quote: Steve Matz

---

Supposedly the Cinemascope Corporation had a clause in the first few years that any cinemascope picture made had to be in color.that must have ended by around 56-57 because I remember scope pictures in B&W....

---

Plus the fact that by the late '50s, knockoff anamorphic systems (Dyaliscope etc.) were coming onto the market as well. And because the b/w stocks at the time were faster and less grainy than Eastmancolor, cinematographers were keen to use b/w 'scope, hence pics such as Forty Guns, On the Beach, etc.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-12-2013, 02:53 PM:
 
Doing a little googling, I remember now that our lenses were "Superscope" lenses. There is a topic on here about them, but in that topic it says they were VERY heavy and required some bracing underneath or from above to hold them up. The ones we had were not that heavy, probably weighed 6 or 7 pounds and were attached to a regular flat lens, so we could easily swap out for format changes.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-12-2013, 03:42 PM:
 
I was just in a booth that closed in the 1970's. They had Super Panatar lenses. They are very heavy and do have bracing on the top and bottom.
 

---

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 11-12-2013, 10:49 PM:
 
Speaking of cinemascope,most non-film people think "THE ROBE" was the first filmed scope picture of 1953; when in fact it was "HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE". They must of had post production issues because "THE ROBE" ended up being premiered sept.16,1953 and "HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE" didn't get released until november 4,1953. That may have been intentional on the Studio's part as they wanted a film that was destined to be a classic to debut the new revolutionary wide screen format. Even though Millionaire had the likes of Marilyn Monroe and Betty Grable, it was still a far cry from being anything classic. I have watched THE ROBE probably 30 times or more over the years and I still enjoy it. I think I've seen HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE maybe twice and that was once more too many. Anyway FOX made the right choice in the end....s.m.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-14-2013, 04:45 PM:
 
I guess the time is right for me to share an article I put together recently for The Digital Bits for the 60th anniversary of the launch of CinemaScope. While this does not specifically answer the original question, I believe it is related enough to give one a sense of the initial roll-out and implementation of CinemaScope.

The second half of the article is a Q&A with some historians that, again, doesn't specifically address the original question, but is related enough that I think anyone with an interest in the subject might enjoy reading.

Looking Back At CinemaScope

quote: Michael Coate

---

LOOKING BACK AT CINEMASCOPE

By Michael Coate

“The Modern Miracle You See Without Glasses!”

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the 60th anniversary of the release of The Robe, the first motion picture produced in CinemaScope. In addition to a detailed history of the film’s original theatrical release, the article features a roundtable interview with three authorities on widescreen history.

THE ORIGINAL ENGAGEMENTS OF “THE ROBE”

Presented here is a chronological listing of the original first-run theatrical engagements of The Robe for the major and selected secondary markets in the United States and Canada. The number of weeks the film played has been provided for some of the entries.

1953-09-16 … New York, NY – Roxy [13 weeks]
1953-09-23 … Chicago, IL – State-Lake [16 weeks]
1953-09-24 … Los Angeles, CA – Chinese [13 weeks]
1953-09-24 … Philadelphia, PA – Fox [13 weeks]
1953-09-29 … Kansas City, MO – Orpheum [13 weeks]
1953-09-29 … Pittsburgh, PA – Harris [12 weeks]
1953-09-29 … San Francisco, CA – Fox [9 weeks]
1953-09-30 … Dallas, TX – Palace [5 weeks]
1953-09-30 … Seattle, WA – 5th Avenue [9 weeks]

1953-10-01 … Atlanta, GA – Fox [4 weeks]
1953-10-01 … Detroit, MI – Fox [13 weeks]
1953-10-01 … Washington, DC – Capitol [8 weeks]
1953-10-02 … Buffalo, NY – Buffalo [8 weeks]
1953-10-02 … Salt Lake City, UT – Lyric [4 weeks]
1953-10-02 … Salt Lake City, UT – Villa [8 weeks]
1953-10-06 … Boston, MA – Memorial [12 weeks]
1953-10-07 … Indianapolis, IN – Indiana [8 weeks]
1953-10-07 … Memphis, TN – Malco [5 weeks]
1953-10-07 … New Orleans, LA – Saenger [4 weeks]
1953-10-07 … San Antonio, TX – Majestic [4 weeks]
1953-10-08 … Cleveland, OH – Hippodrome [11 weeks]
1953-10-08 … Houston, TX – Metropolitan [5 weeks]
1953-10-08 … Minneapolis, MN – Radio City [7 weeks]
1953-10-08 … Oklahoma City, OK – Criterion [5 weeks]
1953-10-08 … Portland, OR – Orpheum [8 weeks]
1953-10-13 … Syracuse, NY – Paramount [5 weeks]
1953-10-14 … Fort Worth, TX – Worth
1953-10-15 … Birmingham, AL – Alabama
1953-10-15 … Cincinnati, OH – Albee [8 weeks]
1953-10-15 … Denver, CO – Denver [6 weeks]
1953-10-15 … Nashville, TN – Paramount [3 weeks]
1953-10-16 … Jacksonville, FL – Florida [3 weeks]
1953-10-20 … Baltimore, MD – New [11 weeks]
1953-10-21 … Rochester, NY – Palace [6 weeks]
1953-10-21 … San Diego, CA – California [6 weeks]
1953-10-22 … Beaumont, TX – Liberty [3 weeks]
1953-10-22 … Spokane, WA – Fox [5 weeks]
1953-10-22 … Toronto, ON – Imperial [8 weeks]
1953-10-23 … St. Louis, MO – St. Louis [10 weeks]
1953-10-27 … Richmond, VA – Byrd [7 weeks]
1953-10-28 … Albany, NY – Palace [3 weeks]
1953-10-28 … Ogden, UT – Egyptian [3 weeks]
1953-10-28 … Omaha, NE – Orpheum [4 weeks]
1953-10-28 … Phoenix, AZ – Fox [5 weeks]
1953-10-28 … Sacramento, CA – Senator [5 weeks]
1953-10-28 … Wichita, KS – Miller [4 weeks]
1953-10-29 … Charlotte, NC – Carolina [4 weeks]
1953-10-29 … Dayton, OH – Keith’s
1953-10-29 … Des Moines, IA – Des Moines
1953-10-29 … Knoxville, TN – Tennessee [2 weeks]
1953-10-29 … Milwaukee, WI – Wisconsin [8 weeks]
1953-10-29 … Montreal, QC – Palace [7 weeks]
1953-10-29 … Vancouver, BC – Capitol [5 weeks]
1953-10-29 … Winnipeg, MB – Capitol [4 weeks]
1953-10-30 … Oakland, CA – Paramount [5 weeks]
1953-10-30 … Tucson, AZ – Fox [3 weeks]

1953-11-03 … Norfolk, VA – Norva
1953-11-03 … Providence, RI – Majestic [7 weeks]
1953-11-04 … Akron, OH – Colonial
1953-11-04 … Fresno, CA – Crest
1953-11-04 … Springfield, IL – Lincoln
1953-11-04 … Tulsa, OK – Orpheum
1953-11-04 … Scranton, PA – Comerford
1953-11-04 … Wilkes-Barre, PA – Paramount
1953-11-05 … Augusta, GA – Miller [3 weeks]
1953-11-05 … Billings, MT – Fox [3 weeks]
1953-11-05 … Charleston, WV – Kearse [3 weeks]
1953-11-05 … Eugene, OR – McDonald [3 weeks]
1953-11-05 … Louisville, KY – Rialto
1953-11-05 … Montgomery, AL – Paramount
1953-11-05 … Pocatello, ID – Chief
1953-11-06 … Bakersfield, CA – Fox [3 weeks]
1953-11-06 … Harrisburg, PA – State
1953-11-06 … San Jose, CA – California
1953-11-06 … Springfield, MO – Gillioz
1953-11-10 … Erie, PA – Shea’s
1953-11-10 … Missoula, MT – Fox [2 weeks]
1953-11-10 … Portland, ME – Strand [4 weeks]
1953-11-10 … Reno, NV – Crest [3 weeks]
1953-11-10 … Youngstown, OH – Paramount [4 weeks]
1953-11-11 … Canton, OH – Palace [3 weeks]
1953-11-11 … Columbus, OH – Broad [5 weeks]
1953-11-11 … Evansville, IN – Majestic [4 weeks]
1953-11-11 … Fort Wayne, IN – Paramount
1953-11-11 … Long Beach, CA – West Coast [6 weeks]
1953-11-11 … New Haven, CT – Poli [4 weeks]
1953-11-11 … Reading, PA – Embassy [3 weeks]
1953-11-11 … Roanoke, VA – Grandin
1953-11-11 … St. Paul, MN – World
1953-11-11 … Springfield, MA – Poli [3 weeks]
1953-11-11 … Toledo, OH – Paramount [5 weeks]
1953-11-12 … Columbus, GA – Georgia
1953-11-12 … Ottawa, ON – Capitol [3 weeks]
1953-11-12 … Savannah, GA – Weis
1953-11-12 … Worcester, MA – Poli [4 weeks]
1953-11-13 … Grand Rapids, MI – Keith’s
1953-11-13 … Stockton, CA – California [3 weeks]
1953-11-13 … Joplin, MO – Fox
1953-11-16 … Greenville, SC – Plaza [4 weeks]
1953-11-17 … Miami, FL – Miami [3 weeks]
1953-11-17 … Miami (Coral Gables), FL – Miracle [3 weeks]
1953-11-17 … Miami (Miami Beach), FL – Carib [3 weeks]
1953-11-18 … Allentown, PA – Boyd
1953-11-18 … Calgary, AB – Capitol [3 weeks]
1953-11-18 … Davenport, IA – Capitol
1953-11-18 … Durham, NC – Center [2 weeks]
1953-11-18 … Lexington, KY – Ben Ali
1953-11-18 … Lincoln, NE – Stuart [4 weeks]
1953-11-18 … Peoria, IL – Rialto
1953-11-19 … Cedar Rapids, IA – Iowa [3 weeks]
1953-11-19 … Columbia, SC – Palmetto
1953-11-19 … Duluth, MN – Norshor
1953-11-19 … Hartford, CT – Poli [3 weeks]
1953-11-19 … Raleigh, NC – Ambassador [2 weeks]
1953-11-20 … Edmonton, AB – Paramount [4 weeks]
1953-11-20 … Rockford, IL – Coronado [3 weeks]
1953-11-22 … Quebec City, QC – Capitol [3 weeks]
1953-11-23 … Colorado Springs, CO – Ute
1953-11-24 … Tampa, FL – Palace [3 weeks]
1953-11-25 … Atlantic City, NJ – Warner
1953-11-25 … Boise, ID – Rialto
1953-11-25 … Flint, MI – Capitol
1953-11-18 … Fort Smith, AR – Malco
1953-11-25 … Kalamazoo, MI – State
1953-11-25 … Lansing, MI – Michigan
1953-11-25 … Racine, WI – Venetian [2 weeks]
1953-11-26 … Ann Arbor, MI – State
1953-11-27 … London, ON – Capitol [3 weeks]
1953-11-28 … Columbia, MO – Missouri

1953-12-02 … Albuquerque, NM – Sunshine [3 weeks]
1953-12-02 … Eau Claire, WI – Hollywood [2 weeks]
1953-12-02 … Frederick, MD – Opera House [2 weeks]
1953-12-02 … Hutchinson, KS – Fox [2 weeks]
1953-12-02 … Jackson, MS – Paramount
1953-12-02 … Manchester, NH – State
1953-12-02 … Monterey, CA – State [3 weeks]
1953-12-02 … Provo, UT – Academy [2 weeks]
1953-12-02 … Saginaw, MI – Temple
1953-12-02 … Tacoma, WA – Music Box [4 weeks]
1953-12-02 … Winston-Salem, NC – Winston [2 weeks]
1953-12-03 … St. Petersburg, FL – Florida [3 weeks]
1953-12-03 … Salina, KS – Watson [2 weeks]
1953-12-03 … Sioux Falls, SD – State
1953-12-05 … Cheyenne, WY – Lincoln
1953-12-06 … Biloxi, MS – Saenger [2 weeks]
1953-12-09 … Lawrence, KS – Granada [1 week]
1953-12-10 … Greensboro, NC – Carolina [2 weeks]
1953-12-23 … Madison, WI – Orpheum [3 weeks]
1953-12-24 … Corpus Christi, TX – Centre [3 weeks]
1953-12-24 … Little Rock, AR – Capitol
1953-12-25 … Baton Rouge, LA – Paramount [2 weeks]
1953-12-25 … Cape Girardeau, MO – Broadway [2 weeks]
1953-12-25 … Halifax, NS – Capitol
1953-12-25 … Hamilton, ON – Tivoli [4 weeks]
1953-12-25 … Lawton, OK – Vaska [3 weeks]
1953-12-25 … St. Joseph, MO – Missouri [3 weeks]
1953-12-25 … Santa Fe, NM – Lensic [2 weeks]
1953-12-25 … Springfield, OH – Regent

1954-01-07 … Orlando, FL – Beacham [2 weeks]
1954-01-12 … Las Vegas, NV – El Portal [2 weeks]
1954-01-13 … Odessa, TX – Ector [2 weeks]
1953-01-13 … Shreveport, LA – Don
1954-01-14 … Bismarck, ND – Dakota [1 week]
1954-01-14 … Lubbock, TX – Lindsey [3 weeks]
1954-01-15 … Burlington, VT – Flynn
1954-01-15 … Charleston, SC – Gloria [3 weeks]
1954-01-15 … Galveston, TX – State [2 weeks]
1954-01-15 … Regina, SK – Capitol [3 weeks]
1954-01-20 … Saskatoon, SK – Capitol [2 weeks]
1954-01-23 … El Paso, TX – Plaza [2 weeks]
1954-01-26 … Modesto, CA – State
1954-01-27 … Hattiesburg, MS – Saenger [1 week]
1954-01-27 … Tallahassee, FL – Florida
1954-01-28 … Abilene, TX – Paramount [2 weeks]
1954-01-28 … Amarillo, TX – Paramount [2 weeks]
1954-01-28 … Wichita Falls, TX – Wichita [2 weeks]

1954-02-13 … Austin, TX – Paramount [2 weeks]
1954-02-26 … Brownsville, TX – Majestic [1 week]

1954-03-03 … Fayetteville, NC – Colony [2 weeks]
1954-03-12 … Honolulu, HI – Kuhio [5 weeks]

1954-04-15 … Las Cruces, NM – Rio Grande [1 week]
1954-04-18 … Fairbanks, AK – Empress [1 week]

The above is by no means a complete list of domestic theatrical bookings of The Robe. Instead, it provides a snapshot of the crucial first few months of the debut of CinemaScope. Ultimately, there were thousands of engagements by the time the film played all of the neighborhood, second-run, and small-town theaters. Most significantly, every one of the theaters cited purchased a new screen and projection lens, and (most) installed a new sound system.

The first CinemaScope presentations of The Robe held outside the United States and Canada were in the United Kingdom beginning November 1953. The first foreign-language presentations took place in France beginning December 1953. By September 1954, after one year, theaters in nearly every country in the world had converted to CinemaScope.

THE INTERVIEW

This portion of the article features an interview with three authorities on all things widescreen. The participants are film historians John Belton, Sheldon Hall and Martin Hart. (The interviews were conducted separately and edited into a roundtable format.)

John Belton is a professor of English and Film at Rutgers University and is the author Widescreen Cinema (1992) and co-editor (with Sheldon Hall and Steve Neale) of Widescreen Worldwide (2010).

Sheldon Hall is a senior lecturer in film studies at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. He is the author of Zulu: With Some Guts Behind It – The Making of the Epic Movie (2006), co-author (with Steve Neale) of Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (2010), and co-editor (with John Belton and Steve Neale) of Widescreen Worldwide (2010).

Martin Hart is the curator of the American Widescreen Museum (www.widescreenmuseum.com).

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): What is the significance of the 60th anniversary of the introduction of CinemaScope?

John Belton: From the vantage point of 2013, CinemaScope seems like a relatively minor moment in the history of the cinema. The process was phenomenally successful for three or four years in the mid-1950s, only to be replaced or supplanted by other processes (Todd-AO, Panavision). It was, however, the agent of change, initiating the widescreen era, which continues to this day. Given today's smaller display platforms (cellphones, notebooks), CinemaScope has nostalgic value as a reminder of a period when big screen entertainment was at its height.

Sheldon Hall: That it's been sixty years since the introduction of CinemaScope. In itself, the anniversary is unimportant.

Martin Hart: CinemaScope was the international film industry's first notable alteration to the shape of the screen and improvement in sound. Clearly CinemaScope was itself inspired by Cinerama, but the three strip mosaic screen system took ten years to finally produce a story film, while Fox was demonstrating CinemaScope to exhibitors and press within six months of the premiere of Cinerama.

Coate: Was The Robe a good choice to launch CinemaScope?

Belton: With the advantage of hindsight, we can see that The Robe worked. It was a film that most exhibitors wanted to show and that desire forced those exhibitors to convert their theaters fully or partially to CinemaScope. Compare it to The Phantom Menace, which was Lucas' weapon to get exhibitors to convert to digital projection. Only a handful of theaters converted. Cameron had a very effective lure with Avatar in 3-D. It jump-started the stalled digital revolution, encouraging thousands of theaters to go digital.

Hall: Yes, in the sense that the subject and the settings allowed the scenic possibilities of the format to be amply demonstrated. A more visually imaginative director than Henry Koster would have helped, but clearly the film's commercial success was the best advertisement CinemaScope could have received.

Hart: The Robe was unquestionably the proper vehicle to introduce the CinemaScope system. CinemaScope was wonderful in epic films and The Robe had been a very popular book for many years. While it might be said that How to Marry a Millionaire is more entertaining, it's doubtful that the comedy would have inspired the audiences and competing studios to join the wide screen revolution, either by adopting CinemaScope for their biggest attractions or to develop their own system.

Coate: What is a good definition of “widescreen”?

Belton: Widescreen is an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 or greater.

Hall: Wider than the pre-1953 standard of 1.37/1.33:1. Of course, all motion-picture processes other than images recorded by mobile phones are wider than they are high, including Academy.

Hart: The long accepted definition of "wide screen" is any screen ratio greater than the long established 1.33:1 or 1.37:1. I have trouble defining 1.85:1 as wide screen since it is accomplished only by cutting off the top and bottom of the full Academy Aperture. And Paramount's 1953 ballyhoo about 1.66:1 being wide screen is rather laughable. There was no doubt that Cinerama and CinemaScope were decidedly wide.

Coate: Would CinemaScope have had the impact it did upon its introduction had stereo sound not been included?

Belton: Without stereo sound, CinemaScope would not have been able to compete with Cinerama. But, given that the majority of exhibitors chose to show CinemaScope with mono sound, one could argue that stereo had little impact. For the most part, it was reserved for a handful of first-run theaters.

Hall: No, because stereo allowed the sound-stage to be as wide as the visual aspect. The association of stereo sound with Cinerama also made it necessary to develop a comparable sound process for CinemaScope so as not to attract adverse criticism. The simplicity of four-track mag sound-on-film was one of Fox's triumphs.

Hart: I find it difficult to attribute a lot of credit to the new four-track magnetic sound as being a major contributor to the wide acceptance of CinemaScope. While stereophonic sound seemed to be very important initially, exhibitors and other studios resisted it. And it may be said that, for the most part, audiences didn't actually notice it. Exhibitors complained loudly about the high cost of installing a completely new sound system and within two years Fox was the only studio to offer stereo sound on all its CinemaScope product. It might be claimed that the dropping of the magnetic mandate was what really let CinemaScope spread far and wide.

Coate: Were the four channels of audio (left, center, right, surround) used on CinemaScope just right, too many or not enough?

Belton: Hindsight suggests that six channels of sound provided filmmakers and audiences with a more effective soundscape. At the least, the surrounds need to be split.

Hall: Just right at the time, but it's difficult to see what more could have been done with the technology available and with the economic constraints of theater installations.

Hart: Considering the size of the average theatre in the early 1950s, a four-track stereo system was more than adequate. A large percentage of stereo films did not use the surround channel at all; just the opposite of what was the norm after the introduction of Dolby Matrix Stereo in the late 1970s.

Coate: Did the introduction and success of CinemaScope and other processes affect the industry in a positive or negative way?

Belton: Aside from the permanent shift to a widescreen format, the effect was minimal. Widescreen lured audiences back to the movie theater for a brief period but did not stem the long-term decline in movie attendance.

Hall: At the time there were both positive and negative consequences, financially and aesthetically, as with the introduction of any new technology. Long-term, the effects were positive.

Hart: CinemaScope and competing systems, along with greatly increased use of color, definitely had a positive effect on the film industry. Anyone living in the 1950s will recall that CinemaScope, VistaVision, and other processes were much in the minds of audiences and virtually all existing media joined in the interest in the new processes.

Coate: Would CinemaScope (and other widescreen/wide gauge formats) have had the same impact had it been introduced in a different era?

Belton: Efforts were made to introduce widescreen formats in earlier eras (the 1890s, 1929) and failed. Demand for participatory entertainment in the 1950s gave CinemaScope an economic footing it would not have had in earlier or later eras.

Hall: Any answer to this could only be speculative, but the precedent of the abortive introduction of widescreen formats in 1929-31 suggests that the time was right in 1953.

Hart: Attempts by the major studios to widen the screen date back into the late 1920s but all methods ultimately failed. Disney produced Fantasia with a dramatic quasi-stereophonic sound system in 1940 and that film didn't break even until the 1970s. The wide screen era happened at precisely the right time in the U.S. Its adoption in Europe and other parts of the world was not quite as dramatic because television had not eaten away over half of the film going audience.

Coate: In what way was CinemaScope superior and/or inferior to the Academy format?

Belton: Each format has its own value. However, one must admire the design of the CinemaScope frame which took standard 35mm film and "re-thought" it to provide more image area as well as four-track sound.

Hall: Any format is ultimately only as good as the talents of the filmmakers using it, so the opportunities 'Scope offered for different types of composition depended on directors and DPs recognizing them and rising to the challenge – which many did. Technically, 'Scope was inferior (for a while at least) because of the increased grain structure, poorer definition and optical distortions caused by the early lenses.

Hart: CinemaScope mandated the installation of much larger screens than had been common up to that point. Even though CinemaScope initially seemed to tax the available light from arc lamps it came to offer a brighter image than the 1.85:1 format which blew the image up to a greater degree. The demands of CinemaScope, and virtually all 35mm "wide" systems forced Technicolor to further refine their dye transfer imbibition print to remove misregistered colors which were much more visible, and annoying, on the new larger screens. Basically CinemaScope and its competitors forced improvements in virtually all aspects of film production and exhibition. If the Academy Aperture had remained the standard there would have been technical stagnation in the industry.

Coate: Was CinemaScope superior in its original 2.55:1 presentations or in its later, more common, 2.35:1 (2.39:1/2.40:1) version?

Belton: Few of us have seen 2.55:1 theatrical presentations to be able to make this comparison. From the five or six 2.55:1 presentations that I have seen, I think that format was superior to 2.35:1. I would not base this comparison on DVD or Blu-ray – only on 35mm theatrical presentations.

Hall: It makes little real difference.

Hart: The difference between the screen shapes of 2.55:1 and 2.35:1 are barely noticeable. The slightly narrower screen ratio allows for slightly larger screen images in addition to providing space for an optical soundtrack on the film. If magnetic stereophonic sound had been adopted to the extent that Dolby Stereo or digital projection have had, we might still be seeing 2.55:1 screen images. Neither aspect ratio is inherently better than the other.

Coate: In the crucial first few years of CinemaScope, which filmmakers do you think used the format most effectively?

Belton: The usual suspects: Nicholas Ray, Otto Preminger, Vincente Minnelli, Anthony Mann.

Hall: Among others (in no particular order): Otto Preminger, Nicholas Ray, Elia Kazan, Howard Hawks.

Hart: Being a film historian rather than a film critic, I'm not really all that attuned to who did it best. While it may have taken a bit of getting used to, to a great extent the change from 1.37 to 2.55 really resulted in a decrease in the upper and lower edges of the image. Sets could be built without having to be two stories high, etc. Once you get beyond the hardware part of it there's very little difference between directing for CinemaScope and standard Academy. I have never seen an early CinemaScope film and said to myself, “That's just terrible, the director's a putz.” Nor have I said, “That's just brilliant, the director's a genius.” Now Cinerama was a different animal entirely. It was truly wide in all respects, whereas CinemaScope's width was mostly a change in the shape of the image, not necessarily a great increase in the width of the soundstage.

Coate: Name a few of the standout films that effectively illustrate the virtues of CinemaScope?

Belton: Rebel Without a Cause, Bigger than Life, River of No Return, Advise and Consent, Some Came Running, Home from the Hill, Two Weeks in Another Town, Forty Guns, Lola Montes.

Hall: Carmen Jones, Rebel Without a Cause, Bigger than Life, East of Eden, Land of the Pharaohs.

Hart: One of my early favorite CinemaScope films was Disney's 20,000 Leagues under the Sea. The shape of the Nautilus and the steam sloops were natural for the wide aspect ratio, and by virtue of being in color and CinemaScope it retains its look of being a contemporary film. Disney always embraced new technologies with great zest and his underwater classic from 1954 is still a marvel to watch.

Coate: Some filmmakers spent much of their career working exclusively or nearly exclusively in ’Scope (Blake Edwards… John Carpenter… Richard Fleischer…). Why do you suppose some filmmakers prefer to work in the same format, film after film, whereas most filmmakers tend to select a format on a title-by-title, project-by-project basis?

Belton: The answer would vary with each filmmaker.

Hall: I'm sure the answer would vary from filmmaker to filmmaker, even just the ones you've mentioned. It could be that it suited their way of working; that they liked it; or that they were good at using it.

Hart: After a very few years all the things that made up CinemaScope improved substantially. Film became faster and with much finer grain. Lenses were improving, both for photography and projection, and improvements in lamphouse design allowed a bigger, brighter, more grain free image to be projected. CinemaScope and its competitors like Panavision, etc. actually displayed a better screen image than cropped Academy ersatz wide screen. Going over the films made in the past 60 years you'll find every conceivable type of film being made in anamorphic wide screen. It wasn't just spectacles. CinemaScope worked as well for intimate dramas as it did for epics and westerns. So the question comes down to why choices were made not to shoot anamorphic.

Coate: Do you think the Academy format (1.37:1) should have been retained by the industry instead of being abandoned for the most part in favor of masked widescreen formats (i.e. 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1) becoming the alternative to scope?

Belton: Not instead of but in addition to. Until the early 1960s, the Japanese had only two formats – 1.37:1 and anamorphic. One can look at that period and appreciate the purity and distinctness of those extremes while lamenting the relative similarity of 1.66:1 to 1.85:1.

Hall: Ideally it should have been more widely (sic!) retained, but on occasion filmmakers have returned to it, e.g. Godard, the Dogme 95 group, Lynn Ramsay. Digital makes this easier.

Hart: I might be a cult of one on this question but I actually do wish that the Academy ratio of 1.37:1 had been retained alongside genuine wide screen systems, but that was not possible because the industry saw the effect that Cinerama and CinemaScope had on audiences and both studios and theatres quickly started cropping films made in 1.37 down to 1.66, 1.75, and 1.85. Once the horse is out of the barn it's not coming back in, especially since the theatrical motion picture barn was smoking badly at that time.

Coate: What are your thoughts on High Definition and Super-35 origination formats where extra top/bottom imagery is captured and the ’Scope version is created in post-production rather than in the camera?

Belton: With Super-35, camera negative has improved sufficiently that a satisfactory 2.40 image can be extracted from the larger frame. I do not know enough about High Definition to comment on that.

Hall: Obviously they offer the advantages for the filmmaker of increased flexibility and more choices at different stages of production and postproduction. The disadvantage is that they can lead to very “loose” composition to allow for that flexibility and those choices.

Hart: I am, and always have been, contemptuous of any system that yields a 2.35 screen ratio as a result of throwing out precious image carrying capability. That includes today's 16:9 HD acquisition all the way back to Superscope in 1954. That's why the anamorphic lens was developed. My opinion of digital acquisition and projection has improved markedly over the past half dozen years but I still hate to see wasted bandwidth.

Coate: In the last decade there has been a spike in ’Scope releases. There hasn’t been this many ’Scope productions (all origination types: anamorphic. Super-35, HD) being produced since the heyday of CinemaScope in the 1950s. To what do you attribute this spike?

Belton: Don't know.

Hall: Possibly to the fact that filmmakers may tend to think of 'Scope as a more “cinematic” ratio than Academy or non-anamorphic widescreen (especially now that television screens are in the ratio 1.77:1). Whether or not they know how to exploit its possibilities is another matter...

Hart: Probably 90 percent of the movies seen by today's filmmakers were seen on televisions. The 'Scope (I hate that term) frame is vastly more cinematic than what initially inspired young people to get into film production and that may be at least part of the draw. There is an ebb and flow with 2.35 production over time. It may well be that those choosing 2.35 are trying to produce films that are different and perhaps more impressive than the shape available on HD home television.

Coate: A significant percentage of modern megaplex movie theaters have installed wall-to-wall, common-width screens, necessitating aspect ratio changes in the vertical plane rather than in the horizontal plane, resulting in ’Scope presentations being smaller than spherical 1.85:1 presentations. Do you believe this practice diminishes or enhances the experience?

Belton: All projected images should be the same height (with different widths). The presentation you describe diminishes the experience.

Hall: Yes, it diminishes the experience for obvious reasons. It is, however, worth noting that this practice seems far more common in the US than in the UK and Europe, where it is now usual to have a 'Scope-shaped screen with no movable masking at all.

Hart: Common-width projection is just stupid. I'm sorry that’s the only comment you'll get out of me other than an expression of my disgust over the total lack of showmanship in theaters today. And there's a great lack of showmanship on the part of filmmakers as well, though they don't realize it.

Coate: Should ’Scope films continue to be letterboxed for their ancillary-market releases? Is a 16:9 pan-and-scan acceptable?

Belton: Letterboxing of 'Scope films for display in non-theatrical venues is necessary to preserve the aesthetic intent of the original.

Hall: Yes, to the first question; no, to the second question.

Hart: A 16:9 pan-and-scan version of 2.35:1 films can be perfectly enjoyable depending on the composition of the original film, but I do not favor it much more than a standard 1.33:1 TV pan and scan. I like to see what the producer of a film thought was best for the all-important original theatrical release. Letterboxing isn't the best way to do it but it's the most practical at this time. What I don't understand is why 1.85:1 films are often letterboxed within the 16:9 (1.78:1) HD TV frame. That's just senseless.

Coate: While the CinemaScope tradename is no longer used, the ’Scope process (i.e. 2x anamorphic squeeze during photography and unsqueeze during projection) is still with us today. Why do you think ’Scope outlasted all of the other processes, including some that offered imagery of superior quality?

Belton: It enabled producers and exhibitors to get a widescreen image using 35mm film, which remained an industry standard (as opposed to 70mm, which was more expensive).

Hall: Economy, flexibility, standardization.

Hart: The shape that came down from the development of CinemaScope (2.66, 2.55, 2.35-2.39) is a very good ratio and with 35mm film it utilizes the maximum amount of emulsion possible, potentially yielding the best possible screen image without going to large format negative systems such as VistaVision, Technirama, Todd-AO, Super Panavision and Ultra Panavision. Vast improvements in film emulsion technology have substantially negated the need for the larger formats to create a good reduction to 35mm. And the CinemaScope format makes for a more dramatic look to about any film. It's the movies, it's supposed to be fun and not brain surgery. Brain surgery can be adequately documented with the Academy format.

SOURCES/REFERENCES:
The information contained in this article was principally referenced from regional newspaper promotion and various issues of Boxoffice, Motion Picture Herald, and Variety.

SPECIAL THANKS:
Jerry Alexander, Jim Barg, John Belton, Raymond Caple, Nick DiMaggio, Mike Durrett, Sheldon Hall, Martin Hart, Bill Kretzel, Paul Linfesty, Stan Malone, Gabriel Neeb, Jim Perry, John Stewart, Allen Swords, Joel Weide, Keith Wondra, Vince Young, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

---

 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-14-2013, 06:46 PM:
 
Some competitors to the B&L CinemaScope lens:

Panavision Super Panatar. I believe this is what Panavision originally went into business to make.


Panavision Ultra Panatar (not to be confused with Ultra Panavision)


SuperSCOPE Optics
Photos courtesy of Jeff Joseph. Yes, there was also a Super 35-like shooting format to produce anamorphic films from flat negatives.

And yes, these were the same people who later were importers of Sony tape recorders under the Sony SuperSCOPE name.

Delrama (curved mirrors)

Same people (Delft) who made the camera prismatic Delrama for Technirama (1.5X with 8-perf horizontal motion)

These photos are from my original web page, circa 1995, which is why they are small and dial-up friendly.
 

---

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 11-14-2013, 09:17 PM:
 
Wow! it took less than 2 months to hit Billings. This theater had the premiere of "WARPATH" 1951...Which was filmed here.PollyBergen's first film.

They all showed up, Forrest Tucker,Edmund O'Brien,Bergen,Dean Jagger,etc. My Mother said they built a big platform in front of the FOX. Said she took me down to the premiere. Don't seem to remember that;maybe because I was only 2 yrs old....s.m.

1953-11-03 … Norfolk, VA – Norva
1953-11-03 … Providence, RI – Majestic [7 weeks]
1953-11-04 … Akron, OH – Colonial
1953-11-04 … Fresno, CA – Crest
1953-11-04 … Springfield, IL – Lincoln
1953-11-04 … Tulsa, OK – Orpheum
1953-11-04 … Scranton, PA – Comerford
1953-11-04 … Wilkes-Barre, PA – Paramount
1953-11-05 … Augusta, GA – Miller [3 weeks]
1953-11-05 … Billings, MT – Fox [3 weeks](now alberta Bair theat
1953-11-05 … Charleston, WV – Kearse [3 weeks]
1953-11-05 … Eugene, OR – McDonald [3 weeks]
1953-11-05 … Louisville, KY – Rialto
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-14-2013, 10:29 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

Coate: Should ’Scope films continue to be letterboxed for their ancillary-market releases? Is a 16:9 pan-and-scan acceptable?

Belton: Letterboxing of 'Scope films for display in non-theatrical venues is necessary to preserve the aesthetic intent of the original.

Hall: Yes, to the first question; no, to the second question.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

widescreen and 4:3 setups were often filmed as separate takes

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Do these two not realise that in the case of most Hollywood 'scope features made from the mid-1960s onwards, the 4:3 panned-and-scanned version was 'original', in that productions were planned in a 'scope version for theatrical release and a 4:3 version for TV (and later, home video) from the outset? The pans and scans weren't an afterthought, done by some intern in a transfer house: widescreen and 4:3 setups were often filmed as separate takes, and in most cases the 4:3 version was overseen by the director and the DoP in post-production (this book covers the process comprehensively). So in many cases, letterboxing 'scope films for non-theatrical viewing is not preserving the aesthetic intent of the original, because the filmmakers fully understood and planned for them being shown non-theatrically in 4:3 versions, which they themselves prepared. In other words, viewing the 'scope version non-theatrically in a letterboxed video was not intended by the original filmmakers during the period in which Hollywood's distribution business model integrated both theatrical releases and TV broadcasts. Rather, it was a marketing ploy invented by niche market, premium price VHS and laserdisc publishers (Criterion and Kino in the US, Connoisseur and Artificial Eye in Britain, etc.), mainly of arthouse titles, in the mid-1980s, and which gathered steam as "home cinema" and then 16:9 TV came on the scene a decade later.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

Coate: Should ’Scope films continue to be letterboxed for their ancillary-market releases? Is a 16:9 pan-and-scan acceptable?

Belton: Letterboxing of 'Scope films for display in non-theatrical venues is necessary to preserve the aesthetic intent of the original.

Hall: Yes, to the first question; no, to the second question.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Can you cite me any examples of widescreen feature films having been broadcast or published on VHS in letterboxed versions (i.e. not panned and scanned) on any significant scale before the late '80s / early '90s?

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Can you cite me any examples of widescreen feature films having been broadcast or published on VHS in letterboxed versions (i.e. not panned and scanned) on any significant scale before the late '80s / early '90s?

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

But even megastars like Spielberg clearly didn't feel strongly enough about it at the time to veto the practice, or even voice prominent opposition.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

As Sean points out, 'scope movies letterboxed on VHS on an average sized TV for around 1990 were not a viewer-friendly experience. I was living in a PAL country at the time and so got a few more lines of resolution than NTSC; but basically, when I wanted to see a scope movie in scope, I went to the theatre, period.

---

Why not instead watch the alternatively-shot 4:3 version?
 

---

Posted by Sheldon Hall (Member # 8060) on 01-16-2014, 02:22 PM:
 
The fanboy parrot speaks!

I’d like to address the points made by Leo Enticknap regarding answers given by John Belton and myself to interview questions posed by Michael Coate, reproduced above. Please accept my apologies in advance for the length of this response, but Leo raises a number of issues that need to be addressed individually. I’m speaking here on my own behalf but I think I can defend John’s position too, especially as he was the particular target for criticism. It seems to have been assumed that we spoke in unison with our answers, but as Mike’s introduction to the discussion makes clear, the ‘roundtable’ was a virtual one: we answered questions separately via email and only when I saw the published version did it become clear that there was a remarkable degree of concurrence. For the record, I broadly endorse John’s view that letterboxed versions of films on home video and TV are ‘necessary to preserve the aesthetic intent of the original’, though I now regret having not elaborated on my own reasons for answering as I did; I had assumed that they were obvious, which was clearly not the case!

Leo makes an interesting but contradictory argument. First, he states that prepared-for-TV versions of theatrical films (at least those made since the mid-1960s) do in fact represent the director’s ‘original artistic intent’ and so should not be a cause for concern. But later he goes on to state that the very idea of artistic intent is dubious anyway, its influence being all the fault of the French and accepted with equal alacrity by gullible academics and by Hollywood and elite video distributors, which saw a way to make a buck out of it. This implies that the real source of ‘originality’ is not the filmmaker but the industry, which demands certain kinds of product to satisfy a given market. Historians, Leo implies, should be wise to this and should not offer a naively auteurist (or merely fannish) preference for one kind of product over another, but should instead recognise the legitimacy of these other products as historical artefacts which carry the imprimatur, at least in some cases, of filmmakers themselves as well as having been seen by past audiences. (I trust I am not misrepresenting his case.)

Neither John nor I are ignorant of the participation of filmmakers in the preparation of alternative versions of films for non-theatrical markets. Indeed, we have both written about it. I contributed a chapter entitled ‘Alternative Versions in the Early Years of CinemaScope’ to the book John and I co-edited with Steve Neale, Widescreen Worldwide (2010). John wrote about the history of both panning-and-scanning and letterboxing in his monograph Widescreen Cinema (1992) and also in an article for Sight and Sound (Winter 1987-88) entitled ‘The Shape of Money’.

The book that Leo so helpfully cites (Film into Video, 2nd edition, 2000) is not, as he implies, a ‘comprehensive’ account of the way in which filmmakers prepare TV versions of theatrical films during production, but is instead a how-to manual for telecine operators. Its historical content is negligible, the production process is omitted almost entirely, and no actual films are listed in the index let alone analysed, but it does contain the following observation: ‘Although the pan and scan process is subjective and alters the director’s original picture composition, it does deliver the full-screen image desired by television networks and [video] rental distribution organizations.’ (p. 45)

For anyone seeking both historical context and practical analysis, I can however recommend Steve Neale’s chapter ‘Widescreen Composition in the Age of Television’ in his collection Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (co-edited with Murray Smith, 1998). Steve examines in detail scenes from several post-1970 films staged and composed with TV at least partly in mind. I am currently writing a book – apologies again for the plug! – entitled Armchair Cinema: Feature Films on British Television, which will discuss, among other topics, the presentation of films on TV in the UK, which often differed from that in the US and elsewhere (letterboxing, incidentally, was commonplace in European broadcasting long before it caught on in Anglophone countries).

Both Steve and John make a number of the points that Leo makes about economic forces shaping technology and aesthetics and about the involvement of filmmakers in creating versions of films acceptable for TV broadcast and, later, home video distribution. However, in his Sight and Sound article (admittedly written after the fashion for letterboxed videos was underway – a fashion in no way discredited by the fact that it was a form of high-end product differentiation) John also quotes or cites a number of filmmakers objecting to panning-and-scanning for aesthetic reasons; they include Elliott Silverstein (representing the DGA Creative Rights Committee), Milos Forman, Martin Scorsese and cinematographers Nestor Almendros and Joseph Biroc. All of these were concerned about the artistic compromises entailed in converting or composing theatrical films for subsequent TV viewing. Indeed, Scorsese gave this as the reason why he had made no anamorphic ’scope films to that point. John also quotes former editor Ralph Martin, employed by Warner Bros. to supervise panning-and-scanning, as saying that the process was often done quickly, in virtually real-time conditions, by a camera operator rather than by a film’s director or DP.

Mike Coate asked Leo to provide concrete examples of cinema films composed with television broadcast in mind, and the only one he offered was Laurence Olivier’s Richard III. I am surprised by the claim that it was partly financed by an advance sale to NBC; contemporary reports in Variety state that the sale was made after the film was completed. The film was broadcast nationally on the afternoon of the same day that it opened commercially in New York, raising concerns about the effect word of mouth about a technically inferior version would have on the theatrical box office. Variety noted Olivier’s dissatisfaction with the colour hues (it was broadcast in colour for viewers suitably equipped), saying it was ‘not quite [the colour] we had tried to achieve on the screen; naturally, when I made the picture I made it for a very large screen.’ (14 March 1956, p. 18). Later, in a newspaper interview reported by Variety, Olivier is said to have ‘pointed out that the long shots and close shots [were] largely lost on the small video screen’ (21 March 1956, p. 2). He also objected to the film’s frequent interruption for commercials and its being re-edited to remove shots of blood and violence. All of these were part of the film’s ‘original’ exhibition on US television; but is this the version that anyone today would like to see preserved on video? It might be interesting as an exercise, perhaps, albeit mainly to a cultural historian; but as the standard for home presentation?

Of course, Richard III is an unrepresentative case, not only because it is a relatively early example of a major feature film shown on network television, but because (as Leo notes) it was filmed in VistaVision. Despite Olivier’s objections, VistaVision was a much less problematic medium than, say, CinemaScope for conversion to TV standards. With a negative aspect ratio of about 1.5:1, it involved cropping relatively little picture information even if TV transmission was based on a print hard-matted to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, though in fact many prints were open-matte. The difference between TV and theatrical presentation is largely one of scale and resolution rather than of composition.

Anamorphic ’scope presents a different set of problems. If concerted efforts to oppose the panning-and-scanning of anamorphic films had not been made by filmmakers before the mid-1980s, it is most likely because they accepted it as a fait accompli – much as they did, however reluctantly, commercial breaks, the conversion of colour to black and white, and the broadcast of films in 16mm prints when they had been photographed in 35mm (British television companies seem to have been unique in demanding 35mm prints, which often had to be struck especially for them). The pressure to compose within a ‘safe action area’ undoubtedly meant that post-1970 ’scope movies lose less of significance than earlier ones when cropped (Steve Neale’s chapter, cited above, covers this very well), but the loss is not negligible – at least, not in the better films.

Leo says that he knows of only one instance of a director trying to prevent the broadcast of a ’scope film in a cropped version; more to the point, how many examples can he find of directors stating that this was their preferred way of presenting a film, or the version they would rather have available for purchase on video? I know of only one: James Cameron, most of whose films released theatrically in anamorphic prints were photographed in Super 35, which has a negative aspect ratio of 4:3 to facilitate cropping to a range of different sizes and shapes depending on the exhibition window. Thus, flexibility is built in far more than with anamorphic Panavision. I believe the reason behind Cameron’s preference for the 4:3 version on video was the reduction in size and impact of film images when seen on a domestic TV monitor by comparison with a cinema screen. Certainly this, and the low resolution of NTSC in particular, helps to explain why both networks and viewers have traditionally resisted the letterboxing of films on broadcast TV and videotape. But the advent of HD, widescreen and large-screen televisions along with relatively high-res media such as laserdiscs, DVDs and Blu-rays has changed this market preference considerably.

Theoretically, any number of different versions of a film could be released on DVD, any or all of which might have historical veracity as artefacts that have in the past been consumed by different audiences in different markets, and any or all of which might have had the involvement or met the approval of the director. This includes, for example, versions with censorable scenes and dialogue removed or replaced by more acceptable alternatives required by TV networks and airlines. I have personally sat in a dubbing studio to watch the recording of dialogue to replace profanities with inoffensive but nonsensical alternatives designed to match the actors’ onscreen lip movements. This was done during postproduction of the film’s theatrical version, by the original actors and with the director supervising. In one sense, then, it represented ‘original artistic intent’. In another sense it did not, in that it represented a concession that the director was obliged by contract to make in order to satisfy market requirements. It was nevertheless a legitimate alternative version, one that was director-approved, so perhaps this is something we should have on DVD too?

This brings us back to the question that John Belton and I were asked to begin with: “Should ’Scope films continue to be letterboxed for their ancillary-market releases? Is a 16:9 pan-and-scan acceptable?” The question was specifically about the form in which films should be made available today. Even assuming all variant versions were recoverable (most panned-and-scanned 16mm TV reduction prints of widescreen films must surely have been junked by now), would there be any point in providing them other than for the edification of cultural historians and technophiles? The market – to which we must always return – would surely not support it, even if it were desirable. Yet Leo seems happy to endorse the market forces which brought about panned-and-scanned versions for TV, but not those which led to the production of letterboxed versions for (initially) a minority of consumers, who are now most likely in the majority.

So if I were asked – as indeed I was – which should be the preferred version of a film for video release or TV broadcast, my choice (as a critic as well as a historian) would necessarily be what I still regard as ‘the original’ one: the version that was usually seen in theatres before it was shown on television, to which the filmmakers (not just the director) gave priority during production, and which they would have preferred if given the option. In the case of films made in widescreen formats, that means a letterboxed version in the optimum aspect ratio of its original (first) exhibition.

There is however one point on which Leo and I can certainly agree: the abominable conversion of 4:3 television productions to a 16:9 format for video. If film historians have not objected to this practice in print (I have been doing so verbally for more than a decade, even when only extracts from pre-16:9 TV programmes and films, including documentary and newsreel footage, are cropped for use in modern TV shows) it is perhaps because they expect TV historians to take over the voice of protest, having been exhausted by their victory in the campaign against panning-and-scanning.

Finally, for the record, a correction: On the Beach was not an anamorphic production.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-16-2014, 04:29 PM:
 

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

First, he states that prepared-for-TV versions of theatrical films (at least those made since the mid-1960s) do in fact represent the director’s ‘original artistic intent’ and so should not be a cause for concern.

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

Leo says that he knows of only one instance of a director trying to prevent the broadcast of a ’scope film in a cropped version; more to the point, how many examples can he find of directors stating that this was their preferred way of presenting a film, or the version they would rather have available for purchase on video? I know of only one: James Cameron...

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

Certainly this [small TV screens], and the low resolution of NTSC in particular, helps to explain why both networks and viewers have traditionally resisted the letterboxing of films on broadcast TV and videotape.

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

The market – to which we must always return – would surely not support it, even if it were desirable. Yet Leo seems happy to endorse the market forces which brought about panned-and-scanned versions for TV, but not those which led to the production of letterboxed versions for (initially) a minority of consumers, who are now most likely in the majority.

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

There is however one point on which Leo and I can certainly agree: the abominable conversion of 4:3 television productions to a 16:9 format for video. If film historians have not objected to this practice in print (I have been doing so verbally for more than a decade, even when only extracts from pre-16:9 TV programmes and films, including documentary and newsreel footage, are cropped for use in modern TV shows) it is perhaps because they expect TV historians to take over the voice of protest, having been exhausted by their victory in the campaign against panning-and-scanning.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

William Friedkin and Sorcerer is another.

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

Leo, you’re missing my point that your arguments were at odds with themselves.

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

You took John Belton’s point about ‘original artistic intent’ to mean the director’s – even though John didn’t mention directors – and used it to berate the auteurist influence and a bunch of other things that get your goat, while then arguing that as the director was involved in TV versions anyway, auteurists shouldn’t complain.

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

As for ‘originality’, we can take ‘original’ here (the word that John actually used) to mean the first version of the work, the one that was exhibited first (or designed to be exhibited first) in theatres, rather than the compromised version designed to be seen subsequently on TV. Your use of ‘originality’ is ambiguous in that it appears to be suggesting that a particular artistic quality is at issue – the quality of freshness or innovativeness – when that is not really the point at all.

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

As I said, I do agree with you that 16:9 corruptions of 4:3 film footage – of whatever kind, documentary or fictional, film or TV – are heinous (in complaining that others don’t you cite only ‘mainstream press’ reviews, which are hardly representative of academic opinion).

---

quote: Sheldon Hall

---

A query, if I may: you claim that alternate footage was specially shot for TV versions of ’Scope films. What is your source for this, please, and what examples can you give? As I pointed out, this information is not in the book that you cited in support of your arguments.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

but from memory, I came across an SMPTE Journal piece from the '70s recounting how several shots in Chinatown were done in two versions, because Polanski wanted to show Jack Nicholson and John Huston exchange dialogue without a cut, and this couldn't be done in the 'scope setup without obvious and repeated pans across the frame between the two actors (in fact, the film was shot in 'scope against Polanski's wishes: due to a dispute with the producer, a cinematogapher was imposed on Polanski who he didn't want, and who insisted on shooting in 'scope. And just to prove that I'm not a total philistine when it comes to artistic intent, I agree with Polanski: that film has a wonderful script and some amazing acting, but is marred by consistently awkward framing and visuals).

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

And while this was a spherical widescreen rather than a 'scope example, one of the shots in the Psycho shower scene was done in two versions, because Janet Leigh's cleavage would have been visible in the full frame with the shot as storyboarded framed for 1.85 (described in Rebello's book, if I recall correctly).

---