|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Aspect ratio of Dr Strangelove
|
Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 09-29-2001 12:29 PM
In a week or 2 we plann to show a 35mm print of the 1964 film Dr Strangelove or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.Does anyone know If the print should be shown in normal 1:85:1 or if I need to dig out my academy lense and aperture plate. I spoke to another guy who says the print my have an 1.33:1 image with black bars at each side inside the 1.85:1 image height? Does anybody know of what I should expect from the print.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Beres
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 606
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-29-2001 06:01 PM
I had heard that Dr. Strangelove was actually shot in two different aspect ratios (1.33 and camera masked 1.66) and that a Criterion DVD release of the film preserves the camera original aspect ratios. Seeing your post, I decided to do a little research. This being said, I would run the film in the academy ratio to preserve the camera's, and presumeably Kubrick's intention. Here is what I found: The above is not true. The Criterion Catalog of Autumn 1992 offers a detailed answer: "'Dr. Strangelove... needed to be approved by Kubrick. And Stanley felt very strongly that the Criterion
edition of 'Dr. Strangelove' be perfect. He was very disappointed not only with previous home video versions,
but also with the way the film had originally been presented in movie theaters.... "We started working from... Kubrick's personal print, which had been copied directly from the camera
original.... "Aspect ratio is the relationship between the length and the width of the film as it appears on the theater
screen or video monitor.... Stanley... noted that he had shot the film in full frame 1.33:1 and camera-matted
1.66:1 aspect ratios. However, due to projection conventions at the time of the film's original theatrical
release, 'Dr. Strangelove' appeared in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio; in rare cases, it appeared in the 1.66:1 ratio.
Mattes were used to cover up the very top and bottom of the film as it was projected. Kubrick asked us to use
the 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 aspect ratios in our transfer. This had been his original vision. "...As you watch the Criterion edition of the film, look for changes in the aspect ratio from 1.66:1 to
1.33:1. Stanley was right; the full aperture of 1.33:1 really adds to some of the scenes.BKL
<lang*lotz@teleport.com> wrote in article For example, in the war room scene, the full aperature reveals the
light grid that hangs down. In the movie theater, the matte in the projector obscured that part of the
expensive set...."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-19-2009 05:07 AM
quote:
....due to projection conventions at the time of the film's original theatrical release, 'Dr. Strangelove' appeared in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio; in rare cases, it appeared in the 1.66:1 ratio. He was very disappointed....with the way the film had originally been presented in movie theaters....Kubrick asked us to use the 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 aspect ratios in our transfer. This had been his original vision.
WTF? Now I preface the following by first saying that I have the utmost admiration for Stanley Kubrick -- he was my hero and when I was young -- but that said, this is what happens when they shuffle directors from rest homes and ask them to give definative information about what they were thinking when they worked on a movie over 50yrs ago. If they are not senile already, their memories can be less than reliable.
He says he was disappointed in the way the film was projected in the theatres because his "vision" was to have it projected with some scenes in 1.33:1 (sic) and some at 1.66:1? What a crock. Was he expecting the theatres would let the image change from Academy then to letterboxed 1.66 and then back and forth like that throughout the film? Or did he want the image to get wider for the 1.66 shots, i.e., common height? And this was supposed to happen in commercial theatres how? It couldn't, of course, unless he managed to cut the release prints so that the 1.37 portions were on alternate reels from the 1.66 portions. Maybe he expected the masking to widen and close with each change as well. If that actually was his "vision," then maybe he was senile even back then.
Unless there is some evidence like a letter to the projectionsts that would have been sent in the cans, saying specifically that the film was to be projected at 1.37 and advising that there would be portions that would be hard-matted at 1.66, then I say with all due respect, Mr. Kubrick's memory about this is highly questionable.
I've played it twice and always used 1.66 and it looked fine. But I've also seen it play at 1.85 and as Mitchell says, 1.85 looks OK too in that it won't cut off any essential elements, but I agree with Scott in that 1.66 looks a bit more open and pleasing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-19-2009 10:01 AM
Not senile, just crazy ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It is quite possible his "vision" was to have it switch between 1:33 and 1:66, which, if the above story is correct, was achieved by in camera matting. At the time Dr Strangelove was released no director, certainly not Kubrick at that stage in his career, had the power to demand it be presented in any way other than flat or scope.
Remember, years later Coppola shot One From The Heart in Academy ratio, but it was rarely shown that way. And Robert Downey Senior has at least one film that incorporates triangle AR, but that's another story.
Playing with the aspect ratio for artistic effect continues with Che, in which part 1 is Scope and part 2 is flat.
I've not seen the Criterion DVD to check for evidence of artistic intent in ratio changes, or if they enhance what is considered a classic film without the effect. But it is not unreasonable to think a director may have wanted a certain effect, even if he couldn't get it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic