Aspect Ratio discussion for Magnificent Obsession

[GringoTex]

Bob, your endless posting of documents adds nothing to this discussion.

His referencing of primary sources has already corrected many misconceptions posted in this thread.

[Antoine Doinel]

Please read previous two or three posts -- no one is arguing the studio's official position on the matter.

[GringoTex]

Please read previous two or three posts -- no one is arguing the studio's official position on the matter.

Please read the entire thread. There was a lot of misinformation posted by forum regulars that Bob has corrected. Regardless, the posting of primary sources to the subject at hand is always welcome, even if it doesn't reinforce your opinion.

[domino harvey]

Read the last seven or eight pages of this thread where we've said, over and over and over again to the point of self-parody, the question is not what the studio released or their instructions but the fact that two version of the film definitely exist, for a fact: one in academy ratio and one in 2.1. Two version existed then and two versions exist now. Only one version is being released and it's being called the "correct" version, to the shock of all those moviegoers who saw the "incorrect" version upon its initial release. We're not saying alter an existing print or make changes after the fact. This film was released in two version, so release the two versions, or at best, release the version that preserved the image. 2.0 can't show the detail in the full frame but the vice versa isn't true, so the next best solution to releasing both aspect ratios would be to release the academy version.

Seriously, how many times can we all talk in circles about this? This is the Groundhog Day of threads

[GringoTex]

Then there's no reason to feel threatened by Bob's material. I enjoy his posting it.

[fiddlesticks]

[domino harvey]

Then there's no reason to feel threatened by Bob's material. I enjoy his posting it.

I'm not threatened, it's just that by saying Universal wanted it in 2.0, he's arguing a point no one is contesting. It'd be like me going into the Orson Welles thread and arguing with extensive documentation over and over that Orson Welles did in fact direct Citizen Kane. There is no "right" answer to the aspect ratio question, despite the 2.0 side's continual insistence that there is-- if there was a definitive answer, we wouldn't have a twelve page thread with some of the forums best and brightest representatives split pretty evenly on either side. The film was released in two formats, and there's obviously convincing arguments made by both sides. Releasing the film in 2.0 wrecks the movie for half its potential audience and releasing it in full-frame preserves the image for all viewers. Ideally Criterion would release both, but their insistence that the 2.0 is "correct" is as insulting as anything else in this thread insisting that the question can be answered definitively and in a way that makes any fan of the film "wrong" to prefer one version over another.

[Highway 61]

Insulting is the perfect word. Criterion's tinkering exasperates me, especially their complete silence on the subject. If Criterion explained their reasoning to us, via email or the blog or whatever, and said that they had talked to scholars and came to the conclusion that 2.0 is the ideal ratio, the choice would still disappoint me, but I would be less irritated about it. As it stands now, I will never buy this release even though I'm dying to see the movie.

[Bob Furmanek]

Gringo Tex, thank you for appreciating all of the ORIGINAL research and documentation which I brought to this discussion.

When I first visited this site, I was appalled to find the amount of mis-information on this forum concerning the early widescreen era. Some posters who fancied themselves experts were making all sorts of bogus statements as if they were fact. That’s why I was asked to participate in this particular discussion.

I’m sorry to have burst some bubbles, but I’ll let the primary source materials speak for themselves. I applaud Criterion for sticking to the documentation and I will gladly purchase this DVD.

[Antoine Doinel]

Bob, for the last time, no one is disputing your documentation. The discussion has moved past it. Please go back and read Gregory's post containing a quote for the director himself who states the film was staged and exhibited in both ratios. We know the studio promoted and suggests 2:1. We get it. What the forum members are concerned about are the artistic choices the director made, how they impacted either ratio, if they suggest that he had a preferred presentation and what ratio works best for the film.

Those issues above cannot be solved by documentation alone.

[swo17]

I preferred when Bob's last words were these (from the bottom of page 7):

But I agree, the only way to settle this issue is to present both versions on the DVD. That will certainly satisfy both camps. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

[Bob Furmanek]

Antoine, that quote from Sirk is regarding SIGN OF THE PAGAN, a CinemaScope production which began filming in late December, 1953.

It was Sirk's third widescreen production, and the first to be photographed with an anamorphic lens. UI also shot a flat version simultaneously, just as they had done with their first CinemaScope film, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH.

Swo17, I'm glad you prefer my statement about both versions. However, if given the choice of one or the other, I'm glad that Criterion went for the intended widescreen version. When I watch it on DVD, I want to see it in the same way they did at the 3,300 seat Loew's State on Broadway, and not the 300 seat LaBelle Theater in South Charleston, West Virginia.

[Antoine Doinel]

Again, you're missing the larger point of that quote/post either because you're oblivious or just too damn stubborn think beyond the printed words of studio document. Your steadfast attachment to studio marketing as being "correct" doesn't even begin to address any artistic questions, a subject that clearly, you have no interest in.

I'm done.

[Bob Furmanek]

Again, you're missing the larger point of that quote/post either because you're oblivious or just too damn stubborn think beyond the printed words of studio document. I'm done.

No Antoine, I'm not too damn stubborn. I understand the larger point, but there's a big difference between composing for early CinemaScope at 2:55 and shooting a second version for standard presentation.

[bluebird1111]

It was Sirk's third widescreen production, and the first to be photographed with an anamorphic lens. UI also shot a flat version simultaneously, just as they had done with their first CinemaScope film, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH.

Thank you for clearing that up. When I read that quote I became very confused as to how Sirk went about framing a CinemaScope film for academy ratio protection. It made absolutely no sense, but now it does.

[domino harvey]

When I watch it on DVD, I want to see it in the same way they did at the 3,300 seat Loew's State on Broadway, and not the 300 seat LaBelle Theater in South Charleston, West Virginia.

Wow, just when I thought the decorum of this argument couldn't be lowered any further

[Antoine Doinel]

Yeah, my brain kind of exploded reading that as well. Bob would've made a great a studio head.

[Antoine Doinel]

Again, you're missing the larger point of that quote/post either because you're oblivious or just too damn stubborn think beyond the printed words of studio document. I'm done.

Don't let the facts hit you on the way out Antoine!

[HerrSchreck]

Frankly I'm stunned that anyone could refuse to concede even a friendly enough understanding regarding WHY the opposing opinion exists, and that goes for both sides. And forcing people to repeat over and over to no end of pages I UNDERSTAND THAT CAN WE NOW MOVE TO THE CENTRAL POINT?? is trolling, pure and simple.

What misinformation/technical misunderstanding was cleared up by Bob? And what has he established here about the film's aspect ratio that wasn't conceded before he arrived?

EDIT: And incidentally Sirk said "The main thing was that with Sign of the Pagan, and the other Cinemascope pictures I did, I was required to shoot so that the film would fit both the new Cinemascope screen and the old-size screen. You had one camera, and one lens, but you had to stage it so that it would fit both screens. This is just as tough as doing a picture in two versions was in Germany. "(Sirk on Sirk 117)

He is NOT talking about using two different cameras, and he is not talking about only Sign of the Pagan. He's saying he actively composed for both ratios simultaneously within the viewfinder.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'll be the first to admit that my technical knowledge viz ratio and cinematic history is lacking at best, but Bob Furmanek represents the worst kind of "expert". I think what Herr and others in the thread have argued for (and been interrupted in the process) is an assessment of MO in both ratios. If a mod is up to it, I think this thread should be dismantled and rebuilt as a new (and hopefully civilized) thread where both parties for or against 2:1 can make their case (and those posts retained), and any posts with the circular arguing about whether or not the film was marketed as 2:1 --- which has been agreed upon to death --- is tossed out.

[Gregory]

Thanks for the scoop, Schreck. It explains a lot.

It was Sirk's third widescreen production, and the first to be photographed with an anamorphic lens. UI also shot a flat version simultaneously, just as they had done with their first CinemaScope film, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH.

Thank you for clearing that up. When I read that quote I became very confused as to how Sirk went about framing a CinemaScope film for academy ratio protection. It made absolutely no sense, but now it does.

I did already acknowledge that he was talking about Sign of the Pagan. I think the main point of my quote was that Sirk acknowledges took very seriously the shooting this film for the full frame. So why wouldn't this also be true for the previous film? And if all he was doing was making sure no sound or lighting equipment was in the frame, he wouldn't have said what a difficult process this dual staging was. The standard practice shown in the images Bob posted from American Cinematographer (already pretty familiar to anyone with the slightest background in how soft matting works) was not very complex or difficult.

[Antoine Doinel]

[Insert Bob Furmanek document post and pithy comment here.]

[domino harvey]

I'll be the first to admit that my technical knowledge viz ratio and cinematic history is lacking at best, but Bob Furmanek represents the worst kind of "expert". I think what Herr and others in the thread have argued for (and been interrupted in the process) is an assessment of MO in both ratios. If a mod is up to it, I think this thread should be dismantled and rebuilt as a new (and hopefully civilized) thread where both parties for or against 2:1 can make their case (and those posts retained), and any posts with the circular arguing about whether or not the film was marketed as 2:1 --- which has been agreed upon to death --- is tossed out.

I disagree. I think this thread should be locked, BUT all posts retained, and a new post should made in the first post of the MO thread with a link to this one, warning people that if they say anything already covered by this thread, their post will be deleted.

[bluebird1111]

Thanks for the scoop, Schreck. It explains a lot.

It was Sirk's third widescreen production, and the first to be photographed with an anamorphic lens. UI also shot a flat version simultaneously, just as they had done with their first CinemaScope film, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH.

Thank you for clearing that up. When I read that quote I became very confused as to how Sirk went about framing a CinemaScope film for academy ratio protection. It made absolutely no sense, but now it does.

I did already acknowledge that he was talking about Sign of the Pagan. I think the main point of my quote was that Sirk acknowledges took very seriously the shooting this film for the full frame. So why wouldn't this also be true for the previous film? And if all he was doing was making sure no sound or lighting equipment was in the frame, he wouldn't have said what a difficult process this dual staging was. The standard practice shown in the images Bob posted from American Cinematographer (already pretty familiar to anyone with the slightest background in how soft matting works) was not very complex or difficult.

My curiosity has nothing to do with which ratio is preferred, it simply involves the extreme difference between shooting open matte with protection vs CinemaScope. To me it sounded like Sirk was saying that he was composing his Scope films in such a way that the center of the frame contained the important bits, and the left and right were superfluous.

[Gregory]

Well, in case this is going to get locked, I'd like to jump in here and request that people contact Criterion, politely expressing interest in seeing an academy transfer of MO and other Hollywood films from this period in cases where there is reason to believe that they were screened in academy and that there is value in seeing them this way. Anyone should do this who has the slightest interest in this discussion and being able to make up their own minds about whether studios ever made aesthetic errors in their rush to widescreen, which DVD companies then repeat (Vera Cruz was an example it seemed like all agreed on earlier).
If they hear from a lot of people on this, perhaps we'll get a dual format release of this (and perhaps a couple of the subsequent Sirks). Otherwise they might do something like release All That Heaven Allows on Blu-Ray in 2:1 only. The email address of course is mulvaney [at] Criterion dot com.

I would argue that the thread does not need to be locked but that there is trolling going on that needs to be addressed. Posting the exact same images repetitiously and making lots of really smug remarks is not what this discussion needs.