Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection) - Page 3

Mike Frezon · 02-06-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Simkiss

Thanks Simon and Frank.
Wow, that's shocking! Wikipedia has a page on Univisium
Univisium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds like it could have been a good idea at the time... just seems outdated and pointless now

What a bizarre situation. Im glad I have the R2 SE.

And I feel I have to agree with Mike Frezon, AOR should be preserved.
I admire Storaro greatly, but he shouldn't be forcing his home viewing preference on us? How is cropping a film from 2.35 to 2.00 any different from cropping it to 4.3?

Some one find Storaro and tell him we all have 16x9 TV's now! Quick!

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.

Patrick McCart · 02-06-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

It's funny that you should mention Ben-Hur. The general release (35mm) prints of that film were produced at a 2.5:1 aspect ratio rahter than the full 2.76:1 Ultra Panavision/Camera 65 ratio. Check widescreenmuseum.com for examples. As well, 70mm rerelease prints were produced at 2.2:1 in the 60s and examples can be found at the same site. Part of MGM choosing to use UP/C65 was flexibility in framing and in fact the first UP/C65 production, Raintree Country, was never released in 2.76:1 70mm, only 2.35:1 35mm anamorphic.

I would reiterate what RAH states here with respect to The Last Emperor: this is not some arbitrary decision being made by the studio/distributor, but rather by someone intimately involved with the film and with the director's blessing.

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.

Jeff Newcomb · 02-06-2008, 03:45 PM

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

Quote:

Filmmaker: Apocalypse Now. Theatrically, it was amazing to see it in its Scope aspect ratio, in 2001. I know that at this point you're preferential to 2:1, but some people were upset to see it on DVD cropped from the 35mm 2.35.

Storaro: Well, I always connected with one painting that Leonardo did, The Last Supper. The Last Supper is 2:1. At the time of shooting Apocalypse Now, I was not aware. I don't really remember when I became conscious of the 2:1. Definitely when I started to originally transfer Apocalypse Now (to video). In my opinion, it wasn't working in 2.35 -- at that time, we were forced to do a pan-and-scan. That was the worst. So we had to find a common ground between film and television. The aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2.21, and the new video aspect ratio is 1.78. If you remove 0.21 from the 65mm, and then you have high definition which is supposed to be the future film/television format, you'll find the perfect balance between the two is 2:1. So any transfer I do is at 2:1. I remember with Bertolucci when we did The Last Emperor and we watched it on the television screen, we didn't like it at 2.35. We found it was much better at 2:1. Now, I only shoot 2:1. I refuse to not shoot 2:1. And I only transfer with this, even the old films, because I know it's the only solution for the future. It's the only meeting point that we have. The DALSA at 4k gives me some encouragement to continue in this way.

Now, there's this rumor they're going to retransfer Apocalypse Now at 1:2.35 -- I will not do it. I will not do it. Because on a television it doesn't work.

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

John Hodson · 02-06-2008, 03:51 PM

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...

Mike Frezon · 02-06-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Tuck

I realize that I'm probably in a small minority, but I was watching widescreen VHS movies on my 13" fifteen years ago...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Newcomb

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

Storaro: ...I remember with Bertolucci when we did The Last Emperor and we watched it on the television screen, we didn't like it at 2.35.

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.

Dave Simkiss · 02-06-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

Album Oriented Rock should be preserved? Isn't that the realm of a different forum?

Sorry, Dave; I couldn't help myself.

Ahem... edited

Man-Fai Wong · 02-06-2008, 04:17 PM

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_

Man-Fai Wong · 02-06-2008, 04:27 PM

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_