The Last Emperor on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

As for the 2:35 version receiving cinematography awards (apparently for some meaning that almost defines that the 2.35:1 framing is ‘correct’), let us not forget that there is much more than aspect ratio to cinematography than the aspect ratio that influences framing.

Lighting is for many even more important, and this is normally the DP’s responsibility, as is camera movement, positioning and lens focal length.

Some of the posts in this thread read to me as though the aspect ratio (and subsequent framing) are the only considerations in cinematography. Not so.

 

[Vincent_P]

Kind of reminds me of how so many 'reviewers' think that the only sign of a good audio track is an "aggressive surround presence", or some similar such nonsense.

Vincent

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'm a little confused, Lew. I would think most people here would understand the truth in your comments about all that goes into the DP's role in making a film. But the reason the AR is the main subject of discussion here is because of the change from 2.35:1 to 2:1 as TLE appears in this new release by Criterion. It has already been acknowledged that based on DVD Beaver's screen caps it seems as if the colors are much better on this new release--probably much closer to what was intended by the filmmakers.

I suppose there seems to be a certain high irony felt by fans of TLE that the film won the Oscar for cinematography and that the film's cinematographer has decided to change the image which was originally shown in the theaters.

 

[Jari K]

This was my point indeed.

_____

Edit: Some specs... Extras looks great, gotta admit that.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1670

"'The Last Emperor' (1987) features a high definition digital transfer approved by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, and a stereo track in DTS-HD Master Audio. Extras include:

Audio commentary by director Bernardo Bertolucci, producer Jeremy Thomas, screenwriter Mark Peploe, and composer-actor Ryuichi Sakamoto
The Italian Traveler: Bernardo Bertolucci, a 53-minute film by Fernand Mozskowicz, tracing the director's geographic influences, from Parma to China
Video images taken by Bertolucci in China
The Chinese Adventure of Bernardo Bertolucci, a 52-minute documentary that revisits the film's creation
A 47-minute documentary featuring Storaro, editor Gabriella Cristiana, costume designer James Acheson, and art director Gianni Silvestri
A 66-minute documentary exploring Bertolucci's creative process and the making of The Last Emperor
A 30-minute interview with Bertolucci from 1989
A new interview with composer David Byrne
A new interview with Ian Buruma examining the historical period of the film
Theatrical trailer
Booklet featuring an essay by critic David Thomson"

 

[Douglas Monce]

This often depends on the era in which the film was made. In the 40s and 50s they were often very generous with the amount of "breathing room" left in the framing.

Very tight framing didn't become popular until after television came along and the makers of the programs were trying to use as much real estate of the then very small screens as possible. That style eventually made its way into movies as well, which to my way of thinking isn't particularly a good thing. This became the era of the chin to eyebrow close up. A close up in the 40s would be upper chest to somewhere above the top of the head.

Of course even after TV, very important information was always kept in the "TV Safe" area. Even theatrical films had a "title safe" area back in the 30s because they knew that some theaters were likely to cut off those titles if they drifted to close to the edges of the frame.

Frankly in 87 when TLE was made, they were probably still keeping that TV safe area in mind for that film, making sure that really important information stayed more or less with in a 4x3 area of the frame.


Doug

 

[Peter Neski]

"Frankly in 87 when TLE was made, they were probably still keeping that TV safe area in mind for that film, making sure that really important information stayed more or less with in a 4x3 area of the frame"

This is pretty much only when it comes Narrative Information ,I don't think
you are saying that Bertollucci shot a film with 4X3 in Mind,I don't belive
this for a minute when it comes to visuals and I don't think a film maker
as great as Bertollucci is designing his shots for 2 formats.Sure films
are done like that,But most are pretty lame when it comes to design of
the frame.

"And it would be the camera operator looking through the camera, not Bertollucci."

I don't know what your getting at here,I don't Credit the design of the
frame in "Kane" to the camera Operator,he does what hes told,Or not even
Toland,Its Welles ,and you know its Welles from looking at all his films

If you watch the documentary on the DVD you see Bertolluci befind the
camera lining up all the shots,and in the Storrao Documentary "Writing
with Light" Betollucci says someting like "Storaro does amazing things
with light,he tales care of everything about the lights,I take care of everything in front of the Camera" well something like that,I am pretty
sure Bertollucci does a lot ,and I don't think the veiwfinder he is lookin though
is 2.0:1

as for those who say the film was 2.2 for 70mm and so 2.0 is fine because
of safe area ,are just wrong ,The Film is shot in 2.35:1 and if their a safe
area its 2.20:1 ,which is a whole lot better than what the criterion dvd is.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

1. Cropped Video
2. Stereo 2.0 Audio

TWO BIG THUMBS DOWN in my opinion. As much as love this movie there is no way I am buying a BD with 2.0 sound, of a film which was originally screened in 6.0 sound. The cropping of the video is something I may have been able to live with considering the director and cinematographer have left us with no other options, but there is absolutely no justifiable excuse for Criterion to release this with 2.0 sound.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

What makes you think that TLE has a 6.0 track? It may have had a six track 70mm Dolby Stereo track, but six track 6.0. 70mm tracks in 1987 typically came in two configurations: 4.1 (left, center, right, mono surround, with the two remaining tracks being used for LFE and frequently referred to as "baby booms") or 5.1 (left, center, right, stereo surround and 1 LFE track). There are some exceptions (Fantasia's 70mm rerelease in 1990), but I am reasonably certain that TLE was not one of them.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

It's DTS-HD:MA 5.1, not stereo.

 

[Jari K]

Press release says: "Stereo track in DTS-HD Master Audio"... So I guess it´s "Stereo".. Or mistake?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Or maybe the director and DP authorized a reduction in the soundtrack from 5.1 to 2.0 saying they originally intended for it to be heard in stereo...

 

[OliverK]

Mr. Storaro crops I don't buy - it is very simple actually and if everybody would do the same he might reconsider.

I feel a bit sorry for Criterion though - they probably would have preferred to release in the original theatrical aspect ratio.

Is there some kind of online petition where I can sign to prevent that this happens to Apocalypse Now ?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Nope. Given that Paramount has very recently released a new transfer of AN, I doubt they'd go back to the well for the eventual BD release.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

Now would'nt that be funny, considering the Academy, awarded the film for 'Best Cinematography' & 'Best Sound', entirely based on a presentation of the film in an aspect ratio and a sound mix that the director never intended. Maybe the Academy should have the awards cancelled and then review the film afresh with 2:1 picture and 2.0 sound. I wonder what stance, Jeremy Thomas - Producer, Bernardo Bertolucci - Director, Vittorio Storaro - Cinematographer, Bill Rowe & Ivan Sharrockwould - Sound Engineers, would take, if it were to come to that.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Woody Allen's films, when released in dts, have been mono.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

You got me there.

Maybe I should have restricted myself to non theatrical release formats. Thus, the question now stands, can you think of any non theatrical format release, which has a DTS mix of less than 4.0 tracks?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Agreed. 2.2 isn't TOO far off from 2.35.

2.0 is another story.

Doug

 

[Guy_K]

This is too bad, they really should include both versions so the original theatrical presentation is an option, especially if they're not including the TV cut.

 

[Douglas Monce]

This would clearly be the best option in my opinion.

Doug

 

[OliverK]

More money saved I guess. As has been pointed out it would be possible to add an original theatrical aspect ratio version as a bonus to those movies that Storaro now wants to have a 2.0 AR. But there is obviously no place for that in Mr. Storaro's little universe that is very much about every movie having the same shape