647 On the Waterfront

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
Perkins Cobb
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:49 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#26 Post by Perkins Cobb » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:05 pm

Fred Holywell wrote:As far as Schickel was concerned, you're just a 'customer' looking forward to reading his next book. He's a 'beautiful person' far, far above you, looking for someone to hook him up with a new book deal, or dinner with this year's Oscar winner. Or simply help him find the VIP room where the beautiful girls and boys are waiting to 'get known'.
Is this the Zagat review of Richard Schickel? 12 for Decor, 5 for Service....

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#27 Post by zedz » Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:12 pm

Fred Holywell wrote:1.33; 1.66; 1.85. What, no 1.78 (which, these days, would make as much, if not more, sense, than any of the others)?

This must be one of the most ridiculous things Criterion's ever done. Open-matte films were made to be screened anywhere from 1.37:1 to 1.85:1. If one DVD aspect ratio looks too tight, and the other too loose, find a happy medium: 1.66 or 1.78, and be done with it.

Image

Keep thinking along these lines, and half the Criterion titles shot from 1953 onward will be getting this kind of treatment. What do you say they start with "Indiscretion of an American Wife", like it says on the chart. And what about the VistaVision and Technirama titles: should be able to get at least three distinct ar transfers out of each of those!
Oddly enough, that valuable piece of evidence you posted actually convinces me that Criterion is doing the right thing with this release, since it clearly establishes that there was no single OAR for this film, and that both extremes (1.33 and 1.85) were valid and intended projection ratios, as well as suggesting that the optimal ratio might well lie somewhere in between and indeed verifying that intermediary projection ratios were also expected. I think you've actually shot your argument in the foot by posting that!

User avatar
Fred Holywell
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:45 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#28 Post by Fred Holywell » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:20 pm

zedz wrote:Oddly enough, that valuable piece of evidence you posted actually convinces me that Criterion is doing the right thing with this release, since it clearly establishes that there was no single OAR for this film, and that both extremes (1.33 and 1.85) were valid and intended projection ratios, as well as suggesting that the optimal ratio might well lie somewhere in between and indeed verifying that intermediary projection ratios were also expected. I think you've actually shot your argument in the foot by posting that!
zedz, everything you say is correct, except the part about my shooting myself in the foot. But, tell me, where's the sense in Criterion providing three separate aspect ratios of a film, other than as something of a curiosity? It's over-the-top, and then some, imo. The same thing could be done with so many other films, as well. (My first candidate: "Magnificent Obsession".) Why not find an intermediate ratio and let it go at that, for, indeed, the optimum "might well lie somewhere in between". (But not always.)

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#29 Post by knives » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:27 pm

Maybe they didn't think of it as a viable position until MOC proved it could be done. I believe the MOC Touch of Evil is the first high profile example of multiple good aspect ratios on a single release and its success has clearly made an impact on the entire community. At the same time it was directly pointed to them in this case that the presence of multiple good aspect ratios is something to consider in an academic appreciation of the film which I do not believe happened with the Sirk. We should be congratulating Criterion on its daring, not shaming them over perceived failings.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#30 Post by Matt » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:51 pm

I would hope that Criterion includes some sort of contextualizing information on why they are including 3 different aspect ratios on the release and not just tossing them all on there to "give the people what they want." I think having them is invaluable for film historians and students of film history and, yes, I wish they had included the option on some previous releases. To just pick an intermediate ratio and "let it go at that" would be pretty irresponsible. That would be an act of film historiography, fixing an arbitrary decision as the "correct" one, and Criterion should be in the position of enabling film scholars to write that history, not writing it themselves.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#31 Post by swo17 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:55 pm

Matt wrote:I wish they had included the option on some previous releases.
Out of curiosity, what other films in the Collection (other than Magnificent Obsession) might be candidates for this kind of treatment if they were ever upgraded in the future?

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#32 Post by Matt » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:56 pm

Gertrud (if there is indeed more than one AR that might be considered correct), and why not Indiscretion of an American Wife, as noted above?

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#33 Post by Jeff » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:12 pm

Matt wrote:I would hope that Criterion includes some sort of contextualizing information on why they are including 3 different aspect ratios on the release and not just tossing them all on there to "give the people what they want."
Listed among the supplements is a "visual essay on the aspect ratio," so it sounds like they may be doing just that.

User avatar
Fred Holywell
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:45 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#34 Post by Fred Holywell » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:27 pm

Matt wrote:I think having them is invaluable for film historians and students of film history and, yes, I wish they had included the option on some previous releases. To just pick an intermediate ratio and "let it go at that" would be pretty irresponsible. That would be an act of film historiography, fixing an arbitrary decision as the "correct" one, and Criterion should be in the position of enabling film scholars to write that history, not writing it themselves.
In that case, the best solution might be to learn what Elia Kazan and/or Boris Kaufman's preferred aspect ratio was. But, beyond that, Matt, isn't choosing the aspect ratio for an open-matte film more about selecting the ar that works best for the venue in which the film is being screened, than about writing (or rewriting) film history?

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#35 Post by warren oates » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:21 pm

What would really be nice for film fans, historians, scholars and home video audiences would be day when we can rent/buy files of open matte films with the full image area and then matte them appropriately for each venue with settings in a projector or TV. But studios and the Directors Guild will have to come a long way for us to begin to see such flexibility -- which Fred's chart points out used to be the norm with film prints of open matte productions -- become routine in home video distribution.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#36 Post by zedz » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:28 pm

Fred Holywell wrote:But, beyond that, Matt, isn't choosing the aspect ratio for an open-matte film more about selecting the ar that works best for the venue in which the film is being screened, than about writing (or rewriting) film history?
That's a specious analogy. Almost all films shot open matte are shot with a single, specific projection AR in mind. Projectionists do not 'select the AR' - or if they do, they're idiots. If they're competent professionals, they frame the film in the stipulated AR as well as they can. The evidence you presented above categorically establishes that this film is one of the rare exceptions where multiple projection ARs were envisaged. I wouldn't be surprised if the list you printed is exactly what Criterion was relying on to make their decision.

EDIT: Just read warren oates' post: 'open matte' does NOT mean "anything goes with regard to aspect ratio" - it's a production decision, not a presentation one. And the 'flexibility' you note in the above memo was not flexibility so much as pragmatism. During the changeover, any number of cinemas simply couldn't project widescreen properly. I doubt that any of the filmmakers or anybody at the studio thought that this 'flexibility' was a feature and not a bug.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#37 Post by warren oates » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:17 pm

zedz wrote:EDIT: Just read warren oates' post: 'open matte' does NOT mean "anything goes with regard to aspect ratio" - it's a production decision, not a presentation one. And the 'flexibility' you note in the above memo was not flexibility so much as pragmatism. During the changeover, any number of cinemas simply couldn't project widescreen properly. I doubt that any of the filmmakers or anybody at the studio thought that this 'flexibility' was a feature and not a bug.
OAR discussions are always cans of worms. But here goes: Projectionists don't select the AR, but the creative professionals who shoot a film with multiple flexible delivery requirements present in their contracts, their minds, their eyes and their viewfinders/monitors -- along with a preferred theatrical exhibition ratio -- can create films that look not just good but valid in multiple ratios. I'm thinking of geniuses like Welles, Godard and Kubrick and to a slightly lesser degree Gus Van Sant.

Obviously this should all be done on a case by case basis and when the filmmaker's intentions are clear they ought to be honored. Though intentions are not always so clear. It's arguable that the Academy Ratio TV protected framing that he consciously choose shot for shot at the same time as the theatrical framing did influence the visual design of Kubrick's final three films. And it would not be dishonoring his intentions to at least make those alternate 1.33: 1 framings available on Blu-ray or whatever format comes next along with the preferred cinema exhibition ARs.

I'm also not advocating screening an older open matte film in wider ratios like 2.40:1 or 2.55:1. And I'm not arguing for the release of, say, more recent open matte Super 35 films like Terminator 2 this way. And I do realize that sometimes there is director/DP approved select reframing for home video release which complicates the possibility of any point-of-presentation-matting idea. But, in this case, would it really kill the integrity of the release of On the Waterfront to make a 1.78 picture available too? It seems to me that there are a number of titles already in the CC that exist in really close ratios like 1.78 or 1.85 because they were forced to choose just one at the time. I look forward to a day when there's more (informed, not arbitrary) leeway for directors and home video audiences.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#38 Post by zedz » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:02 pm

My point is that there's a big difference between well-documented cases where more than one official ratio was intended (e.g. On the Waterfront and the later Kubricks - though I think the canard that 1.33 was Kubrick's 'preferred ratio' has now been laid completely to rest) and films that were simply shot open matte, which is a very common production decision for lots of films, the vast majority of which were never intended to be seen in 1.33 (and often have the visible booms to prove it!)

I don't really get your point about 1.78 for On the Waterfront though - that's so close to 1.85, why would anybody want to bother? 1.66, at least, has the virtue of being an extremely common projection ratio, and is distinct enough from either extreme to potentially provide a different viewing experience. 1.78 was never used for cinematic projection, historically.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#39 Post by warren oates » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:49 pm

zedz wrote:My point is that there's a big difference between well-documented cases where more than one official ratio was intended (e.g. On the Waterfront and the later Kubricks - though I think the canard that 1.33 was Kubrick's 'preferred ratio' has now been laid completely to rest) and films that were simply shot open matte, which is a very common production decision for lots of films, the vast majority of which were never intended to be seen in 1.33 (and often have the visible booms to prove it!)

I don't really get your point about 1.78 for On the Waterfront though - that's so close to 1.85, why would anybody want to bother? 1.66, at least, has the virtue of being an extremely common projection ratio, and is distinct enough from either extreme to potentially provide a different viewing experience. 1.78 was never used for cinematic projection, historically.
Historically in general or just for On The Waterfront? Well, Barry Lyndon is supposedly either OAR 1.66:1 or 1.75ish depending on which Kubrick associate or paper trail you follow. And a stunningly composed film like Paris, Texas is now presented in 1.78 by Criterion (with director involvement and approval of course), when it doesn't seem to have been shot or projected thus originally. Why an On the Waterfront 1.78? Because it falls between the other ratios on that memo, because 1.75:1 theatrically was feasible at the time, and as long as they are doing all the other ones...

There's a difference between claiming that Kubrick's later films were preferred or solely intended to be 1.33.1 on home video and saying that they look damn good in that ratio too because he didn't just "protect" for it, he designed for it. Ditching that kind of parallel artistry just because most of us now have 16:9 TVs strikes me as silly.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#40 Post by zedz » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:32 pm

warren oates wrote:And a stunningly composed film like Paris, Texas is now presented in 1.78 by Criterion (with director involvement and approval of course), when it doesn't seem to have been shot or projected thus originally.
But this is standard (if hardly ideal) practice, because 1.78 is the widescreen television standard, and because (see above) it's all but indistinguishable from the actual, intended theatrical ratio of 1.85. What I'm questioning is why on earth you'd insist on having the option of viewing On the Waterfront in all but indistinguishable 1.78 in addition to the all but indistinguishable (has it sunk in yet?) original aspect ratio of 1.85. I really don't see who's going to benefit from that, except whoever's being paid to supervise the additional, basically redundant, transfer.
There's a difference between claiming that Kubrick's later films were preferred or solely intended to be 1.33.1 on home video and saying that they look damn good in that ratio too because he didn't just "protect" for it, he designed for it. Ditching that kind of parallel artistry just because most of us now have 16:9 TVs strikes me as silly.
Almost as silly as attributing that argument to me, since I'm the guy who's been defending Criterion's decision to offer multiple aspect ratios with this release.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#41 Post by warren oates » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:11 pm

zedz wrote:
warren oates wrote:And a stunningly composed film like Paris, Texas is now presented in 1.78 by Criterion (with director involvement and approval of course), when it doesn't seem to have been shot or projected thus originally.
But this is standard (if hardly ideal) practice, because 1.78 is the widescreen television standard, and because (see above) it's all but indistinguishable from the actual, intended theatrical ratio of 1.85. What I'm questioning is why on earth you'd insist on having the option of viewing On the Waterfront in all but indistinguishable 1.78 in addition to the all but indistinguishable (has it sunk in yet?) original aspect ratio of 1.85. I really don't see who's going to benefit from that, except whoever's being paid to supervise the additional, basically redundant, transfer.
There's a difference between claiming that Kubrick's later films were preferred or solely intended to be 1.33.1 on home video and saying that they look damn good in that ratio too because he didn't just "protect" for it, he designed for it. Ditching that kind of parallel artistry just because most of us now have 16:9 TVs strikes me as silly.
Almost as silly as attributing that argument to me, since I'm the guy who's been defending Criterion's decision to offer multiple aspect ratios with this release.
Sorry if that wasn't clear. Definitely not saying that's what you are saying. The whole Kubrick line of argument for me is more about my disagreement with your notion above that multiple aspect ratios tend to reflect some unseemly form of corporate compromise (as if the entire enterprise of motion pictures was ever not this), a production decision based on pragmatism -- which is not untrue but also not always the whole story, especially when filmmakers like the ones I've mentioned make framing decisions for multiple ratios on set.

As for 1.78:1 and the "standard (if hardly ideal)practice" or the idea of an "all but indistinguishable" difference, I suppose it's not indistinguishable to me, nor to some of the filmmakers in the CC who prefer to stick with 1:85.1 when given the choice, just as others prefer to revise their work to 1.78:1. (I'm obsessed with nuances of framing. You should have seen me the day I got my first set-up with no overscan!) And it might not be that much trouble to offer multiple ARs on a wider range of titles if the matte didn't have to be laid down on a different copy of the video transfer each time. Which is why I floated the entirely theoretical idea of the potential future availability of video files for certain select open matte films with the same kind of variable framing potential that film prints have. Of course any such offering should come with guidance about the preferred ratio and any others that had some aesthetic or historical validity.
Last edited by warren oates on Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#42 Post by zedz » Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:00 am

Oh well, I guess that's the difference then, since I have zero interest in seeing films in ratios without aesthetic or historical validity!

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#43 Post by warren oates » Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:55 am

zedz wrote:Oh well, I guess that's the difference then, since I have zero interest in seeing films in ratios without aesthetic or historical validity!
Um, me neither. I guess I'm really not being clear. I'm not arguing for the return of pan-and-scan or calling for Casablanca to be reformatted to 2:40:1. I'd just like to see the widest possible range of defensible ARs made available for each film that's been conceived or exhibited in multiple ARs. Which is what my initial comment in this thread was about -- how it would be nice to eventually have something like the home video equivalent of film projection with variable soft mattes.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#44 Post by zedz » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:54 pm

warren oates wrote:
zedz wrote:Oh well, I guess that's the difference then, since I have zero interest in seeing films in ratios without aesthetic or historical validity!
Um, me neither. I guess I'm really not being clear. I'm not arguing for the return of pan-and-scan or calling for Casablanca to be reformatted to 2:40:1. I'd just like to see the widest possible range of defensible ARs made available for each film that's been conceived or exhibited in multiple ARs. Which is what my initial comment in this thread was about -- how it would be nice to eventually have something like the home video equivalent of film projection with variable soft mattes.
I think the idea that there are a whole lot of different 'defensible ARs' for open matte films is the problem. Films aren't shot open-matte because the filmmakers want projectionists to have infinite flexibility - they want that flexibility themselves when they're determining the framing for their single, stipulated projection AR. In the past, some directors may also have been grudgingly allowing for different, less-than-ideal ARs in different, less-than-ideal media, but this too was a real minority approach (most widescreen films being panned-and-scanned for broadcast - hey, that's an actual, historical presentation option too - do you want to be able to do that as well with your BluRays?).

Also, in practical terms, any tool for changing the matting on your home display would inevitably be used by the majority of users (if at all) just to stretch / squash / crop any and all films to 1.78 (ah, the magic of "filling up the screen"!)

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#45 Post by warren oates » Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:28 pm

zedz wrote:
warren oates wrote:
zedz wrote:Oh well, I guess that's the difference then, since I have zero interest in seeing films in ratios without aesthetic or historical validity!
Um, me neither. I guess I'm really not being clear. I'm not arguing for the return of pan-and-scan or calling for Casablanca to be reformatted to 2:40:1. I'd just like to see the widest possible range of defensible ARs made available for each film that's been conceived or exhibited in multiple ARs. Which is what my initial comment in this thread was about -- how it would be nice to eventually have something like the home video equivalent of film projection with variable soft mattes.
I think the idea that there are a whole lot of different 'defensible ARs' for open matte films is the problem. Films aren't shot open-matte because the filmmakers want projectionists to have infinite flexibility - they want that flexibility themselves when they're determining the framing for their single, stipulated projection AR. In the past, some directors may also have been grudgingly allowing for different, less-than-ideal ARs in different, less-than-ideal media, but this too was a real minority approach (most widescreen films being panned-and-scanned for broadcast - hey, that's an actual, historical presentation option too - do you want to be able to do that as well with your BluRays?).
Wait, what? Didn't I explicitly icksany pan-and-scan above? Unless you're saying something else entirely which I'm not clear on.

What it comes down to for me is that I'd be willing to accept a system with an openness to more variable ARs for some (not all) open matte films that would permit home viewers to choose between two or more valid ratios for each picture. If that flexibility comes with the potential for abuse, that's a downside that doesn't seem so awful to me. As you hint at above, it's already being done with more brute force, less aesthetic and historical consideration and less technical precision by viewers all over the world who just want to "fill their picture."

But, if it were technically feasible, how a 1.78:1 On the Waterfront or an adjustable/scalable image that could be screened in ratios from 1:33.1-1:85.1 would betray the picture any more than the three different ratios that CC is offering or the multiple ratios in which the first run film print may have screened in different venues is beyond me.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#46 Post by zedz » Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:39 pm

I still completely fail to see what adding a 1.78 ratio (which is just the domestic compromise for 1.85, which is being offered) version is going to add to Criterion's release, apart from production expense. You keep talking about 'defensible' and 'historically valid' ARs, but my point is that almost all of the speculative, shifting ARs you're talking about (such as 1.78 for On the Waterfront, which doesn't even have the virtue of being distinctive from the authentic 1.85 ratio that's on offer) are neither. Films are simply NOT SHOT with sliding-scale aspect ratios. I don't see any way of expressing this more clearly!

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#47 Post by Jeff » Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:58 pm

I think the point is that 99% of all films have precisely one correct, director-intended aspect ratio and that no one (neither disc producers nor home viewers) should have the opportunity to futz with that to suit their own aesthetic preferences.

The majority of all films shot in the past 60 years have been 1.37 on the negative, but were only ever intended to be seen at 1.85. On the Waterfront and Touch of Evil are among a very tiny handful of films where choices could be considered appropriate. 1.85 and 1.78 are practically the same thing and no distinction should be made between the two.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#48 Post by movielocke » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:50 pm

Jeff wrote:There's no doubt that the intended theatrical ratio was 1.85. It was also sometimes (wrongly) projected at 1.37 since it was released at the height of the transition. I think there's always been some belief that it looked a little tight at 1.85, and it's certainly logical to assume that framing for the ratio in camera wasn't an exact science yet. For this reason, Grover Crisp recommended Criterion frame it at 1.66. Since they were going with a ratio other than theatrical without the director's consent, they elected to make a feature of it, give options, and discuss the transition. Seems reasonable to me.
I agree, I've only seen the film twice, both times from a 35mm print, once in 1:33 and 1.85 and the 1.33 was definitely not framed like a 1.33 film. I didn't notice there was a feature on the aspect ratio. I think 3 is a bit excessive, but overall it's a reasonable approach, particularly in light of the document posted in this thread.

User avatar
bainbridgezu
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#49 Post by bainbridgezu » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:38 am


User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#50 Post by Drucker » Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:06 am

Wow those look great. I can't believe how clear the buildings in the background look!

Post Reply