"Apocalypse Now Redux" Framing (1 Viewer)

[Jerry Gracia]

Carl,
In the history of film making, when has a film been shot in 2.35 anamorphic and window-boxed to 1.85 for an intended theatrical aspect ratio?
In fact, it doesn't make sense. Nearly every movie shot for 1.85 projection has been shot flat and matted down. Further more, films that are usually presented open-matted at 1.90 to 2.00 on video were usually shot in Super 35 or similar technique, not anamorphic.
APOCALYPSE NOW was shot in anamorphic 2.35:1 (approx.), that is what the film makers intended.
The alterations made for video weren't made out of artistic intentions, just someones love for resolution over cinematography.
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Jerry Gracia]

i agree that we should let HT fans choose the presentation of a film rather than the director and DP. they made the film, sure, but who cares what they want? i also plan on choosing the AR of films yet to be made. i sure hope they listen to my choices. why should the people making these things have any say? it's all about pleasing the fans, not the artists.

Please tell me this was some kind of joke.
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Michael Reuben]

quote: Please tell me this was some kind of joke.[/quote] It's obviously a joke.
I don't believe anyone's tried to answer greg_t's question:
quote: My question is this: Should I buy the 1999 dvd or the laserdisc? Which is more true to the original release? Opinions on which to get, anyone?[/quote] If you're referring to the cropped AR, then there's not much difference. Both the LD and the DVD exhibit much the same cropping. The DVD has the advantage of greater resolution (mostly because of the anamorphic enhancement) and some valuable extras, notably an ending credit sequence that appeared in some early prints of the film but was subsequently deleted and, to my knowledge, has never before appeared on video. (This was a big deal for me, because it was included in the print I saw in theaters on first release.)
However, the colors on the DVD and the LD exhibit somewhat different palettes, reportedly another example of Storaro rethinking and revisiting his earlier work. I happen to prefer the LD's color scheme, but that's personal. In the end, you're probably better off getting the DVD, which should certainly be much easier to find.
M.
[Edited last by Michael Reuben on November 12, 2001 at 10:07 AM]

 

[Mark Zimmer]

At least when Kubrick got goofy about video representations of his movies, he opened up the mattes, and didn't cut off the sides in a P&S abomination. Tucker is infuriating, and so is Apocalypse Now. It's just a good thing the Godfather films were made in 1.85 or we'd have P&S of them too.

------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[cafink]

Carl, In the history of film making, when has a film been shot in 2.35 anamorphic and window-boxed to 1.85 for an intended theatrical aspect ratio?

Perhaps a better question would be: What does that have to do with "Apocalypse Now"? The cropped version of "AN" is 2:1, not 1.85:1. The differences in aspect ratio and resolution necessitate a difference in filming technique.

 

[Robert George]

Damin's comment was no so much a joke as it is sarcasm. Completely off-base sarcasm at that. This has nothing to do with artists altering their intent to please fans, it is about an artist compromising his work for the wrong reasons and denying the fans of that work a proper representation of the original artistic intent.
The point is that Coppola and Storaro made their artistic decisions when they made the film. The decision to then alter the original framing of the film for video has nothing to do with art, but with the preceived technical limitations of the presentation format.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The cropped version of "AN" is 2:1, not 1.85:1. The differences in aspect ratio and resolution necessitate a difference in filming technique.

Well, the most recent theatrical release - the "Apocalypse Now Redux" version as well as all previous releases (except for the 70mm 2.20:1 prints) - was presented in 35mm anamorphic at a projected aspect ratio of ~2.35:1; that is *obviously* what the intended aspect ratio is supposed to be. Anything else is compromised for home video. If they had envisioned this mythical 2:1 ratio as the intended one, they could have easily masked the theatrical prints. Since they did not do this masking, this new DVD (as well as the older one and the LaserDisc) DOES NOT present the film in its intended theatrical aspect ratio. (I'm very glad we have a 35mm print in our film collector's group to watch the film correctly.)

 

[greg_t]

Michael,
Thanks for the reply. I believe I will go with the DVD.

 

[Richard Kim]

It's just a good thing the Godfather films were made in 1.85 or we'd have P&S of them too.

Gordon Willis was the DP of the GF films, not Storaro.

 

[GerardoHP]

The decision to then alter the original framing of the film for video has nothing to do with art, but with the preceived technical limitations of the presentation format.

Ah, yes, shades of Kubrick.
------------------
Gerardo

 

[Jerry Gracia]

The cropped version of "AN" is 2:1, not 1.85:1. The differences in aspect ratio and resolution necessitate a difference in filming technique.

You are not listening, are you Carl?
Ok, fine...2:1 that's beside the point, I was merely using 1.85 as an example.
APOCALYPSE NOW was shot in ANAMORPHIC format at 2.35:1. That was the films original aspect ratio. The alteration made on the video release to 2:1 crops and alters the films original aspect ratio, end of story.
With the anamorphic format (unlike flat and Super 35), there is only one ratio to strictly compose for, the 2.35:1 ratio. That is a well known fact.
You do know that I say "anamorphic" in the context of film, not DVD...right?
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Gordon Willis was the DP of the GF films, not Storaro.

I was aware of that. I was just assuming that Coppola himself has completely bought into Storaro's theory. If that's not the case, then how do you explain what was done with Tucker and AN?
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[Richard Kim]

Coppola's The Rainmaker is 2.35:1 with John Toll as DP and released on DVD in that AR, though non anamorphic. Tucker and AN both had Storaro as DP, which is why they were released on home video in 2:1.
[Edited last by Richard Kim on November 12, 2001 at 02:23 PM]

 

[cafink]

APOCALYPSE NOW was shot in ANAMORPHIC format at 2.35:1. That was the films original aspect ratio. The alteration made on the video release to 2:1 crops and alters the films original aspect ratio, end of story.

Again, there are a whole lot of movies shot flat at 1.37:1. That doesn't mean that 1.37:1 is the intended, correct, or original aspect ratio.
"Willy Wonka," anyone? "Cats and Dogs"? "National Lampoon's Vacation"? Just because you are looking at the entire filmed image does not mean that you are looking at the intended composition.
[Edited last by Carl Fink on November 12, 2001 at 03:05 PM]

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Wow, when I started this thread, I thought the issue of the 2.0:1 framing had been done to death. Guess it still has some life in it.
To my original point, am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the 2.0:1 framing of Redux DIFFERS from that of the original Now? Does anyone care about this issue? Am I whistling in the wind?

My question is this: Should I buy the 1999 dvd or the laserdisc? Which is more true to the original release? Opinions on which to get, anyone?

They both seem quite similar to me. Some folks strongly feel the LD offers better sound, but I've been very satisfied with the DVD's audio. It's cheaper, easier to find, and anamorphic, so I think the DVD's the way to go...
------------------
Colin Jacobson
DVD Movie Guide
www.dvdmg.com

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Carl, please provide an example of a film shot in 35mm anamorphic (Panavision, Cinemascope, etc.) that was presented theatrically in anything other the the ~2.35 ratio (leaving out 2.20 70mm blow-ups).
The point we're making is that the 2:1 video presentation of Apocalypse Now (and Redux) is changed from the theatrical versions! It's really that simple.

 

[cafink]

The point we're making is that the 2:1 video presentation of Apocalypse Now (and Redux) is changed from the theatrical versions!

Great, because I haven't said otherwise. I think that it is worth noting, however, that the theatrical framing of a movie is not always a good indicator of the INTENDED framing. It USUALLY is, to be sure, but there are exceptions (like several of Stanley Kubrick's films).

 

[Michael Reuben]

To my original point, am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the 2.0:1 framing of Redux DIFFERS from that of the original Now? Does anyone care about this issue? Am I whistling in the wind?

Colin, I suspect there hasn't been more response on this point simply because most people don't have the Redux disc yet. (I could have bought it this weekend at a local B&M, but I decided to wait for my -- cheaper -- copy from DeepDiscount, because I already have way too much to watch.) When more people have a chance to view the disc, I'm sure we'll see more reactions to the reframing, assuming it's pervasive enough for people to notice.
AN isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, film where different video editions exhibit different framings. Usually no one notices, but the framing issue on AN is already such a bone of contention that I suspect you'll see some additional reactions.
M.

 

[Mark_TS]

...for anyone interested, the last LD incarnation of AN featured a *much* richer color pallette...

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Carl,
Oh boy.
You are simply not understanding me.
quote: however, that the theatrical framing of a movie is not always a good indicator of the INTENDED framing. It USUALLY is, to be sure, but there are exceptions (like several of Stanley Kubrick's films).[/quote]
Good god, Carl...in this case the theatrical framing is the absolute indicator.
Listen carefully, Carl...
APOCALYPSE NOW was shot in ANAMORPHIC format! In the anamorphic format, you get a squeezed 2.35:1 aspect ratio. No director has ever used this format to window box for any other ratio other than 2.35:1.
quote: When you shoot flat on 35mm film, you have a 1.37:1 frame, but you can compose for any ratio and crop the picture to achieve that ratio. This is commonly done for 1.85:1 films.[/quote]
Yes. This is called shooting "flat". APOCALYPSE NOW was not shot in this format.

When you shoot anamorphic on 35mm film, you have a 2.35:1 frame, but there is no technical limitation of the format that prevents a person for composing for some other ratio within that frame.

Directors don't shoot for any other aspect ratio other than 2.35:1 when anamorphic is the format of choice. Directors choose anamorphic for the sole purpose off shooting EXCLUSIVELY for 2.35 widescreen.
If you still can't understand, forget it.
I'm done.
------------------
LuvLBX
[Edited last by Jerry Gracia on November 12, 2001 at 04:27 PM]
[Edited last by Jerry Gracia on November 12, 2001 at 04:28 PM]