criterionforum.org

MichaelB wrote:For what it's worth, I've just checked the aspect ratio of the clips on Screenonline, which were sourced from the BFI National Archive's viewing print - and the OAR would have been requested at the time of telecine, which I imagine the operator would have sourced from the markings on the cans...

...and it's 1.33:1.

Which isn't a definitive answer, of course, but it does support your contention that it was certainly shot in 1.33:1, regardless of the ultimate framing intentions.

Now that's some possible valuable information.

For the record, no one is contending that the negative isn't 1.33:1. The question is what the intended theatrical representation is. Many, many, many films have been shot on a 1.33:1 negative that were intended for 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 presentation.

pro-bassoonist wrote:This is certainly an interesting observation, but not something I could agree with.

If that's the case, we have nothing left to discuss. If you're willy-nilly on the whole aspect ratio and preserving intended theatrical presentation in home theater then we've found an impasse that will never be breached.

I have seen this projected in 1.1:33 ratio. Where does that leave us regarding the integrity of the theatrical experience??

captveg wrote:For the record, no one is contending that the negative isn't 1.33:1. The question is what the intended theatrical representation is. Many, many, many films have been shot on a 1.33:1 negative that were intended for 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 presentation.

You might be astounded to hear that this isn't exactly news to me.

My point was that the telecine operator was explicitly asked to respect the OAR. Obviously, I have no immediate method of determining whether this was actually the case, but it certainly looks fine compositionally in 1.33:1. And it also seems to me that given that it's highly plausible that it would have been widely screened in 1.33:1 by cinemas that hadn't yet converted to widescreen (as John Hodson correctly points out, European cinemas didn't embrace wider ratios with anything like as much alacrity as American ones) that both ratios are equally legitimate.

So I'd argue that Optimum's decision is the most sensible one, given that it allows the end user the option of adopting either framing depending on personal preference.

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:I have seen this projected in 1.1:33 ratio. Where does that leave us regarding the integrity of the theatrical experience??

Looking for clarity.

MichaelB wrote:So I'd argue that Optimum's decision is the most sensible one, given that it allows the end user the option of adopting either framing depending on personal preference.

It's possible. I'm hopeful for a more authoritative answer.

MichaelB wrote:

captveg wrote:For the record, no one is contending that the negative isn't 1.33:1. The question is what the intended theatrical representation is. Many, many, many films have been shot on a 1.33:1 negative that were intended for 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 presentation.

You might be astounded to hear that this isn't exactly news to me.

My point was that the telecine operator was explicitly asked to respect the OAR. Obviously, I have no immediate method of determining whether this was actually the case, but it certainly looks fine compositionally in 1.33:1. And it also seems to me that given that it's highly plausible that it would have been widely screened in 1.33:1 by cinemas that hadn't yet converted to widescreen (as John Hodson correctly points out, European cinemas didn't embrace wider ratios with anything like as much alacrity as American ones) that both ratios are equally legitimate.

So I'd argue that Optimum's decision is the most sensible one, given that it allows the end user the option of adopting either framing depending on personal preference.

Hear, hear; in fact, it's probable that, contemporaneously, it was seen by the majority of Europeans at 1.33:1 and the majority of US citizens in 1.66:1. My suspicion - nothing more - is that Heller favoured the former, ever so slightly.

Some strong debate over this issue going on right now in the Lionsgate/StudioCanal thread

david hare wrote:Ive just been looking at Gary's comps of the Ladykillers BluRay with the Canal/Optimum SD. I wasnt going to buy this given the concerns over AR but I will be now - like the recent Spanish DVD of Wind Across the Everglades which was also released open matte (rather than the theatrical 1.85 mask) both films look simply better in Academy, with far too many two and three shots in CU ending up drastically airless in the WS masking.

So the 1.37 in this case strikes me as completely preferable to the 1.66. Obviously BOTH are correct but, as Gary says in the review, if you dont like it Flat zoom it up.

I completely agree, David.

I hope this doesn't bring the conversation off topic, but how much does the anamorphic debate play into the decision to release the film 1.33 or 1.66? I've noticed that a considerable amount of films that were originally theatrically matted at 1.66 have issues on home video. They seem to either be incorrectly matted and formatted for 1.87 widescreen TVs (such as I think SOME LIKE IT HOT) or they exist in their proper aspect ratio but not anamorphic (such as I CAN NO LONGER HEAR THE GUITAR). Does anyone have examples of an anamorphic DVD of a 1.66 film?

If not, I wonder if the decision to keep the film at 1.33 played a role, because both options (the Wilder and the Garrel) for displaying a 1.66 film, specifically on Blu-ray, might be more problematic than not. Thoughts?

I definitely prefer the 1.37 framing. The Anchor Bay was always very cramped and looked slightly misframed, and Gary's caps really illustrate that. Academy looks much better, and was almost certainly the more common way for it to be projected in the U.K. in 1955. Philip Kemp was involved in the Blu-ray release, and no film scholar knows more about Mackendrick or Ealing than him, so I'm taking it as definitive.

Jeff wrote:Philip Kemp was involved in the Blu-ray release, and no film scholar knows more about Mackendrick or Ealing than him, so I'm taking it as definitive.

I think Charles Barr might have something to say when it comes to expertise on Ealing! But otherwise you're quite right: Philip Kemp certainly is the world's leading Mackendrick scholar, and I'd forgotten he was involved.

Mind you, this doesn't necessarily mean he had a direct input into the transfer (Kim Newman recently pointed out that although his name's all over the packaging for Nouveaux' new Suspiria, all he did was record a commentary and give an on-camera interview), but I'd hope he'd have flagged up something as fundamental as it being in the wrong aspect ratio.

What about the highlights/brightness levels on the Ladykillers BluRay?

If you look at the beaver screens, detail has been knocked out the Parrot's feathers and the pattern on the old lady's dress.

david hare wrote:Michael, I should leave it to Adrian Martin to amplify, but I'll jump in here. I understand his commentary tracks for Madman are effectively never partied to some close relationship with the print sourcing, etc. Martin basically comes in and records a sound file to playback and that's that. He was blithely unaware - for example - until I told him that that fucking copy of Exterminating Angel had the opening sequence re-edited. No fault of his - nor any opportunity to affect it.

It's very much a case-by-case situation, which is why I brought up Kim Newman. I notice that David Kalat is credited as the recordist as well as the commentator on MoC's City Girl, so I'd guess he did it at home to a copy of the Fox DVD - no reason not to, as it's the same source master and the same running time. BFI commentary tracks are generally recorded to the best master available at the time, which of course might not be the final one - though I think this is often the case (and certainly has been with the ones I've personally sat in on).

It would take a rare commentator/scholar who's been hired to do an "extra" for the dvd a hell of a lot of clout to influence the actual shape and outcome of the telecine. There are very few examples I can think of. The last one is Tag and his inestimable influence on the Rossellini war trilogy boxset. Or Bernard Eisenschitz and his vid essays for the French Warner disc of Lang's Moonfleet.

I think it's vanishingly rare for a scholar to be involved prior to telecine, though of course in many cases the DVD producer may not be involved either! But in my experience, DVD producers are only too happy to pick the brains of people who might know more about the subject than they do - it's not much of a secret that I've acted as an unofficial consultant to Second Run on most of their Eastern European titles over the last three years or so, even if I didn't make a credited contribution to the disc or booklet. And I certainly know that it's common practice with BFI telecines originating in-house, to have an expert on hand to advise - if not the filmmaker, then someone with genuinely expert knowledge. But the BFI is more likely to have the latter on tap than a small independent label.

MichaelB wrote:

david hare wrote:Michael, I should leave it to Adrian Martin to amplify, but I'll jump in here. I understand his commentary tracks for Madman are effectively never partied to some close relationship with the print sourcing, etc. Martin basically comes in and records a sound file to playback and that's that. He was blithely unaware - for example - until I told him that that fucking copy of Exterminating Angel had the opening sequence re-edited. No fault of his - nor any opportunity to affect it.

It's very much a case-by-case situation, which is why I brought up Kim Newman. I notice that David Kalat is credited as the recordist as well as the commentator on MoC's City Girl, so I'd guess he did it at home to a copy of the Fox DVD - no reason not to, as it's the same source master and the same running time. BFI commentary tracks are generally recorded to the best master available at the time, which of course might not be the final one - though I think this is often the case (and certainly has been with the ones I've personally sat in on).

I think that was also the case for Kalat's other MoC commentaries on the three Mabuse films and Großherzogs.

There is a restoration demo on the new disc indicating that some substantial work has been done. Surely they consulted someone on what it should look like. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic there. I just can't imagine that with the work that went into the disc, deciding to go with 1.37 over 1.66 was accidental, or an oversight. StudioCanal was the one who created the old 1.66 DVD master, right? So it's not like they weren't aware that was a possibility. For whatever reason, it seems like someone intentionally decided to go with 1.37, and it sure looks like the right choice to me. In the early days of DVD, unmatted transfers often made it to market because studios were too lazy to create a new master or thought that consumers wanted movies to fill their square televisions. That's clearly not the case here, since this is a new, restored master designed to be played on 1.78 televisions. 1.66 would have really been the "easier" way to go if this was just a case of StudioCanal malfeasance.

Michael, do you have contact with Mr. Kemp, or info on how to contact him? Even if he wasn't involved at the telecine stage, he might be able to tell us what Mackendrick's preferred ratio was.

I really don't like how the new BD of The Ladykillers looks. At all. It seems horribly overexposed. The only good thing seems to be the 1.33:1 AR.

Jeff wrote:1.66 would have really been the "easier" way to go if this was just a case of StudioCanal malfeasance.

And it's also worth noting that Canal has a dishonourable track record of going the other way - i.e. cropping films that are unarguably 1.33:1 to something wider. Case in point: Seven Days to Noon - made in 1950, so unquestionably 1.33:1, but presented in 16:9 on DVD.

Michael, do you have contact with Mr. Kemp, or info on how to contact him? Even if he wasn't involved at the telecine stage, he might be able to tell us what Mackendrick's preferred ratio was.

I do, as it happens - my boss is dealing with him at this very moment on Ealing-related stuff. I'll drop him a line.

MichaelB wrote:

Jeff wrote:1.66 would have really been the "easier" way to go if this was just a case of StudioCanal malfeasance.

And it's also worth noting that Canal has a dishonourable track record of going the other way - i.e. cropping films that are unarguably 1.33:1 to something wider. Case in point: Seven Days to Noon - made in 1950, so unquestionably 1.33:1, but presented in 16:9 on DVD.

...and soon to be re-released by Optimum as 'digitally restored', and hopefully in the correct OAR (I can't think of any other reason for such a quick rehash).

Optimum seems to be doing a bad/lazy job at distributing Studio Canal Collection titles in the UK. They didn't release "3 Days of the Condor" (whoever owns the rights for it in the UK?) and next week they aren't releasing "Senso" and "A bout de suffle"...

Does the French release of Senso have English subs?

Lots of good conversation in here, especially from Jeff. The Philip Kemp info is exactly what I was looking for. To add to that...

"Ladykillers is a 1955 production, which should be replicated at 1.66:1. Many theaters ran at at 1.37. My statement is based upon informed opinion. Nothing more."

^ Robert Harris in a response to my inquiry. Everyone can do with that information what they desire. (I imagine Kemp's expertise in this case is likely more valuable).

As for me - well, I may rent the Blu-ray first and see how it feels to me. If I didn't already own the DVD it might not be as big of sticking point. But if there is indeed a response from Mr. Kemp, that could finalize all of this.

-----

In other news, having now seen the Ran comparison at DVD Beaver, it is nowhere near the disaster I had been led to believe. I was thinking Gangs of New York bad. This is definitely not that situation. Ideal? Maybe not. Best yet home video version of the title? Most likely.

Is the look of the Optimum DVD similar to the Anchor Bay featured at the Beaver comparison?

I don't have the current Optimum but I do have the earlier Warner/StudioCanal UK DVD (also a newspaper freebie which appears to be the same), both 1.66:1. On a brief check I'd say the colour is somewhere between the Anchor Bay and the new BR, as represented on Beaver. It does not have the heavy green bias of the AB; Guinness' scarf on his first appearance looks grey (as in the BR), not green, for example. But it does not look as bright or pink as the BR. I've always been happy with it - whether the current Optimum is the same I couldn't say. I do know that my newspaper freebies of The Titfield Thunderbolt and Passport to Pimlico were far superior to the Optimum DVDs I'd previously bought!

Incidentally, Leslie Halliwell makes an unusual reference to the film's "poor colour" in his Film Guide. Whatever his shortcomings as a critic, he did manage a cinema in the 1950s and later bought films for UK TV, sometimes going to great lengths to source the best possible prints. But he may have been prejudiced against The Ladykillers which he considered "overrated".