New Kubrick SE's (2 Viewers)

[Rich Malloy]

Thanks, Ken, although I consider that to be *very bad news*(TM).

(And I already have an uncensored "EWS", but of course it's *merely* standard def!)

Well, as always, it seems that not all of us will be happy with the new releases. I've watched "EWS" in widescreen three times now, and "FMJ" twice, and they just don't work for me in that ratio. I wish I was able to "Tivo" the HD broadcasts and grab a few screens to show you how horrible I think the framing is, but I haven't got a Tivo (and am not even sure if you can record HD or pull screengrabs from it...)

That "Everybody wins!" comment is not exactly accurate.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

So you're saying that they didn't "work" for you when they were released theatrically (since they only played in 1.85), but better on video?

 

[Patrick McCart]

I had the chance to see Eyes Wide Shut in 35mm earlier this year and I can't imagine seeing it any other way than 1.85:1 now. The compositions were absolutely flawless.

It just needs to be made clear that Kubrick didn't intend his last three films to be 1.33:1, he only protected them for the ratio. Like several other directors in the laserdisc era, it seemed like a better idea to keep mattes off and max out the resolution rather than wasting a bunch of resolution. This is all null with 16x9 enhancement and HD.

Woody Allen requested Annie Hall and Bananas to be open matte on the Criterion LDs and Brian de Palma was fine with Carrie being open matte. Richard Lester was also fine with open matte for A Hard Day's Night and Help! on the laserdisc transfers (and later composite video MPI/AMC masters of the restored versions). All of these except Help! (which is OOP) are widescreen on their DVD versions.

Also, the last time Kubrick approved video masters was back in 1990 or 1991.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

There was this thing called broadcast television that ran movies all the time. Kubrick saw 2001 on broadcast television and was horrified, and realized that long after his films were gone from the theatre, they'd be showing up on TV.

The number of people with VCRs is completely irrelevant -- he decided that from then onwards he'd be protecting for television.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Agreed. Everybody wins, except in the case of the Full Metal Jacket HD-DVD which isn't available 1.33. I think it's interesting to have both versions available, but on those 3 films the 1.33 version should be considered definitive. I seriously doubt we'll ever see a 1.33 version of The Shining in HD, which is a shame because the film works so well in that ratio.

 

[DonMac]

And that makes sense. So for standard TV formats (VHS, LD), release the films framed for the 4:3 format. But for widescreen TV formats (DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-ray), release the films framed for either 16:9 or 1.85:1 format.

.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Hmm, looking back at the IMDB, I must have had some films mixed up.

Still, there's nothing wrong with showing Kubrick's films at their theatrical ratios. They were filmed for them, so what's the sin?

 

[JeremyErwin]

Aspect ratio arguments rarely make sense without visual aids. Instead of getting into the whole black bars/no black bars mess, why not defend your choice of aspect ratio as a photographer would?

What's the lens focused on? How it used? Does one method of framing introduce unfocused bits into the picture? Does the visual focus correspond with the narrative focus?

 

[Jack Theakston]

If Kubrick wanted his film to be seen full frame in 1980 would be to print down a 1.37 in a 1.85 frame, and that was certainly possible.

Anyone who thinks that Kubrick actually composed his films for 1.37 has never seen these films presented correctly to make that statement. Sorry.

 

[Adam Santangelo]

Huh? I've seen all 3 of the films in question presented correctly, and I believe that Kubrick composed his films for both 1.85 and 1.37 - so your statement is already wrong. I would also be willing to bet that a bunch of the other people in this thread who don't agree with you have seen the films presented correctly.

We really don't need to rely on subjective comparisons of the two presentations to know that Kubrick composed for both formats. There's already much more objective evidence available to confirm it.

 

[Christian Preischl]

That's not what Kubrick's storyboard (posted on the previous page) says though. It says "compose for 1.85:1, protect the 1.33:1 area". 2 quite different things.

 

[JeremyErwin]

I'm guessing that Kubrick didn't intend for us to see the storyboard.

 

[Jim_K]

So um........still no news on these SE's?

Maybe Dec?

07?

2010?

 

[Patrick McCart]

It's also important to note that The Killing and Paths of Glory were meant for at least 1.66:1 (The Killing is 1.75:1 and Paths of Glory is 1.85:1). The new restoration prints of PoG are hard-matted to 1.66:1.

 

[Douglas R]

I wonder if Warner Bros have now decided to issue a box set of ALL their Kubrick films next year, rather than doing them in two batches. Might make better sense.

 

[Adam Santangelo]

I don't think we can take those words out of context, though, and draw larger conclusions from this single use of the words "compose" and "protect". To me, those seem like the words of a guy who wanted his remote unit to compose a frame that worked at both ratios, as opposed to having important elements from his design cropped out of the smaller version. Anything more than that is reading too much into the note, in my mind.

I also don't really understand why so many people are eager to conclude that Leon Vitali and others from the Kubrick estate are liars. While I do personally have a lot of questions that I'd love to ask, I also have some confidence that these people know far more about Kubrick's intentions than anyone else ever will.

This is what I was getting at, earlier in the thread, when I pointed out that the theatrical version of Eyes Wide Shut included the reflection of a boom operator. A "theatrical Kubrick purist" should want to see Eyes Wide Shut with the simulated sex, boom op reflection, and Bhagavad Gita section intact. The true purist (ie. those who don't trust Vitali & Co.) should want to see EWS unfinished, the way Kubrick left it when he passed away.

While I'm happy with my Region 1 4:3 disc, I'll also probably buy the upcoming 16:9 release, and I would definitely buy the version that Cruise, Kidman, and Warner execs saw a few days before Kubrick died. (I do understand that the picture edit was locked.)

 

[Patrick McCart]

Eyes Wide Shut's final edit was finished a few days before Kubrick passed away, from what I've read.

 

[Adam Santangelo]

That's true, but I'm pretty sure I've also read that what remained in post was completed based on Kubrick's notes/intentions.

 

[Jack Theakston]

You can protect for a larger format. You can't compose for more than one format. Any cinematographer can tell you that.

Frankly, there are a lot of people here quoting a second hand source that Kubrick didn't compose his films for 1.85. This is utter nonsense. Every paper document (PRIMARY sources) would lead you to believe otherwise. How many people here have seen THE SHINING projected 1.85 in 35mm? How many of them have seen the same film unmatted in 35mm? Do they realize that the telecine on the DVD is zoomed in considerably? How about all of those artifacts such as boom mikes and shadows that you see on an unmatted presentation?

What I'm writing is that there are few consumers that have seen these films to the standards where they can be so bold to make a statement like "Kubrick wanted these films to be seen full-frame... PERIOD!" For the most part, these "armchair historians" have not seen the film projected (or were paying attention if they did), have never gone through Stanley Kubrick's personal effects, and generally never look at the facts, all which would provide evidence to the contrary.

I realize that every time a thread like this comes up that it's going to be the same four people over and over again, but why can't the facts speak for themselves and why can't these people just face facts that for whatever his agenda, Leon Vitali is wrong. I don't know the circumstances of that interview quoted, but it paints Mr. Vitali as really not knowing a thing about what he is talking about, which is something I do on a day-to-day basis. THAT is my gripe.

 

[Adam Santangelo]

Fair enough, Jack. I would never make a statement like "Kubrick wanted these films to be seen full-frame... PERIOD!" I also wouldn't argue with the paper documents and objects from Kubrick's personal effects to which you're referring; although I would rate Leon Vitali highly as a secondary source, he's certainly not Stanley Kubrick.

Which paper documents and objects from Kubrick's personal effects are you referencing as your primary sources? You've got me really curious now, being that I'm fairly obsessive about Kubrick. (I'm a relative newcomer to the forum, so I apologize if you've already gone into detail about these insider documents in another thread.)