463 Il Generale della Rovere

[TMDaines]

Why isn't it evidence of what?

[EddieLarkin]

Why isn't it evidence of what?

That Rossellini was working in widescreen around the same time. If that isn't evidence, how is it that there are some Italian 1.37:1 films from the same year evidence?

I'm struggling to find anything from 1960 though.

You don't have to go that far. Criterion released Visconti's Le notti bianche (1957) at 1.66:1. There was never a set switch over period in mainland Europe like what was seen in the US and the UK.

[TMDaines]

Why isn't it evidence of what?

That Rossellini was working in widescreen around the same time. If that isn't evidence, how is it that there are some Italian 1.37:1 films from the same year evidence?

On the basis that the genesis of Era notte a Roma came distinctly after Il generale, it was not at the same time. It was afterwards.

We know that filmmakers of this period generally changed their preferred aspect ratios around this time and began shooting in wider formats. I don't see why we should then begin to question their earlier works - at least, without having evidence to back up our claims at hand.

I'm struggling to find anything from 1960 though.

You don't have to go that far. Criterion released Visconti's Le notti bianche (1957) at 1.66:1. There was never a set switch over period in mainland Europe like what was seen in the US and the UK.

How is a 1.66:1 film from 1957, a 1.37:1 film from 1960? I was stating that was I struggling to find a 1960 1.37:1 film, but actually there is La lunga notte del '43.

My point was that it was not, seemingly, unusual for a Italian film to be crafted for 1.37:1 in 1959.

[EddieLarkin]

You were offering that films were still being shot in Italy in 1959 in 1.37:1 (something not in question) as evidence against Il Generale as 1.66:1. I was simply pointing out that 1.66:1 had existed in the country prior to Il Generale's production, and thus that your evidence was nothing of the sort. I understand that the point you were making was that it wasn't unusual for 1.37:1 films to be made at the time, but again, I wasn't disputing that. I've not said anything like, "the film is 1.66:1 because 1.37:1 was rare at the time."

As for questioning Rossellini's pre-Era notte a Roma films, I'm not doing it on a whim. imdb lists the ratio of Il Generale as 1.66:1, as does the Italian version of Wikipedia. Clearly there is a belief that the film is 1.66:1 beyond Robert Harris. So you investigate on that basis. Looking at screencaps of Il Generale and saying they look fine at 1.66:1 is indeed worth nothing. Looking at them in tandem with his early 50s Bergman films, and noting the very obvious difference in protection, is worth... something.

[TMDaines]

You were offering that films were still being shot in Italy in 1959 in 1.37:1 (something not in question) as evidence against Il Generale as 1.66:1. I was simply pointing out that 1.66:1 had existed in the country prior to Il Generale's production, and thus that your evidence was nothing of the sort.

I was offering it on the basis that 1.37:1 was common for Italian films in 1959. The fact that it is 1.37:1 does not need to arouse suspicion therefore. It's completely irrelevant that wider formats already existed in Italy. It's a given, I don't think anyone would be under the impression they didn't exist.

for questioning Rossellini's earlier films, I'm not doing it on a whim. imdb lists the ratio as 1.66:1, as does the Italian version of Wikipedia.

I think the majority of people would consider going off two publicly editable sites a bit of a whim. Anyone can submit information to IMDb and Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not it is appropriately sourced, evidenced and referenced. Neither site lists a source for this information. What do the most knowledgable Rossellini scholars say? The links of Gallagher, Aprà and Bondanella? Tag Gallagher is one of the most approachable film scholars I know. He posts here regularly, so send him a PM and let's see what he says. That's a starting point. I'm genuinely interested to find out the truth too and haven't got a horse in this race.

Oh look, one of those two said sites now lists Il generale as 1.37:1.

[EddieLarkin]

The fact that it is 1.37:1 does not need to arouse suspicion therefore.

The fact an Italian film from 1959 has been released in 1.37:1 is not what has aroused my suspicion, as I clarified above.

I think the majority of people would consider going off two publicly editable sites a bit of a whim. Anyone can submit information to IMDb and Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not it is appropriately sourced, evidenced and referenced. Neither site lists a source for this information.
...
Oh look, now only one of those two said sites now lists Il generale as 1.66:1.

Are you suggesting that people randomly go around imdb and wikipedia and falsify aspect ratio information for the fun of it (other than people like yourself, I mean )?

For the record, I'm not saying Il Generale is 1.66:1 because imdb says it is. Hell, I'm not even saying the film IS 1.66:1. I'm just saying there is evidence to question it.

I'll try and send Tag a PM tonight when I'm at home.

[MichaelB]

. imdb lists the ratio of Il Generale as 1.66:1, as does the Italian version of Wikipedia. Clearly there is a belief that the film is 1.66:1 beyond Robert Harris.

The IMDB is frequently wrong (in my experience, so often that I would never use it as my sole source of aspect ratio info), and Wikipedia often simply parrots the IMDB - I've encountered plenty of cases in the past where both have reproduced the same demonstrable factual errors.

So if I was producing this release, I'd need much stronger evidence before I'd consider cropping the image, especially since far more authoritative sources say 1.37:1.

[MichaelB]

.

[EddieLarkin]

Of course, I'm completely aware of that Michael. imdb is often wrong in my experience as well. As I've tried to make clear, I'm not suggesting it is evidence. But clearly there is a belief out there, before RAH said anything, that this film is 1.66:1. So that's why I'm trying to find out if it's the case.

[TMDaines]

[Are you suggesting that people randomly go around imdb and wikipedia and falsify aspect ratio information for the fun of it (other than people like yourself, I mean )?

For the record, I'm not saying Il Generale is 1.66:1 because imdb says it is. Hell, I'm not even saying the film IS 1.66:1. I'm just saying there is evidence to question it.

I'll try and send Tag a PM tonight when I'm at home.

I PM'd Tag already, as I'm interested to find out too.

I wasn't suggesting that you changed the entries on the sites, but they simply aren't reliable sources. I use both sites (especially Italian Wikipedia for Italian films) as they're fantastic for quick reference, but I would never place too much stock in them if evidence points to the contrary and there no references available. I've edited dozens, if not hundreds, of clearly incorrect entries on IMDb that have never been changed since. People can often post with best intentions but simply be wrong and the original entry never gets changed, as it gets little footfall due to being a niche film.

[EddieLarkin]

especially since far more authoritative sources say 1.37:1.

There is a difference between a source saying something, and explaining something. Clearly Adriano Apra believes the film is 1.37:1. But if I were to ask him why he believes this to be case, what would his answer be? Would he produce historical documentation (he is a historian, right?), like say, Rossellini's storyboards, which show his compositions in 1.37:1? Or documents from Rossellini and other members of the production discussing the AR, making mention of it being 1.37:1? Because if he did, obviously I'd be satisfied on the fact. But if he simply said "just because", or "because all films from this period were 1.37:1, everyone knows that", well, I'd be less than satisfied.

[MichaelB]

I wasn't suggesting that you changed the entries on the sites, but they simply aren't reliable sources. I use both sites (especially Italian Wikipedia for Italian films) as they're fantastic for quick reference, but I would never place too much stock in them if evidence points to the contrary and there no references available. I've edited dozens, if not hundreds, of clearly incorrect entries on IMDb that have never been changed since. People can often post with best intentions but simply be wrong and the original entry never gets changed, as it gets little footfall due to being a niche film.

I fired a Screenonline contributor (or, more accurately, chose not to commission freelance work from him again) because after more than one request that he stop parroting IMDB info without cross-checking with a more authoritative source, he carried on doing it.

Sadly, this laziness is endemic, which means that a mistake in the IMDB can often spread like the proverbial wildfire before someone with the time to do the necessary research fixes the error. And because individual IMDB data entries are anonymous, there's no way of knowing what the source was - it could just be someone guessing "well, all Rossellini's other films from this period are 1.66:1, so this one must be as well". We simply don't know.

With regard to the future Arrow Academy release that may be in two aspect ratios (I won't identify it yet because the final decision hasn't yet been made), I had a pretty strong impression merely from watching the film that it had been composed with more than one ratio in mind, but I needed rock-solid evidence that this wasn't just a whim on my part, and preferably from more than one source. Handily, Bob Furmanek was able to dig up two cuttings from different publications appearing at different times, accompanied by other supporting evidence of why the director/DOP had shot the film like this in the first place. This was good enough for me - but I needed to reach that stage before I started involving the technical guys, because at that point you start spending money.

[EddieLarkin]

Bob is always very accommodating with such information, even when you're just asking out of curiousity. I know that when it comes to DVD producers needing information to make a release better, he's always happy to help. Indeed, he's always voiced his disappointment when a disc, especially from a boutique label, is released in 4x3 when he has to hand documentation proving it was composed for widescreen, which he'd have happily shared if someone had contacted him.

And that's exactly my point about using experts as a source. I doubt you'd have been impressed Michael, if Bob's help was nothing more than a statement one way or the other. Experts are useful because they have access to rare materials, and/or a vast and informed knowledge of a particular subject. Hopefully Tag or someone else equally qualified can help in regards to Il Generale.

[MichaelB]

Bob is always very accommodating with such information, even when you're just asking out of curiousity. I know that when it comes to DVD producers needing information to make a release better, he's always happy to help. Indeed, he's always voiced his disappointment when a disc, especially from a boutique label, is released in 4x3 when he has to hand documentation proving it was composed for widescreen, which he'd have happily shared if someone had contacted him.

And that's exactly my point about using experts as a source. I doubt you'd have been impressed Michael, if Bob's help was nothing more than a statement one way or the other. Experts are useful because they have access to rare materials, and/or a vast and informed knowledge of a particular subject. Hopefully Tag or someone else equally qualified can help in regards to Il Generale.

I certainly wouldn't have taken Bob's word for it on its own, no. But in this case Bob's word was accompanied by cuttings from trade papers of the time, which was more than sufficient (especially since the evidence appeared in two distinct forms, making it possible to explain why the film legitimately has two aspect ratios).

Basically, in every Arrow Academy booklet (or at least the ones personally overseen by me), I include a one or two-page 'Projectionist's Note' in which I explain, with checkable references where necessary, why we've chosen to present the film in this particular form. With The Long Goodbye this was very straightforward as there's absolutely no doubt what the correct aspect ratio of an early 1970s film shot through Panavision anamorphic lenses should be, but with The Night of the Hunter I took the opportunity to directly address the issue of aspect ratios from 1.37:1 to 1.85:1 and was able to cite Robert Gitt as an unimpeachable source. In this case I didn't need independent references because Gitt probably has more directly hands-on knowledge of the actual footage than anyone else alive - including careful study of all the rushes, not just the ones that made it into his documentary.

[tag gallagher]

Regarding Il generale Della Rovere's aspect ratio, in my opinion 1.37 is clearly wrong. There is far far too much empty head room, which severely weakens the movie. I also consider it unlikely that it would have been projected in theaters in 1.37 in 1959-60. But my opinion is based mostly on my experience of the 1.37 version, not on historical evidence.

Against my opinion, there is one shot of a mirror reflection whose clever composition would be partly nullified if the upper frame were cropped off. This could be cited as evidence that Rossellini (or his cameraman) was thinking in terms of 1.37. But every other shot in the film could be cited as evidence that they were thinking in terms of 1.66 or whatever (I haven't experimented with cropping to see which specific ratio works 1.6, 1.7, 1.8).

Prior to the Criterion release, I objected to the 1.37 ratio, but Criterion (as I understood, perhaps wrongly) thought that going to 1.66 would require an entire new video mastering in Italy and, as Criterion's release was already announced, was reluctant to invest the time and money that would have been necessary. I then suggested that an optional black mask be offered (working like a subtitle), but this was rejected as sloppy.

I do not know if Adriano Aprà has an opinion. But he is absolutely not trustworthy is such matters. It is thanks to him that the Italian edition of Rossellini's INDIA was restored and released with the last two minutes chopped off.

[MichaelB]

Since Criterion worked from a high-definition master (presumably 2K), there shouldn't be any technical reason why they couldn't have produced a perfectly acceptable anamorphic 1.66:1 DVD.

[TMDaines]

Cheers Tag, interesting reading as always. I haven't seen the film for about 12 months, but 1.37:1 never struck me as obviously wrong, in terms of the framing. As I said above, there are quite a few Italian films of that period still crafted in 1.37:1, it seems, so historically it doesn't look too out of place.

I'm wondering if Rossellini was perhaps working for both. This was his first feature in five years and the zoom was the gimmick he started using here. The documentary he had just made prior was still in 1.33:1. Considering the rushed production of Il generale, I can envision a director being reluctant to jump into something new to him?

[EddieLarkin]

Thank you for your post Tag. I won't pretend that it doesn't feel nice to be partially vindicated, since I'm sure most here will take your opinion on the AR very seriously. I'm just glad this debate was able to stay polite and reasoned. I've enquired with Bob about any documentation relating to the way the film was presented in the U.S. in 1960. If any is forthcoming I'll share it here.

Basically, in every Arrow Academy booklet (or at least the ones personally overseen by me), I include a one or two-page 'Projectionist's Note' in which I explain, with checkable references where necessary, why we've chosen to present the film in this particular form. With The Long Goodbye this was very straightforward as there's absolutely no doubt what the correct aspect ratio of an early 1970s film shot through Panavision anamorphic lenses should be, but with The Night of the Hunter I took the opportunity to directly address the issue of aspect ratios from 1.37:1 to 1.85:1 and was able to cite Robert Gitt as an unimpeachable source. In this case I didn't need independent references because Gitt probably has more directly hands-on knowledge of the actual footage than anyone else alive - including careful study of all the rushes, not just the ones that made it into his documentary.

And such write ups are much appreciated Michael, I'm glad more and more boutique labels include them. Out of interest, if you have it to hand would you be able to share with us your write up on the AR in the Hunter booklet? I already have the Criterion Blu, and so unfortunately couldn't ever justify a purchase of the Arrow release.

[tag gallagher]

Cheers Tag, interesting reading as always. I haven't seen the film for about 12 months, but 1.37:1 never struck me as obviously wrong, in terms of the framing. As I said above, there are quite a few Italian films of that period still crafted in 1.37:1, it seems, so historically it doesn't look too out of place.

I'm wondering if Rossellini was perhaps working for both. This was his first feature in five years and the zoom was the gimmick he started using here. The documentary he had just made prior was still in 1.33:1. Considering the rushed production of Il generale, I can envision a director being reluctant to jump into something new to him?

No moviemaker I know of was so eternally eager to jump into anything new to him.

In the U.S., except for art houses, is was unusual to see a movie projected at 1.37 in the U.S. after 1954. I don't believe Europe was so far behind the U.S. that 1.37 would still have been a norm in 1960.

But just as there were reasons in the U.S. to produce 1.37 negs which were intended to be cropped in projection, particularly in 16mm, so too in Italy, where there were thousands of 3rd-run parochial (parish) operations which had old equipment, plus there was tv.

In any case, the question, to repeat, is not historical but aesthetic. There is a huge amount of empty head space throughout the movie at 1.37; you cannot find any prior Rossellini movie with such immense quantities of empty acreage. It's absurd. Tighter framing would heighten the dynamics of the compositions, and of the movie itself.

[EddieLarkin]

but 1.37:1 never struck me as obviously wrong, in terms of the framing.

This I think is the reason why these debates become so heated, because one side sees nothing wrong, and others see everything wrong. I don't think I can demonstrate how I see (the caps) of Il Generale more simply than the following:

http://i.imgur.com/Qc49BGC.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The top 3 caps are the first ones found in the Blu-ray.com of Journey to Italy. The bottom 3 are from the Il Generale review. Both have an estimated 1.66:1 top line placed on them. I haven't cherry picked from either review, they're just the first few mid-shots, and thus just as randomly selected as each other. I think the most important thing that separates the two films, AR wise, is blindingly obvious.

I'm wondering if Rossellini was perhaps working for both. This was his first feature in five years and the zoom was the gimmick he started using here. The documentary he had just made prior was still in 1.33:1. Considering the rushed production of Il generale, I can envision a director being reluctant to jump into something new to him?

It would certainly make sense, since the film would have probably played many venues, at least across Europe, in 1.37:1. After all, you're not seeing mics or other equipment in the 1.37:1 version. Clearly it was protected for 1.37:1 exhibition as well. I wouldn't object at all to Raro having included an open matte presentation as an alternative on their disc. But I feel 1.66:1 should have taken precedent.

[TMDaines]

I was just looking for the film on youtube to play around with and I noticed that Minerva (i.e. Raro) in Italy posted a trailer as such in a wider format.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvDQj37tvMo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[swo17]

Thank you for your post Tag. I won't pretend that it doesn't feel nice to be partially vindicated, since I'm sure most here will take your opinion on the AR very seriously.

Except we shouldn't conflate the windowboxing issue with the AR one. Granted, if the transfer had been presented in widescreen, there wouldn't have been any windowboxing, but given that Raro went with the same ratio that everyone else has, I'd call them all more or less comparable, other than the higher resolution afforded by Blu-ray.

[MichaelB]

Out of interest, if you have it to hand would you be able to share with us your write up on the AR in the Hunter booklet? I already have the Criterion Blu, and so unfortunately couldn't ever justify a purchase of the Arrow release.

Here you go.

[EddieLarkin]

Thank you for your post Tag. I won't pretend that it doesn't feel nice to be partially vindicated, since I'm sure most here will take your opinion on the AR very seriously.

Except we shouldn't conflate the windowboxing issue with the AR one. Granted, if the transfer had been presented in widescreen, there wouldn't have been any windowboxing, but given that Raro went with the same ratio that everyone else has, I'd call them all more or less comparable, other than the higher resolution afforded by Blu-ray.

Of course, and as I made clear to Svet, it is not my intention to conflate the two. But as you point out, and as I said some posts ago (it may have been over on HTF, actually), if you're going to windowbox a film due to concerns regarding overscan, at least make sure the film isn't a widescreen one!

As for that trailer Daines, it's really peculiar that Minerva have put that up and then gone with 1.37:1 on their DVD. Especially since it is precisely 1.66:1, rather than a 16x9 crop for purposes of a trailer, which often happens (Criterion's 3 Reasons vids, for instance). I wonder if the trailer is on the disc, and if it too is in 1.66:1? Perhaps they had a 1.66:1 master prepared, but got cold feet?

Here you go.

Much appreciated! The caps demonstrate your point well. I'll be sure to be on the lookout for other moments like that next time I watch.

[MichaelB]

Looking at those caps again, it's obvious that 1.85:1 is too tight at the bottom of the frame as well - the bed forms a significant part of the composition in 1.66:1, but has been almost cropped out of the picture in 1.85:1. So even if you adjusted the framing upwards or downwards, you'd still end up with something that doesn't look quite right.