The Jeffrey Wells Thread

[MichaelB]

Has Wells even seen it in 1.66:1? Does he zoom the full-frame version to 14:9 when watching it?

[Perkins Cobb]

Despite Friedkin personally confirming to Wells on twitter that Sorcerer is to be shown at 1.85:1, Wells still insists that 1.66:1 is better, for no other reason than that he feels the film breathes better.

Considering the sources, that makes a persuasive case for 2.35.

[HistoryProf]

was wells raped with a 1.85:1 phallus as a child or something? this has to be the singularly most bizarre fixation of anyone in film criticism. Statements like this are just pure nonsense:

But I was also thinking that 1.66 fits because Sorcerer has an international cast, one of the major characters (played by Bruno Cremer) is French and the dominant non-Scope aspect ratio in France during the '70s was 1.66.

So because movies were shown in 1.66 in France in the 70s, any film with a french actor should be converted to 1.66?

he's a crazy person. It is beyond me how he is considered a "critic" in any sense of the word.

[Professor Wagstaff]

Also, keep in mind that Friedkin was married to Jeanne Moreau at the time he made Sorcerer. Forthcoming is the theory that Friedkin made pillow talk promises for 1.66 that he rescinded after the divorce. If only she had a twitter account where he could posit to her these truths.

[Zot!]

Thanks for the yuks. Brilliant stuff.

[zedz]

was wells raped with a 1.85:1 phallus as a child or something? this has to be the singularly most bizarre fixation of anyone in film criticism. Statements like this are just pure nonsense:

But I was also thinking that 1.66 fits because Sorcerer has an international cast, one of the major characters (played by Bruno Cremer) is French and the dominant non-Scope aspect ratio in France during the '70s was 1.66.

That's hilarious! I still don't know who this Jeffrey Wells idiot is, or why anybody pays any attention to what he says, but if he keeps coming up with comic gems like this, I welcome this thread.

[The Narrator Returns]

Wells has truly outdone himself

[domino harvey]

First comment says it all:

What, no selfie of you giving thumbs-up beside the casket? You're slipping, Wells.

[criterion10]

Gotta love Wells. My favorite is Glenn Kenny's comment:

To recap: A: Wells goes to a funeral for a public figure that's actually open to the public. Not realizing this, he gloats in social media that he's "crashing" the funeral successfully, because he is favored by God. He then writes a triumphalist blog post about crashing a funeral.

B: Several of Wells' more sympathetic followers note that not only was the funeral open to the public, but that this fact was widely known. So Wells' gloating was actually a form of trolling on the tsk-tskers in his audience, they charitably presume.

C: Wells doubles down and protests that he DID SO crash the funeral, because he had to go through some sort of security protocol!

D: The better-informed Matt Seitz, whom Wells previously indirectly insulted for pandering to readers who couldn't face the RAW REALITY Wells serves up, points out that said security protocol was performing a different function than Wells presumed. (Note that Wells admitted he was eventually seated with the "serfs.")

You follow all that? Fucking classic. Zero class and a bit of an imbecile to boot. Home run.

[dustybooks]

Against my better judgment, I went back and read the post about the waitress that Kenny mentions in his top comment, and... oof.

(this post did refer to Wells as a sociopath; it was a lazy thing to say, I apologize)

[matrixschmatrix]

You can be a tremendously self absorbed asshole without being mentally ill

[dustybooks]

Poor form on my part, sorry.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

To JW from FZ

[Perkins Cobb]

Film critic facing eviction crowdfunds his rent. Jeffrey Wells appropriates the occasion to remind the world that he's an irredeemable cock wagon.

[matrixschmatrix]

Cool, cool, utterly baseless fat shaming as an excuse for being a stingy bastard. And also he doesn't understand why anyone will take issue with that. Good job Jeff Wells.

[The Narrator Returns]

He's just angry because the still was posted in the 1.85:1 ratio.

[domino harvey]

Wells is an idiot, of course, and just trying to stir shit up, but I don't think much of someone begging on the Internet for rent money either (though not because of their weight)

[Gregory]

His current post is a gripping tale of adventure in the dangerous terrain of the free parking lots of Palm Springs, where you need to have the keen instincts of a wild animal and the sense of balance of a tightrope walker to survive.

[EddieLarkin]

Lester has betrayed his own film. That's the truth.

The sliver of information that will be missing* from the Criterion Blu-ray compared to the 1.66:1 version has you know who really upset. Part 1, Part 2.

I'm surprised Criterion have even dignified him with a reply, and his response to them reads like pure parody (which unfortunately it isn't).

*This being an entirely new scan from the OCN, it's possible that it might have the same amount of information, or indeed even more, than what you get on the old 1.66:1 BD anyway.

[jindianajonz]

Well it's a good thing that Wells, "the fan", owns the film- now he can go ahead and release it in whatever damn aspect ratio he wants!

Also, not sure what it means to damage the film in a "slight but significant way"

[Michael Kerpan]

What a maroon.

[whaleallright]

n/a

[tenia]

I'm not sure he grasps the meaning of the expression comme ci, comme ça--but that's the least of his issues, I suppose.

He clearly doesn't. I'm French, and had to read the sentence 3 times to understand that it basically didn't make any sense (hence why I wasn't able to understand it).
Comme ci comme ça is the expression you use where you're kind in an average shape. "How are you today ?" "Meh, comme ci comme ça". The German speakers would use "so-so la-la".

It's funny to me that folks are arguing over a difference of 0.09 in the aspect-ratio of one film whilst the polar ice caps are melting and we're due for global calamity. But I guess we need to keep busy somehow, at least until we drown/starve/etc.

First world problems, I guess.

[MichaelB]

It's funny to me that folks are arguing over a difference of 0.09 in the aspect-ratio of one film whilst the polar ice caps are melting and we're due for global calamity. But I guess we need to keep busy somehow, at least until we drown/starve/etc.

I remember the massive row over Barry Lyndon, which I lost interest in after actually watching the Blu-ray and deciding that it looked fine in 1.78:1. Which is hardly surprising given that the compositions would have had to be really millimetre-precise to be significantly affected by that tiny degree of cropping.

Similarly, I'm pretty unfazed by the new Warner BD of Performance also being in 1.78:1.

[criterion10]

Similarly, I'm pretty unfazed by the new Warner BD of Performance also being in 1.78:1.

Is Performance meant to be seen in 1.66:1? The DVD release was also 1.78, and IMDB lists it as 1.85.

I've only seen the film once, but regardless, I too didn't have any problems with the framing.