Once Upon a Time in Mexico Details (including OAR discussion, past and present) (1 Viewer)

[Jonny P]

Rodriguez does admit that the film was shot 1.78 to 1 and then cropped on the top and bottom to make it 2.35 to 1 because this film was apparently his "homage" to "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"...

I am sure they wanted to do a direct from HD transfer. I wonder if he even has an HD original cropped to 2.35 to 1, or if that was done once he submitted it to the studio merely for the prints that were sent to theatres.

It may also have been a compromise to avoid releasing a 2.35 to 1 version and a "Pan and Scan" version of the film on DVD.

The film was in the can almost 2 years before it was released (or in this case, on a computer hard drive). His original intention may have been to release it at 1.85 to 1...like he did for "Desperado" and the "Spy Kids" movies. It is possible that as he tinkered and experimented with it, he got the idea to try it at 2.35 to 1 for the "big screen."

If information were chopped off the sides of this to make it 1.78 to 1...then I would be ticked.

I watched it last night and must say that scene composition looks very balanced top to bottom.

 

[Vincent_P]

:: Since it appears that Rodriguez composed the photography for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, the people who paid money to view this film in the theater projected at 2.35:1 should be the ones to complain.

This is COMPLETELY UNTRUE. Rodriguez said in interviews as far back as SPY KIDS 2 that he intended ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO to be an homage to Leone and be in 'Scope. Read the quotes below (links also included to the full articles) for evidence:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...-digital_x.htm

"... I created a whole different look for Once Upon a Time in Mexico and another one for Spy Kids 2. I wanted it to look more Technicolor-y," Rodriguez says. "(Mexico) looks like a CinemaScope Sergio Leone movie where you can see the pores on the guys' faces."

http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub...ture_3829.html

"...I told the studio, "Okay, I'll make one, but it's gotta be epic. And it's gotta be called Once Upon A Time in Mexico. And they said, "Sure." I never thought I'd make the movie. I just thought it was such a hassle to shoot on film, and to go down there again and make a movie in Mexico on film; I just thought, you know, "Life's too short." Then when those HD cameras came around, suddenly all those projects I thought were just impossible felt suddenly doable.
...It looks like a Sergio Leone; it's on widescreen; it looks like we were down there a year shooting. It looks huge! The studio can't believe it. It's this big epic movie about Mexico."

Vincent

 

[Damin J Toell]

When George Lucas showed me some early footage from "Star Wars," I was like, Hey, I didn't know it was that far along. I hadn't heard a thing about it. I was actually angry that people had been hiding all that great information.

Clearly, Rodriguez was far from being the first kid on the block get involved in digital filmmaking.

Sadly, Peter Bracke doesn't bring up the aspect ratio topic in the interview.

DJ

 

[Shane Dodson]

Is he supposed to?

Regards,

- S.D.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Is he supposed to?

No, he's not supposed to do anything. Given that this thread has been largely dedicated to the AR topic, however, I am sad that a OUATIM DVD-related interview with Rodriguez didn't discuss it.

DJ

 

[Brandon Conway]

Bottom line...these controversies show that many of these so-called OAR "devotees" are more concerned with the aspect ratio THEY prefer than the one preferred by the director.

Nicely said.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It may also have been a compromise to avoid releasing a 2.35 to 1 version and a "Pan and Scan" version of the film on DVD.

Then it was a poor compromise. I'd much rather have two versions of the film released and have one be correct than only one incorrect one.

If Rodriguez definitively says in a print interview that he shot it 16x9, then I'll buy the DVD. Otherwise, I can only consider it a MARed presentation.

 

[WillG]

Bottom line...these controversies show that many of these so-called OAR "devotees" are more concerned with the aspect ratio THEY prefer than the one preferred by the director.

Even though the director prefers the 1.78:1 AR. This film played at theaters in a 2.35:1 AR and that what some "devotees" want. It's not the same thing as people wanting 2.35:1 on DVD even though the film played at 1.85:1 theatrically. I think that by the fact that this film did show at 2.35:1 theatrically, people that are pissed that the DVD A.R. is 1.78:1 have a legitamate complaint. My viewpoint is that if you intend an A.R. of 1.78:1, show the film theatrically at 1.85:1. If you intend an A.R. of 1.78:1 but want to show it at 2.35:1 theatrically, fine, but make the 2.35:1 version available on DVD as well.

But here's another question. By most accounts (the director, and reviews) The 1.78:1 AR is correct. If you paid money to see this in the theater, shouldn't you be entitled to some kind of refund for watching a cropped presentation that is not in it's intended A.R. The theatrical film should have had a "This Film has been modified from it's intended Aspect Ratio to simulate at 2.35:1 theatrical aspect ratio" disclaimer

 

[Shane Dodson]

The point that is continually being lost is that MEXICO was obviously composed for BOTH ratios. If you watch the "Film is Dead" featurette on the DVD, Rodriguez explains that cropping the HD image to 2.35:1 caused a "loss of resolution." His point was that--even with the lost resolution--the projected HD "scope" image looked spectacular. Obviously, for home viewing, Rodriguez opened up the mattes, giving us the resolution lost in the theatrical presentation. And...since the compositions are already there, it works just as well.

Anything else is simply a matter of personal preference, of which neither Rodriguez nor Columbia consulted you on prior to the DVD release.

If this violates your "OAR code of ethics," then by all means, don't purchase this DVD. The rest of us who realize this is NOT a deal-breaker will happily purchase the flick, that is to say...those of us who ENJOYED the movie.

Regards,

- S.D.

 

[WillG]

If this violates your "OAR code of ethics," then by all means, don't purchase this DVD. The rest of us who realize this is NOT a deal-breaker will happily purchase the flick,

No, this is not a deal breaker as the change in A.R. was sanctioned by the director. And believe me, I am not losing sleep over it.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

His point was that--even with the lost resolution--the projected HD "scope" image looked spectacular.

Then why screw with it?

 

[Shane Dodson]

I don't. I seem to remember a time when it was the DIRECTOR'S VISION that seemed to matter.

"But it's the director's vision that the film be presented 2.35:1 theatrically," you respond.

Perhaps. But this DVD was produced for the HOME VIDEO market. We're not talking about theatrical presentations. We're talking about a DVD. And the DIRECTOR'S wish is that the film be presented on DVD in a 1.78:1 ratio. Rodriguez obviously composed for BOTH ratios. He obviously believes the "open matte" version is composed just fine. For that matter, he may have made some compromise so that he could have his "scope" ratio theatrically. He wanted the "scope" ratio theatrically. Nobody is denying this.

But, as I said, we're not in the theater now. He wants it 1.78:1 for home video. And if the DIRECTOR'S VISION really means anything...as in when the rubber meets the road, so to speak...then we either happily buy the DVD (because it's what the director INTENDED), or we choose NOT to buy it.

I guess when I hear people claiming how important the "DIRECTOR'S VISION" is...I tend to take them at their word.

Is it that important? Or is merely the theatrical aspect ratio all that matters?

99% of the time, they align themselves. But...on rare occassions, such as this...they conflict.

It's interesting to see where some people come down on this.

Regards,

- S.D.

 

[Shane Dodson]

You'd have to ask Rodriguez that. One man's "screwing" is another man's "revisiting." I suppose the simplest answer I can proffer is...

"Because he's the DIRECTOR?"

Regards,

- S.D.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

You'd have to ask Rodriguez that. One man's "screwing" is another man's "revisiting." I suppose the simplest answer I can proffer is...

"Because he's the DIRECTOR?"

That has far less to do with it than him being the D.P. as well. That said; "revisiting" the aspect ratio isn't the same as an alternate edit. Editting decisions are fluid, but composition is a snapshot of decisions made at the time it was shot. Whether the alternate presentation looks adqueate is irrelevant; it's not the originally intended presentation.
If Rodriguez had originally intended it to be shown 1.85:1/1.78:1 in theaters and had been forced by some outside power to crop it to 2.35:1 than I would agree that the DVD presentation is the accurate one and should be supported. Such is the case with several Kubrick films. But this is more similar to Vittorio Storaro looking back twenty years later and arbitrarily deciding to crop the film to 2:1 to take advantage of the resolution of DVD.

 

[WillG]

See the problem is here that it's just a big Catch-22. Releasing it in 1.78:1 violates the "Theatrical Vision" and if it was released in 2.35:1 then the theatrical A.R. is preserved but it may go against Rodriguez's vision.

Shane, you talk about people pissing on Rodriguez's "Vision" because some may be unhappy the theatrical A.R. is changed for the DVD. With no offense, I think this statement weakens your point though

But it's the director's vision that the film be presented 2.35:1 theatrically," you respond.

Perhaps.

Ok, so if there was "Vision" for 2.35:1 in the theater, why should that be any less important when we get to home video? Rodriguez made the decision for 1.78:1 on DVD and that is fine (it's really the only reason the A.R. change is acceptable) but as I said time and time again, people who want to see this in it's OAR as it appeared in theaters have a point. I don't think that Home Video is an excuse to deny people of the theatrical Aspect Ratio. I even think that sometimes the director can be called into question in a case like this. A director may make the "Decision" that 2.35:1 is good enough for theaters, but not for home video. But, if you think about it, should that decision really be up to the director, or the viewer to decide what A.R. Theatrical, or a "Home Video Friendly" A.R they prefer (and that statment only applies to these specific cases) We'll live with it here because it was at the behest of the director. I just think in cases like this, both versions should be available.

Unfortunately, "Director's Vision" and OAR are NOT synonyms in every case.

And like I said above, this is not a deal breaker for me. But I am just giving a point of view.

 

[Vincent_P]

What I don't understand re: these "modified" transfers like THE RECRUIT and ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO- why not offer 2.35:1 mattes as a subtitle option? This was done with the original non-anamorphic DVD release of BRIDE OF RE-ANIMATOR- you could choose to watch the film either open-matte, or with 1.85:1 matting, and the mattes were encoded as subtitles. I don't see any reason films like RECRUIT and OUATIM couldn't be released this way, too.

Vincent