Haggai wrote:I'm not sure I buy arguments along of the lines of "look at these screen caps, this proves that 1.37 is the way it should be seen." One can prefer this or that aspect ratio in a case like this, but I don't think that definitively "proves" anything regarding Welles' intentions..
How anyone could say "studying the artwork itself is not a valid means for Studying An Artwork.. only peripheral documents, scribbled notes, videotaped conversations, etc, are valid.."-- is beyond me. This is like saying in the absence of a direct confession, evidentiary clues cannot be legally permitted to contribute to the solving of a crime.
In the absence of out and out "proof", i e something that constitutes a clear directive from Welles regarding the intended OAR of the film (and as has been mentioned, Welles intentions for the film were shat on by the studio from day one) we are left with clues... Welles nearly 20 yrs working previously in the academy ratio establishes his visual propensities well enough. Arguments about "excess headroom" simply fall apart like sandcastles in the case of Welles and this picture. Look at all the caps of his previous feature film to Touch of Evil--
Mr. Arkadin. A clear visual style is demonstrated, with expanses of air or ceiling visible over the heads of actors, and this goes in close-up as well as in 2 and 3 shots. The man preferred to place his actors within a space that punctuated their predicament.. he was by routine not a fan of isolating the actor in tight space or stifling frames.. His actors were photographed operating in an environment, he was an extremely visually talented storyteller with a very definite visual style that becomes visible as the films are viewed and reviewed. A shot like this:
is pure Welles. This
is supersonic crappola. Go back to Arkadin, look at all of Gary's caps, or better yet watch the film. Now look at this cap:
Here Russ Metty has charged a couple hundred/couple thousand dollars of unionized studio time to set up in another room off set, and meticulously fire a lamp from the floor up at an otherwise dark ceiling to have it register over the actors. This
obliterates the director & dp's intentions. That splotch of light is an actor in the film, it's a set decoration that was specifically put there, a positive action was required to get this magnificent effect... and only the lamentably misinformed could see this shot, and construe, simply because it was during the changeover period and some theaters may have projected the film in 1.85, that the effect was labored over with time and studio money because it was
not supposed to be seen in the first place.
Quite frankly Erickson has lost whatever last shred of credibility he's had with this reader, and I daresay with this forum (notwithstanding the amusing condescention to "online forums".. this knowing the status of DVDTalk as a dotcom style dvd forum wallowing in kerfluffle, at least versus this one).
I can't emphasize enough how crucial it is to examine the film, the caps (which, as opposed to seeing the film in motion, simulate-- the caps that is-- the act of the director looking thru the viewfinder to set up a shot, holding the actors in one place, throwing lights at them, to set up the dynamics of the image).
For the headroom tendency of Welles, versus the chopped heads/no- headroom look of the 1.85 version, see these caps from 2-3 yrs before Touch of Evil, of Mr Arkadin.
Each and every shot resembles the open matte version of Touch of Evil:
here, and
here, and
here and
here, and
here, and
here. Each one of these caps displays a visual sense directly tuned into the visual style represented in the full aperture caps of Touch of.. , i e in academy. If comparing these caps with the open matte TOE doesn't establish for you Welles visual style, then, well, that's a tough one and I'm at a loss there.
Looking at the films and making up your own mind is key-- just like studying paintings, studying Grecian or Chinese pottery to determine their authenticity or authorship.. you use your eyes and your knowledge of your subject's history and historical tendencies, visual signatures that become tipoffs. In the absence of handwritten proof (which is rarely there to aid authenticators) you must sniff it out. Surely one must not throw up one's hands and say "O well, history is making it difficult, so let them do what they will.."
However:
The primary, overriding issue in this thread is now The Fanciful Norwegian changing his mindfuck avatar without forum authorization. This is going too far, far further than Universal has in corrupting Touch of Evil into 1.85.
