Re: Sleeping Beauty: 2003 Special Edition vs. 2008 Platinum Edition
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chuck Pennington
Um, so THAT is why they are calling it a "never-before-seen wider version," which means they are showing the full negative aperture rather than what would ever have been projected. Hmmm.... Seems to negate the whole point of widescreen, which is often used to engage people with a wider frame, to present a version that pushes viewers further away from the action, exposing more photographic image area than was ever intended to be seen and was always cropped before intentionally.
What does anyone else think?
|
I think you're way off base. Take a look at any widescreen movie from the same period. The compositions are very similar, in that they show off the widescreen format rather than working within the confines of the format. The majority of shots in movies like The Robe were composed in long or medium shots; granted, in the case of The Robe it was to avoid the CinemaScope "mumps", but it was also to show off the sheer size of the CinemaScope screen i.e. "look at everything we can fit into the frame."
Animation of Sleeping Beauty began in 1953 and continued through to 1958. It can be argued, and successfully, that Sleeping Beauty was composed for the 2.55:1 frame, as the majority of showings would have been in that format, but for the modification of CinemaScope to 2.35:1 to accomodate optical soundtracks. There would have been showings in Technirama 70 in limited locations, but most people would see this in CinemaScope which, at the time animation was started, would have been 2.55:1. Whoever the bonehead was that decided to crop the CinemaScope 355mm reduction prints to the confines of the Technirama frame was undoubtedly cut from the same cloth as the rocket scientist who decided to transfer the optical tracks from Fantasia to magnetic over phone lines. Thankfully, the restoration of Sleeping Beauty was a lot simpler than restoring Fantasound.
Finally, the artwork that art director and background artist Eyvind Earle used as his inspiration was composed with much the same aesthetic elements: an extraordinary amount of detail with relatively small elements within the frame. To think that his intention with respect to the to the finished product was otherwise frankly strains the limits of credulity.
Did I mention that sleeping Beauty is my personal favourite of the Disney animated classics?
FWIW, 2.55:1 is not the full negative aperture of Technirama. Being an 8 perf horizontal format shot through a 1.5x squeeze anamorphic lens, the full aperture would have been 2.35:1. Reference here:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr1.htm
Had Disney gone back to the original elements and printed the full aperture, we probably would have seen unfinished artwork around the edges a la Yellow Submarine open matte, and the A/R would still have been 2.35:1. A transfer like that would have been a travesty.
