criterionforum.org

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:42 pm**

Er, I think there's little left to be said Fred. I'm sure it was taken into account that the film would play wide in most venues, but if the director himself is saying that little to no true composure was occurring during the shoot, then it's really up to him how the film is best presented. Evidently, he went with full frame.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:51 pm**

EddieLarkin wrote:Er, I think there's little left to be said Fred. I'm sure it was taken into account that the film would play wide in most venues, but if the director himself is saying that little to no true composure was occurring during the shoot, then it's really up to him how the film is best presented. Evidently, he went with full frame.

That's fine with me, Eddie. I'm just getting onto the board now, and responding to something that had been directed to me. If the discussion on "LotF" is done, I'm okay with that.

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:56 pm**

Hello all, new here. Though I've read these forums for awhile. Seeing as how you fellows were discussing Welles's films a few pages back, I thought this'd be a fitting place for a Welles-film-aspect ratio-related question:

Was Mr. Arkadin shown in cinemas in 1:66 or 1:75 and NOT 1:33, as most video releases present it? Id concede that it was protected for 1:33 as most films are, but it was released in 1955 when widescreen seemed to already be in full swing, and filming took place in late 1954. Does the fact that it's not an American or British film affect things though?

Anyone's answers would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:00 pm**

Given how far off the Hollywood grid Welles was at the time, and the tenuous circumstances of the film's production, any reliance on studio norms for determining what aspect ratio the film "should have been" would be extremely foolhardy.

Posted: **Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:27 am**

Fred Holywell wrote: I haven't seen the Criterion version since it played on TCM a while ago (and just placed my Hulu account on hold -- so I can't check that!). Would be curious to know how their version compares with these, though.

Finally took my Hulu account off hold, so I popped up Criterion's version of "The Immortal Story" and made some screen grabs. Their edition seems identical to the Madman DVD, from all I can tell.

Additional screencaps

Posted: **Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:04 pm**

Yes, this is the same version that has shown up on TCM as well. As noted above, cropping the film only at the bottom seems like a mistake; cropping the image equally at the top and bottom to 1.66:1 would be better...or just leaving it open matte.

Posted: **Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:01 pm**

It's not as simple as that, though. If you look at the additional screencaps Fred linked to, you'll see that the shot in which Jeanne Moreau and the other guy are looking out over the courtyard with the backs of the heads toward the camera is virtually identical at the top and bottom in both versions, so it's not a question of simply deciding where the matte is placed and running the whole film that way. Either someone is making deliberate decisions about the matting of each individual shot, or the two transfers are coming from two different sources that are themselves not consistent (or both).

Furthermore, the Criterion/TCM version seems to be a little vertically stretched, or the 1.78 version is horizontally stretched...but when I made a couple of animated gifs to illustrate this, the 1.78 version looks a little more natural to me:

Posted: **Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:51 pm**

For some weird reason, I can hear accordion music!

Anyway, if The Immortal Story was made for television in 1968, how could its OAR be anything other than Academy?

Posted: **Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:18 pm**

zedz wrote:Anyway, if The Immortal Story was made for television in 1968, how could its OAR be anything other than Academy?

In 1966, when "TIS" was filmed, I believe there was already talk of, if not definite plans for, a limited theatrical run. If so, Welles would have made the film with that in mind. It played the Berlin International Film Festival in June '68, a month after its May 24 French TV premiere, then elsewhere theatrically, after that.

EDIT: from Wikipedia: "Welles received financing from Organisation Radio-Télévision Française to create The Immortal Story for premiere presentation on French television, to be followed by theatrical release in France and other countries."

Posted: **Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:46 pm**

Well yes, but all that does is confirm that it was indeed shot for television. There's no reason whatsoever that a subsequent theatrical release couldn't be in Academy, but there's no way its "premiere presentation" would have been in a wider AR.

Posted: **Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:05 pm**

Kirkinson wrote:It's not as simple as that, though. If you look at the additional screencaps Fred linked to...

Remember that the Madman set features two separate versions of "TIS": one, a 60 minute English-language version, cropped to 1.66; and the second, a shorter French-language version, cropped to 1.78. The Criterion transfer seems to match up with Madman's ELV, while the FLV is a whole different story. Neither version, English or French, seems to be consistent in its telecine work, sometimes grabbing from the top of the 1.37 frame, while at other times appearing to be more bottom or center-framed. (I posted more on this, a couple of pages back.)

Posted: **Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:23 pm**

zedz wrote:Well yes, but all that does is confirm that it was indeed shot for television. There's no reason whatsoever that a subsequent theatrical release couldn't be in Academy, but there's no way its "premiere presentation" would have been in a wider AR.

Shot for both television and cinemas, no? Or shot for television, as well as cinemas? In any case, Welles and DP Willy Kurant knew "The Immortal Story" would have both theatrical and television runs when they made the film. We may have to do more research to determine whether they framed for widescreen or not, but it's true that a theatrical release could have been in Academy ratio.

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:59 am**

Has anyone else seen the White Heat blu? It looks to be in 1:66, which seems surprising, given the era- in the Warners logo right at the beginning was cut off at the bottom. Anyone know where I should look into it?

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:12 am**

matrixschmatrix wrote:Has anyone else seen the White Heat blu? It looks to be in 1:66, which seems surprising, given the era- in the Warners logo right at the beginning was cut off at the bottom. Anyone know where I should look into it?

DVD Beaver review

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:22 am**

I was always under the impression that it was shot in Academy but protected for 1.66:1 - which would make perfect contextual sense.

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:33 am**

Getting confused here guys. The White Heat Blu is 1.37:1 and the film was made in 1949. Where does 1.66:1 enter into things?

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:14 am**

Yeah, a 1949 movie would never ever have been protected for widescreen considering such a thing wouldn't be a thing for four more years. Maybe you were inadvertently thinking of a different movie, MichaelB? Matrix, it sounds like maybe something's wonky with your player or TV

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:52 am**

Sorry - I was replying to the discussion about The Immortal Story! For some reason the later posts hadn't appeared on my system when I pressed "submit".

Yes, White Heat should unambiguously be 1.37:1 - there shouldn't be any argument about that.

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:53 pm**

Yeah, sorry about that, guys- there was a weird problem on my player's end and it chose to cut the movie down to 1:66 for me.

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:47 am**

From the 12 Years a Slave sleeve (apologies for the poor quality)

I'm pretty sure McQueen always meant this film to be viewed in .6:1

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:49 am**

Several passages of the film now depict only enthusiastic farming

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:59 am**

Overpowering, brutal historical dramas about the experience and legacy of slavery are always most effective when watched on a smartphone.

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:13 am**

The difficulty on watching on so tiny a screen really lets you understand what they had to go through!

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:54 pm**

jindianajonz wrote:From the 12 Years a Slave sleeve (apologies for the poor quality)

I'm pretty sure McQueen always meant this film to be viewed in .6:1

I think that image pretty much sums up the horrifying indifference of the general public to original aspect ratios, not to mention their visual illiteracy.

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:41 pm**

Horrifying stuff

criterionforum.org

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

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.