Kiss Me Kate replacement discs (1 Viewer)

[Bill Burns]

Bob -- a couple of questions (having cleared my head of a few clouds surrounding our previous discussion -- some of my posts there are just unsalvageable, thanks to a few silly and fundamental errors on my part concerning apertures and correction protocols; I've re-edited them to such an extent, folks might think me Bill Hays!):

1. This new transfer will presumably be an Academy Ratio transfer from that portion of the full aperture frame, correct? Shot off balance for full aperture (aka Super35 or silent aperture) photography, in which a soundtrack obscures the left portion of the frame, any new transfer, to finally be in balance, must be from the 1.33:1 Academy portion of the frame, correct? Transferring it at full 1.37:1 may have been part of the earlier problem (anyone unaware of what I'm talking about may want to look here, where Robert Harris provides a very useful diagram).

2. The 3D excerpts will presumably be flat, which they never were in theatres ... so, hmmmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. The film itself was shown flat in some theatres, but the 3D-specific footage was never shown flat, correct? Doing so here negates its express purpose (3D), as it was left out of 2D prints precisely because they were 2D. How do you feel about it? I continue to foreswear buying any 3D film in 2D (excepting only those whose 3D component does not survive), so the matter remains academic for me, but the merit (or rather lack of merit) in presenting 3D-only material (material never issued to theatres in 2D) flat sounds very like the usefulness of that B&W transfer of a color trailer you mentioned on another thread -- a policy that suits a mainstream to whom the material would not necessarily appeal (and whose wishes should not be placed foremost in determining release specs), while diminishing its value to the collector most interested in the product, and whose feedback should therefore be prized most highly (the same folks who seem to be saying they love field sequential on DVD, apropos Slingshot's system ). Here, instead of presenting a trailer in B&W because the film is presented in B&W, they'll (presumably -- I can't believe they'd support either anaglyph or field sequential in supplements and not on the feature) be presenting 3D-only material in flat because the film is presented flat.

I don't intend to spark another 3D debate (that's been covered thoroughly in earlier threads), but rather to determine the value of this supplemental footage flat for anyone likely to care about it in the first place. Perhaps the subject matter of the footage (what the actors are doing, set pieces/design, etc.), and not its presentation fidelity, is the priority for many who are interested in the 2D version of the film? That's a possibility. It might bear further discussion -- I'm still unsure how I feel about it.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bill Burns has opened another can of worms here with paragraphs so huge that they could clog the internet.

They are reproduced below with appropriate answers:

1. This new transfer will presumably be an Academy Ratio transfer from that portion of the full aperture frame, correct?

********
Not if done correctly. The concept of using full aperture, as Hitchcock did for many of his films in the 60s is to yield a higher quality final print which is reduction printed from the original. The relative shape is the same; simply a slightly smaller image.

The entire full aperture should be transferred.

*********
Shot off balance for full aperture (aka Super35 or silent aperture) photography, in which a soundtrack obscures the left portion of the frame, any new transfer, to finally be in balance, must be from the 1.33:1 Academy portion of the frame, correct?

No.


2. The 3D excerpts will presumably be flat, which they never were in theatres ... so, hmmmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. The film itself was shown flat in some theatres, but the 3D-specific footage was never shown flat, correct?
*************
The 3-D inserts were prepared for and inserted into specific right eye / left eye prints destined for 3-D distribution.

After the end of their use in that format, those same prints would have been shipped separately for normal projection inclusive of the inserts. They would not have been recut to the normal footage, which was the same length of the special inserts.
****************
Doing so here negates its express purpose (3D), as it was left out of 2D prints precisely because they were 2D. How do you feel about it?

The 3-D inserts in 2-D were vestigial.

**********************

I continue to foreswear buying any 3D film in 2D (excepting only those whose 3D component does not survive), so the matter remains academic for me, but the merit (or rather lack of merit) in presenting 3D-only material (material never issued to theatres in 2D) flat sounds very like the usefulness of that B&W transfer of a color trailer you mentioned on another thread -- a policy that suits a mainstream to whom the material would not necessarily appeal (and whose wishes should not be placed foremost in determining release specs), while diminishing its value to the collector most interested in the product, and whose feedback should therefore be prized most highly (the same folks who seem to be saying they love field sequential on DVD, apropos Slingshot's system ). Here, instead of presenting a trailer in B&W because the film is presented in B&W, they'll (presumably -- I can't believe they'd support either anaglyph or field sequential in supplements and not on the feature) be presenting 3D-only material in flat because the film is presented flat.

I believe that many people will be appreciative of seeing, albeit in 2-D, the intent of those special scenes created specifically for their counterpart. One can, of course, simply not view them.

******************
I don't intend to spark another 3D debate (that's been covered thoroughly in earlier threads), but rather to determine the value of this supplemental footage flat for anyone likely to care about it in the first place. Perhaps the subject matter of the footage (what the actors are doing, set pieces/design, etc.), and not its presentation fidelity, is the priority for many who are interested in the 2D version of the film? That's a possibility. It might bear further discussion -- I'm still unsure how I feel about it.

The main point being overlooked here is that this is a very fine film, which works in and can be viewed in either technical format.

While there were any number of films created solely as a part of the 3-D craze, this is not one of them. KMK is a worthy film in its own right, which simply happened to fall within this experimental era of distribution. There are many 3-D films about which this cannot be said.

In regards to 3-D on DVD, I've also seen it, and it does sometimes work, but the overriding problem, which has been mentioned, is one of POTENTIAL dizzyness, etc.

I would suggest that although it would be nice to see these films in something akin to their original formats, that in today'd litigenous society, a large corporation is requesting problems by releasing the film in that manner.

Someone, somewhere, will view the film, fall and not be able to get up...

and litigate the matter.

I, for one, would wait for a system which can SAFELY provide the third dimension to all veiwers... and that may not be possible.

RAH

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Re: The 3D excerpts will presumably be flat, which they never were in theatres ... so, hmmmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. The film itself was shown flat in some theatres, but the 3D-specific footage was never shown flat, correct? Doing so here negates its express purpose (3D), as it was left out of 2D prints precisely because they were 2D. How do you feel about it?

Bill, those gimmick shots were intended solely for the stereoscopic version of the film. While it's true that the left/right 3-D pairs were eventually split up after their depth engagements and used for sub-run bookings (with the gimmick shots intact,) that was not the film-makers intention for the footage. Therefore, I would not insert them into the flat version for the new DVD release. If you're going to do that, you might as well make all the other changes which were intended for the 3-D version (see the earlier post with the cutting continuity notes) and that wouldn't make much sense either.

I would certainly include them as an extra on the disc, but would not make them part of the flat version of the film.

Bob

 

[DaViD Boulet]

GREAT NEWS.

I'll wait until the new disc is released and gladly pick it up!

Someone, somewhere, will view the film, fall and not be able to get up...

and litigate the matter.

I, for one, would wait for a system which can SAFELY provide the third dimension to all veiwers... and that may not be possible.

RAH, I've gathered up all your comments in this thread with a welcoming mind but this one bit leaves me a bit confused. I've seen several 3-D IMAX projections, and had to navigate a rather precarious ledge to get to and fro my seat, yet I never had to sign any sort of waver having anything to do with relinquishing my rights were I to lose balane during the film and incur injury. If IMAX films can "safely" present 3-D films where folks are navigating around narrow ledges and stairs, is there really a problem?

I've also never heard anyone viewing squential-eye 3-D in home complain of dizziness or loss of balance. Is there something else of which I'm not aware?

 

[Robert Harris]

I believe that the original mention the alternates had them as an added extra, and not a part of the film. They will be for reference only as to precisely what was changed between versions.

The base version of the film on the new DVD, will be, as I have heard, the non-stereoscopic version of the film, without replacement inserts.

This part of the discussion should now be over.

RAH

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Re: RAH, I've gathered up all your comments in this thread with a welcoming mind but this one bit leaves me a bit confused. I've seen several 3-D IMAX projections, and had to navigate a rather precarious ledge to get to and fro my seat, yet I never had to sign any sort of waver having anything to do with relinquishing my rights were I to loose balane during the film and incur injury. If IMAX films can "safely" present 3-D films where folks are navigating around narrow ledges and stairs, is there really a problem?
I've also never heard anyone viewing squential-eye 3-D in home complain of dizziness or loss of balance. Is there something else of which I'm not aware?

It's the same people that would complain of neck injuries from trying to watch 3-panel Cinerama...

 

[Bill Burns]

To address points from both Robert Harris and Bob Furmanek:

Robert Harris:

In regards to 3-D on DVD, I've also seen it, and it does sometimes work, but the overriding problem, which has been mentioned, is one of POTENTIAL dizzyness, etc.

I would suggest that although it would be nice to see these films in something akin to their original formats, that in today'd litigenous society, a large corporation is requesting problems by releasing the film in that manner.

Someone, somewhere, will view the film, fall and not be able to get up...

and litigate the matter.

I, for one, would wait for a system which can SAFELY provide the third dimension to all veiwers... and that may not be possible.

In the threads I linked in an earlier post, and other threads as well, many speak of official, studio sanctioned home video field sequential (and of course anaglyph) 3D releases to VHS and other formats (there are also bootlegs out there, but ignoring comments about those, official studio product has also been available, and overseas as well as in America). On DVD, IMAX has released field sequential product.

Have these official, sanctioned-by-copyright-holder releases been the subject of litigation? WB's last chat indicated the lack of 3D is due to the current management's reaction to the technology (it "gives them a headache"), and if that's the case, an awareness that there are folks who feel the same way in theatres, and many who find both the theatrical and home video versions of field sequential 3D quite satisfying (on proper equipment), would be of value.*

I'd have to back Bob's comments about Cinerama. I understand Chaplin felt widescreen in general would give an audience a neckache (isn't there a joke about that in A King in New York?) as they moved their heads side to side to follow action.

Dispelling myths about a technological tool (not a gimmick, guys, come on; I addressed this philosophically in an earlier thread, but the fact that someone at some point uses something as a gimmick doesn't make it a gimmick -- William Castle used synchronized sound and certain color techniques as gimmicks in some of his films, but does that make synchronized sound or color a gimmick?) is the only way to do films that use the tool justice.

If Slingshot's field sequential glasses and synchronization box don't meet the spec of any particular studio (and they should have one if they don't -- Universal, WB ... any that control 3D product), they could always offer their own viewing product as an alternative for the collector (not unlike the higher priced "collector" boxes for Superman, Dirty Harry and certain other select films, which are third party releases sanctioned by the studio that include lythographs, collector's books, etc., a collector's box with an "optimized, studio approved" set of glasses and synch box could be offered; it would then be in the hands of the consumer to determine where they buy their glasses and the quality of those glasses, as it is now with the quality of the display device on which we view 2D product; the films themselves could be offered in collector's 3D sets, as Patrick McCart suggested on a previous thread).

They point I'm always trying to make about this is that there are solutions for the studios; the trouble remains a desire to pursue them.

Perhaps as a final word on Kiss Me Kate itself as a 3D product, allow me to ask Bob Furmanek: in your research and/or interviews, Bob, have you ever found evidence that George Sidney didn't feel the 3D version of Kate represented anything important or valuable beyond what the 2D version offers? If Robert Harris ever spoke with Mr. Sidney, the question would of course extend to him as well. If GS felt this way, a nonchalance about the film's availability in 2D only may be easier to justify, but if he expressed a sense of value in the film as a 3D product, I still can't see why anyone would argue we shouldn't be pining for that version in our homes (just as we pine for properly timed color transfers, OAR releases, mono tracks for films released in mono, etc. -- as a fidelity to authorial intent, as it were, and also fidelity to the film's historical record).

*This reminds me of the video game industry, which a number of years ago came under scrutiny (and I believe litigation?) apropos children having epileptic seisures while viewing certain rapidly changing patterns of color and light in select games. I believe most or all games have since included a warning on inserts or the instruction booklets advising that if you begin to feel tired or queezy or dizzy while playing, well, you should stop playing the game. This apparently statisfied everyone, because the video game industry persists in what I understand is continuing and (considering its short life cycle to date) phenomenal financial success.

(I'll just give the internet a few helpful pats on the back, here ... or the Heimlich ... okay, is there a doctor in the house? ....)

 

[DeeF]

I'd have to back Bob's comments about Cinerama. I understand Chaplin felt widescreen in general would give an audience a neckache (isn't there a joke about that in A King in New York?) as they moved their heads side to side to follow action.

Cinemascope, very wide and narrow, was certainly a problem for dance. Vincent Minnelli didn't know what to do with it, and it's almost a disaster in Brigadoon. Later, Gene Kelly made It's Always Fair Weather, and the dance of three men, in sync, became incoherent because the three were so spread apart (and small, to get both heads and feet) -- you couldn't see them all at the same time. Of course, a few years earlier, this wasn't a problem in On the Town and Singin' in the Rain, because the frame was so much narrower. One problem noted with the current DVD of Kiss Me, Kate, is that often one of the (4) dancers in Tom, Dick or Harry is partly cutoff, left or right. Obviously it wasn't designed to be seen that way.

Later choreographers made better use of the widescreen (notably Jerome Robbins in West Side Story and Bob Fosse in Sweet Charity).

 

[Bill Burns]

Agreed, DeeF, though this is (intriguingly) one of those very few instances where I find 'Scope at home an experience one could argue superior to 'Scope in the theatre -- dance synchronization becomes readily evident, frame composition itself becomes readily evident as a whole, but the wide photographic frame with its unique and often beautiful properties remains intact.

However (that's a big HOWEVER), allow me to point out that this is a separate argument entirely from my own, and the quote from my post above is out of context. I wasn't criticizing widescreen photography (far from it; I adore 'Scope and other wide formats), but rather demonstrating just what Bob suggested -- many film formats and tools have their detractors (even one as widely regarded as Charles Chaplin) who do not grasp their potential and thus dismiss them out of hand (whether Chaplin actually felt this way himself, I don't know). The motion picture itself had many such detractors when it debuted, and its many forms and tools (from sound to color to widescreen photographic processes to 3D) have garnered such criticism in the interim. 3D, as I've pointed out elsewhere, was recently used to great effect by James Cameron. It's far from dead, and in the right hands, far from a gimmick.

 

[Robert Harris]

Super 35 is not shot "off balance." It is also not meant to be projected, but rather, as the basis for an extracted image, which can be any aspect ratio. Re: Mr. Hughes' comments, there is absolutely no reason that a film with a widescreen image would be designed for extraction from an RA negative unless one were looking to increase grain and lower resolution. It makes no sense.

While most early uses of Super 35 were toward the creation of dye transfer prints which would yield a sharper, less grainy image, ie. The Birds or Marnie, it was later used by DPs such as John Alcott for productions like Greystoke, which, when printed directly from the FA Oneg to 70mm looked incredible. The similar situation can be found with Silverado, which, while derived from FA, was taken up to a 65mm interpositive, which was the basis of 1.85 large format prints, which again yielded a superior image quality.

While there have been situations in which a negative is shot FA and not intended to be the basis of extraction, meaning that the viewfinder is set for RA, there have also been productions shot FA, which were designed to be projected FA and 2.55, such as Kwai, which at the time of release were set for projection at 2.35, and the left side of the frame was simply not exposed to matrices and printed over with optical track.

This was not corrected until Columbia's DVD release of the film, which for the first time exposed the entire 2.55 image as designed and photographed.

The point to keep in mind here is that FA or Super 35 was not meant to be an image projected as such after sound on film came to be. The Academy Aperture is one means of using the same shape as early films, with the addition of large frame lines.

If you go back to the examples of KMK which were posted on Bits, you'll note the black and white frame lines. These were used to allow the full, or nearly full FA image to be reduction printed within the RA frame.

I did have the pleasure of meeting Mr. Sidney, but did not discuss KMK with him. Our discussion concerned Half a Sixpence, which is an interesting, but unsuccessful musical version of Well's Kipps. I'd still love to see Paramount release it on DVD.

RAH

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Re: Perhaps as a final word on Kiss Me Kate itself as a 3D product, allow me to ask Bob Furmanek: in your research and/or interviews, Bob, have you ever found evidence that George Sidney didn't feel the 3D version of Kate represented anything important or valuable beyond what the 2D version offers?

I have never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Sidney. The comments posted by him were taken from a Los Angeles Times interview of 11/8/53.

 

[Greg_M]

Mr. Harris,

There are a few other members who would also like to see Paramount release "Half a Sixpence" on DVD

 

[Rob W]

It would seem to me that the very fact that special 3D gimmick sequences were inserted and removed from the film depending on the projected format is proof enough that the film was designed to be enjoyed in both flat & 3D formats.

An unsuspecting viewer would be hard pressed to watch the flat version and even guess it had originally been a 3D production.

The fact is that many, many films have been designed to serve many different audiences and markets and in some cases an absolute version of a film is purely a matter of opinion. VISTAVISION allowed for a varying series of projected aspect ratios ; should the DVD transfers provide every single version to be accurate ?

Warner Brothers are going to great lengths to provide an accurate version of KISS ME KATE as projected flat. If they someday choose to release a 3D version of the film I would buy it. They should be thanked for wanting to do a perfectly acceptable version of the film properly.

 

[Peter Kline]

An unsuspecting viewer would be hard pressed to watch the flat version and even guess it had originally been a 3D production.

There are many telltale signs of it originally being photographed in 3D. The art direction and placement of objects and actors in the frame. There is depth of focus from a a few inches to infinity on all shots (unlike 2D films which use variable focus). Also, lots of headroom at the top of the frame, to name just a few.

 

[DeeF]

I just showed this to my nieces and nephew, 11-15 years old. I forgot to mention that it had been made for 3D. They asked me why people kept throwing things at the camera.

 

[Rob W]

CITIZEN KANE used a large depth of focus as well . And the headroom was more likely to accomodate the matting of the film for some of the new widescreen formats. I was referring to the fact that there are very few shots in the flat version with things being tossed at the camera that are the giveaway in other 3D films that are shown flat.

And when I say "unsuspecting viewer" I refer to the mass audience who are likely to just watch this film for all the pleasures it still provides and not the tech-heads like us who haunt these boards.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Of the 50 3-D features from that period, it is one of the more "gimmicky" films. More things are thrown at the audience then in Flight to Tangier, Dangerous Mission, Glass Web, Inferno, I the Jury, Money from Home, Second Chance, Miss Sadie Thompson, Devil's Canyon and Hondo - to name a few.

 

[Steve Phillips]

That's true. There are plenty of instances of gimmick shots in KISS ME KATE, and most of the shots are obviously well staged for multiple planes of depth going back from the "window". Still, the film is quite good even in flat form. One can't say that about JAWS 3-D or TREASURE OF THE FOUR CROWNS!

 

[Bill Burns]

Robert Harris wrote:

The fact is that many, many films have been designed to serve many different audiences and markets and in some cases an absolute version of a film is purely a matter of opinion. VISTAVISION allowed for a varying series of projected aspect ratios ; should the DVD transfers provide every single version to be accurate ?

Actually, Kiss Me Kate, flat, was apparently seen in many venues (and often advertised as) wide, as well. But that's an argument I haven't really explored; Bob Furmanek makes mention of it earlier in this thread.

I'd compare the flat presentation of films shot in 3D to something other than multiple matte presentations, though; the former removes a tool of storytelling from the film which was used in its production, whereas the latter only reformats the film -- everything you see is complete, even though pieces you don't see, and for which it was protected, have been removed at the top (and sometimes bottom). Even an OAR and MAR comparison (which I made in an earlier thread) isn't, upon further reflection, entirely accurate, because once again the portion of frame remaining contains everything that portion of frame had in the first place -- it's complete unto itself, however much of the original frame is missing.

Removing stereoscopic depth alters the entire frame as viewed. For this reason I think of it as the B&W presentation of a color film, or the color presentation of a B&W film ... or, perhaps in a less extreme example, the synchronized sound presentation of a film originally designed for silent. Directors, cinematographers, and other filmmakers have often endorsed these alterations (yes, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, I have heard a director in an interview or commentary endorse the colorization of many of his B&W films, believe it or not, and no, he wasn't speaking sarcastically), but to think of them as anything other than an alteration (something is missing which was originally present) is, I think, misleading.

Since Robert Harris and Bob Furmanek never spoke with Mr. Sidney regarding Kate, authorial intent might be more difficult to uncover here. Perhaps he was just as happy in 2D, for this film, as 3D. But it was still made in 3D, which is why I'd like to see it that way.

But I agree, Rob (we have a Rob, Robert, and Bob in this discussion now! The mind reels), as I said in my first post on this thread -- Warner Bros. has addressed a problem in Kate's 2D presentation which would have been very easy to ignore, and this will make quite a few fans of the film very happy. They are therefore to be congratulated, and while it may not be my cup of tea, I'm honestly very happy they've returned to the film and satisfied so many of its fans.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Here's another component of this question: when a film shot with spherical, rather than anamorphic lenses, such as Super35 films billed as such, is issued to theatres in a 'Scope extraction (as was Ferris Bueller's Day Off, the recent The Recruit, Jackson's Lord of the Rings films, etc.), is that extraction printed anamorphically for release prints (is it issued to theatres as an Academy Ratio print designed for projection through the same anamorphic lenses used by theatres for Panavision anamorphic 'Scope projection?). What I'm trying to get at is this: what does a Super35 2.40:1 extracted image look like on a release print?

Theatrical prints of Super 35 shot films are anamorphically squeezed and, for all intents and purposes, look the same as films shot in Panavision. (assuming the intended theatrical ratio is ~2.40:1, though I think very, very few Super 35 films have been framed for 1.85 flat presentations, at least in the modern implementation of Super 35, which is post-1984 or so).

A good example you can see to find out just how a film is shot in Super35 and re-framed for theatres and video is on the Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition (silver box) DVD.