Awards Daily‘s Sasha Stone and I recorded Oscar Poker #34 the night before last — she in LA, me in Paris. Mostly about the second half of the Cannes Film Festival. I’d just come back from dinner and had to get up four and a half hours later. Here’s a non-iTunes, stand-alone link.
This kind of thing wasn’t available when I was last here in ’07. The farther into the city you get, the weaker the Venice “air.” The only decent reception, really, is when you’re adjacent to the Grand Canal, and even then it’s spotty. It’s that laughing Mediterranean mentality, but you have to roll with it.
In a 5.23 Some Came Running entry, MSN critic Glenn Kenny said my agitated posting about Warner Home Video’s jacket-cover statement that their brand-new Barry Lyndon Bluray has been masked at 1.85 was on the unwarranted and
hysterical side. No, it wasn’t. Not as it turned out. It was pretty much dead-on.
Yes, I hadn’t seen the Bluray due to obvious limitations (i.e., being on the fly in Europe) but the jacket copy, which I ran a screen-capture of, declares what it declares. Kenny initially said the Lyndon Bluray is masked at 1.66; he later reneged because, he said, the Lyndon Bluray is actually masked at 1.78 to 1. If this is true then the WHV jacket copy is wrong. And yet 1.78 is (a) pretty damn close to 1.85, and (b) delivers a significant cropping of top-bottom material that had been viewable on the 2007 Barry Lyndon DVD.
Kenny initially offered what he believed was visual proof — i.e., pics of the Lyndon Bluray off his high-def TV — that the high-def version of Stanley Kubrick‘s 1975 classic version is presented at 1.66. He later amended this to say his TV had been incorrectly calibrated and that 1.78 was the correct aspect ratio.
At no time did Kenny even comment on, much less get into, Kubrick’s reported intention in using a 1.66 aspect ratio to approximate the aspect ratio of 18th Century landscapes.
Portions of my e-mailed response to Kenny went as follows:
“What do you think & feel about WHV essentially waving this off, not only ignoring the fabled 1.59 aspect ratio that mubi reader Tyler Williamson claimed was captured but also dumping the 1.66 that the DVD had? This is important and (I feel) fairly malignant shit. How is this not a kind of desecration? Explain that to me.
“(1) Based on WHV’s decision to publish proof-read copy that says the Barry Lyndon Bluray is masked at 1.85, I was IN NO WAY using an invalid basis for alarm. Bluray jacket-copy is no small or casual matter. Do you think some WHV intern just types it out? Jacket copy is vetted and vetted and vetted again. So why did you more or less say “there goes Wells again, getting it wrong”? That wasn’t right, Glenn.
“(2) Unless your high-def isn’t correctly configured” — which turned out to be the problem — “your own visual proof of a 1.66 aspect ratio does NOT make the case. When I watch a 1.66 film on my 50” Vizio, there are window-box bars on either side of the image, and these are clearly not there on your screen shot. [As noted, Kenny updated this and explained the apparent truth of the matter regarding a 1.78 a.r.] The image extends all the way to both sides, comprising a dead-to-rights 16 x 9 image filling every square inch of your Brooklyn screen. Right now, your Some Came Running shot of the opening image of the cow-pasture duel is lending credence to my concern about a 1.85 image.”
In his updated posting, Kenny extended apologies “to you all and particularly to the BluBrew people, but none to my frenemy Mr. Wells, who went off even more half cocked than I, what with going from box copy rather than the disc itself.” Again — how the hell was I supposed to watch the Bluray on a properly calibrated high-def screen in my sixth-floor Paris apartment? Vetted jacket copy was what I had to work with.
Kenny concluded by saying that “as disagreeable as 1.78 is, it still isn’t 1.85.” But 1.78 still represents a significant top-bottom trimming of Williamson’s 1.59 or the ’07 DVD’s 1.66 image, and is clearly a dismissal of Kubrick’s reported interest in wanting Lyndon to approximate the shape of 18th Century paintings. Isn’t that the crux of the matter?
“This story isn’t over yet,” Kenny concluded. “As it happens I’m interviewing Leon Vitali, a keeper of the Kubrick flame, tomorrow” — today, he meant — “and this issue will be on the agenda.”
And Vitali, who worked with WHV on the earlier Kubrick DVDs and has presumably been (and is being) compensated for his efforts, is going to bite the hand that feeds?
It was announced yesterday that Columbia will distribute Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal‘s long-gestating film about hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden. Until the Navy Seals finally got him on May 1st, Boal’s script, which he’d been working on since ’08, was, I gather, a procedural without a payoff.
In other words, before Osama bin Laden was killed it was an indie-type thing. But with bin Laden dead, Amy Pascal (a big Hurt Locker fan) and the Columbia guys are down with it. That’s pretty much the deal.
Filming will begin in the late summer and open in the fourth quarter of 2012. Meaning that Biggy-Boal’s Triple Frontier, a Paramount project announced in the summer of ’09 with Tom Hanks reportedly confirmed for the lead, won’t roll until sometime in ’13 for release in ’14…right?
What’s so amusingly “despicable” about my having tweeted last week that I was glad I’d seen Terrence Malick‘s The Tree Of Life but that I’m “not sure if I’ll buy/get the Bluray,” as New York‘s latest “Approval Matrix” chart has it?
I was merely saying I wasn’t sure if Tree, which seemed to meander and even get a bit doodly after the first levitational 40 minutes or so, would stand up to repeat viewings.
Yes, others wrote that it almost certainly would stand up and that they looked forward to subsequent viewings, but I wasn’t sure. I was thinking at the time, rightly or wrongly, that I’d more or less gotten it all in one sit and that a second viewing probably wouldn’t turn my head and open up my pores like the first one had. Primarily because much of the second half focuses on the dysfunctional rage and gloom brought about by Brad Pitt‘s hardhead, disciplinarian, spottily-affectionate dad.
I grew up with a functional-alcoholic version of this guy, and I wasn’t sure I wanted to spend repeated sessions with him at home. It was that simple.
On top of which there’s a reason why movies and plays have depended upon a narrative through-line to engage and hold the audience’s attention. I’m just average common too. I’m just like him and the same as you. So due respect to the Approval Matrix guy, but I don’t care how many years Malick worked on The Tree of Life. That’s his deal, not mine.
Brigade Marketing’s Emily Lu at Le Petit Prince de Paris — Sunday, 5.22, 8:55 pm.
It’s only just hit me that Warner Home Video’s Barry Lyndon Bluray (out 5.31) has been masked at 1.85 to 1….storm the barricades! The aspect ratio of Stanley Kubrick‘s 1975 classic was supposed to suggest the aspect ratio of stately 18th Century landscape paintings, which are on the boxy side and a lot closer to 1.66 than 1.85. Which is why the DVD was presented in 1.66.
And yet WHV execs have decided to whack a chunk of information off the tops and bottoms of the Bluray? Why? Criterion presents the occasional older film in 1.66 with black windowbox bars on the side. And I know I’m right on this one — the shape of Barry Lyndon is supposed to look like an 18th Century painting and not a friggin’ 16 x 9 plasma screen…Jesus! This is really awful.
A guy named Tyler Williamson (who seems to know what he’s talking about and with whom I agree in any case) wrote the following on mubi.com about a year ago:
“The Barry Lyndon DVD is 1.59 in a 1.33 shell (yes, 1.59 — a very unusual aspect ratio, but its likely that this is the ratio the film was matted to in-camera [though it was probably composed for 1.66] due to the film being shot on old Mitchell cameras; so, the whole 1.37 film negative wasn’t exposed for this film), thus the DVD is 4:3 letterboxed — it has black bars burned onto the tops and bottom of a 4:3 frame, with the image of the actual movie in the center. So, when you watch the DVD on a 16√ó9 HDTV, you get black bars on all sides. The image is not very wide, so it might even appear on some older TVs to be a full frame transfer, due to overscan.
“What I’d really love is a Bluray remaster with Barry Lyndon‘s 1.59 or 1.66 image (the difference in more or less negligible, so I don’t really care) in the center of a 1.78 frame — which is how Blurays handle films with aspect ratios less wide than 1.78. All the 1.66 and 1.37 films on Blu-ray are done this way: Chungking Express, The Third Man, etc.”
Adam Carolla has posted a podcast chat with Albert Brooks, author of 2030 but more importantly, for me, bringer of a truly enjoyable, hard-edged performance in Drive.
More features and docs than I can recall offhand (Heart Beat, Howl) have explored the lives of the legendary beats (Kerouac, Ginsberg, Cassady, Burroughs, et. al.) in the late ’40s and ’50s. And there are few genres more ubiquitous than the road movie. So where can Walter Salles, the maker of arguably the best road movie ever, take us on this well-trod path?
The character names have been changed, but Sam Riley is Jack Kerouac, Garrett Hedlund is Neal Cassady, Kirsten Stewart is playing Mary Lou (a character apparently not based on anyone), Viggo Mortensen is William S. Burroughs, Kirsten Dunst is Carolyn Cassady, and Amy Adams is Joan Vollmer, Burroughs’ common-law wife who was killed when Burroughs tried to shoot an apple off the top of her head.
An article about the crappy light levels in 2D movies projected at AMC, National Amusements and Regal cinemas has been posted by the Boston Globe‘s Ty Burr. It’s appalling, of course, and yet comforting that Burr came to the same conclusions that I posted on 9.21.10.
The problem is basically due to 2D movies being projected through Sony-manufactured 4K digital projectors, which have a polarizer that cuts down light levels by 50%, Burr reports, and more specifically, as I noted, by a decision by AMC not to swap out 3D lenses when showing 2D movies because it costs too much.
My article focused on AMC theatres while Burr’s indictment covers all three chains, but same difference.
“This [tendency] fortifies AMC’s reputation as an exhibitor chain renowned for substandard projection,” i wrote. A projection consultant told me that AMC “has been dumbing down their projection booths since the word ‘go.'” This, he said, is why the AMC acronym is known as standing for “Amateur Movie Company” or — this was my favorite — “All Movies Compromised.”
Code copied from a Ryan Adams/Awards Daily posting.
“The stock dismissal ‘more of the same’ has rarely been more accurately applied to a sequel than to The Hangover Part II,” writes Variety‘s Andrew Barker. Todd Phillips‘ sequel to the 2009 original “ranks as little more than a faded copy superimposed on a more brightly colored background…[it’s] rote professionalism verging on cynicism, and, despite some occasional sparks, a considerable disappointment.
“It should have been possible to revive the basic plot structure without slavishly reprising its every beat. This Hangover is longer than the first by two minutes, but at times it feels as though the two could be projected side-by-side in perfect synchronicity, with the only changes to many scenes being the location, the wardrobe and the addition of the word ‘again’ to the dialogue.”
In other words, it might have been a little less predictable if, say, a Mel Gibson cameo had been thrown in?
The Hollywood Reporter‘s Michael Rechtshaffen has more or less the same opinion.