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

[Jonathan S]

As probably noted elsewhere, there are a couple of aspect ratio changes in The Life of Pi. They are very brief, and no doubt deliberate, but distracting and to my mind unnecessary. I thought my player or projector had malfunctioned!

[MichaelB]

I think it would be a sensible policy to generally accommodate those ratios for which there is hard evidence, but also to keep an ear to the ground about which films have sufficient demand for alternate presentations, and to bolster releases for such films with multiple aspect ratio options.

This is absolutely my policy on the titles I produce for Arrow.

With both The Night of the Hunter and The Killers, I did a lot of research into the aspect ratios, not least because this would be an excellent opportunity to get them "right". With NOTH, we debated doing a dual-ratio edition, but the more we looked into this the more obvious it became that the film was natively composed for 1.66:1, and while it might have been screened at wider ratios, this was at the clear expense of compositional integrity. Restorer Robert Gitt (who knows the footage better than anyone alive) also said that he strongly favoured 1.66:1, and while it might withstand cropping to 1.75:1, 1.85:1 was clearly too tight. My own tests bore this out, and so we went for 1.66:1 on its own. (Criterion did the same thing).

As a TV movie, you'd expect The Killers to be pretty straightforwardly 1.37:1, but since the film had been intended for European cinema release from the outset, I wondered whether it had been protected for widescreen - certainly, the compositions bore this out (tons of headroom!). Sadly, Don Siegel's otherwise commendably detailed memoirs didn't touch on the issue, but an experimental cropping to 1.85:1 looked surprisingly decent - and when Bob Furmanek came up with two pieces of hard evidence that the film was exhibited at 1.85:1 in cinemas, we decided to go for it. Of course, there was never any question of only presenting the film in widescreen, which is why I laughed out loud when Jeffrey Wells called me a "fascist" for offering it in 1.85:1.

But you do have to bear in mind various factors when considering going down the dual-ratio route, not least production costs. To do it on The Night of the Hunter, which also contained nearly three hours of extras, would have necessitated going to a second disc, thus upping the production budget - and we wanted to keep the RRP down because we knew that we couldn't compete with the two-disc Criterion on features, and so it made sense to offer the Arrow as a cheaper one-disc alternative. In other words, the case for an alternative framing would have had to be exceptionally compelling - and in this case it just wasn't. By contrast, The Killers was much more straightforward, because with only an hour of video extras there was ample space on the main disc.

With the other titles I've produced for Arrow - The Long Goodbye, Sullivan's Travels, the Borowczyks - there was no controversy at all, although we did briefly consider going down the dual-ratio route for Borowczyk's Theatre of Mr and Mrs Kabal. The situation there was that the film's producer was adamant that it was screened at 1.66:1, and we were equally adamant on the basis of compelling visual evidence that it was framed for 1.37:1 - with an animated film, there's rarely much doubt about this because for obvious reasons one doesn't normally animate outside the frame! But after lengthy discussion, the producer recalled that 1.66:1 was a compromise forced on them by cinemas that couldn't screen 1.37:1, and that the latter was indeed the intended ratio. So that's how we're framing it, with her blessing.

[Gregory]

Another choice quote from Bruce Kimmel from a thread Eddie linked above. Not trying to shit-stir, but this is probably a better example of the kind of thing I was discussing than the example I gave: I know how films should be composed, I have eyes in my head, and if you don't see it the same way I do, then you don't know anything about moviemaking.

How is his attitude different from a number of users here who will simply state that a film is obviously Academy, and that one lacks intelligence if they can't see the obvious?

I don't know how to answer this, not knowing the posts you have in mind, but there's probably a difference between feeling extremely sure about the ratio of "a film" vs. saying, I can watch any film and know the correct aspect ratio because I have eyes and I'm not an idiot. It's counterproductive to any discussion to go into it with a preconceived notion of "anyone who disagrees with me must be either an ignorant fool or someone who doesn't WATCH THE MOVIE because my brain tells me that I'm right." I'll readily admit that the same kind of arrogance happens on every forum I've ever read, including this one, and it's just as bad on principle regardless of where it takes place, so it's not a matter of my having any double standard.

[EddieLarkin]

Don't whatever you do watch Herostratus!

This film had a gestation period of several years, and at some unspecified point writer-director Don Levy decided that it should be projected in widescreen, even though many of the (presumably extant) shots were clearly composed for 1.37:1.

When creating the master for the BFI Flipside edition, poor James White had a nightmare trying to respect Levy's wishes - but the simple fact was that running the film straight through in widescreen looked unambiguously terrible, so he ended up having to adjust the framing shot by shot in order to get the film to "work" in Levy's preferred ratio (Levy, sadly, was no longer around to advise him), even though this wouldn't have been replicated in theatrical screenings.

Very wisely, the BFI also threw in a 1.37:1 version, and in the current dual-format edition that's the favoured framing (since it's the ratio of the BD transfer, with the widescreen version relegated to DVD).

Funny you should mention it Michael; it's at the very top of my kevyip! I was initially quite annoyed to find that the HD 1.78:1 version had been scrapped from the newer dual format release (which I had picked up), since I figured that was the version I would have gone for. But then I read that it wasn't a "true" 1.78:1 version but, as you say, a "digital" attempt that involved re-framing shot by shot. After taking a mere cursory glance at the 1.33:1 version I realised quickly that it was preferable (how this scene would work with a straight widescreen matte I have no idea!). Is it possible that Levy did compose 1.33:1 and then realised later that it would be an untenable ratio for most projectionists, and so he did a bit of a volte-face? Are you aware of the details of the documentation that led to a 1.78:1 version being done in the first place? A statement by the director (context?), a projectionist instruction, etc?

It's counterproductive to any discussion to go into it with a preconceived notion of "anyone who disagrees with me must be either an ignorant fool or someone who doesn't WATCH THE MOVIE because my brain tells me that I'm right." I'll readily admit that the same kind of arrogance happens on every forum I've ever read, including this one, and it's just as bad on principle regardless of where it takes place, so it's not a matter of my having any double standard.

Of course, we are in agreement on this point.

[zedz]

I don't know how to answer this, not knowing the posts you have in mind, but there's probably a difference between feeling extremely sure about the ratio of "a film" vs. saying, I can watch any film and know the correct aspect ratio because I have eyes and I'm not an idiot. It's counterproductive to any discussion to go into it with a preconceived notion of "anyone who disagrees with me must be either an ignorant fool or someone who doesn't WATCH THE MOVIE because my brain tells me that I'm right." I'll readily admit that the same kind of arrogance happens on every forum I've ever read, including this one, and it's just as bad on principle regardless of where it takes place, so it's not a matter of my having any double standard.

One problem with total reliance on one's own eyes and brain is that it defaults to conventional framing, so the aspect ratio that delivers a film that most looks like lots of other films (or 'looks right', in other parlance) will be deemed correct, and the possibility that a director was deliberately aiming for unusually tight or unusually open framing for artistic reasons gets tidied away. And when you get to a director like Yoshida, whose framing is spectacularly eccentric (and just plain spectacular), virtually every shot can look obviously 'wrong', with actors' heads cut off at the nostrils (and that could be by the top or the bottom of the frame!) Projectionists must have dreaded screening his films.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Re. Dread in the projection booth.

[movielocke]

Would Summertime have been framed with a constant top? If so, then only 1.66:1 would have the correct projection top line and a centered 1.85:1 crop would be quite incorrect and look rather bad.

[EddieLarkin]

Unknown. The BSI proposed a 1.75:1 British AR standard in July '55 (adopted in October), that did call for a common top approach (i.e. a 1.75:1 centre matte, with only the bottom line changing when projecting 1.66:1 or 1.85:1), but Summertime was completed before May '55 so this doesn't really help us.

The film appears to have been primarily a US production, and US projectionists were instructed to go 1.85:1, but 1.66:1 may be a safer option for Blu-ray since we do not know how it was recommended for projection in Britain.

[Gregory]

There is a shot that's extremely close to that one, with Hepburn at the top of the frame, I wouldn't suggest that it matches the image exactly, but when I saw it in 35mm it didn't look like anything that would look appropriate at 1.85. I'll watch the scene again soon and get back to you.

While it humbles me, I feel like I ought to follow up on this and say that I misremembered the very brief shop-window shot, conflating my memory of it with what I've since learned was a publicity still. And again, when I saw the Janus print last year, several shots had me incredulous at the idea that the film could have been composed for 1.85:1 (which I still think is too tight for some shots; overall, 1.66 seems about right), and I thought that the shop-window one was among them. After comparing my memories of that viewing to the Criterion DVD again today, I can only conlclude that the projectionist may have masked off more of the image than I'd realized. This wasn't an issue I had ever noticed before at that venue, where I've seen numerous films I was already familiar with.
In summary:

[EddieLarkin]

An Inspector Calls review at blu-ray.com

wrong aspect ratio...

[Dr Amicus]

wrong aspect ratio...

Fearing I might be lighting the blue touch paper, but really? In 1954?

I'm not even remotely an expert on this, but I would have thought Academy would still be the norm at that point in the UK. Or was this film a special case?

[EddieLarkin]

Britain was definitely the quickest European country to take up widescreen, only very shortly after the US. Widescreen films first appeared in the UK in May 1953 (although these were 1.37:1 films incorrectly matted). The British studios started switching over in June/July 1953, and the first proper British widescreen films started playing at the start of 1954.

In December 1953 British Lion stated they had been shooting their films at 1.80:1 (they had changed to 1.65:1 by March 1954). They did not specify when they made the switch but it would likely be June/July '53 along with all the other studios. An Inspector Calls was completed by Nov 1953. Really though, the film speaks for itself. Note the caps in the review, and this clip (especially 3:31).

The Belles of St Trinian's is also widescreen, though I'm led to believe the new Blu-ray is thankfully 1.66:1.

[Roger Ryan]

I wonder if director Guy Hamilton was consulted? He's still around and displayed a remarkable recollection of technical details in the THE THIRD MAN commentary he did a few years back.

[tojoed]

Say what you like about Studio Canal, I've never known them to release a film in the wrong aspect ratio.
Cue that new band, Bob Furmanek and the Tradepapers.

[EddieLarkin]

And I've known them to be one of the very worst offenders. What's your point?

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Be very afraid. Looks like the sun has really come up on Le Jour se leve. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/8 ... L1500_.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tojoed]

And I've known them to be one of the very worst offenders. What's your point?

My point is that Inspector Calls is correct.
They are only "worst offenders" in your world, no-one elses.
Can you name a Studio Canal film that anyone who is not an HTF member
thinks is incorrect?

[EddieLarkin]

Well of course it's "correct" if your only criteria for whether it is correct or not is that SC released it. You'll apparently take their word for it, whilst I consider the facts. You'll blithely dismiss historical documentation simply because you don't like what it says, whilst providing nothing to counter it.

As for SC releasing a film that everyone believes to be incorrect, I propose 1955's The Dam Busters. I don't believe it's received any discussion here, but a contemporary newsreel of the premiere is available showing it being advertised in widescreen. Of course, SC released it in 1.33:1.

Or you can go back through this thread to find mention of their release of Seven Days to Noon; a film from 1950 that they actually did release in widescreen... *slow clap*

It'd take me all day to list all of the other mistakes and idiotic decisions SC have made outside of ARs; this thread is for the most part negative criticism.

[Bob Furmanek]

It's only "correct" to some because that's how the film has been seen for the past fifty years on 4 x 3 televisions and home video. Let's not forget 16mm library and school screenings plus sloppy repertory bookings from operators who didn't know better.

However, if you go back to the original release and how the film was composed by the filmmaker for theatrical release, widescreen is indeed correct.

Personally, I prefer to see how the director framed their movie to look in a movie theatre.

[Bob Furmanek]

That's cool Gregory, it's all good!

As I have said to our good friend Jeff Wells, there has been a great deal of inconsistency with the presentation of vintage films in 35mm over the past four decades. Having been a part of the New York revival scene in the 70's and 80's, I speak from experience.

More often than not, post-1953 films were presented full-frame when they were intended for widescreen. Even 1.37:1 presentations were not optimum as the aperture plates were usually not filed to SMPTE specs and the lenses did not match.

It continues to this day. This image is from the "hallowed" booth of the Film Forum and was taken in 2013.

'Nuff said!

Incidentally, if you're in the New York area and would like to see an original 35mm dye-transfer Technicolor print of SUMMERTIME in the proper aspect ratio, send me a message and I can arrange that for you.

[tojoed]

I've seen all these movies you're talking about in cinemas in England, that's why I believe them to be correct.
You say you consider "the facts" Eddie, but my movie going experience seems to mean nothing to you.
You were the same in regard to "Lord of the Flies", and I was right and you were wrong.

You don't consider the facts, you take your information from American trade papers. Studio Canal have released these films as they were exhibited in their country of origin, and that is a fact.

[EddieLarkin]

I've seen all these movies you're talking about in cinemas in England, that's why I believe them to be correct.
You say you consider "the facts" Eddie, but my movie going experience seems to mean nothing to you.

Unless your cinema going experience dates back to 1954, then yes it does mean nothing to me. That goes for anyone.

You don't consider the facts, you take your information from American trade papers. Studio Canal have released these films as they were exhibited in their country of origin, and that is a fact.

I can dismiss your nonsense without even resorting to documentation, British or American. The below image is from the world premiere of The Dam Busters in London, showing that it will be seen in Metroscope:



You can see the same in this video taken from the premiere, where Princess Margaret and many veterans of the war have turned out to watch the film, in widescreen. What's so important about your personal movie going experience that it trumps video footage of the premiere?

[Bob Furmanek]

There is no shortage of UK documents in my widescreen articles as well.

Some prefer to keep their head in the sand, I suppose.

[tojoed]

No, my head was looking at the screen. My movie going experience goes back to about 1960, but I no longer wish to share it with widescreen fetishists.

[swo17]

As I've said elsewhere, in cases where the aspect ratio is in substantial dispute, it's preferable for companies to present the film at both ratios. Although actually, presenting a film open matte is accomplishing just this. (I recently watched Criterion's Riot in Cell Block 11 zoomed in to a 1.66:1 ratio through my projector and it looked stellar. I know this technically isn't taking full advantage of all 1080 pixels, but it never felt to me like the PQ was taking a hit.) If you own a projector and can change the masking to be whatever you like, then there's really no use in complaining about a company presenting a film open matte. And if you don't own equipment that can do this, then you don't actually care about watching films as their directors intended for them to be seen. And that is a fact!