422 The Last Emperor

[Antoine Doinel]

Is that screengrab a photograph of the television screen?

You still never clarified what you meant by this. I'm just curious.

That screengrab from the movie on the last page does look like a snap shot of a TV screen. The picture bows out at the sides, which is usually a sign of a photo of a TV.

What he said.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

The picture bows out at the sides, which is usually a sign of a photo of a TV.

Anamorphic lenses also cause bowing at the sides. Not always to that extreme, but vertical lines near the edge of a frame in an anamorphically-lensed film will have at least some distortion.

[daniel p]

Is that screengrab a photograph of the television screen?

You still never clarified what you meant by this. I'm just curious.

That screengrab from the movie on the last page does look like a snap shot of a TV screen. The picture bows out at the sides, which is usually a sign of a photo of a TV.

Wide angle lenses are usually the culprits...

[Cde.]

I knew it was too good to be true. Criterion has stealthily changed the aspect ratio listing from 2.35 to 2.00:1. Damn.

I would expect Criterion, of all companies, to preserve the film and protect it from tampering like this. What a shame to see them bow to Storaro! In this respect, he can't really be said to be any better than George Lucas. And what about the wishes of Bertolucci, the camera operators, and everyone else involved in the visual presentation and composition of this film?

[Steven H]

It's director approved, so you can assume it has his blessings. It's a shame they're changing the aspect ratio, but it's not like there's been a "mistake" to fault Criterion for. These are the filmmakers, it's their film. They can do what they want with it. Any complaints about what they do with their film amount to very little (along the lines of saying "they should have (or have not) included such and such deleted scene.)

What are Criterion supposed to do? Say "look, we know that this is your film and you poured your heart and soul into it and everything, but, y'know, just back off and let us do what we want since that's the way the world works." Actually, I'm glad they didn't. For every "director approved" tampering (which I defend here, but am greatly bothered by) you have a hundred films that might have come off completely wrong if the right person hadn't been there. It's a fair trade-off, I'd say.

[Jeff]

For every "director approved" tampering (which I defend here, but am greatly bothered by) you have a hundred films that might have come off completely wrong if the right person hadn't been there. It's a fair trade-off, I'd say.

As irritated as I am by Storraro's decision, you're absolutely right Steven. This is the correct attitude to approach this with.

[Cde.]

Bah. You're right, it's worth it if other films get great releases. I guess the issue over OAR and The Last Emperor comes down to whether you believe that the original authors of the work have the right to keep modifying a work after its completion. I mostly don't believe in this practice, but you're absolutely right, who can tell a film's authors what they can and can't do with their work?

[godardslave]

I know Criterion bases their pricing on a "$10 extra per disc" basis, but i still think its unfair to charge $60 RRP for 1 film. No way i will be buying this.

[domino harvey]

These are the filmmakers, it's their film. They can do what they want with it. Any complaints about what they do with their film amount to very little (along the lines of saying "they should have (or have not) included such and such deleted scene.)

Once a film is released, it stops being their film. Matters of deleted scenes are editing options before the film is finished and are not the same thing. Once the finished film is presented, that is the film, for everyone, and it becomes a collective experience. When anyone involved with the film decides to go back, after the film has been released, and tamper with the film to produce an alteration of the original work, this alteration must be considered as a separate film experience. Thus now we have The Last Emperor on DVD in a cropped format because of one man's idiotic desire to reveal less information in the frame than was originally composed and released-- you're right that this isn't a matter of Criterion making a mistake as in Koch Lorber released Violette cropped fullscreen, but it is something which should not have been welcomed. Either they should never have involved him in the restoration process, or provided both versions for the consumer-- neither option likely I suppose. As it stands, the final product is doomed no matter extras or restoration to be flawed.

[arsonfilms]

I know Criterion bases their pricing on a "$10 extra per disc" basis, but i still think its unfair to charge $60 RRP for 1 film. No way i will be buying this.

I remember saying exactly the same thing when Fanny and Alexander came out. I can't begin to tell you how happy I am that I changed my mind.

[Jeff]

I know Criterion bases their pricing on a "$10 extra per disc" basis, but i still think its unfair to charge $60 RRP for 1 film. No way i will be buying this.

I remember saying exactly the same thing when Fanny and Alexander came out. I can't begin to tell you how happy I am that I changed my mind.

Or the Brazil set for that matter, which has one less disc and is the same price.

[Cde.]

Once a film is released, it stops being their film. Matters of deleted scenes are editing options before the film is finished and are not the same thing. Once the finished film is presented, that is the film, for everyone, and it becomes a collective experience. When anyone involved with the film decides to go back, after the film has been released, and tamper with the film to produce an alteration of the original work, this alteration must be considered as a separate film experience. Thus now we have The Last Emperor on DVD in a cropped format because of one man's idiotic desire to reveal less information in the frame than was originally composed and released-- you're right that this isn't a matter of Criterion making a mistake as in Koch Lorber released Violette cropped fullscreen, but it is something which should not have been welcomed. Either they should never have involved him in the restoration process, or provided both versions for the consumer-- neither option likely I suppose. As it stands, the final product is doomed no matter extras or restoration to be flawed.

That's pretty much my exact take on it. As I understand it though, others think of the film as being more like a painting which the artist has the right to change as time passes. I find this viewpoint tough to swallow for several reasons though, one of which being the fact that film, unlike painting (for the most part) is a strongly collaborative medium. Vittorio Storaro is NOT the author of this work. What right does he have to modify the work without consulting with all of the people involved in the creation and composition of the visual aspect of this film? It seems in interviews that his reasoning for the alteration is simply that as time has passed he's decided that he prefers 2:1. When this film was made, Storaro and everyone else involved evidently decided to shoot for 2.35:1, but since his tastes have changed he essentially wants to go back and alter a completed past work to reflect where he is now. But isn't the point of art that it reflects the creators as people at the time that it was made?

Again, it needs to be stressed that we are talking about one man here.

[Steven H]

These are the filmmakers, it's their film. They can do what they want with it. Any complaints about what they do with their film amount to very little (along the lines of saying "they should have (or have not) included such and such deleted scene.)

Once a film is released, it stops being their film. Matters of deleted scenes are editing options before the film is finished and are not the same thing. Once the finished film is presented, that is the film, for everyone, and it becomes a collective experience.

This is true to some extent, but I believe that an author's power of control over their own work is far more potent (as it completely *should be*) over our respecting our initial experience of it. No matter how nostalghic we are for a favorite film, how much we love or appreciate it, it's still someone else's property (and that can mean a million things here). And, for better or worse, it never really stops being *their* film, no more than a comedian's joke becomes the audiences joke if when they laugh at it.

And this is what I believe concerning aesthetics, nevertheless the aspect of art as a commodity, which in a lot of ways overrides both our points of view more often than not. Like I said before, we're lucky companies give even the smallest of a damn about the filmmaker's intention, original or revised.

[Antoine Doinel]

Can anyone post a visual representation of just how much of the frame will be "lost" 2:1 vs. 2.35:1? My grasp of aspect ratios isn't a good as some of the more technical forum members and I'd be curious to see it.

[domino harvey]

From the American Zoetrope site, on Apocalypse Now but very relevant to this discussion:

Question: Why is the aspect ratio of the Apocalypse Now Redux DVD not the 2.35:1 ratio of the cinematic release?

Answer:
(by Kim Aubry, Producer of Apocalypse Now Redux)

In fact, the transfer of Apocalypse Now Redux (from film elements to High Definition digital videotape) was made with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. This is consistent with the 1998 transfer of the original film Apocalypse Now done for DVD.

The aspect ratio 2.0:1 was chosen by the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who supervised every aspect of this film transfer. Storaro believes that for the purpose of TV transfer, it is better to crop (slightly) the extreme left/right edges of the originally photographed frame and allow for a taller picture on both conventional and 16:9 TV monitors, because the video presentation will have more vertical resolution and detail and will be more impactful.

An orthodox 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 transfer would in some ways be a more accurate reflection of the framing seen in most cinemas, but the picture would be using only approximately 50% of the available scanning lines of the NTSC and PAL systems and hence have very limited vertical resolution. Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.

Mr Coppola and I agree with Storaro's views and accepted his decision.

You are right to wonder about the discrepancy between the theatrical trailer and the feature itself. But the feature is not 1.85:1, it is 2.0:1. The transfer of the trailer was not supervised by Storaro, and was done using the conventional theatrical aspect of 2.35:1. It doesn't bother us, as this is considered a DVD "extra."

If you would like to learn more about Storaro's ideas and the 2.0:1 aspect ration, you may check out this informative web site:

That reasoning makes my head hurt.

and Antoine, when the Dossier came out last year, there was a link circulating comparing the DVD transfer to the bootleg workprint to show the difference, I've been Googling up a storm but can't find it, maybe someone reading this can provide the link.

[Cde.]

I'm just glad I was able to see this film projected theatrically in 2.35:1 earlier this year.

[HerrSchreck]

Can anyone post a visual representation of just how much of the frame will be "lost" 2:1 vs. 2.35:1? My grasp of aspect ratios isn't a good as some of the more technical forum members and I'd be curious to see it.

Simple, man-- pure geometry, has nothing to do with video technology.

Think of a rectangle two inches wide and one inch tall. That's the shape of 2:1.

Think of a rectangle 2.35 inches wide, and one inch tall. That's the shape of 2.35 : 1.

That would be a tiny dvd screen.

"2:1" just means it is two times as wide as it is tall. "2.35 : 1" means it is two point three times as wide as it is tall. Pure math, no vid at all.

Standard (or "old) tv screens (based on academy ratio) are one and a third (1.33) times as wide as they are tall.

Change it to feet, and you've potentially got a big image on a projection system screen size or something... i e one foot high and two feet wide for 2:1.

But the dimensions are just ratios based on one another.

[Antoine Doinel]

Cool, thanks for the explanation Herr.

I can see both sides of the argument on this one and it's actually similar to the "full screen vs. widescreen" Kubrick argument. In both cases, I'll just have to be content that we have them at all.

[Cold Bishop]

I can see both sides of the argument on this one and it's actually similar to the "full screen vs. widescreen" Kubrick argument. In both cases, I'll just have to be content that we have them at all.

I wouldn't necessarily say it is... The thing with the Kubrick debate is that he obviously had both ratios in mind while filming, with the question being which way he would really want people to see it if they had the choice.

In Storaro's case, he filmed the movie in 2.35:1, composed the images in 2:35:1, and by all means had no problem with the ratio until a few years later when he decided that 2:1 was the messiah and then changed his mind.

[Magic Hate Ball]

Since we're discussing widescreen and Kubrick, I thought I'd make an example out of The Shining.



This is the open matte, which Kubrick shot in. It means that this is exactly how the image looks on the film print. When it's projected into theaters, it's "matted", which means that there's a black plastic or metal (I'm not sure) frame held over the projector. That would make it 1.78:1, which looks like this:



Sometimes movies are shot anamorphic, which means that a lense is used that stretches a 1.78:1 image to fit a full 1.33 frame. When it's projected in theaters, another lense is used to revert it to 1.78:1. What's interesting about anamporphic is that it uses every inch of the film's resolution; by stretching the image, every single square millimeter of the film is filled. When you matte a film, you're just cutting out part of the image. If you want to know, here's the same frame cut to 2:1 and 2.35:1.





The fun thing about 2.35:1 is that you can scan it up and down to center it how you like.



And, just for kicks, the shot in Ben-Hur Vision! Which is 2.76:1.



Of course, it depends on what the director had in mind.

[mogwai]

Specs have been finalized. A few new features added:

- The Chinese Adventure of Bernardo Bertolucci, a 52-minute documentary that revisits the film's making

- A 66-minute BBC documentary exploring Bertolucci's creative process and the making of The Last Emperor

- A new interview with Ian Buruma examining the historical period of the film

And the booklet now includes interviews with production designer Ferdinando Scarfiotti and actor Ying Ruocheng, and a reminiscence by Bertolucci.

[Steven H]

Specs have been finalized. A few new features added:

Those are some impressive last minute extras. I wonder if it's creeping towards five discs now?

[CSM126]

OK, as far as which versions of the film are included here, I think we have something of an answer. The criterion page has changed to reflect a run time of 164 minutes, which would be the length of the theatrical cut if I'm not mistaken. And the features list the "Extended television version". So I was right: Theatrical cut and Extended cut. Yay me.

[kevyip1]

Even with the added specs, I'm still leaning towards not buying it. I already own the R2 Optimum 2-disc set and already have the theatrical cut, the extended cut, and the Bertolucci/Thomas/Sakamoto audio commentary of the theatrical cut. The other extras just don't sound interesting to me. The Optimum disc already has good video transfer and a damn good making-of documentary, which I doubt any Criterion extra would be able to top. "Interesting" extras would be an interview with John Lone, Joan Chen, composer Cong Su (who is probably the only Oscar winner not appearing on the Criterion disc), but even those wouldn't necessarily make me want to buy it.

[Darth Lavender]

I think, taking aspect ratio into account, the Optimum might even be considered *better* than the more expensive Criterion.

Admittedly, I still haven't watched my copy of the Optimum (this holiday, I'm finally sitting down and watching all those epic DVDs of mine that I never find time for)
However, one point in Criterion's favour; I always heard the Optimum Television Edit was very mediocre picture quality? Even so, brighter, sharper (but still SD) picture vs inferior picture that *doesn't* miss out on 20% of the image. I'd still call it even (at least for specs; then Optimum wins for the much lower price)