Kubrick 16:9 (1 Viewer)

[MarcoBiscotti]

Thanks Haggai, I didn't realize...


Well that's a plus for those of us who plan to hang on to our initial sets. A bit of a space saver. With this new bit of info, I for the first time on these forums, am hoping for entirely new extras to be announced and *not* carried over just like the Strangelove Anniversary set since the plan seems to be to compliment the earlier releases rather than serve as a strict definitive version of Kubrick on DVD. At least that's what I get from the lack of the box set packaging and 4x3 transfers, etc.

Eitherway, I'm looking forward to more details!

 

[Dave Mack]

Finally, The shining in it's Original Aspect Ratio that I saw it in back in the day. I too think it looks better in 1:85-1.
but what do I know...???

d

 

[Jack Theakston]

I agree about THE SHINING in 1.85. It looks perfect and there are many scenes where the composition falls into place being in widescreen-- the scene where Jack enters the Gold Room in the '20s and talks to Lloyd about who is paying for his drinks struck me as a good example.

The DVD, for those of you who don't know, is slightly cropped and/or framed up, depending on which scene (with the exception of the opening credits that are open matted, in which case you can see the shadow of the helicopter). So really, you're not seeing a true open matte, just a zoom-in job to further enhance the myth that Kubrick shot for full-frame.

About the 16x9 vs. 1.85: as said, there's really not much of a difference, and as anyone who has worked as a projectionist knows, there really is no such thing as a "true 1.85" in even a movie theater-- screen sizes and aperture plates cut accordingly certainly vary from theater to theater.

 

[Christopher Lee]

Just a note on the Clockwork Orange ratio: it will be anamorphic, but with black bars on the left and right sides, as the film was shot and shown 1.66:1. I quoted an interview with Kubrick's long time assistant, Leon Vitali, in another thread concerning this issue. Here is a short excerpt:

 

[Christopher Lee]

And here's a bit more in regards to Kubrick's love for using full frame over 1.85:1...



This is why the DVDs for those films were released full screen: it gave Kubrick the chance to present each of the three films as he prefered, without the restrictions of the 1.85:1 theatrical presentations, and therefore without the mattes covering the top and bottom of the image.

 

[Michael Elliott]

What happened to the prefered ratio wanted by the director???

Either way, I'll hold onto the 4:3 discs and buy the new ones for the extras. One more thing regarding THE SHINING, I believe just about every country got the shorter version of the film, which is available on R2. I'm curious if Warner will release that version as well as the longer one.

 

[Dave Mack]

This is what I don't understand. Why would Kubrick who was shooting a film that would be shown in the cinemas compose for 4x3 when it wouldn't be shown that way? Home Video didn't even really exist back when he made The Shining. All I could think of would be later TV broadcasts. I think I remember that he saw 2001 butchered on TV and was appalled, (and rightly so!) but he was a filmmaker shooting a film for the cinemas. Until I read something Kubrick ACTUALLY said about his composition for a theatrical run and not something relayed 2nd or 3rd person about a home video release (and ESPECIALLY after seeing the drawing from the book that CLEARLY said, compose for 1:85-1 but PROTECT for 4x3), I ain't buying it.

but that's just me. what do I know...

Either way if you like the 4x3 version keep the old disc which looks FAB. Me, I watched it zoomed in to 1:85-1 which to me looked better and more how I remember it when I saw it in a theater.

d

from the above quote...
"...and that's what Stanley understood with The Shining onwards. He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not. You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it."

So he knew that's how The Shining would be shown.

 

[Jack Theakston]

I'm sorry, but Vitali is blowing hot air out of his ass.

In 1971, I'm willing to wager that most theaters could still mask to 1.66 with the proper lens, masking and plate. And there were so many ways that Kubrick could have gotten the ratio he wanted with the theaters still running 1.85-- he could have had a reduction to the proper aspect ratio printed on the film, most easily.

Unless it came straight from Kubrick's mouth, we're watching Leon Vitali's THE SHINING, not Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Exactly, Dave! I'd stake money on it that no one who saw the film in 1980 saw it presented 1.37 because there were so few places that even had the capability of RUNNING non-widescreen films!

 

[Christopher Lee]

(Speaking as Hal) Yes Dave, I understand. (done speaking as Hal)

Just for more food for thought, here is even more on the subject; it speaks to the "whys" a bit:



It is odd, in that Kubrick knew that it would indeed be 1.85:1 when shown theatrically, but there you have it.

Note that this applies to The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut.

 

[David (C)]

I heard Warner generally mattes at 1.75 for all their flat films unless stipulated otherwise.

 

[Vincent-P]

OH GAWD, let's PLEASE NOT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN. Everytime there's a thread about Kubrick, it's just THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER.

The old DVDs were 1.33:1, the new ones will be 1.78:1.

Take your pick and accept it. If you want both, get both.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

It seems as though there are always a few people who, for some reason I can't understand, feel compelled to insist that the aspect ratio shown in theatres in not the "right" one. Their evidence is usually in the form of a vague feeling that something is "over-matted", or the cropping of some detail which may or may not be important to the scene, or an interview with an Italian cinematographer after the deaths of the director.

I don't understand it, myself. In almost every case since the early 1950s, the theatrical-projection aspect ratio is the one the film was shot for, and that's the ratio I want to see! (I don't have a major problem with "fudging" soft-matte films, which might have been projected anywhere between 1.66 and 1.85, out to 16:9; "close enough for jazz" I say.)

 

[Mike*Sch]

This is just an interesting sidenote, but I'm a projectionist, and my theater played EYES WIDE SHUT back when it was released, and the print was hard-matted to a ratio which was obviously intended to be shown at 1.85:1. This is not a very common occurence, and I've often wondered why it was done here. My best guess is that he composed the film for 1.33:1, and then chose the portion of the frame which would look best for 1.85:1, and printed that. In other words, the 1.85:1 composition was "tilt and scan" or whatever. Like I said, that's just a guess. This was 7 years ago, so I don't remember everything exactly.

The other possibility, and I don't really know much about this, is that he probably shot the movie using the entire negative. As I understand it, most movies do not use the space which will be used for the soundtrack on release prints. Since he probably did, the image would have had to been shrunk for the release print, and since this would require an optical printing step, they just decided to put the matte in anyway, to compensate for incompetent projectionists who can't frame properly. Would this make any sense at all?

The sad part is that because of the hard-matting, a theater couldn't show the movie in 1.37:1 even if they wanted to.

 

[Mark-P]

While reduction prints where feasible in the 1970s and 1980s, it just was not done. It wasn't until the 1990s that Disney started releasing reduction prints of their classic animated features such as Pinocchio and Fantasia.

Watch the Martin Scorsese introduction on the DVD of New York New York. He says he wanted to shoot it in 1.33:1 but ultimately decided on 1.66:1 because there was no feasible way for the theaters at the time to show it in 1.33:1.

 

[Mike*Sch]

Also, reduction prints reduce image quality as well, which it seems was important to Kubrick.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Here's my two cents.

To show a widescreen image on a conventional television, a matte must be used. This matte reduces the height of the image, and makes the tiny television screen seem even tinier. The shear impact of the image is reduced.

Conventional pan and scan techniques cut off the image. If the original shot has two individuals conversing, a pan and scan image will only show one of the individuals. Reactions, body language, all cut off.

With an opening up the matte, it's more difficult to present a case for the original composition, because more, not less information is disclosed. Boom mikes and lights obviously detract from the image, but some directors "protect for 1.33". And thus one has to use the language of composition, of f-stops, and lenses to present a valid case.

The only one who even tries is Vitali. But, there is a caveat.

He's trying to balance the "black bars distract" with the "original theatrical ratio is better" argument. Somewhere along the way, "black bars distract" won over. And yet, there are people who would hold out for an anamorphic dvd. To win them over, Vitali has to convince them that 1.33 is all that will be released. He may be telling the truth-- that 1.33 is a vastly preferable frame. He may be misrepresenting it for his own purposes. We'll never quite know because Kubrick was a recluse who jealously guarded his privacy.

In as sense, this whole argument detracts from the enjoyment of the film. But if you insist, it's time to really analyze Kubrick's compositions.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Kubrick filmed his movies for the theatrical AR, but with protection (to a point) for unmatted television exhibition.

People completely misinterpret the point. He did NOT intend the main AR of his last 3 films to be 1.33:1 at any time. He just made it so that his films wouldn't suffer being shown at 1.33:1 on television. This is important because he probably went mad over how Spartacus and 2001 were butchered in their pan & scan versions. By shooting at 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 at smaller AR's, it's not as much of a compromise.

His storyboards for The Shining explicitly say 1.85:1 is the main AR, but with a note saying it will be safe for 1.33:1. Kubrick shot all of his films after Killer's Kiss for a widescreen AR.

It's also important to know that the last time Kubrick made any decisions on video transfers was in 1991.

 

[Christian Preischl]

Well, I guess it's time to post it again.

 

[Patrick McCart]

^^^ Thank you.

"Obviously, you compose for that."