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

[Simon Howson]

I agree. The solution for a 35mm release of Ben Hur is simple - it should've been cropped only on the sides to create a 2.5:1 ratio - like original 35mm release prints. It could've explained this on the box.

The new version from 70mm at 2.76:1 is the right decision in my book, because it future proofs the transfer for higher resolution formats that will make 2.76:1 look really good.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Moved here from HD Software area since this is a SD release. I have the box in front of me and both versions of the film are listed as 2.00:1 on the back.

 

[Will*B]

As with the US, on the UK DVDs, Harlin's film is presented in 2.4:1, and Schrader's version is 2:1.

There's little doubt that the 2:1 framing on Apocolypse Now makes some of the framing feel very tight. If, however, TLE was originally composed for 2:1, then I don't see why there would be a problem. It is similar to The Great Escape's original DVD release: 2.69:1, but with far too much information on the left-hand side of the frame. It took a 'cropped' 2.4:1 DVD release to see Sturges' original framing.

 

[Simon Howson]

I don't think the situation with The Great Escape is that similar. The improper framing on the original DVD is just a serious screw up by the telecine operator who didn't realise that a lot of early Panavision films were shot with the camera exposing the full (0.98" wide) silent aperture, but with the view finder and lenses calibrated over the center of the narrower (0.825" wide) Panavision aperture. The telecine operator just had to accurately recreate the projector aperture dimensions for a 1963 Panavision film, and everything would've been OK - as in the newer DVD.

The fact the optical soundtrack area was exposed in the camera wouldn't make a difference because 1) that area would not appear in the view finder and 2) on release prints that is where the optical soundtrack would be placed, so that area of the film would only ever been seen by people looking at the negative, or a contact element made from the negative, or by people who bought the original DVD, made by a telecine operator who set the aperture for 1953 CinemaScope, rather than 1963 Panavision.

I would've thought that as soon as the telecine operator saw light stands in the frame that they would go back and re-calibrate the telecine machine for the format the film was actually shot in!? Fortunately we are generally past such stupid transfer mistakes.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I addressed most of these issues in my previous post, if you go back and take a look, but let me reiterate: DPs generally compose knowing they're going to lose as much as 10% off the sides, because not all theatres are created equal. FTR, I did the number crunching, and a reduction from 2.35:1 to 2:1 is a reduction of 15%, not 17%. You may have gotten hung up on the fact that it would remove .175 of the ratio from the left and right edges. That being said, Storaro's Univisium/Univision concept isn't much of a stretch from there. I admit that Univision as applied to Apocalypse Now probably makes the compositions a little tighter, but as said before, if somebody is going to make this type of decision, I'd rather it be the DP and/or the director, because then they can reframe for the proper intent. I'm not in favour of cinematic revisionism for the most part (The Star Wars Trilogy comes to mind as an example I vehemently oppose), but when the purpose is to give us the best presentation possible given the limitations of the medium, I generally take no issue with it.

Speaking from experience, one of the huge advantages of using anamorphic in the theatre even if you were to reduce your ratio to 2:1 comes from the nature of theatres today. Most theatres now are constant width rather than constant height, meaning that a flat film uses more screen real estate than a scope one. This also means that flat films appear less sharp than scope films in today's theatres, because a smaller portion of the aperture is being blown up to an image larger than the scope image. Simply put, scope images are sharper than flat in today's theatres.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Stephen: I fully understand your thoughts about CPs composing their work with the understanding that they may be projected in differing circumstances...but I fail to see how the GWTW and Ben-Hur examples apply here...except to support the claim that TLE should be released in its OAR.

In both cases they were misguided attempts to change a film which no real fan of film would ever have wanted (that is, a cropped presentation).

In this case, however, I think it is appropriate to ask that this film, in this new DVD incarnation, be released in the AR in which it was shot, projected theatrically and released to DVD originally.

There would be no need to anticipate any of the horror stories you suggest...just the beauty of the full image which won Storaro a significant award and probably helped contribute to a number of other honors for the film.

Earlier in the thread I was deciding whether or not I would buy the new version versus holding out for an HD version. In the absence of an HD version on the horizon and the fact that an HD version will suffer the same revision, I believe my dilemma now is simply whether to get this new changed version at all.

For some films this might not bother me so much. I am really not any kind of a "purist" or snob. As I recounted earlier, when I first viewed TLE I was blown away by the imagery and that I had never seen a widescreen aspect used to such enormous impact by a cinematographer.

While I appreciate the attempts to say the impact of the change will be minimal, I look at that comparison of 2:1 vs. 2.35:1 I posted a page or so ago and see a pretty big difference.

I might end up viewing the new version and thinking it still looks pretty impressive...but I'm not sure. At this point, I don't think I will be spending my money on this release.

 

[WillG]

Admittedly, I am starting to get burned out on the concept of taking the DP or director's word as gospel when it comes to controversial decisions like this. Just because someone is in charge of something does not mean that they are infallable from making a bad choice. Just because the President runs the country (not referring to any specific President) does that me every decision made is the right one and that we should not object if we that decision is bad?

Personally, I am a fan of the 2.35:1 AR. And if a film was shot anamorphically and shown at 2.35:1 in the theater, and the fans supported the film during its theatrical run, then fans have every right to cry foul over the film being cropped to 2.00:1 over a very debatable concept. The 2.35:1 AR was what was "sold" to us in the theater, so why should it be changed after the fact.

I remember an incident a few years back, the film with Al Pacino and Colin Farrell was shown at 2.35:1 in the theater but modified to 1.78:1 for DVD. When the director was asked why he had this done, I recall the answer was to the effect of "that what looks better for home theater" which I thought was a pretty arrogant response. I prefer the theatrical 2.35:1.

Even though, in many ways, we are moving away from this, I believe that the theatrical presentation is still the standard (barring arguements between the ARs of 35mm vs 70mm prints). We should be able to watch a film at home that recreates that as close as possible. I'm all for alternate versions of a film being released if that what the filmmakers want, but we should be able to get the original theatrical presentations as well.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I raise GWTW and Ben-Hur because (1) Ben-Hur is a shining example of OAR fanaticism gone awry and (2) to compare what happens when a studio unilaterally decides to crop and recompose a film for a new format without consulting either the DP or the director i.e. GWTW.

Ben-Hur (the initial DVD release) happened because of outcry from the HT community that it should be presented in its proper ratio i.e. 2.76:1. what the wonks at Warner did with that information was to transfer a 35mm element which had already been cropped down to 2.5:1 and crop it further to 2.76:1 to appease the fans, which made nobody happy. The new release is a vast improvement, but there is still dead space on the left and right in the compositions. It may be true to the OCN, but is it true to the DP's and the director's intentions? We can't be sure, because they're deceased.

GWTW is an example of a studio recomposing for a new format simply because they could and because it could bring in more money for the studio. Another example of this is RKO's rerelease of Fantasia in Superscope which, depending on who you talk to, either recomposed the film for the anamorphic frame or simply projected it through an anamorphic lens.

TLE is a different scenario altogether. Storaro has indicated in his paper that it was composed for 2:1. Absent evidence to the contrary (and "it looks like 2.35:1 to me" doesn't cut it as evidence), I would take him at his word.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I can't agree.

I've been a film fan as long as I can remember, and I'd like to think that I generally support the wishes of the artists involved, but this quote isn't about trusting the artist or supporting the art, not for me anyway. As someone else posted in this thread (I'm sorry, I forgot who), I also grew up watching letterboxed VHS tapes on tiny TVs, and that was still my preference over pan-and-scan versions. I know a lot of people have had issues over the years with their televisions being filled with black bars, and that has never, ever been an issue with me. (It was probably the "director's edition" VHS of Star Trek IV, where Leonard Nimoy explained what letterboxing was and played a scene from the film both ways to demonstrate what was lost that sold me on it. I'm not sure if that was the first letterboxed tape I ever saw, but that was a very illuminating demonstration. Anyway, I digress...)

To suggest that 2.35:1 framing doesn't work on a television is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. That's not Storaro saying he always intended the film to be at that ratio, that it had been composed for that format, etc. That's Storaro essentially saying he doesn't like black bars either. How does 2.35:1 not "work" on a TV set?

Over the past few weeks, I happen to have watched a variety of films that were shot in 2.35:1 (some anamorphic, some Super35), including Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love, The Spy Who Loved Me, Sunshine, Hot Fuzz, Donnie Darko, Apollo 13, Wonder Boys, Batman Begins... and I'm pleased to report that they all worked fine. My DVD player didn't explode, my eyes didn't get damaged from staring at the screen, my TV didn't complain.

It's one thing to say that the home video is at a different aspect ratio than the theatrical because you had composed for the ratio that was on the DVD. It's one thing to say that you composed for two aspect ratios simultaneously. It's another thing entirely to go back to a film made almost 30 years ago (Apocalypse Now) and claim that it somehow doesn't work on a TV screen.

I love Apocalypse Now, and I own the DVD, and I enjoy watching the DVD on my TV. But every time I put it on, I can't help but shake my head for the first couple moments and think that a very smart man made a very boneheaded decision for a remarkably dumb reason.

 

[John Hodson]

Hear, hear, Josh.

 

[Carter of Mars]

I'm much more bothered by the possible lack of a 5.1 track on this disc. Storaro cropping a scope image is old news. The first widescreen Apocalypse Now transfer was in 1991! But this movie had a six track mix theatrically and Criterion should work to preserve that on this set.

 

[Robert Harris]

Two quick points:

Original 35mm prints of Ben-Hur had black mattes at the top and bottom of the frame, not the sides.

TLE still has black bars at the top and bottom at 2:1.

 

[Lord Dalek]

There would be nothing to gain. TLE was a mono surround release and any low frequences in the six-track mix are possibly replicated as crossover bass.

 

[Mike Frezon]

And you may. Normally, I would, too. I, however, am not so sure...based on his potential motivations and prior actions.

===================

Does anyone know WHEN that "white paper" (the .pdf file that Jeff linked-to earlier) was actually written by Storaro?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Sigh...

Go have a look at the 2nd shot (of the palace garden scene) in the DVD Beaver review and tell me how you can argue that was composed for 2.0:1 ratio, assuming the R2 PAL version isn't already zoomed-and-cropped like the old R1 NTSC version. Also, I would argue even the 3rd shot (of Pu Yi seated in his human carriage) would be too tight if cropped to 2.0:1 considering the positions of the 2 carriage carriers, ie. their faces would be either partially cropped or pressed right up against the side of the frame.

RE: the issue of leaving some margin for error in theatrical presentation, how 'bout sticking w/ the OAR and doing the same for the home presentation?? Not everyone has a display completely free of overscan afterall. I suppose Criterion could windowbox the DVD transfer, but why go through the trouble of doing that while lopping off signficant portions of the frame anyway?

And please do *not* suggest this particular case is simply OAR fanaticism at work w/out actually making sure for yourself that a demand for OAR is unwarranted. While I understand and agree that it's usually best to defer to the creators of the film to determine what's best/right for presentation of the film, there does seem to be enough question marks regarding Storaro's stance that we should not automatically assume he's right on the matter. It may indeed turn out that he is right and the 2.0:1 presentation would be best for the DVD (and the eventual HDM as well), but IMHO, we don't really know that right now.


Exactly!

_Man_

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The site states 2.0. Whether a 5.1 (or 4.1, depending on whether the 70mm mix had split surrounds) is appropriate would be determined by how the 6 track was created. If it was a simple matter of splitting out the matrixed Dolby Surround track to each of the channels, then 2.0 is appropriate. However, if a dedicated 6 track mix was created for 70mm from the original audio stems, then at the very least a 4.1 track should be available.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I missed this question earlier, but in an attempt to help answer that question, I opened up the PDF in Adobe Acrobat to see if there is useful info buried w/in. That PDF was apparently created in 3/1998 w/ Adobe PageMill v2.0 via Acrobat PDFWriter v2.0. However, it seems impossible to know the actual date of origin since the PDF info suggests that's just the final output date in PDF form. The document could've been created (and edited a number of times) well before that date. Still, I doubt that the major portion of it could've been written all that many years beforehand. Of course, Storaro could still have conceived of the crux of it well before the production of TLE (and shot TLE accordingly as his blurb in the PDF states).

In any case, I doubt knowing the actual/exact creation date of that document will help...

_Man_

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well...it mentions LaserDisc, tape & CD-ROM as media to which images could be transferred.

I figured if we knew when it was written, maybe it could pin down some things (or at least give some guidance) in relation to his claims about TLE. Maybe not.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

What we probably want to know is when he actually conceived of the 2.0:1 AR as being the ideal -- and would thus compose his works accordingly even despite the fact that his ideal will likely not be well received for years to come, if ever. It may also be possible that he might've started composing in 2.0:1 semi-experimentally in his works before concluding that it's his ideal, and it's possible that TLE could be one such project for him. Perhaps, he might've even composed only certain shots at 2.0:1 w/in projects that started out as 2.35:1 -- that could potentialy explain how the couple shots I mentioned look too tight in 2.0:1 while the one shown in the PDF looks a bit too loose in 2.35:1 (and could very well be a true 2.0:1 composition though w/ essentially zero margin for error in presentation).

Of course, these are just complete speculations on my part.

_Man_

 

[Mike Frezon]

Can we assume, as a clue, that the paper was written after 1998 since it uses an image from Carlos Suara's Tango, no me dejes nunca?

Your .pdf "investigation" may be spot-on , after all!

The paper also mentions a film Messiah that "is to be filmed...1:2" but I cannot locate any information about it.


Exactly. And since he makes the reference to composing TLE 2:1 in this paper, I figured there might be some indication or clue that could help us sort things out if it was written closer to the filming of TLE.