Search results

Not a good place. Hercule Poirot died there.

Orson Welles?

Which Wilde novel?

Yes, 1.19 continued for several years overseas. The fine grain used for Triumph was 1.19.

Never been equated with herpes before. Ummm.. thank you?

The cut version always existed. I don’t believe anyone bothered at that time, as the cut footage was (as I recall) from 16mm. This is a restoration that’s been in the works awhile. I revisited the film with a mind toward aspect ratio, and once again came away with 1.33 as a mixed bag, unless...

No

There was a period of time in the ‘80s during which Richard and I frequented the same boutique hotel in LA. Although most people were able to tell us apart, there was a problem which took several days to figure out. I would normally receive phone calls beginning before 8AM from the labs and...

You’re in a better place.

The reality is that in 1931, especially in larger venues, the film would have been projected as an inverted trapezoid, then matted to appear more akin to a rectangle. What we’re seeing in this disc is probably the most accurate the film has looked - including at its premiere in 1931.

The actual picture area was probably full silent 1.33:1, which is S35. The viewfinder would have been marked for either 1.19 or a 1.33 with different parallax, or both, ignoring the area that would be covered by the optical track.

If studio execs and tech people weren‘t protecting for a ratio they KNEW would be used outside of their direct control I would hope they’re no longer in their positions.

Please don’t get metaphysical. Have you actually watched the film and seen the potential problems of running 1.33 centered?

Sorry, but the studios didn‘t resolve the problem except in memos. Have you viewed the new disc, and compared 1.19 vs 1.33, and how each plays from shot to shot? The film is protected for the bottom of the frame in many instances, while centered in others. If one were to do a 1.33 extraction...

Everything that the studios do is immaterial, if what they create doesn't end up on theater screens. I’ve read, and I’ve heard. Studios are run by people. People sometimes make odd decisions, and then they move on to another job. Those decisions sometimes make it to print - internal studio...

There was, at the time of conversion, a percentage of theaters that rather than changing screen size further cropped the image at the top and bottom of the already cropped screen - soundtrack real estate now gone - to perpetuate their long-standing 1.33:1 AR. The change from silent to sound was...

I’ve re-read. Are you not suggesting the film should be 1.33?

The OCN of the cut version survived. The additional footage is derived from a 35mm dupe, struck from a 1931 lavender, which is no longer extant.

We will agree to disagree. Paper often misrepresents reality, especially in a fast-changing situation. From a purely logistical perspective, if Dr. J. was correctly 1.33, it would be s-o-d, akin to the studio’s earlier Marx Bros. (“The Boys”) productions. Even if the OCN was originally exposed...

I've been viewing Kino's recent listings of new releases, and even those I adore those guys, I cringe each and every time they use the work "restored," when there is absolutely not restoration occurring. Marketing. I know. I understand. But it denigrates real / true / actual restoration...