Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Correct aspect ratio for "Faces" (1968, John Cassavetes)

This is topic Correct aspect ratio for "Faces" (1968, John Cassavetes) in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011769

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-16-2015, 12:46 PM:

We're playing this on Sunday and I'm torn between 1.37 and 1.66. We don't appear to have shown this title before, because there's nothing for it in our print reports database. The head leaders were labeled (in another projectionist's handwriting) 1.37. The movie was shot in 16mm (hence a native AR of 1.33), but some of the post-production was done by a French lab, making 1.66 a possibly intended projection ratio. IMDB says 1.66. The end titles fit a 1.66 mask, but only just a 1.85 one - the slightest misframing and they'd be cropped.

Most of the shot compositions look 1.66-ish to me. I put a 1.66 plate on a few random shots while inspecting the print. This one is typical:

However, we've been doing a big Gena Rowlands series over the last week or two, and all the Rowlands/Cassavetes titles we've shown so far have been 1.85. So if anyone has the definitive answer for peace of mind's sake, I'd be grateful. It's either 1.66 or 1.37, and I'm leaning toward 1.66.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 01-16-2015, 02:04 PM:

I don't know if you put any stock in such things, but I have the Criterion Bluray of this title which is 1.66, and it looks very comfortably framed.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2015, 02:43 PM:

I would be leery of trusting a handwritten ratio on the leaders. I've come across far too many projectionists that think just because the picture is 4 perfs (or close to it) tall that it's automatically 1.37

Sadly I've actually had arguments with these "projectionists" in the past, one of which was over Jurassic Park. He was INSISTENT that it was 1.37 because he saw picture outside of the 1.85 and 1.66 plates (even though every effects shot was matted).

Criterion is a pretty reliable source. If you've ran a reel at 1.66 and it looks comfortable, I would go with that.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-16-2015, 04:58 PM:

Agreed. I suspect that whoever wrote 1.37 on the leaders simply looked at the Academy matte and didn't think about it any further. At first glance it's the same style of hard matte (e.g. rounded corners) that you see on prints of classic Hollywood titles from the '30s and '40s, which may have confirmed his/her inclination to project it in 1.37.

So we've got two sources saying 1.66, one of them extremely reputable (Janus/Criterion), and the other of which gets that sort of fact right most of the time (IMDB). That's good enough for me. I'll throw a reel on the screen at the end of the night on Saturday just to be sure, but unless I see any boom mikes or frame lines, then 1.66 it is. Thanks folks.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-16-2015, 05:15 PM:

Do you see any boom mics dropping into the top of the frame on those taller images?
[Razz]

I've seen a couple movie trailers that were mis-framed where boom mics dropped into the frame; I'm trying to remember specifically which ones since it has been a long time. I'm thinking The Evening Star (1996) might have been one of them.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-16-2015, 08:31 PM:

There was some movie with Sally Field back in the 80s where she was in the shower. The 1.85 picture was not matted, but as normally framed, her chest was cut-off just above the good parts. One night out of curiosity I racked it "up" a bit during that scene and....you could see her boobies in all their glory. I was kind of surprised she wasn't wearing some pasties or something.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-17-2015, 06:41 AM:

If it were me, I'd run it 1.66. Based on the year, and your example frames, that makes the most sense. It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't "protected" for 1.33 for any 16mm dupes.

On the bright side, I don't think you can go "wrong" here. I agree with Brad on ignoring prior projectionist's claims. Without knowing the person, how can you evaluate their credibility?

Oh, I got it! Put the 1.37 plate in but the 1.66 Lens..mask for 1.66...that way those that want to look at the extraneous stuff can see it on the drapery! That won't drive anyone nuts. [Razz]

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-17-2015, 09:35 AM:

I have the opposite story of Mike. There is a scene in The Opposite of Sex in which Christina Ricci is supposed to be topless, but it you frame it up some you see she is wrapped in a flesh colored towel. I think she was a minor at the time.

Boom mikes were a big problem in the early 80's. I can't remember any specific films, but there was one Woody Allen one which was printed full frame and gave little room for tolerance in 1:85.

Posted by Edgar Prass (Member # 7558) on 01-17-2015, 02:54 PM:

Jim Jarmusch's "Dead man" from 1995 is also printed full frame, but supposed to be shown in 1.85 aspect ratio. On test screening I mistakenly used the 1.37 aperture plate and saw plenty of boom mikes in top of the frame.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 01-17-2015, 03:34 PM:

At a screening of One Hour Photo at a local AMC years ago. The show was so badly out of frame when boom mics were visible it ruined the mood of the scenes because the audience was laughing at them. When a manager finally talked to me after standing in the lobby for 5 minutes we decided just to get passes and come back another time.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-17-2015, 04:25 PM:

The print I got of One Hour Photo had "Scope" printed on the labels on the film cans. It had "Scope" lab-printed on the leaders and tails of each and every reel.

The movie was flat.

[Mad]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-17-2015, 11:27 PM:

Psycho is another one: several of the very brief (as in, less than a second) shots in the shower murder montage are matted to protect Janet Leigh's modesty. You don't see the matte in 1.85, but you do in any taller ratio (e.g. when the film was broadcast on pre-widescreen TVs in 4:3).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-18-2015, 12:50 AM:

The original National Lampoon's Vacation shows Beverly D'Angelo is wearing a bra in the shower at the end of reel 1 if misframed.

Similarly, but on the opposite end of the spectrum, the movie Powder shows off Sean Patrick Flanery's junk during an outdoor naked bullying scene if misframed which is supposed to be masked off in the proper 1.85 ratio.

And yet people still whine when they learn I (and Joe Redifer) commonly used to lock the framing controls down. [Razz]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-18-2015, 10:29 AM:

I remember making a point to see what was outside the projectable frame on at least a couple of occasions.

In the 1987 "Dragnet" with Dan Aykroyd, there is a scene where a girl says "What do you think of these?" with her chest out of frame. I was helping a theatre learn to use a platter when I was breaking down the print and I suggested we slow down to look for that shot. (Maybe I put a marker in the film pack--can't recall.) Sure enough...the shot was hard matted in an otherwise full frame movie. They didn't want to violate their rating if a projectionist misframes. The human body can be evil you know.

There was also something in "Jackie Brown." I don't recall the details anymore but I remember some sort of sex scene for which rolling down the framing revealed underwear.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-18-2015, 02:04 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
There was some movie with Sally Field back in the 80s where she was in the shower. The 1.85 picture was not matted, but as normally framed, her chest was cut-off just above the good parts. One night out of curiosity I racked it "up" a bit during that scene and....you could see her boobies in all their glory. I was kind of surprised she wasn't wearing some pasties or something.

That is probably the movie "Surrender" with Michael Caine and Steve Guttenberg.

I was location projectionist on that film. [Smile]

I was there for the giant slot machine shots, the outdoor jogging scenes with Michael Caine (and one very uncooperative "wolf" named Levi) and I actually slated four shots of Sally and Steve in the limo. (I forgot to ask for the trims, which the editors would have given to me then...)

Look for my name in all its glory on the end credits. [Big Grin]

(And on IMDB)

More on-topic, I feel Leo's pain on this one..When I worked at UC Irvine I had countless prints come in where the aspect ratio was a guessing game...sometimes I could get ahold of the filmmaker to confirm, other times I just had to make a judgement call...only once or twice out of several dozen times did I get it wrong, with some embarrassing results.