Aspect Ratio Documentation (3 Viewers)

[Robert Crawford]

Drop the act, no one's taking the bait.

As I stated earlier in this thread, if anybody has grown tired with the direction this latest discussion has taken then simply don't respond to it or offer another aspect issue to discuss in its place.

 

[FoxyMulder]

There is no way, in the current universe, to be 100 percent certain of anything.

As René ( Descartes ) once said "I think therefore i am" of that i am 100% certain.

 

[haineshisway]

Sorry, I think you've missed something here.

I'm not saying Marty is 1.37:1.

I'm saying Kino say they've looked at the documentation, then looked at the film elements (just as RAH suggests they should) and they think it's 1.37:1.

As I've already said in this thread, I'd like them to say more.

Bob, you seem to think that evertime anyone suggests it's not completely impossible that what it says in the documentation is exactly what the director intended, that it's some sort of affront to you. That's simply not the case.

May I ask you a question?

What's the correct ratio for A Hard Day's Night? Because we only really have three sources - the ratio Richard Lester has chosen (1.75), the film frame (1.75) and the copy of Kino (1.85).

You've already been consistently clear that we can't trust director's memories, so that leaves two contradictory sources of documentation.

Steve W

Can you please stop? Kino has never looked at the FILM elements for Marty. Period. They looked at the TRANSFER they were given and made a determination based on that transfer. You know it, and yet you still do this. I know we're supposed to ignore you by now, but really.

 

[Yorkshire]

As René ( Descartes ) once said "I think therefore i am" of that i am 100% certain.

And to think, I used to agree with Descartes...

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

This is the problem right here. There is no way, in the current universe, to be 100 percent certain of anything. Thus, to use that as a standard of judgement is to immediately project oneself into an ideal realm. The result: frustration on all sides, as the idealists stick to their (epistemologically justified) guns, and the pragmatists stick to their (differently epistemologically justified) guns. Truth works best if you use minimal definitions, that is, tell me what the issue is, and I can go review the evidence and come up with the "truth" about it. To use the 100 percent standard is to ask for a maximal definition of truth. What this means is that two different languages and standards of judgement are being used here, so there can be no meeting of minds. What's required, imho, is more real-world-ism, so to speak. A minimal standard would be: what is the balance of probabilities, given the evidence, given the contexts? On that showing, we can state, with an appropriate certainty: that Marty was composed for 1.85; that in a context of widescreen vs full frame Mann consulted with both his bosses and other directors before embarking on his first feature; and that Kino is probably working from a zoomed in master. Do we know this with 100 percent certainty? No; which means the story is always open to later revision, based on evidence coming in. Do we know it with appropriate certainty, given the contexts? You betcha.

Now this is a tad misleading.

My position is not 'nothing is 100% certain, therefore we can't be 100% certain about the documentation, therefore ignore the documentation'.

My position is, 'nothing is 100% certain, so get as much evidence as you can and do your best'.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

Can you please stop? Kino has never looked at the FILM elements for Marty. Period. They looked at the TRANSFER they were given and made a determination based on that transfer. You know it, and yet you still do this. I know we're supposed to ignore you by now, but really.

Yes, but what we don't know is whether that was a zoomed scan or a scan of the whole frame.

A scan of the whole frame would be just as good for the purposes we're discussing.

Steve W

 

[Robert Harris]

Just to be clear, I believe that GWTW should only be seen in 1.37:1.

I'm just presenting info on how it was supposed to be shown in the 1954 reissue. It was certainly not recommended for the standard ratio.

Agreed. But I disagree with the propriety of the printed word in the extract listing the film at 1.85. I had numerous discussions about the film with someone who would know better, inclusive of how the changes were made, and how they might be brought back to 1.37.

RAH

 

[Bob Furmanek]

MARTY opens at the 3,500-seat Chicago Theatre in July, 1955.

 

[ThadK]

Oh, Bob, but is there any proof that Mann approved that screening in Chicago? Is there a scan of a 35mm frame present in that photo? Hmm, I THINK NOT!

 

[Yorkshire]

The dog is about to cross the road. The chicken stops him at the last minute and says "I wouldn't do that, you'll never hear the last of it".

In that spirit...

I disagree with the propriety of the printed word in the extract listing the film at 1.85.

I wouldn't do that...



Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

Oh, Bob, but is there any proof that Mann approved that screening in Chicago? Is there a scan of a 35mm frame present in that photo? Hmm, I THINK NOT!

OH! A-HA! HA HA HA!

I used to come to the forum for information about Blu-ray Disc releases.

I wasn't counting on the cutting edge alternative comedy.

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Some additional information:

On September 3, just four days before the start of principal photography, Variety listed the film as a widescreen production.

Some people have speculated that Mann was bucking the system in order to present MARTY on the big screen with the same visual content that had worked so well on television when first broadcast on May 24, 1953. This is not true.After Mann visited the VERY CRUZ location, the goal was to expand and adapt the subject matter to the big screen. Film Bulletin pointed out this fact in a July 11, 1955 article discussing the disappointing boxoffice performance of DAVY CROCKETT, another big screen production recently taken from TV.

 

[haineshisway]

Yes, but what we don't know is whether that was a zoomed scan or a scan of the whole frame.

A scan of the whole frame would be just as good for the purposes we're discussing.

Steve W

No, what you stated as fact was that Kino had inspected the FILM elements, which they have not. Do I need to highlight that in your post or will you just acknowledge you had that incorrect? For whatever it's worth, for as long as I've been reading your posts on this forum, you have ignored facts, stated incorrect information and then just move to the next target. I suppose that's fine, if one likes that sort of thing, but you really must not post information that is completely untrue, like Kino inspected the FILM elements for Marty. A scan of a frame of a transfer we know nothing about is irrelevant to the point.

 

[Douglas R]

Bob, what was the aspect ratio in British theaters for Georgy Girl and Blow-Up? Are there any Kine Weekly issues from 1966 floating around somewhere?

I've gone through the '60s issues of Kine Weekly. Unfortunately the publication did not give the ratios of every production. It seemed to be up to the studios as to whether they provided the information and some, such as MGM Boreham Wood and Associated British at Elstree simply stated "widescreen" for anything other than 2.35 scope. Therefore the ratio for BLOW UP is not listed. According to IMDB, GEORGY GIRL was shot mainly on location and also at at Shepperton but Kine Weekly doesn't list the film at all. Presumably it got missed - so no aspect ratio information for that film either I'm afraid.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From International Projectionist: February 1956

Mann and LaShelle used a lot of low-key lighting and with the reduced aperture openings for flat widescreen projection, this did not translate well to the big screen. The timing problem should have been corrected in the lab.

A new widescreen master could correct this issue and give us a version of MARTY that would truly be better than ever before.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, what you stated as fact was that Kino had inspected the FILM elements, which they have not. Do I need to highlight that in your post or will you just acknowledge you had that incorrect? For whatever it's worth, for as long as I've been reading your posts on this forum, you have ignored facts, stated incorrect information and then just move to the next target. I suppose that's fine, if one likes that sort of thing, but you really must not post information that is completely untrue, like Kino inspected the FILM elements for Marty. A scan of a frame of a transfer we know nothing about is irrelevant to the point.

According to someone named Pecker, the trade journals cannot be trusted and the "dubious nature of replying on the aspect ratios listed in trade papers is coming to light all the more as time goes on."

Funny, I seem to remember similar comments a long time ago on the Hammer blog about the "dis-credited" trade journals...

Start at post #54: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=240655&page=3

 

[nara]

Can we move on please? This getting very silly.

 

[FoxyMulder]

According to someone named Pecker, the trade journals cannot be trusted and the "dubious nature of replying on the aspect ratios listed in trade papers is coming to light all the more as time goes on."

Funny, I seem to remember similar comments a long time ago on the Hammer blog about the "dis-credited" trade journals...

Start at post #54: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=240655&page=3

Pecker is Yorkshire aka Steve, i guess he doesn't trust the trade papers.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Can we move on please? This getting very silly.

Yes, it's very silly. I'm surprise that more people didn't just move on as we keep going around this merry-go-round.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Here's a handy reference to all of the MARTY widescreen documents in one post. Please feel free to quote and link as needed.

Hecht-Lancaster Productions announced a two year/seven film distribution deal with United Artists on February 9, 1954. The first three features produced under this contract were all widescreen: APACHE was 1.85; VERA CRUZ was Superscope 2:1 and THE KENTUCKIAN - which was filmed at the same time as MARTY - was CinemaScope 2.55:1.In his auto-biography, Ernest Borgnine talks about Delbert Mann visiting the location of VERA CRUZ in Mexico in order to study the new cinematic techniques. This would have been sometime in April, 1954 and was five months before cameras rolled on his first film as a director.

​

The Director of Photography was Joseph LaShelle , a man who knew his way around a camera. He won the Academy Award in 1945 for his work on LAURA. In the widescreen era, he had previously lensed RIVER OF NO RETURN and four CinemaScope shorts, including the twice Oscar-nominated JET CARRIER.He certainly would have known how to compose MARTY for widescreen while protecting the compositions for 1.37:1.In September 1954, Merle Chamberlin (Director of Projection at MGM) stated, "All of the studios are convinced that the old 3/4 picture is gone and the wider aspect ratio is here to stay."

On September 3, Variety listed the film as a widescreen production. Four days later on September 7, MARTY began production on location in New York.

Variety continued to list MARTY as a widescreen production throughout late November when shooting was completed at the Goldwyn studio in Hollywood.

When released in April, 1955, both the Hollywood Reporter - an important daily trade journal read within the industry - and Boxoffice - a bible for exhibitors - list 1.85:1 as the intended ratio for MARTY.

Here's the July 1955 opening "on wide screen" at the 3,500-seat Chicago Theatre:

Some people have speculated that Mann was bucking the system in order to present MARTY on the big screen with the same visual content that had worked so well on television when first broadcast on May 24, 1953. This is not true.After Mann visited the VERY CRUZ location, the goal was to expand and adapt the subject matter to the big screen. Film Bulletin pointed out this fact in a July 11, 1955 article discussing the disappointing boxoffice performance of DAVY CROCKETT, another big screen production recently taken from TV.

Mann and LaShelle used a lot of low-key lighting and with the reduced aperture openings for flat widescreen projection, this did not translate well to the big screen. The timing problem should have been corrected in the lab.A new widescreen master could correct this issue and give us a version of MARTY that would truly be better than ever before.From International Projectionist: February 1956

Regarding the director and his preference, here is a post that was shared in another thread:
Back in 2005 we ran MARTY at the Cinecon film festival over Labor Day weekend at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. Director Delbert Mann was in attendance and he was quite moved by the film's reception that day. Unfortunately we couldn't get Ernest Borgnine to attend, as I believe he was working somewhere. A shame, as this was Mann's last public appearance and he would have loved for Borgnine to be there.

We licensed a 35mm print from MGM and it was presented in 1.85. Nothing appeared cropped, all of the titles were where they should be. I would imagine that print is still available for repertory screenings, should anyone want to show it. It looked great a decade ago anyway!

To read about the industry-wide transition to widescreen in 1953/54 - both in the U.S. and the UK - please visit: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

For more information on the first year of widescreen production, please visit: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen