Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Aspect ratio of Dr Strangelove

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets » Aspect ratio of Dr Strangelove (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Aspect ratio of Dr Strangelove

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 04-26-2009 09:23 AM

1.66 was very common is that era in the UK & the rest of Europe. (not at all in the USA.)

Early James Bond was about that (look at the titles.) Louis

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 04-26-2009 10:49 AM

quote: Jack Theakston
Kubrick never said anything preferring to see his films in the Academy ratio-- quotes to this effect are in fact corruptions of quotes by his assistant Leon Vitali over the years, who in earlier interviews doesn't seem to have even grasped the difference between flat and 'scope. The reason he shot his last pictures flat was because of the pan-and-scan presentation of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY on television. But one doesn't have to look any further than the composition of the frame to see that they're clearly framed for 1.85.

Jack, could you point us toward some of those Vitali quotes?

I pretty much agree with what you're saying. I think it's absolutely clear that his movies were composed for widescreen, but the evidence which I've seen would also seem to suggest that he preferred full-screen presentations on home video. The real question is what he would say in regards to the fact that TV's are now the same shape as his original compositions.

While I'm fairly confident that he would like his films to be restored to their original compositions for 16:9 TV's, quotes like the one from Joe's post throw doubt on the subject.

As far as DR. STRANGELOVE is concerned, I ran a show of this a few years ago. Because of this very issue, I tested the print at 1.37:1 to see how it would look. It was pretty much as you described, with the occasional fuzzy in-camera mattes and a boom mic or two. Clearly, it was designed to be shown in at least 1.66:1, and that's what I ran it in.

A funny little P.S. to that story is that a post-film discussion was led by the local film critic, and he actually told the audience that the film was designed to change aspect ratios, and that he wasn't sure why it hadn't.

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 04-26-2009 12:02 PM

Vitali's quote is always "Stanley liked height" (Google has the full quote, I'm sure) and then he goes into this convoluted explanation as to how Kubrick was composing for the Academy ratio, ignoring the fact that he knew how it was going to be shown in every theater (and totally negating what Kubrick HAS said in interview about his composition).

Unfortunately, this aspect ratio stuff is the point of much to-do by folks who have no understanding about it or who want to blow it out of proportion. This isn't rocket science here-- if it's hard matted, it's widescreen. If it's 1953 or after and a studio film, it's widescreen. The way the titles are blocked gives you your ratio, and if you still don't know, there's a wealth of information in trade magazines from that era.

I love the film schoolboy quote too, Mike. I'm sure that he was wondering why Stanley's mise-en-scene hadn't panned out to all of its Freudian possibilities because you ran the film properly (good for you, btw). One thing I've noticed about these jamokes is that if they don't understand something, they come up with some absurd artistic explanation for it... "Hard mattes? What is that?"

If you can't astound them with science, baffle them with bullshit!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.