criterionforum.org

Jameson281 wrote:

broadwayrock wrote:More contributions for the 'misinformed flamers':

R2 DVD

Calling this "proof" that 1.85:1 is wrong is silly--this is at the end of a long, complex shot with both camera and actors moving.

You of course have a bit of a point-- chopped heads appearing at some point within the unfolding of a scene doesnt necessarily prove anything.. but it is (or can be) evidence of Bad Blocking. Theres a reason thaat chalk and tape lines are laid down on the ground on location or on set, which is to insure that there are no surprises viz camera and actors' proximity. Scenes are not set up only at starting point and then "winged" hoping for the best. Scenes are dry rehearsed thru the camera so that the actor hits all his marks so he doesn't leave the frame, and that he coordinates with the operator so that focus changes viz proximity, and movement within the frame, are timed out properly.

That's how it goes with a good DP/director, which Welles & Metty most certainly were. You'll rarely see good pictorialists like Metty, John Alton, Hall, Storaro etc leave grey areas in blocking whereby an actor can walk his head accidentlally out of the frame.

Of course there's momentary goofs and whatnot and a studio may override a director's call in rushes for a retake because they dont think the gaffe was bad enough or noticeable.

And with some DP's widescreen visual styles, chopped heads is routine, and no cause for notice whatsoever. This period Welles is another story however...

Well, considering the forum created a new word recently maybe any members who are bartenders could create a drink named a "misinformed flamer" in davidhare's honour! I'm thinking of one of those firey vodka drinks from Ashes and Diamonds (in memory of those films that did not make it through the war unscathed) but with a little cocktail umbrella in flames in the centre of it! (a "mal informé incendiaire"?)

I'd agree though that it would seem best to offer the film in a number of ratios where there is a question - would it necessitate much extra work on the restorer's part?

"And look at yours Hank: 'Flamer'-- for the propane man... I guess I could have gone with 'Propane Man'"
"No, Flamer's cooler."

A side note: I love that show.

Well some good points have been made on both sides (and right down the middle!) on the TOUCH OF EVIL AR debate. If I ultimately come down on the 1.37 side it's due almost entirely to the fact that this was the only way I ever saw it until the '98 reconstruction. A dozen viewings on local TV, cable, home-video (Universal VHS), 16mm campus screenings and at least two 35mm repertory screenings over a period of 25 years tends to get you used to seeing a film a certain way. I didn't necessarily expect to see the Schmidlin version in 1.37 as the venue was a smallish room in a multiplex (in fact the same tiny screening room where the 2.35 GODS AND MONSTERS bled off on the curtains at the sides and the made for (4x3) TV ENCHANTED APRIL looked very horizontally cramped) but didn't realize until later that the 1.85 was a studio mandated hard-matte affecting all theatrical prints and the subsequent home-video aspect ratio.

It's this my-way-or-the-highway attitude that chaps my ass. Yet this is the way TOUCH OF EVIL was released on Universal DVD at a time when even outright bastardizations like pan'n'scan (modified to fit your screen!) were regularly offered on the flip side of DVDs of 'scope films! I resent the fact that TOUCH OF EVIL is now to be viewed ONLY in a format foreign to how it has been seen in most venues for forty years. And I resent (and reject) the spurious conclusions derived from the less than convincing documentation which led to this situation. And I resent the attitude with which all these rationalizations have been couched. Reminds me of the Firesign Theatre's EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!

I do hope some compromise results from all this "uniformed flaming" and at least the original or "preview" version of TOUCH OF EVIL is presented in 1.37. I think in the interest of historical accuracy (which is what "film restoration" should be about) that BOTH should be in 1.37. Just a thought but unless Big U plans on striking new prints of "non-ultimate" versions or unless they digitally hard-matte the '58 and '78 then they would be ipso-facto 1.37, no?

Note to Haggai: Glad my misspent youth in the flea pits of yesteryear can offer some illumination on the potential horrors that could be found when the AR was determined by the projectionist. As one poster stated, he often had final cut. BTW there is a dedicated thread on NIGHT OF THE HUNTER and there is some controversy regarding the AR on this title as well (big surprise!). No studio memos on this one I'll bet as it's an indie handled by United Artists. Made in 1955 by a director immersed in both silent German Expressionism and Griffith Americana there is no way in hell I'd believe it was intended to be cropped to 1.85. It has very strong verticals (the two-story house is the template) throughout and I cannot imagine any of the house interiors being given a haircut especially those knife-edge gables in the upstairs bedroom with Winters and Mitchum. I'd love to see a special edition for extras and commentary but would never willingly see this cropped. Again TV, cable, 16mm and 35 rep set the standard for this AR. The current MGM DVD is beautiful and as sharp as Mitchum's switchblade. Get it while you can!

GaryC: I stand corrected. Conrad Hall interview pages 160-161 in Schaefer and Salvato's Masters of Light (University of California Press) addresses the hard-matte issue on IN COLD BLOOD. Thanks!

Without wishing to take this too far off topic, one Columbia release from 1957 caused censorship issues at the BBFC due to questions over its aspect ratio.

Pal Joey was shot open-matte but intended for 1.85:1. However, if you show the film full-frame, you get an inadvertent topless scene from Rita Hayworth, courtesy of a just-translucent-enough shower screen at the end of the "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" number. A further problem for the BBFC was that this appears at the end of a reel, and they were worried that projectionists would rack the picture up at the appropriate moment.

The BBFC did cut the film in 1957, but I don't know if they decided to cut those few frames or not! This anecdote comes from What the Censor Saw, the memoirs of the late former BBFC secretary John Trevelyan.

Since Touch of Evil was shot in early 1957 and would have probably been a mid or late 1957 release had it not require tinkering...

Universal released 28 features in 1957. 18 were shot in CinemaScope, one in Technirama, and the rest in 1.85:1.

I'm tempted to bring up another director who is the subject of aspect ratio debates, but it's important to know that his 1957 film - shot around the same time as Touch of Evil - was not only shot for 1.85:1, but had hard-matted prints.

Another Welles film, F for Fake, has a lot of cramped compositions at times, but if you were to view the trailer, you'd notice a lot of footage having hard mattes. So, tightness doesn't exactly mean it's wrong.

*cough* Kubrick *cough*

Yeah, the reference was undoubtedly to Kubrick and his '57 film, Paths of Glory.

GaryC wrote:Without wishing to take this too far off topic, one Columbia release from 1957 caused censorship issues at the BBFC due to questions over its aspect ratio.

Pal Joey was shot open-matte but intended for 1.85:1. However, if you show the film full-frame, you get an inadvertent topless scene from Rita Hayworth, courtesy of a just-translucent-enough shower screen at the end of the "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" number.

There was obviously a similar potential problem with Hitchcock's Psycho. This used to be shown in open-matted Academy Ratio on UK TV except that certain shots of Janet Leigh in the shower were hard-matted to prevent her being shown topless (or maybe that she wasn't topless!)

broadwayrock wrote:TV Broadcast

This one is not from a TV broadcast, this one is from the trailer. I made these screenshots years ago for my DVD review.

While you're here (and on a slightly more positive note), what's happening with the Touch of Evil aspect ratio? AFAIK we haven't heard your take since the announcement of the new box.

Svevan wrote:While you're here (and on a slightly more positive note), what's happening with the Touch of Evil aspect ratio? AFAIK we haven't heard your take since the announcement of the new box.

I contributed to one of the commentaries (along with my friend James Naremore) and wrote a brief text about the memo at Universal's request, but they didn't either consult with me or tell me about the aspect ratio they went for. I hope they consulted with Rick Schmidlin, who's much better versed on this topic than I am, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

Is there any chance you can bust down their door and tell em who's who?

Looking forward to the DVD (and commentary) despite the 1.85 ratio.

Even if they didn't consult Schmidlin on the AR business, he's said in the past that 1.85:1 is the way to go, so unless he's changed his mind (entirely possible given the passage of six years), it wouldn't have made a difference.

davidhare wrote:He's remained insistent on 1.85, and as you are aware people like Ericksonn at DVDTalk have become offensively insistent to the point of homophobic name-calling.

Maybe I missed something, but I doubt that "misinformed flamers" were meant in that way.

He still is completely wrong, and increasingly arrogant on the subject.

This as well as Psycho (1960) will be on TCM tonight from 8PM to Midnight on the east coast. So I just thought I would give a heads up on here, because this may in fact be the new releases that are forthcoming in October.

Cold Bishop wrote:Maybe I missed something, but I doubt that "misinformed flamers" were meant in that way.

While I haven't seen the posts at hand, I think he meant "internet troll" when using "flamer".

Regarding Erickson's "misinformed flamers" comment I'm inclined to agree with bishop and chris as to its real meaning. Nevertheless I completely understand and empathize with David's feelings of offense even if it was not directed at him personally. I believe his subsequent post quite accurately describes the "professional insiders" view of us as collectively composed of "misinformed" anal retentive fanboys when in fact some of us are film professionals with years of experience in production, post-production and exhibition as well as actual film collectors, some of whom could probably date the origins of a film print by reading its edge codes at least as accurately a paleontologist carbon dates a dinosaur bone! Unfortunately we have no standing in this "insiders zone" and to make matters worse the "professionals" all to often resort to the sort of juvenile film geek oneupmanship and arrogance that we frequently get accused of.

To get back on point I continue to hope that at least the original and/or preview version gets transferred in 1:37 although all the pre-order specs I've found so far indicate widescreen only. However, as I mentioned previously, unless these versions have been digitally hard-matted then they would be ipso facto 4x3.

cdnchris wrote:

Cold Bishop wrote:Maybe I missed something, but I doubt that "misinformed flamers" were meant in that way.

While I haven't seen the posts at hand, I think he meant "internet troll" when using "flamer".

I hope no actual trolls were offended by this.

psufootball07 wrote:This as well as Psycho (1960) will be on TCM tonight from 8PM to Midnight on the east coast. So I just thought I would give a heads up on here, because this may in fact be the new releases that are forthcoming in October.

I checked out parts of it last night and wasn't too impressed with the transfer. I had only seen it on DVD years ago so I can't really recall how it looks on the current DVD.

Psycho looked absolutely beautiful on TCM last night. I'd have to check but if I remember correctly it looked alot better than the version in the Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection that was realeased I think in the 80's.

relapser wrote:Psycho looked absolutely beautiful on TCM last night. I'd have to check but if I remember correctly it looked alot better than the version in the Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection that was realeased I think in the 80's.

80s? I thought the print used in the recent dvd collection was a recent restoration.. no?

brainfart, I'm retarded. I don't think they even had DVD's in the 80s. haha. Either way, Psycho looked gorgeous on TCM.