Aspect Ratio Documentation (4 Viewers)

[marsnkc]

The evidence is clearly intended to reassure theaters owners to slow to convert that they can still show the films, in their antic, retarded format (until they make the switch). I fail to see why Criterion would release 1.37:1 or 1.66:1 versions when they would only have been shown in theaters to slow to convert. These showings, whatever formats they were in whatever towns they were, were not intended archival showings. There were not reference showings. They were oddball showings, just as oddball edits of movies cut by Drive-In owners to their leasure were. They were compromised showings, and they don't need to be archived on Blu. The only format that needs is the intended format and here it's obviously 1.85:1.

You're either misunderstanding my point or not reading HDivision's posts carefully - he's not unhappy about the three ratios - he's saying they're not correct and that if they WERE correct the 1.85 would look MORE correct than it does here. It's all in his well-worded and knowledgeable posts. The going in circles is from people not reading his post. Even Mr. Harris concurs that the ratios included on the Blu-ray may not have been what the ratios in the theater looked like, which all has to do with what HDivision is saying about this particular film (On The Waterfront) and its transfer. That the Academy image is zoomed in a bit and the other two ratios were created from that zoomed in version. He's not arguing about what's correct and not correct in terms of ratios, he's saying none of the ratios in this set were created properly.

How do you interpret (or read) the post from HDvision here? It sounds to me as if he's not only unhappy, but can't for the life of him understand why Criterion would bother to release the 1.37:1 or 1.66:1, since they "were not intended archival showings...not reference showings. They were oddball showings...They were compromised showings, and they don't need to be archived on Blu. The only format that needs (sic) is the intended format and here it's obviously 1.85.1." HDvision's disenchantment with Criterion's handling of the geometry of the ratios hasn't beeen lost on me, having myself complained about the 1.37 being contracted to 1.33. However, although he's pointed out framing errors with all three ratios, he firmly believes that 1.85:1 is the 'intended' format and therefore the only one that Criterion should have entertained issuing. The rest should be deep-sixed. On the other hand, Mr. Harris, though not dogmatic about it, is convinced that 1.66 was the apple of Kazan's eye. So what's a girl to do? Issue one ratio (even though there's absolutely no consensus on what that should be) and incur the wrath of two thirds of the demographic or, radical as it might be, release the movie in the various forms it (at least nominally) was projected in? At least Mr. Harris, unlike some others here and outside (I'm thinking particularly of DVD Savant, who's practically apoplectic over the notion of a studio issuing multiple ratios, for reasons that utterly escape me) sees the obvious, practical reasoning behind Criterion's decision.

 

[DVDvision]

To be correct, the 1.33 version zoom in and loses a bit on the sides. The 1.66 and 1.85 have the same left and right info. I believe 1.85 is the correct format, but is too tight in regard of the contents it shows. The 1.66 is the more pleasing in regards to top and bottom information.

 

[Douglas R]

Even Goddard had gone widescreen by the late 60s. Les Diaboliques and Mon Oncle are two 50s French films that are meant to be widescreen - all that dead space is a giveaway!

What are the sources for Mon Oncle being meant for widescreen?

I commented on the aspect ratio of MON ONCLE earlier in this thread. Tati was not a fan of widescreen and designed the film to be shown in both Academy and widescreen. In David Bellos' book "Jacques Tati", Belos quotes Tati as saying "I am keeping to standard format, but trying at the same time to keep a safety margin at the top and the bottom of the frame, for the barbarians who keep on showing standard-format films on a panoramic screen, and thus slice off the top and bottom of the picture". Despite Tati's Academy preference, I saw the film when it was first released in London and it was shown in widescreen. I doubt that many theatres showed it in Academy format in 1958 in the UK or US..

 

[Matt Hough]

I wonder if Criterion will rethink and give us the widescreen version if they issue Mon Oncle on Blu-ray?

 

[En35edina]

Is it to crop the left where the soundtrack would have been?

 

[EddieLarkin]

I wonder if Criterion will rethink and give us the widescreen version if they issue Mon Oncle on Blu-ray?

MON ONCLE appears to be one of those films that was exhibited primarily in widescreen, but the director prefers it in academy. Unlike TOUCH OF EVIL or MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION, the director is seemingly on record (see Doug's post) that the film was composed for academy, and "protected" for widescreen. So what's more important? How the film was primarily exhibited, or what the director preferred both at the time and later on? I'm for the latter in this case, and thankfully the BFI did their Blu-ray at 1.37:1. Hopefully Criterion's upcoming LORD OF THE FLIES Blu-ray will be at 1.66:1. Their DVD was 1.33:1.

 

[Matt Hough]

They generally do abide by the director's wishes.

 

[Douglas R]

MON ONCLE appears to be one of those films that was exhibited primarily in widescreen, but the director prefers it in academy. Unlike TOUCH OF EVIL or MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION, the director is seemingly on record (see Doug's post) that the film was composed for academy, and "protected" for widescreen. So what's more important? How the film was primarily exhibited, or what the director preferred both at the time and later on? I'm for the latter in this case, and thankfully the BFI did their Blu-ray at 1.37:1.

It's a film where it would be preferable to have both. I've watched the BFI Blu-ray on my TV zoomed in to about 1.75:1 and the framing looks fine. It doesn't work at 1.85:1 because tops of heads and signs on buildings are cut off. It could be said that 1.75:1 looks better on TV screens because Tati favored long shots which makes the action sometimes appear a bit too distant watching in 1.33:1.

 

[haineshisway]

How do you interpret (or read) the post from HDvision here? It sounds to me as if he's not only unhappy, but can't for the life of him understand why Criterion would bother to release the 1.37:1 or 1.66:1, since they "were not intended archival showings...not reference showings. They were oddball showings...They were compromised showings, and they don't need to be archived on Blu. The only format that needs (sic) is the intended format and here it's obviously 1.85.1." HDvision's disenchantment with Criterion's handling of the geometry of the ratios hasn't beeen lost on me, having myself complained about the 1.37 being contracted to 1.33. However, although he's pointed out framing errors with all three ratios, he firmly believes that 1.85:1 is the 'intended' format and therefore the only one that Criterion should have entertained issuing. The rest should be deep-sixed. On the other hand, Mr. Harris, though not dogmatic about it, is convinced that 1.66 was the apple of Kazan's eye. So what's a girl to do? Issue one ratio (even though there's absolutely no consensus on what that should be) and incur the wrath of two thirds of the demographic or, radical as it might be, release the movie in the various forms it (at least nominally) was projected in? At least Mr. Harris, unlike some others here and outside (I'm thinking particularly of DVD Savant, who's practically apoplectic over the notion of a studio issuing multiple ratios, for reasons that utterly escape me) sees the obvious, practical reasoning behind Criterion's decision.

You are quoting the wrong post of HDivisions - see his post just above mine - besides I encapsulated his point within mine, which you seem to have ignored, which was that the Criterion is not presenting a 1.85 version that's proper (nor the Academy, nor the 1.66) - IF it were proper, his point is that the 1.85 framing would work as it should and as it did back in the day. Yes, his opinion is that the others are unnecessary but his point is that none of the presented ratios are framed properly due to the zoomed in image. IF the 1.85 were framed properly, no one, not even Mr. Harris would have had any problem with recommending it. Mr. Harris is pointing out that on this particular Blu-ray the 1.66 is best, but also points out that none would have been projected with these framings.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Perhaps Criterion has included three versions so they could charge more money?

 

[EddieLarkin]

Wasn't it Jeffrey Wells who did an interview with a Criterion employee about the release? The rep stated that the real reason behind the multiple presentations was to attract the widest audience as possible, simple as that. i.e. more money.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Er, no. It was a "debate" with Jack Theakston about the aspect ratio. Jack made the suggestion that it was for the money and the widest audience. I agree.

 

[EddieLarkin]

My mistake. I knew about the debate with Jack Theakston but for some reason I thought Wells (or someone else) did a separate one with a Criterion rep. But Google turns up nothing so I imagine it was the same interview.

 

[Paul Tilburgs]

I'm thinking particularly of DVD Savant, who's practically apoplectic over the notion of a studio issuing multiple ratios, for reasons that utterly escape me

DVD Savant says this: "Criterion or its disc producer Issa Clubb has opted to present the film in three aspect ratios: 1:66, 1:85 and 1:33. An extra explaining the reasoning behind this is not particularly compelling." and this: "it is a precedent I'd like to see Criterion avoid." and then he goes on a bit about other companies releasing other films with incorrect aspect ratios. If that qualifies as "apoplectic", I am curious to know how you qualify my posting this. "Raving and ranting", I suppose...

 

[JoeDoakes]

DVD Savant says this: "Criterion or its disc producer Issa Clubb has opted to present the film in three aspect ratios: 1:66, 1:85 and 1:33. An extra explaining the reasoning behind this is not particularly compelling." and this: "it is a precedent I'd like to see Criterion avoid." and then he goes on a bit about other companies releasing other films with incorrect aspect ratios. If that qualifies as "apoplectic", I am curious to know how you qualify my posting this. "Raving and ranting", I suppose...

Apoplectic or not, it's a fairly worthless criticism of Criterion.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Not really, the Savant is correct. The image has been manipulated. The boom microphone in the church scene is now gone. And the documentary did not include key documents which would have supported the 1.85:1 composition as being definitive.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek
Not really, the Savant is correct. The image has been manipulated. The boom microphone in the church scene is now gone.
And the documentary did not include key documents which would have supported the 1.85:1 composition as being definitive.

Is a frame of the boom mike in the church scene available? Is this protected by 1.37 and only seen in open matte, or does it invade 1.37?
When you reference "key documents," are you referring to internal studio production documents, i.e.. camera dept or production, or the mentions of
aspect ratios in the trades?
RAH

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The key documents are the Variety and Boxoffice reviews which list 1.85 as the intended ratio. Those would have been referenced by any exhibitor showing the movie. I can try to access the print and do a scan of some frames from that scene.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek
The key documents are the Variety and Boxoffice reviews which list 1.85 as the intended ratio. Those would have been referenced by any exhibitor showing the movie.
I can try to access the print and do a scan of some frames from that scene.

I can't help but believe, and I'm not being argumentative, that the 1.85 thing was at least partially a marketing ploy, which I take with a large grain of salt. The gear at the top of the frame scene would have to be viewed as a full frame scan, ie. perf to perf, and frame line to frame line, in order to make a salient judgment. 1.37 was a framing within the camera frame lines.
This all depends upon who scanned, on what equipment, with what knowledge. If it was Mr. Crisp, who has acknowledged that the scan was 1.33, I trust his judgment implicitly. We're not trying to save a live here. It's still a film, and a film that will look far better on home video than it ever did in the majority of theatres, regardless of aspect ratio.
RAH

 

So, all three versions on blu-ray are misframed?