It's what he would have wanted? Stanley Kubrick and OAR...

John Hodson · 14-04-2005, 11:30

Since Warner produced the remastered versions of Stanley Kubrick's films on DVD, there has been much debate about just why some are full frame. The argument 'it's what Kubrick wished' is oft thrown in as a stopper to those that argue that it's not the original theatrical aspect ratio.

However The Stanley Kubrick Archives, available from Amazon UK for a wallet emptying £70 apparently dispels all doubt.

The argument is that Stanley, where appropriate, did indeed frame his work at 1.85:1 (or 1.66:1), and full frame open-matte was his preferred AR but only for home video only. Stanley was trying to protect his work from those barbarians that would mistakenly crop his work, or worse p&s them, for TV.

But Stan the man made decree years ago (in the last century even) at a time when the 4:3 box in the corner was king, when widescreen sets were only just beginning to find their ways into a minority of homes. Maybe he just didn't see the explosion of home entertainment, or was his decision perfectly correct at the time.

Nevertheless, the evidence is apparently there for all to see, in Kubricks own words - you can read more from about here in an interesting thread at the HTF.

I'm no Kubrick expert, but does anyone here own this weighty tome? Care to comment on the Kubrick Kontroversy (sorry

)

One thing's for sure, I can feel that 'Super Duper Stanley Kubrick Ultimate Widescreen Collection' coming on any time soon...

rgfinch · 14-04-2005, 11:57

I thought Kubrick's use of narrower ratios began when he saw 2001 panned and scanned down to 1.33:1 on TV and quite reasonably thought it looked pants. Realising that TV companies weren't about to stop this odious practice, he decided to shoot a 1.33 frame, matte it to 1.66 for cinema, but leave an open matte 1.33 version available for TV, which wouldn't look as bad as something which had had width lopped off. I always thought the cinema ratios were the correct ones and the previous 1.33 DVD versions were an obvious misinterpretation of his intentions, as they only ever existed as a means of preventing the films being panned and scanned.

horseflesh · 14-04-2005, 12:07

Watching the fullscreen DVD of something like Full Metal Jacket always "bothers" me, I'm sure it could look glorious in anamorphic widescreen. I saw it on release in the cinema and I'm sure I'd remember if it was screened in "fullscreen".
I never bought the "it's what he wanted" argument either, it just doesn't make sense.

anephric · 14-04-2005, 12:25

It bothers me that Barry Lyndon and Lolita are presented as 1.66:1 non-anamorphic... I know certain studios have a poor history with anamorphic 1.66 but I'd really, really prefer these anamorphically enhanced...

I'm waiting for the price to drop on that magnificent Taschen tome, btw... I've been tantalised by mysterious hints of potential cheapness in the Book forum...

Jonnof · 14-04-2005, 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by anephric

I'm waiting for the price to drop on that magnificent Taschen tome, btw... I've been tantalised by mysterious hints of potential cheapness in the Book forum...

£70 is cheap - the rrp is £100

I'd like a flick through before committing - hopefully the Cinema Store will have a copy or two...

anephric · 14-04-2005, 13:10

Apparently, it's available cheaper. I'm not sure how though because the person who posted said information edited straight after...

I'm waiting for more discount, baby: Taschen books always get discounted sooner or later...

Jonnof · 14-04-2005, 13:50

Ah, just saw that. I have little choice but to wait - you're dead right about Taschen, so here's hoping

Wendell Armbruster · 14-04-2005, 14:30

My recommendation would be for someone who feels really passionately about this to contact someone who should know - for instance, Doug Milsome, who shot Jacket and who was the late great John Alcott's assistant on many of the other pictures. In an other life, that's what I would do. But now I'm off to tend to my seed trays and to polish my alloy wheels.

Wendell Armbruster · 14-04-2005, 14:42

Oh, I might add - Stanley was quite legendary and perhaps perverse in industry circles for being the guy who pushed the envelope with 2001 and then went positively Luddite. I think he really did like old Academy ratio and there are plenty of stories of how he sent aides de camp to tour the cinema to check things like screen masking and the color of the interior walls - many was the cinema manager ordered to paint it black. And then there was the question of sound - the man who was, I think, the first to have the name Dolby on his titles, eschewed all stereo recording and insisted on good old plain mono. The reason for all this was his insistence that his films were identical wherever they were shown.

John Hodson · 14-04-2005, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendell Armbruster

The reason for all this was his insistence that his films were identical wherever they were shown.

Well, something went wrong with the Grand Plan at the fleapit I watched 'em at...interior walls, a whiter shade of vomit, and a screen with a huuuge ice-cream stain down one side.

Wendell Armbruster · 14-04-2005, 19:28

Well, John, you can't condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up. Who said that?

John Hodson · 14-04-2005, 19:38

Either Richard Nixon or George C. Scott.

Gary Couzens · 14-04-2005, 23:10

My stance on this and other director's films is - if a (post-50s) film is intended to be shown in mainstream US commercial cinemas (i.e. not arthouses) then if it's not in Scope it will almost certainly be composed for 1.85:1 and that is the correct ratio, regardless of what the director prefers for home viewing. The great majority of American cinemas can't show any other ratio. There are exceptions to this, but not very many.

The rise of DVD has caused more nonsense about aspect ratios to be written than almost any other subject. You hear something like 1.55:1 being described as the OAR, but no cinema (apart from the NFT and a few others) can show that ratio - all it means is that it was shot hardmatted to that ratio and intended to be shown at a wider one. Elephant is a recent case in point - I know Gus Van Sant prefers that shown in 1.37:1 and it was shown that way when I saw it, but there's plenty of room over characters' heads in every shot as Van Sant has protected his compositions so that the film can be shown in 1.85:1 without doing too much damage. Personally I wish people would decide on a ratio and compose for it rather than trying to do this - I notice the empty space every time. On the other hand, I also notice when someone's careful composition has genuinely been awkwardly cropped. (Betty Blue, OAR 1.66:1 but seen in 1.75:1 the first couple of times in British cinemas, is a case in point.)

Returning to Kubrick - when we showed Barry Lyndon at Southampton University, the print came with an A4 sheet of instructions signed by Kubrick, which included such things as the number of footlamberts of illumination he required of your projector lamp. In this form he specified the ratio as 1.66:1 ideally but no wider than 1.75:1. We showed the film in 1.66:1: the print we had was matted precisely into 1.66:1 which meant that a thin black bar "jumped" into frame every time there was a splice.

John Hodson · 15-04-2005, 18:06

This interesting post from Steve Pickard over at the HTF:

"I worked in the cutting rooms with Stanley and Ray on "The Shining" and there was definately markings on the steenbeck screen for 1.85:1. On one occasion, I recall, we were looking at a scene with Nicholson at the bar and his hands would move position from shot to shot, and I made a comment about it. They both quickly retorted with the statement that the continuity errors were below the 1.85 cutoff and would never be seen. So, at that stage, there was no thought of the film being exhibited, if ever, in fullframe."

DeadKenny · 29-04-2005, 18:35

Here's the word on what Stan wanted... at least as far as Leon Vitali, his technical assistant says ...

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

It's clear from that he hated having to crop to 1.85:1 for the cinema, but he accepted it was the only way to get his films shown. Hence why the 1.85:1 markings were there.

As it says in Leon Vitali's interview, this was Stan's "safe area". Different to normal safe areas in that this was what he considered safe for the cinema, whereas most directors have a safe area for TV.

Interesting stuff too about 5.1. Stanley appeared to be quite keen on the idea before he died.

John Hodson · 30-04-2005, 08:22

But if the evidence is now there for all to see - in Kubrick's own writing - that he composed shots for many of his films in a ratio of 1.85:1, specifically to be screened theatrically that way, then I can't see the argument, however forcefully put by Vitali.

Add that to Steve Pickard's comments, and any other position becomes...confusing.

Kubrick would have loved it.

DeadKenny · 30-04-2005, 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hodson

But if the evidence is now there for all to see - in Kubrick's own writing - that he composed shots for many of his films in a ratio of 1.85:1, specifically to be screened theatrically that way, then I can't see the argument, however forcefully put by Vitali.

Just posted in the HT Forum on this matter, but as far as I can tell (I don't have the book yet), what they are seeing is Kubrick's safe area for cinema.

To quote Vitali...

Quote:

He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not. You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it. Stanley realized that masking for 1.85 would far outweigh having 1.66 projected at 1.85. We did a re-release of Clockwork in the U.K. and it's 1.66. It's composed for 1.66. It's shot in 1.66, and the whole shebang. Well, you know, they had to screen it in 1.85. I can't tell you how much it hurt that film.

...

You realize that when we got to The Shining, this was after the release of Barry Lyndon, this is how it was all being done. He realized that the best thing he could do is to at least do it so that he understood that beside the 1.85 frame line, they were going to have the composition that he would want you to see. From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85 lines. He composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it.

Of course storyboards are going to be composed with 1.85:1 markings because he was forced to keep a safe area for cinema.

Quote:

Add that to Steve Pickard's comments, and any other position becomes...confusing.

His comments are interesting but it doesn't make sense that he would be happy for these "continuity errors" to be seen on TV/Video/Laserdisc (and DVD which he was certainly involved in before his death).

Posts by Gary Couzens and quite a few others I've seen (I think the great Michael Brooke once mentioned this as well), state that for situations where his films could be shown at a full screen ratio (universities, independent cinemas etc), Stanley would provide instructions and mattes for full screen presentation. That kind of flies in the face of any idea that he was only composing for 1.85:1 and had no intention of anyone ever seeing the full screen.

John Hodson · 30-04-2005, 10:12

Quote:

That kind of flies in the face of any idea that he was only composing for 1.85:1 and had no intention of anyone ever seeing the full screen.

I would guess that for some movies he was mindful that the situation was 1.85:1 for the US, 1.66:1 projection in Europe. The problem is I suppose that, as Home Cinema enthusiasts, for many of us the idea is to recreate the original theatrical experience as faithfully as possible - it does depend on which side of the Pond you are...

Quote:

His comments are interesting but it doesn't make sense that he would be happy for these "continuity errors" to be seen on TV/Video/Laserdisc (and DVD which he was certainly involved in before his death).

That's what makes this debate so perverse, and we come back to 'it's what he would have wanted'. We're still no nearer are we?

Gary Couzens · 01-05-2005, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadKenny

Posts by Gary Couzens and quite a few others I've seen (I think the great Michael Brooke once mentioned this as well), state that for situations where his films could be shown at a full screen ratio (universities, independent cinemas etc), Stanley would provide instructions and mattes for full screen presentation. That kind of flies in the face of any idea that he was only composing for 1.85:1 and had no intention of anyone ever seeing the full screen.

My post above refers specifically to Barry Lyndon - there's no dispute that Kubrick intended that to be shown in 1.66:1. Composition for 1.85:1 refers to the films he made after that - The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. The only one of those we showed at my time at University was Full Metal Jacket, which came with no written instructions at all. We showed it in 1.85:1 and it looked fine.

DeadKenny · 01-05-2005, 13:54

The Shining is one example where there is an arguable error (the helicopter blades), but I just love the look of Full Metal Jacket and especially Eyes Wide Shut in 4:3. They both look gorgeous in that ratio as if they were designed to be like that. I'm normally a widescreen fan but these really do look better in full screen for some reason.

14-04-2005, 11:30	#1
John Hodson Out to lunch... Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Bolton, Lancashire Posts: 12,559 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	It's what he would have wanted? Stanley Kubrick and OAR... Since Warner produced the remastered versions of Stanley Kubrick's films on DVD, there has been much debate about just why some are full frame. The argument 'it's what Kubrick wished' is oft thrown in as a stopper to those that argue that it's not the original theatrical aspect ratio. However The Stanley Kubrick Archives, available from Amazon UK for a wallet emptying £70 apparently dispels all doubt. The argument is that Stanley, where appropriate, did indeed frame his work at 1.85:1 (or 1.66:1), and full frame open-matte was his preferred AR but only for home video only. Stanley was trying to protect his work from those barbarians that would mistakenly crop his work, or worse p&s them, for TV. But Stan the man made decree years ago (in the last century even) at a time when the 4:3 box in the corner was king, when widescreen sets were only just beginning to find their ways into a minority of homes. Maybe he just didn't see the explosion of home entertainment, or was his decision perfectly correct at the time. Nevertheless, the evidence is apparently there for all to see, in Kubricks own words - you can read more from about here in an interesting thread at the HTF. I'm no Kubrick expert, but does anyone here own this weighty tome? Care to comment on the Kubrick Kontroversy (sorry ) One thing's for sure, I can feel that 'Super Duper Stanley Kubrick Ultimate Widescreen Collection' coming on any time soon... __________________ *So many films, so little time...* My Film Journal Blog Emily Collingwood: I can't see him. All I can see is the flags... Last edited by John Hodson; 14-04-2005 at 11:32.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-04-2005, 11:57	#2
rgfinch Registered User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: London Posts: 801 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I thought Kubrick's use of narrower ratios began when he saw 2001 panned and scanned down to 1.33:1 on TV and quite reasonably thought it looked pants. Realising that TV companies weren't about to stop this odious practice, he decided to shoot a 1.33 frame, matte it to 1.66 for cinema, but leave an open matte 1.33 version available for TV, which wouldn't look as bad as something which had had width lopped off. I always thought the cinema ratios were the correct ones and the previous 1.33 DVD versions were an obvious misinterpretation of his intentions, as they only ever existed as a means of preventing the films being panned and scanned.

14-04-2005, 12:07	#3
horseflesh Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 5,713 Thanks: 9 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Watching the fullscreen DVD of something like Full Metal Jacket always "bothers" me, I'm sure it could look glorious in anamorphic widescreen. I saw it on release in the cinema and I'm sure I'd remember if it was screened in "fullscreen". I never bought the "it's what he wanted" argument either, it just doesn't make sense.

14-04-2005, 12:25	#4
anephric Kidney Thief Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Derby, UK Posts: 20,624 Thanks: 7 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	It bothers me that Barry Lyndon and Lolita are presented as 1.66:1 non-anamorphic... I know certain studios have a poor history with anamorphic 1.66 but I'd really, really prefer these anamorphically enhanced... I'm waiting for the price to drop on that magnificent Taschen tome, btw... I've been tantalised by mysterious hints of potential cheapness in the Book forum...

14-04-2005, 13:10	#6
anephric Kidney Thief Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Derby, UK Posts: 20,624 Thanks: 7 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Apparently, it's available cheaper. I'm not sure how though because the person who posted said information edited straight after... I'm waiting for more discount, baby: Taschen books always get discounted sooner or later...

14-04-2005, 13:50	#7
Jonnof another man's pretentious Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,963 Thanks: 6 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Ah, just saw that. I have little choice but to wait - you're dead right about Taschen, so here's hoping

14-04-2005, 14:30	#8
Wendell Armbruster Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 846 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	My recommendation would be for someone who feels really passionately about this to contact someone who should know - for instance, Doug Milsome, who shot Jacket and who was the late great John Alcott's assistant on many of the other pictures. In an other life, that's what I would do. But now I'm off to tend to my seed trays and to polish my alloy wheels.

14-04-2005, 14:42	#9
Wendell Armbruster Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 846 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Oh, I might add - Stanley was quite legendary and perhaps perverse in industry circles for being the guy who pushed the envelope with 2001 and then went positively Luddite. I think he really did like old Academy ratio and there are plenty of stories of how he sent aides de camp to tour the cinema to check things like screen masking and the color of the interior walls - many was the cinema manager ordered to paint it black. And then there was the question of sound - the man who was, I think, the first to have the name Dolby on his titles, eschewed all stereo recording and insisted on good old plain mono. The reason for all this was his insistence that his films were identical wherever they were shown.

14-04-2005, 19:28	#11
Wendell Armbruster Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 846 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Well, John, you can't condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up. Who said that?

14-04-2005, 19:38	#12
John Hodson Out to lunch... Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Bolton, Lancashire Posts: 12,559 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Either Richard Nixon or George C. Scott.

14-04-2005, 23:10	#13
Gary Couzens Registered User Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 2,163 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	My stance on this and other director's films is - if a (post-50s) film is intended to be shown in mainstream US commercial cinemas (i.e. not arthouses) then if it's not in Scope it will almost certainly be composed for 1.85:1 and that is the correct ratio, regardless of what the director prefers for home viewing. The great majority of American cinemas can't show any other ratio. There are exceptions to this, but not very many. The rise of DVD has caused more nonsense about aspect ratios to be written than almost any other subject. You hear something like 1.55:1 being described as the OAR, but no cinema (apart from the NFT and a few others) can show that ratio - all it means is that it was shot hardmatted to that ratio and intended to be shown at a wider one. Elephant is a recent case in point - I know Gus Van Sant prefers that shown in 1.37:1 and it was shown that way when I saw it, but there's plenty of room over characters' heads in every shot as Van Sant has protected his compositions so that the film can be shown in 1.85:1 without doing too much damage. Personally I wish people would decide on a ratio and compose for it rather than trying to do this - I notice the empty space every time. On the other hand, I also notice when someone's careful composition has genuinely been awkwardly cropped. (Betty Blue, OAR 1.66:1 but seen in 1.75:1 the first couple of times in British cinemas, is a case in point.) Returning to Kubrick - when we showed Barry Lyndon at Southampton University, the print came with an A4 sheet of instructions signed by Kubrick, which included such things as the number of footlamberts of illumination he required of your projector lamp. In this form he specified the ratio as 1.66:1 ideally but no wider than 1.75:1. We showed the film in 1.66:1: the print we had was matted precisely into 1.66:1 which meant that a thin black bar "jumped" into frame every time there was a splice.

15-04-2005, 18:06	#14
John Hodson Out to lunch... Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Bolton, Lancashire Posts: 12,559 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	This interesting post from Steve Pickard over at the HTF: "I worked in the cutting rooms with Stanley and Ray on "The Shining" and there was definately markings on the steenbeck screen for 1.85:1. On one occasion, I recall, we were looking at a scene with Nicholson at the bar and his hands would move position from shot to shot, and I made a comment about it. They both quickly retorted with the statement that the continuity errors were below the 1.85 cutoff and would never be seen. So, at that stage, there was no thought of the film being exhibited, if ever, in fullframe."

29-04-2005, 18:35	#15
DeadKenny Registered User Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 16,673 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Here's the word on what Stan wanted... at least as far as Leon Vitali, his technical assistant says ... http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html It's clear from that he hated having to crop to 1.85:1 for the cinema, but he accepted it was the only way to get his films shown. Hence why the 1.85:1 markings were there. As it says in Leon Vitali's interview, this was Stan's "safe area". Different to normal safe areas in that this was what he considered safe for the cinema, whereas most directors have a safe area for TV. Interesting stuff too about 5.1. Stanley appeared to be quite keen on the idea before he died.

30-04-2005, 08:22	#16
John Hodson Out to lunch... Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Bolton, Lancashire Posts: 12,559 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	But if the evidence is now there for all to see - in Kubrick's own writing - that he composed shots for many of his films in a ratio of 1.85:1, specifically to be screened theatrically that way, then I can't see the argument, however forcefully put by Vitali. Add that to Steve Pickard's comments, and any other position becomes...confusing. Kubrick would have loved it.

01-05-2005, 13:54	#20
DeadKenny Registered User Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 16,673 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The Shining is one example where there is an arguable error (the helicopter blades), but I just love the look of Full Metal Jacket and especially Eyes Wide Shut in 4:3. They both look gorgeous in that ratio as if they were designed to be like that. I'm normally a widescreen fan but these really do look better in full screen for some reason.