Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection) (1 Viewer)

[Chris S]

It is first mentioned in post #23. I would recommend that this thread be merged since this topic is specific to that release.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Here's my question: does anyone know what the OAR was for the television version? If it was 2.35:1, that settles it, but if this is a case of a film being shot Super 35 to permit flexible framing, I don't know if I'd have much of an issue with it being framed 2:1, much like I don't have an issue with the 2:1 framing of Star Trek VI.

Note: don't bother trying to tell me that Super 35 didn't exist in 1987, as Super 35 was just a modification of the Tuschinsky Superscope format from the 50s.

 

[Simon Howson]

IMDB.com says it was shot in Technovision which is 35mm anamorphic. Technovision is just an Italian based rental house that supplies mainly Panavision equipment.

I can't believe that Criterion are releasing a non original aspect ratio DVD. Why did they even bother?

 

[Matt Hough]

Looks like it was shot in Technovision which is a 2.35:1 process.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Technovision isn't always anamorphic, and isn't a process, per se: it's a supplier of lenses and other cinematographic equipment. Look under Technovision on the IMDb and you'll find that not all productions listing Technovision are anamorphic. I asked Glenn Ericksen (DVD Savant) about this awhile ago, and he set me straight. Glenn may not be the best judge of transfer quality (his equipment is dated), but he knows his shooting formats and equipment.

 

[Dave Simkiss]

Did anyone ever figure out why Vittorio Storaro and Francis Ford Coppola were intent on cropping Apocalypse now for home video releases?
I always suspected they were of the belief that the majority of home theatres were 4x3 and that a 2.35 presentation would be wasted on such a display?
If true, could this decision be based on the same misconception?

Just supposition of course
Wow this mirrors my ramblings on The Abyss - didn't Cameron hold back a widescreen transfer on VHS/laserdisc for years due to his concerns over home theatre display? Or did I just make all this up?

 

[Simon Howson]

Storaro spent a few years trying to promote a film format called Univision, which was essentially 3 perforation Super 35, cropped to 2.00:1, rather than 2.36:1 (and ultimately 2.4:1 in the projector).

He suggested that 2.00:1 is the ideal format because it is a more pleasing aspect ratio than either 2.4:1 or 1.85:1. He is effectively using old films shot in anamorphic to try to promote a 2:1 format that no one except him wanted to adopt.

Kind of sad really.

 

[Frank M]

Here is an explanation by DVD producer Kim Aubry:

American Zoetrope: Films - Apocalypse Now

That doesn't explain why they screened the Redux version with the original 2,35:1 ratio in theatres.

 

[Robert Harris]

If one looks at the physical realities of the situation, TLE was shot at 2.35 and projected at both 2.35 as well as 2.21 for 70mm.

With nominal 5% cropping as seen in most quality theatres, the image is down to around 2.2 for 35mm presentations.

I would never think of going against the wishes of quality filmmakers, who in this case have decided that 2:1 is the best format for home video.

Does one lose a bit of information from each edge? A bit.

Does it matter when it comes to the enjoyment of the film?

I really doubt it.

What matters is that you are viewing the film as the filmmakers wish it to be seen.

As to the little matter of quality, and while I haven't yet had the time to view either of the films in their entirety, a sample of the image yields the thought "Magnificently Rendered."

Color, saturation, black levels, could not be more gorgeous. And this is what Mr. Storaro's work on TLE is all about. It is visually stunning.

There are times when one is best not going by numbers alone.

This is a magnificent release!

RAH

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Well said, RAH.

 

[Mike Frezon]

It seems that the change is more than just "a bit" and seems to fly in the face of hoping to re-create the film experience in one's home. It would seem quite unfortunate if all such widescreen films (or wider) were given the same treatment. Why excuse this particular set of director & cinematographer when I doubt the same would be forgiven of William Wyler and Robert Surtees (Ben-Hur)?


This shot is taken from Criterion's own site and is roughly 2:1.

This shot was taken from another reviewer's site (of the old R1 release) and is roughly 2.35:1.

Maybe I have just been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid in the HTF lunchroom!

 

[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.

 

[John Hodson]

Had the decision been made by George Lucas then...well frankly, nothing surprises me any more...

 

[Peter Neski]

I don't why I posted this on The HD forum since its not HD,sorry!!!!

 

[Mike Frezon]

But to reiterate my question, why are they making this decision? Why do they feel it is better to change the AR for the home audience?

I would actually think the easy thing to do would be to go with the original AR...so there must be a very particular reason for the decision to be made.

 

[Robert Harris]

Not being intimate with the situation, I can only surmise that the intent is to deliver the best quality image for the better than average home theater.

What this means in terms of absolute resolution, is a gain of two lines vertically, for every horizontal line lost. Trimming the edges adds quite a bit of real estate to the overall image.

From a publicity point of view it only creates a single problem.

Mr. Storaro won Best Cinematography for his extraordinary work on TLE, and although that fact should be noted as to the facts regarding the film, the home video does not fully reproduce the content of theatrical image that won that award.

I'm afraid that it's all a balancing act.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Problem w/ the explanation given so far is that the decision seemed to have been made based on somewhat outdated assumptions about home displays and available resolution. If you read the Q&A provided at the American Zoetrope site, it sounds like Storaro assumes most people will be viewing his work on 4x3 SD TVs. That may well be true when he originally made the decision for Apocalypse Now, but is it really still true now, especially considering that people buy DVDs (especially a Criterion release) for more than just a one time viewing?

I can understand if Storaro wanted some sort of dual ratio release ala MAR FS and OAR widescreen so that the consumer can decide for him/herself. But we are not given that choice here. And I'm pretty sure most who'd actually spend the $$$ on a Criterion release would either already own a good size widescreen display or will do so very soon.

Also, I think I read elsewhere that even the HiDef masters are in 2.0:1 ratio, so are we to expect a future HDM release to also be similarly cropped even though there will be plenty of resolution available there?

The decision may not be "arbitrary", but that doesn't mean it's actually the right/best one either.

_Man_

 

[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 :frowning:

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

And I feel I have to agree with Mike Frezon, OAR 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!

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I still don't understand Storaro's decision to crop these films, especially now that widescreen TVs are so prevalent. Even with 2.35:1, you're not losing that much height on the TV anymore.

I realize that I'm probably in a small minority, but I was watching widescreen VHS movies on my 13" fifteen years ago, so the screen "real estate" lost on either a 4:3 or 16:9 TV doesn't bother me too much.

At any rate, I am pleased, though, that Criterion took the time to resarch the different versions of the film. Even before I started studying editing, I had begun to grow tired of all these "Extended Versions" coming out, as it becomes exceedingly confusing as to which is the "correct" version. There are special cases, of course (Blade Runner, Close Encounters), where it's justified, but it's true: longer does not necessarily mean better. (After 20 years, did we really need 25 more minutes of Big?).

At any rate, as has been stated time and time again, as long as the original version is available, too, then I'm reasonably happy. And it's good to have this mystery solved. It'd be nice, though, if it were in the original AR.

 

[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.