UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - The Night of the Hunter -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I'm sorry that the question bothers you, but it's still a fair question.

What makes you think the question bothers me? I don't have any concerns about the aspect ratio.

 

[sbjork]

I also do not treat industry publications of the period as absolutes for anything published.

If I desired more information, I’d start with production files, and possibly see if there was an interview in AC with Mr. Cortez.

Those are my thoughts.

I don't treat them as absolutes either, which is one reason why I was asking. Some people are holding up that listing as definitive proof, but to me it's just another data point, one that may or may not be reliable.

ASC Mag has been a dead end for me so far. Their search function only pulls up a retrospective article with a smattering of quotes from Cortez, none of which provide proof -- well, other than making it clear that he didn't shoot it in Cinemascope, but we knew that! I went through the issues in the archive from 1955 and read the indices, but nothing looked promising. They don't appear to have profiled specific films or cinematographers very much back in that era.

And thank you! I didn't think that you necessarily had any direct knowledge in this specific case, but it never hurts to ask.

 

[Gerani53]

In the old 16mm days, I owned a TV syndication print of THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. That meant it was 1.33 or 1.37. The image was clearly meant to be cropped into a more horizontal shape, because you could see "blooper" material on the top and bottom occasionally. I find it hard to believe cinematographer Stanley Cortez would have permitted this, if he didn't know in advance that cropping was going to be done for a 1.85 release. In particular, I remember seeing the boom mike below the trundling little children when Lillian Gish takes them into town initially. Just reporting what I saw, folks.

 

[sbjork]

In the old 16mm days, I owned a TV syndication print of THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. That meant it was 1.33 or 1.37. The image was clearly meant to be cropped into a more horizontal shape, because you could see "blooper" material on the top and bottom occasionally. I find it hard to believe cinematographer Stanley Cortez would have permitted this, if he didn't know in advance that cropping was going to be done for a 1.85 release. In particular, I remember seeing the boom mike below the trundling little children when Lillian Gish takes them into town initially. Just reporting what I saw, folks.

There's no question that while it was shot full frame, it was intended to be matted. The only question is 1.66:1 vs. 1.85:1.

 

[Robert Harris]

There's no question that while it was shot full frame, it was intended to be matted. The only question is 1.66:1 vs. 1.85:1.

I’ve been informed that the UCLA restoration was set as 1.66.

Which, as has been discussed, is NOT the same 1.66 that would be the product of an OCN scan.

Different animals.

My vote is with UCLA.

 

[jayembee]

Robert Gitt and the UCLA Film & Television Archive would disagree with you on that point, and Criterion went with their recommendation. I'm not saying that they are right and Kino is wrong, but I am asking for RAH's thoughts on the matter.

I know that Bob Furmanek believes that it should be 1`.85:1, and Box Office Weekly from 1955 says 1.85:1 as well. But there are arguments on both side, and I'd like to hear RAH's if he's willing.

There's always trouble when dealing with anything out of MGM/UA. In the DVD days, it seemed like SOP for them to release flat widescreen films in 1.66. A lot of us suspected it was because they wanted to be able to say that they released things in widescreen, while at the same time minimizing the intrusion of those pesky black bars for those what wanted their damn TV screens filled.

It seemed like a quasi-reasonable compromise, and the fact that there were several different aspect ratios in use for flat widescreen gave MGM/UA a handy excuse. But I think it also gave a lot of people a misunderstanding about what the original release ratios actually were for these films.

 

[uncledougie]

Here’s an initial post by Bob Furmanek from eleven years back initiating a discussion on the subject. I know The Night of the Hunter was a United Artists release, but he mentions at the end the house Paramount widescreen ratio was 1.66:1 early on. So it’s quite plausible Mr. Harris’s conclusion is correct for this title.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Here’s an initial post by Bob Furmanek from eleven years back initiating a discussion on the subject. I know The Night of the Hunter was a United Artists release, but he mentions at the end the house Paramount widescreen ratio was 1.66:1 early on. So it’s quite plausible Mr. Harris’s conclusion is correct for this title.

The Night of the Hunter was filmed from August 18 - October 7, 1954.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

1.66:1 as a compositional ratio during principal photography was pretty much abandoned by February 1954.

 

[Music lover10]

European wide screen remained 1:66? To the present day?

 

[Robert Harris]

1.66:1 as a compositional ratio during principal photography was pretty much abandoned by February 1954.

In the UK?

 

[Kilgore]

IMO, the Criterion release is worth it over the Kino for the Charles Laughton Directs the Night of the Hunter feature alone

 

[Patrick McCart]

Watched the UHD last night and it might be the first time I've felt 4K is a bit much for a film. Still looks nice, but I think 1080p helps round out the edges in terms of optical shots, location vs studio. The 1.85:1 framing looks right to me, even if it's not like 1.66:1 made it lesser on Criterion's edition. Putting back the UA logo and no overly loud MGM logo also a plus. Keeping Criterion for the extras, but I think I'll get more out of this in projection when I upgrade my system sometimes in the future.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

In the UK?

US. Paramount was the last and changed to 1.85 on February 13, 1954. More info here. https://web.archive.org/web/2022012...ilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation/

1.75:1 was the prominent UK non-anamorphic widescreen ratio.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Additional data can be found here.

First Year of Widescreen Production - 3dfilmarchive

web.archive.org

 

[mskaye]

1.66:1 as a compositional ratio during principal photography was pretty much abandoned by February 1954.

Tell that to Stanley Kubrick !

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I was discussing the time period in which NOTH went into production when there was a concerted effort among studios and exhibitors towards standardization.

 

[Robert Harris]

I was discussing the time period in which NOTH went into production when there was a concerted effort among studios and exhibitors towards standardization.

Well aware of this. Chart begins in ‘57. Again, the point should be made that ratios alone tell just part of the story.

 

[bobclampett]

US. Paramount was the last and changed to 1.85 on February 13, 1954. More info here. https://web.archive.org/web/2022012...ilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation/

1.75:1 was the prominent UK non-anamorphic widescreen ratio.
View attachment 186826

Thanks Bob, always impressed with the research you bring to this Forum.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks Mike but truth be told, things are incredibly busy on the restoration front and I only chimed in because someone quoted a post from 11 years ago!