The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...is done forever.

[movielocke]

Memory is a tricky thing. I saw the star wars films on video dozens of times each, but never saw any of them on film. I saw the the special editions in theatres either once or twice in 1998, depending on which one it was. If you'd asked me a week after I saw the films to describe the shape of the screen I'd have said, "a rectangle, like TV, but BIG, and SURROUND SOUND!" (I was very impressed with surround sound then, having just discovered LD and wishing I could afford surround sound and a big screen tv). The point is that my memory was reshaped by the dozens of TV viewings that preceded it, and I still remember those screenings as being 'boxy' not widescreen. I didn't even realize widescreen was a thing until a year or so later.

Of course there's also a good chance that particular shitty mall-tiplex was showing everything in 2:1 rather than the right ratio .

[Mr Sausage]

That's it. This thread is done. No more.

[domino harvey]

Not sure where else to put this, so I’m raising this accursed thread from the dead… Was reading the huge career retrospective Movie printed with candid thoughts from Richard Brooks on all his films up through Lord Jim and was shocked to learn that Brooks filmed Elmer Gantry in Academy. I’ve seen this film multiple times over the years, always in 1.66, and I never once thought it looked cropped. (This excerpt arose in the context of Sweet Bird of Youth)

[GaryC]

I had the impression that Brooks made so many films in Scope so that the projectionist would have to respect his compositions and this seems to confirm it. He and Conrad Hall wanted to make In Cold Blood in 1.85:1 with an in-camera hard-matte, but Columbia vetoed that, although they were happy for them to make it in black and white when they had not allowed other filmmakers in the past year or so to shoot black and white. So they shot the film in Scope instead. As Hall pointed out, this makes the film pull in two directions - the black and white, the real locations and some of the participants in the case playing themselves leaned it towards documentary, the Scope and Quincy Jones's jazz score leaned it towards drama. Hall was Oscar-nominated for his camerawork, against four colour films as this was the first year that the Academy abandoned separate black and white and colour categories for cinematography, production design and costume design.

[EddieLarkin]

Apparently a contemporary article in Variety talked about this:

Brooks shot the film in the then rarely used, classic aspect ratio of 1.33:1, stating in a 20 Jul 1960 Var article that the story required the intimacy of the smaller proportions. As noted in that article, he then had to ensure that the picture would be exhibited in that ratio, rather than the more standard wide screens, and worked with certain theaters to provide the correct lenses.

Which evidently he failed to do to his own satisfaction. Perhaps Alton realised this and made sure to leave the appropriate headroom to allow the inevitable matting he knew would happen, explaining why the film looks fine in 1.66:1, and has always been presented that way going back to the non-anamorphic DVDs! Which then is the true intended AR? The one the director wanted and insisted on, or the one the DP in reality actually shot for?

[DeprongMori]

Apparently a contemporary article in Variety talked about this:

Brooks shot the film in the then rarely used, classic aspect ratio of 1.33:1, stating in a 20 Jul 1960 Var article that the story required the intimacy of the smaller proportions. As noted in that article, he then had to ensure that the picture would be exhibited in that ratio, rather than the more standard wide screens, and worked with certain theaters to provide the correct lenses.

Which evidently he failed to do to his own satisfaction. Perhaps Alton realised this and made sure to leave the appropriate headroom to allow the inevitable matting he knew would happen, explaining why the film looks fine in 1.66:1, and has always been presented that way going back to the non-anamorphic DVDs! Which then is the true intended AR? The one the director wanted and insisted on, or the one the DP in reality actually shot for?

I’m guessing they mean Academy ratio of 1.37 (the standard composite ratio for images on films with an optical soundtrack) rather than the full-frame silent film ratio of 1.33? (Though practically they are pretty much identical.)

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, 1.33:1 eventually became synonymous with 1.37:1, and largely remains so today.