criterionforum.org

A preview of our upcoming article: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/shane-in-widescreen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you to our good friend, Leonard Maltin: http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmalti ... ieand-more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HerrSchreck wrote:@eddie
You need to watch the films first, pull a scene that you think was clearly shot for widescreen, and start a dialog. I can't answer your question because I've truly never thought about what you just said, and I've seen all of woods films at least fifty times. Why are you taking sides when you haven't seen a single film first?
Watch them, see them in motion, and if you have a desire to discuss them, please do?

HerrSchreck wrote:@eddie
I'm not trying to deny you your right to converse on a subject, but it's tough enough to get at the truth when discussing this with folks who really know the films. My point is its tough to accept your standpoint of advocacy when you haven't seen the films. Seen them move, felt them breathe, get a sense of how the strengths and weaknesses of the makers exhibit themselves over an extended runtime.
Then I'd be more willing at least to get into this hairy sliver widescreen discussion with you, at least more substantively.

I know that you nor anyone else here really wants to have this debate, and I apologise for reviving this thread, but I recently watched Ed's first 5 films and Burton's Ed Wood, and now feel qualified to state my own opinion. But by all means, no response is necessary.

Plan 9 from Outer Space and Night of the Ghouls are clearly composed for widescreen. Glen or Glenda? and Jail Bait are clearly not. Bride of the Monster probably is, going by the time it was made and all that, but I don't feel like I can say definitively because the presentation I was watching (the old Image DVD) is apparently zoomed and cropped already, before adding any of my own cropping. The Legend Films disc is apparently even worse. Still, the film mostly plays okay in wide, regardless. Have a look at these caps:

Ed Wood's 1.85:1 Films

Ed Wood's 1.37:1 Films

All of them are from 4x3 sources, cropped to 16x9. Note how the films in the first image lose nothing of serious importance when matted to widescreen. Heads are not clipped, nor are titles. Compare to the other image, where whole faces are shorn off, and titles clipped. If all of Ed Wood's filmed were composed for 1.37:1, why is there such a major change in the style of image composition between the two groups? If not the industry wide change to widescreen, why does Thompson suddenly become conscience of keeping everything safe, in the centre of the shot?

I know these are only caps, but since I've seen the films now, I believe they generally represent how all 5 of the films crop to 16x9 throughout their run times (with the exception of Bride of Monster, see above)

FilmmakerIQ has a wonderful 18-minute video primer on aspect ratios. If you teach any sort of intro to film course, it would be an excellent thing to show your students. I know similar things have run on TCM and been included on DVDs over the years, but this is by far the best one I've seen.

Orlac wrote:I'm 100% convinced Plan 9 is meant to be widescreen.

For what it's worth, I saw "Plan 9" in a revival theater several years ago, and it was projected at 1.85:1 -- and it looked fine. Surprisingly fine, actually, especially after years of seeing it in open-matte 1.33:1; but widescreen it was.

Has this been posted yet?

That was... actually funny! Thanks for sharing

MadTV is so underrated.

Did anyone besides me see "Breathless" in a revival house back in the 1970s or '80s? I ask because I seem to remember watching it in widescreen (1.66), rather than academy ratio. I know it's understood that Godard and Coutard want the film to be screened at 1.37:1, but did they not protect for widescreen, as well? While most, if not all, art theaters in 1960 must have been equipped for 1.37 projection, I'd think the filmmakers would have protected for a wider aspect ratio, just to be on the safe side. I know I'm going back 30 years, but I honestly recall "Breathless" looking distinctly wider than it does now on DVD/Blu -- without any heads being chopped off, either. Does anyone else remember it this way, too?

david hare wrote:Breathless was inexplicably BANNED by the Oz censor circa 1961 and was totally unavailable here until some time around 1970 when I was first able to see it!!

Perhaps the Australian censor's thoughts ran along the lines of Bosley Crowther's, in his Feb. 8, 1961 NY Times review:

...sordid is really a mild word for its pile-up of gross indecencies... this is not a movie for the kids or for that easily shockable individual... It is emphatically, unrestrainedly vicious, completely devoid of moral tone, concerned mainly with eroticism and the restless drives of a cruel young punk to get along.

david hare wrote:I have never seen it in Paris or NYC or London in anything other than 1.37. It was simply never made to be projected in any other ratio.

So, David, you don't think Coutard protected for widescreen, at all? Even at a time when, reportedly, some cinemas were showing everything that way, regardless of the filmmakers' intentions? Interesting...

Fred Holywell wrote:While most, if not all, art theaters in 1960 must have been equipped for 1.37 projection,

The 35 mm projector for 1,37:1, 1,66:1 or 1,85:1 and for 2,35:1 is the same. The film stock is also the same.

The 1,66:1 and 1,85;1 aspect ratio was usually done by masking the 1,37:1 negative. So it was the decision of the projectionist if he masks a film ot not, and which mask he uses. I'm sure a lot of films were wrongly masked in the theatres. I just watched recently Singin in the Rain in a Cineplex masked to 1,85:1. It loooked horrible with lots of heads chopped up.

I certainly can't recall seeing it in anything other than 1.37:1, and I'm all but certain that that's how we projected it.

Fred Holywell wrote: So, David, you don't think Coutard protected for widescreen, at all? Even at a time when, reportedly, some cinemas were showing everything that way, regardless of the filmmakers' intentions? Interesting...

The concept doesn't make any sense to me. If you're making a movie during the post-widescreen era, but for whatever reason you decide to compose for 1.37:1, but then also "protect" it for widescreen showings, you're no longer composing for 1.37:1. You're leaving a ton of headroom in every shot that you wouldn't be leaving otherwise, and your film no longer looks like 1.37:1. It looks like an open matte widescreen film. You can protect for open matte when composing widescreen, because the widescreen presentation isn't compromised in any way. But it simply doesn't work the other way around.

And for that matter, Breathless doesn't even look like it has excessive headroom anyway. It looks 1.37:1. I believe Coutard himself has stated that it was shot for 1.37:1, as were all of Godard's black and white New Wave films. Only his colour films are wide (this rule even applies to his non-anamorphic colour films, La Chinoise and Weekend, both of which are 1.66:1).

So, no, I'd say the presentation you saw was just incorrect.

How were Golden Age Disney animations screened in the Seventies and Eighties? I saw Dumbo - on a double bill with The Spaceman and King Arthur - but I was 9 and can't remember the ratio. Did they used to crop? Or did they 'windowbox' the image on the actual celluloid, so that it would still play at 1.37 even when projected through a 1.75 or 1.85 aperture?

As for Godard, I suspect the scene in Masculin Feminin, where J-P Leaud tells off a projectionist for showing a film at the wrong ratio, was the maestro's swipe at cinemas that had shown Breathless and A Bande cropped.

david hare wrote:It is inconceivible to me in anything other than 1.37.

Try harder, David.

david hare wrote:Why would he bother when this was their first feature...

First feature or last, it was made and released in the widescreen era, that's why.

david hare wrote:Why don't you ask about his other Academy ratio pictures or his varied ratio pictures which quote and explore the whole history of the cinema.

Later, David, later...

david hare wrote:A bout in widescreen is a total dead end.

Not necessarily.

I don't understand why this argument is even happening. Even if Coutard "protected for widescreen"—which so far I have seen zero evidence for—the notion that the film was composed in and intended for academy ratio is well known and has never, ever been remotely controversial. There is no conceivable reason to watch it any other way. Why harp on this?

Hey cool, now it's my turn to provide actual evidence, from Cahiers du Cinema Issue 138, December 1962:

Jean-Luc Godard wrote:With Une Femme est Une Femme I also discovered 'Scope. I think it is the normal ratio and 1.33 an arbitrary one. This is why I like 1.33-- because it is arbitrary. 'Scope, on the other hand, is a ratio in which you can shoot anything. 1.33 isn't, but is extraordinary. 1.66 is worthless. I don't like the intermediate ratios. I thought of using 'Scope for Vivre sa Vie but didn't because it is too emotional. 1.33 is harder, more severe. I'm sorry though that I didn't use 'Scope for A Bout de Souffle. That's my only regret.

Transcription mine (it's right in front of me) and emphasis as well

Wow, Fred, so detailed and informative.

Fred Holywell wrote:

david hare wrote:It is inconceivible to me in anything other than 1.37.

Try harder, David.

david hare wrote:Why would he bother ["protecting for widescreen"] when this was their first feature...

First feature or last, it was made and released in the widescreen era, that's why.

Would you say the same thing about the way that all the Academy ratio Japanese films of the late '50s and early '60s were composed too? Or other national cinemas and filmmakers that didn't embrace widescreen in the same way Hollywood did? If it's as just as simple as "the widescreen era" then I wonder how far you'd run with that line of thinking.

RossyG wrote:How were Golden Age Disney animations screened in the Seventies and Eighties? I saw Dumbo - on a double bill with The Spaceman and King Arthur - but I was 9 and can't remember the ratio. Did they used to crop? Or did they 'windowbox' the image on the actual celluloid, so that it would still play at 1.37 even when projected through a 1.75 or 1.85 aperture?

Up to the 80s, they were cropped - or rather a widescreen image (up to 1.85:1 presumably) was achieved by creating a print where the image was moved up or down to minimise the cropping. The same was done with Gone With the Wind, which I first saw at my local cinema in a widescreen reissue print circa 1983.

Disney didn't start windowboxing their pre-1953 animated features until the 1990s. I saw a reissue of The Aristocats in 1.37:1 windowboxed to 1.85:1 in that decade - a film from 1970, which would have been composed for widescreen in the first place.

Kirkinson wrote:Even if Coutard "protected for widescreen"—which so far I have seen zero evidence for—the notion that the film was composed in and intended for academy ratio is well known and has never, ever been remotely controversial. There is no conceivable reason to watch it any other way. Why harp on this?

You're right, I (we?) shouldn't harp on this. But it shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand, either. Better to present proof that the filmmakers didn't 'protect for widescreen' -- or, rather, that they did. So far, I haven't seen hard evidence either way, and I include myself in that. I 'recalled' seeing "Breathless", many years ago, projected in widescreen, and wondered if anyone else here had seen it that way. Subsequently, I was told by someone (off board), whom I trust on these matters, that Coutard did, in fact, protect for widescreen -- because widescreen was the main exhibition format of the day, and that if filmmakers didn't protect for widescreen by that time "they would have been foolish" as he said, "but it just didn't happen". That person is supposedly going to supply me with screencaps to bolster that contention. When I get them, I'll put some of them up and let it go at that. Okay? (I realize that screencaps aren't the best evidence when trying to determine how a film may have been shot. But, barring an original 35mm print of "Breathless", it's the best I'll probably have.)

david hare wrote:This is just a time waster and at worse it's dangerously close to baiting. You and now DH with that very precise quote from the horse's mouth should put this to bed.

David, I just saw this... like you, I've been on this board a long time (over ten years), and have never, to the best of my knowledge, ever baited anyone. I think I have a tendency to get playful, at times, but I certainly don't mean to bait you or anyone else -- and apologize if I gave that impression. As I just posted, I'd like to put up some pertinent screencaps when I get them, and will let it go at that. Then, as far as I'm concerned, we can move on to other things. I may have missed the "precise quote" you mention, but will go back and check that.

What is the point of this discussion? À bout de souffle was unarguably shot in Academy and clearly intended to be projected that way. There's never been the slightest dispute about this as far as I'm aware.

Just look at the trailer - I daresay there are one or two shots that might match Fred's (allegedly) "pertinent screencaps", but there are plenty of others that only make sense in Academy.

Anyway, if you're desperate to watch a bastardised widescreen version, presumably your TV lets you zoom the picture into 14:9 or 16:9?

MichaelB wrote:What is the point of this discussion? À bout de souffle was unarguably shot in Academy and clearly intended to be projected that way. There's never been the slightest dispute about this as far as I'm aware.

Just look at the trailer - I daresay there are one or two shots that might match Fred's (allegedly) "pertinent screencaps", but there are plenty of others that only make sense in Academy.

Anyway, if you're desperate to watch a bastardised widescreen version, presumably your TV lets you zoom the picture into 14:9 or 16:9?

I think the Godard comment that he only liked Academy or scope wraps this one up nicely.

Jean-Luc Godard wrote:With Une Femme est Une Femme I also discovered 'Scope. I think it is the normal ratio and 1.33 an arbitrary one. This is why I like 1.33-- because it is arbitrary. 'Scope, on the other hand, is a ratio in which you can shoot anything. 1.33 isn't, but is extraordinary. 1.66 is worthless. I don't like the intermediate ratios. I thought of using 'Scope for Vivre sa Vie but didn't because it is too emotional. 1.33 is harder, more severe. I'm sorry though that I didn't use 'Scope for A Bout de Souffle. That's my only regret.

I know this Godard quote you bring up, domino. Despite not liking it, it seems that he did work at least twice in an intermediate ratio: 1.85 on "RoGoPag" and "Le Plus vieux métier du monde". The DVD/Blu's are cropped to that ar, in any case. And I wonder about "Alphaville". I believe I've read that it was shot open-matte, but could be screened masked. Is this incorrect?

EddieLarkin wrote:The concept doesn't make any sense to me. If you're making a movie during the post-widescreen era, but for whatever reason you decide to compose for 1.37:1, but then also "protect" it for widescreen showings...

Eddie, by "protect for widescreen", I meant keeping all the 'essential' visual info confined to an area that wouldn't be cropped out if widescreen masking were used.

He didn't call 1.85 an intermediate ratio so your point lacks entirely in fact from the quote.