Doesn't Add Up

email this story
read comments (33)
post a comment

I'm sorry to say this because I like and respect former actor and longtime Stanley Kubrick assistant Leon Vitali (whom I interviewed by phone about 12 years ago and then ran into by chance at LAX three or four years later), but his testy statements about the Barry Lyndon aspect-ratio debate during yesterday's Warner Home Video press conference in Manhattan don't hold up to scrutiny.

(l.) Leon Vitali; (r.) as Lord Bullington in Barry Lyndon.

I honestly think it's fair to say at this point that Vitali is, at best, a questionable authority regarding this matter. Because what he said doesn't align.

Boiled down, Vitali's remarks didn't square with the long history of past home-video presentations of Barry Lyndon (including an earlier Kubrick Collection DVD that Vitali supervised), and they argue with Vitali's own remarks about Kubrick's visual preferences in shooting his films and having them seen.

Some Came Running's Glenn Kenny asked Vitali about the Barry Lyndon 1.66 vs. 1.78 aspect-ratio brouhaha at the Essex House gathering, and Vitali answered as follows: "Never was it ever 1.66, it wasn't shot in 1.66, we never released it in 1.66 in any format whether it's film or television or DVD. It was 1.77."

Kenny then asked where the confusion might have come from, and Vitali said the debate "comes from people who think they know and weren't there and have something to say about Stanley all the time...I was there. And you get those idiots...truly, who think they know. [adopts orotund voice] 'Stanley was a very philosophical guy.' I say: bullshit."

No -- Vitali is the b.s. guy. And here's why.

As Bilge Ebiri pointed out in Kenny's comment thread (and which I heartily concur with), "The original Barry Lyndon DVD and laserdisc (released during Kubrick's lifetime) actually WERE 1.66, and do appear to contain more information in the frame."

Furthermore, says Ebiri, Vitali "seems to even imply, when he says it wasn't even shot in 1.66, that the negative doesn't even have this extra information in it, which is obviously incorrect, as [any] screenshot from the DVD release can tell you."

Here's what Vitali said in '08 to a DVD Talk interviewer (and when you read this keep in mind that 1.78 to 1, which is the same as the 16 x 9 aspect ratio of LCD/LED/plasma screens, is just a nose hair away from being 1.85 to 1):

"The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer. That's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera -- the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. What he wanted the videos to reflect was how he shot the film through the camera, what was on the original neg and what his composition when he was shooting it was. That's what he wanted to reflect in his videos. He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture on 1.85. Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

Let's run that one again: "[Kubrick] did not like 1.85 to 1." And yet Vitali is telling us that Kubrick's intention while shooting Barry Lyndon in 1974 and '75 was "never" to shoot it in 1.66, and that when it came to showing it to audiences he "never" intended to have it seen in 1.66 "in any format, whether it's film or television or DVD"? And that he chose an aspect ratio -- 1.77 to 1 -- that was very close to the dreaded 1.85 to 1?

Vitali wasn't just explaining to the DVD Talk interviewer why Kubrick liked "full picture" aspect ratios; he was also explaining why 1.33 versions of The Shining ('80) and Full Metal Jacket had come out on early DVD versions.

"After Barry Lyndon, more and more theaters were showing films 1.85 or in Cinemascope even if it wasn't shot that way," Vitali recalled. "[Stanley] had no control. He couldn't go around every cinema and say 'You show this film in 1.66' as you could with Clockwork Orange, because then the projectors had a 1.66 mask. With multi-plexes things are different and so they only show a film in 1.85 or in 2.21, the Cinemascope. You know? You cannot put a mask in 1.66 as it should be for Clockwork Orange."

So let's get this straight: (a) In 1972 Kubrick wanted desperately for audiences to see A Clockwork Orange in 1.66, but he eventually realized he couldn't win against exhibitors (particularly U.S. exhibitors); (b) he personally approved DVD versions of higher, boxier versions of The Shining ('80) and Full Metal Jacket ('87) when he was still alive, and (c) in 1999 he apparently approved a DVD of Barry Lyndon at 1.66 to 1.

And yet, says Vitali, Kubrick "never" wanted Barry Lyndon to be shot in 1.66 to 1, and he definitely wanted it exhibited at 1.77 to 1 -- an a.r. that is all but indistinguishable from 1.85. Despite Vitali's understanding that Kubrick "did not like" 1.85?

Does that make any sense at all to anyone?

In his lament about the futility of trying to force exhibitors to show films at aspect ratios other than 1.85 to 1, Vitali also told DVD Talk that "you can't put a 1.77 in as it should be for Barry Lyndon."

Excuse me, but was a 1.77 aspect ratio presentation even in existence in movie theatres in 1975? 1.77 or 1.78 is a 21st Century high-def TV aspect ratio that comes very close to delivering films intended to be seen in 1.85. Speaking as a former projectionist, I know that the aperture plates available in my booth in the '80s were either 1.33 to 1, 1.66 to 1 (I worked at a rep house that showed older films) or 1.85 to 1.

Vitali also said to DVD Talk that Kubrick "composed his shots for 1.66...but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it. From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see...the 1.85 lines." Obviously "if he had to" (a) serves as a companion quote to "Stanley did not like 1.85" and (b) strongly suggests that Kubrick was averse to composing for and/or projecting in this format.

Let's go also to a respected U.K. Kubrick site called Kubrick FAQ and the contention of dp David Mullen, who writes in response to a question about the Barry Lyndon's a.r., to wit:

"Barry Lyndon was released theatrically in 1.66:1, even in the U.S. since Kubrick insisted on 1.66 hard mattes being sent to the various theatres showing the film (1.85 is the common 'flat' widescreen ratio in the U.S.)."

The final argument against Vitali's contention that Barry Lyndon was "never" released in 1.66 in any format is, of course, the various Kubrick Collection DVDs of Barry Lyndon. Along with two previous incarnations in '99 and '01, the '07 DVD was (a) mastered and issued in 1.66, and (b) Vitali, acting as consultant and aesthetic supervisor according to his late employer's wishes, approved this aspect ratio somewhere along the line (if not initially for the '07 then the '01 version).

How does Leon Vitali explain this? He obviously can't. He's obviously...I don't know. I hesitate to say this, but the only explanations I can imagine is that he's desperate to rationalize a top-down decision to go with 1.78 to 1 despite empirical evidence that Kubrick was no fan of this aspect ratio, or...I can't even guess. But it's very weird.

Kenny also reported yesterday that "the massive Taschen book The Stanley Kubrick Archive, edited by Alison Castle and 'made in cooperation with Jan Harlan, Christiane Kubrick and 'The Stanley Kubrick Estate' has a 'Note About Aspect Ratios' on the contents page...which lists the aspect ratio of Barry Lyndon as...1.77. Not only that, all of the frame enlargements from Lyndon contained therein are in precisely that ratio."

I say again: this doesn't square with what Vitali himself has said about how Kubrick shot his films and what he wanted audiences to see, and it doesn't square with what Kubrick himself approved. Whine all you want but it just doesn't.

Is it the contenton of Harlan, Christiane Kubrick and Alison Castle that Kubrick was in a delusional and/or delibilitated state of mind when (as I understand it) he personally approved the 1.66 transfer of Barry Lyndon for the 1999 DVD? Why didn't he man up and say to everyone, "Okay, enough of this 1.66 crap....I'm going to set things straight once and for all by insisting on my film being mastered at 1.77 or 1.78 to 1." Kubrick was one of the most exacting directors in motion picture history, after all. I wonder why he didn't do that?

Even if Kubrick was dead by the time final approvals were required for the '99 DVD and therefore didn't technically sign off on it, why didn't Vitali, the keeper of the flame, insist on a 1.77 aspect ratio for the '99, '01 and '07 DVD versions? Well...?

At yesterday's press conference Kenny apparently didn't ask Vitali about the ~~accepted doctrine~~ belief that Kubrick wanted to simulate in Barry Lyndon the slightly taller, more boxy-ish aspect ratios of 18th Century paintings. Because if you want to go with WHV's 1.78 Bluray revisionism you have to toss that one out the window and onto the bonfire, right?

If you accept/believe the "Kubrick wanted to simulate the shape of 18th Century paintings" inspiration and if WHV execs are really determined to justify themselves, they should send a commando team into the Louvre after-hours this weekend to slice off the tops and bottoms of those old paintings with exacto knives. So, you know, they'll be a little closer to 1.78 to 1.

Vitali's revisionism feels...I don't know, weird. Orwellian, Farenheit 451-ish. Vitali and WHV are basically saying to people like me, "We know some of you share a memory of having picked and eaten red apples out of our orchard a few years ago. Well, they were not red apples. They were green pears...pears, we tell you! And anyone who says they ate apples is delusional!"

Any way you cut it Warner Home Video got it wrong. They could have easily stayed with the 1.66 a.r. from the DVDs, and they blew it off for no good reason. Maybe they wanted to satisfy the donkeys out there who don't like looking at windowbox bars on the sides of the 1.66 image...I don't know. But this is one of the worst calls ever made by WHV. Mr. Kubrick liked his films to be framed on the high and full side. Leon Vitali damn well knew that and therefore didn't stand in the way of the '99, '01 and '07 DVD versions running at 1.66. Then he changed his mind, or allowed it to be changed...whatever. This needs to be fixed.

Slicing of Barry Lyndon<< previous | next >>Vitali's Impressionism

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 26, 2011 at 3:24 AM

comment #1

Jeffrey Wells says ...

It couldn't have hurt and could only have helped if they'd gone with the 1.66 or, better yet, a 1.6 or even 1.5 version. Only a few simian jerkwads who don't like looking at black windowbox bars would have complained. Now WHV has the whole aspect-ratio anal-fixation Bluray community up in arms, and for what good reason? Because some executive dickbrain at WHV wanted the whole 16 x 9 screen to be filled....despite WHV having issued Blurays of A Clockwork Orange and Lolita in 1.66. Utter foolishness. Dumbest call they've ever made.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at May 26, 2011 6:05 AM

comment #2

Glenn Kenny says ...

I've updated my post to include a print citation in support of the 1.66 ratio, from Julian Senior, a one-time Warner publicity man, in an interview in Ciment's book. There are also some notes from a projectionist. There are no mentions of simian jerkwads or dickbrains. Carry on.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at May 26, 2011 6:25 AM

comment #3

Breedlove says ...

I have to admit the whole aspect ratio thing has always confused the shit out of me. This conversation makes my head hurt. I mean I get the basic idea, but...anyone want to recommend a website that explains this stuff? Jeff is advocating a taller, thinner image that would have bars on the sides on a widescreen tv, is that right? I need coffee.

Also, TREE OF MUTHAFUCKIN LIFE. Midnight.

Posted by Breedlove at May 26, 2011 6:31 AM

comment #4

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Breedlove: You're kidding, right? For God's sake, 1.66 is a bit higher and very slightly boxier. 1.33 to 1 is next door to a straight box. 1.78 is the shape of high-def screens. You're kidding, right? Headaches over minor tech issues like aspect ratios aren't allowed on this site.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at May 26, 2011 7:02 AM

comment #5

streeter says ...

"Why didn't he man up and say to everyone, "Okay, enough of this 1.66 crap....I'm going to set things straight once and for all by insisting on my film being mastered at 1.77 or 1.78 to 1." Kubrick was one of the most exacting directors in motion picture history, after all. I wonder why he didn't do that? "

Maybe because people still had shitty CRT TVs in 1999? Today everyone with a credit card has a big widescreen HDTV.
I could be (and probably am) wrong, but I thought one of the reasons that Kubrick shot in 1.66 was so that it would look good on television. Where I heard this, I don't know - probably around 12 years ago when the DVDs came out and there was a lot of hub-bub over the aspect ratio. Deja vu...

Posted by streeter at May 26, 2011 7:04 AM

comment #6

Gaydos says ...

Jeff: I can't think of any other movie blog that pays attention to or even understands what the hell you're talking about. Stay true.

I also can't think of any column we've published in Variety in recent memory that's as important as today's David Cohen analysis of the state of digtial projection. Big irony: nice new equipment has meant darker projection.

We (Monte Hellman and I) noticed this recently when we tried to project "Road to Nowhere" at the multiplex in Nashville for the Nashville Film Festival. It was literally too dark to project the film properly and there was no Sony tech around (the only ones allowed to adjust the projector) so we moved from this lovely brandspanking new4k projector to another screen at the plex with an older projector that could actually be adjust to screen the film properly.

What if the filmmaker isn't around to adjust every frickin' screening? Yep. This is a massive problem, nationwide.

Anyway, you, Jeff Wells, are the intended reader for David's tome as you both care and understand what the hell he's talking about:

http://tinyurl.com/3rmp4zj

Posted by Gaydos at May 26, 2011 7:15 AM

comment #7

Kit Sung says ...

Incidently in Taschens Kubrick book there are two sizes of photos from Barry Lyndon (I just measured it in my copy): There are large ones, filling almost the whole page which are 40*23,2 cm which translates to 1.72 and small photos that are 20*11,3 which is pretty exactly 1,77.
So there are actually two sizes in the book.

Strangly the photos for Full Metal Jacket and The Shing manage to be the correct 1,33 for both the small and large photos.

One thing is for sure: Leon Vitali is talking bullshit.

Posted by Kit Sung at May 26, 2011 7:34 AM

comment #8

George Prager says ...

Ryan O'Neal is still in great shape. Maybe he can throttle him again.

Posted by George Prager at May 26, 2011 7:46 AM

comment #9

Robert Harris says ...

This is one of those situations where everyone (almost) is correct.

Mr. Kubrick passed away a dozen years ago, and at that time he had set standards for home video viewing of his works for both WB and Criterion.

To this day, I find his Criterion directives to have a bit of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" attitude about them, with their exposure of multiple aspect ratio in-camera mattes.

His films, by his authority, were set up to be viewed in the highest possible aspect ratio. And they were designed that way because that was the way he wanted them to be seen.

On home video.

On 4:3 screens.

Some up to a huge 35" diagonally.

He abhorred pan & scan, preferring to open mattes even to the point of revealing certain things that today might be digitally erased.

If anyone understood his directives, it was Mr. Vitali, and after SK's passing it is Mr. Vitali who within rational limits, and based upon ever-changing technology does his best to see that SK's work is handled in the best way possible.

I've not examined the OCN of Barry Lyndon, but it is said that the film was shot open matte at around 1.6:1, ie. via a camera aperture. This makes sense.

The film would have been protected at least to 1.66, but with the exception of controlled screenings, would not have been seen that way.

1.66:1 was an aspect ratio that ended here in the Colonies c. 1953, with films like Rear Window. By 1954, Paramount's VistaVision had set 1.85:1 as a perfunctory standard. Columbia and other studios followed suit. By 1975 few theaters were able to run at 1.66, as standards were 1.85 and 2.35. Not long after, the standard for some theaters unfortunately became 2:1. That made things easy. Crop both spherical films as well as scope productions to the same imagery.

One screen fits all.

Barry Lyndon looks terrific at 1.66. My personal feeling is that at 1.85, it is cramped, and would prefer not to see it at that ratio.

But the native HD ratio of 1.78:1 works just fine with the film.

1.66 would also, just slightly different. And to most, an unnoticeable difference.

Mr. Vitali knows of what he speaks. Beyond his acting career, he's a filmmaker. He is also still supporting SK, as he has in the past.

And with his knowledge, he understands that things change, and that decisions made by Mr. Kubrick in the late 1990s no longer apply in the home theater world of today.

I don't think I'd be going out on the limb by saying that I believe SK would be pleased with what WB has done with his film. It is more highly resolved and more stable than any print had ever been. The work performed by Warner's MPI is as perfect as technologically possible.

And as far as aspect ratios go, anything between 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 will do just fine.

Keep in mind that in stating this, I'm leaving the real world behind. That world of cinemas to project necessitates (in many cases) reverse trapezoidal projection aperture plates, in order to create the illusion of a rectangular image on screen.

All of this, in the real world, means that in 1975, most theaters would have run Barry Lyndon at 1.85, and probably 1.75 in Europe and the UK. In some theaters it may well have run at 1.66.

At the beginning of this comment, I noted that almost everyone is correct. The single incorrect notion is that the film would ever be properly projected at 1.59 or 1.6:1, as shot, but never intended to be seen.

Mr. Wells is passionate about film, and that passion is to be respected. Mr. Vitali knows precisely what Mr. Kubrick's desires and mindsets were, and is uniquely capable of translating them to the necessities of current home theater technology.

RAH

Posted by Robert Harris at May 26, 2011 7:46 AM

comment #10

Glenn Kenny says ...

Good for Robert Harris.

Maybe one reason guys such as Leon Vitali have a "poor attitude" is because of pseudonymous internet tough guys such as Kit Sung. Just saying.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at May 26, 2011 7:56 AM

comment #11

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Every word I wrote earlier makes eminent sense. The offshoot of yesterday's press conference is that Leon Vitali's' word doesn't mean as much. The man misled, misspoke, misrepresented. Plus he's too excitable. He's no longer trusted as the keeper of the flame.

As for the esteemed Mr. Harris's comments, I say to hell with 36 year-old memories of aperture plates and projectors and all that. They may have defined how films were seen way back when, but this is now, Bluray is the thing, and the filmmakers' original intention[s] can be repped any damn way he or she and/or the Bluray distributors deem fit.

Kubrick absolutely did NOT like 1.85 or 1.78 or any of that crap. Not when it came to a film that was shot in 1.66 and/or 1.59, he didn't. Vitali said this...end of story. And as Vitali also stated in his DVD Talk interview, Kubrick was a guy who liked height and space in his image..the "full picture."

It's not that hard to figure out, Steven Gaydos. And it is sadly & abundantly clear what the Barry Lyndon Bluray should have looked like.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at May 26, 2011 8:09 AM

comment #12

nessuno2001 says ...

I still don't understand why Lolita has been transferred at 1,66:1 and Barry Lyndon had to be adapted to the HD native ratio of 1,78:1. In my view, Barry Lyndon is an film made in the '70s and doesn't need to be updated to today standards.

Posted by nessuno2001 at May 26, 2011 8:10 AM

comment #13

Glenn Kenny says ...

Gee, Jeff, you forgot to mention the "Movie Godz."

Posted by Glenn Kenny at May 26, 2011 8:25 AM

comment #14

JLC says ...

Thank you Robert, for your very thoughtful piece. "So shines a good deed in a weary world."

Posted by JLC at May 26, 2011 8:48 AM

comment #15

EC666 says ...

Can anyone honestly say the Shining's croppings look better in bluray: http://i51.tinypic.com/a5cltv.jpg ?

Seriously? I dare anyone.

The Barry Lyndon BluRay aspect ratio is almost just as bad. Keep the pressure up bloggers, we need to be vocal.

Posted by EC666 at May 26, 2011 8:54 AM

comment #16

BobbyLupo says ...

"Kubrick absolutely did NOT like 1.85 or 1.78 or any of that crap."

Jeff - don't you think you should get a better source for that information than the man whose word you're questioning and whose integrity you're insulting? You can't use Vitali's word to prove that Vitali is lying without somebody pointing out that, if he's a liar, you can't trust his word.

Posted by BobbyLupo at May 26, 2011 9:13 AM

comment #17

BobbyLupo says ...

"I say to hell with 36 year-old memories of aperture plates and projectors and all that."

You go first, Jeff; when was the last time you had an aspect ratio conversation where you *didn't* bring up "back when I was a projectionist."??

Posted by BobbyLupo at May 26, 2011 9:15 AM

comment #18

Gaydos says ...

Jeff: I didn't mean it was hard to figure out. I meant that people aren't bothering or aren't equipped to go with you on this journey.

Posted by Gaydos at May 26, 2011 9:26 AM

comment #19

TL says ...

"Can anyone honestly say the Shining's croppings look better in bluray:"

Can anyone honestly say that they look worse? Just because the chandelier and a little more floor are in the frame doesn't make it objectively "better."

Posted by TL at May 26, 2011 10:23 AM

comment #20

EC666 says ...

The shining trailer:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=589190853152027984#

The chandelair and image height balances the picture, makes it more forboding. The bluray takes away the depth, makes the sense of alienation go away.

Posted by EC666 at May 26, 2011 12:38 PM

comment #21

Mr. Muckle says ...

"Kubrick was a guy who liked height and space in his image..the 'full picture.' "

For cripes sake, theater screens are limited in size. If you gain height you lose width. Neither is any more "the full picture" than the other. The full picture is out of frame, in other words -- real life. Film / photography / literature and all that is a cropping and reduction of real life, the point of which is that this argument is so infinitesimally trivial, as demonstrated by the almost unnoticeable frameline differences shown in this post and others.

One thing that will apparently never be discussed on this blog is -- did you get the meaning of the film?! What was its idea? No, only the sensation of the film appears to matter, and a few pixels this way or that theoretically alter the sensation -- BUT NOT IN ANY REMOTELY MEANINGFUL WAY.

Posted by Mr. Muckle at May 26, 2011 12:41 PM

comment #22

Scott Nye says ...

The Shining, to me, stands as the supreme example of Kubrick's aesthetic preferences. I could go either way on Full Metal Jacket and I prefer Eyes Wide Shut full frame largely for personal aesthetic preferences, but The Shining is a fundamentally different movie at 1.85:1 compared to 1.33:1.

There's a stronger drive to the widescreen version, and a slightly greater sense of menace with regards to how it frames Nicholson, but it's a much better movie at 1.33:1. Jack seems less like a force of evil and more like a man trapped by his environment, and the perfectly symmetrical box traps Jack and especially Danny in such an eerie, indescribable way. Jack's behavior feels more like a byproduct of his environment and less like he is fundamentally evil. It puts him and Danny on a level playing field - both are overtaken by the hotel.

Plus, it just feels so much more claustrophobic, and you identify with everyone's reaction to their isolation.

There's a similar thing at work in Barry Lyndon. The taller frame makes more sense in that most of the action takes place in fairly large spaces. If they're not outdoors amongst trees they're in massive rooms with ceilings higher than my apartment building. It also shrinks the actors in their environment, reducing their importance in their own fate (and the unavoidable nature of fate is a huge theme that runs throughout the picture).

As I've stated before, a 1.78:1 version probably won't destroy that, but it will by its very nature reduce it. And if you're not onboard with honoring the masters Kubrick has originally signed off on - and there's plenty of evidence that's been presented here, and especially by Mr. Ebiri at his blog, to suggest that's the case - then there is your thematic justification.

Posted by Scott Nye at May 26, 2011 1:05 PM

comment #23

raygo says ...

This is a lazy topic. Wells can riff ad nauseam about aspect ratio, while posting images that appear, to this simian jerkwad, to be inconsequential. But he managed to get a decent amount of hits, so thanks for playing.

Posted by raygo at May 26, 2011 1:25 PM

comment #24

TL says ...

"The chandelair and image height balances the picture, makes it more forboding."

All due respect, but this is a completely subjective assessment. There's nothing unbalanced about the 1.85 composition. If it's your preference, fine, but there's nothing objectively "right" about the full frame presentation (which itself crops off part of the left and right of the frame).

Personally, I've got no problem with The Shining at 1.33, but for modern home video presentation, I prefer not to have the pillarboxes given that the film was clearly composed to look proper in widescreen.

Posted by TL at May 26, 2011 1:40 PM

comment #25

EC666 says ...

Bill Hunt: So let's talk about this new DVD set. One of the features of DVD is the ability to present widescreen aspect-ratio films anamoprhically, to allow for the highest possible resolution when watching on widescreen TV sets. And our understanding is that there were only three Kubrick films that were intended to be seen in a widescreen aspect ratio...

Leon Vitali: Correct. There was Spartacus and 2001. And then there was Lolita, which was 1.66. The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted.

Now Lolita is 1.66 and Dr. Strangelove is sometimes like 1.33, but sometimes you see a little bit of a mask in there. That's the thing about Stanley - as long as he was pleased with the individual composition of a shot for maximum dramatic effect, he didn't mind that the aspect ratio might be slightly different. Or, for example, that you might see the helicopter blades in The Shining. As long as the shot was good for him, it didn't matter. He thought it was part of his artistic license.

Todd Doogan: So the idea was always to present the original in-camera aspect ratio on DVD.

Leon Vitali: Absolutely.

Bill Hunt: Was there ever talk about doing alternate anamorphic widescreen versions of the later films - the ones that were shown theatrically at 1.85? So you could have both versions on DVD?

Leon Vitali: Yes, it was discussed. But Stanley just wasn't interested.

Todd Doogan: So 2001 is going to be in anamorphic widescreen on DVD. But a lot of people are going to have a question as to why Lolita, which is 1.66, isn't anamorphic on DVD...

Leon Vitali: Well... Stanley just didn't want it done. You know, someone could have a disagreement with that, but the only thing I can tell you is that that's what he wanted. And we didn't feel it was appropriate to go against his wishes.

Bill Hunt: So how will the open matte films be presented in future high definition broadcasts, hi-def having a 1.78:1 aspect ratio?

Leon Vitali: They'll have black bars on either side.
________

Warner's just rewriting history because this is how market trends blow.

"All due respect, but this is a completely subjective assessment."

Objectively, the image on the right is scarier, has more depth. A better compromise has to be found. Allow consumers a choice, or find a better middle ground.

Posted by EC666 at May 26, 2011 3:19 PM

comment #26

EC666 says ...

And the Taschen book lists The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket intended aspect ratios as 1.33. Are the Blurays in this aspect ratio?

Posted by EC666 at May 26, 2011 3:23 PM

comment #27

DiscoNap says ...

I think this is what it means to be a Movie Catholic.

Posted by DiscoNap at May 26, 2011 3:26 PM

comment #28

Kit Sung says ...

"All of this, in the real world, means that in 1975, most theaters would have run Barry Lyndon at 1.85, and probably 1.75 in Europe and the UK. In some theaters it may well have run at 1.66."

This is absurd. There never was an aspect ratio of 1.75 in the 70s.
It was either 1.85 (usualy in America) or 1.66 (usualy in Europe) and Barry Lyndon was meant to be 1.66, so its perfectly obvious that any correct presentation should be in that format.

Posted by Kit Sung at May 26, 2011 5:05 PM

comment #29

RupertLally says ...

I could be wrong, but frankly if SK was going to have a problem with something on this release it would be (judging from the screenshots) the amount of colour correction and contrast reduction that's been applied... Just my two cents, but there you go...

Posted by RupertLally at May 29, 2011 7:25 AM

comment #30