The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...is done forever.

[HerrSchreck]

I frankly don't see how it does. A random second hand attribution for an apocryphal film that was never made, with no attribution for the one which WAS made, Bride, which nobody has ever claimed for widescreen.

If this is all we have to "prove" that Plan 9 was intended for widescreen, then we're obviously back where we started.

I truly don't think Thompson shot a widescreen film.

As to the headroom argument... take the opening shot of the cemetery where the title is printed over. Remember now, this film was meant to have Graverobbers From Outer Space printed over that image. And in that image, in the academy shape, is a carefully placed tombstone/short grave obelisk. Print the image in widescreen and the tombstone is lost and the carefully created narrative environment completely obliterated. Without it, the image is no longer discernably a graveyard. For me, this is the same as chopping off part of a title card.



I've watched all these films millions of times, and without proof from the actual production, this is a major albatross.

[EddieLarkin]

As to the headroom argument... take the opening shot of the cemetery where the title is printed over. Remember now, this film was meant to have Graverobbers From Outer Space printed over that image. And in that image, in the academy shape, is a carefully placed tombstone/short grave obelisk. Print the image in widescreen and the tombstone is lost and the carefully created narrative environment completely obliterated. Without it, the image is no longer discernably a graveyard. For me, this is the same as chopping off part of a title card.

I've watched all these films millions of times, and without proof from the actual production, this is a major albatross.

Again, unfortunately I've not seen these films (but fully intend to in the near future!), so I can't comment, I can only go by the caps. In the post 1953 films, the headroom is insane (and more importantly, completely different to the undoubtedly academy film GLEN OR GLENDA). How is this explained? Wouldn't you at least concede that if these films were composed for academy, they must also have been "protected" for widescreen as well?

[domino harvey]

Would anyone really concede to any Ed Wood film being "composed"?

[swo17]

Wouldn't you at least concede that if these films were composed for academy, they must also have been "protected" for widescreen as well?

Will you concede that if you are right, you are also protected for being wrong?

[HerrSchreck]

@eddie

The while headroom thing is worthless. You need to watch the films first, pull a scene that you think was clearly shot for widescreen, and start a dialog. I can't answer your question because I've truly never thought about what you just said, and I've seen all of woods films at least fifty times. Why are you taking sides when you haven't seen a single film first?

Watch them, see them in motion, and if you have a desire to discuss them, please do?

As for caps, what do you think of the cap above? This is a static shot, with no movement whatsoever.

Mods, feel free to move this, of course. I simply wanted to know if there was any real documentary proof from the production for this Widescreen Group.

[EddieLarkin]

@eddie

The while headroom thing is worthless. You need to watch the films first, pull a scene that you think was clearly shot for widescreen, and start a dialog. I can't answer your question because I've truly never thought about what you just said, and I've seen all of woods films at least fifty times. Why are you taking sides when you haven't seen a single film first?

Watch them, see them in motion, and if you have a desire to discuss them, please do?

As for caps, what do you think of the cap above? This is a static shot, with no movement whatsoever.

Mods, feel free to move this, of course. I simply wanted to know if there was any real documentary proof from the production for this Widescreen Group.

Why do you have to think of it as taking sides? Have I been antagonistic? When I see headroom like that in a post '53 film I default to wide, but I know that isn't always definitive, and I'm happy to be swayed.

I see your point with the static shot, but I don't think widescreen framing would cut so much of the grave off that it would suddenly become impossible for viewers to discern that it's a graveyard they're looking at. Especially since a wide framing of the film would likely include more side information. And the way the title is framed at the very least contributes to the idea Thompson was certainly "protecting" for wide presentation.

[Bob Furmanek]

Eddie: the common practice at the time was to compose wide and "protect" for the standard ratio.

By 1954, based on SMPTE recommendations, that was SOP for cinematographers.

[Orlac]

I'm 100% convinced Plan 9 is meant to be widescreen. Thompson was a professional union cinematographer, and the film was produced in mainstream Hollywood. The visual evidence shows a TON of headroom. We're not talking Andy Milligan 16mm home movies here.

Also see Thompson's work on Astounding She Monster. Again, acres of headroom because the film was made in 1957 and meant to be matted.

Really, the only reason people cherry pick and say Film X is meant to be 4:3 is because they've been watching open matte (or heavily cropped, in the case of Deadly Mantis and Bride Of The Monster, to name two examples) tv prints and video transfers since they were babes.

Low budget films and amateurish direction doesn't mean a film was not composed for widescreen. There are certainly cases where this is the case and usually they are cases where the director was holding the camera (Basket Case, H.G Lewis movies, Night of the Living Dead). Heck, even the 16mm Last House On The Left and Texas Chain Saw Massacre are widescreen.

Lord of the Flies is an unusual case. The Warners UK disc looked fine wide, no bizarre slicing off of people's heads or anything. So I'll stick with that.

And yes, boo on Criterion releasing cropped transfers of the Boris Karloff films!

[EddieLarkin]

Eddie: the common practice at the time was to compose wide and "protect" for the standard ratio.

By 1954, based on SMPTE recommendations, that was SOP for cinematographers.

Don't get me wrong, I know that and it's my default belief for any post 1953 U.S. production. I'm just trying to understand how the headroom issues feature into HerrShreck's view that these films are academy.

[HerrSchreck]

@eddie

I don't necessarily think you're being antagonistic, but I do think it a little unusual that you're posing questions on a hotly debated subject without having seen them yourself.

This whole concept of forming an opinion about headroom is a huge red herring to me. One can find gross amounts of headroom in tons of bona fide academy films. Even in shots that are completely static set up by cinematographers who are total aces. It means zero. Start grabbing caps from a dynamic shot with people in motion and all bets are completely off.

I'm not trying to deny you your right to converse on a subject, but it's tough enough to get at the truth when discussing this with folks who really know the films. My point is its tough to accept your standpoint of advocacy when you haven't seen the films. Seen them move, felt them breathe, get a sense of how the strengths and weaknesses of the makers exhibit themselves over an extended runtime.

Then I'd be more willing at least to get into this hairy sliver widescreen discussion with you, at least more substantively.

Edit: Plan 9 was made in mainstream Hollywood now. (flump)

[EddieLarkin]

Your points are fair, thanks for being civil about it. My standpoint of advocacy only comes from the time the films were made, and the caps I've seen. Ideally I need to actually see the films before forming a definitive opinion, and I'll try and remember to come and find you with some hopefully finer points that support the widescreen position (or maybe I'll have to swallow my pride and admit you're right!).

[knives]

Would anyone really concede to any Ed Wood film being "composed"?

I would, but I also admit to being completely insane. Larkin's argument is just ridiculous and I see no reason to engage with his silliness on either Wood or this Criterion film.

[Orlac]

Would anyone really concede to any Ed Wood film being "composed"?

I would, but I also admit to being completely insane. Larkin's argument is just ridiculous and I see no reason to engage with his silliness on either Wood or this Criterion film.

The cinematography in the Ed Wood films is perfectly fine, just as is the Karl Struss photography on Mesa Of Lost Women or the Stanley Kortez photography on Madmen Of Mandoras. It's pointed at some daft trash, but it's done with care and finesse. Heck, that's why they were hired!

[knives]

I don't mean to discredit Thompson or anything since I like his work, but he's nowhere near Struss' work in general or even specific to Mesa of Lost Women.

[HerrSchreck]

If you want to see Thompson at his arthouse style, avant best, look no further than J J Parkers DEMENTIA, a complete masterpiece of fringe cinema (which is a very good thing. Also shot in academy.)

[GaryC]

Would it help if I listed some British independents from this era that have never been shown in anything but Academy ratio?

I can name one - It Happened Here, directed by Kevin Brownlow and Andrew Mollo. About 10-15 mins (if I remember correctly) of it was shot in 16mm, the rest in 35mm. I saw it at the National Film Theatre (the first showing of it in its uncut version) with Brownlow in attendance and introducing the screening, and it was projected in Academy.

[Orlac]

If you want to see Thompson at his arthouse style, avant best, look no further than J J Parkers DEMENTIA, a complete masterpiece of fringe cinema (which is a very good thing. Also shot in academy.)

Dementia was made before the all-change, in 1953. It look two years to get a booking.

[HerrSchreck]

"The All Change."

I'm golfing myself up to the moon. I am the Cat That Hated People.

[Orlac]

And now folks the new Jet Pilot in 70mm and 2.75:1.

Jet Pilot is the one that took years to release, right?

[Gregory]

Really, the only reason people cherry pick and say Film X is meant to be 4:3 is because they've been watching open matte (or heavily cropped, in the case of Deadly Mantis and Bride Of The Monster, to name two examples) tv prints and video transfers since they were babes.

Unless I've misunderstood, this statement preemptively rejects any possibility that Film X actually is best in Academy, regardless of what film Film X is. I've encountered widescreen zealotry before, but this is ridiculous. It's also a false assumption because you don't really know what films a given person saw when they were young, how they saw them, or what factors they're taking into account. Please.

My counterexample of Mon Oncle already demonstrated how wrong-headed the ridiculously broad strokes are that some use to conclude widescreen is best for a huge number of films based on criteria (year of production, "excessive headroom" in the viewer's opinion) that may or may not have anything to do with how a film looks to another viewer or what the director or DP may have preferred. Believe what you like, but spare us the simple-minded absolutes.
For example, this comment from the HTF thread linked on the previous page:

Even Goddard had gone widescreen by the late 60s. Les Diaboliques and Mon Oncle are two 50s French films that are meant to be widescreen - all that dead space is a giveaway!

Clearly an expert on French cinema of that period

[Bob Furmanek]

When determining the intended aspect ratio, it's important to fully research the studios specific policy at the time of production. For instance, JET PILOT was released September 25, 1957 but filming began on December 8, 1949. RKO, as a matter of studio policy, did not change to widescreen cinematography until May, 1953.

1.37:1 is the correct ratio for this film.

The filmmaker's intent should always be respected

[Bob Furmanek]

I agree but Hughes was out of the picture by 1957. He sold the studio to General Tire in July 1955.

[Bob Furmanek]

It seems that JET PILOT was announced for release every two years: 1951, 1953 and 1955. Interesting to note that UI's recommended projection ratio was the very odd 1.60:1. The majority of UI product at the time was either 2.1 or 1.85:1.

[zedz]

1.60:1 is probably the bare minimum 'wideness' that wouldn't look absolutely terrible. I find the current DVDs basically unwatchable, the masking is so disfiguring.

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes, I'm sure that's the case. By late 1957, the number of U.S. theaters still running 1.37:1 was minimal.