criterionforum.org

Interestingly enough, 1.66:1 is the closest to the Golden Ratio, which is approximately 1.618...:1

Also since Kubrick started making films in the 1950s, he started out with the principle of "shoot and protect" and hence why his Academy 35 films look great in any aspect ratio. I think 1.66:1 works with any Kubrick film, regardless of subject matter. (I think The Shining suffers *slightly* when presented 1.33:1 because it takes away from the claustrophobic vibe when it is presented open.)

Finally, I believe A Clockwork Orange has always been presented on home video as 1.66:1 with little to no exceptions.

Older video releases of A Clockwork Orange were actually around 1.5:1 but went wider for some shots, such as the newspaper montage near the end. Presumably this is because it was shot with variable hard matting, like the more famous cases of Lolita and Dr. Strangelove (which alternated between 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 on some releases, like the Kubrick-approved Criterion LDs). Older releases of Barry Lyndon were also around 1.5:1, and if memory serves me there were points where you could see blurred and/or uneven edges along the top and bottom of the frame, indicating the use of a hard matte.

Rupert Pupkin wrote:I have since it came out the Warner B. Blu-Ray... but the perspective of a x4 scan (generally they are tremendous : The Graduate, Straw Dogs, Dressed To Kill or All That Jazz) and 1:66 ratio... I almost had an heart attack...

Now, [-o< Eyes Wide Shut in 1:33 ratio (and they can do if they want like the "On The Waterfront" box set) for geometrical restoration pleasure and more Nicole Kidman... (remember the opening scene...)

and Domino... (I mean Vinessa Shaw...)

Fetishizing 1.33:1 AND Vinessa Shaw in a single post? Ladies & gentlemen, Jeffrey Wells in the house!

Speaking of, when will Criterion learn that the coverup is always worse than the crime?

I hate myself for asking this but is Wells a troll or something? There's something really off about that article and website.

PfR73 wrote:

Rupert Pupkin wrote:I have since it came out the Warner B. Blu-Ray... but the perspective of a x4 scan (generally they are tremendous : The Graduate, Straw Dogs, Dressed To Kill or All That Jazz) and 1:66 ratio... I almost had an heart attack...

Now, [-o< Eyes Wide Shut in 1:33 ratio (and they can do if they want like the "On The Waterfront" box set) for geometrical restoration pleasure and more Nicole Kidman... (remember the opening scene...)

and Domino... (I mean Vinessa Shaw...)

Fetishizing 1.33:1 AND Vinessa Shaw in a single post? Ladies & gentlemen, Jeffrey Wells in the house!

oh it's even worse and for me it's beyond redemption since decades : "The Lure" - I prefer "Gold" (aka the brunette) who looks like Mia Kirshner in Exotica rather than "Silver".
Eyes Wide Shut: I would like a complete package like "On The Waterfront"- bonus: I remember having read a very interesting (where it is ?) interview of Mrs. Vinessa Shaw (yes I love "Two Lovers" too - still waiting for her "surprise" guess at the dinner) about the "kissing scene" with (drum-roll) Tom Cruise : and she talked about 100 takes or something like this.
I want all the takes.
OK, we are a decade (or two) before the Tom Cruise maximum hype- but imagine the power of 100 takes of Tom Cruise and Vinessa Shaw kissing each others- it will break my heart, that's sure, perhaps I'll become bisexual in the end -I don't know. But what would be interesting was the "approach" and discussion before the kiss voila voila why such bonus footage would be absolutely priceless.


By the way, I've rewatched the Warner B. Blu-Ray of "Barry Lyndon" and really in terms of grain and definition a X4 can be absolutely gorgeous if it's well done...
The second part with Marisa Berenson just kills me. Music, lighting... Absolutely mesmerizing... (the first part is almost similar to Woody Allen "Love and Death") - I can't get tired of all the parts with lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali is amazing - and who could "resolve" is oedipe complex when your mother is Marisa Berenson ?)... Somehow some scenes reminds me Fanny "And Alexandre"...

.../...

DarkImbecile wrote:Speaking of, when will Criterion learn that the coverup is always worse than the crime?

What a complete pillock. The correct aspect ratio of Barry Lyndon was a matter of record decades before Wells weighed in.

What does he want? A thank you in the booklet (or whatever they will have for the insert)? A visit in the closet? A cookie?

To use a discussion même: Look, I've found what you were looking for. (empty hand holding the word ATTENTION )

Criterion gets the ratio right : Wells rants.
Criterion gets the ratio wrong : Wells rants.

There really is no way to get rid of him.

And remember, usually it's only them getting it "wrong" in his view, when it's actually correct.

djproject wrote:What does he want? A thank you in the booklet (or whatever they will have for the insert)? A visit in the closet? A cookie?

To use a discussion même: Look, I've found what you were looking for. (empty hand holding the word ATTENTION )

Well, we already know what he wants...

mfunk9786 wrote:And remember, usually it's only them getting it "wrong" in his view, when it's actually correct.

What's the most famous example of him melting down over this (and, erroneously)? Was it Psycho?

Anatomy of a Murder comes to mind, and stings because I agree with his preference there

They added trailers to the list of supplements.

As I recall it, the original full-length trailer for Barry Lyndon is a good example of that artless, telling-over-showing kind of trailer that was so common in the 70s - it's basically two-plus minutes of a robotic narrator throwing out a bunch of glowing quotes from critics against random images from the film. It couldn't be much more lifeless and doesn't do a particularly great job of making the film seem intriguing to those who haven't seen it. Kubrick's later films tended to have mysterious, very well-crafted trailers or teasers, but the Barry Lyndon one is fully a product of its time in the worst way... it could only be weaker if it took a couple minutes to simply lay out the entire plot, as many trailers from the 70s and earlier did.

For example, this trailer for Don't Look Now is - while not terrible - pretty representative of the boring approach of that time, pretty much just showing us a clip-show of random scenes from the film for 3 minutes. For an example of a much more artfully made and effective trailer from the same period, I've always thought this one for The Parallax View gives a great balance of plot exposition, teasing us with various striking images/scenes, and some inventive editing to tie it all together into an impressive piece of work in itself.

I think this trailer is obviously the best one made for Barry Lyndon.

oh yeah wrote: but the Barry Lyndon one is fully a product of its time in the worst way...

Did someone say Barry Lyndon couldn't be representative of its time any worse?!

Minkin wrote:

oh yeah wrote: but the Barry Lyndon one is fully a product of its time in the worst way...

Did someone say Barry Lyndon couldn't be representative of its time any worse?!

Oh, my... Well. Actually, that was at least kind of entrancingly oddball enough to be preferable to the staid, predictable narcissism-parade that is the Oscars in recent years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may talk shit about Barry Lyndon's trailer but it's nothing compared to what I have in store for you. THE DEER HUNTER.

Nothing comes close to this abomination. It's like a piece of absurdist humor.

Trailers are meant to give an impression of what the film is to convince the audience to come see it and you all know that. And like films they all vary in quality. Surely a dry trailer for Lyndon is better than the current formula of:

Logos -> Scenery -> Scenery w/narration -> Introduction of characters -> INCEPTION HORN BWAAAAA -> EXPOSITION BWWWAAAAAAAA -> HALF SECOND SHOT OF HALF NAKED WOMAN -> BWAAA MOVIE NAME.

You can't Michael Bay the shit out of Barry Lyndon.

I find criticizing a trailer for its style, especially those of the past, to be absolutely ridiculous, especially as we are still living in the post-Armageddon era where trailers can often be dramatic text, a few shots, and a release date. Different eras will have different styles, and I have no problem with trailers from the past whatsoever. It may sound ridiculous, but trailers are often my favorite special feature on a home video release, especially if you consider it in the context of how it was effective (or not effective) in succesfully marketing a film.

On the contrary, I find that trailer for The Deer Hunter to be an excellent example of an effective trailer as it provides depth, ideas, and images that sells a very high concept film effectively to a mass audience. We have enough box office proof to know it worked for this film. I must've seen the teailer play at least a half-dozen times before The New Beverly in Los Angeles ran The Deer Hunter for a few days in memoriam for Michael Cimino, and each time the audience was dead silent.

Barry Lyndon is a very specific type of film that is mostly unpalateable to the commercial audience Warner Bros. would like, so I understand it being difficult to market. Dr. Strangelove had the benefit of Pablo Ferro's incredibly post-modern style to make an effective and memorable trailer and The Shining's trailer was so simple and obtuse in a way that predicted the trailers Christopher Nolan has been making for years. In the end, Kubrick was a Hollywood filmmaker that relied on this type of marketing to fit in the box office. Not all trailers can be Godard's transcendent trailer for Bresson's Mouchette.

I also suggest a thread split on this topic.

An improvement so massive it's almost startling.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:An improvement so massive it's almost startling.

Am I crazy for not seeing nearly as much difference as everyone expected? I realize much of this is because of the look of the film but between both screen grabs I can rarely make out differences outside of the small amount of additional visual information on top and bottom. The Warners disc doesn’t look as bad as I remembered it looking.

I read the Magic Hate Ball post as irony.

There's a couple places where the Criterion looks like a real improvement, enough so that I'm guessing it will be pretty noticeable when actually watching it- look at the treeline in the sixth comparison down, with the firing line- even apart from the extra information, it looks significantly clearer. I get sort of an ongoing impression of improvement in the faces, too- it looks more visible that it's a human colored face with a lot of makeup on it, in a way that changes and clarifies the effect.