Criterion's January release of Magnificent Obsession: all good news (1 Viewer)

[Danny_N]

I'm surprised you held out as long as you did. I posted some info about the 2:1 ratio for MO there more than a year ago (as Godisard) and had enough of the crap from a certain individual after only 3 posts. You'll never convince some of the people over there no matter what proof you give them, it's a waste of time and energy.
Btw, thanks for all the interesting info about the early days of widescreen you've posted over time. Really enjoy them and learned a lot.

 

[BillyFeldman]

I just accessed where the discussion has been moved - the mods seem to have demanded it remain civil, even though the problems with disruptive behavior was all from their own posters - these supposed "professionals" - telecine operators, reviewers, DVD producers - all of whom should know better, if that's true. But, given that they are all anonymous, who is to know what's true. The nice thing about this board is we have names. Real names. Bob and Jack didn't hide who they were. And they were even-keeled and posted real examples of what they were talking about - and they were derided for it. I made some posts here about how stupid those people seemed (specifically aimed at those doing the deriding), and I was in turn derided mercilessly on a forum at which I couldn't even register to respond. In one of their latest posts someone apologizes for bringing up my posts and calls them ignorant. Oh? They might not like the tone or the fact that I called some of their snarky posters stupid, but there is not one thing in any post I made that could be considered ignorant - why? Because it's all based in reality - easily proven examples - but they have an excuse for everything. If I bring up War Games as an example of framing (because I happened to have just seen it), then it's because John Badham is a hack. It doesn't matter that if you look at Academy ratio films you will also see tops of heads cut off in certain shots because cameramen and directors frame closeups in certain ways for certain reasons - or too tight tops of frames - these supposed professionals don't really seem to have any idea how films are made and shots are framed. But thanks to Bob and Jack for at least putting the information out there, because it seems to have helped inasmuch as they are now grudgingly admitting that they know it was projected at 2:1 and begrudgingly saying that Sirk and Metty might have known that and planned for it - while still averring that they were still framing for Academy. I made the point here (and it was just reiterated there) that Mr. Sirk was not some valued auteur who could do whatever he wanted - they don't want to hear this, but the fact is he was not Hitchcock or Ford back then - he was a hired hand who made studio films and did the best job he could, but absolutely honored his studios wishes. If he hadn't, he would have been out, it's that simple. The majority of these people who belong to the cult of Sirk, saw these movies on TV originally - and it's understandable that that's what they are used to. Doesn't make them right, but it is understandable. It's the hard-headedness and the refusal to believe the proof that is put in front of them, along with somehow "knowing" what was in Sirk and Metty's head.

Bravo to Criterion for doing the right thing, but not for the way they run their discussion board.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You're most welcome Danny. Sharing this information is important, now more than ever with the new HD transfers for widescreen TV's.

What galls me is the condescending attitude of some of the regulars, especially those with 3 to 4,000 posts on that board alone. (They must have a LOT of free time!) They hide behind an alias too, which is very telling.

When we tried to present the facts about the production of this film in relation to documented studio policy, we were dismissed. We backed up all of our posts with primary source materials. When I asked for proof to support their wild theories (Sirk and Metty composing for future television airings, etc.) they began demanding for the thread to be locked and called Jack a "shit stirrer."

Pretty infantile behavior if you ask me.

 

[Brian Borst]

I was curious, does anyone have a comparison between the 1.33:1 and the 2.1:1? I'd like to know how they both would look.

I also read that discussion about Touch of Evil, and no matter what some might argue, the 1.85:1 just looks right to me. But I guess, without definitive proof, it will still be a personal decision.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Regarding TOE, Rick Schmidlin posted that he had gone through all the paperwork on the film and everything stated 1.85 as the intended ratio.

 

[BillyFeldman]

There is no doubt in my mind that Touch Of Evil is, was, and always should be 1.85:1 - it looks great and is the only way it would have been projected, despite what those on the David Kehr group say they saw fifty years ago at a theater on Hollywood Blvd. at a young age.

 

[Martin Teller]

Criterion has nothing to do with criterionforum.org

 

[BillyFeldman]

I'm beginning to understand that, although it makes no sense to me - isn't that forum located on the Criterion site? Or is it a completely separate thing started by, well, some amateur?

 

[Martin Teller]

I don't understand your confusion. If it were located on Criterion's site, why the hell would the address be criterionforum.org?

 

[BillyFeldman]

Well, gee, Martin, maybe I'm just slow - you know, backwards. I don't know - I just see the words criterionforum, and I make an assumption - incorrect, yes, I now know that. But thanks for your patience and understanding - really, mean it sincerely.

 

[Adam_S]

criterion has links on their official site to criterionforum .com and .org

.org hates .com because .com is 'too crass' .com hates .org for being too elitist. The general sentiment on .org is that if a film has been released in a decent version in any region in the world and is still available there, it is stupid for criterion to release that film (for the first time) in region one, because the denizens of .org naturally already have the discs from other regions. .org also has a fairly vocal contingent that doesn't want films released on bluray.

there are some outstanding posters over there that make the forum worth skimming, imo.

hilariously, sarcastic posts mocking the ignorance of the 1.33 crowd that are also site fixtures were removed. Disagreement is not allowed. lol But all the nasty posts from fixtures have remained, how amusing.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I noticed that as well. Our posts documenting the correct AR were called an "abomination."

However, sarcastic and condescending posts from two of their regulars (HerrSchreck and domino harvey) are allowed to remain. The two of them have a combined total of nearly 9000 posts (!) so they must be some kind of local hero or something.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Are you saying they removed your posts documenting aspect ratio??? Those posts were factual only, contained no vitriol, so on what grounds do they remove them? There's only one possible ground - total ignorance. They approved me posting there, BTW, but I won't - not with that sort of thing going on. But removing all posts which showed the truth? Well, Nineteen-Eighty-Four has truly arrived at criterionforum.org.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No Billy, they removed a rather funny (and sarcastic) post singing the praises of the 1.37 transfer.

Let's get your opinion. Here's an image from the full frame transfer. Is this a valid representation of Sirk's "mise en scene" with a shot carefully composed to reveal space above Hudson's head representing the tension and desperation of the character? The 1.37 advocates would have you believe this is crucial to the story and the understanding of the characters, and that Sirk/Metty spent hours filling that space with important information.

Or, is it superfluous information meant to be cropped off in the 2.1 ratio when shown in the majority of theaters?

 

[BillyFeldman]

That is perfect! The headroom is so wrong on every level and only an idiot would frame a shot like that. You look at the headroom instead of the characters - brilliant. That's mise en scene.

 

[Brandon Conway]

.com >>>>>>>>>>>> .org

The only use I have for the latter is one thread where they track announcements and rumors. Otherwise it's a wasteland.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Here's the discussion - :: View topic - Aspect Ratio discussion for Magnificent Obsession

Bit messy really!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Research on this production is ongoing, but here's some interesting info:

On August 17 1953, UI completed installation of a new Raytone wide screen with stereophonic sound in projection room 7. This room is used to screen daily rushes. The morning rushes for the shooting companies were shown in 1.85 with a screen size of 14.3' x 25.6'. The afternoon rushes which were screened for the executives were projected in 2.1 with a screen size of 13' x 26'. Projection room 8 will also be equipped with a wide screen.

You'll note that no mention whatsoever is made of screening rushes in 1.37.

August 26: Sirk and Metty scout locations in Lake Arrowhead.

September 1 to September 8: Metty and Sid Lund go to Fox for week long instructions on the techniques of CinemaScope photography.

September 8: Rehearsals begin with principals of MO.

September 14: Second unit shoots pre-production scenes at Lake Tahoe.

September 15: Charles Bickford withdraws from the cast. Despite an oral agreement to play Randolph, he has accepted a part in "A Star is Born" which will be shooting at the same time.

September 16: Wardrobe tests are shot of Barbara Rush, Rock Hudson, Agnes Moorehead, Jane Wyman, Gigi Perreau, Donna Corcoran and Shelia James in 50 setups on stage 8. In addition, a story meeting is held. The script is too long and 7 pages are cut with two sets eliminated.

September 17: Sirk is ill so Joe Pevney directs sound casting tests on stage 8 with Hudson, James and Perreau. The second unit returns from the Lake Tahoe location.

September 18: Sound casting tests are shot with Corcoran, Nugent and Hudson. Sirk is ill and Pevney directs on stage 8.

September 21: Principal photography begins. First shot 10:40 AM; last shot 5:15 PM. 1 1/4 pages were taken in 16 setups covering 6 scenes in script, working on Ext. Arrowhead Lake and Roads on location in Lake Arrowhead.

September 22: First shot 10:10 AM; last shot 5:25 PM. 3 1/2 pages were taken in 13 setups, working on Ext. Arrowhead location.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Oops, forgot this one:

August 19: Two reels each of Saskatchewan, Taza-Son of Cochise (in 2-D) and The Glenn Miller Story are run on the wide screen on the Process Stage in 2:1 using a screen size of 25' x 50'. The print quality and depth of focus are judged excellent.

I should also mention that all of this information is from the Daily Minutes of the UI Committee Meetings which were attended by the head of every department.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Great research - thanks for your tenacity. Hopefully, there will be something specific to MO in these notes you're referencing. None of it will make a difference to the mise en scene crowd, I'm sure, but facts are facts.