Simon Howson

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.

Red Hot Chili Peppers CD Re-Mastering Petition