CTHE Press Release: Dr. Strangelove 40th Anniversary (1 Viewer)

[JonZ]

sigh

I gave my brother my old copy....

"Remastered in High Definition
Original 1.66 Aspect Ratio / 16x9 Anamorphic
Audio: English Dolby 5.1 / DTS, English Mono"


SOLD!

 

[george kaplan]

Thanks for the reply Robert. I have no problem going from the current sometime 1.33 framing to a constant 1.66 framing, as long as that isn't creating a MAR dvd. Your assurance that 1.66 is OAR is very reassuring indeed! Thanks.

 

[ArthurMy]

RAH: Bravo and amen. I totally agree with your assessment (and have been saying so vociferously in this and another Kubrick thread) that were he alive today we would not have 1:37 transfers of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. Hopefully, those will all be redone at some point, along with an anamorphically enhanced Lolita.

George Kaplan: But others telling you how it was projected in this country and in the UK wasn't good enough. Thankfully, Mr. Harris is here to make you a believer. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.

 

[george kaplan]

No offense Arthur, but I've heard lots of people talk about how films were shown back in their theatrical heydey. In this case we're talking about 40 year old memories. In another thread, there was a person who swore that he remembered a theatrical showing of a color film in black & white (or perhaps it was a b&w film that he swore was shown in color). In any case, it's pretty evident that what was at play there was faulty memory.

Robert Harris is a noted expert, and I do place a lot of stock in his opinion, as I would if Roger Ebert or other experts were to come here and post about such things.

One thing that I disagree with Mr. Harris about is the "minute difference between 1.37 and 1.66". Hell, I still get irritated when 1.37 films are improperly pan & scanned to 1.33, though I realize I'm pretty much a minority of one in that regard. But while I may sometimes disagree with him, when it comes to factual information about films, he's certainly someone who is knowlegable. Most others who post here may or may not be, so it's hard to have as much faith in their posts. Sorry.

 

[ArthurMy]

I know what you mean, George Kaplan. There is a lot of mis-information and people's memories are wacky sometimes. I'm not one of those people, though, and I never post about something that I'm not absolutely sure about. I remember a big brouhaha at the time of The Seventh Voyage of Sindbad. One person kept saying it should have been transfered at 1:37 and he pretty much convinced everyone because he posited himself as an "expert". It didn't make sense to me because I saw it here in NY many times during its initial release and like all movies of its era it was widescreen 1:85. It's preferred ratio would probably have been 1:66 or something, but none of us saying it was good enough for that gentleman. Then, someone who had just run a 35mm Tech print said the original leader, which was still on the film, said clearly "project at 1:85". Needless to say, there were no subsequent postings on the matter by the "expert".

 

[Kevin M]

I do respect Mr. Harris' opinion but nonetheless I would still want the 1.33.1 (or 1.37) ratio along with a "theatrical" ratio, Mr. Kubrick was well aware of the then current technology (LD-DVD-Letterboxing) before he died yet still wished them to be shown in an open matte transfer....plus I have become so used to the open matte presentation of many of his latter films that I would strongly notice the "missing" elements.

 

[ArthurMy]

"I would strongly notice the missing elements."

You mean like the helicopter shadow and blades in The Shining? You mean like the top and bottom of the frame revealing things you clearly weren't meant to see? When Mr. Kubrick made his pronouncements on his wishing full frame transfers for VHS and laserdisc, there were no DVDs, no Hi-Def, none of that stuff. He passed on early on in the DVD game and I'm sure had he had time to actually address the issues of the Kubrick DVD set, he probably would have changed his mind and, at the very least, done both open-matte and the theatrical ratio transfers.

 

[Kevin M]

Nice assumption but still an assumption.
Nonetheless that would be fine with me, I'll take both versions as I stated.

 

[Robert Harris]

In reference to this thread, please keep in mind that films shot 1.37, were not projected 1.37.

They were cropped once to protect for dirt in the camera aperture, and again to fit the requirement of the theatrical screen in any specific venue.

As I've noted in the past, especially in older theatres, one was quite apt to have a trapazoid shaped aperture plate in use to create the ILLUSION of a rectangular projected image.

Everyone behind the camera knows that the edges of a film are not meant to be seen, and thus they are "protected."

Please refer to the SMPTE chart here:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris081202.html

 

[ArthurMy]

Actually, Mr. Kubrick's camera operator for The Shining posted quite succinctly and often that Mr. Kubrick had 1:85 guidelines in the viewfinder of the camera and that is what he framed for. Just do a Usenet search of the Kubrick newsgroup - all there to read at your leisure. LD did not have the quality of DVD and during ninety-nine percent of its reign it was never used in conjunction with widescreen TVs. Which is, after all, the entire point. What Mr. Kubrick did not live to see was the impact widescreen TVs would have, and the quality of anamorphically enhanced DVDs. It's all supposition, of course, but he was a filmmaker who knew how his films would be shown in theaters. As I've said before, one surely can't imagine that Mr. Kubrick, one of the great filmmakers, was really making his films for the day they would be shown on television or in a 4.3 setting. I can't imagine it, but if you wish to that is perfectly fair and fine.

 

[Mark_vdH]

The blades (and I think also the shadow) are still visible in 1.85:1, though of course not as clearly as in 1.33:1.

And I believe in Full Metal Jacket Kubrick made a visual reference to The Shining's shadow error, so he probaly regarded it as "part of the film".

 

[Al (alweho)]

Kubrick wasn't the problem. Leon Vitale was. Hopefully Mr. Vitale is now out of the process.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Actually, that's not the way those with first hand knowledge have expressed it. It generally goes like this:

o Kubrick preferred the 4:3 aspect ratio
o Kubrick recognized that it was impractical for a wide theatrical exhibition at the time he made his later films
o He framed his films for 1.85:1 and protected for 4:3
o He preferred the unmatted presentations, which showed off more of the environment & sets, and were not as aesthetically compromised as some other unmatted films since he also liked highly symmetrical compositions

As for my own personal assessment,

o While I think that there are compromises in some of the close-ups and long shots, I can live with the 4:3 versions happily and zoom them to 16:9 when I feel like it.
o Leon Vitali is the furthest thing from a problem there is when it comes to the proper presentation of
Kubrick's films per Kubrick's expressed wishes.

Regards,

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The video-masters for the Kubrick's Warner films (Lolita, Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket - 2001 was still with MGM at this point) were made in 1989 and were used up until the remastered transfers in 2001.

In 1989, letterboxing was just begining to be used (I could be wrong, but I think Die Hard was issued on Laser at this time in 2.35:1 - the first scope film released in it's OAR) and Kubrick might not even have been aware of the process for NTSC video-masters. Criterion were, when they were in the process of creating the original Laser for Dr. Strangelove in 1992, but I guess that Kubrick baulked at the results, just as many people did in the early days of letterboxing on a 20" 4:3 TV set.

On a 16:9 TV, though, letterboxing under 1.90 is (usually) not visable and the presentation is neat, nay, superior to anything before (open-matte 1.33 are often zoomed-in / pan and scanning of 1.66/1.85 hard-matting) and this is now, for the most part, the trend in DVD transfering and TV broadcasting.

Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut are not in the same situation as Coppola's, One From the Heart (1983), which was composed from start to finish in 1.37:1 by Coppola and Vitorio Storaro and was only projected in 1.37:1 (there was no other option) and is presented on DVD @ 1.33-37.

The problem is, though, unlike Sony, Warner still don't have a policy to create anamorphic 1.66:1 transfers of films composed for 1.66:1, so any future transfer of Lolita, Clockwork and Lyndon still won't satisfy certain people (like me).

Here's how I think the films should be presented:

The Killing (New hi-def 1.33:1)
Paths of Glory (New hi-def 1.33:1)
Lolita (1.66:1 anamorphic)
Dr. Strangelove (1.66:1 anamorphic)
2001: A Space Odyssey (New hi-def 2.21:1 anamorphic transfer of the 65mm interpositive not a 35mm reduction)
A Clockwork Orange (1.78 anamorphic)
Barry Lyndon (1.66:1 anamorphic)
The Shining (1.78:1 anamorphic)
Full Metal Jacket (1.78:1 anamorphic)
Eyes Wide Shut (1.78:1 anamorphic)

I'm not that bothered about extras, but as long as they are intelligent and informative and not fluff then I definately lay down some notes...

 

[Patrick McCart]

Well, letterboing was being used a few years earlier, but only for select titles. Manhattan was the first OAR laserdisc with an OAR scope transfer.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

You're right, Patrick - I forgot about the famous Woody Allen-approved letterboxed Laserdisc. Although the following RCA VideoDiscs came first...

Amarcord (Released January 1984, 1.85:1 letterboxing)

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Released February 1984, 1.85:1 letterboxing)

The Long Goodbye (Released March 1984, shot in Panavision but was it letterboxed to 2.35:1?)

King of Hearts (Released July 1984, shot in Techniscope but was it letterboxed to 2.35:1?)

Manhattan (Released August 1984, shot in Panavision, but was it letterboxed to 2.35:1?)

I suspect that the scope films were transfered at a ratio between 2.00:1 and 2.15:1 at best. The original (1986? '87?)MGM CLV Laserdisc of Manhattan was cropped, if I recall, to 2.20:1. The November 1991 CLV had more info and in fact, has more info than the DVD transfer. Many DVD transfer contain less info than the Laser, ie. JFK.

Anyway...!

 

[Richard Kim]

I disagree. Kubrick hated the fact that ACO was shown in 1.85:1 in the US, and I agree with him. I saw it theatrically in 1.85 and the framing is too tight. A good example would be when Alex kills the cat lady, her body is completely cropped from the screen when shown in 1.85:1. ACO should be shown in its intended AR, 1.66:1.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Stanley Kubrick was not ignorant.

He was not stuck in a 1980s mindset w.r.t. video.

He simply preferred his films to be presented unmatted.

He did not balk at the letterboxing of Criterion's "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Spartacus" transfers, both of which he supervised. And again, his preferred method for presenting his flat 35mm films was unmatted, which does nothing to improve video resolution if that was his concern. All available evidence including all of the statements from his closest consultant on the technical presentation of his films through the day he died, suggests that he was not only aware of composition on video, but actively engaged on the subject on numerous occasions, and that his informed preference was different than what many of ours would be.

w.r.t. letterboxing

"Manhattan" was the first major film I remember seeing letterboxed on home video. Criterion's early letterboxed transfers of scope films actually hedged their bets somewhat by cropping to around 2:1 (e.g. "The Hidden Fortress", "The Graduate"). "2001: ASO" was one of these, and most subsequent releases have been in the neighborhood of 2.2:1 which is about right for how it was shot. The Criterion Spartacus didn't have this extra cropping, IIRC.

Regards,

 

[ArthurMy]

This is the party line, we've heard it and heard it and heard it. So, why is Barry Lyndon hard-matted at 1:66? Why is A Clockwork Orange hard-matted at 1:66? Both films are presented in letterbox (non-anamorphic). You didn't know Kubrick, I didn't know Kubrick and frankly those around him didn't know what his attitudes on hi-def or anamoprhically enhanced DVDs were because he DIED. Kubrick made ALL his pronouncements way back in the late eighties and early nineties, for the laser and VHS releases of his films. He was a filmmaker, first and foremost, and a sometimes brilliant one at that, and I want these films the way they were shown in the theater - the way he KNEW they would be shown in the theater. The way he framed for them to be shown in a theater. All else is of no interest to me whatsoever. The Shining unmatted has so much dead space at the top of the frame it's ridiculous and it LOOKS ridiculous. His camera operator on that film has said repeatedly that he framed for the theater and that all that headroom was never meant to be seen. That's good enough for me. And, if you use the zoom mode to frame The Shining for widescreen TVs, it looks perfectly-framed, every single shot.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

What's with all the caps?Because there was apparently not the same variability in the in-camera matting for ACO and BL that there was for DS.

The party line happens to fit the available evidence. I find it beyond silly to suggest that Kubrick and the people with whom he worked most closely either never discussed or were incapable of wrapping their brains around the concept of DVD and hi-def video by 1999.

The only inconsitency I have seen has been the presentation of Lolita on DVD without the variable matting from the Criterion laserdisc. The only technically unjustified decision I have seen has been the refusal to anamorphically enhance the 1.66:1 titles, which is a problem across all WB DVDs at that aspect ratio.

Regards,