HDTVs (1080p, 42") that most have aren't really that big compared to the theatrical screens. Yes, some have huge projection systems, but it's more likely that most will see this DVD on smaller screens. That's also why I like Criterion's decision to windowbox since even most 16x9 TVs I've seen cut off the edges of the image a bit.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Here, from Filmmaker Magazine, is a pretty definitive comment from Storaro on the subject:



If you want to read his treatise on the subject, here is a PDF.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

But, but 'on a television' - what television? A square CRT? A 42" plasma? A 56" RPTV?

What about the 1000s of Home Theatre enthusiasts who project their films? And re: Leonardo, did Michelangelo's Sistene Chapel frescos inspire Cinerama? We should be told...

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Hey Bryan...you don't remember watching The Last Emperor on your 13" TV with a couple of Italian guys looking over your shoulder, do you?!

Jeff...thanks for your links, too! Although I'm not liking what I'm learning.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Ahem... edited

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I guess we should be glad most directors/cinematographers don't feel as Storaro does. Otherwise, we can soon expect DVD and HDM releases of classic academy ratio films at something like 1.6:1 w/ stuff lopped off the top and/or bottom too (and we won't be given a choice).

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

BTW, anyone know where I can find a trustworthy review of the R2 PAL version? If the PQ and AQ are good, I will just save myself ~$20 and buy that instead. Given Storaro's stance now, it might prove pointless to wait for an eventual HDM release unless that one would not be approved by him...

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

DVD Beaver has a comparison of the old region 1 disc to the French region 2 disc, featuring lots of screen captures.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I assume if they ever reissue/remaster it in France it'll be from the same 2.0:1 transfer.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Oddly enough, last year's Spanish edition had the Theatrical version at 2.02:1, and the Extended version at 2.34:1.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Jeff, thanks for that quote, as it provides us with the answer to the ultimate question on TLE on page 3. Look below the still on that page for the answer, where Storaro states that TLE was originally composed for 2:1.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

"Film 'THE LAST EMPEROR' directed by Bernardo Bertolucci,filmed with
aspect ratio 1 : 2,35 but originally composed at 1:2."

Interesting....

I have always been a full supporter of the filmmakers - even if they are making changes contrary to original presentation. I obviously prefer if both options are made available. While not all changes to a film work for me (I much prefer the theatrical version of The Last of the Mohicans, for example), I support their right to do it. I won't purchase something I don't like, which is a reasonable position, so I also respect those who will pass on this release.

As I have never seen The Last Emperor, I look forward to renting this release and checking it out.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Which brings us back to the question of how exactly do you define OAR? Is the projected ratio the same as the director's intended ratio or does he have the right to present something different despite the fans demand for it some other way?

Regardless this is turning out to be a very different case than the Apocalypse Now thing where Storaro and Coppola elected to transfer it at 2.0:1 after the fact. If the modified ratio was agreed upon when they were making the film back in 1987 then thats the correct ratio and therefore prior representations of Last Emperor do not represent Bertoluci and Storraro's artistic intent. Whether or not a smidge of information is being lost on the left and right is unimportant.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

This reminds me of when E.T. was first transferred to video in 1988. When asked about the A/R, cinematographer Allen Daviau stated that he had composed in a loose 1.75:1 ratio, but shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte in the camera. As we all know, E.T. was projected in most theatres at approx. 1.85:1, and this is the ratio presented on DVD. What is the correct ratio?

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

It's a shame it's not in HD.....this film would really shine on Blu-ray. Maybe someday.....

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

At the risk of being extremely cynical, why would he (and presumably Bertolucci) compose the film 2:1 and then allow it to be released 2.35:1? Studio pressure? Did he accept the Oscar for Best Cinematography even though the film wasn't presented as he composed it?

Like I said earlier, I would wish Storaro all the luck in the world trying to establish this new standard going forward. But to lift another quote from his "white paper:"


Then why alter Apocalypse Now (which, he admits, was composed before this 2:1 "revelation" befell him)?

I'm still trying to figure out if he decided on 2:1 because of the influence of Da Vinci "Last Supper" or because of his "splitting of the difference between 65mm and HDTV."

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Exactly! He changed his mind after the fact when he decided to promote a 2:1 format that only he uses.

This makes me wonder if he was really thinking 2:1 on his other films shot with anamorphic lenses. If he really wanted 2:1 he could've had the anamorphic prints matted on the sides to protect that ratio. 35mm re-release prints for Kubrick's 2001: where matted down the sides so that the 35mm ratio was the same as the 70mm ratio - 2.21:1.

Storaro got into this problem for Paul Schrader's film Exorcist: The Beginning. When that film was finally released the studio released 2.4:1 anamorphic prints in the U.K., but 1.85:1 non-anamorphic prints in the U.S. The DVD is the only release that preserves the 2:1 ratio, because it simply isn't a projection standard.

The Last Emperor was obviously shot anamorphic, this screen capture from DVDBeaver, taken with a long lens, has the out of focus and squeezed backgrounds that are a signature of Panavision style anamorphic lenses. Look at the person standing at the right background, he obviously looks too tall and skinny.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Simon (and others): thanks for indulging me. I know you know a whole lot more about this (and other film-related matters) than I do...but I was quite moved by the images in The Last Emperor when I first saw it on the old, awful R1 release.

I fully realize that I have no right to make a claim that "it sure looks to me like it was composed 2.35:1" against the word of the great Storaro. But I still want to!

And, yes, after reading his paper, I don't really know what to believe about his intentions. I look forward to doing some more research.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

This information is incorrect. First off, Exorcist:The Beginning was directed by Renny Harlin, NOT Paul Schrader. Schrader's film, Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, was only released in limited releasein North America, and I doubt it would have been released on Flat prints only for North America. My doubt is based in the second point.

Second, I know for a fact that Exorcist: the Beginning was not released flat. I was working as a projectionist at the time and both prints my theatre received were anamorphic or Scope, as we refer to them in the business.

Storaro was DP on both films. It seems counterintuitive that one would be released flat and the other scope based on Storaro's preferred AR.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Read my post on E.T. Even though Allen Daviau composed the film in a loose 1.75:1 AR, he knew that in the cinema landscape of 1982, films in wide release could only be shown in one of 3 aspect ratios: 1.85:1, 2.20:1 (for 70mm) and 2.35:1. Hence, a "loose" 1.75:1 AR, knowing that the film would be projected at approximately 1.85:1. It's the same reason why Kubrick's later films were shot "protected" for 1.85:1. Kubrick knew that his films would get cropped top and bottom when shown in theatres, so his films were composed to reflect that.

So, how does someone like Storaro, who is pushing for a 2:1 AR, ensure that his intentions can be preserved with a film like TLE? He does the same thing Robert Surtees and William Wyler did with Ben-Hur: he shoots for the entire AR, but composes his shots so that if the sides get cropped, it doesn't damage the composition. DPs do this all the time so that their films don't lose anything when running in a multiplex where the apertures may be incorrectly filed, or the overall setup yields something less than a perfect 1.85/2.35/2.39:1 AR. I would not be surprised if Storaro took this into consideration when composing shots for Apocalypse Now, especially considering that its premiere at Cannes was in 70mm, meaning it would be cropped to 2.20:1. Does cropping Apocalypse Now to Storaro's preferred 2:1 AR do some damage to some compositions? Maybe. Is the missing portion of the image crucial to the scenes? Debatable. Is the damage any worse than what happens in your average multiplex? Definitely not.

I think we need to be careful when demanding the whole image. I would rather have a DP and director, who are intimately involved with the production of a film, modify the presentation to reflect their intentions, than have a travesty like the Gone with the Wind 70mm release of the 60s, which pretty much destroyed the negative. I would also point out that it was blind "correct AR" fanaticism that foisted the abominable first release of Ben-Hur on DVD on us, which cropped a 35mm reduction print, framed at 2.5:1 to 2.76:1, losing information on all sides of the frame.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Sorry, my mistake, I got the titles the wrong way around.
I actually asked Paul Schrader on the defunct forum www.bloodynews.com (a horror film fan site that created some of the buzz to get Schrader's version released) if, when the film was eventually released, would it be projected at Storaro's prefered 2:1 ratio (with bars down the sides of an anamorphic print - similar to the re-release of Kubrick's 2001).

He said that Morgan Creek - for whatever reason - was releasing the film in two different formats 2.4:1 and 1.85:1, but (thankfully) it would be 2:1 on the DVD. If you received anamorphic prints of Schrader's version, then it must've been anamorphic for the U.S. and 1.85:1 for Europe, which I managed to confuse.

But the ultimate point is - according to the film's director - it was only released 2:1 on the DVD.

Perhaps this relates to the fact Storaro had little to do with the post-production of the Schrader version. Schrader said that Caleb Deschanel timed the answer print for free as a favour, and noted how ironic this was because Deschanel was the D.O.P. for The Passion of the Christ, which being shot at Cinecetta at the same time as Schrader's film. I think he mentions this on the DVD commentary.
I was referring to only the Schrader film. Which is 2:1 on the DVD. But for what its worth, the DVD of the Harlin film is 2.4:1, so that isn't what Storaro wanted, and suggests he had little to do with that DVD transfer. I believe the release prints of the Harlin version were all anamorphic 2.4:1 as well, so again Storaro couldn't get it released the way he wanted it.

I agree with you this is all counter intuitive, but we are talking here about a studio that made the same film twice in the space of 18 months.
Generally I agree. But I don't agree that Storaro should apply some weird historical revisionism just to promote a film format that no one but he uses, and that by his own admission even he didn't use in 1979. Maybe after he had the revelation that 2:1 was the way to go this is OK. But for Apocalypse Now, in 1979? I don't think so... we shouldn't believe EVERYTHING that filmmakers say!

Plus this still doesn't explain why he shot Tucker and The Last Emperor in anamorphic if he was so concerned with pan and scan during the VHS era. I realise Technovision is just a Panavision rental house, and sometimes "Technovision" means that is where they rented the cameras and lights from, and that is it. But Tucker and The Last Emperor are both anamorphic films, you can tell by looking at them.

If Storaro was really concerned about avoiding pan and scan, he should've shot his 1980s films in Super 35. His continued use of anamorphic in the 1980s suggests to me he - or his directors - were still thinking of 2.4:1, or at least 2.21:1 even then. 35mm anamorphic has lots of advantages, but you start to lose some of them when you take 17% off the sides.
I agree. The solution for a 35mm release of Ben Hur is simple - it should've been cropped only on the sides to create a 2.5:1 ratio - like original 35mm release prints. It could've explained this on the box.

The new version from 70mm at 2.76:1 is the right decision in my book, because it future proofs the transfer for higher resolution formats that will make 2.76:1 look really good.

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

Moved here from HD Software area since this is a SD release. I have the box in front of me and both versions of the film are listed as 2.00:1 on the back.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

As with the US, on the UK DVDs, Harlin's film is presented in 2.4:1, and Schrader's version is 2:1.

There's little doubt that the 2:1 framing on Apocolypse Now makes some of the framing feel very tight. If, however, TLE was originally composed for 2:1, then I don't see why there would be a problem. It is similar to The Great Escape's original DVD release: 2.69:1, but with far too much information on the left-hand side of the frame. It took a 'cropped' 2.4:1 DVD release to see Sturges' original framing.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Yeah, Harlin's version should be 2:1.
I agree, if it was shot at 2:1, then that is how it should be on DVD. But Storaro's own comments suggest he wasn't thinking of 2:1 when Apocalypse Now was being made.
I don't think the situation with The Great Escape is that similar. The improper framing on the original DVD is just a serious screw up by the telecine operator who didn't realise that a lot of early Panavision films were shot with the camera exposing the full (0.98" wide) silent aperture, but with the view finder and lenses calibrated over the center of the narrower (0.825" wide) Panavision aperture. The telecine operator just had to accurately recreate the projector aperture dimensions for a 1963 Panavision film, and everything would've been OK - as in the newer DVD.

The fact the optical soundtrack area was exposed in the camera wouldn't make a difference because 1) that area would not appear in the view finder and 2) on release prints that is where the optical soundtrack would be placed, so that area of the film would only ever been seen by people looking at the negative, or a contact element made from the negative, or by people who bought the original DVD, made by a telecine operator who set the aperture for 1953 CinemaScope, rather than 1963 Panavision.

I would've thought that as soon as the telecine operator saw light stands in the frame that they would go back and re-calibrate the telecine machine for the format the film was actually shot in!? Fortunately we are generally past such stupid transfer mistakes.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I addressed most of these issues in my previous post, if you go back and take a look, but let me reiterate: DPs generally compose knowing they're going to lose as much as 10% off the sides, because not all theatres are created equal. FTR, I did the number crunching, and a reduction from 2.35:1 to 2:1 is a reduction of 15%, not 17%. You may have gotten hung up on the fact that it would remove .175 of the ratio from the left and right edges. That being said, Storaro's Univisium/Univision concept isn't much of a stretch from there. I admit that Univision as applied to Apocalypse Now probably makes the compositions a little tighter, but as said before, if somebody is going to make this type of decision, I'd rather it be the DP and/or the director, because then they can reframe for the proper intent. I'm not in favour of cinematic revisionism for the most part (The Star Wars Trilogy comes to mind as an example I vehemently oppose), but when the purpose is to give us the best presentation possible given the limitations of the medium, I generally take no issue with it.

Speaking from experience, one of the huge advantages of using anamorphic in the theatre even if you were to reduce your ratio to 2:1 comes from the nature of theatres today. Most theatres now are constant width rather than constant height, meaning that a flat film uses more screen real estate than a scope one. This also means that flat films appear less sharp than scope films in today's theatres, because a smaller portion of the aperture is being blown up to an image larger than the scope image. Simply put, scope images are sharper than flat in today's theatres.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Stephen: I fully understand your thoughts about CPs composing their work with the understanding that they may be projected in differing circumstances...but I fail to see how the GWTW and Ben-Hur examples apply here...except to support the claim that TLE should be released in its OAR.

In both cases they were misguided attempts to change a film which no real fan of film would ever have wanted (that is, a cropped presentation).

In this case, however, I think it is appropriate to ask that this film, in this new DVD incarnation, be released in the AR in which it was shot, projected theatrically and released to DVD originally.

There would be no need to anticipate any of the horror stories you suggest...just the beauty of the full image which won Storaro a significant award and probably helped contribute to a number of other honors for the film.

Earlier in the thread I was deciding whether or not I would buy the new version versus holding out for an HD version. In the absence of an HD version on the horizon and the fact that an HD version will suffer the same revision, I believe my dilemma now is simply whether to get this new changed version at all.

For some films this might not bother me so much. I am really not any kind of a "purist" or snob. As I recounted earlier, when I first viewed TLE I was blown away by the imagery and that I had never seen a widescreen aspect used to such enormous impact by a cinematographer.

While I appreciate the attempts to say the impact of the change will be minimal, I look at that comparison of 2:1 vs. 2.35:1 I posted a page or so ago and see a pretty big difference.

I might end up viewing the new version and thinking it still looks pretty impressive...but I'm not sure. At this point, I don't think I will be spending my money on this release.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Admittedly, I am starting to get burned out on the concept of taking the DP or director's word as gospel when it comes to controversial decisions like this. Just because someone is in charge of something does not mean that they are infallable from making a bad choice. Just because the President runs the country (not referring to any specific President) does that me every decision made is the right one and that we should not object if we that decision is bad?

Personally, I am a fan of the 2.35:1 AR. And if a film was shot anamorphically and shown at 2.35:1 in the theater, and the fans supported the film during its theatrical run, then fans have every right to cry foul over the film being cropped to 2.00:1 over a very debatable concept. The 2.35:1 AR was what was "sold" to us in the theater, so why should it be changed after the fact.

I remember an incident a few years back, the film with Al Pacino and Colin Farrell was shown at 2.35:1 in the theater but modified to 1.78:1 for DVD. When the director was asked why he had this done, I recall the answer was to the effect of "that what looks better for home theater" which I thought was a pretty arrogant response. I prefer the theatrical 2.35:1.

Even though, in many ways, we are moving away from this, I believe that the theatrical presentation is still the standard (barring arguements between the ARs of 35mm vs 70mm prints). We should be able to watch a film at home that recreates that as close as possible. I'm all for alternate versions of a film being released if that what the filmmakers want, but we should be able to get the original theatrical presentations as well.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I raise GWTW and Ben-Hur because (1) Ben-Hur is a shining example of OAR fanaticism gone awry and (2) to compare what happens when a studio unilaterally decides to crop and recompose a film for a new format without consulting either the DP or the director i.e. GWTW.

Ben-Hur (the initial DVD release) happened because of outcry from the HT community that it should be presented in its proper ratio i.e. 2.76:1. what the wonks at Warner did with that information was to transfer a 35mm element which had already been cropped down to 2.5:1 and crop it further to 2.76:1 to appease the fans, which made nobody happy. The new release is a vast improvement, but there is still dead space on the left and right in the compositions. It may be true to the OCN, but is it true to the DP's and the director's intentions? We can't be sure, because they're deceased.

GWTW is an example of a studio recomposing for a new format simply because they could and because it could bring in more money for the studio. Another example of this is RKO's rerelease of Fantasia in Superscope which, depending on who you talk to, either recomposed the film for the anamorphic frame or simply projected it through an anamorphic lens.

TLE is a different scenario altogether. Storaro has indicated in his paper that it was composed for 2:1. Absent evidence to the contrary (and "it looks like 2.35:1 to me" doesn't cut it as evidence), I would take him at his word.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I can't agree.

I've been a film fan as long as I can remember, and I'd like to think that I generally support the wishes of the artists involved, but this quote isn't about trusting the artist or supporting the art, not for me anyway. As someone else posted in this thread (I'm sorry, I forgot who), I also grew up watching letterboxed VHS tapes on tiny TVs, and that was still my preference over pan-and-scan versions. I know a lot of people have had issues over the years with their televisions being filled with black bars, and that has never, ever been an issue with me. (It was probably the "director's edition" VHS of Star Trek IV, where Leonard Nimoy explained what letterboxing was and played a scene from the film both ways to demonstrate what was lost that sold me on it. I'm not sure if that was the first letterboxed tape I ever saw, but that was a very illuminating demonstration. Anyway, I digress...)

To suggest that 2.35:1 framing doesn't work on a television is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. That's not Storaro saying he always intended the film to be at that ratio, that it had been composed for that format, etc. That's Storaro essentially saying he doesn't like black bars either. How does 2.35:1 not "work" on a TV set?

Over the past few weeks, I happen to have watched a variety of films that were shot in 2.35:1 (some anamorphic, some Super35), including Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love, The Spy Who Loved Me, Sunshine, Hot Fuzz, Donnie Darko, Apollo 13, Wonder Boys, Batman Begins... and I'm pleased to report that they all worked fine. My DVD player didn't explode, my eyes didn't get damaged from staring at the screen, my TV didn't complain.

It's one thing to say that the home video is at a different aspect ratio than the theatrical because you had composed for the ratio that was on the DVD. It's one thing to say that you composed for two aspect ratios simultaneously. It's another thing entirely to go back to a film made almost 30 years ago (Apocalypse Now) and claim that it somehow doesn't work on a TV screen.

I love Apocalypse Now, and I own the DVD, and I enjoy watching the DVD on my TV. But every time I put it on, I can't help but shake my head for the first couple moments and think that a very smart man made a very boneheaded decision for a remarkably dumb reason.