CTHE Press Release: Dr. Strangelove 40th Anniversary (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Nicholls]

Kubrick came to film from originally being a still photographer. Perhaps this explains his general fondness for academy ratio filming.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

He was also so appalled by the variance in aspect ratio in the different cinemas showing 2001 that he turned his back on shooting widescreen altogether. Academy ratio is one way of guaranteeing that none of your frame ends up projected on the curtains.

 

[ArthurMy]

What's with all the caps? Is there better protocol for emphasizing? It's what I've always done. We'll just have to agree to disagree - those who tow the party line will never change their opinions (until, that is, we get the theatrical ratios, and then you can bet you'll be hearing from the family or Mr. Vitale or someone how suddenly it's what Stanley would have wanted), and those who don't are certainly not going to change theirs. However, since I don't know you, I'll choose to take seriously the posts made by Kubrick's camera operator. And in 1999, DVD had been on the market one year or less and Kubrick, during that entire time, had been shooting Eyes Wide Shut. I don't find it hard to believe that he might never have found the time for such discussions.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Arthur,
I assure you that if you talk to the camera operators for Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, they will tell you that they framed for 1.85:1 as well. I also assure you that I take them seriously. You seem to be implying that I do not, so I wanted to clear that up.

The major disagreement I have with your posts is the implication that Vitale was operating out of ignorance of how the films were shot and/or what SK's wishes were in the context of modern home video. The decision to present them as they are was made with full knowledge of both.

P.S. All-caps is just a netiquette thing where it is interpreted as shouting moreso than emphasis, which can be done with either *asterisks* or via text formatting options like these on many boards. No biggie.

Regards,

 

[Richard Kim]

Barry Lyndon's AR on DVD is about 1.5:1. BTW, that's the same AR that A Clockwork Orange has on the LD and inital DVD release. The remastered DVD has a 1.66:1 AR.

 

[Nestor_Ramos]

Hi all. I just got this disc in the mail and will be posting a review this weekend. If you have specific questions you want answered, let me know.

This is obviously one of the all-time great films, and like you all, I'm hoping for excellence. I'm breaking the seal on the package tonight.

Nestor

HTF Reviewer

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I am most curious about whether the 5.1 tracks sounds like a real stereo remix from discrete dialog, music, and effects tracks (like the "A Clockwork Orange" remastered DVD) or whether it sounds like a fake stereo mono spread.

Regards,

 

[Vincent_P]

:: The Shining unmatted has so much dead space at the top of the frame it's ridiculous and it LOOKS ridiculous.

I gotta say I disagree with this. I think THE SHINING looks very "grand" in full-frame- in my opinion, the added height helps add to the sense of dread in that emmense hotel. In fact, I think THE SHINING full-frame would make a great IMAX blow-up using their DNR-process

That said, I've also seen it projected at 1.85:1, and thought it looked fine that way, too. For future HDTV versions, I really do think they should go to either 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 rather than pillar-boxed 1.37:1.

Also, as for 1.85:1 frame-lines in the cameras, actually if you watch the behind-the-scenes footage from the making of THE SHINING that's included in the Kubrick docmentary on the box-set, there are several glimpses of the video tap monitors on set, and there are clear markings for 1.85:1 on those monitors within the full-frame. Unlike some directors who actually have their video tape monitors masked so they only see the theatrical ratio on set, it's clear that Kubrick was looking at monitors showing both the full-frame, and the 1.85:1 center frame, so in his case it seems he really was keeping an eye on both frames.

Vincent

 

[ArthurMy]

I've never gotten this netiquette thing down - I'll use the italics button above.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Well, as I said back on the first page, despite the party line the shifting ARs on Strangelove have never made any sense since they're almost entirely bits of stock footage when they go to Academy Ratio, which is jarring and takes me out of the movie. The party line still seems to me like after-the-fact justification. I'll be happy to pick up an anamorphic 1.66:1 Strangelove, and those who don't like it can buy my old one.

 

[Mark_vdH]

Well, except for the helicopter blades...

Nestor_Ramos: Please check the aspect ratio yourself (instead of relying on the back cover).

 

[Colin Jacobson]

YOU DO THAT!!!!

 

[Juan C]

To be precise, 1.59:1, according to this (Spanish) review: http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...content&id=142

 

[Anthony Neilson]

Nestor - how long is the new documentary ? Thanks.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I learned long ago not to question this filmmaker's aesthetic judgment.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

1.66 would probably be best for Clockwork not 1.78.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Wow... I'm "officially" very excited for this release!!!

I have one big question: is "2001" really going to be upgraded? Or is it just a rumor at this point?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Yeah they are finally going to add the missing rocket motor noise into the soundtrack. Plus when Dave is in the antique room at the end, he will see a vision of Moonwatcher smiling appreciatively at him, waving his bone. Sort of like the end of ROTJ.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I simply think of this disc as targeted to those with widescreen displays. I continue to believe that Mr. Kubrick's preference for opening up these mattes for home video was based on the dominance of the 4:3 television standard. Just as theatrical presentation would not easily accomodate these varying aspect ratios, neither does a widescreen TV. I think that eventually, if still living, that he would have approved of a single-ratio version for widescreen sets.

And that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

As far as screen shots, they can be very misleading. One can find many shots in films from the 20s and 30s that look great when cropped down to 1.77:1. One really has to go by the whole film, not selected shots. And even then, the filmmaker should have final say when possible.