- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,416
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
I have this evening sent an email to New York's Village Voice, which used to be a quality paper as follows:
"It isn't personal.
But I don't get it.
Reading Michael Atkinson's comments about wide screen, and more specifically, 70mm cinema masterpieces, I began to wonder if Mr. Atkinson had a constant need to either continuously talk on the phone, raid the kitchen or visit the bathroom.
For anyone -- and I mean ANYONE -- writing professionaly on the subject of film, to admit that they would rather view a tiny image, lacking not only a complete running time as created by the fimmaker in question, but then cut by a minimum of fifty to sixty percent of the image, reducing that film to a point at which it has little in common with the original...
I don't have the words to paint the proper picture.
In the pan and scan of Lawrence of Arabia, a horrific version of the film lacking twenty mintues and half the image, Peter O'Toole blows out a match.
Unfortunately, the individual who created that pan and scanned version didn't know the film -- or the story.
Mr. O'Toole is at the far right of the frame; the match at the left.
Begin with a HUGE close up of Mr. O'Toole and then paaannn over to the match, which then somehow is extinguished.
The image continues full screen left.
The music builds.
AND NOTHING WHATSOEVER OCCURS.
The image of the sun rising over a desert dune is dead center, missed by the panning and scanning technician...
and NOT ON SCREEEN.
As Mr. Atkinson, obviously has neither a love nor understanding of the art of the cinema, and certainly not the concept of viewing a complete film in its Original Aspect
Raio (OAR), II would humbly suggest that Mr. Atkinson should find employment more suited to his understanding of the cinema as art.
Possibly painting lines to separate lanes of traffic on highways.
He can not only select the specific shade of yellow, but also place those lines straight down the center of traffic lanes.
And only paint them every other mile or so.
He can then go home, turn on his 12 inch DuMont, grab a beer and be thrilled by reels three through six of Citizen Kane, a so-so film by American filmmaker on Wel.
RAH"
These comments refer the final graph of an article which may be found at:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0329/atkinson.php
Please feel free to attempt to educate these folks and add your own letters to the editor.
Long live OAR!
RAH
"It isn't personal.
But I don't get it.
Reading Michael Atkinson's comments about wide screen, and more specifically, 70mm cinema masterpieces, I began to wonder if Mr. Atkinson had a constant need to either continuously talk on the phone, raid the kitchen or visit the bathroom.
For anyone -- and I mean ANYONE -- writing professionaly on the subject of film, to admit that they would rather view a tiny image, lacking not only a complete running time as created by the fimmaker in question, but then cut by a minimum of fifty to sixty percent of the image, reducing that film to a point at which it has little in common with the original...
I don't have the words to paint the proper picture.
In the pan and scan of Lawrence of Arabia, a horrific version of the film lacking twenty mintues and half the image, Peter O'Toole blows out a match.
Unfortunately, the individual who created that pan and scanned version didn't know the film -- or the story.
Mr. O'Toole is at the far right of the frame; the match at the left.
Begin with a HUGE close up of Mr. O'Toole and then paaannn over to the match, which then somehow is extinguished.
The image continues full screen left.
The music builds.
AND NOTHING WHATSOEVER OCCURS.
The image of the sun rising over a desert dune is dead center, missed by the panning and scanning technician...
and NOT ON SCREEEN.
As Mr. Atkinson, obviously has neither a love nor understanding of the art of the cinema, and certainly not the concept of viewing a complete film in its Original Aspect
Raio (OAR), II would humbly suggest that Mr. Atkinson should find employment more suited to his understanding of the cinema as art.
Possibly painting lines to separate lanes of traffic on highways.
He can not only select the specific shade of yellow, but also place those lines straight down the center of traffic lanes.
And only paint them every other mile or so.
He can then go home, turn on his 12 inch DuMont, grab a beer and be thrilled by reels three through six of Citizen Kane, a so-so film by American filmmaker on Wel.
RAH"
These comments refer the final graph of an article which may be found at:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0329/atkinson.php
Please feel free to attempt to educate these folks and add your own letters to the editor.
Long live OAR!
RAH