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

Douglas Monce

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Howson 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.

The director of a film is the final arbiter of every creative choice made for a film. Some directors are lazy and let other people make those choices for them, or the simply trust their collaborators enough to let them make those choices but ultimately it is the director who says yes or no.

Quote:

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?

In this case Bernardo Bertolucci, who could hardly be called a slacker creatively, approved this transfer. As did Francis Coppola for Apocalypse Now.

Quote:

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.

Well its closer to 2.00:1 than it is to 2.35:1.

Quote:

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.

There are MANY things that influence filmmakers consciously and subconsciously. Not all of them are pre-existing. All one has to do is look at Storaro's work to realize that he is not the kind of person who thinks inside the box.

Quote:

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.

Are films set in stone? I don't know. I really don't think so. At what point does that stone set? The day of release? If thats the case then forget about directors cuts. When is a film finished? In my opinion, when the filmmaker is either bored with it or dies. Ill considered or not its the filmmakers film to play with and I don't think anyone has the right, other than maybe the people who paid for it, to tell him that his choices are wrong.

Quote:

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.

Some directors aren't as hands on because frankly they don't have the kind of technical knowledge needed to be so. But technical knowledge isn't needed for a director to say yes I like that or no I don't.

Quote:

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, because that is what SToraro thinks.

I never said that what Storaro said made sense, I simply said that as the director of photography in consultation with the director they are his choices to make. I think a lot of Storaro's ideas about color and emotion are goofy, but then most great artists have goofy theories. I think Frank Lloyd Wright was a great artist, but he was also a nut with a capital N!

Quote:

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!

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if changes are going to be made to a film, the original filmmakers are the only ones who are qualified to do that. Yes a lab tech can do an excellent job of presenting a film on video, but no one is better qualified than the original filmmakers to look at that transfer and say "yes thats what it should look like."

Quote:

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 determines a lot of the inferential moves made when 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. We consider evidence for or against the proposition. In this case there is a lot of evidence against:

Composition is, or should be for the most part, a part of the story telling that is not noticed by the audience. Not unlike editing, it shouldn't draw undue attention to its self, unless some dramatic effect is desired. This of course is just my own opinion and philosophy.

Quote:

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.

What does truth have to do with it?

Quote:

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.

Ben-Hur was shot in MGM Camera 65/Ultra Panavision 70. An anamorphic 65mm process. The 70mm roadshow prints were 2.76:1. Some roadshow houses however had to crop it at 2.5:1 because of screen limitations.

Quote:

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?

Thats a big what if.

Quote:

Sometimes filmmakers make DUMB propositions, or say things that are UNTRUE.

I didn't say I liked Storaro's choices, I just said that they are his to make.

Quote:

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.

This is just my opinion but I think there are probably less than 2 dozen people in the history of cinema that I would refer to as an artist. This is not at all to take anything away from other filmmakers. For the most part I consider filmmaking to be a craft that very rarely rises to the level of art. With in those films that are not art are artist who's work sometimes rises above the film that it is in. Storaro's work in Ladyhawke comes to mind. Great artists tend to fail more often than they succeed. But that is the reason they are great artist, they dare to do something different and sometimes fall on their face in the process.

Doug

"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

cafink

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

This says it all, I think.

Simon Howson

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Sure, but you use the term "arbiter" which implies they are making choices among varying and divergent pressures. They don't make films in a historical vacumn. Pick any two Warner Bros. films from 1941, and they will have many similarities as well as differences. Who ultimately makes the decision is less important than the effect of the decision itself, which can be noted based on the properties of the film. Sometimes the director has more influence, sometimes they have less. But they don't have total influence. Two bad decisions. I don't see how that means it makes more sense! So he uses art-cinema conventions rather than, say, Hollywood conventions. Sure I'm happy to concede that. Maybe the director has chosen NOT to be hands on, maybe that is part of their aesthetic choice. Like how Godard very rarely told Coutard how to frame a shot. Of course. Which is further evidence to not trust him when he is commenting on his own work, especially when he is arbitrarily revising it. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how good their memory is. Who wrote the rules that said composition and editing aren't allowed to be noticed by the audience? I don't agree that SOMETIMES filmmakers are looking for dramatic effects, so they do something that is more exaggerated or noticeable. Filmmakers are always trying to create EFFECTS, that help move the story along. You can't say they switch on and off between doing nothing, and doing something. Because the camera, lighting, staging, acting, set design are always organised in ways that acheive an effect of some sort.

It may be your PREFERENCE that filmmakers seek out a smooth continuous style, but that doesn't mean there are hard and fast rules about what does and what does not constitute "film", let alone a good one. I don't think film has an essence, film is a medium that is constantly being redefined by people making new and different films.

At any rate, saying that composition should generally be unnoticed, in the context of a discussion on Bertoluci and Storaro, is a bit funny. Look at the famous tilted swinging gate shot in The Conformist, or think of the famous tracking shot showing all the leaves blowing in the wind.


Moreover I can't see how this audacious framing can go unnoticed by the audience. This film s full of similar shots.


These are prime examples of of the filmmakers (be it Storaro, Bertolucci or both) raising style to a level of artifice, the approach to style is decorative - why does the camera tilt when the gate swings? Well because it CAN. These shots OBVIOUSLY aren't designed to be subliminal, because they are just too audacious. Furthermore, they are so frequent that it would be hard to argue that they are adding to the drama. Rather, they are divorced from it. In fact, if that shot isn't noticed by the audience, then they are missing part of the pleasure and effect of the film.
I'm not sure that ALL 70mm prints of Ben Hur were anamorphic. I believe that some were 2.21:1 prints, because not all cinemas with 70mm projectors had access to the ultra panavision projector lenses. Maybe they were all anamorphic in the U.S., but I don't know if that was the case internationally. I could be wrong though.

Red Hot Chili Peppers CD Re-Mastering Petition