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

[BillyFeldman]

Too bad the thread is conveniently locked

 

[Thomas T]

Criterion has updated its Magnificent Obsession page to reflect the correct 2 to 1 ratio.

 

[Patrick McCart]

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/f/fe/htf_imgcache_35885.gif] [/url][url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/6/6d/htf_imgcache_35886.gif] [/url][url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/9/92/htf_imgcache_35887.gif] [/url][url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/4/45/htf_imgcache_35888.gif] [/url]

 

[Jack Theakston]

PFFFT... that's NOTHING! The studio would want to force the film into wide-screen, so they held a gun to Sirk's head and made him sign off that he shot it wide-screen when clearly he did not!!!!!

Look at his mise-en-scene! The mise-en-scene! The looming boom mics over peoples' heads! Clearly Sirk was the next Truffaut!!!!

 

[MilesH]

Those wannabe film snobs would claim the person who typed it up was unfamiliar with Sirk's mise-en-scene.

 

[WilliamMcK]

I'm such a Devil's Advocate, but I think a lot of the Criterion Forum posters who are arguing for Magnificent Obsession (and earlier Touch of Evil) in "academy" are very knowledgeable about film (though not about the nuts and bolts of film production/distribution/exhibition). And I see where they're coming from. Making an aesthetic argument for the wide screen presentation of these movies would carry more weight with them than the facts of how a film was intended to be shown by its studio. As a firm believer in "trusting the tale not the teller" (and in these cases the "tellers" are not just the directors but the studio execs whose policies [literally] shaped these movies), I'm in sympathy with their cause (though frequently not with their rude methods)... I just happen to disagree that the movies in question ARE aesthetically more pleasing in "academy," and can't help thinking that Billy Feldman is right that over-exposure of these films in "academy" has "trained" many eyes to see only in 1.37. I think it may also be a reaction against the "hue and cry" to get the aspect ratio absolutely correct on DVD releases (which sometimes results in horrendous botches like the first Ben-Hur disc) at the expense of discussing a film from the point of view of its mise en scene. (There's nothing wrong with the phrase... it's been used for years in criticism for both stage and screen--I hate to see it's use become synonymous with snobbery).

 

[Pete York]

You can try to mitigate the reaction as much as you want, but really, how hard is it to say, "Gee, nice work Bob, I stand corrected." There's nothing humiliating about being reasonably mistaken and you don't have to renounce your official cineaste membership.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Amen.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I thought you may find the following of interest. On June 24 1953, Sirk and Metty began production of their first film composed for 2:1 widescreen under UI's new studio policy.

Here are some 1.37 ratio frame-grabs for the ongoing study of Sirk's mise en scene:

 

[BillyFeldman]

My goodness, those two Native Americans standing back there have their faces cut in half in Academy. I'm sure that's part of the Sirkian mise en scene. Too bad that thread is locked, but they don't want to know about it. Perhaps a new thread should be started called The Irrefutable Truth.

EDIT: Ah, the thread is open. Why did someone above say it was locked? And the absurdity, of course, goes on there, especially from Gregory. Tell Gregory to look at Has Anybody Seen My Gal and note the dozen (or more) instances where you could do a screencap of tops of heads being out of Academy frame, or hats being lopped in half, etc.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Frankly, I'll take the merry-go-round of nihilism at Criterion over the fascism of Dave Kehr's website any time. Since I was banned from his website yesterday, and since Mr. Kehr doesn't seem to have an e-mail address to which I can reach him privately, I'll speak my peace here and perhaps someone will be kind enough to forward this message there.

Mr. Kehr, who seems to be rather ignorant about film techniques to be a DVD critic for the NY Times*, banned me from his forum yesterday after a disagreement about the aspect ratios of all things, Peter Bogdanovich films WHAT'S UP DOC? and PAPER MOON. Kehr swears that he saw both films projected in the Academy ratio, despite a) the former having all sorts of revealing boom mics, set ends, etc in an open matte presentation and 2) the latter film is hard matted to 1.85.

Nope, don't want to hear those darned facts. Nope.

Why was I banned? Because when I made a sarcastic remark that Mr. Kehr seems to be ignoring the facts, he took it as me calling him a liar, which was not the case. So rather than maintaining my niceness, I'll not call Mr. Kehr a liar, but an ignorant oaf who can't stand to be corrected, so he'll ban people who prove him wrong.

*When writing a review for HOW THE WEST WAS WON, Mr. Kehr claimed that it was the only narrative film shot in three-strip Cinerama. When someone corrected him, pointing out that BROTHERS GRIMM was also a narrative film, Mr. Kehr made up some cockeyed story about it being shot single-strip (because he read it on the TCM database).

Perhaps Mr. Kehr needs a little slice of humble pie, or at the very least, a few courses on film technology.

 

[Matt Hough]

BROTHERS GRIMM single strip Cinerama? Oh, brother! Mr. Kehr has been around for several decades writing for papers and syndicates in Chicago and New York, but even those lofty assignments don't mean he knows everything or can't be wrong. About this, he's clearly ignorant. And it's rather disappointing, too, knowing that he's been in the film critic business for awhile and not knowing rather basic information for someone who's writing about these achievements.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Having visited that forum twice, it's clear Mr. Kehr is a first-class know-it-all-who-knows-nothing. It's actually shocking, and someone should do an expose about his comments about What's Up, Doc and Paper Moon. While Mr. Kehr isn't a liar, he is, as Jack puts it, an ignorant oaf and he and his website are sadly typical. Can we have a link to the discussion? I can go over there and raise a ruckus, too.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Here's the link: New DVDs: Touch of Evil | davekehr.com

After Jack was kicked off, I left as well. Unfortunate, because I just received confirmation from a person with an original release 35mm print of PAPER MOON and it is indeed hard matted to 1:85. Here's his direct quote: "It was 1.85, hard matte. My 16mm print was matted as well."

But he wouldn't want to hear about that. They completely ignored my comments about WHAT'S UP DOC...

"Don't confuse me with the facts."

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

This is what I put on Kehr's forum, in case it is removed

"Too often the simple facts are obscured becuase of personal preference. There’s nothing wrong with preferring to see Touch of Evil in 4:3, but to claim it is THE ratio is a serious mistake. Its misinformation like this that compromises many a dvd - the distributor and reviewers think they are seeing the correct academy ratio, in reality they are seeing a loose open matte ratio, most likely zoomed in to hide headroom, and thus preventing those who wish to use a 16:9 tv zoom from recreating the proper wide ratio

I’d also advive you reconsider your banning of Jack Theakston. If you can’t eat humble pie once in a while, what’s the point of these false articles?"

 

[BillyFeldman]

They might not want to hear it, but they've heard it anyway

I just posted my personal stuff about What's Up, Doc. No refuting it, I'm afraid, since I knew Bogdanovich slightly back then and attended a sneak preview of the film with him in attendance - the ratio was 1.85:1 as it was when I saw the film two subsequent times during its opening week. Dave Kehr should be put out to pasture. Perhaps I'll be thrown out of there, too.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Now the last few comments from me and Mr. Feldman have been removed

 

[Jack Theakston]

Of course! What you posted was fact, and Mr. Kehr has no interest in facts.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Unbelievable. I guess we've all been banned. I think it's time to show up Mr. Kehr for what he is. I wonder how and where the best place is to do that? Is there a critics association of which he's a member?

I wasn't offensive in my post - merely factual. Plainly laid out facts, which, unfortunately for Mr. Kehr, shows him to be wrong. That someone of his age cannot do the simple research and then admit he was wrong is so typical of people like him - he's a sociopath who always needs to be right, the grand poobah of his own pathetic domain, filled with cineastes who are almost more specious than he is.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Please, let's stop using this forum as a means to slam other internet sites. Enough already with such negativity. Your points have been well documented here so let's move on to other topics to discuss such as the titles in question without rehashing over and over again, bad experiences from other sites by continuing to discuss them here on the HTF. Thank you.




Crawdaddy