Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Aspect ratio of Dr Strangelove

This is topic Aspect ratio of Dr Strangelove in forum Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets 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=3;t=000289

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 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.

Posted by Paul Turner (Member # 832) on 09-29-2001, 02:36 PM:

I ran it with a filed out 1.75 plate. Worked well. If I'm remembering my conversation with Sony print control correctly, SK supervised the remastering of a few prints of Dr. SL before he died. Most of them didn't fare very well in the hands of less than competant projectionsists, so specifically ask about the qualtiy of the print. I wish I had the print number of the one I had -- it was was perfect -- but the person I dealt with was NOT going to let me have a good print until I assured her it was going to be handled by only ME.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-29-2001, 04:11 PM:

I show it at 1.85:1 with no problems
The older prints had some frame line creeping at 1.66:1 which is the only alternate AP for that title 1.75:1 is bogus since ithas never been a recognized apsect ratio for any theatreical production

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 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...."

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-30-2001, 01:06 AM:

I have always run it in 1.66:1 and it fits perfectly. I think you would have trouble in 1.33:1. Our prints were always hard matted to 1.66:1. Of course, that may not be the case on the print you are running but there is generally a very good reason things are hard matted. eg: hiding set ends, microphones etc.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 09-30-2001, 10:15 AM:

I have always run it at 1.66:1 with no problems.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 09-30-2001, 10:26 AM:

If it's hard matted, then 1.66 is correct. If it isn't though, shouldn't the filmmaker's intent be considered? If it is not hard matted, and the aspect ratio fluctuates, would you still show it at 1.66? I apologize if this post is getting into the chit-chat realm.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-30-2001, 10:41 AM:

I've never run this personally, but have seen it run at both 1.85 and 1.66. To my eyes, it looks better at 1.66, though I don't know what the original intention was.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 10-07-2001, 05:40 AM:

The print is here, It hard matted 1.66:1, and we found our old 1.66:1 lense and apperture plate, so i will see how it looks in 1.66:1

interesting the headers and footers do not have printed on them weather they are headers or footers. I tells the reel number and thats it. All i can see is where somebody has marked them with china pencil with a "H" which i assume means header. hopefully the markings are correct. I will be watching this print through before the performance.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 04-09-2009, 01:43 PM:

It has been 2741 days since the last post.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-09-2009, 01:43 PM:

Since no one has posted this:

5 reels
flat/1.66
mono

Some of the stock footage of B-52s is hard matted to something less than 1.66 (1.85?) and the mattes can be seen in a couple of scenes. It looks as if this material was actually shot in Academy and then vertically panned and scanned to fit onto a wider screen. Still, the rest of the film is clearly composed for 1.66 and looks too tight at 1.85.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-09-2009, 01:57 PM:

It plays fine at 1.85

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-19-2009, 10:01 AM:

Not senile, just crazy [Wink]

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.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-26-2009, 03:41 AM:

This is insane. The film is widescreen and the reason the hard mattes jump in an out of the picture is because they were using multiple cameras with obviously different gates. This is a common occurrence in films of that era. There's no artistic reason behind it, with the DP clearly understanding that this information wouldn't have been seen anyway.

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.

For Kubrick's opinion about photography, one need look no further than this storyboard Kubrick prepared for THE SHINING, which reads: "THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1.85. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1.33 area."

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 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

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 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.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 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!