Aspect Ratio discussion for Magnificent Obsession

[domino harvey]

2. Some video transfers are done incorrectly in full frame because the telecine operators assume the full image of a widescreen film (ie Magnificent Obsession) is meant to be seen.

How many times do you have to be asked to stop using absolute terms with regards to this debate?

[jsteffe]

This all extrapolates back to MO, obviously, so it's all in-context. Someone says "I think MO looks untenable in 2.0:1", and the response is How do you know the image has not been zoomed in? Telecine operators always zoom in and misframe transfers.... i e Don't trust the transfer.

Someone says "I think MO looks stronger in 1.37, and clearly so do the dvd producers who present the film in 1.37" and your response is the opposite of above, saying telecine operators see a full frame image and assume that it's all meant to be seen... i e Don't trust the transfer!

Which is it? Are they lazy or are they over-eager viz the image frame?

I don't see how they're mutually exclusive--a film can be presented wrongly as full frame AND excessively zoomed in at the same time. They're two different issues. At least that's the point I got from Bob Furmanek's posts.

How many times do you have to be asked to stop using absolute terms with regards to this debate?

In my view, someone who has actually done research with primary source materials is perfectly entitled to describe their conclusions in "absolute terms" if they wish. Some things (but not all things) are either factually true or they are not. If someone has also done their homework and has compelling evidence to argue against those conclusions, that's also their prerogative.

[HerrSchreck]

Jim you surely know that I understand that industrial instances of both scenarios are not only in evidence but not uncommon. The idea is to point out the repeated returning to the well viz "the problem with telecine is ____."

I don't see how they're mutually exclusive--a film can be presented wrongly as full frame AND excessively zoomed in at the same time. .

But that's not what he was saying. He gave each scenario vs two different instances.. ie telecine problems with both the widescreen and the fullframe editions: he suggested that previous widescreen editions were zoomed in improperly, and didn't represent the genuine widescreen framing.. and that's why folks who dislike the look of widescreen editions are not satisfied with those editions.

And then later, in another post, he suggested that the reason Carlotta (and projectionists) transfer/project the film in 1.37 is that they automatically honor whatever they see in the neg/print, and reproduce whatever's there as open and full as possible.

The point is the employment of "bad telecine operators" as a conversational fallback in both directions for a single title (this from a party trying elsewhere to keep the aesthetic discussion exclusively to provable facts). Arguing it repeatedly-- in both directions (1) plopping the full neg into the gate out of laziness, 2)and overeager gate hemming) for the same title as your rebuttal is a bit of a stretch.

Notwithstanding that in either case it's purely hypothetical. That's like me saying "Why take Jim Steffens word for it on the forum, when it's possible that there were server problems during the transmission, and his words may have been garbled by his ISP?"

[swo17]

In my view, someone who has actually done research with primary source materials is perfectly entitled to describe their conclusions in "absolute terms" if they wish. Some things (but not all things) are either factually true or they are not. If someone has also done their homework and has compelling evidence to argue against those conclusions, that's also their prerogative.

Just because someone has done "their" homework does not mean they have done all the homework in the world.

[fiddlesticks]

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. Both sides have been arguing past one another since the beginning (via industry memos and trade journals vs. aesthetic considerations) and neither has any chance of convincing the other. For the "undecideds" or "third parties" (my preference is for pan and scan! j/k), unless Sirk or Metty speaks through a Ouija board, there's not much left to be presented here to sway their votes. And by this time it seems that everyone not employed by Criterion agrees that it would have been nice to have both 2:1 and Academy included in the release. I don't know what else there is to accomplish. I vote for locking the thread.

[domino harvey]

How many times do you have to be asked to stop using absolute terms with regards to this debate?

In my view, someone who has actually done research with primary source materials is perfectly entitled to describe their conclusions in "absolute terms" if they wish. Some things (but not all things) are either factually true or they are not. If someone has also done their homework and has compelling evidence to argue against those conclusions, that's also their prerogative.

The entire debate centers around which format the film should be presented. He says it's incorrect to show full-frame, whereas I and others have tried repeatedly to make it understood that there is no "correct" answer to how the film should be presented. It stops debate cold. I and others are merely saying that there likely is no right answer. I'm willing to debate merits, but saying something is so and refusing to entertain the other side is not conducive to debate. I'm not saying full-frame is right or 2.0 is wrong-- I'm saying there appears to be no definitive answer, and pretending there is prevents any kind of meaningful exchange of opposing ideas. I don't have any problem with the HTF poster making his case, he has a right to argue passionately his position-- but he needs to quit doing so in absolute terms ("Correct," &c)...

[carax09]

I did hundreds of interviews for my book. Many, MANY times the stories I was told did not jive with the daily documentation from the set. Memories can be tricky things, and I believe the use of primary source materials to be much more accurate.

I find this offhand remark pretty troubling with regards to the discussion at hand. Does this mean that you would dismiss personal recollections of (say) people on the set, because they refute Universal daily documentation? For those of us who believe that 1.37 is the primary composition for MO, someone's "tricky" memory might be our only chance of having documentary evidence to support our thesis.

[Bob Furmanek]

From the legal files. This is not to stir up debate but to present some archival material. I think film historians would find this item of interest:

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

What does "temporary" "at a glance" mean?

Thanks for posting this by the way.

[Bob Furmanek]

You're welcome. I was hoping to post it on the thread about the film, but it is locked unfortunately.

It's meant to be a quick single page overview of a new films important cast, credits and technical info.

[fiddlesticks]

I think you've made the point that the studio intended that MO be a widescreen film about 50 times now, and I don't believe that anyone contests that point. It does not, however, address the opposing argument that Sirk and Metty preferred the academy ratio for artistic reasons and composed MO with both ratios in mind. This is what I meant when I said in the locked thread that both sides are arguing past one another.

I don't actually have a dog in this fight, except I go along with what seems to be a majority who wishes that Criterion would release MO in both ratios so we can compare them ourselves. But I gotta say, this really gripes my liver:

I was hoping to post it on the thread about the film, but it is locked unfortunately.

For whatever reason, the thread was locked by our moderators, and it is inappropriate and quite brazen of you start a new thread with the sole purpose of unlocking it.

[poohbear]

But I gotta say, this really gripes my liver:

I was hoping to post it on the thread about the film, but it is locked unfortunately.

For whatever reason, the thread was locked by our moderators, and it is inappropriate and quite brazen of you start a new thread with the sole purpose of unlocking it.

He posts more concrete historical evidence and you guys get angry?! I do find it amusing that you guys have shifted your argument from "he composed it for academy ratio" to "he composed it for both ratios".

I, for one, hope Bob continues to post here because I appreciate seeing actual documents from the production of the film, not random conjecture that is never backed up with any real evidence. I doubt any of the "experts" here have actually seen any of the documents that Bob has posted.

[swo17]

He posts more concrete historical evidence and you guys get angry?!

I'll give you "concrete" and "historical" but whether or not it is actually "evidence" of anything is exactly what is up for debate.

I do find it amusing that you guys have shifted your argument from "he composed it for academy ratio" to "he composed it for both ratios".

Please post concrete historical evidence of this.

[Antoine Doinel]

God, this thread is the cinematic equivalent of arguing over tax forms.

[Bob Furmanek]

C'mon now, don't get angry. Research is ongoing and if I find any additional documentation on either side of the fence, I want to have a place to share it!

[HerrSchreck]

God, this thread is the cinematic equivalent of arguing over tax forms.

It's more than that-- it's a microcosm of life itself and particularly politics. Last week someone posted a link to a lecture in the politics thread that explains the differences better than I could.

How long have we been emphasizing that the film was composed for both AR's-- the post about shifting viewpoints is breathtaking!

In feb of this year an ad was posted from the films original release, showing the film being marketed in widscreen.

It's all, sadly, very Yunda Eddie Feng...

[Antoine Doinel]

God, this thread is the cinematic equivalent of arguing over tax forms.[/quote
It's all, sadly, very Yunda Eddie Feng...

...without the comedy.

[mteller]

You cannot "compose for both ratios". That doesn't even make sense, it's impossible. You can compose for one and make it look passable for the other, but you cannot have a preferred composition apply to both academy and matted widescreen at the same time.

Some say Sirk preferred the academy ratio. Isn't it possible that Sirk may have WISHED he could compose for academy, but the studio dictated widescreen, so he composed for that instead? I have yet to see a compelling argument on this forum that the academy presentation for MO is more attuned to Sirk's mise en scene than the widescreen presentation.

[HerrSchreck]

You cannot "compose for both ratios". That doesn't even make sense, it's impossible. You can compose for one and make it look passable for the other, but you cannot have a preferred composition apply to both academy and matted widescreen at the same time.

Some say Sirk preferred the academy ratio. Isn't it possible that Sirk may have WISHED he could compose for academy, but the studio dictated widescreen, so he composed for that instead? I have yet to see a compelling argument on this forum that the academy presentation for MO is more attuned to Sirk's mise en scene than the widescreen presentation.

You're leaping with a ninja outfit on random verbiage. We've said it a thousand times: he composed for one, and protected for another. It's a question of which to grant primacy..

He composed with both ratios in mind.

Cappeesh paisan?

[Gregory]

Bob, you're welcome to keep documenting the same single point over and over again, but it's not getting us anywhere. And I find it frustrating that people here ooh and aah over primary sources per se while they stubbornly ignore other directions this discussion was pointing toward months ago, before the renewed interest from the Criterion announcement somehow drove the topic into a deep circular rut.
One point I've made to no avail is that the film itself is a primary source that can be analyzed in terms of an informed sense of Sirk's composition. A second point I'd want to add is that primary sources all by themselves don't necessarily add anything to a discussion; they have to be contextualized in terms of a set of problems or questions. Extremely general things like "This is not to stir up debate but to present some archival material. I think film historians would find this item of interest" don't give an understanding of what your point is. It shows that the studio's recommended aspect ratio was widescreen, which was already documented months before you joined the forum.
The direction of this debate was already mapped out in discussions from months ago. I gave up trying to get people to discuss anything other than what can be documented as what the studio said the official AR was. I can't see how anyone with any familiarity with film history can fail to appreciate how complex these problems are in light of hard evidence: First of all, that Sirk is on record saying that he bristled at studio pressure to produce cinemascope films and preferred to compose for academy. Second, that in the race to get into widescreen, studios made decisions that ran roughshod over the artistic intentions of the filmmakers, which you acknowledged was the case at least with Vera Cruz. If I had the time and access, I could dig up dozens of documents showing that UA distributed the film recommending it be shown in Cinemascope. But is that evidence that we should want the DVD to be in 2:1? No, it is not. You may reply by saying, "Well that was different." Maybe, maybe not, but at least it establishes that official aspect ratios from this period are sometimes suspect.
Any skilled researcher is conscious of the limitations of the types of sources he finds in terms of what can be discussed and concluded from them. This should not be a discussion of what aspect ratio the studio recommended, and there is nothing to be gained by hammering away endlessly on that point. To go anywhere interesting with this discussion, as far as I can tell we must do one of two things (or both). One is to seek out documentation regarding Sirk's artistic intentions, which I doubt will be in the studio archives (although one never knows of course). More likely, one would have to go through Sirk and Metty's papers. (Have these been deposited in an archive anywhere?) As I've said, this may not even be possible. The second thing is to discuss how Sirk uses the full frame, which has been a topic of interest going back at least to his critical rediscovery in the early '70s. Why won't you allow that it has something to offer in understanding how he worked as a filmmaker and thus which way of viewing the films most enhances our appreciation of this?

You cannot "compose for both ratios". That doesn't even make sense, it's impossible. You can compose for one and make it look passable for the other, but you cannot have a preferred composition apply to both academy and matted widescreen at the same time.

That was my point, at least, all along. He composed primarily for academy but made it look passable in widescreen. I never said anything about "composing for both." That was something poohbear got wrong.

[HerrSchreck]

...and just to erase any doubt that this thread has gone over the "widescreen proof" issue, and acknowledged it in terms of documentation eight months ago, here's a post on page three, from Feb. of this year, posted by Jim Steffen:



By the way, is this from the full frame version of the film? or is it WS cropped?

[swo17]

Finally! Conclusive proof that Loew's theaters were cool and air-conditioned.

[Antoine Doinel]

Until I see work order regarding the installation and maintenance of said air-conditioning, I can't believe you.

[HerrSchreck]

I believe that these theaters were constructed with the idea that some would be air conditioned and some wouldn't. The question is, did the architects build them with the idea that some would be AC'd and some would not.

Dooklasce Zurque, the architect, seems to have known that AC's were coming, but, looking at the actual cinema shape and architectural composition, it looks to me like he didn't think AC was anything more than a fad, and constructed his Loews chain cinemas via the understanding that folks would be folding their programmes into a hand fan and work their own breeze via wrist action.

Tons of docs to come.

[fiddlesticks]

As you can see here, the screening rooms at the studio were air-conditioned as early as 1952, clear and undeniable evidence that MO was intended to be seen in cool, air-conditioned comfort.