Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray? (1 Viewer)

[Pete York]

I find McBride's story interesting. Stevens shows up at the University of Wisconsin in 1966 with his personal 35mm print of SHANE to present in academy ratio. Earlier in the year he went at NBC over A PLACE IN THE SUN, showing his very serious engagement with how he wanted his movies to be seen. As McElwee hints at, doesn't the UW showing, an event Stevens obviously had control over, signal his preference for the way SHANE was to be presented? Especially, Bob, as you point out, when there was a widescreen re-release that same year!

 

[KMR]

My point was that they wouldn't have been riding the framing manually the whole show unless you've uncovered evidence of that?

I can't imagine a screening of any film where they'd do that. It would be quite an experience, that's for sure! The audience might get motion sickness from seeing the picture moving up and down and up and down... (It's weird enough seeing the adjustment made just once at the beginning of a show.)

 

[Ruz-El]

I can't imagine a screening of any film where they'd do that. It would be quite an experience, that's for sure! The audience might get motion sickness from seeing the picture moving up and down and up and down... (It's weird enough seeing the adjustment made just once at the beginning of a show.)

I can, as it's exactly how a screening of Frankenstein was shown locally, with the projectionist moving the camera up and down to keep heads from being cut off due to being blown up to fit the widescreen venue.

Which is why I find it a little odd that a revisionist, modern day re-framing from academy ratio to wide in this case is being equated to the much less drastic re-framing that a 1:85 film gets when put out as a 1:85 film on DVD since all films get reframed when transferred.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Which is why I find it a little odd that a revisionist, modern day re-framing from academy ratio to wide in this case is being equated to the much less drastic re-framing that a 1:85 film gets when put out as a 1:85 film on DVD since all films get reframed when transferred.

The 1.66:1 re-framing of Shane is being equated to the 1.66:1 theatrical showing of Shane. Both the original 1.66:1 theatrical and the re-framed Blu-ray crop the in production 1.37:1. No one's denying this. The idea that the re-framed BD 1.66:1 is a drastic change from the 1.66:1 theatrical framing is what is being rebutted.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

And the (my) ultimate point is that a 1.66 crop that is corrected shot by shot, supervised by a filmmaker (which is what we are getting on the Blu) would in theory be more pleasing than a 1.66 crop that was set at one position and not changed for the duration of the film (which is what would have been gotten in the original theatrical run). That is why I find it amusing that people want something that is "historical" over something that is certainly more artistically pleasing.

 

[John Hodson]

And the (my) ultimate point is that a 1.66 crop that is corrected shot by shot, supervised by a filmmaker (which is what we are getting on the Blu) would in theory be more pleasing than a 1.66 crop that was set at one position and not changed for the duration of the film (which is what would have been gotten in the original theatrical run).That is why I find it amusing that people want something that is "historical" over something that is certainly more artistically pleasing.

In my case, I'd simply like to see the film that the Academy voted for; I'm not *desperate* and I obviously favour 1.37:1, but I'm curious to see what they thought was so Oscar worthy at 1.66:1.

 

[DVDvision]

This will be the exact same film. Only with less severed heads and sightly better framed shots.

 

[Douglas R]

I can't imagine a screening of any film where they'd do that. It would be quite an experience, that's for sure! The audience might get motion sickness from seeing the picture moving up and down and up and down... (It's weird enough seeing the adjustment made just once at the beginning of a show.)

As I said once before, that was quite common in London suburban cinemas from the mid-'50s when they used to show reissues of old Academy ratio films on their new wide screens. The projectionist would have to constantly adjust the picure to avoid losing either the tops of heads or essential information at the bottom of the screen. And yes - it was distracting.

 

[KMR]

As I said once before, that was quite common in London suburban cinemas from the mid-'50s when they used to show reissues of old Academy ratio films on their new wide screens. The projectionist would have to constantly adjust the picure to avoid losing either the tops of heads or essential information at the bottom of the screen. And yes - it was distracting.

Egad...

 

[bujaki]

You would have had so much fun in Puerto Rico when the poor projectionist had to accommodate Spanish subtitles at the bottom of an Academy ratio film shown in 1.85 while trying to keep the heads from disappearing!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From Showmen's Trade Review: January 16, 1954

 

[Robert Crawford]

Less than 7 weeks until this BD is released.

 

[Bob Cashill]

The latest from Jeffrey Wells...was this posted already and I missed it? In any case: http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2013/04/ding-dong-shane-battle-is-won/

Not magnanimous in victory: "All hail Team 1.37! Sincere thanks to Woody Allen, Joseph McBride, Bob Furmanek and all the commenters who stood up and said the right thing. And shame on those Home Theatre Forum commenters who kept insisting that 1.66 was a proper way to go because Paramount marketing execs insisted on cropping the original film in order to deliver a faux-panoramic screen experience in first-run theatres back in the spring of 1953."

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Magnanimous is not a word I would use to describe Mr. Wells in any event. My own sense of propriety precludes me from posting my description here.

 

[Bob Cashill]

And, for all this impassioned debate, I still plan to buy the much-disputed Blu-ray. See for myself and all that, an option frequently, and wrongly, discouraged and dismissed. (The UK DRACULA BD is terrific.)

 

[Bob Cashill]

Get me rewrite, though the sentiment still holds: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/dvd_extra_extra_shane_blu_ray_now_rRRLlr9Ts3GDyA5zhGErQP#axzz2QkLhh6v8

 

[Moe Dickstein]

All I can say is, when I imagine Mr. Wells, I have the urge to be elsewhere...

 

[Sam Posten]

Confirmed for 1.37 alone by Lou Lumenic at NYP:
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/dvd_extra_extra_shane_blu_ray_now_rRRLlr9Ts3GDyA5zhGErQP#axzz2QkLhh6v8

 

[Ruz-El]

Well if the regular Bluray is 1:37 and not an archive release, then I'm in. I'd still prefer both versions included in one release though instead of an archive cash in.

 

[John Hodson]

Odd isn't it; would they have done this without Jeffrey Wells yammering in their ears (his initial piece inspired my own small yammering...), and enlisting the support of various luminaries?

But why do I get the rather unsettling feeling that I've supped with the devil? I expect I'm not alone...