The answer to the Touch of Evil aspect-ratio controversy contained in the release of the 50th anniversary DVD is simple, and shame on those who would needlessly complicate it. All 1950s film that were captured with a protected aspect ratio of 1.37 to 1 should always be mastered for DVD at that aspect ratio. Or at least at 1.66 to 1. I can't over-emphasize how despicable I find 1.85 to 1 croppings of Eisenhower- and Kennedy-era films.

There is no aesthetic benefit at all -- zero -- to chopping the tops and bottoms off an image that was protected for 1.37 to 1. The reborn Gordon Gekko's new slogan: Tall and boxy is good. It harms no one to release a taller fuller image. The DVD distributors are simply looking to put out an image that fits within 16 x 9 aspect ratio of high-def plasma and LCD screens. They want everything to be "wide."
Don't believe so-called experts who claim that 1.85 was the projection norm in the '50s -- it wasn't absolutely. It was 1.66 to 1 here and there, and 1.85 here and there; it was even 1.37 here and there. Why have so many '50s and '60s films been masked for laser disc and DVD at 1.66 to 1? For the hell of it? Remember the travesty of Shane, shot in 1.33 (or 13.7) to 1, and then projected in theatres at 1.66 to 1 to accomodate the then-new appetite for wider-screen imagery? The same kind of revisionist horseshit has been happening for years in the DVD market.
HE reader Robert Hunt contends that Hollywood historian Richard Maltby, writing in his book "Hollywood Cinema" (which I've read but have no copy of right now), argued that "1.85 wasn't accepted as the standard aspect ratio by the SMPTE until 1960."
Some Came Running's Glenn Kenny was written about this in a fashion that I find a little too laissez-faire. Here it is:
"The facts are these: Director Orson Welles and cinematographer Russell Metty shot Touch of Evil in the so-called 'Academy ratio' of 1.37:1. And...well, actually, as far as the universally accepted facts are concerned, that's where they end.

"There is plenty of documentation attesting that it was Universal Studios policy, mid-1953 or so, to have all their releases theatrically projected at the wider 1.85:1 ratio, via a 'hard matte' (a plate with a rectangular opening placed in front of the projector's lens), with the Academy ratio reserved for TV airings of films (1.37 fitting almost exactly correctly on old-style television screens).
"Kehr's commenters include a great number of folks who have seen Touch of Evil screened theatrically at 1.37. Did the projectionist make an error? Is the documentation concerning Universal's policy wrong? Did Welles and Metty compose for 1.37 without realizing that the film would be projected at 1.85?
"A lot of questions with no, apparently, definitive or cut-and-dried answers. What is sure is that the new Touch of Evil edition offers three versions of the film--the compromised but still absolutely classic theatrical release, a 'preview' edition that hews closer to Welles' vision than the eventual theatrical release, and the ingenious, controversial 1998 'restored' version put together by scholar/preservationists Rick Schmidlin and Jonathan Rosenbaum -- all in 1.85. Former Cahiers du Cinema critic Nicolas Saada calls this a 'disaster' over at Dave's site.
"A host of others, who are also discussing the decision over at the Criterion forum, point to the evidence apropos Universal's policy. The Lafayette Theater's Pete Appruzzese, a man I defer to in all manners technical, says he's run Touch of Evil in both 1.37 and 1.85 and that to his eye the 1.85 version is correct. Dave Kehr feels the 1.85 version looks 'tight.'"
Then again Kenny wrote the following within Kehr's talkback section: "Let's start a collection to raise enough money so that Craig and the MOC guys can convince Universal to license them Touch of Evil for a Blu-ray MOC release in 1.33. Put me down (seriously) for $500 in support."
Here's a German comparison site, copied from Dave Kehr's TOE page.
There's no earthly reason to believe or presume that Welles and Metty would have preferred that Touch of Evil be seen by future generations in a 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio. Any idiot can look at the 1.37 version on tape and the new cropping and come to this conclusion. There is a word for the 1.85 cropping on the just-out three-disc DVD set, and that word is "vandalism."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM
comment #1
Jason
says ...
Welles feels all wrong at 1.85:1. He was an Academy ratio guy. All his greatest movies were shot in this format. His low-angle "Hey! There's the ceiling!" compositions in Kane and Ambersons have hard-wired me to expect tall images from him.
Posted by Jason
at October 16, 2008 6:10 PM
comment #2
corey3rd
says ...
we always used the term "Hard Matte" to refer to a plate put inside the camera lens to make sure that the negative only filmed the aspect ratio desired.
Posted by corey3rd
at October 16, 2008 6:32 PM
comment #3
p.Vice
says ...
Think about applying this argument to all of the films in the 80s - present that were shot in Super 35 and projected at 2.35:1. 'Pan & Scan' versions actually show you more of the large protect frame filmed than the theatrically correct "cropped" version does compared to 1.85:1, but I don't recall ever hearing anyone say they'd take the 'pan & scan' version of Terminator 2 or L.A. Confidential or The Matrix over the letterboxed, theatrically correct ratio.
Besides, Touch of Evil was projected at Film Forum a few years back at 1.85:1. I see no reason to change that.
Posted by p.Vice
at October 16, 2008 7:16 PM
comment #4
frankbooth
says ...
That Mexican dude on the right looks like some old actor, but I can't think of who.
Posted by frankbooth
at October 16, 2008 7:21 PM
comment #5
Thrudvangar
says ...
I guess del Toro hasn't seen this.
Posted by Thrudvangar
at October 16, 2008 7:49 PM
comment #6
John Cocktosten
says ...
Can't someone call up Bogdanovich and ask him? I can't imagine he doesn't know. He probably personally discussed it with Orson for hours over dinner once upon a time.
Posted by John Cocktosten
at October 16, 2008 8:51 PM
comment #7
JD
says ...
It's almost like panning-and-scanning for the 16x9 era (though tilt-and-scan would be a more accurate term). With that in mind, I always wonder if any actual tilting/scanning is done in these cases or are they simply cropping the top and bottom of the image off in a consistent way from beginning to end. Do they move the image up or down to improve the framing? In a way that's even worse, as it throws the whole allignment and interrelationship of the shots out-of-wack.
Posted by JD
at October 17, 2008 4:38 AM
comment #8
Glenn Kenny
says ...
I used the term "hard matte" incorrectly in my original post; it's been fixed. Sorry.
Posted by Glenn Kenny
at October 17, 2008 5:50 AM
comment #9
gruver1
says ...
Wells to Kenny: I love David Hare's post on Kehr's blog about an imminent flight to Paris and thinking about showing the 1.37 to 1 version at his apartment there with "lots of drinks." This is how life should be lived.
Posted by gruver1
at October 17, 2008 6:27 AM
comment #10
Chance
says ...
"There is no aesthetic benefit at all -- zero -- to chopping the tops and bottoms off an image that was protected for 1.37 to 1."
Sorry, but this is just wrong. "Protecting" for 1.37:1 just means the filmmakers make sure an open matte version of the movie (for VHS, improperly equipped theaters, whatever) won't look horrible. If a film is shot 1.85:1 and protected for 1.37:1, there is a great aesthetic benefit in "chopping" the DVD to 1.85:1, because THAT'S THE WAY THE MOVIE IS MEANT TO BE WATCHED.
Shooting 1.37:1 and protecting for 1.85:1 is a different story, of course. But that approach would be rare these days. And from what I can tell, it was already rare around the time they made TOUCH OF EVIL.
Posted by Chance
at October 17, 2008 11:03 AM
comment #11
gruver1
says ...
Wells to Chance: All right, let me amend what I said. Touch of Evil was composed by Welles and Metty with the 1.37 to 1 aspect ratio. I consider it a profoudn waste of my time to have to explain this to you or anyone else when a simple watching of the taller boxier version vs. the ridiculous 1.85 version makes this dead obvious.
Posted by gruver1
at October 17, 2008 11:11 AM
comment #12
Chance
says ...
Fair enough, and sorry to waste your time. I have the previous 1.85:1 DVD edition from a few years back, and I never noticed any composition problems. But I haven't seen a 1.37:1 version, so maybe I'm wrong.
For what it's worth, the new DVD looks to have opened the matte up a tiny bit, at least judging from the DVDBeaver screen grabs...
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/touchofevil.htm
Posted by Chance
at October 17, 2008 1:04 PM
comment #13
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability cluster
Posted by janee
at May 18, 2011 5:53 AM