Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Psycho's original aspect ratio

479 views
Skip to first unread message

André R. Coutu

unread,
Oct 11, 2000, 10:17:58 PM10/11/00
to
does anyone know whether the true original aspect ratio for Hitchcock's
Psycho was 1.33:1 or 1.85:1. I would like to know the original theatrical
release ratio

Thanks,
André R. Coutu


Bill Warren

unread,
Oct 12, 2000, 1:13:02 AM10/12/00
to
>From: "André R. Coutu" andre...@home.com

>does anyone know whether the true original aspect ratio for Hitchcock's
>Psycho was 1.33:1 or 1.85:1. I would like to know the original theatrical
>release ratio
>

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that it was shot 1:33 then matted in
theaters to a wider aspect. But I don't think 1.85 had become the standard by
that point.


muf...@labyrinth.net.au

unread,
Oct 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/12/00
to
In article <qb9F5.9451$Gf3.1...@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com>,

"André R. Coutu" <andre...@home.com> wrote:
> does anyone know whether the true original aspect ratio for
Hitchcock's
> Psycho was 1.33:1 or 1.85:1. I would like to know the original
theatrical
> release ratio

You WON'T find the answer to this in the US edition of my book called
'The Alfred Hitchcock Story'! In their wisdom (and against contract)
Taylor Publishers, Texas, cut out this and dozens of other pieces of
information from the original, UK manuscript, which WAS published intact
(beautifully, and in colour) by Titan Books, London. (You can buy the
UK edition from Amazon.uk.com, by the way!)

What the UK edition reported (in the Author's Note) was this: 'PSYCHO's
screen shape is controversial. Officially, its "theatrical ratio" is
1.85:1, but Gus Van Sant, for one, remembers the original cans were
labelled 1.75:1. All of Hitchcock's films after PSYCHO carry an
official aspect ratio of 1.85:1.' (p. 4)

Hope that helps.

- Ken Mogg (principal author, the uncut and non-'simplified' UK edition
of 'The AH Story').
Website: http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

David Bridson

unread,
Oct 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/14/00
to
> - Ken Mogg (principal author, the uncut and non-'simplified' UK edition
> of 'The AH Story').

I'm just curious, but you seem to be rating about this matter quite a lot.
If the US publishers did something against contract, why not sue them? You
have a right as the copyright holder of your book to have it presented as
you wish. If they've done something against contract, then you'd be
perfectly within your rights to sue.

David

muf...@labyrinth.net.au

unread,
Oct 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/15/00
to
In article <WJ%F5.3238$NQ4....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,

"David Bridson" <da...@bridson.co.uk> wrote:
> > - Ken Mogg (principal author, the uncut and non-'simplified' UK
edition
> > of 'The AH Story').
>
> I'm just curious, but you seem to be rating about this matter quite a
lot.
> If the US publishers did something against contract, why not sue them?

Oh dear, I'm sorry if I seem to be ranting. Actually I'm detached about
the matter, but I vowed to myself that I'd routinely point out in
correspondence, etc., the criminal things done to the book by the US
publisher. The book's US contract was between the UK publisher and the
US publisher. The UK publisher decided not to sue because
trans-Atlantic legalities are complicated, and, besides, the UK
publisher had not dealt with the US publisher before - the UK publisher
therefore considered it diplomatic, i.e., best for future US deals, not
to make a fuss. (Meanwhile, the author, whose text and US reputation
have both been hurt, gets trampled!)

- Ken Mogg (author of the uncut UK edition of 'The AH Story' - I disavow
the cut and 'simplified' US version).
Website: http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin
Testimonial: '["The AH Story" is] both a treat to look at and a pleasure
to read' - 'Film Review' (UK).

David Bridson

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
> Oh dear, I'm sorry if I seem to be ranting. Actually I'm detached about
> the matter, but I vowed to myself that I'd routinely point out in
> correspondence, etc., the criminal things done to the book by the US
> publisher. The book's US contract was between the UK publisher and the
> US publisher. The UK publisher decided not to sue because
> trans-Atlantic legalities are complicated, and, besides, the UK
> publisher had not dealt with the US publisher before - the UK publisher
> therefore considered it diplomatic, i.e., best for future US deals, not
> to make a fuss. (Meanwhile, the author, whose text and US reputation
> have both been hurt, gets trampled!)

It's a shame you have no recourse - continue ranting! At least you could
provide some useful links like this one (congratulations on the five
stars!):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840230916/qid%3D971975789/026-8454
346-6666021

David

0 new messages