DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Martin (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

I was wondering how long it would take for you to say this No, I'm not against widescreen. You know that full well. I'm pro-wide when necessary and pro-4:3 when necessary. It's all about DIR (Director's Intended Ratio) my friend.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I didn't mean to say YOU were against widescreen. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Artisan/Lions Gate but I'm going to guess you don't own too many of their titles. For several releases, people are region free because of this studio and how they handle their releases. Laurel and Hardy is an example, Sleepless and various others aren't really given good treatment with this studio.

As for me, DVD is about getting the movies the way they were presented in theaters. Perhaps that has something to do with the name of this site? Again, if you don't want this film looking how it did in theaters then go for another option. It's very simple. And yes, I think Romero's opinion should factor into this release and the ones from Anchor Bay and Blue Underground.

I haven't bought THE CRAZIES yet but will I get the open matte or widescreen? I'll take the Blue Underground and I'm going to keep the Anchor Bay DAWN even though I've owned a couple open matte versions. With SEASON OF THE WITCH and THERE'S ALWAYS VANILLA, I'll go for whatever AB releases. With all of these examples, there's more than one option for people to pick from. "Option" is the key to being region free.

 

[WillardK]

Someone should point out that this is precisely what did NOT happen with Martin. Romero knew while filming that it would be matted. That fact plus the fact that he approves either version really should stop the merry-go-round and make it very clear that as far as OAR or DAR there is a choice between two versions for the dvd transfer and now for the consumer. Theories on 'why' he approves both versions have no bearing on the fact that he does. That's it on it's own terms whether you like it or not.

 

[Vincent_P]

Michael:

I haven't seen the Blue Underground THE CRAZIES- the film was never a favorite of mine, so I never bought it. However, if I did buy it, and it looked as bad matted as those MARTIN screenshots do, then I absolutely would kick up a fuss and complain.

As for DAWN OF THE DEAD, unlike THE CRAZIES and MARTIN, DAWN was shot in 35mm, and all professional 35mm cameras circa the 1970s would have clear 1,85:1 frame-line markings, so it isn't the same. To my eyes, DAWN looks absolutely fine at 1.85:1, so there's no need for me to complain that the Anchor Bay DVD set of this 35mm-shot feature is presented this way. I feel the same way about the Kubrick films- I've seen both THE SHINING and EYES WIDE SHUT projected theatrically at 1.85:1 multiple times, and they always look great that way. I think they also look nice full-frame, but I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them being issued on video in their theatrical ratios, either, because clearly Kubrick made sure that they'd work well that way. I also wouldn't mind a 2.35:1 APOCALYPSE NOW, even though Storaro prefers 2:1 for home video...

The point is, in the case of 35mm shot films like the Kubrick examples or DAWN OF THE DEAD, the picture area above-and-below the 1.85:1 area is not going to have relevant image information even if the director "prefers" full-frame for 4:3 displays of such films, whereas for a 16mm feature that gets blown up to 35mm and projected at 1.85:1, it very well might, and in the case of MARTIN that certainly seems to be the case. 35mm motion picture cameras have 1.85:1 ground-glass markins built into them as part of their design, 16mm cameras do not, and that's the difference.

And Willard:

As I recall, MARTIN was made independently without a theatrical distributor in place, so Romero didn't "know" that it would be matted, because it wasn't guaranteed that the film would ever be picked up by a distributor who'd be willing to pay for a 35mm blow-up. The 16mm festival screenings most certainly would not be matted, and as I've pointed out several times in this thread, 1.85:1 ground-glass markings in 16mm cameras are not standard or even common. The screen-shots of the new DVD are telling enough that MARTIN should not have been matted, or at the very least, not so severly. *MAYBE* it could've accomdated a 1.66:1 matting with some shots being repositioned up-and-down to compensate, but the straight 1.78:1 matting of this new DVD has caused some pretty obvious framing errors.

Vincent

 

[WillardK]

I thought I'd read in this thread that Romero DID know, but I guess that was just someone's speculation from the distribution plans. In any case, I side with Michael on this and think that Romero's word is a legitimate seal of approval. Neither version can be considered 'wrong' by anyone. It's his film. I understand the hoopla, especially with those captures and Romero's own preference. But his approval of the matting is about as last word as you can get. Even if you think he's dropped the ball, it's not anyone else's to pick up. So, there's a choice between two correct versions.

Could it loosely be compared to the Eyes Wide Shut US edit? Kubrick approved of the alteration (if not the specific blocky cgi that was the result) so we have no choice but to accept it as a legitimate version of his film. This despite easily defendable reasons to want the unaltered version.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Vincent, I appreciate your long posts going into detail about the making of these films. You're certainly the expert in that area so it's nice to read what you've got to say in those matters.

As for MARTIN, in my honest opinion I think Lions Gate was doing what they thought was right. I'm going to talk to this guy on the phone Saturday morning so I hope I can learn more about this little thing. For starters, LG hardly ever releases a horror film with an anamorphic transfer or a remixed soundtrack, so why MARTIN? I was told they could have used the same print as AB and just re-released the thing like MGM did with a couple of their AB titles. Why didn't they just do this? From what I can tell, I really think LG wanted to do this title right. That's why they just didn't re-release the old transfer. I was told they remastered this but I'll look into that when I get the AB disc next week. Also unlike LG, they actually gave us some wonderful extras.



I listened to the commentary again tonight and I really don't know. I've always heard MARTIN was a bomb when released but on the commentary they make it sound as if it was a hit. The producer also talks about needing a hit and that this could be Romero's last shot at directing. This was the main reason why they didn't let him shoot it in B&W. There's also talk about only being able to shoot one or two takes and not having the money to properly set everything up.

I can't remember what MARTIN looks like 4:3 but for the review I paid close attention to the details of the framing. Outside the death scene with the stick and a scene on the stairs, I thought the framing looked great. There were a couple other scenes that I thought it might be too tight but nothing major. Even with the matte there was plenty of headroom and nothing seemed to be missing at the bottom. A 4:3 shot film or something open matte is of course going to lose information with the matte but I really don't think it hurts this film.

I'm sure this is the first time most of us has seen this matted so perhaps we're just so use to the 4:3 that this is too distracting? I know you're not going to buy the disc but if you'd like to take a look, I'd gladly let you borrow my copy. From my eyes, it really doesn't look too bad.

This debate has hit several films like LAST HOUSE, HILLS HAVE EYES, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD and even I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE because you're missing some nudity. Without the director involved, it's really hard to tell what they prefered. If theaters could show 4:3 then I'm sure Kubrick would have released them that way and perhaps MARTIN would have been released that way. Perhaps even director's today would want that ratio.

For me, I won't be buying matted versions of those Kubrick films. I use to fight with the people who refused to buy the current versions because Kubrick wanted this 4:3. I know many people want MARTIN 4:3. However, over the past year I've started to see the other side's point of having these films released the way they were in theaters. With that in mind, I hope Warner releases both the open matte and 1.85. In the case of MARTIN, both versions should be released but this will be up to those buying.

We've got the director approved 4:3 and the director approved 1.85. If Romero prefers all his early films 4:3 like Kubrick, then it appears we've got both versions of those available, which is good for both sides. I think it just comes down to the viewer. I don't mind DAWN or MARTIn matted but I'd hate to see NIGHT at 1.85. I prefer LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT open matte but prefer I SPIT matted even though we're missing the nudity. With these types of small films it probably would be best to have both options on one disc.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

edit