criterionforum.org

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:43 pm**

zedz wrote:And look what happened with Kubrick! Despite his obsessive concern for optimal projection, there's probably more confusion and contention over the aspect ratios of his films than for anybody else's - even when, as with Barry Lyndon, he spelled his position out with complete clarity.

And this is why Wells's jeremiads piss me off so much. There are legitimate cases of aspect ratio mishandling, and where those exist, the cinephile community needs to speak up in protest. The Barry Lyndon thing wasn't the end of the world - at the end of the day, 1.66 and 1.78 aren't that different - but WB's position was clearly absurd on the merits and it needed to be pointed out.

Wells, however, repeatedly cries wolf, and does so in a willfully ignorant, stupid and belligerent manner. Besides completely discrediting himself individually, he's marginalizing the issue in general, to do his part to make sure that any time the issue comes up, more people's first reaction is "oh no, not this shit again". Or, even worse, he's helping to create an atmosphere where actual expertise is denigrated and ignored; his repeated personal attacks on Bob Furmanek especially have been downright defamatory.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:56 pm**

Wells now posts a "modified mea culpa" that reads as even more churlish than his original post. His solution to AR problems, and I'm not joking: "to run an open-matte print of the movie in a screening room and figure out what looks best based on what you want to see and what feels right." No, he doesn't specify who the "you" in that sentence refers to.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:57 pm**

Wells admits that RB was never released on home video in 1.66, and that he was wrong, but nonetheless continues to cry that it should be because dammit he's Jeffrey Wells and this is the only way to compensate for his incredibly tiny Internet penis.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:19 pm**

Reading that article he comes off as downright horrifying and dangerous! Actually saying it should be shown in the AR that "feels right" and apparently spent time reaching out to people who must be fielding his phone calls thinking "who is this nut?"

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:25 pm**

That whole rant about the steak is priceless. I also like how he bothered to namedrop the important people he contacted in his attempt to get ahold of hard evidence, even though all he got out of it was somebody's phone number.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:38 pm**

Look, who do you trust about the correct aspect ratio: the director, cinematographer, historical record, and producers at Criterion, or Jeffrey Welles? Because the answer here should be pretty obvious.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:39 pm**

I visit Wells' site frequently. I almost never agree with him, but he does offer some interesting opinions. However, when he starts talking about aspect ratios, he literally has no clue what he is talking about. He was indeed right in the case of Barry Lyndon, but that was the only time I can think of. He is simply the type of person who is misinformed on aspect ratios and when proven wrong is too stuborn to admit so.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:47 pm**

I just wish he'd explain why he hates the 1.85 aspect ratio so much. It's like he gets piss-boiling angry every time he sees a film in that format, and it seems completely irrational. Like, does he get mad at directors who deliberately choose 1.85? Does he demand that the films be shown some other way? I can easily envision this guy storming the projection booth and busting it down Shining style just to fuck with the plates. It's really kind of disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written some lengthy hate letter to Wes Anderson for switching to 1.85 for Moonrise Kingdom.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:55 pm**

He has explained it, though I'm not going to dig it up. He likes headroom and thinks 1.85:1 doesn't give you enough of it. Which isn't absurd in and of itself -- Rohmer said much the same thing, for example -- but then Rohmer was openly composing for Academy and protecting for widescreen, which is the opposite of what almost everyone else does. So Wells resorts to claiming that directors were subconsciously composing for taller ARs, regardless of what they thought they were doing at the time. Thus Polanski was secretly composing Rosemary for 1.66:1 because he was European and had worked in that AR before, and Preminger was secretly composing Anatomy of a Murder for Academy because he knew audiences in the future would be watching it on 4:3 TVs (yes, Wells really used this argument).

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:56 pm**

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:... and Preminger was secretly composing Anatomy of a Murder for Academy because he knew audiences in the future would be watching it on 4:3 TVs (yes, Wells really used this argument).

So Preminger could see into the future, but not far enough to see when those TVs would switch to 16:9.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:36 pm**

Okay it's probably not real, but it should be, and I know Polanski got involved via a fan on Home Theater Forum before when Warner screwed up the initial release of Frantic. This is the penultimate comment in one of the recent Rosemary's Baby aspect ratio threads:

RRTPolanski wrote:A colleague has made me aware of the discussion under way here, and while it amuses me beyond measure, I feel under the obligation to scholars and in defence of my magnificent friends at Criterion to set the matters aright. "Rosemary's Baby" is being released by Criterion in 1.85:1 because that is the aspect ratio I directed the film to have, because that is the aspect ratio that I prefer, and because that is the aspect ratio I insisted upon. While there was protection in the filming for the possibility of inadvertent projection at 1.66:1, it was never my intention to allow such projection if I could maintain control of the circumstance of projection. This film is and will always be properly framed at 1.85:1.

And Mr. Wells, while I admire your sense of righteous fury, let me say to you that I know a little bit about fascism, and disagreeing with you is not the hallmark. However, your response to disagreement looks familiar.

Polanski

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:58 pm**

Please God let that be real

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:14 pm**

Yes, that would be the best moment ever on the internet if it turned out to be real. It's in a very high percentile even if it's not.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:53 pm**

That would be the scene from Annie Hall with Marshall McLuhan come to life. "You Know Nothing of My Work."

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:57 pm**

No, it'd be the best moment ever on the internet if he ended it with "a/s/l" and told any young honeys to drop him a PM. But one can only dream.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:07 pm**

Amazing. I'm just going to believe that's real. If it's not, the author certainly did their homework: "RRTPolanski," i.e. according to Wiki his birth name, Rajmund Roman Thierry Polanski...

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 pm**

If it isn't real, it's an absolutely stunning parody. It reads like someone whose native language isn't English, but not in a really obvious way - "if I could maintain control of the circumstance of projection", for instance.

Put it like this, I can absolutely imagine this being read aloud in Polanski's voice.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:48 pm**

Yeah, some of the lines like magnificent friends you can just see him saying with full armed gestures.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:44 am**

Wells's response to Polanski - he's "85% to 90% persuaded it's probably from the Real McCoy".

Hard to sum up Wells's attitude here, but here's the key part:

I'm obviously not 'right' and you, the creator of Rosemary's Baby, are certainly not 'wrong,' of course. But...

Obviously! Certainly! Of course! And yet...

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:02 am**

I can't figure out what I'm more amazed by, the way Wells suddenly turned into a soft-peddling kiss ass all of a sudden or how he can still be a condescending prick at the same time. I also like this bit:

I know a thing or two about what looks right. I don't mean to imply that I know better, but deep down I sort of feel that...how can I put this? I feel that what I believe in this matter has a certain validity.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:03 am**

I don't mean to imply that I know better, I mean to... state it outright. And get really upset when anyone disagrees.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:21 am**

Did he go to the same school for critical thinking as Santorum?

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:25 am**

If that person is indeed actually Polanski, then this is quite possibly one of the greatest moments I've ever experienced on the internet. Jeff Wells has gone on far too long about which aspect ratio he thinks is right for specific films. Time and time again, he proves his ignorance and refuses to admit his mistakes. He's even made comments saying that he knows more than the director of the film in question!

Good for Polanski for pointing this out. I'm anxiously awaiting Criterion's Blu-Ray of Rosemary's Baby.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:29 am**

Having just read Wells' reply to Polanski, I now think that Polanski is definitely real but Wells is the parody.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:50 am**

He likes to throw around the word "fascists" alot.

criterionforum.org

The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: 634 Rosemary's Baby

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread