It is currently Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 600 Anatomy of a Murder
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!
Anatomy of a Murder

Image Image

A virtuoso James Stewart plays a small-town Michigan lawyer who takes on a difficult case: the defense of a young army lieutenant (Ben Gazzara) accused of murdering a local tavern owner who he believes raped his wife (Lee Remick). This gripping envelope-pusher, the most popular film by Hollywood provocateur Otto Preminger, was groundbreaking for the frankness of its discussion of sex—but more than anything else, it is a striking depiction of the power of words. Featuring an outstanding supporting cast—with a young George C. Scott as a fiery prosecutor and the legendary attorney Joseph N. Welch as the judge—and an influential score by Duke Ellington, Anatomy of a Murder is an American movie landmark, nominated for seven Oscars, including best picture.

Disc Features

- New high-definition digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray edition
- New alternate 5.1 soundtrack, presented in DTS-HD Master Audio on the Blu-ray edition
- New interview with Otto Preminger biographer Foster Hirsch
- Critic Gary Giddins explores Duke Ellington’s score in a new interview
- A look at the relationship between graphic designer Saul Bass and Preminger with Bass biographer Pat Kirkham
- Newsreel footage from the set
- Excerpts from a 1967 episode of Firing Line, featuring Preminger in discussion with William F. Buckley Jr.
- Excerpts from the work in progress Anatomy of “Anatomy”
- Behind-the-scenes photographs by Life magazine’s Gjon Mili
- Trailer, featuring on-set footage
- PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Nick Pinkerton and a 1959 Life magazine article on real-life lawyer Joseph N. Welch, who plays Judge Weaver in the film

DVD
Criterionforum.org user rating averages


Blu-ray
Criterionforum.org user rating averages



Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:30 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:47 pm
Let the aspect ratio wonderings begin... :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Criterion's using widescreen? So what's the deal with this movie - did Preminger compose for two aspect ratios at the same time?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
My time traveling mind reading capabilities tell me that even if there is a written note in Preminger's hand that the film is x ratio, I know that he only wrote such a thing under duress and really truly totally meant y ratio because I like y better. :-p


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: The hills of East Tennessee
hearthesilence wrote:
Criterion's using widescreen? So what's the deal with this movie - did Preminger compose for two aspect ratios at the same time?

The R1 Columbia Tri-Star was Academy ratio. The R2 Columbia Tri-Star was 1.85:1. Beaver says it was filmed in open matte but 1.85:1 is correct. IMDB says 1.85:1. Saw it in the theater in the early '60s and I believe it was shown in widescreen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:49 pm
At the Preminger retrospective in Toronto a couple of years ago, it was definitely 1.85:1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!
Saw this upon initial release with some very fond memories attached, but please don't ask me to recall the AR. All subsequent screenings I believe were 1.85. I do have a fondness for the R1 open matte edition, however...

This is a splendid addition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:17 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:53 pm
Location: Estonia
I'm glad they chose this to be spine #600 and not Tiny Furniture.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:21 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Like Saint Joan, the master's open matte; like Saint Joan, it looks better open matte. I'm on board for the Preminger extras, though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
The only reason that there is any confusion about the aspect ratio is that Columbia chose to release their original region 1 DVD without the mattes. Anatomy of a Murder isn't an unusual situation at all though. Over half of all American films since 1955 were shot at 1.37 and exhibited at 1.85. By 1959, there is no doubt that it would have been exhibited with 1.85 mattes at virtually all U.S. theaters. Many people may prefer the looser framing, but there's no doubt that 1.85 is "correct" since Preminger isn't here to insist on having it otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
kinjitsu wrote:
- Excerpts from a 1967 episode of Firing Line, featuring Preminger in discussion with William F. Buckley Jr.

Some of the discussion is available on YouTube.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!
Right. A bit late to fight for open matte, so better hold on to your Columbia R1. If pressed, my memory would favor 1.85 as witnessed in 1959 at whatever theater that was on Collins Ave.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Just because something was shot open matte doesn't mean it was ever intended to be seen that way. People are still shooting widescreen films open matte today, when Academy projection is a physical impossibility in most cinemas. And 1959 is extraordinarily late for a major Hollywood production to be shot in Academy ratio, notwithstanding that Preminger had been working in widescreen for years at this point. Not that this will mean much to lampshade enthusiasts!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:50 am 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am
This can't be Jimmy Stewart's first entry in to the collection? Can it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I'm not sure about Laserdisc, but while I don't think he features in Sans Soleil's section involving the tour around Vertigo's San Francisco locations, brief clips from Vertigo do feature in the French programme comparing the Hitchcock with La Jetee on the same disc (I remember being impressed that Universal allowed the clips to stay in!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Well, if you're going to bend the rules like that, there were probably some stills including Stewart in one of the extras on The Furies!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
I'm not sure, but don't Paths of Glory and Night of the Hunter alone (plus, in France, the old Wild Side DVDs of Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss) tends to prove that a 1.33 master don't prove that the framing is intended as 1.33 ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
tenia wrote:
I'm not sure, but don't Paths of Glory and Night of the Hunter alone (plus, in France, the old Wild Side DVDs of Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss) tends to prove that a 1.33 master don't prove that the framing is intended as 1.33 ?

Until very, very recently most 1.85 movies were not only filmed 1.33, the 35mm prints sent to theaters were full-frame and then masked to 1.85. I don't know how much this practice has changed since both filming and exhibition went primarily digital.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:28 pm 

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 pm
Location: NY, USA
The relevant question for me with that shot would be: what happens right before/after that shot? Is it a static shot with the dog laying there with its body lopped off the whole time?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Brian C wrote:
tenia wrote:
I'm not sure, but don't Paths of Glory and Night of the Hunter alone (plus, in France, the old Wild Side DVDs of Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss) tends to prove that a 1.33 master don't prove that the framing is intended as 1.33 ?

Until very, very recently most 1.85 movies were not only filmed 1.33, the 35mm prints sent to theaters were full-frame and then masked to 1.85. I don't know how much this practice has changed since both filming and exhibition went primarily digital.

It still happens. Anton Chekhov's The Duel (2011) was shot open matte in 1.33.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
Criterion just posted this picture from the film's first public screening on Facebook. It's clear from this still that the film was intended to be masked to Academy ratio by the combination of an actual matte and having two chummy tall people sit in front of you.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
Anatomy has always been a 1.85 no brainer to me. It's been interesting to have the regional option of an open matte but - to generalize - Prem was a master of widescreen and always makes it a part of his mise en scene.

The odd - oddest - man out is his final picture, the flawed but great Human Factor which he had the OZ DP shoot for 1.66. Possibly shot in this rather than a wider ratio because every sequence is topped and tailed with doors being opened and closed. And lone figures entereting and leaving cramped, enclosed "huis clos" sets. I imagine he needed the height to keep the doors within frame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:29 am 

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England
david hare wrote:
Anatomy has always been a 1.85 no brainer to me. It's been interesting to have the regional option of an open matte but - to generalize - Prem was a master of widescreen and always makes it a part of his mise en scene.

The witness is referred to his earlier testimony. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
I'm astonished someone would flatter me to the point of quoting a post from five years ago.

Very simply Jon, I was wrong. Preminger's fluency with WS by 1958/59 simply rules out Academy as a preferred ratio, even if it had been commerically "acceptable". Ive watched both versions again and I honestly think the Academy is clunky. THe courtroom scenes dont suffer overly from high headroom but that's the best I can say. The Hitchcock from 57/58 I also talked about is one of those films that suffers several times from possibly unintended cropping of important details like Vera Miles' fidgeting, etc. Consequently The Wrong Man needs some careful handling in any reissue to probably return to Academy or at widest 1.66. Anatomy simply doesn't have any such potentially compromised setups or staging. Unless perhaps someone can point them out to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:13 pm
Beaver


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection