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

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#26 Post by zedz » Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:27 pm

EddieLarkin wrote:Yes, I agree it's definitely possible. Though it bothers me that regardless of the circumstances, the crew is still composing for a ratio that few people back home will actually see, and practically no one in the States will see.
I just felt the need to call out this howler on behalf of professional projectionists everywhere. If they're doing their job right, they will examine the film and project it at the correct ratio, unless they're missing the necessary equipment. In the 60s particularly, projectionists were adept at accommodating a whole range of aspect ratios, and Academy was an absolutely bog-standard ratio that they would have been projecting all the time (revivals, short subjects and so forth), so the notion that it was some exotic, unheard-of thing is ridiculous. As is the idea that a professional projectionist would thread up a print and then be shruggingly stuck with whatever happened to come out the business end of the projector.

The problematic projection ratio for US cinemas was European widescreen (1.66), not 1.33, and that was most likely a combination of lack of equipment (since screens that were 99% dedicated to Hollywood product would seldom be screening films in that ratio) and the idea that local widescreen (1.85) was near enough.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#27 Post by tojoed » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:14 am

The old Arts Cinema in Market Passage, Cambridge was one of the finest repertory theatres
in the country, and I'm slightly offended that these people are suggesting that projectionists
didn't know what ratio they should use.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#28 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:03 am

Admittedly I know little about professional projection and won't comment on what was or wasn't possible, but I stand by my statement that this film will have been primarily shown in widescreen in the U.S. and the U.K., and that Brook would have known it. One can look at the film and admit that it might possibly have been composed for academy, but at the same time one must also admit that if this is the case it was also "protected" for widescreen. Widescreen presentations were on Brook's and Hollyman's minds. The opening credits, the end title, the head room, and the movement of the camera to keep heads inside the "wide" framing clearly show this. Projected at 1.66:1-1.85:1 this film will not have looked like a butchered academy film from pre-1953, it will have worked fine. Bruce Kimmel says on HTF that he saw the film more than once at 1.85:1 in the U.S. on original release, and more importantly, Warner Bros./Studio Canal released a DVD at 1.66:1.

Even if projectionists had instructions that 1.37:1 was optimal, there would have certainly been additional instruction saying that anything up to 1.85:1 was fine. More likely they didn't have any instructions, and examination of the film, I think, would lead any projectionist to conclude widescreen. Especially since just about every film during that time will have been widescreen.

tojoed, when you saw LOTF in 1963, was it projected at 1.37:1 on a standard screen, or projected at 1.37:1 in the centre of a wide screen?

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#29 Post by MichaelB » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:24 am

Since the transfer was approved by the man who as camera operator was most directly responsible for framing the image, I really don't see why we're having this conversation. He knows better than anyone else (certainly anyone here) what the correct ratio should be.

stwrt
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#30 Post by stwrt » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:35 am

The best thing about this now is the Peter Brook commentary, the rest of it is mainly of interest (as Anne Bilson said about the re-make) to men in macs who like seeing boys in fraying underpants :shock:

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#31 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:44 am

MichaelB wrote:Since the transfer was approved by the man who as camera operator was most directly responsible for framing the image, I really don't see why we're having this conversation. He knows better than anyone else (certainly anyone here) what the correct ratio should be.
Because of that fact I'm slightly more inclined to believe 1.37:1 is indeed correct, also for the reasons you've already posted. But when there's debate to be had over aspect ratio, I'll be there. The more debate, the more likely Criterion will take notice of the issue and address it directly. I think for this film, that's important for them to do.

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

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#32 Post by Drucker » Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:06 am

Interesting that Warner "You've Destroyed Barry Lyndon with your incorrect aspect ratio" Brothers is being used as evidence that Criterion's would be wrong.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#33 Post by tojoed » Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:40 am

EddieLarkin wrote:tojoed, when you saw LOTF in 1963, was it projected at 1.37:1 on a standard screen, or projected at 1.37:1 in the centre of a wide screen?
It was probably 1965 or 1966 actually, but it was projected on a standard screen in Academy.
I'm sure the disc will be presented as Brook and his cinematographer wish, and my memory of
nearly fifty years ago will be proved accurate (I hope).

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#34 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:49 am

Drucker wrote:Interesting that Warner "You've Destroyed Barry Lyndon with your incorrect aspect ratio" Brothers is being used as evidence that Criterion's would be wrong.
You're cherry picking, something that can easily be done with Criterion too. Don't get me started on the Monsters and Madmen box set. 3 widescreen films presented open matte, 1 widescreen film cropped from 1.66:1 to 1.33:1!
tojoed wrote:
EddieLarkin wrote:tojoed, when you saw LOTF in 1963, was it projected at 1.37:1 on a standard screen, or projected at 1.37:1 in the centre of a wide screen?
It was probably 1965 or 1966 actually, but it was projected on a standard screen in Academy.
I'm sure the disc will be presented as Brook and his cinematographer wish, and my memory of
nearly fifty years ago will be proved accurate (I hope).
But surely it wouldn't help, would it? If you saw LOTF on a standard screen, presumably the same cinema will have shown many undoubtedly widescreen films open matte as well.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#35 Post by tojoed » Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:43 pm

No, it showed widescreen films and Academy films as required.
When I say a "standard" screen, I mean one that is capable of showing
any film in whatever ratio, so you may have misunderstood me.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#36 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:17 pm

I see. By standard screen I meant a screen roughly approximating a 4x3 shape.

From HTF, documentation of the time showing that U.S. theater owners will have been instructed to show LOTF at 1.85:1

http://i.imgur.com/B2RgqYr.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#37 Post by MichaelB » Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:24 pm

Why don't we just wait until the thing's actually released? Whatever the aspect ratio is, it'll be approved by someone who was intimately involved with framing the image, and that's more than good enough for me.

User avatar
John Hodson
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Near dark satanic mills...
Contact:

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#38 Post by John Hodson » Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:45 pm

I ran through the Criterion DVD today, and I have to say - based on the framing therein, and accepting that it would have been screened wide during it's theatrical run - it's good enough for me too.

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

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#39 Post by zedz » Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:59 pm

EddieLarkin wrote:tojoed, when you saw LOTF in 1963, was it projected at 1.37:1 on a standard screen, or projected at 1.37:1 in the centre of a wide screen?
Good lord, this is like the Bizzarro World Criterion Forum. Have you ever actually seen a film in a cinema? Cinema screens have adjustable masking so that the black surround matches the shape of the projected image. You watch a film in Cinemascope and the sides of the screen open out after the traliers / short subject. You watch one in Academy, and they close in. Seriously, you've never seen a cinema screen 'change shape' before your very eyes?

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#40 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:16 pm

Many times. I was trying to ascertain whether the screen in question was an "academy" style screen or a hold over if you will, from pre-1953. That or, as you say, a wide screen masked down to 1.37:1. If it was the latter, this suggests projectionists were instructed to run LOTF in academy, in the U.K. atleast. If it was the former, it suggests the film was simply being run open matte, due to the limitations of the screen.

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

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#41 Post by zedz » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:21 pm

But if the cinema was a functioning cinema in the 1960s (and not, say, a church hall with a sheet thrown up on the stage), whatever screen was used would have had the appropriate masking for projecting in a variety of ratios. A big square screen would have had top and bottom masks to achieve widescreen. A wide screen would have had side masks to achieve academy. It's this notion that a given cinema would be 'locked in' to a single aspect ratio which is ridiculous.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#42 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:28 pm

zedz wrote:A big square screen would have had top and bottom masks to achieve widescreen.
Right, but if it was a big square screen, surely it's more likely that even if a projectionist has instructions that a wide screening is optimal, will probably just run the film open matte? The whole point of protecting for 1.37:1 when shooting wide, was so theaters that still had big square screens didn't have to mask top and bottom.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#43 Post by Gregory » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:36 pm

I'm just glad this doesn't happen every time a label releases a film in 1.33:1 even though it was often seen in widescreen on its original release, for example when every label under the sun released Mon Oncle in Academy. I think that film clearly looks best in Academy, but I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere out there, people are calling it out for "excessive headroom" and talking about how Academy ratio was more or less dead by 1958 etc. etc.

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

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#44 Post by zedz » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:39 pm

EddieLarkin wrote:
zedz wrote:A big square screen would have had top and bottom masks to achieve widescreen.
Right, but if it was a big square screen, surely it's more likely that even if a projectionist has instructions that a wide screening is optimal, will probably just run the film open matte? The whole point of protecting for 1.37:1 when shooting wide, was so theaters that still had big square screens didn't have to mask top and bottom.
No. That might have been true during the early introduction of widescreen, when many cinemas didn't yet have the equipment to project it correctly. By the mid sixties, protecting for Academy would have been primarily for eventual television screenings.

I know projection standards have plummeted in recent years, but back then projectionists were professionals who expected to make adjustments for correct projection for every film they screened. If you want to dispute tojoed's memory, dispute his memory, don't hypothesize a conspiracy of lazy / indifferent / incompetent projectionists to try and make your point.

Personally, I have no idea what the intended aspect ratio of the film was, and I can't be bothered watching it again on DVD to form an opinion, but these kind of extremely generalized 'nobody could physically project films in 1.37 in the 1960s' (which seems to have morphed into 'nobody could be arsed projecting films in 1.37 in the 1960s') arguments hold no water one way or the other.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#45 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:49 pm

Moe Dickstein wrote:One would expect a British production of this era to be 1.75 or 1.66. And as for independents, even the low budget "Plan 9" was framed for widescreen...

Could just be that the spec just isn't updated on the website yet? I'm sure whatever we get will be correct owing to the restoration and supervision by the DP.
Do we have any actual new evidence tweezed from the actual production or. Plan 9 crew notes? Or is this just more of the dld Furmanek school of "the era makes it somewhat probable, so it is..."?

The fact is From Jailbait, Glen/da, Bride of, Ghouls, Wood Thompson was an academy ratio team. In fact, I can't find any evidence that Thompson ever worked in anything but academy through to the end of his career.

We must remember this film initially ran for about 5 minutes in sticky, grimy fringeville where all bets were off. The producer had such a catastrophe in NYC while exhibiting to distributors, he had to have his wife wire him money so he could get back home.

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

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#46 Post by zedz » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:51 pm

I do hope the evidence for widescreen projection of Plan 9 is visible boom mikes and shoddy set edges.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#47 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:56 pm

Gregory wrote:I'm just glad this doesn't happen every time a label releases a film in 1.33:1 even though it was often seen in widescreen on its original release, for example when every label under the sun released Mon Oncle in Academy. I think that film clearly looks best in Academy, but I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere out there, people are calling it out for "excessive headroom" and talking about how Academy ratio was more or less dead by 1958 etc. etc.
Oh don't worry, it's been discussed. Here's my take on Mon Oncle, and a post from someone else quoting me, that I'm sure you'll find humorous (or maybe infuriating, I dunno):

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/3 ... try3938539" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
zedz wrote: I know projection standards have plummeted in recent years, but back then projectionists were professionals who expected to make adjustments for correct projection for every film they screened. If you want to dispute tojoed's memory, dispute his memory, don't hypothesize a conspiracy of lazy / indifferent / incompetent projectionists to try and make your point.
I asked him about his experience, I didn't question it. And I didn't hypothesize that projectionists were lazy, indifferent or incompetent. If I'm at a "biq square screen" cinema in 1963, projecting a film open matte would be my preference, rather than using screen masking.
zedz wrote:I do hope the evidence for widescreen projection of Plan 9 is visible boom mikes and shoddy set edges.
Bob Furmanek addresses it here:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wides ... umentation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#48 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:58 pm

Lol, sorry zedz.. They're all over his other "undisputedly academy" films too.

Which is why that argument is such a tickler..all of a sudden and without any warning Wood and Thompson become technically, cinematograpgically, error-free... on their most error filled film.

I, hand to heart once read a defense of the widescreen argument thus,

"Bill Thompson was a member of the asc,.so there's no way he wouldn't have been technically up to date."

Pass the Black Label! Ice, no seltzer!

Edit... Okay, there's nothing new.We're in the world of pure industrial supposition.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#49 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:10 pm

HerrSchreck wrote: Edit... Okay, there's nothing new.We're in the world of pure industrial supposition.
I've never seen any Wood films and know little about them, but looking at these (admittedly random) screens of his 50s films, one thing quickly becomes clear:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreview6/edwoodbox.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1953's GLEN OR GLENDA has heads that are all at the top of the frame. 1954's JAILBAIT, and every subsequent film, has sparse headroom out the arse. I know this isn't the thread for it, but what are the arguments for these films being composed for academy?

EDIT: Nevermind, I see it's previously been discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5329&start=25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

Re: 43 Lord of the Flies

#50 Post by Bob Furmanek » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:29 pm

From Daily Variety:

9/10/54: "THE VAMPIRE'S TOMB" (Edward D. Wood, Jr.,Production) (To Shoot at Ted Allen Studios) (Wide-Screen) Starts Oct 1 PROD-DIRECTOR Edward D. Wood CAST: Bela Lugosi, Lyle Talbot, Dolores Fuller, Richard Powers

9/24/54: Edward D. Wood, Jr., will produce "Vampire's Tomb," starring Bela Lugosi, Devila and Lyle Talbot, for standard and widescreen projection. Two-week shooting sked begins Oct. 4 at the Ted Allen Studios.

VAMPIRE'S TOMB was put on hold for BRIDE OF THE MONSTER which rolled October 26, 1954 at the Ted Allen Studios.

That's composed for widescreen as well.

Hope this helps!

Bob Furmanek
http://www.3dfilmarchive.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply