422 The Last Emperor
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
I am really curious as to whether or not Criterion will release this in the cropped, stupid 2:1 ratio or the original aspect ratio. I know they want cinematographer approval, but that dude's nuts and at a certain point the studio releasing the film has got to draw the line with this revisionist stuff
- Dylan
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm
Although I'm unable to locate the source at the moment, both Storaro and Bertolucci intended "The Last Emperor" to be presented in 2.00:1 from the get go, so if you're against the new framing Bertolucci is every bit as much to blame as Storaro.
Personally, the framing looks just fine to me, and the transfer itself looks gorgeous.
The only unfortunate thing will be TV overscan for those of us without widescreen monitors, which will further crop their new framing. Aside from that you won't hear any bitching from this Storaro/Bertolucci advocate. I look incredibly forward to this release.
Personally, the framing looks just fine to me, and the transfer itself looks gorgeous.
The only unfortunate thing will be TV overscan for those of us without widescreen monitors, which will further crop their new framing. Aside from that you won't hear any bitching from this Storaro/Bertolucci advocate. I look incredibly forward to this release.
No, he supervised the transfer as well. "Bird" is presented in 2.35:1 because that's Storaro's intended OAR. Storaro didn't start utilizing 2.00:1 until "Apocalypse Now," nearly 10 years after "Bird."Blue Underground's Bird with the Crystal Plumage isn't cropped and he was involved with that release (well, he was interviewed; don't know if he had a hand in the actual transfer).
These films are presented in 2.00 because that's the way Storaro composed them while filming and thus, the way he wants them to be seen, despite the camera ratio being wider. I personally don't see the problem with this.Would Storaro be against including both 2:1 and 2.35:1 versions/ releasing alternate versions?
Last edited by Dylan on Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- denti alligator
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
- Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
There's not really any evidence of that, other than Storaro saying that he always thought it would look better. Here, from Filmmaker Magazine, is a pretty definitive comment from Storaro on the subject:domino harvey wrote:Is there any evidence from the time of filming these works that 2:1 was his initial, intended ratio and that he shot the films in 2.35 only to recut them later, after their theatrical debuts... because read what I just wrote and tell me that makes any sense
Storaro may have liked the idea of 2:1 as far back as Apocalypse Now, but there is no evidence that he actually composed for it before 1998's Tango. That's when he cooked up the name and the technology. If you want to read his treatise on the subject, here is a PDF. I will be shocked The Last Emperor is not transferred in the Univisium format.Filmmaker: Apocalypse Now. Theatrically, it was amazing to see it in its Scope aspect ratio, in 2001. I know that at this point you're preferential to 2:1, but some people were upset to see it on DVD cropped from the 35mm 2.35.
Storaro: Well, I always connected with one painting that Leonardo did, The Last Supper. The Last Supper is 2:1. At the time of shooting Apocalypse Now, I was not aware. I don't really remember when I became conscious of the 2:1. Definitely when I started to originally transfer Apocalypse Now (to video). In my opinion, it wasn't working in 2.35 -- at that time, we were forced to do a pan-and-scan. That was the worst. So we had to find a common ground between film and television. The aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2.21, and the new video aspect ratio is 1.78. If you remove 0.21 from the 65mm, and then you have high definition which is supposed to be the future film/television format, you'll find the perfect balance between the two is 2:1. So any transfer I do is at 2:1. I remember with Bertolucci when we did The Last Emperor and we watched it on the television screen, we didn't like it at 2.35. We found it was much better at 2:1. Now, I only shoot 2:1. I refuse to not shoot 2:1. And I only transfer with this, even the old films, because I know it's the only solution for the future. It's the only meeting point that we have. The DALSA at 4k gives me some encouragement to continue in this way.
Now, there's this rumor they're going to retransfer Apocalypse Now at 1:2.35 -- I will not do it. I will not do it. Because on a television it doesn't work.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
- Steven H
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: NC
God, he's right. From now on I'm going to like my scope OAR DVDs less, for no particular reason. No, wait, its because HD is the future, right? That's a good enough reason to crop a film, because technology is getting better, therefore you want to make the movie look worse. Ridiculous.I remember with Bertolucci when we did The Last Emperor and we watched it on the television screen, we didn't like it at 2.35. We found it was much better at 2:1.
- Cinephrenic
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
- Location: Paris, Texas
This should make a interesting extra (directed by Alex Cox!) for the upcoming release.
- Cinephrenic
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
- Location: Paris, Texas
-
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am
- Cinephrenic
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
- Location: Paris, Texas
- denti alligator
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
- Cronenfly
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:04 pm
It is indeed a shame, and I hope that the transfer is indeed 2.35:1. However, the Criterion blog post about Storaro and the transfer seemed to make it pretty certain that it's going to be 2.00:1, and, as you yourself said, Jeff, it's very unlikely that it'll end up 2.35:1 given Storaro's influence.Jeff wrote:Specs in the first post. Listed as 2.35 for now! It's a shame that they no longer put the detailed transfer info.
2.35:1 or not, this still looks like an excellent package overall, more than I was expecting, even given the film's prestige.
- Mr Pixies
- Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:03 pm
- Location: Fla
- Contact:
- denti alligator
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
Yes, Mr. Pixie, this is the film you remember.
Can anyone tell me why this needs four discs? Ok, so the film will be spread out over two discs. If they spread it unevenly, there should be plenty of room left on the second for some hefty extras. That still leaves two whole (dual-layered) discs to fill. I just don't see the extras taking up that space.
Can anyone tell me why this needs four discs? Ok, so the film will be spread out over two discs. If they spread it unevenly, there should be plenty of room left on the second for some hefty extras. That still leaves two whole (dual-layered) discs to fill. I just don't see the extras taking up that space.
- glaswegian tome
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:28 pm
- Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
There are two complete, separate cuts of the film included, one of which is three and half hours long.denti alligator wrote:Yes, Mr. Pixie, this is the film you remember.
Can anyone tell me why this needs four discs? Ok, so the film will be spread out over two discs. If they spread it unevenly, there should be plenty of room left on the second for some hefty extras. That still leaves two whole (dual-layered) discs to fill. I just don't see the extras taking up that space.
They said it would be a new cut by Bertolucci. I guess this one just ended up a bit shorter than the previous Artisan disc.glaswegian tome wrote:Is anyone else wondering why its listed as 209 minutes? The old dvd was 218. I'm wondering what's going on with that.
Last edited by Jeff on Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- CSM126
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: The Room
- Contact:
I'm guessing:denti alligator wrote:Yes, Mr. Pixie, this is the film you remember.
Can anyone tell me why this needs four discs? Ok, so the film will be spread out over two discs. If they spread it unevenly, there should be plenty of room left on the second for some hefty extras. That still leaves two whole (dual-layered) discs to fill. I just don't see the extras taking up that space.
Disc 1 - Theatrical Cut
Discs 2 and 3 - Extended cut
Disc 4 - Special Features
- Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
That's what I expect as well, except that Criterion's website never refers to a "theatrical version." Didn't Bertolucci disapprove of it being cut to 164 minutes for the U.S.? I wonder if his "new cut" is the 209-minute one. This would be the one with the Storaro-approved transfer and commentary. The "extended television cut" would be the full 224-minute release. Criterion really needs to be more specific here.CSM126 wrote:I'm guessing:
Disc 1 - Theatrical Cut
Discs 2 and 3 - Extended cut
Disc 4 - Special Features