Casablanca SE cropping (1 Viewer)

[ScottR]

I would just like to know what guidelines (if any) that the producers of the dvd use when framing.

 

[george kaplan]

I just checked a book I have on Casablanca, and on this shot, while it's still close to the edge, it's not as close as in the first above image. In other words, even the first image in this thread is cropped somewhat. In the shot in the book, there's about as much white space to the right of the 1 to allow the writing of another 4.

Carl,

Again, I disagree with your assessments, and I guess I'll just leave it at that. To me the fact that the date is later mentioned, validates the importance of it on the check, not diminishes it. The fact that you consider my points to be irrelevant is your opinion, but don't expect me to agree with it.

 

[ScottR]

BTW, I found my Casablanca: 50th Anniversary Commemorative book and there is a picture of the frame in question. There is a bit of room to the right of the date, but it isn't much. This probably isn't a definitive example, because everyone knows that pictures are cropped for publication. But, it is an example..and the date is fully shown. But again, not by much.

 

[John Hodson]

The whole cheque - sorry, check - issue is rendered slightly moot by Rick's line: 'If it's December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?' isn't it? If we missed the date on the check, then we aren't going to miss that...

EDIT - beg pardon; didn't notice that it had been mentioned several times already.

 

[ScottR]

I think the issue here is whether or not the film has been overly cropped. This is just one example. If the framing is off for this one shot, then it is probably off for the entire movie.

 

[cafink]

Respectfully, I ask which part(s) you disagree with? Do you disagree that a competent director or DP would frame a shot to place a vital visual element so close to the edge of the frame? Or do you agree with that point but feel that Casablanca's production team simply made a poor choice in the framing of the shot in question?

 

[george kaplan]

Well, for one thing I disagree that the fact that we later find out it's December 1941 eliminates the need to see that it's Dec. 2. The date on the check clearly shows that it's prior to Pearl Harbor. Stating that it's December 1941 does not do so.

 

[Richard Kim]

Here's what Rick says:

"It's December 1941 in Casablanca. What time is it in New York?...I bet they're asleep in New York. I bet they're asleep all over America."

This implies that Americans in general are not truly aware of threat of the Axis powers, and that Pearl Harbor did not yet happen.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Another reason why showing the complete year date wasn't necessary for the filmmakers to remind 1942 audiences that the film took place just prior to America's entry in the war. By the way, Paris fell to the Germans in June of 1940, so I'm sure the audiences recognized that the Rick and Llsa reunion came more than six months later.

 

[cafink]

A valid point, but unrelated to the question I asked. We all know that you feel the setting of the film is very important, and no one has disagreed with you on that point (though the importance of the date being visible in the shot in question certainly is debatable, as evidenced by the last several posts above this one).

The written date is very close to the edge of the frame in the shot under discussion. Do you believe this is because it's okay to frame a shot that includes vital visual information close to the edge of the frame? Or do you believe it's because the Casablanca DP made an error in framing this shot? Or is there some alternate explanation I haven't covered?

 

[Steve...O]

I can't speak for 1942 audiences, but there is "overscan" in many theatrical movies I go to these days. I can see image behind the curtains used to frame the screen. My guess is that a fair number of folks watching the movie during its first release didn't see the "1" either.

Did the DP make an error framing the shot? I don't know. I do agree with Crawdaddy that audiences in 1942 would have understood the significance of the date without the "1". Someone watching the movie for the first time today would probably realize it as well as long as they have a very basic knowledge of history and know when the movie was released.

 

[seanOhara]

I think the context of the film makes quite clear that it takes place before the US entered the war -- Rick's neutrality is constantly portrayed as symbolic of the United States; besides which, there's no way the Vichy and Nazis would treat Rick so well after Germany declared war on the US.

The first time I saw the film, I didn't notice the date on the check, but Rick's line about the time in New York made it clear to me that the film was taking place in the first week of December.

 

[David_B_K]

I have the R1 Warner release that came out before the "cropped" SE. Watching on a 16:9 display, there is no overscan, because a non-widescreen film does not go to the edge. On my display, the shot looks exactly like the first shot posted-you can just see the "41" at the right side. When everybody watches 1.33:1 films on 16:9 displays, there will be no such thing as overscan (on 1.33:1 films at least).

I cannot believe so many people here are defending the crop because the date is allegedly unimportant. IMO, there can be no doubt that the film was over-cropped. Whether the date was important or not, why crop so close? I think this film is an example of cropping that should not have occurred. It probably occurs more often than we know. The detail of "41" merely makes it more obvious.

I'm not saying it's a reason to recall the disc, or that the over-all job they did was poor, but they should...knock it off(!) in the future. Let the viewers decide what's important over to the side of the frame, and do not assume we all have over-scan problems.

BTW, is the artifacting in the final fog sequence any better in the "cropped" SE than in the earlier Warner release? I decided to watch the entire film today (it's one of those classics that when you watch one scene-you want to watch the whole film), and the crapping out of the picture in the fog was quite annoying.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Apparently the correct answer is a competent director or DP may screw up. If imdb is to be believed, even Scorcese makes composition errors, as these comments from imdb on Goodfellas indicate:
• Boom mike visible: Shadow in Henry's house when he is talking with Marie about the Lufthansa heist.
• Crew or equipment visible: When young Henry and Tuddy Cicero are "running around" and making Paul's phone calls and Henry enters the phone booth, you can see a wireless mike pack in his back pocket.
• Crew or equipment visible: A camera is visible in the background at Henry's mother-in-law's house when they go to hide the gun.
• Continuity: Series of over 10 shots where items such as wine glasses and napkins on the table fill, empty and move themselves while Tommy is telling his anecdote at the restaurant.
• Crew or equipment visible: Reflected in the window while Karen is trying to find where Jimmy is keeping the stolen dresses.
• Boom mike visible: When Henry is released from prison and Karen is waiting by her car, the mic is reflected in the car window as Karen turns to her right to hug Henry.
• Crew or equipment visible: At 42.56 minutes, one of the cameramen can be seen on the right-hand side of the screen.
• Crew or equipment visible: During the long Steadicam shot through the restaurant's kitchen, the camera's shadow is briefly visible on the left-hand side as it exits.
• Revealing mistakes: After Tommy De Vito kills Morrie from behind in the car, you can see Morrie clearly breathing on the left edge of the screen.

The later comment by Rick that it is December 1941 does NOT take away from the benefit (I say intended) of letting us know much earlier that it is 1941 and not 1940.

As for the actual composition of the frame in question, I doubt that the DP or director was anticipating any cropping or overscanning.

In any event, I look forward to Crawdaddy's reporting on what he learns from Warner Bros.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Precisely. Which is why, as much as I love the proper OAR, I think this can be taken to extreme proportions, and it very often is. To be honest, I've only ever seen CASABLANCA once in 2003 (good film!) and I don't recall the scene in question. But from the screen grab, is it supposed to be the signature we're to focus on? I don't know for sure that each and every molecule which appears in a frame is necessarily meant for our eye to focus upon.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Following Rick's pencil as he underlines his signature points us to the date. So, that is one more piece of evidence which tends to indicate that there was an intent for us to see the date.

 

[Robert Crawford]

An assumption I cannot make.