Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[ThadK]

Yes, it's very silly. I'm surprise that more people didn't just move on as we keep going around this merry-go-round.

The problem is that some poor shmuck might step in without knowing any better and buy the Kino spin that MARTY (or whatever) is an Academy ratio film. I agree the merry-go-round is obnoxious, but some people are actually interested in getting facts straight with research rather than trolling.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Exactly and I agree. Thank you for understanding!

 

[Robert Crawford]

The problem is that some poor shmuck might step in without knowing any better and buy the Kino spin that MARTY (or whatever) is an Academy ratio film. I agree the merry-go-round is obnoxious, but some people are actually interested in getting facts straight with research rather than trolling.

Bob didn't need any help in getting the facts straight as his posted comments with supporting data speaks for themselves. His posts today is all that was needed, yet some of us still felt the urge to jump on board with additional commentary instead of taking the high road and not allowing this thread to stay sidetracked on an issue most of us agree upon.

 

[haineshisway]

I'm off the merry-go-round. It's all very obvious and I'm sure most here see it.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Do the original 35mm film negatives for Marty still exist? Are the strictly prohibited to Kino? Or have they been lost to the ravages of time?

 

[moviebuff75]

RAH, is there still hope that GWTW's reframed shots can still be restored?

 

[Dr Griffin]

Bob Furmanek said:

Spoiler

In conclusion, here's a handy reference to all of the MARTY widescreen documents in one post. Please feel free to quote and link as needed.

Hecht-Lancaster Productions announced a two year/seven film distribution deal with United Artists on February 9, 1954. The first three features produced under this contract were all widescreen: APACHE was 1.85; VERA CRUZ was Superscope 2:1 and THE KENTUCKIAN - which was filmed at the same time as MARTY - was CinemaScope 2.55:1.

In his auto-biography, Ernest Borgnine talks about Delbert Mann visiting the location of VERA CRUZ in Mexico in order to study the new cinematic techniques. This would have been sometime in April, 1954 and was five months before cameras rolled on his first film as a director.

Marty Borgnine quote.JPG

The Director of Photography was Joseph LaShelle , a man who knew his way around a camera. He won the Academy Award in 1945 for his work on LAURA. In the widescreen era, he had previously lensed RIVER OF NO RETURN and four CinemaScope shorts, including the twice Oscar-nominated JET CARRIER.

He certainly would have known how to compose MARTY for widescreen while protecting the compositions for 1.37:1.

In September 1954, Merle Chamberlin (Director of Projection at MGM) stated, "All of the studios are convinced that the old 3/4 picture is gone and the wider aspect ratio is here to stay."

1.75.jpg

On September 3, Variety listed the film as a widescreen production. Four days later, MARTY began production on location in New York on September 7, 1954.

Variety continues to list MARTY as a widescreen production throughout the shooting of the film, up to November 19,1954.

Marty Variety.JPG
When released in April, 1955, both the Hollywood Reporter - an important daily trade journal read within the industry - and Boxoffice - a bible for exhibitors - list 1.85:1 as the intended ratio for MARTY.

Marty-3.26.55-top.jpg

Here's the July 1955 opening at the 3,500-seat Chicago Theatre:

Marty-Chicago-July-55.gif

Some people have speculated that Mann was bucking the system in order to present MARTY on the big screen with the same visual content that had worked so well on television when first broadcast on May 24, 1953. This is not true.

After Mann visited the VERY CRUZ location, the goal was to expand and adapt the subject matter to the big screen. Film Bulletin pointed out this fact in a July 11, 1955 article discussing the disappointing boxoffice performance of DAVY CROCKETT, another big screen production recently taken from TV.

Marty-for-film.gif

Mann and LaShelle used a lot of low-key lighting and with the reduced aperture openings for flat widescreen projection, this did not translate well to the big screen. The timing problem should have been corrected in the lab.

A new widescreen master could correct this issue and give us a version of MARTY that would truly be better than ever before.

From International Projectionist: February 1956

Marty projection2.jpg

My apologies for the repetition of some images, but this post will be a good reference for anybody quickly looking for the relevant documentation. I'll add any new research to this post for that reason.

That's more than enough. Why would there be continual questioning of this? Next!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Sadly, some people will see a badly-zoomed transfer and not understand the situation.

As an example, here are frames from two different sources:

There are also a few who will find the occasional discrepancy in the trades and try to use that as a tool to paint all of the period documentation as false.

In our experience, with a few rare exceptions, we've found the aspect ratio data provided to exhibitors to be extremely accurate.

 

[JohnMor]

I think the top one is correct. The bottom one looks zoomed out to me. Do we really need to see the candles and the spoon handle? And, frankly, I'm wondering why the old lady is in the frame.

 

[Dr Griffin]

AHH HAH, the right candle in the background is cutoff, showing definitively, that the film was meant for 1.37.

 

[Yorkshire]

I'm not sure, I'm not an expert.

But I've carefully studied the two, and for my money the first shot appears just slightly less sharp.

Steve W

 

[Douglas R]

There were questions raised in this thread (too many pages for me to find it) asking when UK production switched from 1.75 to 1.85. I had suggested that it was sometime in the late ‘60s to early ‘70s but that it didn’t seem to happen suddenly.

1960s copies of Kine Weekly show that in 1964 almost all British films were 1.75. By 1967 there had been a change with about half of Pinewood Studio’s films being 1.85 and all Twickenham and Lee Studios being 1.85 although at the end of the ‘60s there were still a number of films at 1.75. There is hardly any mention of 1.66 throughout the ‘60s yet people continue to maintain that 1.66 was the UK standard until the change to 1.85.

A couple of examples; REPULSION (1965) is 1.85 (the Criterion is 1.66) and DARLING is 1.85 (MGM DVD is 1.66).

I’ll provide a more detailed report when I’ve had time to peruse Kine Weekly more closely – possibly next week (my research has to be carried out on Mondays!).

Having perused the 1960s issues of Kine Weekly, I've now produced a chart detailing the percentage of British film productions filmed in 1.66:1, 1.75:1 and 1.85:1 for the period 1963 - 1970. From this, one can see at a glance the gradual dominance of 1.85:1 over 1.75:1.

As can be seen, 1.66:1 is almost non-existent yet so many films from that period are routinely issued incorrectly on DVD and BD in that ratio (I'll be listing examples later). Not all studios provided aspect ratio details for every film in production but i don't think that would alter the overall percentages greatly. It's still not clear when 1.85:1 took over completely from 1.75:1 to become the standard but judging from the prompt uptake of 1.85:1, it seems likely that it was around the early to mid 1970s - pending more conclusive information.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Absolutely brilliant research Doug, thank you very much!

 

[Yorkshire]

Doug, that's an excellent graph!

On the 1.66:1 thing, this still leaves the question as to why directors/DoPs from the era who've approved transfers for Criterion (for example) suggest 1.66:1.

We know from AHDN that Criterion are happy to offer 1.75:1 as an alternative, and that directors are happy to agree to 1.75:1 when it's what they filmed (as Richard Lester did).

It's a conundrum, to be sure.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

Fantastic Doug! If it's not too much trouble would it be possible to post the films from that period that did get listed as 1.66:1? It'd be nice to have a short list of the few films we know not to moan about if they get 1.66:1 home video releases

 

[Jari K]

1.85:1 is probably the OAR of Marty, but "open matte" 4:3 is not a crime - at least for me.But to me the real question would be that what master/source is Kino using?

 

[John Hodson]

Fantastic Doug! If it's not too much trouble would it be possible to post the films from that period that did get listed as 1.66:1? It'd be nice to have a short list of the few films we know not to moan about if they get 1.66:1 home video releases

Seconded; that would be very useful indeed.

 

[Yorkshire]

1.85:1 is probably the OAR of Marty, but "open matte" 4:3 is not a crime - at least for me.But to me the real question would be that what master/source is Kino using?

I've said that several times myself.

My understanding is that the master they got is from MGM and it wasn't zoomed, but full frame.

I would very much like someone in officialdom confirm that.

If we definitely have the full, unzoomed frame, then 1.37:1 is absolutely fine. Everyone here should be able to zoom that to 1.78:1 and, as we know from things like RAH's restoration of The Godfather I & II (composed for 1.85:1, released in 1.78:1), that should be good enough.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

Seconded; that would be very useful indeed,

Agreed. But we know that at least one of those stats would be wrong...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

My understanding is that the master they got is from MGM and it wasn't zoomed, but full frame.

Really?

Can you please share your source for that information?