429-430 The Fire Within and The Lovers

[Zack456]

Sadly, as they did with Elevator to the Gallows, Criterion will be releasing The Fire Within in an incorrect aspect ratio! The film was shot and released in the 1:1.33 ratio and this is how it was always presented when it was revived at venues such as the Museum of Modern Art. Unfortunately, Criterion has seen fit to crop the top and bottom of the frame to create a 1:1.66 release.

I contacted Criterion about this in November 2007, and received a detailed and thoughtful response from Lee Kline at the beginning of January. Mr. Kline confirmed that Elevator to the Gallows and The Fire Within were both shot in the 1.33 ratio, but stated that the Malle estate was "confident" that Louis Malle in his later years 'liked' the films projected at 1.66.

This response is problematic. The issue isn't merely that these films were originally shown in theaters in the 1:1.33 ratio. They were shot with a 1.33 groundglass in the camera and were composed with this aspect ratio, dailies would have been selected after being viewed in 1.33 projection, cuts were made during editing while viewing a 1.33 image. As a Director of Photography who has also spent a great deal of time in editing rooms, I can say that when one frames for 1.33, the composition will be different than when one frames for 1.66. It's not just a matter of matting the top and bottom of the frame; compositions work differently and one moves the camera back a bit, or chooses a frame that is panned slightly to the left or right (and/or tilted slightly up or down) to compensate. Similarly, the best take viewed at 1.33 may not be the preferred take viewed at 1.66. A cut on action may work well when viewed at 1.33, but require a frame or two more or less when viewed at 1.66, where objects may appear to leave the frame slightly more quickly.

Moreover, what is one to make of the claim that Malle in his later years "liked" these films projected at 1.66? Was this an actual enthusiastic preference, or was it a resigned bowing to the reality that many theaters in the 1970's were reluctant (or unable) to project 1.33? Was this preference, if that's what it was, shared by Henri Decae, the cinematographer? And finally, a rather difficult question: even if Malle came to prefer his early films projected at 1.66, what weight should be given to this preference? This is a of course only a personal opinion, but it seems to me that Malle peaked as a filmmaker with The Fire Within, and that his later films do not possess the visual power and brilliance manifest in his early works (and which culminated in The Fire Within). Should his later visual judgments be allowed to overrule his earlier judgments? Even leaving aside the question of whether his later films were better or worse than his earlier ones, their visual style was certainly different and clearly Malle's tastes underwent a change. There is a profound value to preserving the original intent of a filmmaker at the time he/she made a film (the obvious exception to this being if the filmmaker was forced by producers or other outside interference to premiere a film in a form different from what they would have otherwise preferred, a circumstance not relevant to this case).

Apparently because consumers want to 'make the most' of their new widescreen TV's, there seems to be an ever increasing trend to release films that were shot 1.33 in a cropped widescreen format (some variant of 1.66/1.75/1.85). This has been true of nearly all of MGM's DVD releases of 1950's films, the recent DVD re-release of Hard Day's Night, a number of Criterion titles, etc. The result is a mutilation that is quite as bad as the routine chopping off of the sides of widescreen films during the full-frame VHS era. If Criterion does not take a purist approach and insist on mastering its films to match the original presentation as closely as possible, who will?

Finally, if for some exceptional reason Criterion believes that a 1.66 presentation of The Fire Within (and Elevator to the Gallows) offers the viewer some advantage, then they should provide the 1.66 transfer as an addition and alternate to the 1.33 presentation. To not include the 1.33 transfer, effectively making it unavailable and creating an illusion that the 1.66 framing is 'correct' and originally intended, is to do a real disservice to cinema history. If this is not possible, and if Criterion is absolutely determined to release The Fire Within cropped to 1.66, at a bare minimum there should be a clear statement both on the film and on the promotional materials that it is NOT being presented in its original aspect ratio.

Sorry to go on about this at such length, but The Fire Within is a truly extraordinary film and it deserves a definitive release. Incidentally, I sent a lightly edited version of the above comments to Mr. Kline, but received no further response.

Zack

[Dylan]

The R2 I watched of The Fire Within last year was in 1.66:1 and it looked absolutely gorgeous, shot by the wonderful DP Ghislain Cloquet (not Henri Decae), who also shot Au hazard balthazar in 1.66:1. The VHS and TCM broadcast were also, as far as I know, in 1.66:1 and that's also the OAR IMDB lists. This was a very popular aspect ratio with French B&W films made around the time, like The Soft Skin. The framing looked impeccable (and also very Cloquet) on the DVD I saw, so I would be very surprised if this wasn't the intended ratio, but I guess anything's possible.

[denti alligator]

1.37 should be the default in these cases. For those of us with widescreen displays (more and more of us each day), zooming in can create a perfect 1.66 or 1.78, if one wants, without compromising the left or right margins.

[domino harvey]

I'm terrified that they're going to release Zazie with a 1.66 instead of 1.33 because though I've heard the arguments of how it's supposed to be cropped theatrically, every time I watch it there just so much going on the in the full frame and the image is so clearly composed for full frame that it'd be a crime to crop it

[Dylan]

Zazie, to my knowledge, is always shown in 1.33 and the only versions available are in 1.33, and all of the books and websites list it as such. I seriously doubt it will be cropped. The situation with The Fire Within is definitely a tad more elusive, as it seems the only people who've seen it in 1.33 are people who saw it projected that way, everybody else has seen it in 1.66 and all of the sites and the reference books I have with me list it as such. Personally, as I said, the framing on The Fire Within when I saw it (1.66) was just fine, and pure Cloquet.

[domino harvey]

As far as I know - haven't bought it - Zazie R4 is 1.66 anamorphic.


Devlinn posted caps a thousand years ago on, I think, the R4 thread around page 20 (ish.)

Wrong, and I was the one who posted the fullframe caps of the R4 Zazie in that thread

[domino harvey]

That's good then! Post a link for the nice man! (This thread takes forever!)

Maria Montez voice (as evil twin) :

"My fevered brain is DESSEENtegrating!"

That thread never fails to crash my browser. I think this should work though
EDIT: it crashed my fucking browser. Here, via computer trickery:

Zazie dans le Metro (Malle 1960) : R4 Aztec International Entertainment DVD (English subs [yellow])

[tojoed]

The Optimum Region 2 "Zazie" in their Malle box set is 1.1:33.

[Zack456]

Criterion appear to be merely releasing from a datacine which has already been released on PAL in R2 and R4 in 1.66 anamorphic. tyhe originals were provided by a French authoring house from restorations supervised by the Malle estate ...

I'm extremely sympathetic to the case you are arguing in favor of retaining original shooting ratios, as you may well be aware from my stand up fights here over early 50s Sirk and Metty titles. But my own viewing experience, at least in the case of Feu Follet - which is the only Malle I really care for I should add - does not contradict the 1.66 mask. I know these are a little later but both Au Hasard Balthazar and Mickey One were also shot by Cloquet and were generally screened in 1.66 during the 60s. I've seen all three films in fact on first release, I am so old!

As you note, Au Hasard Balthazar and Mickey One were later productions. Balthazar was released in 1966, after the switch to matted 1.66 releases was well underway in France, and Mickey One was a 1965 American production (and in the US the shift from Academy to a matted widescreen ratio occurred at an earlier stage than it did in France). To the best of my knowledge, all commercial French 35mm theatrical production up until the early 1960's was in either Scope or the Academy ratio; the switch from Academy to 1.66 didn't really get going in France until roughly 1965-1966. Masculin/Feminin (1966), for example, was still shot in the Academy ratio.

As I mentioned in my original post, during the heyday of NYC revival cinema in the 1970's (when theaters and audiences really cared about proper aspect ratios and people could remember the original releases), The Fire Within was projected 1.33. And, as I mentioned, Criterion confirmed that both films were originally released at 1.33.

You're correct that the recent PAL discs of Elevator to the Gallows and The Fire Within were released with 1.66 matting. For some reason the Malle Estate appears to be pushing for the inauthentic aspect ratios; it wouldn't be the first time that estates have --with the best of intentions -- altered works to which they own the rights.

Incidentally, thank you to the previous poster who pointed out that I wrongly listed Henri Decae as the cinematographer of The Fire Within -- I was of course thinking of Elevator to the Gallows when I wrote that!

[toiletduck!]

Not being familiar with Fire Within (or most any Malle, really), just how loosely is Alain Leroy 'inspired by' Jacques Rigaut? The mere mention of the name in a doc short is enough to pique my curiosity in this release...

Anybody? Nothing?

-Toilet Dcuk

[Zack456]

Again I'm all ears for your arguments about Feu Follet, but as far as Criterion are concerned you are up against a brick wall given their treatment of a number of titles - Gertrud, PeepingTom, If... and others.

I don't really have any further arguments to make about Feu Follet. but I should think the fact that Criterion's Lee Krimes, in his email to me, confirmed that it was originally released in 1.33 should be fairly convincing! I'm VERY surprised to hear that the Sydney Film Festival showed it at 1.66 in 1965; are you sure your memory is accurate on this?

As for trying to get Criterion to make changes, I realize it's probably a lost cause. The most I'm really hoping for is that they could somehow be pressured to add a note somewhere on the case acknowledging that their presentation is not in the original aspect ratio.

I'm not a DVD collector, and have been fortunate that here in NYC I've had opportunities to see most of the films I really care about projected. It's only recently that I realized that Criterion has been unreliable when it comes to presenting in the correct aspect ratio. I happened to rent their release of Eyes Without a Face last weekend, and was shocked to discover that it also was released cropped to 1.66 instead of 1.33. (As was noted with Elevator to the Gallows, it's out of the question that in 1959 a commercial French 35mm film not shot in 'scope would have been made in anything other than the Academy ratio...)

[Zack456]

Bizarre you mentioned the Franju! I got it out a couple of days ago to watch again (maybe because my husband is in hospital, although he's not getting a new face) and I thought the same thing. But if you watch closely the headroom never seems compromised! For instance there's a shot (the second time) of Alida Valli driving the car face to camera, and the shot moves in closer for a few seconds. Her head and scarf are completely clear of the top mask. I then looked at the footroom and it also doesn't appear chopped. But Judex from the same era is unquestionably 1.37. (As is my TV print.)

Just because a film looks 'ok' cropped to 1.66 doesn't mean that it was shot for 1.66. The director and DP might have decided upon a loose framing that allowed generous headroom, with the (coincidental) result that foreheads don't actually get cut off when the print is masked to 1.66. It is also quite possible that the framing is adjusted in the telecine (very easy to do), so that the visible image is racked downward within the matte in those scenes where heads would be obviously cut off, and racked upwards in those (relatively few) scenes were important information would be cut off at the bottom of the frame.

I have occasionally had the same experience you describe when watching DVDs of films I KNOW had been shot in Academy ratio, but which didn't look obviously wrong in a cropped 'widescreen' presentation. No obvious cutting off of heads, etc. But nonetheless, this was not the aspect ratio that the director and DP intended.

On a side note, unlike French filmmakers Antonioni was clearly looking for a wider frame for his composition from L'Avventura onwards. IN this case I would argue the Criterion masing of THAT title is too narrow. And I'll wait and see how I feel about La Notte in 1.66, although the helicopter shot seems to be some sort of benchmark for the height of the image.

Antonioni is obviously a whole different case, since L'Avventura pioneered the use of a widescreen matte combined with 'flat' (spherical, ie non-anamorphic) photography. I'd love to know whether the proper ratio is 1.85 or 1.66. My memory is that I've always seen L'Aventura, La Notte, and Eclipse masked to 1.85, but I wouldn't swear to this. Since matted projection was non-standard in European theaters when these films were released, the prints themselves must have been hard-matted, so in theory it should be relatively easy to get a definitive answer.

[Zack456]

Right up to BLowUp that's not the case in fact. Ive commented many times before but when BlowUp was screened in Sydney prem season 1966 the projectionists discovered the censors had failed to notice Vanessa's nipples at the bottom of the frame in the scene in David Hemmings' studio. The highly creative projectionist at the Liberty Theatre (which is also where Zabriskie premmed) would routinely wind the mask down at the start of the scene from what was 1.85 to 1.66 to give us Vanessa in all her glory.

Great story! However, the fact that Blow Up was shot in 1966 with a full aperture and that prints were released unmatted (with the intent that they would be matted during projection) doesn't mean that this was necessarily the case with the four previous films which Antonioni composed for widescreen (L'Avventura, La Notte, L'Eclisse, and Red Desert).

Think about this: L'Avventura was shot in 1959 (for a 1960 release), a time when 1.85 or 1.66 masking for a flat 35mm print was virtually unheard of in any European theater - this was an utterly non-standard format at that time. I've always assumed that at least this film (and probably the next two as well) were shot with a hard mask in the camera gate - very easy to do with the Mitchell cameras that Antonioni was using. Alternatively, but more expensively, a matte could have been applied to the release prints. But I assume that one way or another, the release prints must have ended up with a matted image because how else could the film have been properly projected at the time? Movie theaters wouldn't have had the appropriate projector mattes lying around, because no other film had been commercially released in Europe in this format before. The producers of L'Avventura (a rather low-budget production which nearly shut down for lack of funds at one point) couldn't possibly take it upon themselves to equip every theater that showed the film with the appropriate projector matte, and make sure that every projectionist actually used it. A matted image on the print would have been the only workable way of ensuring that the film was shown as intended. By the time Blow Up was released in 1966, the situation had of coursed changed; 1.66 and 1.85 ratios were now standard formats for European productions, and theaters could be assumed to have the appropriate projector masks in stock (not to mention appropriate screens, screen masking and lenses to allow 'full-height' height projection of matted wide-screen images). And if the theater could be relied up on to mask the film during projection, there was no need for the expense of hard matting the print, or the production difficulties of working with a matte in the camera gate. (As a former camera assistant, I can tell you that hard mattes in the camera - while cheap and easy to install on cameras with Mitchell derived movements - are a complete pain. They attract hairs and dirt, necessitating retakes, and when working with multiple cameras it can be difficult to get the mattes to match exactly, resulting in slight but annoying jumps in the apparent frame line with each cut. Hard camera mattes also eliminate the possibility of optically racking the frame during post-production printing to correct for any framing errors.)

This is just speculation on my part - I've never actually come across any definitive account regarding the technical details of L'Avventura's theatrical release. But I don't really see how else it could have been done. If you have more specific information about the release of L'Avventura, La Notte, and/or L'Eclisse, I'm all ears.

[Incidentally, just for the record, I'm aware that by the late 1950's some US theaters -- reacting to a domestic market increasingly dominated by anamorphic releases -- had started the practice of creating a fake wide-screen presentation of films shot in full-screen Academy ratio by using projector masks. However, I've never heard of this being the case in Europe, which would have been the primary market for Antonioni's films of this period.]

The very dubious 1.85 mask for Anatomy of a Murder which is one of those titles than can be shown either way, (like most of Columbia's 54 to 60 pictures - this is one studio that was relatively consistent in intructiosn to DPs to allow for masking in the shoot) but definitely rests easier in 1.37. The whole thing is a can of worms. And actual projection practice is simply not suffieciently (if at all) documented.

As I mentioned above, I realize that US projection of flat prints during the late 1950's was less standardized than European projection, with DP's sometimes being asked to protect for multiple different ratios when shooting non-anamorphic productions. I'd also argue that 1.37 projection for American productions should be assumed during this period unless there is compelling evidence that a specific production was intended for a different ratio. My two pet peeves are Touch of Evil and Sweet Smell of Success, both brilliant photographed films composed for Academy ratio that have been inexcusably released to DVD by MGM matted to 1.85.

[ellipsis7]

Yes, I doubt with L'AVVENTURA etc., a visual perfectionist like Antonioni would leave it to other hands to apply a matte, say in the lab when producing prints, thus taking the exact framing out of his hands... I too would assume there was a hard matte in the camera gate, as Geoffrey Nowell-Smith's BFI monograph suggests - In its finished form L'Avventura runs for 145 minutes, It is in black and white and in non-anamorphic widescreen format with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1'..
However this is at variance with Criterion disc which is 1.77:1, which makes it inconclusive...

[funkcisco]

Anyone knows where to find hi-res screen caps or stills for The Fire Within?

[miless]

Anyone knows where to find hi-res screen caps or stills for The Fire Within?

wait for the DVDBeaver review?

[souvenir]

And here's that DVD Beaver comparison for The Fire Within. Gary has the Criterion edging out the Optimum but the caps look nearly identical.

[colinr0380]

The image does look a little cropped on the sides (in the Beaver's details it states the Criterion is 720x480 compared to the Optimum's 720x576), but I suppose that has to be balanced against the removable subtitles and extra features on the Criterion disc.

[HerrSchreck]

And here's that DVD Beaver comparison for The Fire Within. Gary has the Criterion edging out the Optimum but the caps look nearly identical.

I'd go so far as saying the CC is a port of Optimums source telecine. They are just so precisely identical in all the flagship zones of contrast, sharpness, grain, etc.

If thats the case, the cropping in the CC is classic criterion framewhacking (although they have gotten better with this.. despite the windowboxing which took the classiccrop-syndromes place as of late).

[reaky]

"Vastly improved"? Oh, come on. Plus you can find the Optimum for under £7 at most etailers.

(I should clarify that I'm referring to LES AMANTS.)

[HerrSchreck]

Who were you responding to?

[reaky]

Sorry to be vague - I was quoting from the Beaver review of LES AMANTS. In comparisons, Gary does sometimes seem to give the Criterion editions unwarranted praise, and here I feel the tiny improvement does not call for a term like "vast".

[arsonfilms]

Well, it looks like a heck of an improvement to me...

[colinr0380]

Here's the Beaver link for Les Amants.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

The image does look a little cropped on the sides (in the Beaver's details it states the Criterion is 720x480 compared to the Optimum's 720x576)

720x480 is NTSC, 720x576 is PAL. The resolution has no bearing on the amount of cropping.