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

[domino harvey]

No, swo, Criterions are like action figures: you're not supposed to take them out of the wrapper!

[Fred Holywell]

And none of these scenes looked like they had been clearly blocked for widescreen... More importantly, there were several scenes that just simply would not have worked at a wider ratio...

It's really difficult to determine that based solely on a DVD/Blu transfer. We simply don't know how much of the full-frame image was zoomed-in in telecine.

[vsski]

I honestly don't understand this constant back and forth here and begin to tire of it. While I'm not suggesting that CC has always got it right, they have shown this film for however long they had the rights to it in Academy ratio and have had access to the filmmakers over the years and yet people seem to simply brush this aside on account of a few scenes in the movie that also work in widescreen, which as swo rightfully states is an argument that can be made for almost every Academy ratio film - I'm sure I can go back to silent film days and find scenes that work in widescreen.

Why this strong reaction? I have seen the film several times and never felt that the ratio wasn't working or took away from the movie - what's so great about widescreen for every movie? And for what it's worth, I once saw the movie in a theater during a showing arranged by the Filmmuseum Munich and it was shown in Academy ratio as well (but then again I'm sure they are considered a bunch of bumbling fools as well).

[MichaelB]

I've almost certainly said this before, but don't most modern televisions have a "zoom to 16:9" function, so that those strange people who believe they know more about the aspect ratio of a film than the guy who actually shot the damn thing can recompose it to their heart's content?

[EddieLarkin]

Michael, I don't think it's strange for a person to want to alter a presentation he has access to if there's strong evidence it's in the wrong aspect ratio. Okay, the case clearly isn't settled on Lord of the Flies, but on films where it is, we still get open matte Blu-rays! The Ladykillers, The Dambusters, Johnny Guitar, Hell's Half Acre, The Atomic Kid, and er, ahem, Plan 9 from Outer Space (oh and quite possibly Criterion's own Les Diaboliques), all of these presented completely wrong. And that's just recent Blu-ray releases! The list of DVD releases would be huge. Is it strange if people zoom these too? Would it be strange for someone from 1999 to zoom the DVD of The Shining? Despite plenty of evidence at that time pointing towards 1.33:1 being Kubrick's preferred ratio?

And yes most TVs provide that option, but most don't give an accurate crop. Mine (Panny GT30) lops off the edges with it, taking information that should be there, and making the new widescreen image way too tight. My Panny BD player is better, it gives an accurate crop taking only from the top and bottom, but for some reason it only allows the option to be used on DVDs. Oppo players have nice gradation levels of cropping, and work on most Blu-rays, but evidently not Criterion's.

Well I just watched the new Blu-ray for LOTF, and sacrificed my enjoyment of the movie to pay close attention to the framing throughout, and I'm afraid I fail to see the case for a wider ratio. Sure, many scenes would have worked at 1.85:1, but isn't this true of a lot films in Academy? And none of these scenes looked like they had been clearly blocked for widescreen, as is the case with some parts of Touch of Evil for instance. More importantly, there were several scenes that just simply would not have worked at a wider ratio, e.g. an early shot that tracks Piggy for a ways with his head at the very top of the frame and the camera moving right along with him to keep it right there; a wide shot of a boy scaling a hill, which would have no need to go on as long as it does if the top of the frame weren't there; a shot of an open sky with a boy approaching the camera from very low in the frame--much of that scene would look like dead space at a wider ratio.

I appreciate your comments swo and will consider them during future viewings. For the record, my main point of contention is not anything that's going on in the film (though that factors in to it), but the fact that a) this film has been presented 1.66:1/1.78:1 several times elsewhere, and b) the historical documentation backs those releases up.

I mean, apart from maybe Jet Pilot, I can't think of a single undoubtedly 1.37:1 film (as in, not Magnificent Obsession and Touch of Evil, where debate has not been settled) that was presented widescreen on DVD (and in the case of Jet Pilot, the documentation contradicts the widescreen presentation, rather than supports it). Is Lord of the Flies the only one? Isn't that a bit telling? Can anyone think of any other examples?

[MichaelB]

Michael, I don't think it's strange for a person to want to alter a presentation he has access to if there's strong evidence it's in the wrong aspect ratio.

But in this case there isn't any evidence at all, "strong" or otherwise. And if you sincerely believe that you're right and that the man who operated the camera is wrong (a contention positively Jeffrey Wellsian in its overweening arrogance), you can easily remedy the situation yourself within the privacy of your own home.

Seriously, how many posts have you written about this complete non-issue?

[EddieLarkin]

Michael, I don't think it's strange for a person to want to alter a presentation he has access to if there's strong evidence it's in the wrong aspect ratio.

But in this case there isn't any evidence at all, "strong" or otherwise. And if you sincerely believe that you're right and that the man who operated the camera is wrong (a contention positively Jeffrey Wellsian in its overweening arrogance), you can easily remedy the situation yourself within the privacy of your own home.

Seriously, how many posts have you written about this complete non-issue?

How can you say there is no evidence at all? It's fine with me if you don't think it's worth very much, but there clearly is evidence. And it's not about me being right and Feil being wrong, I just don't think it's clear what his "supervision" actually entailed. If there was some sort of explanation from Criterion or Feil, that addresses the contradicting evidence, then I'd be glad to eat my words. To not do so in that scenario, well THAT would be positively Jeffrey Wellsian. And I can't remedy the situation myself at home, as I've explained above.

[tojoed]

I don't think it's strange for a person to want to alter a presentation he has access to if there's strong evidence it's in the wrong aspect ratio. Okay, the case clearly isn't settled on Lord of the Flies, but on films where it is, we still get open matte Blu-rays! The Ladykillers...

This is getting crazy now. "The Ladykillers" is Academy ratio and always has been. There were no Ealing films made in anything else.

[antnield]

Although screencaps aren't necessarily the best tool to use in determining what a film's intended ar might be (we don't know how much of the image has already been 'zoomed-in', for one thing), they can often provide some clues as to what those intended ar's might be. For instance, in looking at this admittedly compromised screencap from "Lord of the Flies", some might say that the relatively low placement of the c-o mark indicates that some top-of-frame matting was clearly intended or allowed.

Here's DVD Beaver on Douglas Sirk's Lured (from 1947). You'll notice that the sixth screen cap has a cigarette burn in a similar position to the Lord of the Flies - so I think we can discount "relatively low placement" as any kind of indication.

[EddieLarkin]

This is getting crazy now. "The Ladykillers" is Academy ratio and always has been. There were no Ealing films made in anything else.

Sorry if I've missed something, but I'm going to assume that wasn't a joke. You can read about Ealing's change to widescreen here:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wides ... umentation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note the West of Zanzibar poster.

Comparison caps for The Ladykillers in open matte and 1.66:1 can be found at DVDBeaver. As far as I'm aware, the new Blu-ray was the first time it had been issued on home video in anything but 1.66:1, a ratio it looks absolutely perfect at throughout.

Jesus, Eddy, why don't you just ask Dame Peter?

He Her/Himself could surely answer you to everyone's satisfaction.

I don't know, you seemed to imply he wouldn't have known or cared what Hollyman and Feil were doing with the cameras anyway!

[tojoed]

Eddie, "The Ladykillers" was presented in Academy on the UK dvd, as far as I know.

Phillip Kemp confirmed the Blu-Ray as correct a couple of years ago when it came out.
Unfortunately I'm not an obsessive hoarder of old e-mails, so I can't print it.
I've seen the film half a dozen times in UK cinemas since the early 1960s, and always in
Academy.

That link you gave is by Bob Furmanek, so naturally, I didn't bother reading it.

[EddieLarkin]

You're right, but there has been more than one. The WB 2004 release was 1.66:1, the SC 2006 release was 1.33:1. Here are some documents from HTF, with all credit to Tom Crossplot:

http://i.imgur.com/cgTmfy5.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://i.imgur.com/UJbcWUI.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ealing made the switch to 1.66:1 over a year before The Ladykillers even started production.

But the film speaks for itself anyway, since I'm confident this documentation will be dismissed. I watched The Ladykillers only a couple of weeks ago at 1.66:1, and there isn't a single shot that looked incorrect. Have you looked at the DVDBeaver caps? Do you not see the common trait in all of them?

When Philip Kemp confirmed the Blu-ray was correct, did he do so by presenting evidence, or was he just simply making a statement?

[vsski]

...If there was some sort of explanation from Criterion or Feil...

Eddie, while I doubt that anything will ever truly satisfy you on this and I haven't seen a direct statement from Criterion or Feil, here is a review I found of the old CC DVD from 2000 where the reviewer made the following statement:

The director stated that the reason for using the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, black and white film, and handheld cameras was to make the film more like a documentary

The same reviewer then goes on to say that he feels:

The 1.33:1 ratio is composed awkwardly, evidently the result of inexperienced filmmakers. Much of the time the image has way too much empty space on the top and bottom, as if a different ratio had been envisioned at one time

While the reviewer doesn't state the source for the director's statement, given how he approaches this, I have no reason to believe he just made that up.

So while you may not like the Academy ratio, everything I have seen or read as far as the filmmakers are concerned points to them wanting it in that ratio.

[EddieLarkin]

Actually, at the end of the paragraph his wording implies he's getting that information from the commentary, which features Peter Brook, producer Lewis Allen, Hollyman, and Feil. If they discuss the AR I'd be very interested to hear it, so I'll hold any further comments until I get a chance to listen to it.

[EddieLarkin]

As for Ealing, I see the AR debate has already been gone over here:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/vie ... &start=350" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At least there seems to be a general acknowledgement that the film was framed for 1.66:1 but that 1.37:1 just looks better. Which is fine, I'm unconcerned with anyone's personal preference to how a film looks, including my own. I only care about how the filmmakers themselves composed it. Courtesy of Bob Furmanek, an article dated 17th Dec 1953, 2 years before The Ladykillers premiered:

http://i.imgur.com/s5sHns6.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The last paragraph details how Ealing's new ratio is achieved by the DP/camera operators.

I know that questioning Philip Kemp on these boards is probably just asking to be crucified, but his comments in the email referenced by tojoed help this debate little. He is simply incorrect about there only ever being one Ealing widescreen production (see all the posted documentation, including the poster for West of Zanzibar, advertising it in widescreen). The only other thing he had to say was that he's never seen the film in anything but Academy, which isn't any sort of evidence at all.

Here is a good scene from the film that demonstrates widescreen framing rather well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD5r1CG0HmY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From 1.15 to 1.38 you'll see 7(!) distinct camera movements, all employed to keep Guinness' head from being cropped by the frame line, or to bring it line again. In Academy, all are pointless and no doubt just look like the camera operator couldn't keep things steady. I'll reiterate again, I only watched this in 1.66:1 (on Blu-ray that is, not youtube!) a couple of weeks ago and the whole film has instances like this right through its runtime.

[GaryC]

Ealing's 1959 film The Siege of Pinchgut is 1.66:1, or at least Optimum/StudioCanal's DVD is in that ratio. It didn't look unduly cropped to me.

[vsski]

Actually, at the end of the paragraph his wording implies he's getting that information from the commentary, which features Peter Brook, producer Lewis Allen, Hollyman, and Feil. If they discuss the AR I'd be very interested to hear it, so I'll hold any further comments until I get a chance to listen to it.

I initally assumed the same thing from reading the review, so I went back and carefully listened to the entire commentary.
Brook indeed does state that he wanted this film to have a documentary feel (after the 22 min mark) and that is why he chose to film it in black and white. Early in the commentary the technical problems with handheld are discussed. Nowhere on the commentary is an explicit reference to the aspect ratio, although the notion of the documentary feeling comes up over and over again.

At around the 1:04 mark of the commentary Brook very clearly states his philosophy about making the film. He says that the moment you compose a shot you take away the "naturalness of life" and therefore he didn't want to compose shots and often allowed camera operators, sometimes having more than one camera, freedom to capture the wildness and the moment.

Also, around the 39:30 mark of the commentary Feil talks about what happened to the release prints over time and that this restoration (referring to the '93 CC laserdisc for which the commentary was recorded) is the first time in 30 years that the film is seen as intended.

So while the comment by the reviewer on the AR is not verbatim from the commentary and I don't know whether it was his summary of what he heard or if he did indeed read this elsewhere, all of what I heard, imho, is strong evidence that something as fundamental as the AR wasn't simply left to chance or has been arbitrarly chosen by CC. All the filmmakers not just Feil were involved in the laserdisc, so I'm sure they didn't forget about the AR.

And Brook's philosophy of not composing shots doesn't favor a WS ratio, as most cinematographers who shoot in a particular WS ratio would carefully compose their shots for that ratio.

[EddieLarkin]

Thank you very much for that run down, and for taking the time to listen to the entire commentary. I certainly can't blame Criterion for going with full frame in those circumstances. I always knew that Brook, Hollyman, Feil and Allen were involved with the production of the laserdisc, and that it was 1.33:1, but I felt it may have just been a case of that being the standard for laserdisc releases back then. I still think some of the camera operators were making an effort to make sure the film looked fine at widescreen, but if Brook and the rest feel the "wildness" of the film comes across best in the full frame version then that's fine with me.

[zedz]

And none of these scenes looked like they had been clearly blocked for widescreen... More importantly, there were several scenes that just simply would not have worked at a wider ratio...

It's really difficult to determine that based solely on a DVD/Blu transfer. We simply don't know how much of the full-frame image was zoomed-in in telecine.

The desperation of your widescreen fetishism is really showing through here! You're presented with detailed textual evidence that refutes your argument and your response is "Oh, well in that case the transfer was probably cropped to, like, half of the original negative." Really? Where's your evidence for that, Perry Mason? And if you really believe that, how come you haven't mentioned it before? Surely Criterion cropping the image far more severely than any old pan-and-scan TV transfer would be a big scoop on HTF?

[MichaelB]

And if you really believe that, how come you haven't mentioned it before?

More to the point, how come the people who actually worked on the film didn't mention it before? After all, Criterion have had at least two goes at this title (assuming the DVD was sourced from the laserdisc master - but if it wasn't, make that three), and it's simply not credible that the people they contacted would have been so incurious as to not take a look at the end result. Especially since they were probably sent complimentary copies as a thank-you.

Aspect ratio issues can be a headache if the people who worked directly on the film are no longer available, as is often the case - but in this case not only are several key people still alive, but they were consulted by Criterion in connection with more than one edition.

[EddieLarkin]

The new Blu-ray already shows a good deal of new information in the frame compared to the old DVD, so I'm sure it's a fine representation of the original elements.

[Fred Holywell]

Here's DVD Beaver on Douglas Sirk's Lured (from 1947). You'll notice that the sixth screen cap has a cigarette burn in a similar position to the Lord of the Flies - so I think we can discount "relatively low placement" as any kind of indication.

One screwy c-o mark doesn't "discount" anything. (How long did it take you to find that thing, anyway?) What's your theory, that there's no correlation between mark placement and matting guidelines? You know that's not true (or maybe you don't). In any case, you're just trying to get an argument going.

[matrixschmatrix]

Wait so your presentation of a single mark does work as proof but someone's counter presentation is anecdotal and doesn't prove anything?

[domino harvey]

Here's DVD Beaver on Douglas Sirk's Lured (from 1947). You'll notice that the sixth screen cap has a cigarette burn in a similar position to the Lord of the Flies - so I think we can discount "relatively low placement" as any kind of indication.

One screwy c-o mark doesn't "discount" anything. (How long did it take you to find that thing, anyway?) What's your theory, that there's no correlation between mark placement and matting guidelines? You know that's not true (or maybe you don't). In any case, you're just trying to get an argument going.

We're trying to get an argument going? Here's the door

[Fred Holywell]

We're trying to get an argument going? Here's the door

I'd prefer a healthy discussion.

Wait so your presentation of a single mark does work as proof but someone's counter presentation is anecdotal and doesn't prove anything?

The "LofF" cap I posted wasn't meant to be 'proof', and (without looking at my post) I don't believe I said it was. You can't 'prove' much with a screencap, imo. It was meant to be an indication or suggestion, and that's about all. Just the same, I don't think the "Lured" cap can necessarily 'discount' anything. (And by 'screwy' I meant that the mark was placed unusually low. Academy burn marks usually aren't placed that low in the fame.)