Warner's Kiss Me Kate Mis-Framed (1 Viewer)

[GerardoHP]

With all due respect to the educated voices who have spoken on this matter, to what was intended and unintended, to original prints and bastardized versions, to those who thought what was going on on the left side of the screen was not terribly important and those who do, to telecine machines, operators and anyone who used their best intentions to work on this project...

THE PICTURE IS TOO ZOOMED!

 

[TedD]

Agreed!

Ted

 

[William Miller]

My head is spinning from all of this!

Here's my comment:

The Kiss Me Kate DVD looks great!

So does Silk Stockings and Les Girls and especially High Society.

In fact, these days Warner can do no wrong in my opinion.

And then there's Paramount. Let's switch off to a discussion about the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral DVD. The first 3 minutes are the worst I have ever seen in home video. (I know this comment doesn't belong in this thread but I thought we could discuss something that really needs squawking about.)

And when it comes to 3-D movies, let's pray that we can get the one and only 3-D movie that really matters.

The Charge at Feather River

Now that's 3-D.

If you ever get a chance to see this at a real theater in real 3-D, don't miss it. And look out for knives, guns, tomahawks, arrows, horses, snakes and of course...tobacco juice.

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: Kiss Me Kate...

There is no difference between flat (2-D) prints and 3-D prints.

Re: Gunfight...

The opening looks as it does because it is derived from a fifth generation element. The only way to correct the problems would have been via digital restoration.

 

[TedD]

Having the correct AR sometimes means you crop part of the image

Very true Patrick, but you shouldn't zoom in to the whole image by 25% or thereabouts.

Another transfer that is guilty of the same procedure is "Ben Hur" see http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx2.htm

The correct A.R. is important, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice image from all four sides in the process.

Ted

 

[PatrickL]

Despite the comments by the esteemed Mr. Harris, I am still confused. Bear with me.

The print that was released in 3D was Academy ratio, but I can't believe it could have been framed the way that the dvd is, because of the way that dancers have their arms or legs trimmed off the side of the image while they are in motion. Take even a non-dance moment, such as when Keel raises his arm in gusto while singing "wunderbar": his hand gets lopped out of the image even though he and Grayson have been positioned screen left to accomodate it- could that really have been correct for 3D? (The same moment plays in the theatrical trailer on the dvd btw, *with* his extended hand) I have never seen KMK in 3D (you can bet I will the next time it plays, though) but I would have to believe that a 3D screening framed as this dvd is would sabotage the illusion repeatedly, needlessly, especially when it clips off limbs of dancers.

Can anyone with sensitivity toward musical number staging who has seen this both in 3D and on dvd speak to this?

Prints were released which, as I understand the earlier quotes from George Sidney, could have been shown at Academy ratio or soft matted to two other ARs. The framing on the dvd could not possibly reflect these prints, because there is no room to sensibly soft matte what the dvd shows. Also, wouldn't these prints also have been subject to the elimination of some information due to the Technicolor matrices, or is that a function only of two-camera 3-D composition and therefore not applicable to flat presentations?

I'm wondering what is represented by the reference print that was used. As I understand it, at least half if not most of the initial screenings were in 3D. Another perhaps considerable number of theatres chose to show KMK flat but in one of the wide ratios.

So, if this framing on the dvd does NOT represent the framing of the 3D nor of the wider ARs, does it represent only the prints sent to theatres that wished to play it flat and in Academy ratio? Doesn't that mean it was only screened with this framing (assuming it's correct) in a minor percentage of cinemas?

Confused!

Edited to acknowledge that while I was taking forever to post, Mr. Harris noted that the 2-D and 3-D prints should be the same. This is *really* how it is framed when shown in 3D?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Ted:

Ben-Hur was cropped only on the top and bottom from 2.55:1 to 2.70:1. The print used for the transfer was from an anamorphic print, rather than 70mm or 65mm.

The left and right sides were not meant to be seen...they're simply leftover image area on the print. Theaters showing Ben-Hur in 70mm or 35mm would present it in 2.55:1. The film was probably shot this way knowing that would happen.

The cropping of the top and bottom is odd... the only explainations probably have to do with faking 2.76:1 (the so-called "correct" aspect ratio for MGM Camera-65 films) or hiding splice lines.

The way Kiss Me Kate and Ben-Hur are framed on DVD are two totally different situations.

 

[Kenneth_C]

...you shouldn't zoom in to the whole image by 25% or thereabouts....The correct A.R. is important, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice image from all four sides in the process.

Ted, I appreciate the trouble you took to do the screencaps, but I'm not understanding the whole "zoom in" thing. Every shot you've compared shows more picture to the sides from the LD and on the top & bottom on the DVD.

Take cap #10, which you say features "a zoom-in to boot". The LD cuts the word ADMITTANCE from the sign at the top of the frame, and Keenan Wynn's legs at the bottom. If the DVD is zoomed in, shouldn't the top & bottom show less (which your quote above seems to suggest)?

 

[TedD]

the only explainations probably have to do with faking 2.76:1

Bingo, Patrick. Just like the only explanation here with Kiss Me Kate has to do with faking 1.33 by discarding excessive top and bottom information.

If Ben Hur was to be released at 2.76, (and I am not debating the OAR) the transfer should have used the entire frame. If it was to be released at 2.55, then some of the sides should have been discarded.

At no time should they have cropped the top and bottom to the extent that was done.

Ted

 

[Patrick McCart]

Bingo, Patrick. Just like the only explanation here with Kiss Me Kate has to do with faking 1.33 by discarding excessive top and bottom information.

I wasn't confirming it was either one.

How is it faking 1.33:1? It's how the theatrical prints looked, so why should it look any different?

 

[PatrickL]

It's how the theatrical prints looked, so why should it look any different?

It *can't* be how *all* the theatrical prints looked since some allowed for soft-matting. And while Mr Harris has confirmed that there would be information eliminated by two processes, and that a resulting print he saw looked "cramped," that doesn't mean that it matches the framing on the dvd. He hasn't said that it does, as I understand it.

 

[GerardoHP]

To me, it just doesn't make any sense that anyone involved in the design of this picture would have ever intended to cut off and close in on as many parts of its choreography, not to mention just about everything else on this DVD.

 

[TedD]

It's how the theatrical prints looked

How do you know? Got any captures from an actual 35mm theatrical print?

I don't, and until someone actually posts one we won't know for sure.

All we have to go on are accounts by people who have seen a 3D presentation and were probably not paying that much attention to the composition because they were wowed by the 3D.

RAH has seen a print, but that was several years ago as well.

Remember, the AR is not the issue here, it's how that AR was achieved and how much of the image was discarded in the process.

One thing is for sure, back in 1953 printing 35mm was a mass production operation and it's highly unlikely that the composition was altered on a scene by scene basis during printing like it was for the DVD. Some of the scenes on the DVD were zoomed in as much as 25%.

Ted

 

[Greg_M]

Wow, this has become some disagreement. All I can suggest is to watch chapter 29. Keenan Wynn, James Whitmore, Howard Keel, kathryn Grayson are in the dressing room. Wynn is sitting on the far left during the line "The smell of burning flesh" on the DVD all you can see is his knees and feet, and much of Kathryn is also missing. On the laser discs Wynn is completely in veiw (head and all) - why would a scene like this be composed to exclude more than 2/3 of two of the leading actors?

Also at the end of the song "From This Moment On" Ann Miller and Tommy Rall's feet are cut off. MGM would never have cut off the feet of their dancers toward the end of a dance number.


The opening title sequence is window boxed the rest of the film is ZOOMED in.

I guess we'll have to see what the others who purchased the DVD today have to say upon veiwing. I sure those who don't know any better will love it, while others will see what the complaints have been about.

 

[RolandL]

I have a copy of the song "From This Moment On" in 3-D on VHS tape. Anyone know how to copy a still frame of this on to my PC? Or if someone could post a frame from this from the LD and/or DVD, I could tell you what is missing or added. I don't know if this scene in 3-D on VHS is what was shown at a movie theatre though.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From the mid-seventies through the early nineties, I had the opportunity to see this film in its original dual-strip 3-D version many times. These left/right 35mm pairs were in the dye-transfer Technicolor process, and were printed in 1953 for the original theatrical release. I must have seen this print over a dozen times, at venues as diverse as the Thalia in New York City, the AFI theatre in Washington, and the Tiffany in Los Angeles.

My memories of precise shot content is very hazy, but I can tell you this without any hesitation: the film was perfectly composed from left to right, and there were no instances of off-center composition. I should mention that all of these screenings presented the film in 1.37, although (as director George Sidney stated) the print had enough head room to be shown as wide as 1.85. To imply that MGM would have allowed theatres to present an off-center print of their big Christmas release of 1953 is absurd.

The first time that I saw one of these new prints with the off-center composition (a recent late nineties printing) was a few years ago at the Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, California. The problem was so severe that Mr. David Packard (owner of the Stanford) used his substantial clout with the studio to strike a new, full academy print (no soundtrack) which he interlocked with a newly struck 3 track full coat magnetic track of the stereo audio. This full aperture element was then shown correctly with proper left-right composition at his theatre.

Apparently, the film was photographed full aperture, and optically altered by Technicolor for the original printing. (Once again, there is no difference between a
3-D print and a standard one. Any theatre showing it flat on its original release would have just shown one of the two sides.)

It would appear that within the last few years, a new preservation element was created from the camera original elements, and optical re-centering was not done. Therefore, any new prints (or interpositives for video mastering) would be off-center.

In the original IB Technicolor 3-D prints, the film looked stunning. I'm afraid these new prints and video masters are just a pale shadow of this films original visual splendor.

Bob Furmanek, Curator
3-D Film Archives

P.S. - Here's the final tragedy: that original dye-transfer Technicolor 3-D print that made the rounds in the revival houses got so trashed, it was junked. What a pity.

 

[Robert Harris]

Alright, folks...

Once other parts of the country open for business, I'll check with a gentleman who is quite knowledgable on 3-D, someone who has or had an original 35mm print and the studio, all for comment.

Once I have all of the hard information, I'll post and make any necessary corrections or annotations to my earlier posts.

RAH

 

[Kenneth_C]

Also at the end of the song "From This Moment On" Ann Miller and Tommy Rall's feet are cut off.

I see that only when they are taking their bows, and, if the previous comparison shots between the LD and the DVD are any indication, I would expect them to be cut off below the knees on the LD, instead of at the ankles.

 

[DeeF]

I'm completely fascinated by this. It seems to me that Kiss Me Kate is perfectly representative of a problem movie, made just at the point of widescreen switchover, and 3D to boot, which meant 2 "eyes" (2 different negatives) with slightly different pictures. So there are so many choices to be made -- do you capture the original (which might be wrong) or do you redo the masking?

I've looked at the film again, and there do seem to be important things cut off on the left side. I can't do screen shots, but an important scene that's cut off on the left is at the end of "Tom, Dick or Harry," when the camera slips overhead and the four dancers (Rall, Fosse, Miller and Van) come forward. Tommy Rall is on the left and is almost completely cut off, only coming back into the shot for the final moment. I'm sure this isn't right.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, it's not. The composition would have originally presented all four.