Kubrick disappointment
Rob Haynes
individual titles, I discovered that half of the titles aren't even
letterboxed! This didn't surprise me for "Lolita" (for all I know it was
filmed 1:33), but STILL no "Shining" widescreen (the only time I've ever
seen this widescreen was the few seconds of it they show during the drive-in
scene in the widescreen "Twister"); "Full Metal Jacket" isn't widescreen
either.
What gives?
Rob
jayembee
If this isn't in an FAQ somewhere, it should be.
The reason these aren't widescreen is because that's the way
Kubrick wanted them. Kubrick didn't like widescreen. SPARTACUS
and 2001 were the only films of his shot in true widescreen
(and were also the only ones recorded in multi-track sound,
which is why all the VHS/LD/DVDs of all the others are in mono
as well). All of the others were matted widescreen, but Kubrick
preferred to compose them as close to full-frame as he could
without having them ruined by matted projection.
Except for SPARTACUS (which he doesn't really consider one of
"his" films), Kubrick supervised the transfers of all of his
films as released by Criterion & Warner (on LD) and Warner (DVD).
He deliberately had THE SHINING and FULL METAL JACKET presented
fullscreen. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON were minimally
matted (the ratio varies between about 1.45:1 to 1.55:1). LOLITA,
I believe, is in the same varying aspect ratio that Criterion's
LD was -- as was Criterion's LD of DR. STRANGELOVE.
Columbia's release of DR. STRANGELOVE (on both LD and DVD, I
believe), and MGM's release on LOLITA on LD were both single-ratio
widescreen, which was not approved by Kubrick.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
©1953 Mary J. Boyajian, renewed 1999
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Larry Schneider
that Kubrick didn't realize how far home video presentation has come
since these films were first realeased to VHS, so he approved the
transfers.
These are old transfers. They would have to be done for a waidescrren
anamorphic presentation, and maybe someday we will get them.
I have a 16X9 TV, so I can watch The Shining and Full Metal Jacket in
1.78 aspect ratio. The framing works fine, nothing of significance
isn't seen, and the films look much better.
The ability to create letterboxed movies out of "modified to fit your
screen" mvies is one of the greatest benefits of widescreen TV.
jayembee
> There has been a lot of discussion on this. An opposing school
> is that Kubrick didn't realize how far home video presentation
> has come since these films were first realeased to VHS, so he
> approved the transfers.
Not quite. Most of the films has already appeared (in non-approved
transfers) on VHS. The transfers that Kubrick personally supervised
were those that we made specifically for laserdisc circa 10 years
ago, especially for the Criterion releases. According to what I
read, Kubrick had actually made extensive notes, virtually scene
by scene, detailing what he wanted. He would've known that laserdisc
resolution was far better than that of VHS, and adjusted things
accordingly.
In the cases of LOLITA and DR. STRANGELOVE, the varying ratios of
the "approved" transfers were not just a case of "it looks better
this way on home video". The matted scenes were shot *hard* matte,
i.e. in the camera, very deliberately, so that when projected
full-frame, those scenes would appear in the ratio Kubrick wanted
them in.
Think about it a bit. If it was merely a case of Kubrick having a
general idea of the deficiencies of home video resolution, rather
than his having a specific idea of what ratios he wanted, then why
would he be inconsistent about the transfers. Why are THE SHINING
and FULL METAL JACKET completely full-frame, while A CLOCKWORK
ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON matted (even if only minimally) in slightly
varying ratios? Why weren't all four movies slightly matted (in a
constant ratio) or all four full-frame?
> I have a 16X9 TV, so I can watch The Shining and Full Metal
> Jacket in 1.78 aspect ratio. The framing works fine, nothing of
> significance isn't seen, and the films look much better.
Aren't you making assumptions that Kubrick didn't prefer that the
films be projected full screen, and just fudged the composition
so that they wouldn't be grossly harmed by being matted?
(Keep in mind that films will be either overmatted or undermatted
anyway, depending on where they are projected. You can be sure
that when, say, Terry Gilliam composes his shots for 1.66:1 that
the resulting film will be projected at 1.85:1 here in the States.
With the reverse being the case of American films projected in
Europe. Filmmakers are -- or should be -- smart enough to take
into account that they have no control over the final projection.)
> The ability to create letterboxed movies out of "modified to
> fit your screen" mvies is one of the greatest benefits of
> widescreen TV.
But you really can't do that. If it's been "modified to fit your
screen", it's most likely pan-&-scanned. If that's the case, your
16:9 isn't "un-P&S-ing" the image.
Besides, why would you *want* to do that if the movie wasn't
intended to be seen that way? That's the point. And, as far as
is known, Kubrick wanted his films seen in full-frame, or close
to it. Me, I'd rather have them the way he thought they'd look
best, rather than someone else second-guessing what he thinks
Kubrick *might* have wanted if blah blah blah.
Douglas Bailey
> Larry Schneider <lschn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > The ability to create letterboxed movies out of "modified to
> > fit your screen" mvies is one of the greatest benefits of
> > widescreen TV.
>
> But you really can't do that. If it's been "modified to fit your
> screen", it's most likely pan-&-scanned. If that's the case, your
> 16:9 isn't "un-P&S-ing" the image.
That would be true if the "modified to fit your screen" disclaimer
were applied only to P&S transfers. In fact, however, it's also
frequently applied to open-matte transfers (THE SHINING and FULL METAL
JACKET -- both open-matte -- carry the disclaimer).
This is accurate, even if it seems confusing. After all, even in an
open-matte transfer, you *are* most likely changing the appearance of
the film from its theatrical aspect ratio, since most soft-matted
films are projected in 1.85:1 or thereabouts.
Personally, I'd love it if the disclaimer were changed to include
"pan-and-scan" or "open-matte" so that buyers could *know* for certain
what happened to the film, but this isn't too realistic: it's very
unlikely that they're going to re-word the disclaimer any time soon. I
wish they would: I have a widescreen set, so these 4:3 transfers
certainly aren't modified to fit *my* screen. :)
> Besides, why would you *want* to do that if the movie wasn't
> intended to be seen that way? That's the point. And, as far as
> is known, Kubrick wanted his films seen in full-frame, or close
> to it.
Speaking as a 16:9 owner myself, I don't mind having THE SHINING or
FMJ in full-frame 4:3, but it *is* nice sometimes to zoom it to 1.78:1
and have a pretty good approximation of how the film was projected in
US cinemas. After watching THE SHINING both ways, I'm very impressed:
the compositions work (for me, anyhow) in both formats. They just
produce a slightly different effect.
doug
--
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
John Gonzales
> Besides, why would you *want* to do that if the movie wasn't
> intended to be seen that way? That's the point. And, as far as
> is known, Kubrick wanted his films seen in full-frame, or close
> to it. Me, I'd rather have them the way he thought they'd look
> best, rather than someone else second-guessing what he thinks
> Kubrick *might* have wanted if blah blah blah.
>
So what does this mean for Eyes Wide Shut? At least we can be thankful
Kubrick (or the studios) embraced the DVD format quicker than some other
noted directors though.
John
David Mullen
>In the cases of LOLITA and DR. STRANGELOVE, the varying ratios of
>the "approved" transfers were not just a case of "it looks better
>this way on home video". The matted scenes were shot *hard* matte,
>i.e. in the camera, very deliberately, so that when projected
>full-frame, those scenes would appear in the ratio Kubrick wanted
>them in.
Except that these movies weren't projected full-frame theatrically.
>Think about it a bit. If it was merely a case of Kubrick having a
>general idea of the deficiencies of home video resolution, rather
>than his having a specific idea of what ratios he wanted, then why
>would he be inconsistent about the transfers. Why are THE SHINING
>and FULL METAL JACKET completely full-frame, while A CLOCKWORK
>ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON matted (even if only minimally) in slightly
>varying ratios? Why weren't all four movies slightly matted (in a
>constant ratio) or all four full-frame?
>Aren't you making assumptions that Kubrick didn't prefer that the
>films be projected full screen, and just fudged the composition
>so that they wouldn't be grossly harmed by being matted?
You're also making an assumption that Kubrick wanted these films to be seen
full-frame in projection when maybe he JUST wanted them to be seen that way
on 4:3 television. After all, before he died, he gave the NFT in London,
who were about to have a Kubrick festival later in the year, instructions to
show most of his film projected in 1.66 : 1, not full-frame.
According to Robert Harris, who restored "Spartacus", Kubrick preferred that
his films be transferred to TV full-frame, whether or not hard mattes
in-camera became visible -- hence why Dr. Strangelove has some shots with
mattes visible. Both "Clockwork Orange" and "Barry Lyndon" were probably
shot with 1.66 : 1 hard mattes, which is why those films are letterboxed
while "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" are not since they were shot
open-matted. However, all of this does not mean that Kubrick shot his films
with the intention that they be PROJECTED theatrically in Academy 1.37,
since at the time of production, that format was no longer being used by
first-run movie houses. (Garret Brown, steadicam operator on "The Shining"
has posted in the past that he framed his work for 1.85 : 1, not Academy
1.37.)
So why would Kubrick intend that the films be seen in a format that no one
was going to show them in at the time of release? It is more likely that he
had a different attitude for TV and felt that they should be shown without
mattes on 4:3 television (for whatever reason). But I doubt that he spent
all that time and money while shooting thinking primarily of a full-frame TV
version first and a matted theatrical release second. The other way around
is more likely.
Anyone who actually makes movies can tell you that it is easier to frame for
the format that requires more cropping and "protect" for being seen unmatted
later on TV than the other way around (if you composed for full-frame but
constantly "loosened" up top & bottom for matting, you end up essentially
composing for the matting because the sides are the same in Academy and 1.85
: 1, but the top & bottom are different).
Old movies that are truly framed for Academy 1.37 have a different
compositional style than the umatted transfer of "The Shining", with its
consistently large amounts of excess headroom. Had Kubrick only "fudged"
his compositions for theatrical matting and somehow "intended" that they
actually be projected full-frame, then you would see a lot more examples of
tighter headroom in the framing of "The Shining".
I don't have a reason for why Kubrick preferred that "The Shining" and "Full
Metal Jacket" be shown on TV unmatted, but the argument that he shot them
with the intention that they should be PROJECTED THEATRICALLY in 1.37 even
though he knew they wouldn't be doesn't hold water. And besides, he
wouldn't have requested that the National Film Theater project them in 1.66
: 1 (and they could have shown them in Academy 1.37 : 1).
I know that 1.66 : 1 wasn't how they were shown originally in the U.S.
(which showed them matted to 1.85 : 1) so clearly Kubrick liked to re-think
or reconsider how they got shown. He probably simply preferred 1.66 for
projection but full-frame for 4:3 TV IF the material had been shot
full-frame. Again, I don't know why.
David Mullen
jayembee
> According to Robert Harris, who restored "Spartacus", Kubrick
> preferred that his films be transferred to TV full-frame,
> whether or not hard mattes in-camera became visible -- hence
> why Dr. Strangelove has some shots with mattes visible. Both
> "Clockwork Orange" and "Barry Lyndon" were probably shot with
> 1.66 : 1 hard mattes, which is why those films are letterboxed
[...]
I would question that. If they were shot 1.66:1 hard, then the
mattes would appear on the TV screen at that ratio consistently
throughout the film. But with neither ACO or BL is this the case.
The ratios vary from approximately 1.45:1 to 1.55:1 (figures
slightly fudged to account for overscanning).
I suppose this *could* be accounted for by assuming that the
image was blown up slightly so that the hard mattes were
partially out of the TV frame (which would result in some amount
of side picture being cropped). But if, as you say, Kubrick
wanted his films transferred for TV full frame even if this
resulted in the hard mattes being visible, then I don't see why
he'd have the image zoomed in this manner.
Mathew A. Hennessy
jayembee <Jerry.B...@eds.com> wrote:
>Except for SPARTACUS (which he doesn't really consider one of
>"his" films), Kubrick supervised the transfers of all of his
>films as released by Criterion & Warner (on LD) and Warner (DVD).
>He deliberately had THE SHINING and FULL METAL JACKET presented
>fullscreen. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON were minimally
>matted (the ratio varies between about 1.45:1 to 1.55:1). LOLITA,
>I believe, is in the same varying aspect ratio that Criterion's
>LD was -- as was Criterion's LD of DR. STRANGELOVE.
Yes, but what about the SOUND? A mono film could at least have
been mixed so that it equalizes the signal across the 2 main speakers
instead of coming out of only my center channel, as it did when I A/B'd my
Clockwork Orange VHS and a rental DVD...
I still won't buy any of the Kubrick discs until their sound is
remixed to at least a the characteristics of a 'virtual' movie theatre..
--
If it sounds too good to be true, it's probably Linux.
"Fool! There is nothing Perl cannot do! NOTHING!" -Bastich
"You can never entirely stop being what you once were. That's why it's important
to be the right person today, and not put it off till tomorrow." - Larry Wall
James Gifford
> jayembee <Jerry.B...@eds.com> wrote:
>>He deliberately had THE SHINING and FULL METAL JACKET presented
>>fullscreen.
> Yes, but what about the SOUND? A mono film could at least have
> been mixed so that it equalizes the signal across the 2 main speakers
> instead of coming out of only my center channel...
I agree. FMJ was one of the movies I looked forward to on DVD, and I was
so disappointed this weekend when I sat, in slow burn mode, watching a
crappy full-screen center-channel-mono version.
> I still won't buy any of the Kubrick discs until their sound is
> remixed to at least a the characteristics of a 'virtual' movie
> theatre...
I'll take Kubrick's decree that FS is somehow better (although I can't
imagine how he could feel that way), but FMJ in particular deserves
better sound-- even full-spread mono, as was suggested. The haunting
score behind the final scenes in each section (the head/the sniper) was
totally lost and wasted coming from one center speaker.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gif...@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ |
| and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" |
MovieGuy78
>score behind the final scenes in each section (the head/the sniper) was
>totally lost and wasted coming from one center speaker.
Screw Kubrick's mono intentions. The film should receive a 5.1 mix. He was
living in the past.
Worse than he is Woody Allen.
Lyle J. Petersen
MovieGuy78 <movie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991102215916...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >The haunting
> >score behind the final scenes in each section (the head/the sniper) was
> >totally lost and wasted coming from one center speaker.
>
> Screw Kubrick's mono intentions. The film should receive a 5.1 mix. He
was
> living in the past.
While we're at it lets change the ending to be more "test audience"
friendly. What did Kubrik know anyway? Studio execs know much more about
getting butts in seats than some film director! Besides, he's dead anyway,
so we can and should do pretty much anything to his films that he wouldn't
have liked.
For those of you who are hopelessly dense, the above was sarcasm.