Press Release Criterion Press Release: Summertime (1955) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Whining and complaining is hardly dealing with anything. Again simply boycott criterion if you’re so upset by it. Problem solved.

That's our right! You don't like it then stop reading this thread. Problem solved!

 

[bujaki]

The obvious solution is for Criterion to call on Dave Strohmaier to convert Summertime into a 3-panel Cinerama presentation; and then to summon the good folk at the 3D Film Archive to do a 3D conversion. Those Venetian vistas would look awesome. We would lose the framing of the human drama (probably what attracted the director to the material). But who cares about the drama when Venice looks so beautiful?

 

[Robert Harris]

So how is it that a modern theater was not able to show an academy ration film? I understand it it’s the other way around. Even my widescreen TV is able to do so. You say “could not” - do you mean “would not”? Please further explain.

By the mid-50s many (non-revival) theaters had re-worked their screens, and replaced lenses and plates with 1.85 and 2.35.

First time I saw Citizen Kane in 35mm, it was run 1.85 for that reason.

 

[Nick*Z]

The only Criterion release I ever had an issue with was The Last Emperor, reframed from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1. I still think that one looks off in its current home video aspect ratio. The old Lionsgate DVD was framed like the theatrical release, but had one of the worst transfers ever! I'm okay with a 1.37:1 Summertime.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

The only Criterion release I ever had an issue with was The Last Emperor, reframed from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1. I still think that one looks off in its current home video aspect ratio. The old Lionsgate DVD was framed like the theatrical release, but had one of the worst transfers ever! I'm okay with a 1.37:1 Summertime.

Couldn’t agree with you more. Except I think Bertolucci approved it? It was magnificent in 2.35:1.
And Ben Hur should be 2.55:1 I believe.
And as I said I’ll take more Venice than less.

 

[GerardoHP]

By the mid-50s many (non-revival) theaters had re-worked their screens, and replaced lenses and plates with 1.85 and 2.35.

First time I saw Citizen Kane in 35mm, it was run 1.85 for that reason.

After years of seeing 1940's re-releases at 1.85:1 in theaters I saw Room for One More in 1.37:1 around 1966 and I didn't understand why the screen looked so square.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

After years of seeing 1940's re-releases at 1.85:1 in theaters I saw Room for One More in 1.37:1 around 1966 and I didn't understand why the screen looked so square.

Well I saw The Wizard of Oz for years entirely in B&W and was shocked the first time I saw it in color. Thought it was fake! Forget sepia.
Yes that explains everything.

 

[roxy1927]

By the time I was going to revival theaters in the 70s it was 1.33:1 for films originally shown in that ratio.
I once went to the Victoria theater in Times Square(believe it or not this was during its Taxi Driver years) to see Lady and the Tramp. The screen was masked for 1.85. I was furious. I went to an usher to complain and he looked at me in surprise and said you're the first person who complained! They changed the masking.

 

[bujaki]

By the time I was going to revival theaters in the 70s it was 1.33:1 for films originally shown in that ratio.
I once went to the Victoria theater in Times Square(believe it or not this was during its Taxi Driver years) to see Lady and the Tramp. The screen was masked for 1.85. I was furious. I went to an usher to complain and he looked at me in surprise and said you're the first person who complained! They changed the masking.

To Academy Ratio or to 2.55? It was originally released in these two ratios.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

By the time I was going to revival theaters in the 70s it was 1.33:1 for films originally shown in that ratio.
I once went to the Victoria theater in Times Square(believe it or not this was during its Taxi Driver years) to see Lady and the Tramp. The screen was masked for 1.85. I was furious. I went to an usher to complain and he looked at me in surprise and said you're the first person who complained! They changed the masking.

I saw a double feature back then in Times Square of The Bridges Of Toko-Ri and Raintree County. Don’t know how I managed to stay awake. Probably because I didn’t want to get rolled!!

 

[Matt Hough]

The only Criterion release I ever had an issue with was The Last Emperor, reframed from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1. I still think that one looks off in its current home video aspect ratio. The old Lionsgate DVD was framed like the theatrical release, but had one of the worst transfers ever! I'm okay with a 1.37:1 Summertime.

I don't believe it was to 1.85:1. It was Oscar-winning cinematographer Storaro who insisted the proper aspect ratio for home video was 2:1, and it was changed to that, I believe, but also with the director's blessing. I remember reviewing the set and commenting on how the reframing threw everything off with important characters chopped in half at certain moments and everything looking completely out of whack. In my mind, a disaster.

Yes, I just checked my review. It was 2:1.

 

[roxy1927]

I saw a double feature back then in Times Square of The Bridges Of Toko-Ri and Raintree County. Don’t know how I managed to stay awake. Probably because I didn’t want to get rolled!!

How in the world did I miss that?!

 

[Lord Dalek]

I don't believe it was to 1.85:1. It was Oscar-winning cinematographer Storaro who insisted the proper aspect ratio for home video was 2:1, and it was changed to that, I believe, but also with the director's blessing. I remember reviewing the set and commenting on how the reframing threw everything off with important characters chopped in half at certain moments and everything looking completely out of whack. In my mind, a disaster.

Yes, I just checked my review. It was 2:1.

IIRC the master they used on Last Emperor was created primarily for DVD and used Storaro's modus opperendii for standard def formats:

It should be pointed out that before he developed the Univisium standard based off DaVinci's last supper, Storaro's 2.00:1 crops were originally based entirely off the idea that full 2.35 letterboxing had a lower resolution on standard 4:3 television screens. Therefore a ratio like 2:1 splitting the difference would provide sharper pictures overall with less wasted space taken up by the blackbars.

 

[jayembee]

Whining and complaining is hardly dealing with anything. Again simply boycott criterion if you’re so upset by it. Problem solved.

Well, actually, Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Complaining about a problem without posing a solution is called whining.”

Since the folks here who've been complaining have posed a solution, it doesn't qualify as whining.

 

[jayembee]

The only Criterion release I ever had an issue with was The Last Emperor, reframed from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1. I still think that one looks off in its current home video aspect ratio. The old Lionsgate DVD was framed like the theatrical release, but had one of the worst transfers ever! I'm okay with a 1.37:1 Summertime.

Well, that was Vittorio Storaro's insistence that everything he shot be framed in 2.00 "Universum" ratio. It wasn't Criterion's fault, other than that they didn't tell Storaro to go fly a kite.

 

[andersmo]

It can ...

Do not call me cookie!

 

[haineshisway]

So how is it that a modern theater was not able to show an academy ration film? I understand it it’s the other way around. Even my widescreen TV is able to do so. You say “could not” - do you mean “would not”? Please further explain.

Because they ALL converted to widescreen and didn't have the ability show an Academy ratio film on a WIDE screen without it being windowboxed in the center of a 1.85 frame. I know you want to be hard-headed about this, which is fine, but you're quite wrong. By 1955, no one was shooting Academy ratio films in the US because - wait for it - they knew they could not be shown in that ratio. And our UK friends have already informed you that the UK made the switchover relatively quickly. But if you can look at the caps from this film, with all that ridiculous head room and think that's the way any competent director or cameraman would frame a shot, then I'm afraid you have a few things to learn about filmmaking, my friend.

 

[Robin9]

Best thing to do is buy the Japanese disc if it is legit == Criterion still does 99.9 things right but when they tick off customers they really do

I have that Japanese disc and so, for me, the big issue with this new Criterion disc is if has better or worse picture quality. I hope someone whose judgement I respect reviews the Criterion disc.

 

[haineshisway]

By the mid-50s many (non-revival) theaters had re-worked their screens, and replaced lenses and plates with 1.85 and 2.35.

First time I saw Citizen Kane in 35mm, it was run 1.85 for that reason.

Exactly. Just like when I took my daughter to see Singin' in the Rain in the 1970s at the Fine Arts Theater - 1.85 - no feet, which is amusing for a dance film.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have that Japanese disc and so, for me, the big issue with this new Criterion disc is if has better or worse picture quality. I hope someone whose judgement I respect reviews the Criterion disc.

As much as I have a problem with Criterion not offering this movie in widescreen format, there is no doubt this disc will look significantly better than that Japanese disc due to the below excerpt from Criterion's site.

• New 4K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray