Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

I just read that Wiki Page (thanks, Dave!). If the info on that page is true, I would find Mr. Storaro to be rather presumptuous to be modifying earlier works to suit his model.

If he wanted to lobby whatever cinematographic societies to which he belongs to try and convince all filmmakers that 2:1 is the way to go from now into the future, I'd wish him well (and good luck with that BTW!). But to go back and change older films to fit his "vision" just seems rather arrogant.

I'm sure this has been discussed in other threads on this forum before, so I apologize if my inquiries amount to a re-hash of prior discussions...but this is new to me and I regret that the upcoming Criterion release is not going to have the full effect of those unbelievably beautiful widescreen shots for which the film (and Storaro himself) was honored and is reknown). It is an absolute shame.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Sticking with one "golden" aspect ratio is just not necessary. I really hope Ben-Hur comes to BluRay in 2.55:1 or even 2.40:1 instead of the excessive 2.76:1. Even if you say it in a theater in 1959, the widest you would see it would be 2.55:1. Like it's been said, if 1960 70mm prints at 2.20:1 were fine then, it should be fine for now. It's sort of like how a lot of people throw a hissy fit over 1.85:1 films being shown at 1.66:1 or 1.78:1. Even in the finest theater, you would probably not get an exact aspect ratio.

Storaro is simply choosing to lose some side image in order to increase detail for the rest of the image. I feel confident with his decision since he was there during filming and supervised the transfer. It's either we take his advice on how The Last Emperor should be seen on home theater screens or we'd get an unsupervised, unapproved DVD that keeps the aspect ratio of the 35mm prints.

Also, even the average HDTVs (1080p, 42") that most have aren't really that big compared to the theatrical screens. Yes, some have huge projection systems, but it's more likely that most will see this DVD on smaller screens. That's also why I like Criterion's decision to windowbox since even most 16x9 TVs I've seen cut off the edges of the image a bit.

 

[Jeff Newcomb]

Here, from Filmmaker Magazine, is a pretty definitive comment from Storaro on the subject:



If you want to read his treatise on the subject, here is a PDF.

 

[John Hodson]

But, but 'on a television' - what television? A square CRT? A 42" plasma? A 56" RPTV?

What about the 1000s of Home Theatre enthusiasts who project their films? And re: Leonardo, did Michelangelo's Sistene Chapel frescos inspire Cinerama? We should be told...

 

[Mike Frezon]

Hey Bryan...you don't remember watching The Last Emperor on your 13" TV with a couple of Italian guys looking over your shoulder, do you?!

Jeff...thanks for your links, too! Although I'm not liking what I'm learning.

 

[Dave Simkiss]

Ahem... edited

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I guess we should be glad most directors/cinematographers don't feel as Storaro does. Otherwise, we can soon expect DVD and HDM releases of classic academy ratio films at something like 1.6:1 w/ stuff lopped off the top and/or bottom too (and we won't be given a choice). :rolleyes

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

BTW, anyone know where I can find a trustworthy review of the R2 PAL version? If the PQ and AQ are good, I will just save myself ~$20 and buy that instead. Given Storaro's stance now, it might prove pointless to wait for an eventual HDM release unless that one would not be approved by him...

_Man_

 

[cafink]

DVD Beaver has a comparison of the old region 1 disc to the French region 2 disc, featuring lots of screen captures.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I assume if they ever reissue/remaster it in France it'll be from the same 2.0:1 transfer.

 

[John Hodson]

Oddly enough, last year's Spanish edition had the Theatrical version at 2.02:1, and the Extended version at 2.34:1.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Jeff, thanks for that quote, as it provides us with the answer to the ultimate question on TLE on page 3. Look below the still on that page for the answer, where Storaro states that TLE was originally composed for 2:1.

 

[Brandon Conway]

"Film 'THE LAST EMPEROR' directed by Bernardo Bertolucci,filmed with
aspect ratio 1 : 2,35 but originally composed at 1:2."

Interesting....

I have always been a full supporter of the filmmakers - even if they are making changes contrary to original presentation. I obviously prefer if both options are made available. While not all changes to a film work for me (I much prefer the theatrical version of The Last of the Mohicans, for example), I support their right to do it. I won't purchase something I don't like, which is a reasonable position, so I also respect those who will pass on this release.

As I have never seen The Last Emperor, I look forward to renting this release and checking it out.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Which brings us back to the question of how exactly do you define OAR? Is the projected ratio the same as the director's intended ratio or does he have the right to present something different despite the fans demand for it some other way?

Regardless this is turning out to be a very different case than the Apocalypse Now thing where Storaro and Coppola elected to transfer it at 2.0:1 after the fact. If the modified ratio was agreed upon when they were making the film back in 1987 then thats the correct ratio and therefore prior representations of Last Emperor do not represent Bertoluci and Storraro's artistic intent. Whether or not a smidge of information is being lost on the left and right is unimportant.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

This reminds me of when E.T. was first transferred to video in 1988. When asked about the A/R, cinematographer Allen Daviau stated that he had composed in a loose 1.75:1 ratio, but shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte in the camera. As we all know, E.T. was projected in most theatres at approx. 1.85:1, and this is the ratio presented on DVD. What is the correct ratio?

 

[Mike Frezon]

At the risk of being extremely cynical, why would he (and presumably Bertolucci) compose the film 2:1 and then allow it to be released 2.35:1? Studio pressure? Did he accept the Oscar for Best Cinematography even though the film wasn't presented as he composed it?

Like I said earlier, I would wish Storaro all the luck in the world trying to establish this new standard going forward. But to lift another quote from his "white paper:"


Then why alter Apocalypse Now (which, he admits, was composed before this 2:1 "revelation" befell him)?

I'm still trying to figure out if he decided on 2:1 because of the influence of Da Vinci "Last Supper" or because of his "splitting of the difference between 65mm and HDTV."

 

[Simon Howson]

 

[Mike Frezon]

Simon (and others): thanks for indulging me. I know you know a whole lot more about this (and other film-related matters) than I do...but I was quite moved by the images in The Last Emperor when I first saw it on the old, awful R1 release.

I fully realize that I have no right to make a claim that "it sure looks to me like it was composed 2.35:1" against the word of the great Storaro. But I still want to!

And, yes, after reading his paper, I don't really know what to believe about his intentions. I look forward to doing some more research.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

This information is incorrect. First off, Exorcist:The Beginning was directed by Renny Harlin, NOT Paul Schrader. Schrader's film, Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, was only released in limited releasein North America, and I doubt it would have been released on Flat prints only for North America. My doubt is based in the second point.

Second, I know for a fact that Exorcist: the Beginning was not released flat. I was working as a projectionist at the time and both prints my theatre received were anamorphic or Scope, as we refer to them in the business.

Storaro was DP on both films. It seems counterintuitive that one would be released flat and the other scope based on Storaro's preferred AR.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Read my post on E.T. Even though Allen Daviau composed the film in a loose 1.75:1 AR, he knew that in the cinema landscape of 1982, films in wide release could only be shown in one of 3 aspect ratios: 1.85:1, 2.20:1 (for 70mm) and 2.35:1. Hence, a "loose" 1.75:1 AR, knowing that the film would be projected at approximately 1.85:1. It's the same reason why Kubrick's later films were shot "protected" for 1.85:1. Kubrick knew that his films would get cropped top and bottom when shown in theatres, so his films were composed to reflect that.

So, how does someone like Storaro, who is pushing for a 2:1 AR, ensure that his intentions can be preserved with a film like TLE? He does the same thing Robert Surtees and William Wyler did with Ben-Hur: he shoots for the entire AR, but composes his shots so that if the sides get cropped, it doesn't damage the composition. DPs do this all the time so that their films don't lose anything when running in a multiplex where the apertures may be incorrectly filed, or the overall setup yields something less than a perfect 1.85/2.35/2.39:1 AR. I would not be surprised if Storaro took this into consideration when composing shots for Apocalypse Now, especially considering that its premiere at Cannes was in 70mm, meaning it would be cropped to 2.20:1. Does cropping Apocalypse Now to Storaro's preferred 2:1 AR do some damage to some compositions? Maybe. Is the missing portion of the image crucial to the scenes? Debatable. Is the damage any worse than what happens in your average multiplex? Definitely not.

I think we need to be careful when demanding the whole image. I would rather have a DP and director, who are intimately involved with the production of a film, modify the presentation to reflect their intentions, than have a travesty like the Gone with the Wind 70mm release of the 60s, which pretty much destroyed the negative. I would also point out that it was blind "correct AR" fanaticism that foisted the abominable first release of Ben-Hur on DVD on us, which cropped a 35mm reduction print, framed at 2.5:1 to 2.76:1, losing information on all sides of the frame.