New Kubrick SE's (1 Viewer)

[jim.vaccaro]

Robert, can you or someone esle link me to that chatlog? I've looked around the site and haven't found it. Thanks.

 

[seanOhara]

And probably not coincidentally, one of the working titles for the film was How the Solar System was Won.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Restore it. Kubrick intended it as a Brechtian Alienation Effect.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Jacques Tati did with Playtime though, but admittedly that's the only instance I can think of.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I suppose if you wanted a multi-channel stereo soundtrack, it would give you much better results than a 35mm blow-up. The negative area of a 65mm frame cropped on the sides for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio is almost identical to the negative area of a VistaVision frame cropped at the top and bottom to 1.85:1.

Regards,

 

[Vincent_P]

I guess the difference is you wouldn't neccessarily need to do an optical conversion if you simply added a hard-matte to the sides of the 65mm frame during shooting in order to achieve a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and thus would have a better-quality print. If you shoot in ViataVision, you have to optically convert it- either reduction print to 35mm, or blow-up to 70mm release print.

Vincent

 

[Haden]

So I'm guessing these have been delayed given that the original rumored release date of 9/5 is in less than 2 weeks and we haven't even seen an official press release on these SEs yet. Is there any new rumors about when we'll get these? I was really looking forward to them in September. Hope its not pushed back to sometime in 2007. :frowning:

 

[Brandon Conway]

I'm not at all surprised considering the literally dozens of classic film releases by Warner this Fall. They've barely begun announcing December releases, so you never know....

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Sorry, but he did say that. It took some digging, but here is the exact quote from Leon Vitali:

"That is because at the time (of The Shining) 1.85:1 was becoming an industry norm in the United States, so what he did was, he shot his original negative, then he made the interpositive, then for theatrical release he would mask the interpositive, which meant he still had the original negative in full frame. This was also very important to Stanley. He was very conscious of the fact that you lose I think 27% of your picture when it is matted to 1.85:1. He hated it, he didn't find it satisfactory. He liked height. (laughs)"


and from another interview, some other interesting quotes.

"Leon Vitali: The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted.

Bill Hunt: Was there ever talk about doing alternate anamorphic widescreen versions of the later films - the ones that were shown theatrically at 1.85? So you could have both versions on DVD?

Leon Vitali: Yes, it was discussed. But Stanley just wasn't interested."

 

[Richard Kim]

And yet anamorphic DVDs of Kubrick's flat AR films have already been released and will be released in the near future.

 

[Dave Mack]

Wasn't there pretty much no home video market back in 1980? (The Shining era)
Who was gonna watch them "on video"...? 100 people?
We were one of the first people we knew to get a $1000 betamax around 1981. It seems odd that a famous and revered film director would care more about how a very small audience back then would watch his film most likely on a 25" or smaller TV set rather than in a proper cinema.

 

[Christian Preischl]

Guess it is time once again to post the following. From the "Kubrick Archives" book, this is a storyboard from "The Shining". See the text in the upper right:

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

...and Stanley is even less interested.

The theatrical ratios are legitimate since that is how they were originally presented and like it or not, that was the ratio for which SK and his DPs had to compose. I have no problem resolving this in my mind with believing his preference for home and special presentations was the unmatted full exposed frame. Both formats have legitimacy, and, finally, both are going to be available in quality presentations. Everybody wins.

Regards,

 

[Dave Mack]

Very well said, Ken.



How come I can never be all rational like that?

 

[Rich Malloy]

Ken (or anyone), do we know with any degree of certainty that there will be two transfers for the films in question, one in Academy ratio and the other in 1.78:1/1:85:1?

Having seen EWS, FMJ, and The Shining in both presentations, I find that I prefer EWS and FMJ in Academy ratio and The Shining in widescreen... I'd love to be able to view each in my preferred format!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The FMJ HD-DVD is widescreen only. I presume the upcoming HD-DVDs will be the same. I doubt the SE DVDs will have 4:3 transfers either since it would likely involve having an additional disc for just the movie. If you want the 4:3 version, you'll have to hold on to your previous DVDs (and grin and bear your censored Eyes Wide Shut).

Regards,

 

[Dave Mack]

I have the Japanese R2 uncensored Eyes wide shut in NTSC. region free is the only way to go...

 

[Douglas R]

Rather more than that surely. VHS came out in 1976.

 

[DeeF]

The correct aspect ratio of Kubrick's films doesn't have anything to do with projected movies vs. vhs home theater versions.

It has to do with art. There should be one composition ratio that works best for each of these movies. And if anybody would know which one that was, it would be Kubrick.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

This is nice and all, but I still think both ratios are legit. He composed for 1.85:1 in production and approved their wide release in that format. Even if he subsequently preferred them unmatted, he authorized their initial theatrical release that way, and we will now have DVDs that represent the result of that. Again, other than the EWS censorship issue, everybody wins.

Regards,