Question:
I'm having an argument with one of my Uni lecturers. In an editing seminar we were talking about composition, and I raised the issue of films being cropped for TV, VHS and occasionally DVD. Everyone agreed that wide is best. However, when I started talking about open-matte transfers, they all went quiet and started eyeing me strangely. My lecturer then complained that when Eyes Wide Shut was shown recently on C5, they advertised it at the beginning as being OAR, but proceeded to show it "fullscreen". I told him that this was the correct AR, or rather the preferred AR as far as Kubrick was concerned. He wants proof, as do the rest of the class. I know I'm right, but quoting a few posts from these forums isn't necessarily the best way to convince them. Does anyone have a link to an article about this issue?
Have you had a look on imdb?
If you have a look here (http://uk.imdb.com/Technical?0120663), you will see that the negative ration of the film is 1.37:1. The film was basically cropped to make it 1.85:1 for the cinema release.
Bamse: Yes, that's what the "open matte" process is. It's a process that many directors use, and has become far more common than "widescreen-only" formats.
However, it gives no proof about WHY Kubrick prefers the matte to be left open.
I'm sure it must have been an interview, published in a magazine or a book or something, where Kubrick discussed his preference for 4:3. We all know his preference, but hardly anybody knows where he said it! We all know that he liked the 4:3 frame because he personally believed it was more versatile and dynamic than wider ratios. So he filmed his later films in open matte, so that they could grudginly be shown in widescreen at cinemas, but then the matte could be left open for video release.
We just need to find the quote!
there's an interview here (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/kubrick/vitaliinterview.html) with Leon Vitali (one of Kubrick's staff - who also supervised the DVD transfers), which discusses aspect ratios a bit.
EDIT: also another with the same guy here (http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html)
Leon Vitali wasn't just "one of Kubrick's staff", he was Kubrick's full-time PA for nearly two decades - and personally responsible for supervising the video transfers of all Kubrick's films both in the 1980s and more recently for the DVDs and making sure that Kubrick's express wishes with regard to aspect ratios were carried out (which continues to this day - hence the 4:3 aspect ratios and relative paucity of extras).
Another of his jobs was monitoring the presentation of his films in cinemas - I used to book Kubrick films reasonably regularly, and I've had one or two telephone conversations with Mr Vitali as a result of reports from spies sent to our screenings!
He was very nice - I got the impression that our presentation was usually spot on but the prints were often less than wonderful, so he'd ring to find out where we'd got them from. Unfortunately, the upshot was usually the mysterious withdrawal of certain titles - most notoriously (and annoyingly) the only distribution print of <I>Paths of Glory</I>, meaning we couldn't show it any more!
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/kubrick/vitaliinterview.html
Extract from interview with Leon Vitali back in 2001...
Bill Hunt: ...our understanding is that there were only three Kubrick films that were intended to be seen in a widescreen aspect ratio...
Leon Vitali: Correct. There was Spartacus and 2001. And then there was Lolita, which was 1.66. The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted.
Not directly from the mouth of the great man himself - but certainly credible enough for a lecturer who is unfamiliar with Kubrick.
EDIT: Just noticed this has already been posted. Brain not working properly. Time for bed methinks.
SithLordSi
As well as citing all that right and proper evidence listed above it's a well known fact that most lecturers are full of bs and you shouldn't worry too much about their opinion or that you might bruise their fragile little ego.
You know that old saying; "those who can't, teach" - sorry if that's harsh but in my experience it's very, very true (especially where film / media is concerned).
Lecturers maybe full of BS but it will serve you well to be friends with all your lecturers ... well at least not try and prove him to be a dunce. :)
ah true! I don't mean "make them look fools" just to be aware that they probably are!
Failing that a blowjob goes a long way! ;)
I'M KIDDING!!!!!!:D
It is surprising how many times this debate turns up.. even on hometheaterforum you still get posts saying "Why can't we have a widescreen transfer of FMJ"... and "Why can't we have the OAR and Directors preferred AR on these DVD's"...
People can't understand that whereas normally director's compromise their art for it to shown on home video (altered AR etc)... Kubrick's work was compromised by cinemas being unable to show his films as he would like...
I believe he was so upset with the cropping of ACO (or was it The Shining) that he then shot 1.37:1 and composed with a "safe area" at 1.85:1... in exactly the same way as Speilberg et al shooting at 1.85:1 with a "safe area" at 1.37:1 allowing for open matte on video.
So the confusion arises because Kubrick woks in the reverse way to other director's with regard to open matte...
As for proof... I don't believe you will get actual factual proof from any Kubrick interview and he ain't doing them anymore... Leon Vitali's interviews however are as good as getting the info from Kubrick himself.
Originally posted by Richie
Failing that a blowjob goes a long way
C+
Must try harder.
This thread raises an interesting point about composition of the frame when you know that in most instances the film will be shown in a different format to the one intended.
How challenging must it have been for Kubrick to have to compose shots in 4:3 so that no essential information was lost when projected at 1:85. Also, a perfectly composed shot in the former ratio may look a complete mess in the latter, so what do you do? Do you compromise and compose for both as best as possible?
Either way, I am strong supporter of Directors who take an interest in the exhibition of their films (although as a former arts cinema manager/programmer it could be a real pain at times) and find it incredible that the majority express no interest at all in this part of the film's life.
Answers:
Have you had a look on imdb?
Answers:
If you have a look here (http://uk.imdb.com/Technical?0120663), you will see that the negative ration of the film is 1.37:1. The film was basically cropped to make it 1.85:1 for the cinema release.
Answers:
Bamse: Yes, that's what the "open matte" process is. It's a process that many directors use, and has become far more common than "widescreen-only" formats.
However, it gives no proof about WHY Kubrick prefers the matte to be left open.
I'm sure it must have been an interview, published in a magazine or a book or something, where Kubrick discussed his preference for 4:3. We all know his preference, but hardly anybody knows where he said it! We all know that he liked the 4:3 frame because he personally believed it was more versatile and dynamic than wider ratios. So he filmed his later films in open matte, so that they could grudginly be shown in widescreen at cinemas, but then the matte could be left open for video release.
We just need to find the quote!
Answers:
there's an interview here (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/kubrick/vitaliinterview.html) with Leon Vitali (one of Kubrick's staff - who also supervised the DVD transfers), which discusses aspect ratios a bit.
EDIT: also another with the same guy here (http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html)
Answers:
Leon Vitali wasn't just "one of Kubrick's staff", he was Kubrick's full-time PA for nearly two decades - and personally responsible for supervising the video transfers of all Kubrick's films both in the 1980s and more recently for the DVDs and making sure that Kubrick's express wishes with regard to aspect ratios were carried out (which continues to this day - hence the 4:3 aspect ratios and relative paucity of extras).
Another of his jobs was monitoring the presentation of his films in cinemas - I used to book Kubrick films reasonably regularly, and I've had one or two telephone conversations with Mr Vitali as a result of reports from spies sent to our screenings!
He was very nice - I got the impression that our presentation was usually spot on but the prints were often less than wonderful, so he'd ring to find out where we'd got them from. Unfortunately, the upshot was usually the mysterious withdrawal of certain titles - most notoriously (and annoyingly) the only distribution print of <I>Paths of Glory</I>, meaning we couldn't show it any more!
Answers:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/kubrick/vitaliinterview.html
Extract from interview with Leon Vitali back in 2001...
Bill Hunt: ...our understanding is that there were only three Kubrick films that were intended to be seen in a widescreen aspect ratio...
Leon Vitali: Correct. There was Spartacus and 2001. And then there was Lolita, which was 1.66. The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted.
Not directly from the mouth of the great man himself - but certainly credible enough for a lecturer who is unfamiliar with Kubrick.
EDIT: Just noticed this has already been posted. Brain not working properly. Time for bed methinks.
Answers:
SithLordSi
As well as citing all that right and proper evidence listed above it's a well known fact that most lecturers are full of bs and you shouldn't worry too much about their opinion or that you might bruise their fragile little ego.
You know that old saying; "those who can't, teach" - sorry if that's harsh but in my experience it's very, very true (especially where film / media is concerned).
Answers:
Lecturers maybe full of BS but it will serve you well to be friends with all your lecturers ... well at least not try and prove him to be a dunce. :)
Answers:
ah true! I don't mean "make them look fools" just to be aware that they probably are!
Failing that a blowjob goes a long way! ;)
I'M KIDDING!!!!!!:D
Answers:
It is surprising how many times this debate turns up.. even on hometheaterforum you still get posts saying "Why can't we have a widescreen transfer of FMJ"... and "Why can't we have the OAR and Directors preferred AR on these DVD's"...
People can't understand that whereas normally director's compromise their art for it to shown on home video (altered AR etc)... Kubrick's work was compromised by cinemas being unable to show his films as he would like...
I believe he was so upset with the cropping of ACO (or was it The Shining) that he then shot 1.37:1 and composed with a "safe area" at 1.85:1... in exactly the same way as Speilberg et al shooting at 1.85:1 with a "safe area" at 1.37:1 allowing for open matte on video.
So the confusion arises because Kubrick woks in the reverse way to other director's with regard to open matte...
As for proof... I don't believe you will get actual factual proof from any Kubrick interview and he ain't doing them anymore... Leon Vitali's interviews however are as good as getting the info from Kubrick himself.
Answers:
Originally posted by Richie
Failing that a blowjob goes a long way
C+
Must try harder.
Answers:
This thread raises an interesting point about composition of the frame when you know that in most instances the film will be shown in a different format to the one intended.
How challenging must it have been for Kubrick to have to compose shots in 4:3 so that no essential information was lost when projected at 1:85. Also, a perfectly composed shot in the former ratio may look a complete mess in the latter, so what do you do? Do you compromise and compose for both as best as possible?
Either way, I am strong supporter of Directors who take an interest in the exhibition of their films (although as a former arts cinema manager/programmer it could be a real pain at times) and find it incredible that the majority express no interest at all in this part of the film's life.
1 2