To Kill a Mockingbird and The Sting DVDS (1 Viewer)

[Brent Avery]

I was checking out some reviews on Amazon and one of them was The Sting. Now I realise there are many self proclaimed "experts" on the internet but it was mentioned more than once that this film was actually setup for the standard 35mm format as a 4x3 and then matted - the director's intention being 1:37 Academy. If that IS the case are we possibly losing some of the picture top and bottom in respect to what the director intended? Sounds like a bit of a confusing situation. Anyone have info on this?

 

[Kain_C]

I think I am noticing odd audio problems with The Sting during a scene early in. I am watching the DVD now and right about the 17 minute mark, when Redford and the two guys are at the old black man's apartment (don't know the character's names yet), whenever the old man talks, I hear a high pitched ringing sound in the background. It's only during certain shots, like medium shots when the window with the curtain over it is at his back and Redford is slightly out of focus on the right side. But it's very noticeable to me.

Also at the beginning of the movie, right before it gives the location (Joliet, I believe), the shot jerks upward a second. I figure it's probably the camera itself or a problem that arose back during post or something.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I ran a 35mm print of it last year - the film was very clearly intended for 1.85 matted projection and that is the correct ratio for the film (running it full-frame reveals not only odd microphone shadows and things, but lots of extraneous head- and foot-room). It appears that the DVD presents it properly. Frankly, the people on Amazon don't know what they are talking about in this case.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'm far from an expert on AR, but I do love THE STING and have watched the old full frame DVD many times (looking forward to replacing it with the new DVD). I always got the impression it worked okay on the "TV Screen" myself, and while I always wanted a "wide" version, it didn't seem to do any "panning & scanning" the old way.

I only recall one moment - I think during the poker game on the train where Newman is looking over his shoulder to check if the thug sitting in the back against the wall is eyeing his cards - where the guy in back was out of frame a bit. It could very well be that the director was thinking long-term for the life of this film on television when he filmed it. He went through pains to make it look and feel like an old 1930s film, I felt. But maybe someone can better fill us in with George Roy Hill's words on the film.

 

[Dave Hahn]

The Sting has been one of my favorite films for 30 years so naturally, ever since I became a member here at HTF I've read every thread concerning the film. I too recall reading somewhere that George Roy Hill's original intent was a 1.37:1 aspect ratio.

As the story goes, Hill had wanted the film to have a nostalgic look, mimicking the look of the films from the 30's; the era the story takes place in. So, he framed the shots for 1.37:1. Then, the studio convinced him to matte it to 1.85:1 so that it would better fit the screens in modern movie theaters; which, after much arguement, he did.

Now, I've never read this in hard copy, say a trade magazine or in any books about George Roy Hill's work. As far as I can tell this is truely an internet legend. However, I do know for a fact that the first DVD release of The Sting was not Pan & Scan, it was Open Matte or Full Frame. I've watched that version of the film over 50 times and don't remember seeing any microphones or extraneous equipment or shadows.

To go further, I couldn't help but notice while watching my newly purchased SE DVD that some of the framing seemed, well, a bit off. For one thing, the title cards for each chapter, "The Setup," "The Hook," "The Sting" etc. seemed to have been, to use a technical term, "zoomed in on."

Even more so, the tops of heads, especially when they were wearing hats, were cut off. George Roy Hill was a master film-maker, and he sure as hell knew how to frame a shot. I'm not saying he didn't use close-ups, because he obviously did, but I just don't think he'd have cut the tops of people's heads off for an entire film. Or, maybe I'm just not used to seeing the film in the proper aspect ratio. I'm just not sure.

I would like to watch both versions, side by side, on identical monitors and go from there.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Hmmmm. Thanks for that post, Dave. Well -- I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I just might hang onto my full frame version of the old STING DVD. I'm a "widescreen fan" myself, but not when the director may have intended the film to be 1.37. Just because it was 'incorrectly' overmatted to 1.85 for theater showings at the studio's request, that doesn't mean 1.85 is the 'right' way to watch this.

 

[Haggai]

I'm not even close to being an expert on this, but how likely is it that G.R. Hill would have thought that the movie would be projected in 1.37:1 on its initial wide release? Did he think he had enough clout to have it shown that everywhere? No other new-releases had been shown that way for about 15-20 years by that point, right?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'd guess Hill probably knew that THE STING would be playing on 1.85 screens, but that ultimately, a movie's longest life (at the time - 1973 - before home video or widescreen TVs) was to be on standard television. A 1.33 television. Like most movies about the 1930s, made in the 1930s, I'm wondering if that is the way he intended. If hats are cut off at the top, that's not right.

 

[Haggai]

I watched the new DVD last night, and I didn't notice anything like that. Maybe Dave Hahn can specify some other scenes where he noticed possible mis-framing. I wasn't looking too closely at the chapter title cards, but they didn't seem off to me. The opening credits looked good.

Still, if showing it in 1.85:1 looks "wrong" in any noticeable way, this would be something that Hill would have known about during production, which again makes it seem unlikely to me that he would have let it go into theaters looking wrong.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Call me a skeptic about this movie not being filmed in the widescreen ratio.





Crawdaddy

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Either way I'll be buying the new DVD. When I get it I can do a comparison between both versions.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It's *completely* unlikely that he would have wanted it projected in 1.37. A look at the full-frame 35mm theatrical print confirms this, it is marked and framed for 1.85 projection.

 

[Dave Hahn]

I'm not very good at taking pictures of my computer screen, but here goes:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dhahnc...a8.jpg&.src=ph

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dhahnc...bd.jpg&.src=ph

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dhahnc...bf.jpg&.src=ph

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dhahnc...80.jpg&.src=ph

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dhahnc...87.jpg&.src=ph

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dhahnc...ef.jpg&.src=ph

Something is wrong with the framing of the new Special Edition DVD of The Sting

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I don't know about anyone else but I can't see the pics that Dave posted (just those red "X"'s). I just bought the new DVD this morning and have compared it to my old disc. There is info missing on both the top and bottom of this matted edition, while there is some added info at the sides. All the same, the extra info gained at the sides seems to be less than how much is gone from the top and bottom.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Which is exactly how virtually all 1.85 theatrical aspect ratio films look. Unless they mis-framed the transfer, the new DVD should be the correct representation of the film.

 

[george kaplan]

It's clear that the old dvd is open-matte, but that doesn't answer the question of what the correct aspect ratio is.

Original dvd:


New dvd:


Original dvd:


New dvd:

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes. But still, there are bits of business that are largely lost on the bottom. I haven't watched the whole film yet, but one example I noted is at the end of the poker game when Robert Shaw pats his vest, looking for his wallet. His hands there are largely below screen. Another is when Redford reaches into his pocket to get his wallet out; watch the thug (forgot his name) reacting by nervously reaching to take his gun out of his vest... his hand reaching is not really clearly seen here; it's below screen. The only way I knew he was 'supposed' to be reaching for the gun is because I'm familiar with the film (in full frame). I don't see why Hill would choose to keep these key moments hidden below screen.

(Can someone capture these two frames?)

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Ha! That's rich. After years of complaining on HTF about a full-frame Sting, NOW people come out of the woodwork to claim that it was intended to be run that way.

I don't have any clue which is right (though the title cards make me lean full-frame) but I do find this ironic.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

As rabid film fans we all want the "correct" AR (myself included, especially when it comes to something like 2.35:1) but what do we use to gauge what is supposed to be "correct"? If it's "well, this is how it was projected in the theatres back in its day so that way must be the right way" -- well, I don't always agree there.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Unless stated otherwise (via primary source documents, not internet rumors) by the director or cinematographer, assume the original theatrical aspect ratio is the correct and intended one. In the case of The Sting, it's 1.85 (as noted on the original 35mm film prints).