If Criterion had all this thought go into the AR during its planning stages and "knew it would be controversial'...why not discuss it on the blog earlier? Maybe they could have done it at the same time as the blog entry which Ron Epstein used to start the other TLE discussion that is now running (about the theatrical cut vs. the TV cut)?
And, I need one of you film experts to explain to me why, if Bertolucci and Storaro wanted to the film to be released 2:1, they would have shot it in a wider format. Is the 70mm the closest you can get to 2:1 without being under? If so, why wouldn't their wishes have been taken into account. These guys had reputations back then, similar to what they have now, didn't they?
I'm not trying to be confrontational (or conspiratorial) on the issue, I seriously need some education about why this would have happened.
The CC blog entry says the film was "commonly projected at 2.35:1" (apparently, against their wishes). Was it ever projected differently that anyone knows?
"Criterion has issued a statement about the transfer"
They make it sound like 2.0:1 is the same is 2.2:1 I don't really feel film makers are as into their work once its done as fans are,When I ask storaro to sign my laser,he said he never saw it(as a Laser) I don't think Bertollucci knows how much cropping Storaro has done.
This bit from the recent Criterion statement stuck out at me:
...So then, why go back and retroactively crop Apocalypse Now to 2.0:1 when it wasn't even intended for that ratio, and especially when Storaro knows damn bloody well the resolution retention of Blu-Ray and other HD formats?
Sounds like Criterion unintentionally just exposed Storaro's earlier blunder in that article.
(Not to bring up the summer/fall 2006 Redux OAR-wars all over again, but the question certainly bears asking once more.)
While I applaud the commitment of Criterion to the sometimes changing views of the film creators and have no problem that the Storaro 2:1 version is a feature of this set, the disappointing thing is the non-inclusion of a version retaining the theatrical AR.
It is the imagery that won the Academy Award. Maybe it was a "penicillin moment" and Storaro's framing for 2:1 mistakenly produced a 2.2:1 - 2.35:1 image that beautifully portrays the detachment and isolation of the emperor amidst the panorama and grandeur of imperial China, but at 2:1 that imagery changes and whether Storaro would have received the same praise for this imagery will never be put to the same test.
I haven't seen this film or the old DVD in ages. Regardless of the AR issues, and I think the On Five blog explains it well, I think I'm interested in seeing the new Criterion version with fresh eyes and re-evaluate it then.
That was a great review of the new DVD, by the way. I agree that the main character's coldness makes it hard to want to embrace it.
The blog entry doesn't even suggest that Bertolucci was all that involved, if at all. It really only says that Bertolucci told them to defer to Storaro, which is very likely the case since it'd otherwise be highly coincidental that Apocalypse Now also got the same 2:1 treatment -- and that blog entry suggests clearly that Apocalypse Now was *not* originally shot for 2:1.
Furthermore, the blog claims:
"that [Storaro and Bertolucci] had originally hoped that all of the original release prints would be in 70 mm, framed at 2.2:1 or 2:1, but not 2.35:1 or 2.33:1."
So which ratio did they really intend then? 2.2:1 or 2:1? That sure sounds too wishy washy to me since the DVD is now cropped to 2:1, which was never the one shown in theaters and just so happens to be one choice where Storaro might have some sort of hidden agenda vis-a-vis his push for Univision.
As mentioned previously, it'd be one thing if Storaro had gone for a 2.2:1 center crop/framing (or even a 2:1 center crop that looks right) for this transfer, but since he's apparently gone for a 2:1 pan-and-scan crop as far as I can tell, the blog entry hasn't really adequately addressed the issue, IMHO.
Does anyone here have the means to post frames from a 2.35:1 transfer and the new 2:1 transfer for purposes of comparison, or does anyone know of a link to another web page that does this? I bought the Criterion version today -- I just couldn't NOT buy it, I love this movie [just like I couldn't not buy "Apocalypse Now"], but I am very curious to know just how big a difference this makes.
This is just craziness. When have 70mm prints EVER been framed at 2.35:1 or 2.33:1? 70mm has always been 2.21:1 for Todd-AO or Super Panavision 70, or films blown up to 70mm, be they shot in 35mm anamorphic or Super 35. The fact they even bring up 2.35:1 (let alone 2.33:1!?) when discussing 70mm prints suggest they are all a bit confused.
Simon: Can you help me understand this (based on your quote below and mine)? I've never worked with movie film (either as a camerman or projectionist)...except for some inspired 8mm work as a teen with the family camera!
I think Storaro has been taking lessons about revisionist history from George Lucas. If he intended Last Emperor to be 2.00:1 all along, why does the framing look OFF sometimes on the Criterion DVD? Makes no sense.
And as others mentioned, his decisions for ANow make him less credible in this case. He just has some weird boner for 2.00:1 DVDs, I guess. Man, can anyone else think of a cinematographer who prefers to see his original compositions CROPPED?
The cropping is not terribly distracting unless you do a comparison like DVDBeaver did between the original and the cropped frames. But it is MAR nonetheless - a sort of film-maker sanctioned (and imposed) pan-and-scan. This issue aside, the theatrical version looks marvelous (for some reason the DVDBeaver caps don't do justice to the picture quality). I have not even scratched the surface when it comes to all the extras that this set is crammed with. And the package itself (I mean the actual digipak) is one of the most beautiful that I have ever seen for a DVD release. But I guess it better be for the $35-40 you end up paying for a single film when you can get a whole boxset from Warner for that price (containing as many as 10 films - take the Film Noir V4 set for example).
You are correct in saying that 70mm is closest to 2:1 without going under. Films projected from 70mm prints have a 2.21:1 aspect ratio. You can see an image from a piece of 70mm alignment film here. There are only two exceptions to this - Ultra Panavision films, which are anamorphic, so the ratio is 2.76:1.
The other exception is that it is possible to convert 1.85:1 films to 70mm by placing black bars down the sides of the 2.21:1 image, thus cropping away the width to produce the narrower ratio. This is not common, but it has been done for Jacques Tati's film Playtime, Cameron's Aliens, and I believe Spike Lee's film Malcolm X. Surely others can think of more 1.85:1 films blown up to 70mm prints.
If Storaro REALLY wanted to preserve the 2:1 aspect ratio of The Last Emperor on 70mm prints, they could've made such "non-standard" 70mm prints with bars down the sides. Thus cropping the 2.21:1 image down to 2.00:1. I see absolutely no reason why a big laboratory doing work for Storaro / Bertolluci on a very expensive production wouldn't of done this.
Others have pointed out to me that perhaps the only problem is that some theatres have curtains that can only move to 1.33, 1.85, 2.2 and 2.4 ratios. 2:1 could cause problems for some theatres. But most cinemas would just compromise and leave the curtains at the 2.2 spot.
Now the fact they didn't make 2:1 prints suggests to me that this whole 2:1 business is an afterthought, and that they were perfectly happy with the film being presented at 2.21:1 - the standard 70mm aspect ratio. If that is the case, why couldn't they present it at 2.21:1 on DVD? To me that would've been a perfect compromise between 2.4 and 2.0.
Incidentally, they could've also had 35mm prints cropped at the sides to preserve a 2:1 ratio. However, this would've required an optical printing step which would've degraded the quality somewhat, so it is understandable that this was avoided, but that meant they couldn't avoid the 2.4:1 35mm anamorphic ratio.
To make the 70mm prints from the 35mm original going through an optical printing step is unavoidable (you need to remove the anamorphic distortion, and make the image bigger for a new 65mm element that the 70mm prints are made from). So they could've cropped the image to 2:1 at that point, producing 70mm prints with black bars down the sides of the image.
The last thing to remember is that Bertolucci contractually had to produce a 1.33:1 version for television. Given that fact, it would've made a lot more sense to shoot the film in non-anamorphic Super 35 if they wanted to protect for both 2.00:1 and 1.33:1. They could've preserved roughly the same width of the image on both versions, but just opened the matte for the TV version, thus avoiding panning and scanning. It would've looked a bit strange with extremely loose compositions on the TV version (It would've looked like a 1940s film, which isn't a bad thing). But it would've avoided cropping the image at all on the 35mm and 70mm versions. Super 35 inherently requires an optical printing step (or now a digital intermediate) so that would've made it easy to set the image to 2:1, rather than the usual 1.85:1, ore more commonly, 2.4:1.
Simon: Thank you so much for taking the time to type that exhaustive post. That answers all my technical questions about the issue and pretty much leaves dangling my questions about why, if they really intended 2:1 back in 1987, they didn't find a way to make it 2:1.
It's sad when everything seems so illogical that you cannot bring yourself to believe the talented cinematographer about why he's made this decision. It's a shame too that Criterion's got to be put in the middle of this mess.
If Man's speculation that the cropping is not from the dead center of the original image, I don't know how Storaro could ever pretend to make the claim that he was composing for 2:1 in his head.
So what do we do? As so many have already pointed out--especially those who fought the fight during the release of Apocalypse Now--there's no changing his mind.
Not much we can do, well, other than not buy the release. Get the ~2.35:1 European version instead. Send Criterion an email saying you think they made the wrong decision, and perhaps buy The Naked Prey to see how exceptional a Criterion transfer of a 35mm anamorphic (Panavision) film can look.