Leon Vitali plays the role of Lord Bullington in Stanley Kubrick’s 1975 film Barry Lyndon. During that shoot Vitali and Kubrick became friends, and Vitali collaborated with Kubrick as a personal assistant and sometimes casting director on all of Kubrick’s films up until the director’s death after the making of 1999’s Eyes Wide Shut. Since that time Vitali has been closely involved in the adaptation of Kubrick’s work for home video. He was in New York today to speak to the press in connection with both the 40th anniversary release on DVD and Blu-ray of Kubrick’s 1971 A Clockwork Orange, and the upcoming Stanley Kubrick: Limited Edition Collection on Blu-ray and Stanley Kubrick: The Essential Collection on standard definition DVD. I took the opportunity to ask him about the controversy concerning the 1.78 framing of Barry Lyndon on Blu-ray, which caused me a certain amount of confusion and the online community of cinephiles and Kubrick fans a fair amount of concern/consternation. What follows below is the best I could get to a verbatim transcription of our exchange on the matter.
Glenn Kenny: “Well, there’s already controversy brewing because the Barry Lyndon Blu-ray is 1.78 and there’s some feeling that it should have been 1.66…”
Leon Vitali: “Well I can tell you what now, okay; 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. It was shot it…I mean , the difference between 1.77 and 1.78 is miniscule, you couldn’t see it with a magnifying glass. And anyone who thought it was meant to be in 1.66 is sadly delusioned. Seeing as I was there, at every stage of it; shooting and everything, I should know. I should know.”
Glenn Kenny: “Well, that’s about as definitive an answer as we’re likely to get; so where does it come from, then? Where’s the 1.66 idea come from…?”
Leon Vitali: “It comes from people who think they know and weren’t there and have something to say about Stanley all the time. You know, when I first went to Los Angeles, I could go to a party, and somebody’s voice would go up saying, ‘Oh, yes, that’s Stanley,’ and ‘Oh, Eyes Wide Shut,’ and I thought ‘Do they know Stanley, is this common that people at parties talk about him in a loud voice?” But it wasn’t that, it was because they knew…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.”
The interview took place at Manhattan’s Essex House, which is reasonably close to the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center, so I hiked over there to see if I could find any textual support to the idea of a 1.66 Barry Lyndon. Two biographies and five volumes of critical exegesis (including one actually subtitled “A Visual Analysis”) later, and nothing. I shared Vitali’s statement with a correspondent who I’ll only refer to here as General Ripper, asking if he had any textual support for the 1.66 ratio, and he cited the old non-anamorphic standard-issue release of the film on DVD from Warner back in 2007, and added, “Vitali is on the WB payroll, not to be trusted.” Okay, then. [N.b., there is no actual evidence to support General Ripper’s surmise about the WB payroll and all. That’s just General Ripper’s surmise, reproduced here for your entertainment.]
In any event,the online Kubrick FAQ asserts, in an entry by David Mullen (question 11a), that 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.)”. There is no backup given for this, however, and many of the other questions on the FAQ have notes citing printed sources. And on the other hand, the massive Taschen book The Stanley Kubrick Archive, edited by Alison Castle “made in coöperation 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 don’t recall all that many people on the internet gasping “oh my God where is that leaf!?!?” back when the book was first issued in 2004.
I have more, but it’s not what I’d call essential at this point in time, but it might come in handy later. I imagine this will turn out to be a fascinating thread. In the meantime, I think I’ll check out a Blu-ray.
UPDATE: I asked for printed citations, as opposed to logorrheic, self-righteous spewings about Orwellian schemes, and reader Dwigt, in comments, was kind enough to provide one. He says, “There’s an interview with the at the time Warner head of publicity for Europe in the Michel Ciment book where he states that Kubrick as curious about how the movie would be screened. He had a few questions for the theaters that were booked in France and Germany and discovered that most of them didn’t own a 1.66:1 soft matte anymore, while it cost a few quids. So, they sent the matte to all theaters.”
Indeed, the interview is with Julian Senior, publicity director, and relevant passages are on pages 223 and 225 of the “definitive edition” of Ciment’s Kubrick, published in the U.S. by Faber and Faber in 2001. Here is one passage on Kubrick’s exacting methods: “He believes that every essential question can be answered through logic and common sense. I recall very clearly that, at the time of A Clockwork Orange, we drew up together what we jokingly referred to as a ‘memory jogger’ on releasing a film: how many prints should be made, how many trailers, does every cinema possess a projector with a 1.66 mask, do the TV networks prefer video or film, etc.” (N.b., the Clockwork disc is in 1.66.) On Lyndon specifically: “For Barry Lyndon it was very important—given the experiments in lighting—for the projection equipment to be the best possible. Of course, we had neither the means nor the authority to replace them all, but what we discovered from checking all the principal cinemas in France and Germany was that two-thirds of them didn’t have a 1.66 mask, something that costs no more than a few pounds. The projectionists told us that the image would overlap a little on the sides. So Kubrick’s assistants had all the projectors equipped for a decent screening of the film—and at the same time for every other film!”
So there’s that. Is Senior still with us, and available for comment? I’m looking into it.
Note that Senior’s talking about Europe in the above cited-quote. A projectionist with whom I’m friendly had this to say about the situation in American cinemas: “I’ve read the stories about Kubrick sending 1.66 aperture plates during the initial release and I have to think they’re a little apocryphal. In 1975, most USA theatres (other than maybe the major premiere houses in each major city, and that’s a big “maybe”) had fixed height screens with side masking adjustable for 1.85 and 2.39 scope only. Without a different lens (slightly longer in focal length than the 1.85 lens), sending a theatre with a fixed height screen a 1.66 aperture plate would be useless since all it would do is throw image onto the black masking above and below the screen. Of course, if the theatre did have the extra height and had adjustable vertical masking they could use the new plates and run it at 1.66 with their 1.85 lens.”
The same projectionist also says, “I’ve handled a 35mm print of Barry Lyndon in 1993, and it was hard-matted to approximately 1.66 (I didn’t get the calipers out to check it), and I ran it 1.85. The titles (which are the visual guide most projectionists use to center the framing) fit perfectly in the 1.85 area. My best educated guess is that it’s designed for 1.66 (let’s call it Kubrick’s preferred ratio) and safe at 1.85 (since he had to know that most USA theatres would show it at 1.85). Warner, for some reason, chose to split the difference and put the DVD at 1.78.” In a subsequent exchange, my friend says, “I pulled out the Taschen book last night as well and measured one of the storyboards—the one at the top of a right-hand page that is a montage of several photos and indicates the camera movements and timing. The ‘blue box’ drawn on the storyboard measures 1.77:1.” The illo in question is on page 435, and is designated “BLY 20” for those who have the book. I took a photograph of the page in question and I apologize in advance for its poor quality:
This may never be what they call “settled law.” And it wouldn’t be the first time.
Pretty sure it screened at Lincoln Center in ’07 in 1.66.
Always figured it was matted to 1.66 in camera due to that gigantic hair in the frame while Quinn is marching at the beginning. Unless Kubrick intentionally wanted a giant hair there for some reason.
In Vitali’s favor, of course, is the fact that Clockwork, for instance, is 1.66, and that, too, could’ve easily been transferred in 16:9, but wasn’t.
Well i’m glad that’s cleared up.
@Brown Suit: It’s pretty much up to the discretion of the venue and/or projectionist what aspect ratio a film gets screened at. As a projectionist, having thought of BARRY LYNDON as a 1.66 title because of the DVD, for example, I almost certainly would’ve shown it that way. Unless the print is hard-matted (exceedingly rare), you get the full frame at your disposal, so the aspect ratio is just a matter of what lens and aperture you use. Now I suppose it’s possible the print you saw *was* hard-matted to 1.66 or that Lincoln Center had meticulously researched it and come to the conclusion that that was the proper ratio. I’m just saying that the fact that you saw it that way doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how it was intended to be seen.
I have to take exception with Vitali’s contention that the film was never released in 1.66, because the original DVD and the laserdisc (released during Kubrick’s lifetime) actually WERE 1.66, and DO appear to contain more information in the frame. (And he 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 a screenshot from the DVD release can tell you.)
Zach, Leon was personally at the LC screenings. That was my point.
When he says it wasn’t shot in 1.66, he probably meant that they matted for 1.77 rather than 1.66. It’s just his tone that makes it sound more definitive than that. He reads as though he were forcing the issue rather bossily, and impatiently. He has probably been asked this before!
I suspect that the film had to have been shown in 1.66 in many European theaters upon its original release, as many of them would have been unable to matte the film 1.78. Similarly, I’ll bet a lot of American theaters showed it 1.85. It’s all a matter of lacking the proper lenses…
Vitali says it was NEVER released in 1.66, anywhere, which is demonstrably untrue, as the DVD and the laserdisc were both 1.66. And I seem to recall at the time a lot of official-looking people saying these were in accordance with Kubrick’s wishes.
BTW, Glenn, we put that Kubrick FAQ together over a long period of time, so some things will be better sourced than others, but David Mullen ain’t exactly chopped liver, being an award-winning cinematographer and all. Though I recall a pretty funny exchange once when he and Bernard Rose got into it over something or other, and each started pulling rank on the other, without quite realizing who the other guy was…
Argh, will we ever really know the truth about the Kubrick aspect ratio issues?
For a filmmaker renowned for his exactness in all facets of filmmaking … but it does remind me of one of the anecdotes in “A Life in Pictures” about how Kubrick relied on dubs for many of the international releases of his films because he couldn’t personally check the subtitles. Seems like another case of six of one ….
Thanks for the detective work, Glenn.
“we never released it in 1.66 in any format whether it’s film or television or DVD. It was 1.77” = FLATLY UNTRUE (the previous DVD and laserdisc releases were 1.66:1) therefore calling the rest of Vitali’s rant into question. Oh, and I’ve seen it projected at 1.66:1 in the theatre too.
As I said before, I feel like Vitali was just being particularly vociferous. I don’t see how that makes him unreliable. He’s obviously just wearied by the debate around this subject.
A quote from the DVDTalk interview he did a while back:
“…you have to remember one other thing. In the early days of video when the video market was starting, Stanley was not into videos at all. I think if you look at the very first passes on The Shining or in Barry Lyndon, and certainly 2001. We had no involvement in those things at all. ”
I think it makes sense that he would say “we” never released the film in 1.66 then. “We” being Vitali and the employees of Kubrick’s own production house and executors of his estate. Not “we” being Warner Bros.
The very first passes of the video market were the original VHS copies of these films, which were cropped, full-frame, and not at all optimal. By the time laserdiscs were established, Kubrick was regularly involved in remastering and re-releasing of his films – witness the Criterion DR. STRANGELOVE, the Criterion LOLITA, the Criterion 2001, etc. Indeed, I seem to recall someone from Criterion at the time saying they had to do something like 20 or 30 passes on a film before Kubrick was pleased with the result (can’t remember which film it was…) Around that time, the second BL laserdisc released was slightly letterboxed to 1.66. I don’t know that Kubrick was involved in that transfer (though I seem to recall something on the actual laserdisc back cover saying the aspect ratio was done according to his wishes – I could just be imagining that part) but to say that he didn’t care about home video at the time is absurd. All reliable evidence suggests he cared a great deal.
Indeed, if you look at Vitali’s comments, almost literally the opposite of what he says is true. In terms of DVD (2 releases), laserdisc (2 releases), etc., BARRY LYNDON has NEVER been released in 1.78. Until now it has always been either 1.66 or just full-frame (the earlier iterations). And as others have noted, there is some evidence that recent theatrical screenings by venues that actually put some thought into these things have also been 1.66.
Again, the 1.78 AR may well be according to Kubrick’s wishes. I’m willing to believe that. (And, honestly, I’m fine with the 1.78 crop, personally.) But if that is in fact the case, then these folks have to acknowledge that they have been serially neglecting Kubrick’s wishes up until now.
BTW, that DVD Talk interview is in fact quite eye-opening, and, I suspect, a bit closer to the truth. Vitali suggests there that BL is meant to be screened at 1.77, but he also says that Kubrick, with his photographer’s eye, always made sure to frame for the complete negative. Here are some relevant passages:
“The original video release of Full Metal Jacket was in the supervised hands and owned by Stanley. 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 why Full Metal Jacket is in full frame. If people looked, okay? What you get on the video that you didn’t get in the theatrical because of the 185 masking, was what Stanley was invisioning. You assume these soldiers in the world that they’re in. And he uses wide angle uses to shoot. I mean an 18 millimeter lens was the commonest one. He used 24 sometimes. Wide angle lenses. It was important to him the relationship between things. You can see in Full Metal Jacket how small the people were in relation to this huge landscape.”
“The thing with Eyes Wide Shot, it was how he saw the thing through the camera and how he set it up. 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.”
“After Barry Lyndon, more and more theaters were showing films 1.85 or in Cinemascope even if it wasn’t shot that way. He 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 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. You can’t put a 1.77 in as it should be for Barry Lyndon and that’s what Stanley understood with The Shining onwards. 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.”
I love how a four word sentence from the General reveals a priest of the Movie Godz.
Hooray for Bilge Ebiri in this matter. And shame on Glenn Kenny for drinking the Orwellian kool-aid that Vitali is pouring into everyone’s cup now.
In other words, am I going to believe Taschen, Leon Vitalii and Christiane Kubrick or my lying eyes?
Did you look at the comparison shots I ran yesterday? Are you kidding?
I say again – WHAT led those improvisational, drugged-out, reality-denying people at Warner Home Video to issue “Barry Lyndon” in 1.66 on that Kubrick Collection DVD in ’07? And were those ’07 discs not aesthetically supervised or consulted by Leon Vitali (or so I recall)?
You can’t set one standard and then turn around four years later and say, “Changed our minds…new standard!”
And what about the accepted doctrine about Kubrick wanting to simulate in “Barry Lyndon” the slightly taller, more boxy-ish aspect ratios of 18th Century paintings? Are we throwing that one out the window too and throwing it upon the bonfire? If only WHV could send a commando team into the Louvre this weekend to slice off the tops & bottoms of those paintings so they’d be closer to 1.78 to 1!
This revisionism feels Orwellian. It feels like “Farenheit 451.”. Vitali and WHV are saying, “I 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, I tell you! And anyone who says they ate apples is delusional!”
This is fucking madness. Corporate-kowtowing madness.
On May 26, 2011, at 2:09 AM,glennkenny@mac.com wrote:
…from Taschen lists the “Lyndon” aspect ratio as 1.77, and the frame reproductions therein are also in that format. FYI. Approved by Kubrick’s widow, Jan Harlan, the Kubrick estate.
Sent via BlackBerry
On May 26, 2011, at 2:09 AM,glennkenny@mac.com
wow
What surprises me is Vitali’s claim that “Barry Lyndon” was always intended to be shown in 1.77. Uh? 1.77 wasn’t a common format at all until the arrival of 16:9 TV sets; before that it was either 1:66 or 1:85. Unless he meant that “the difference between 1:77 and 1:85 is minuscule”. This detail, more than anything else, is what makes me suspect what he says.
Huh, the “tone” of Vitali’s statement. He sounds (well, reads) a bit like Seymour Cassel or Al Ruban denying there’s another cut of ‘Shadows’. Except, here, we don’t know who’s the psychotic film professor who keeps the original film negative of ‘Barry Lyndon’ in, yes, 1.66, and wants to show it to the entire world on the condition his name gets printed on every frame.
Just want to jump in to say that the laserdisc and DVD of this weren’t actually 1.66:1 – they were 1.59:1, a weird choice that can probably be explained by in-camera matting (i.e. 1.59:1 was probably the tallest image they could extract from the negative, but it wouldn’t have actually been screened in that AR).
Bilge, I didn’t say that David Mullen was “chopped liver.” All I said was that in the Kubrick FAQ, Mullen’s assertion concerning the screening of “Barry Lyndon” in 1.66 was not backed by any corresponding textual evidence. That’s all. If there is textual evidence, it would be great to be filled in on it. After my own fuckup concerning the aspect ratio, I’m not going to go too far out on a personal limb. I’m just reporting my own findings, and I wanted to get my exchange with Vitali out there relatively quickly. For the record, Vitali does continue to back up what he said in DVD Talk about Kubrick composing in order to be parsed in different aspect ratios. Speaking to another journalist at the same event, I overheard him riffing in the same vein. I agree that it is kind of odd that he wax so vehement after the different versions of “Lyndon” that have hit the market, and I have no explanation for that.
As for Jeff’s citation of “the accepted doctrine about Kubrick wanting to simulate in ‘Barry Lyndon’ the slightly taller, more boxy-ish aspects of 18th-Century painting,” all I want to know is, where does this doctrine come from, and why is it accepted? That is, can Jeff cite some actual textual evidence for this? Because I looked into about eight books on Kubrick yesterday, including Michel Ciment’s, and there was nothing in any of them that referred to the influence of 18th-Century painting as it related to frame composition and/or aspect ratio. All I’m asking for is some hard textual evidence. I understand Jeff’s traveling, so maybe it’ll have to wait until he gets back to his library. Or maybe Roger Durling knows something, can help him out?
@ I.B.: Not to be picky, but there wouldn’t BE a negative in 1.66. We’re talking about projection matting here. And a projectionist friend I trust is of the opinion that the stories concerning Kubrick sending 1.66 aperture plates to theaters showing the film in the U.S. are apocryphal, for reasons I won’t detail here. But if the discussion grows more complicated/heated, I may ask to quote him at length.
Mr Glenn Kenny, can you please tell Mr Vitali that he once said this:
“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.)” – Leon Vitali
@ Glenn Kenny: Nah, I know, just didn’t want to elaborate too much in my fancy.
Thank God for Bilge Ebiri. This is some George Orwell s**t going down. Warner Bros think consumers are stupid. The film looks better on the 2001 release. Period. That is how it was projected in my countery for over 20 years. How does Vitali explain this?
@ Turk: Yes, I’d be willing to ask Vitali about that quote, if you can give me a source for it.
It’s likely, by the way, that these 1.66 hard mattes of legend would have been useless in most American theatres in 1975, for reasons I’ll get into once I’ve cleared a few other things up. Stay tuned.
Vitali is a complete fool in this interview.
For starters, the 1.77:1 aspect ratio didn’t exist in the ’70s. There were not mattes for cameras with this ratio. It only appeared with widescreen TVs.
Then, there’s ample evidence that Kubrick wanted the film to be screened at 1.66:1, which was a real format at the time.
There are reports in the John Baxter biography that a projection was stopped in London as the theatre had picked the wrong aspect ratio.
There’s an interview with the at the time Warner head of publicity for Europe in the Michel Ciment book where he states that Kubrick as curious about how the movie would be screened. He had a few questions for the theaters that were booked in France and Germany and discovered that most of them didn’t own a 1.66:1 soft matte anymore, while it cost a few quids. So, they sent the matte to all theaters.
I like to imagine this whole conversation taking place at the orgy in “Eyes Wide Shut,” with Mr. Vitali as the red guy and Mr. Wells as Tom Cruise getting interrogated.
I want to add that the old laserdisc actually SAYS on it that it was transferred under Kubrick’s supervision. FWIW.
To wit: “Transferred under the supervision of Mr. Kubrick, ‘Barry Lyndon’ is presented in a matted widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical presentation. The black bars at the top and bottom of the screen are normal for this format.”
For what it’s worth, when I was at the Everyman Cinema in London in the early 1990s – which for many years was the only UK venue to play ‘Barry Lyndon’ (the booking guy at Warners once joked that he might as well let us look after the print, as it only ever seemed to shuttle backwards and forward between us and the depot) – we always screened it at 1.66:1, under the impression that that was the correct aspect ratio. Since I don’t recall any discussion of this at the time, I assume it was marked that way on the film cans.
We knew for a fact that it wasn’t 1.85:1, because of an anecdote we’d heard from Geoff Andrew (Time Out/BFI Southbank programmer) – when he was a projectionist at the Electric Cinema, he ran it at 1.85:1, and received an outraged complaint from Kubrick’s office, who had sent a spy to the screening. I know for a fact that the practice continued into the 1990s, as I had two or three calls from Vitali (representing Kubrick’s office) about other matters in connection with our screenings, based on reports received – but he never once complained about the aspect ratio.
Not that it would have done him much good if he had, because as Dwigt points out above, the 1.77:1 aspect ratio was non-standard. We could handle 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, but that was it – and I doubt very much that many other cinemas could say anything different. In fact, we did better than many, as we could at least show 1.33:1 properly.
Is this whole Lyndon issue, at least on JW’s end, actually legit? Or some kind of weird put-on performance art??? Has Jeff finally morphed into DZ from his blog?
This is all over a SLIVER. An infinitesimal, barely perceptive sliver. This isn’t a crappy Sony pan-and-scan from the 90s where they’d swoosh around the frame til you got dizzy (Last Action Hero, Larry Flynt); It’s not a late 70s TV print of a Panavision movie where they’d smoosh it into 1.33 and the opening credits would be all stretched; It’s not even the injustice of Peter Hyams’s SUDDEN DEATH being only available in 1.33 despite his Scope compositions.
It is ONE QUARTER OF ONE INCH that YOU WOULD NEVER EVER notice was different. OAR and all that shit, but my God, this argument legitimately deranged, and leave it to Jeff McMahon to have the most accurate take on the whole thing.
Jeff is losing his motherfucking mind (TM Avon Barksdale) over nothing. Over a DVD he’ll watch once the day he buys it, and probably never again/
What the hell is with all the Orwell references going on around here? Is “Orwellian” becoming the new “fascist”, in that you just throw it at whatever you don’t like at the moment?
Lex, nearly 7% of the picture is more than a ‘sliver’, though I agree it’s nothing like the 43% that routinely got chopped out of CinemaScope films, and that you’d have to be seriously anal to argue that the film has been “destroyed” or “ruined” (as some have been doing).
In any case, regardless of the original intentions, I’m very happy with the new Blu-ray – I watched the first half-hour the other night, and I honestly wouldn’t have known that it wasn’t intended for 16:8 from the outset.
I just want to clarify that I actually agree with my old amk friend Michael – like I said, I’m personally fine with 1.78 crop. What bothered me was Vitali’s cavalier (and dramatically incorrect) dismissal of even the NOTION that the film was ever 1.66 or whatever, and his equating of anyone who argues for it with douchebags at an LA party. That seems to be coming not from any factual place but from some weird inner wellspring of bitterness. And it’s really unfair – many of these people are devotees of the film and of Kubrick’s work in general.
@ bill: They’re referring to Warner Brothers’ vivid evocations of working-class life in strong, unadorned prose, though admittedly, the reissue of LYNDON has been tinged with nostalgia for empire and a certain profiteering off the public-school system that Vitali despises.
Jeff Wells will never give anything to back up anything he says besides “I say so.” The guy’s a nutjob, typical blogger weirdo.
Obviously, when I wrote ‘16:8’ I meant 16:9 – this is not the best thread to make typos like that! Apologies.
Bilge, I can understand how Vitali’s tone feels unfair, but when you’re in the scrum and the loudest voices are yelling “bullshit” and “change your meds,” I can understand how a scrappy guy such as Vitali might be compelled to lob a “go fuck yourself” right back.
i believe leon
>Argh, will we ever really know the truth about the Kubrick aspect ratio issues?
I’m beginning to think it’s sort of like the quest for the Zodiac killer.
So, in summary, there is good evidence that it is proper to present BL at either a 1.66 or 1.75–77ish ratio, meaning that either is arguably “correct” and that there is no single Platonic ratio.
I shall watch my Blu-ray comforted by that knowledge.
I feel like Martin Scorsese could shed some light on this.
For what it’s worth, I was emailing Jan Harlan about something else today. I asked him, directly, what aspect “Barry Lyndon” was meant to be shown in. His direct answer was:
“It was 1:1.78. Be assured that WB considers any change here very carefully and try (sic) to come up with a sensible compromise considering the new standard format for TV.”
I don’t know if that adds light, or just more fire, but there it is.
Harlan says “compromise”, which simply means that WB are bending to the will of common market trends. They simply do not want to put thin bars on the side of the image because newbie customers aren’t accustomed to this. In short, they’re releasing Barry Lyndon like every other wide screen film is released today.
My issue with Leon Vitali’s explanation is that he’s dismissive of anybody doubting what he says and right on condescending to everybody who’s got a different idea.
Barry Lyndon was never screened as 1.77:1 or 1.78:1 (do you notice that Jan Harlan writes it “1:1.78”???) when it was released as no movie projector was equipped for such a ratio. It was uncommon, or even unheard of. It could have been screened as 1.66:1, exceptionally as 1.75:1, or, if the projectionist was lazy or unequipped as 1.85:1.
Maybe it’s true that the movie was composed as 1.77/1.78:1 when it was shot. But the “never as 1.66:1” is down right insulting, as there’s documentation in print (both in the Baxter and the Ciment books) that Kubrick wanted it to be screened as 1.66:1. If Vitali is so angry about people who think they know and who importune him a few days every three or four years, when there are some new product to promote, he should reserve his sarcasm for Michel Ciment, John Baxter (who did the audio commentary for The Shining, by the way) and Julian Senior. Not the poor fools who thought these were serious sources and who’re not sure that Vitali’s memories from 37 years ago are the best basis for a decision.
Leon Vitali was there but at the time he was an actor, who had some curiosity about the technical aspects of movie-making. He then became Kubrick’s assistant, mostly in charge of casting Danny’s part on The Shining and viewing video auditions of hundreds of young actors for Full Metal Jacket. He learnt at Kubrick’s side, which is not a bad thing. But it’s obvious that Kubrick took photography very seriously and only worked on it with professionals such as John Alcott or Doug Milsome.
The two main guys who now take care of the Kubrick legacy are brother in law Jan Harlan and trusted assistant Leon Vitali. Unfortunately, neither of them had some practice or training concerning cinéma outside of their collaboration with Stanley Kubrick. And, not to dismiss him, but I wouldn’t rank Vitali’s achievement in movie-making and photography comparable to Kubrick’s.
If there’s some screw-up (which is still humanly possible) on a “minor” thing such as how Barry Lyndon should been screened, there should be some modesty from both sides: ours and theirs.
Unfortunately, rather than providing any evidence (who do you think provided technical data on the Taschen book authorized by the estate?), they give us an high-handed answer that mostly takes any dissenters for loonies and is supposed to silence any subsequent discussion.
At least, that’s quite consistent with how Kubrick would have reacted…
“They simply do not want to put thin bars on the side of the image because newbie customers aren’t accustomed to this.”
Except for the WB release of Clockwork Orange which is 1.66 and a higher-profile release than Barry Lyndon. And don’t forget The Dark Knight, which confusingly changes aspect ratios for the IMAX stuff.
Oh, and:
“the reissue of LYNDON has been tinged with nostalgia for empire”
The reissue? Who’s the auteur behind this particular piece of corporate performance art?
PS: Jeff Wells is a deranged attention-whoring hobo who somehow has access to an internet connection.
You might be interested to know that Robert A Harris, doyen of restorationists, a man of exacting standards, has weighed in on WB’s new Barry Lyndon:
“My feeling has always been that I would be thrilled if Barry Lyndon were to be released on Blu-ray at the HD native aspect ratio of 1.78:1, and the incorrect technical information on the reverse of the packaging aside, that is precisely what has occurred… An absolutely perfect Blu-ray.”
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311684/a‑few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray
Mr Vitali has absolutely no knowlege of the technical issues he’s addressing. He was Kubrick’s personal not technical assistant. He contradicts himself every time he’s interviewed. How could Kubrick had composed BL for 1.77:1 back in 1974–5 when that AR had not even been coined? The only reason BL has now been matted at 1.77:1 is because it is Warner policy to do so.
So that “blue box” does nothing for you, Mr. Mayne-Nicholls? i think there’s enough contradictory evidence out there to put paid to the notion that the ONLY reason it’s 1.77 is because of Warner policy…including the very 1.66 “Clockwork” and very 1.66 “Lolita.” Of course if your only interest in life is gnashing your teeth at evil corporate policy, that’s your privilege. But seriously. That interest doesn’t change, you know, reality.
Bullingdon gets his bite of the crop
CROPPING ADJUDICATOR: If Lord Bullingdon calls correctly he will have the first anamorphic. If incorrectly, Mr. Lyndon will have the first anamorphic. Is that clearly understood? What is your call, Lord Bullingdon, 1.77 or 1.66?
LORD BULLINGDON: 1.77.
ADJUDICATOR: It is 1.77. Lord Bullingdon will have the first anamorphic. Lord Bullingdon… …will you position your aspect ratio? One point seven one … one point seven two … one point seven three … one point seven four …one point seven five … one point seven six … one point seven seven. Mr. Lyndon, will you position your aspect ratio? Mr. Lyndon, are you ready to receive Lord Bullingdon’s anamorphic?
BARRY LYNDON: Yes.
ADJUDICATOR: Lord Bullingdon … cock your aspect … and prepare to crop.
(Bullingdon’s aspect mis-crops its anamorphic)
LORD BULLINGDON: Sir Richard, this aspect must be faulty. I must have another one.
ADJUDICATOR: I’m sorry, Lord Bullingdon, but you must first ratio your aspect … and allow Mr. Lyndon his turn to crop. Your aspect has cropped, and that counts as your anamorphic. Mr. Lyndon, are the rules of cropping clear to you?
BARRY: Yes.
ADJUDICATOR: Lord Bullingdon … are you ready to receive Mr. Lyndon’s anamorphic?
LORD BULLINGDON: Yes.
ADJUDICATOR: Very well, then. Mr. Lyndon … cock your aspect … and prepare to crop. Are you ready, Lord Bullingdon? Is your aspect cocked, Mr. Lyndon?
BARRY: Yes.
ADJUDICATOR: Then prepare to crop. One point six one … one point six two … one point six three … one point six four …one point six five … one point six six.
(Barry deliberately un-crops his crop)
ADJUDICATOR: Lord Bullingdon, in view of Mr. Lyndon having uncropped from the anamorphic … do you now consider that you have satisfied your aspect?
LORD BULLINGDON: I have not satisfied my aspect.
ADJUDICATOR: Mr. Lyndon, are you ready to receive Lord Bullingdon’s anamorphic?
BARRY: Yes.
ADJUDICATOR: Lord Bullingdon … cock your aspect and get ready to crop.
(Barry is carried to another cinema and a surgeon is called).
DOCTOR: I’m sorry to have to tell you this, Mr. Lyndon. I’m afraid you’ll have to lose the leg … most likely below the knee … and the hair on your head
BARRY: Lose the leg? Lose the hair? What for?
DOCTOR: The simple answer is to save what remains of your anamorphic. The cropping at the bottom of the screen has shattered the bone below the knee and severed the artery. Unless I amputate, there’s no way that I can repair the artery … and stop the further haemorrhaging of the crop.
Bilge Ebiri, Michael Brooke, and David Mullen (all ex-AMKers to boot, ho ho ho) are entirely correct.
And from John Baxter’s 1997 Kubrick biography, Pg. 293:
“Once the film opened in the West End [of London], Kubric’s interest in how it was received became even more intense. Five minutes into one of its first screenings at Warners’ flagship Leicester Square cinema, a Kubrick assistant burst into the manager’s office and demanded that the film be stopped and restarted, as the projectionist was showing it in the 1.85:1 ratio, not the 1.66:1 ratio which Kubrick preferred. When the manager declined, the assistant responded with the familiar wail, ‘But what am I going to tell Stanley?’ “.
Some additional points:
1. Some argue that the film was originally hard matted (in-camera) for filming at 1.59 (ie that this was its “full frame”), whereas it would normally not be so matted, but filmed full frame at 1.37 Academy, as with most films. The reason for this matting, should it have been the case, may have been due to either the specialist equipment used, the lenses and cameras, such as the fast, big-aperture Zeiss f/0.7 lens fitted to a modified Mitchell camera for all the candlelit scenes, or as a deliberate aesthetic strategy (like with push-developing the film by one stop, enhancing grain [repeated to a greater degree in Eyes Wide Shut, where it was push-developed by a full two stops – this is why all the DVD and Blu-ray releases look so plastic/shiny, the characters like waxworks, an effect of grain (mistakenly called ‘noise’) reduction and sampling compression)..
2. Irrespective of whether it was hard matted at 1.59, it was framed for 1.66, shot at 1.66, and this is how it was released theatrically everywhere in 1975. That many cinemas could not fulfill this demand (due to wrong equipment, wrong mattes, etc) is a separate matter.
(The very first DVD release in the late 1990s, supervised by Kubrick, was 1.66, but after his death, in 2001 a remastered release was “full frame” or 1.59: see
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ReviewID=650).
3. The film is being released at 16/9 (1.77 round down, 1.78 round up) on HD/Blu-Ray in line with The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut, those films having also been just released in that now-standard widescreen TV 16/9 ratio, despite those same films having originally been released theatrically at 1.85 (U.S.) and 1.66 (Europe, etc).
4. Market criteria and market demands alone are now dictating the move (and, clearly, peoples’ ultimate beliefs, as, regrettably, they invariably do, cf. the Spielberg/AI fiasco, Eyes Wide Shut being “finished” by Kubrick, and similar retrospective confabulations) to the 16/9 aspect ratio everywhere (including eventually cinemas too). Revenue from digital video sales, rentals, and downloads for viewing on 16/9 widescreen TVs, monitors, etc, will soon exceed that of the cinema box-office (if it hasn’t already done so), so it’s quite likely that many feature films will be forced to adopt this ratio when filming, with multiplexes everywhere eventually converting to the format.
With all due respect to Robert A. Harris, he isn’t on European films the authority he is on Hollywood productions.
1.66:1 was far from being a “specific setup for revival theatres” compared to “spherical 1.75:1”
It’s actually 1.75:1 that had been discontinued. After “The Manchurian Candidate”, I don’t know of any example of a new film composed for this AR.
1.66:1 on the other hand was still alive and kicking in Europe. “Wings of Desire” (1987…) and “Paris, Texas” were released in 1.66:1. The recent Blu-ray releases, approved by Wenders, kept Wings as 1.66:1 (but put Paris as 1.78:1).
It was also the ratio favored by some directors such as Eric Rohmer (who actually preferred 1.37:1 but had to switch in the late 80s), Claude Chabrol (for instance, “La Cérémonie” in 1995 and “Merci pour le chocolat” in 2000) and Georges Lautner, who directed in this ratio well into the 80s. I mention Lautner, because he was responsible for a string of Jean-Paul Belmondo movies that were popular in Europe at the time. Le Professionnel/The Professional from 1981 got 5m admissions in France and 3m in Western Germany at the time and it was 1.66:1.
Warner probably did Barry Lyndon as 1.78:1 because Leon Vitali had mistakenly thought it was, based on his own fuzzy recollections from 35 years ago. It won’t be redone because it’s a niche title and has always been with Lolita the poorest seller in the Kubrick catalog at Warner. The mistake is minor. Robert A Harris is happy, as he’s now happy with almost every big studio release that’s not drenched in DNR and EE. The Kubrick estate is playing the card of Papal infallibility and still has full control through the original contracts about what should be shown and how.
Chevalier, in regards to your point #2 about the original DVD release, I’ve read that all the laserdisc and DVD releases up ’til now have been of the same 1.59:1 image. I think the difference between the 1999 DVD and the 2001 remaster is one of labeling on the box. As we know from this Blu-ray release (labeled 1.85:1 but actually 1.78:1), Warner Home Video isn’t the most accurate on aspect ratios a lot of the time.
Checking Widescreen Review’s database, they list both the 1999 and 2001 releases as having an aspect ratio of 1.58:1. They’re pretty anal on aspect ratio, noting that the DVD of, for example, The Arrival is 1.82:1, while the DVD of Charlie Bartlett is 1.83:1, so their measurements of the Barry Lyndon DVDs are likely spot-on:
http://www.widescreenreview.com/dvd_result.php?recentdata=Reviewed
Also, it makes sense that Kubrick would approve a 1.58:1 transfer for laserdisc, since this was when he preferred fully open-matte transfers of his films on home video. If Barry Lyndon was indeed “hard matted” to 1.58:1 on the negative due to the lenses used, then 1.58:1 would fill a 4:3 as much as possible without cropping. The note on the laserdisc of it being the “aspect ratio of its original theatrical presentation,” is again likely a product of WHV mislabeling their product (the line was likely boilerplate used for all letterboxed transfers).
Regarding point 4, as Jeff McMahon and Glenn Kenny have also pointed out, it seems highly unlikely that WHV would be fine with releasing Lolita and Clockwork Orange in 1.66:1, while demanding Barry Lyndon be altered to 1.77:1. It seems more likely, as Dwigt suggests, that they did so because Leon Vitali thinks, for some reason, that 1.77:1 is the correct ratio. Whether he’s correct or not is a point of contention, but it seems unlikely it’s part of some conspiracy on WHV’s part to make Barry Lyndon 16:9 friendly.
Lolita and Orange are the only exceptions in the entire Warner catalogue to be in 1.66:1. If you read carefully enough, I didn’t stress there was anything wrong with matting at 1.77:1 per se. I was pointing out that in the end, it was Warner who really decided the issue and poor clueless Mr Vitali, in his film illiteracy, is trying to simplistically explain something he doesn’t understand.
I’m OK with, say The Shining being matted at 1.77:1 for home video release as it was shot open matte. The difference between that and 1.85:1 is minimal and is within the range of what can/doesn’t have to be shown. Since Mr Kubrick intentionally hard matted Orange and Lyndon, I’d have expected Warner to have been as respectful with the latter as they were with the former.
What really annoys me is Vitali’s arrogance when saying he knows what he’s talking about because he was there. He goes on to say that only three films were intended to be widescreen (Spartacus, 2001 and Lolita). He doesn’t consider Orange and Lyndon widescreen, so why aren’t they shown full frame then?
Had Kubrick composed for 1.33:1 as Mr Vitali in his infinite knowlege informs us poor mortals, his films could have never been shown theatrically after 1953! I don’t know why I’m surprised at all, film critics love to talk about films so much they hardly ever pay attention to the images onscreen. They need books to tell them what they can’t see. If you or I were in any way interested in reality, we wouldn’t be discussing film!
I agree with Mr Dwight about Mr Harris. For an “expert”, he knows pretty little about how films were matted outside North America but rather than acknowledging incompetence in the matter, he discards information which doesn’t help his simplistic approach.
To Lex: if you’re talking about information, then yes, it’s a sliver. But “composition” is something else entirely. A 1.78 composition is different from a 1.66 composition. DRAMATICALLY different? I guess not. But different.
We’re not talking about information, or slices. We’re talking about how a film was visualized.
Kubrick favored square formats. I guess that Barry Lyndon was the final film for which he thought that he could get it screened without difficulties in the US in 1.66:1. But the situation had changed then. Movie projectors weren’t adapted and theater owners were reluctant to show it in an unusual aspect ratio.
Beginning with The Shining, Kubrick accepted that his movies would be screened in 1.85:1 in the US regardless of his intents. So he had this aspect ratio in mind. I think that he would have preferred 1.66:1 (and maybe he still could get this ratio in Europe) but he stopped fighting for a lost cause. But it’s definitely true that he started to protect the frame for 1.33:1 because of TV screenings. So, I have no issues with the final threes being transferred as 1.78:1.
Think also of who provided the technical info for the Archives book. It got input and suggestions from the immediate family and close collaborators at the time. It wasn’t supposed to be a no-holds-barred investigation by critics and movie historians.
Donovan, this time I wouldn’t put the blame on Warner. They accepted black bars for both Lolita and A Clockwork Orange and nobody complained about that (especially as the Philistines who would complain wouldn’t see them on their unadjusted TV due to overscan). Kubrick had very clear contracts about what could be done and not done with his films. The estate calls the shots and they still got final approval on the content. If they felt that the presentation wasn’t conform to what Kubrick wanted (or actually to what they want), they could get the product delayed or repealed.
In our case, Vitali didn’t do his homework, is (or was) convinced that the aspect ratio was 1.77:1. A replacement operation would be expensive and would thus compromise his good relationship with Warner. So, everybody tries to save face.
One final confession: I was briefly a member of amk in the late 90s. Unfortunately my ISP at the time didn’t accept alt. groups and I had a hard time finding a news provider that worked. Happy to see a few half-forgotten names…
@ Dwigt et.al.: Aw, gosh, fellas, happy to have facilitated this virtual reunion…[puts gun to head, pulls trigger]
For those who insist on exacting forensic-empiricist “evidence” and “sources” to corroborate the ‘true’ original theatrical ratio for Barry Lyndon, I would suggest that a simple visit to the Kubrick Archive at the University of the Arts in London might resolve their continuing anxieties, though with some 1,000 or so boxes there stuffed with all manner of bits and pieces from Kubrick’s films and projects, such a daunting undertaking might just generate further uncertainty or provoke a panic attack, or instantly resolve the issue.
Kubrick did keep detailed records of all his films, including compositional specifications. For instance, we already definitively know how he framed and composed his final three films. This public domain graphic from the “storyboards” that Kubrick prepared for The Shining, with its instructions to camera crew for mise-en-scene, for framing, layout, composition, clearly states, “The frame is exactly 1:1.85. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1:1.33 area”:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/mayorgrubert/shining.jpg
I’m conjecturing that something similar exists for Barry Lyndon, and it’s somewhere in the Archive.
Jay G wrote earlier: “Regarding point 4, as Jeff McMahon and Glenn Kenny have also pointed out, it seems highly unlikely that WHV would be fine with releasing Lolita and Clockwork Orange in 1.66:1, while demanding Barry Lyndon be altered to 1.77:1.”
But Barry Lyndon HAS just been released by Warners in 1.77 (16÷9). And Lolita and Clockwork Orange HAVE been released in 1.66. And they’re defending these releases; so they are “fine” with the releases.
“It seems more likely, as Dwigt suggests, that they did so because Leon Vitali thinks, for some reason, that 1.77:1 is the correct ratio. Whether he’s correct or not is a point of contention, but it seems unlikely it’s part of some conspiracy on WHV’s part to make Barry Lyndon 16:9 friendly.”
Warners is not some mythical, transcendent entity. It intersubjectively comprises those who work for it, advise it, consult with it, influence it, etc. It is nothing but this assemblage. Vitali is one such (Warners) advisor and spokesperson, is part of the social structures that constitute Warners. So its pretty clear that Barry Lyndon has been released in 16/9 for the same “reasons” that The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut have. not because of any imagined personalized “conspiracy”, but because 16/9 is now widely seen, accepted, as the “industry standard”, to which Warners (and Vitali) are deferring, to which they now subscribe. It would all be a non-issue if all four of Kubrick’s last films had originally been shot and framed for 16/9, but they weren’t (this in addition to the even bigger problem of analogue to digital transfer of pre-digital age films).
“Aw, gosh, fellas, happy to have facilitated this virtual reunion…[puts gun to head, pulls trigger]”
…well, not like you couldn’t see this coming! You just about willed it.
Yeah, the words “aspect ratio” in a thread title just about guarantees contentious fun for all!
This is hideously off-topic– I don’t have any facts or arguments ot add to this conversation, which is why I’ve been non-participating despite my complete and total adoration of the film in question– but what’s AMK? I mean, it’s obviously a USENET group, and USENET is and shall ever be awesome– take *that*, Eternal September!– but which USENET group is it?
AMK is/was alt.movies.kubrick. And Glenn, before you dismiss it, you should know that it was the rather very hard work of the folks at AMK over a number of years that conceived of, wrote up, and posted that Kubrick FAQ and the entire Kubrick Site. It may not seem like much now that everybody and his mother has published and/or republished their book about Kubrick, but once upon a time that was the only place you could find a lot of information on Kubrick, including those Ciment interviews. In fact, I recall painstakingly typing those interviews by hand off my old photocopy of the Ciment book (which at the time was pretty much impossible to find anywhere) sometime in 1995 or 96. Sorry to have inconvenienced you.
Relax, Mr. E. That was merely an attempt at humor. You know.
And yes, John M., I’m aware that I “brought it on myself.” A friend and frequent commenter (he has been conspicuous in his absence on this particular thread, being a wise man and all) who I ran into at the Bruce Baillie/Apichatpong Weerasethakul thing at the New Museum last night, said to me afterwards, “So, you think that should have been in 1.66?”
“Har-dee-har-har,” said I.
“Well, you had to go and bring it up.”
“You got me there. It’s like what Jack Torrance said about little Danny: ‘I think…he did it to himself.’ ”
“Yup.”
“Then again, it does make for GOOD BLOG.”
He conceded that point.
Apparently the “Touch of Evil” debate is set to come around again in the near future. All aboard for funtime!
Chevalier,
First off, I don’t think that pic you posted a link to is in the public domain. I’m pretty sure it’s a picture someone took of a page in the book “The Stanley Kubrick Archive”. Granted, it’s use here may fall under the terms of “fair use.”
Also, in regards to the last 3 Kubrick films being in 1.85:1, I don’t think anyone’s arguing against that, and it is known that WHV does like to alter 1.85:1 films by opening up the matting to 1.78:1 for home video releases. It’s pretty well agreed that these are altered ratios, but the change is relatively minor, and it exposes more image, not less, so it’s not a sore point for most. Everyone still acknowledges that 1.85:1 is the proper aspect ratio that Kubrick intended for these films.
Now, my point in bringing up Lolita and Clockwork Orange was that, if WHV is conspiring to change the aspect ratio of Kubrick’s 1.66:1 films to 1.78:1, and going so far as to encourage Vitali to spout off lies, why are they only doing this to Barry Lyndon? Why wouldn’t they do this to Lolita, or Clockwork Orange, or Dr. Strangelove? It doesn’t make sense for WHV to pick on only one of the four 1.66:1 films if their intention is to modify it solely to fill the 16:9 screen.
Also, it doesn’t explain why The Kubrick Archive book, first published in 2005, lists the aspect ratio for Barry Lyndon as 1.77:1. Note that this same book lists Kubrick’s last 3 movies (and first 3) as having a “preferred” aspect ratio of 1.33:1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankko/12335365/
It also doesn’t explain this Leon Vitali interview from 2001 where he mentions 1.77 masking for Barry Lyndon:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html
Note that this interview was in relation to a DVD set where Barry Lyndon was presented as 1.59:1. So Vitali has had this probably incorrect aspect ratio in his head for a while now.
I think it’s fairly obvious, due to the various quotes from biographies and interviews in these comments, along with comments from projectionists here and elsewhere on the web, that Kubrick preferred 1.66:1 for theatrical screenings of Barry Lyndon, just like with Lolita, Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove. However, it’s not immediately clear if he COMPOSED for this ratio, or if it was just the best fit for theatrical screenings, although him possibly composing for a ratio that wasn’t a theatrical standard doesn’t make much sense, especially considering how hard it was to get even 1.66:1 shown properly in all theaters. So where did this idea of 1.77:1 composition come from?
Elsewhere Mr Harris makes note of a screening at the Egyptian that was at 1.75:1, and elsewhere a projectionist for a different screening mentions a signed note from Kubrick requesting an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 or “not more than 1.75:1”. Now, 1.75:1 is a not unheard of aspect ratio, used on some films, and known back in the 70s, where 1.77:1 is. So Kubrick, at the least, likely didn’t mind cropping to at least 1.75:1. It’s then an outside possibility that he may have even composed for 1.75:1, and allowed for open matting down to 1.66:1 for theatrical, or 1.59:1 for home video, but didn’t want cropping to 1.85:1.
So the possibilities for how Vitali arrived at 1.77:1 are:
1) Kubrick really did compose for 1.75:1, and Vitali later got this confused with the 1.77:1 ratio, or allowed for WHV to crop this slightly more to 1.77:1.
2) Kubrick composed for 1.66:1, but protected for cropping to 1.75:1. Vitali confused this maximum allowed crop ratio with the preferred ratio, and the confused it with 1.77:1, for same reasons above.
3) WHV has been involved in a lengthy conspiracy for over a decade to change this ONE film’s aspect ratio to 1.77:1, having Vitali spout this aspect ratio even when WHV was still releasing 1.59:1 versions of the film on DVD. They got the Kubrick estate to modify it for their book, all in anticipation of this eventual Blu-ray release. And they picked Barry Lyndon to do this to over the more obviously commercial choices of Clockwork Orange or Dr. Strangelove, which along with Lolita are pretty much locked in stone as being 1.66:1 (since how could WHV justify a wider release for these films now?).
For me, option 3 seems like the least likely to have actually occurred.
A quick addendum to my last post:
The sentence:
“Now, 1.75:1 is a not unheard of aspect ratio, used on some films, and known back in the 70s, where 1.77:1 is.”
Should instead read:
“Now, 1.75:1 is a not unheard of aspect ratio, used on some films, and known back in the 70s, while 1.77:1 wasn’t.”
This thread has been fascinating reading. I had no idea humanity had resolved such issues as securing peace in the Middle East, finding a cure for cancer, stopping global warming, etc, so that nothing remained for it except to argue the finer points of film aspect ratios based on something someone may or may not have said to someone else 36 years ago and whip up bizarre stories of corporate conspiracies. Can we at least all just agree to curse Kubrick for being a troublemaker and dying before he could take part in the conversation himself?
Looks like James has found me out. I have indeed set aside my cancer research, despite being very close to a cure, to come here and see how this aspect ratio thing plays out.
It’s okay, James is carrying on with the good fight on his blog by reviewing Jean Renoir films. There’s a formulae hidden in between cuts.
Another AR oddity that’s never resurfaced: Criterion’s 1992 Kubrick-supervised laserdisc of LOLITA was presented fully open-matte, switching between 1.33 and 1.66, as with DR. STRANGELOVE. All subsequent MGM/Warner transfers have been straight 1.66. Have a look at this snapshot of Criterion’s former website here (scroll down to the transfer info): http://web.archive.org/web/19961219030413/http://www.voyagerco.com/criterion/indepth.cgi?lolita
lol, Jay G, so you admit the last 3 Kubrick movies have been released in the wrong aspect ratios, yeah?
“First off, I don’t think that pic you posted a link to is in the public domain. I’m pretty sure it’s a picture someone took of a page in the book “The Stanley Kubrick Archive”. Granted, it’s use here may fall under the terms of “fair use.””
It’s been circulating long before Taschen’s book was ever published, and I provided a LINK, not the image. In fact, the image originated from Michel Ciment.
“Also, in regards to the last 3 Kubrick films being in 1.85:1, I don’t think anyone’s arguing against that, and it is known that WHV does like to alter 1.85:1 films by opening up the matting to 1.78:1 for home video releases.”
So because Warners like to alter things, therefore it’s all OK?
You claim that nobody’s arguing against his last 3 films being released theatrically (in the US) in 1.85 but then defend Warners’ decision to alter them all to Widescreen TV’s 16/9 ‘industry standard’. There’s a fundamental failure in reasoning here.
“It’s pretty well agreed that these are altered ratios”
Yes. But then you alter tack again:
“but the change is relatively minor”
Says who, exactly? If the changes are really so “relatively minor”. as those who like altering things are arguing, then why make them at all? Why all the fuss for such a “trivial” change? Why the incessant justifications (and Vitali’s emotive outbursts) if it’s all of no importance? Or is it that, ultimately for them and their supporters, altering things is of no importance? Only genuflecting to the 16/9 industry standard is of importance?
“and it exposes more image, not less, so it’s not a sore point for most.”
It crops the image, removes more image, which is a ‘sore point’ for those who care about such things, rather than making populist appeals via an argumentum ad populum.
“Everyone still acknowledges that 1.85:1 is the proper aspect ratio that Kubrick intended for these films.”
You’ve repeated this many times now in your comments, but fail to reconcile it with your actual pro-altering-to-16/9 stance except by disavowing it and trivializing it.
“Now, my point in bringing up Lolita and Clockwork Orange was that, if WHV is conspiring to change the aspect ratio of Kubrick’s 1.66:1 films to 1.78:1”
I note again your desire to invoke “conspiracy” when someone suggests that Warners and Vitali have altered the Barry Lyndon ratio, rather than simply examining what has actually happened: Barry Lyndon was released theatrically at 1.66 but is now being released for “home video” TV consumption at 16/9. Because 16/9 is the “industry standard” and because Vitali is extremely confused.
“and going so far as to encourage Vitali to spout off lies”
No, just than he’s mistaken in his recollections and made groundless claims about the film.
(remember too that just a year ago Jan Harlan was saying that Barry Lyndon would never be released on Blu-Ray because there was “no market for it”, a very odd but telling remark).
“why are they only doing this to Barry Lyndon?”
And you’re the one attributing “conspiracy theories” to others :-)?
They are not only “doing it” to Barry Lyndon. They’ve also “done it” to The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, and without any real objection (“the change is just trivial”, remember?), so why not with Barry Lyndon too, especially when it doesn’t have any real “market”?
“Why wouldn’t they do this to Lolita, or Clockwork Orange, or Dr. Strangelove? It doesn’t make sense for WHV to pick on only one of the four 1.66:1 films if their intention is to modify it solely to fill the 16:9 screen.”
What you’re really arguing here, in effect, is that Warners/Vitali can do no wrong, are always right, and if they do anything odd, well, there just has to be some “self-evident”, and “commonsensical” and “rational” explanation for the mistake, that then renders it a mistaken mistake. Again, Barry Lyndon, TS, FMJ, and EWS have all been altered to meet with the “new” 16/9 industry standard.
“Also, it doesn’t explain why The Kubrick Archive book, first published in 2005, lists the aspect ratio for Barry Lyndon as 1.77:1.”
Because Taschen got that (false) number from Vitali, the archive book having been supervised by Harlan and the Kubrick Estate.
“Note that this same book lists Kubrick’s last 3 movies (and first 3) as having a “preferred” aspect ratio of 1.33:1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankko/12335365/
While that is true of the first 3 films, having been made long before home video, before movies were even broadcast regularly on TV, that isn’t quite correct for the last three. Rather, he “doubly composed” those last three films, with a primary theatrical ratio of 1.85 and a secondary (spectral) ratio for TV and home video of 1.33.
“It also doesn’t explain this Leon Vitali interview from 2001 where he mentions 1.77 masking for Barry Lyndon:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html”
Sorry, but the only, the sole source for this groundless 1.77 in relation to BL is Vitali. He’s confused.
“Note that this interview was in relation to a DVD set where Barry Lyndon was presented as 1.59:1. So Vitali has had this probably incorrect aspect ratio in his head for a while now.”
Quite.
“I think it’s fairly obvious, due to the various quotes from biographies and interviews in these comments, along with comments from projectionists here and elsewhere on the web, that Kubrick preferred 1.66:1 for theatrical screenings of Barry Lyndon, just like with Lolita, Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove.”
Quite.
“However, it’s not immediately clear if he COMPOSED for this ratio,”
Oh dear, back to the confusion again.
The film was composed for 1.66, which is why it was released theatrically at 1.66.
“or if it was just the best fit for theatrical screenings, although him possibly composing for a ratio that wasn’t a theatrical standard doesn’t make much sense, especially considering how hard it was to get even 1.66:1 shown properly in all theaters.”
Quite. Why would Kubrick compose for a ratio that can’t be shown or projected anywhere?
“So where did this idea of 1.77:1 composition come from?”
It really doesn’t matter where it came from, given that it’s the wrong one. Unless, of coure, Vitali imagines that Kubrick had a psychotic breakdown etc.
“So the possibilities for how Vitali arrived at 1.77:1 are:
1) Kubrick really did compose for 1.75:1, and Vitali later got this confused with the 1.77:1 ratio, or allowed for WHV to crop this slightly more to 1.77:1.”
No, he didn’t compose for 1.75, never composed annything for 1.75.
“2) Kubrick composed for 1.66:1, but protected for cropping to 1.75:1. Vitali confused this maximum allowed crop ratio with the preferred ratio, and the confused it with 1.77:1, for same reasons above.”
This is upside down. You compose for a smaller frame (negative area)while “protecting” for a larger (full screen) frame. The film was composed for 1.66 but protected for (full screen) 1.59.
“3) WHV has been involved in a lengthy conspiracy for over a decade to change this ONE film’s aspect ratio to 1.77:1, having Vitali spout this aspect ratio even when WHV was still releasing 1.59:1 versions of the film on DVD. They got the Kubrick estate to modify it for their book, all in anticipation of this eventual Blu-ray release. And they picked Barry Lyndon to do this to over the more obviously commercial choices of Clockwork Orange or Dr. Strangelove, which along with Lolita are pretty much locked in stone as being 1.66:1 (since how could WHV justify a wider release for these films now?).”
This is just irrational, paranoid nonsense.
“For me, option 3 seems like the least likely to have actually occurred.”
None of these options are “likely to have actually occured” because all three are wild speculation that is without any foundation.
P.S. Forgot to mention in an earlier comment that many of the artist-drawn Storyboards for Barry Lyndon are in an arch-lever file that is one of the prized possessions of Kubrick’s daughter, Katharina, who both worked on the film and appeared in a few scenes. A team of illustrators worked with Kubrick on the storyboards.
Chevalier, I guess you were a little overlong…
I don’t mind the AR change on the final three movies for video (from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1) because it’s one inch on top and bottom on a 50″ screen. The movies were shot in 1.85:1 and protected up to 1.33:1. Given Kubrick’s hatred of black bars on TV, it’s quite coherent with what the guy wanted for 4:3 TVs in the 80s and 90s. And it’s more picture, not less. Films are never perfectly aligned in most of the movie projectors and a director like Kubrick would know it and not put something crucial on the very margin of the frame.
And finally, if you’re angry about a switch from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 that adds a little picture, why don’t you complain about the cropping the 1.37:1 movies that have been shown on TV and DVD as 1.33:1? You lose about the same ratio and there are thousands of them on DVD…
My own theory concerning Barry Lyndon is that Kubrick composed it for 1.66:1, assuming that it could still be screened that way, as most his previous movies were. Kubrick was a guy who wouldn’t go anymore into a movie theater, except maybe when attending his own premieres. He had his own private screenings at his home. And he was in an American theater for the last time in 1968.
So Kubrick composes the film for 1.66:1 and gives it to Warner with instructions to the distributors and projectionists it should be screened that way. He does a little investigation and sends masks to the theaters in Europe and US (we’re talking about hundreds not thousands: exploitation was different in those days). He does verifications through his connections and realizes that if it’s properly screened in Europe, those damn Americans won’t accept to show it in 1.66:1.
He makes a few threats, calls a few Warner representatives at 4 am, gets new reports. Still no progress. People explain to him that 1.66:1 is done, fini, kaput, muerto in the US of A. He shouts on the phone, fulminates. But after days or weeks, it realizes it’s a lost cause and has to – gasp – compromise. Let them screen the movie at 1.66:1 or (tears roll down) 1.75:1.
Then, a few decades later, he gets a phone call from a theater owner in Albuquerque. He wants to thank Kubrick (how he got his number is another matter) for allowing him to make a special showing of Barry Lyndon that got huge applauses from the audience. But Kubrick has a lingering doubt:
‘What aspect ratio did you use?’
‘Well, Mr Kubrick, we used 1.85:1. It was sensational to get such a large picture in our room’
‘1.85:1? 1.85:1? 1.85:1? Are you nuts? Didn’t you read the Post-It inside the metal box? You moron… You… you…’
The day? March 7, 1999. Draw your own conclusions.
Meanwhile, here’s my theory about Leon Vitali and his interest for aspect ratios:
1974: “Hey girl, d’you know that I’m one of the leads in the new Stanley Kubrick movie, Berry Lyndon? I’m gonna be huge…”
1977: “Hello Stan?… How are you?… What, you’re busy working on your new movie?… Is there a part for me?… Guy in a bear suit, really? Don’t you have anything else… Danny?.. You’re right, I’m too old for the Danny part… Anyway, you hate working with kids… But, hey, why wouldn’t you hire me instead for doing the casting for the kid part. It would be a true relief for you, wouldn’t it?… Great! Thanks!.…”
1979: “Hey girl, d’you know that I’m the personal assistant to Stanley Kubrick? When he wants some coffee, he personally calls me to bring the coffee. That’s how much he trusts me…”
1984: “So, Stanley… Now, you want to do some stunt casting for The Short Timers, allowing any male actor to send a video audition but not actually hiring any of them for the main parts?… Great!… You know, there will be thousands of them, many of them poor or plain awful… So, you know… And that’s why you want me to view all of them? Mmm-mmm… Well, thanks, very honored”
1985: “Tape #2673. Brian Atene. I hope this one will actually be good”
1994: “Hey girl, do you know that I work closely with Stanley Kubrick?… What, you don’t know who Stanley Kubrick is?”
1996: “Stanley… I’m so happy you gave me this part, even if it’s for a few days”
1998: “Stanley… Is it over?”
1999: “Crap… crap… crap… I’ve got Warner on the phone. Jan, do you know where he had written the stuff about aspect ratios? Did he have a memo somewhere? Or even a napkin?”
2001: “So, Mr Feltenstein, it’s actually 1.66:1 for Lolita, 1.66:1 for Orange, 1.85:1 for The Shining, 1.85:1 for The Jacket and 1.85:1 for Shut. For Barry Lyndon? Sure… it was… hmmm (what’s the number between 1.66 and 1.85????).… 1.77:1. Yeah, that’s right, 1.77:1”
2011: “It’s always been 1.77:1. Barry Lyndon was composed for 1.77:1”
Yeah, I know, I’m overlong too.
Chevalier,
Again, regarding the picture you linked to, it’s definitely a picture from the Stanley Kubrick Archive book. You can see the yellow tab on the left of image for the Shining, which matches up with the tabs on the book:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankko/12335329/in/photostream/
Also, it seemed like relatively big news when it was included in the book:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/419899-new-kubrick-book-settles-aspect-ratio-confusion.html
The book does source it to Ciment, but even if it had been circulated before the book was published, that doesn’t mean it’s public domain. It could just be that nobody’s contested its circulation, and as it contains pertinent info on Kubrick’s wishes for the film, use of it as a source could count as fair use. I feel I must emphasize that I was not accusing you of any wrongdoing, but just pointing out that your statement of the image’s copyright status is likely incorrect.
In regards to the films, I’m not defending WHV’s decisions to change ANY aspect ratio. However, we don’t know which, if any, of the aspect ratios were WHV’s decision. Releasing the 1.85:1 as 1.78:1 seems like something WHV would want to do, since they’ve done it to thousands of DVD and Blu-ray releases, and if you want to blame them for that change, I’m not going to defend them. However, I can’t get that worked up about the 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 changes either. It’s, relatively speaking, a small change, likely made moot by overscan on many TVs. Also, as Dwigt points out, considering that Kubrick authorized 1.33:1 open-matte releases of these films for 4:3 home video, one can extrapolate that Kubrick probably wouldn’t have minded slightly opening up the matting to 1.78:1 for these films.
In regards to cropping films intended for 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, that is also indefensible, if their decision, and something I can get worked up about. However, it’s not clear at all that WHV is behind this altered aspect ratio. In fact, from earlier statements from Vitali and the Kubrick Archive book, it seems like the change to 1.78:1 was very likely not due to WHV, but just them honoring what Vitali and/or the Kubrick estate said was the correct aspect ratio.
To us who didn’t work/know Kubrick personally, this aspect ratio seems wrong, based on the knowledge at hand (the aspect ratio shown in many theaters at release and during subsequent festivals, anecdotes in biographies and other books). However, there’s some conflicting information. For example, user GaryC on this thread recalls a note personally signed by Kubrick that came with a print that specified projecting the film “no wider than 1.75:1” :
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2712&sid=43c2c50bf9bfbfe394e2a2442c787db4&start=625
Robert Harris has also noted similar instructions for a screening at the Egyptian, although he recalls it as instructing specifically 1.75:1 :
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311684/a‑few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray#post_3815595
My 3 scenarios were me personally trying to reconcile these testimonies of an allowed alternate aspect ratio 1.75:1 with Vitali’s insistence that 1.77:1 is the correct intended aspect ratio, and theorizing how Vitali (and possibly the estate too) arrived at it. My possibilities could be all completely wrong. However, to me it doesn’t seem as clear cut a case as “WHV wanted to fill the 1.78:1 frame despite it cropping the 1.66:1 image, and Vitali and/or the Kubrick estate obliged on this one film out of the four with this theatrical aspect ratio.”
I asked Alison Castle, the editor of the Kubrick Archives book, about the matter, and this is her reply:
“Barry Lyndon was shot in 1.77:1, which is why that is the ratio for the stills in the Archives book, all of which were preserved from the originals. This information was provided and verified by Leon Vitali when he was still working for the Kubrick estate.
This will settle the debate, I should think!”
Alison Castle hasn’t participated in too many weblog comment threads, I presume.
No, this won’t settle the debate; it’s just a cue for more “the 1.77.1 aspect ratio didn’t even exist in 1975” protests. Carry on.
It’s actually a cue for “Vitali is the single source for all this information”. And doesn’t explain why the “verified” 1.33:1 ratio for the final three films was also used…
Regarding the Ciment book, we should also take into consideration that it was mostly assembled in 1980, around the time The Shining was released in France. I’ve got the 1987 and the 1999 editions. There was a reprint this year, with a new foreword by Scorsese. The 1987 edition is “revised and augmented”. The “definitive” 1999 edition is also augmented but the font composition mostly shows in both cases that the main changes were the inclusions of pages devoted to Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. Most of the book was left unchanged.
One particularity of the book at the time is the amount of images that are rare frames taken from the actual movies and presumably prepared by a Kubrick collaborator who respected his consigns. Some of these frames are naturally cropped horizontally or vertically to fit the book layout . But there are a few contenders that look like they are more or left without cropping.
So, I took my calculator and checked 30 pictures. No picture is wider than 1.78:1 and, on the average, the AR is 1.66:1.
I had the raw data but apparently the filter for the comments assumes it must be a price list for Viagra.
“more or less”, of course.
And if the filter allows me…
p 26–27: 2 x 1.74:1, 1 x 1.64:1 / p 65 : 1.65:1 and 1.68:1 / p 68 : 1.60:1 / p 78–79: 1.71:1 / p 83: 1.64:1 / p 96–97: 1.65:1 / p 105: 1.62:1, 1.64:1 / p 110–111: 3 x 1.71:1, 1.59:1 / p 114–115: 1.77:1 / p 120: 1.71:1 / p 147: 1.66:1 / p 168–169: 2 x 1.75:1, 1 x 1.66:1 / p 174–175 : 2 x 1.63:1 / p 178–179: 2 x 1.78:1, 2 x 1.70:1 / p 218–210: 1.66:1 / p 221: 1.66:1
“When Warners’ East Coast publicity department omitted a late-night screening of Barry Lyndon from its display ad in the New York Times, Kubrick noticed and rang them. Worried that his films might not be showing in the best venues, he had Warners summarise the programmes presented over the last few years at all the cinemas in European capitals, the length of runs, and their box office receipts. He insisted on the right of approval on all new prints and advertising. Few infractions of the rules under which his films were screened escaped his attention. Many French cinemas lacked the 1.66:1 mask needed to frame Barry Lyndon correctly, so Kubrick supplied one to every theatre. Jan Harlan was sent around Europe to monitor cinemas’ compliance, and accidentally locked himself out of his Mercedes in France profonde. Kubrick told him to wait where he was. Next morning, a new set of keys, helicoptered from Paris, were waiting at his hotel.”
From John Baxter’s biog, Pg 299.
This story is also reported by Adrian Turner, “Shine On Stanley K”, The Guardian, 23rd December, 1988.
Dwigt,
Just to be clear, those pictures you listed aspect ratios for are from the 1999 copy of Michel Ciment’s Kubrick: The Definitive Edition, right?
I ran across this info last night looking up info on 1.75:1
“1.75:1 – UK Widescreen standard film ratio during 1960’s and 70’s”
http://www.dcineco.com/glossary.htm
I haven’t found any collaborating evidence for this aside from Apple referring to 1.75:1 as the “UK Standard” aspect ratio in one of their programs:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/compressor/usermanual/index.html#chapter=24
To me, the possibility that Kubrick composed at 1.75:1 for this film (possibly as a transition point between his earlier 1.66:1 films and later 1.85:1 composed films) seems like the best explanation for how Vitali arrived at the idea that 1.77:1 is the correct AR (with Vitali confusing 1.75:1 theatrical AR with 1.77:1 HDTV AR).
Jay, you raise a very valid point. And, indeed, 1.75:1 was used in the UK during these decades, more than what I had assumed. “If…” by Lindsay Anderson, “Help!” by Richard Lester are a few examples, according to imdb.
I would differ on one account. 1.75 was one UK standard, not the UK standard. For instance, the 1.66:1 aspect ratio was also popular in the UK. The early James Bond movies were composed for 1.66 before switching to anamorphic. And even then, they did “The Man With The Golden Gun” reportedly in 1.66 spherical (even if it was shown in the US in the more common 1.85). Guy Hamilton had previously directed “Goldfinger”, another 1.66 movie. And Golden Gun was released in 1974. Maybe imdb is wrong but it’s a popular film and the entry may have been corrected with time.
Anyway, I stick with my original idea. Kubrick could be incredibly well informed about a few subjects but he was also clueless and stubborn about others. His obsession with details implied that he could lose the big picture and was, with time, more and more reluctant about making a leap of faith and direct a movie. He could be both on the edge of new technology and incredibly conservative. The 1.66 aspect ratio could be one form of conservatism and personal preference, with no regard of the actual situation in theaters. Kubrick wouldn’t have used 1.75:1 as a transition towards 1.85. He wanted to make timeless films. He was convinced that 1.66 would stay forever and he was wrong. He must have learnt it the hard way when he tried to get Barry Lyndon screened in the US.
The fact that Vitali mentions “1.77” as the OAR is infuriating because it’s not just a lapsus linguæ for 1.75. It reveals that Vitali now thinks essentially in video terms while Kubrick was a film guy.
And if he hasn’t noticed by this time that it should be 1.75 instead while mocking “people who think they know”, it just means he hasn’t bothered to check about ratios, which casts a real doubt about the validity of his claims.
PS: The pictures were taken from the 1987 French edition. The layout is the same in the 1999 edition and, presumably, in the 2011 edition. The English edition might have changed the layout compared to the “original” but the truth is that I prefer to read Ciment in the original French.
Because I’m French 😉
From:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311684/a‑few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3816369
Robert Harris has posted saying that the Egyptian screening was in 2002, which was after Kubrick’s death, and after Vitali had started mentioning 1.77:1 as the aspect ratio. It’s likely then that the Kubrick estate got this aspect ratio from Vitali for their dictates for this screening.
This reduces the citations for 1.75:1 to one projectionist remembering it as an upper limit for screening the film. This, along with the biography and interview quotes provided in this thread leads me to discontinue my tangent consideration of 1.75:1 being a possible ratio used when composing the film.
It now seems abundantly clear that 1.66:1 is the most likely ratio Kubrick composed the film for, and the one he most wanted used for screening the film theatrically. This, then, should’ve been the aspect ratio used for the Blu-ray, but the Kubrick Estate, apparently relying on Vitali, dictated the wrong aspect ratio to WHV.
Cinematographer David Mullen on aspect ratios in Kubrick’s films:
“Kubrick shot “Barry Lyndon” for 1.66 projection and even sent Warner Bros. people out to every theater in the U.S. showing it to make sure they got a 1.66 projector mask to use instead of the common 1.85 one. That story is in Ciment’s Kubrick book.
Kubrick didn’t “compose” his movies for 1.33 once Academy was no longer a release print format for projection. He composed them for being cropped to widescreen. He just “preferred” to see them uncropped on TV because it reminded him of classic Academy movies that he loved. But people who worked on his later films all atest to the fact that the camera viewfinders, on-set monitors, and editing room monitors all were marked to show the widescreen framing for theatrical and Kubrick composed with this in mind – he didn’t primarily compose for 4×3 TV and secondarily for theatrical. I asked DP Douglas Milsome of “Full Metal Jacket” what aspect ratio the movie should be projected at and he says 1.66.
…
Kubrick preferred that his flat 35mm movies be left unletterboxed in the 4×3 video versions, unless a camera hard matte appeared, which was OK (hence in the old transfers he approved for laserdisc, the small amount of letterboxing visible in “Barry Lyndon” and “Clockwork Orange”, and the variable mattes in “Dr. Strangelove”) but the truth is that when there was a major restrospective of his work in London a few years before his death, he asked that these movies be projected with a 1.66 projector mask.”
From
http://help.lockergnome.com/movies/Original-AR-Paths-Glory-1957–ftopict32955.html
Now that this is settled, someone tell Vitali to appologise, someone school him on his error and someone tell Warner to re release Barry Lyndon with the correct aspect ratio.
And yet… Actually looking at the BD reveals that the frame boundaries are correct (or, at least, accurate enough). See here:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3975/barrylyndon1.jpg
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/5676/barrylyndon2.jpg
If you mask the 1999 or 2001 DVD transfers to 1.77:1, the soliders’ feet and the top of the mountain are chopped off. Not so here. Therefore the real issue – and it is perhaps an even bigger one!!! – is that, for the BD, the 1.66:1 image appears to have been STRETCHED to fit the 1.78:1 frame!! Either that, or the earlier transfer that Kubrick himself supervised was artificially squeezed – but that doesn’t seem so very likely, does it.
Couldn’t the aspect ratio question be settled by contacting Warner Bros. and having someone look at the print? I’m a projectionist in New York and 90% of the time the intended masking and lens you should use is marked on the head leaders of the reels. It’s quite possible that the print at the distributor has this information indicated on it and that would at least tell us what projectionists are being told to screen the film at.
I have a few issues with the David Mullen quote above that Chevalier provided. First off, it’s a few years old, and was made in regards to Paths of Glory, not this film or this release. However, that’s a minor quibble.
He also cites the Ciment book regarding US theaters being sent 1.66:1 mattes. However, the quote provided from the Ciment book was in regards the theaters in Germany and France being sent mattes, not the US. So Mullen is either mistaken, or there’s another quote from the Ciment book that hasn’t been cited yet.
He also states that Full Metal Jacket should be 1.66:1, when the accepted wisdom is that it was filmed in 1.85:1. I’d like another reference for this assertion.
@Homer J:
The image on the DVDs are slightly cropped on the sides (either accidental, an artifact of earlier transfer methods, or perhaps even done purposefully to reduce the letterboxing). This link shows a comparison of the DVD and Blu-ray images overlaid on each other, and neither is stretched in relation to the other:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311684/a‑few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3816599
@ted:
It’s highly unlikely they used a theatrical print for the transfer for this release. Most likely they used an interpositive, if they didn’t go back and use the original negative. I don’t think these would have the projection notes on them.
Finally, I found an interesting interview with John Alcott regarding the filming of Barry Lyndon. Maddeningly, it doesn’t mention the aspect ratio in it, but it has a lot of otherwise good info, like this choice bit from Alcott:
“In preparation for ‘BARRY LYNDON’ we studied the lighting effects achieved in the paintings of the Dutch masters, but they seemed a bit flat – so we decided to light more from the side.”
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/bl/page1.htm
“First off, it’s a few years old, and was made in regards to Paths of Glory, not this film or this release. However, that’s a minor quibble.”
I’m not sure whether evidence and sources being ‘old’ is a shortcoming, as opposed to a virtue, in relation to a 36-year-old film. Indeed, it’s the more recent pronouncements about the film that are the most suspect.
“He also cites the Ciment book regarding US theaters being sent 1.66:1 mattes. However, the quote provided from the Ciment book was in regards the theaters in Germany and France being sent mattes, not the US. So Mullen is either mistaken, or there’s another quote from the Ciment book that hasn’t been cited yet.”
The onus is on Vitali and Warners to come up with sources and justifications for their false assertions about the film, as it is they who have suddenly come out of nowhere, ignoring all historical context and doocumented knowledge, to make the utterly bizarre claim of a “1.77” ratio (it’s also quite astonishing that Richard Harris has so uncritically accepted their nonsense assertions, while now seeing art entirely in the service of technocracy). It’s also clear that the apologists for the alterations are not interested in all the evidence and sources that refutes their irrational claims; indeed, the more evidence and sources provided the more sources they go on defensively demanding, while providing none themselves, instead making even more absurd claims, the hallmark of myopia and radical denial.
Kubrick appointed two people to check on US cinemas, cinematographer Bob Gaffney for the East Coast and lens expert Ed Di Guilio (he fitted the Zeiss lenses to the Mitchell camera and designed the slow 20:1 zoom lens used throughout the film). This is all in Vincent Lobrutto’s Kubrick biography, also published in 1997.
“He also states that Full Metal Jacket should be 1.66:1, when the accepted wisdom is that it was filmed in 1.85:1. I’d like another reference for this assertion.”
I would recommend you read the paragraph again, as he isn’t making an assertion, and he’s not referring to Full Metal Jacket. He’s referring to Barry Lyndon and Douglas Milsome’s confirmation that the film was shot at 1.66. Milsome is probably the only cameraman still around who is in the best position to know the most about all of this: he was focus puller on Barry Lyndon, later second unit director and focus puller on The Shining, later still DP on Full Metal Jacket, and finally focus advisor on Eyes Wide Shut, the very four films that have all had their aspect ratios altered for the Blu-Ray releases. Shouldn’t someone be interviewing him?
So Vitali is claiming that all these people quoted are wrong but he is right? And about an aspect ratio that didn’t even exist anywhere in 1975 except in his eccentric imaginings. Even the Blu-ray specs are ridiculous: “aspect ratio: 1.77”, “original aspect ratio: 1.85”
Where did they get this from? There is nothing written or published anywhere in the almost 30 years prior to Vitali’s fantasy construction which mentions any 1.85 or 1.77 (or 1.75). Because there wasn’t any such ratio for the film.
“Finally, I found an interesting interview with John Alcott regarding the filming of Barry Lyndon. Maddeningly, it doesn’t mention the aspect ratio in it, but it has a lot of otherwise good info.”
I don’t think there’s anything maddening about it, because there was nothing controversial about aspect ratios when the film was being shot in 1973/1974. It’s only since widescreen TV has grown over the past decade that aspect ratios have become an issue, as more and more older films shot in a theatrical ratio are altered to the 16/9 TV standard.
On the subject of 18th century paintings being used as templates for the films’ compositions, production designer Ken Adam has written, and been interviewed, on the subject. Most of the film’s static shots and zoom-outs are based on such paintings. Even the films’ characters are partly modelled after 18th century portraits. For instance, Barry’s cousin, Nora Brady, was partly based on Fragonard’s “A Young Girl Reading” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Young_Girl_Reading), while the young Viscount Bullingdon loosely resembles Gainsborough’s “The Blue Boy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Boy). And so on.
“Stanley wanted to do it almost like a documentary of the period,” recalled Ken Adam. “We used French painters like Watteau and Italians like Zoffany. We used the Polish artist Chadowiecki for some of the Continental scenes.” To which list can be added Hogarth, Stubbs, Constable, Chardin, Reynolds, and the 18th century “battle artists”.
“The toughest part of Stanley’s day was finding the right first shot. Once he did that other shots fell into place. But he agonized over that first one. Once, when he was really stymied, he began to search through a book of 18th century art reproductions. He found a painting – I don’t remember which one – and posed Marisa and me exactly as if we were in that painting.”—Ryan O’Neill.
A youtube video comparing some shots from the film with circa 18th century paintings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGjBr1q_NKs
Um, I just want to make clear that the person calling himself “Chevalier” is not the same as “The Chevalier,” which I used to post as.
“The image on the DVDs are slightly cropped on the sides (either accidental, an artifact of earlier transfer methods, or perhaps even done purposefully to reduce the letterboxing). This link shows a comparison of the DVD and Blu-ray images overlaid on each other, and neither is stretched in relation to the other:”
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311684/a‑few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3816599
———————
Bilge Ebiri has also posted a comparison between the old 1.66 DVD and the new 1.77 release here:
http://ebiri.blogspot.com/2011/05/oh-i-guess-i-might-as-well-say.html#more
Yeah, thhere’s no horizontal distortion/stretching, but cropping. There’a a few discrepancies, though, that need further examination. Notice that in hometheaterforum’s comparison, there is cropping top and bottom (7 percent ie 1 minus 1.66÷1.77) AND a slight addition to the left and right sides (4 percent), whereas in Bilge’s comparison there is only noticeable cropping top and bottom (the sides by less than 1 percent). This is because two different DVDs are being compared, hometheaterforum’s being from the 1.59 DVD from 2001, Bilge’s from the 1.66 DVD released in the late-1990s.
The reason for the difference between the 1.59 and the 1.66 is due to the former going from full screen 1.37 Academy to 1.33 TV format by chopping the sides, so leading to a 3–4 percent loss/reduction or cropping at the sides, whereas the 1.66 release did not crop the sides (instead adding more black bars/lines across top and bottom), and so retained (almost) the full 1.66 image:
1 – 1.33÷1.37 = (approx) 0.03 or 3 percent.
1 – 1.59÷1.66 = (approx) 0.04 or 4 percent.
So the 1.59 DVD had a ratio of 1.59 because it cropped the full frame negative on the sides by about 4 percent (the move from 1.37 Academy to 1.33 TV).
All this is just further evidence that the original DVDs (and laserdiscs) were all 1.66.
“Um, I just want to make clear that the person calling himself “Chevalier” is not the same as “The Chevalier,” which I used to post as.”
Yes, this is definitely true. On account of the eye patch having been transferred to the other eye.
Chevalier,
In regards to Mullen’s quote, I was more concerned about the focus of the post rather than its age, although I would like to hear what his opinion is of this specific release.
Regarding the sending of 1.66:1 mattes, the Ciment quote provided earlier in the thread does support Mullen’s assertion that 1.66:1 mattes were sent out to theaters, but he was apparently mistaken about the countries that those plates were sent to. Again, a minor quibble, since it really doesn’t matter if plates weren’t sent to the US, but it does suggest he was relying on memory of things he read for that post, instead of direct experience.
Regarding his citing of Douglas Milsome, Mullen uses the inexact pronoun “that movie” to refer to the film Milsome was talking about, which on close re-reading of the post could refer to either Barry Lyndon or Full Metal Jacket. I guess, as Milsome was focus puller for Barry Lyndon, Mullen could’ve meant that film, but as I said, the phrasing used is inexact.
I do agree that asking Douglas Milsome directly for his opinion would be good, since as you point out he worked on the four films WHV has provided with MAR (although I feel Barry Lyndon is the only truly controversial change).
Regarding Vincent Lobrutto’s Kubrick biography, is there mention of aspect ratio in it?
For the interview with John Alcott, I do agree with you that they likely didn’t mention aspect ratio because back then it was a non-issue (excepting for Kubrick enforcing it with theatrical screening “spies”). However, I found it “maddening” because if they had mentioned the aspect ratio, it would’ve been an ace-in-the-hole reference, one from the DP of the film in an interview taken only shortly after the film was made. It would’ve easily trumped any of Vitali’s claims (although the abundance of other supporting information does that as well).
The information about the inspiration and deliberate mimicking of paintings does provide circumstantial evidence for 1.66:1 being the most likely ratio, but it doesn’t confirm it outright. Kubrick could’ve composed these painterly shots in 1.85:1 if he wanted to, but the other evidence suggests he didn’t.
Regarding Bilge Ebri’s comparison pics, I believe he got them from this post in criterionforum. Immediately below it is another post showing comparisons with the LD/’99 DVD, confirming that the earlier DVDs had less info on the sides than the 2001 DVD. Thus, the Blu-ray adds only a sliver to the sides of what was available on the 2001 DVD, while cutting off a significant amount of vertical information from all previous releases.
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=339539
Actually, FWIW, my screenshots came from: 1.) A friend’s DVD of the film (I had since eBayed mine); and: 2.) DVD Beaver’s review of the Blu-Ray, since mine hasn’t arrived yet. Otherwise, as you were, gentlemen…
@JayG and Chavalier: Sorry, but you are incorrect.
Ebiri’s DVD framegrabs (from the 2001 DVD) show a 1.59:1 ratio, not 1.66:1. Meanwhile, the comparisons on HFT have been achieved by STRETCHING the screengrabs from the DVD from 1.59:1 out to 1.67:1 so that they will align with the grab from the BD.
The fact of the matter is that the 1.78:1 ratio on the BD has been achieved through a combination of CROPPING and STRETCHING – the latter being the only way to achieve a 1.78:1 image without destroying the composition.
This PRECISE COMPARISON between the 2001 DVD and the BD should dispel any doubt:
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7264/lynonbdisstretched.jpg
It seems odd that several other people have done screenshot comparison overlays, and none of them mentioned any stretching. The issue of stretching did come up recently on criterionforum, and one person checked the eyes of a baby on the Blu-ray, and found them spherical:
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2712&sid=4c435451517617ac8f044b0e2b29ae20&start=750
However, going back to the comparisons on hometheaterforum, it looks like the 1.78:1 frame actually crawls up and down the 1.66:1 frame, suggesting a vertical P&S transfer for the 1.78:1, which could be the answer to your “soldiers’ feet, mountain’s peak” dilemma: they panned down in the shot of the soldiers to keep from cutting out the feet, while panned up to keep the mountain top in that particular shot.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311684/a‑few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3816599
If this vertical P&S truly happened (as the screenshots suggest it did), then that severely undermines 1.77:1 as an “official” aspect ratio, or even an “acceptable” aspect ratio, since this type of vertical panning and cropping for 1.78:1 should be no more acceptable than the horizontal panning and cropping for 4:3 was.
So, um, how do you guys feel about Kubrick’s mono audio mixes being converted to 5.1 a few years back?…
THE Chevalier,
It’s rather silly, considering the capacity of Blu-ray, that the original mono mixes weren’t also included in a lossless, or even lossy, format for all the Kubrick films that had one. I don’t mind 5.1 remixes being done, but they shouldn’t completely supplant the original mix. If they had room for five foreign language dubs in 5.1 on the Barry Lyndon disc, then they had room for the original English mono.
@JayG: whoever did those other comparisons obviously resized the DVD image to match the BD without thinking too deeply about what they were doing. Whereas the image I have provided is created with mathematical precision – if you take the time to check the aspect ratios, you will see that the DVD is presented precisely at the ratio of 1.597:1 (1.333:1 if you include the black bars), whilst the BD capture holds the precise ratio of 1.778:1.
This means that EITHER the DVD/laserdisc or the BD is distorted – but since Kubrick approved the DVD/laserdisc, we must take that to be correct. To be precise then, for the Blu-Ray, Warner have cropped the film to 1.74:1 and then stretched it to 1.78:1 to fill the frame.
In case it helps, here are the DVD and BD images in separation from each other (overlay and compare yourself for full effect):
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/5607/lyndondvd159.jpg
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8468/lyndonbd174stretch.jpg
Homer J,
Looking back at the comparison made by Oedipax last Friday on criterionforum, the shrunken BD image is 727×413, a ratio of 1.760290556900726, or about a 1% distortion from 1.78:1
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=339195#p339195
Also, looking back at Feego’s comparison post made immediately after Oedipax’s, he mentions that “either the DVD image was vertically stretched or the Blu-ray was vertically squashed”, although he thinks the Blu-ray is the one with the correct proportions:
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=339203#p339203
I don’t think the fact that Kubrick approved the LD/1999 DVD transfer means that it wasn’t stretched. A 1% change is an extremely minor difference. If you compare a perfect circle with one’s who’s width has been shrunk 1%, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference with the naked eye.
As for your comparison, I think there may be an alignment issue, exacerbated by not using more similar screenshots. You could try again using this laserdisc screencap instead, which is closer to the DVDBeaver Blu-ray shot you used:
http://i.imgur.com/ah3VA.jpg
The eyeball appears spherical and unstretched because it is at the centre of the frame. Stretching becomes apparent on the edges of the frame.
I hate to jump into the fray so late, especially since so many people have done so much meticulous research. My Blu-Ray arrived today and…I’m sorry, but it’s just not the movie. Kubrick went into great detail about how he had composed to evoke the framing of contemporary painting, and aside from the fact that information is lost, 1.78 just doesn’t feel right. This is not at all like one of those unresolvable conflicts around a 50s movie in which the DP was composing for varying ratios.
Scary.
Interesting analyses of the horizontal anamorphic distortion. Even more interesting is that all such mathematical precision serves to further confirm the same origonal points:
1. The Blu-Ray release has cropped the original ones (laserdisc and DVD), turning (via cropping top and bottom and via horizontally anamorphic stretching/distortion) a 1.59 (or 8/5) image into a 1.77 (or 16/9) one, so altering the framing of the original compositions, in a film that is a metaphysical meditation on the whole ontological notion of “framing” and “framing-within-framing” itself, the insular versus the cosmic perspectives.
2. The unresolved issue of why the original releases (supervised by Kubrick) were 1.59 (this is an approximation, as some frames are 1.6 or exactly 8/5, some 1.58) rather than the actual theatrical release’s aspect ratio of 1.66, Kubrick’s favoured ratio for Barry Lyndon (to the extent of sending out his assistants – armed with 1.66 masks – to cinemas all over Britain, Continental Europe, and the US, to ensure that they were projecting the film at this framing ratio) and the one he had previously used for A Clockwork Orange, Dr Strangelove (with some 1.37), Lolita, and Paths of Glory:
a. Was the move, the transfer, from 1.66 to 1.59 simply due to the change from the overall 1.37 Academy ratio of the original camera negative to the then TV standard ratio of 1.33, so leading to a small cropping (around 3–4%) at the sides? This would mean or suggest that there has never been any release on home video – VHS, laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray – that replicates the original camera negative aspect of 1.66. Which would be odd, because the 2001 DVD and the latest Blu-Ray release are supposed to be “re-mastered” ie from the original negative or interpositive or print, which should be 1.66, there being no need to crop for the older 1.33 TV ratio.
b. Was the original filming (and therefore the film negative) hard masked in-camera to a 1.66 ratio, or was it open matte? In other words, did Kubrick take a different approach to that of his later ones (with TS, FMJ, and EWS) of composing for one ratio – 1.85 for those last 3 films, 1.66 for BL and ACO – while protecting the full, exposed 1.37 camera negative? We know that in the case of the latter three films the original home video releases have much more headroom and “feetroom” than the theatrical (or Blu-ray) releases because they’re the full original camera negative of 1.37 (cropped on the sides to 1.33), but we don’t see this for Barry Lyndon (or ACO), because the latter was transferred (by Kubrick, it should be noted), not “full frame” but at the 1.66 frame (with cropping on the sides to 1.59 due to the 1.33 TV format).
c. Was the original ‘ideal’ frame actually 1.6 (8÷5, 16/10), rounding 1.59 and 1.58? I don’t think this – as some speculate – has anything to do with classical 18th century frame ratios, because, as indicated earlier, there was no standardized ratio then, but a wide range of ratios for the three most popular types of frame – portrait, landscape, and marine. For instance, Kubrick partly based the characters of Nora Brady and young Viscount Bullingdon on Fragonard’s portrait of “A Young Girl Reading” and Gainsborough’s “Blue Boy”, but both of these paintings, being portraits, have ratios of less that one (height greater than width), the former about 0.8:1 the latter about 0.6:1. And, of course, the point of all those slow zoom-outs was to move from close frozen-in-time portraits to larger “landscape” perspective and ultimately the cosmic “marine”, ultimately conveying that the characters are trapped, locked, or overwhelmed by their wider physical and social environment, mannequins in someone else’s ritualized desire-space.
d. None of these question are likely to be answered either by Leon Vitali (with his bizarre, libidinal fetish about “1.77”) or Warners or the Kubrick Estate, but instead by those without vested interests who would actually know: focus puller Douglas Milsome (who later worked on all three of Kubrick’s later films), the evidence in all those boxes in the Kubrick Archive, and the Storyboards (drawn by film artist Ivor Beddoes) that are in the possession of Kubrick’s daughter, Katharina, among a couple of other possible sources.
I think it’s Lee Harvey Oswald’s fault.
Well, you have to hand it to Warner for f***ing one of the most beautiful films ever made. I’ll stick with the remastered DVD until the next re-release.
I don’t mean to troll for links, but this aspect ratio debate got me thinking a bit about the issue in more, um, holistic terms, and I offered up a couple of thoughts here:
http://ebiri.blogspot.com/2011/05/two-final-thoughts-on-aspect-ratios.html
That said, my Blu-ray of BL finally arrived yesterday, and, while it’s quite lovely, I have to partially agree with Kent Jones that something definitely seems to be missing.
Thanks, Bilge, and I don’t consider this trolling. It’s funny…after all the argument and the research and all that, I wound up being most compelled by Kent’s intuition in a way. I haven’t experience “Lyndon” that often theatrically, but it’s true that this Blu-ray FEELS…different. It’s a beautiful image, though, undeniably.
I’ve got e‑mails on this issue out to other sources I won’t name, but I’m awaiting responses. Am I some kind of masochist or something?
The following section from an article on aspect ratios explains both HOW and WHY the 1.77 or 16/9 HDTV aspect ratio originated, becoming an established standard for TV in the mid-1980s. The article also includes a graphical representation (on Pg. 8 of the pdf file) that clearly illustrates how the TV 16/9 ratio relates to all the main film ratios (1.33÷1.37, 1.66, 1.85, 2.20, and 2.35:
“The most prevalent aspect ratios filmmakers deal with today are: 1.33 (The Academy standard aspect ratio), 1.67 (The European widescreen aspect ratio), 1.85 (The American widescreen aspect ratio), 2.20 (Panavision), and 2.35 (CinemaScope). Attentive videophiles may note that 1.77 (16:9) isn’t on this list and may ask: “If 16:9 isn’t a film format, then just exactly where did this ratio come from”. The answer to this question is: “Kerns Powers”.
The story begins in the early 1980s when the issue of high definition video as a replacement for film in movie theaters first began to arise. During this time, the Society Of Motion Picture And Television Engineers (SMPTE) formed a committee, the Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production, to look into standards for this emerging technology. Kerns H. Powers was then research manager for the Television Communications Division at the David Sarnoff Research Center. As a prominent member of the television industry, he was asked to join the working group, and immediately became embroiled in the issue of aspect ratios and HDTV. The problem was simple to define. The film community for decades has been used to the flexibility of many aspect ratios, but the television community had just one. Obviously a compromise was needed.
As the story goes, using a pencil and a piece of paper, Powers drew the rectangles of all the popular film aspect ratios (each normalized for equal area) and dropped them on top of each other. When he finished, he discovered an amazing thing. Not only did all the rectangles fall within a 1.77 shape, the edges of all the rectangles also fell outside an inner rectangle which also had a 1.77 shape. Powers realized that he had the makings of a “Shoot and Protect” scheme that with the proper masks would permit motion pictures to be released in any aspect ratio. In 1984, this concept was unanimously accepted by the SMPTE working group and soon became the standard for HDTV production worldwide.
Ironically, it should be noted, the High-Definition Electronic Production Committee wasn’t looking for a display aspect ratio for HDTV monitors, but that’s what the 16:9 ratio is used for today. “It was about the electronic production of movies,” Kerns Powers states, “that’s where the emphasis was”. Interestingly, today, there is little talk today about the extinction of film as a motion picture technology, but there is a lot of talk about delivering HDTV into the home. And, as a testament to Kern H. Powers clever solution, it’s all going to be on monitors with a 16:9 aspect ratio.”
From http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf
Kubrick’s second and third feature films, Killer’s Kiss and The Killing, are being released on Blu-Ray by Criterion in August of this year, but not in the 1.77 HDTV ratio, as has occurred with Warners Barry Lyndon Blu-Ray, but in the original film 1.66 ratio. Many forget that 1.66 became the dominant film ratio everywhere from around 1953 onwards. In the US it was gradually replaced, beginning in the 1960s, by 1.85 until this latter ratio became the dominant one by the late-1970s, whereas in other countries, especially Continental Europe, the 1.66 ratio remained. Britain, wanting to differentiate itself from both the American and European standards, experimented with an “in-between” ratio of 1.75 in the 1960s and 1970s, producing a number of British films in that ratio, but then largely abandoned it, partly as a result of the collapse of the British film industry in the 1970s, from which it has never really recovered. The 1.75 ratio also existed briefly in the early 1950s, when there was a sudden multiplicity of ratios (all different and more “widescreen” than the then standard 1.37 Academy ratio), introduced by the Hollywood studios in competitive response to the introduction of colour television in 1953, but this 1.75 was an anamorphic ratio just like the Cinemascope 2.35 ratio.
So, we have the very unusual situation where all of Kubrick’s earlier films (exception being Fear and Desire, which has never been released on video) have or are being released on Blu-Ray in their original theatrical ratios while his later, last four, films have been released in the non-film HDTV 16/9 ratio:
Killer’s Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Lolita, Dr Strangelove, and A Clockwork Orange are all being released in Bluray at 1.66 theatrical ratio.
Spartacus released in theatrical (35mm Cinemascope anamorphic) 2.35 ratio.
2001 released in theatrical (65mm Super Panavision) 2.20 ratio.
Barry Lyndon (theatrical: 1.66), The Shining (1.85 and 1.66), Full Metal Jacket (1.85 and 1.66), and Eyes Wide Shut (1.85 and 1.66) released in Bluray at HDTV 16/9 or 1.77 ratio, so abandoning the original film framings.
With all the disc space on a Blu-ray (50 GBs), would it not be possible to have a menu of (undistorted) viewing options, full frame 1.37, 1.66, 1.85, etc, and HDTV 16/9? Similarly for sound, as all of Kubrick’s films are mono (bar 2001’s 6‑track sound; Kubrick even insisted that the restored 1990s version of Spartacus be changed from its original 6‑track to mono).
Quote: “Many forget that 1.66 became the dominant film ratio everywhere from around 1953 onwards. In the US it was gradually replaced, beginning in the 1960s, by 1.85 until this latter ratio became the dominant one by the late-1970s, whereas in other countries, especially Continental Europe, the 1.66 ratio remained.”
Answer – The 1.85 ratio was a *very* common US format for non-CinemaScope widescreen, beginning with films shot starting around April/May 1953. Some studios favored 1.85 (Columbia, Universal – who also used 2:1 on many productions), others favored 1.75 (Warner, Disney, MGM), others favored 1.66 (United Artists, independents). By 1956, however, 1.85 was pretty much the industry-wide standard for non-‘scope in Hollywood (except Disney, who stuck with 1.75 well into the late 60’s). Euro productions were all over the place – the leaders on 35mm prints of A Hard Day’s Night say “Run at 1.75:1”.
————-
Quote: “The most prevalent aspect ratios filmmakers deal with today are: 1.33 (The Academy standard aspect ratio), 1.67 (The European widescreen aspect ratio), 1.85 (The American widescreen aspect ratio), 2.20 (Panavision), and 2.35 (CinemaScope).”
Answer – Academy standard is 1.37:1, 1.66 is European (not 1.67), 2.20 is SuperPanavision only (65mm neg/70mm print) not Panavision, and CinemaScope/Panavision has been 2.39÷2.40 since mid-1970’s.
————–
Quote: “Kubrick even insisted that the restored 1990s version of Spartacus be changed from its original 6‑track to mono)”
Answer – This is wildly incorrect. The 1990’s restored prints of Spartacus were in 6‑track stereo (70mm) and matrixed Dolby Stereo (35mm). No mono 35mm or 70mm prints were struck from that restoration…and I’ve handled enough of them to know. No video release on any format of that restoration was presented in mono, either.
I am going to watch the blu-ray with my husband who has never seen it, and see what his take on the “feel” of it is. My peek at it told me that it did not “feel” right either. But an interesting question is raised. My first and subsequent viewings of BARRY LYNDON were a) at a different aspect ratio and b) resulted in my adoring the film (I remember watching it consecutive days at the Cinema Village before the house was divided up). Since this new aspect ratio does not match the old one, is part of what makes the image seem off this dissonance with my memory of a powerful aesthetic experience. What if an uninitiated viewer has a powerful experience at 1:77 – would a subsequent 1:66 viewing feel off to her?
Well Brian, take any screenshot from the old DVDs and compare it with a screenshot of the same moment from the Bluray and its clear the new image, compositionally, looks less stark and too conventional.
Quote: “The most prevalent aspect ratios filmmakers deal with today are: 1.33 (The Academy standard aspect ratio), 1.67 (The European widescreen aspect ratio), 1.85 (The American widescreen aspect ratio), 2.20 (Panavision), and 2.35 (CinemaScope).”
“Answer – Academy standard is 1.37:1, 1.66 is European (not 1.67), 2.20 is SuperPanavision only (65mm neg/70mm print) not Panavision, and CinemaScope/Panavision has been 2.39÷2.40 since mid-1970’s.”
A lot of nit-picking and – ultimately – non sequiturs in your response, Pete. The quoted article was pointing out that the 16/9 screen ratio was originally proposed, not as a TV format, but as a way of enabling the electronic screening or projection of films in any aspect ratio. To facilitate film in all its aspect ratios. But this has since been turned upside down, films having increasingly to conform – or be altered, as with BL, TS, FMJ, and EWS – to the TV 16/9 screen standard. As well as proving that the 1.77 TV ratio never existed as a film ratio, and didn’t even exist as a TV ratio when Barry Lyndon was released, demonstrating further that Vitali and Warners and the Kubrick Estate (Harlan) and Taschen (Alison Castle) are – for reasons both structural and ideological – completely clueless.
But yes, Pete. Your quote is from the article I was quoting, which is using the original (silent film) ratio of 1.33, as this was the one that led to television and CRT TVs being at that ratio when TV was first introduced. Whereas the film ratio was altered to 1.37 after optical sound was introduced.
1.67 is 5/3 or 1.66666666 rounded up (1.66 rounded down), in the same way as 1.78 is 16/9 or 1.77777777 rounded up (1.77 rounded down).
And Pete, I stated that 1.66 was the DOMINANT ratio (ie most films were shot that way; I’m not just referring to the small number of big-budget Hollywood blockbuster A‑movies, or some Disney cartoons), not the ONLY ratio in the 1950/1960s, as indeed it was. (BTW, “A Hard Day’s Night” was a British film of the 1960s and so was shot at 1.75. Continental European productions were not “all over the place”, as most were 1.66, as already stated).
The terms “Panavision” and “Cinemascope” were being used GENERICALLY, not as specific brand names to which, obviously, a range of technical variations, processes, and ratios are attached.
————–
Quote: “Kubrick even insisted that the restored 1990s version of Spartacus be changed from its original 6‑track to mono)”
“Answer – This is wildly incorrect. The 1990’s restored prints of Spartacus were in 6‑track stereo (70mm) and matrixed Dolby Stereo (35mm). No mono 35mm or 70mm prints were struck from that restoration…and I’ve handled enough of them to know. No video release on any format of that restoration was presented in mono, either.”
Nah, it’s ‘wildly’ accurate. Kubrick DID insist on changing the sound to mono (and much of it was actually mono originally). That he didn’t get his way entirely on all aspects of the restoration is an entirely different matter. I think, like many of those unaware that Barry Lyndon was released at 1.66, that you are not familiar with, or underestimate, the extreme lengths to which Kubrick went in order to fully oversee ALL aspects of his film projects.*
Although some of the digital video releases say Dolby Digital 5.1, it’s really 4.0 (mono surround), faithful to the original sound mix (which was actually 4‑track), while others state “Dolby Digital Mono”, “English Digital Mono” and “French Digital Mono”. Even Alex North’s full soundscore on CDs is mono.
Strictly speaking, the film was shot in Technirama, which involved 35mm running sideways (as with VistaVision) while using an anamorphic lens, producing a 2.35 35mm Scope prints or 2.2: 70mm prints (known as Super Technirama 70). Because a larger area of the negative is used than standard 35mm, picture quality is higher, though much less than a 65mm negative. The the DVD transfer is in 2.35:1, as earlier stated.
But returning
*KUBRICK:“There is suck a total sense of demoralization if you say you don’t care. From start to finish on a fil, the only limitations I observe are those imposed on me by the amount of money I have to spend and the amount of sleep I need. You either care or you don’t and I simply don’t know where to draw the line between those two points.”
ED DI GUILIO:” … His was the meticulous concern he had for each step of the production process right up to screening. He is really a mmaster of detail and concern for his art”.
GAY HAMILTON: “He was in touch with everything. He had advisors around him, but they had to finally show it to him and have it passed by him. There was no question that he had his finger on every single aspect of moviemaking.”
JACK NICHOLSON: “Stanley’s good on sound, so are a lot of directors, but Stanley’s good on designing a new harness. Stanley’s good on the color of the mike, Stanley’s good about the merchant he bought the mike from. Stanley’s good about the merchant’s daughter who nees some dental work.”
Oops, a slight misquote above. To discourage the nit-pickers from further bouts of hysterical giggling, the Kubrick quote should begin “There is such a total sense …”, and not “There is suck a total sense …”. And the quote should have been in mono at 1.66, not stereo at 1.77.
Chevalier,
Regarding aspect ratios, 1.33 was the silent film ratio, true, but 1.37:1 is the only called the Academy Ratio, so the quoted article was incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio
Regarding 1.66:1, mathmatically speaking it would be better to round up 1.66-repeating to 1.67:1, but 1.66:1 is far more common a term. For example, Lolita, Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove all have their ratio referred to as 1.66:1, not 1.67:1. It’s similar to how 1.37:1 is really 1.375:1, but shortened (and rounded down) to 1.37:1.
Regarding 1.85:1, I think we’re in agreement that it became the dominant format in the US, the disagreement being in how quickly it did. However, considering that low budget features like Ed Wood’s Plan Nine From Outer Space was filmed for 1.85:1 in 1959, it seems like Pete’s answer of 1.85:1 being nearly standard in the US by 1956 is most probably correct. At the least, it’s clear that 1.85:1 during this time wasn’t limited to just big budget films.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Outer_Space#Production
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052077/technical
In regards to Spartacus in mono, do we really want to start an argument about that on this blog post? However, I don’t think Pete was challenging the amount of supervision Kubrick performed on his films, but was rather challenging the assertion that Kubrick really changed the audio to mono in 1990.
@JayG: compared to the laserdisc too. The laserdisc is actually marginally thinner than the DVD. It has a ratio of 1.57:1. But it is the BD which looks massively stretched in comparison to the other two.
Regarding Spartacus audio, I found this article, written by the Universal Pictures Press Department in 1991 for the restoration:
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2009/spartacus/index.htm
“The original mix for “Spartacus” had been done in 6‑track discreet. This means that different sound would come from each of the five speakers behind the huge screens used in theatres in the early ’60s. This was well before the start of the age of the “plexes.” The sixth channel was for effects. The original six-track magnetic master had survived well in Universal’s vaults. The quality was superb. Unlike today’s mixes, in which most dialogue is recorded in the center channel of a stereo mix, the dialogue in “Spartacus” moves with the character from the far left to far right across the screen. When a shot changes angle, the sound reverses with the picture. ”
DVDBeaver has specs for the previous US DVD releases of the film, and all had either 5.1 surround, or a “dolby surround” track, but no mono:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/_dvd/00000036.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/spartacus.htm
IMDB lists laserdisc specs, and all the releases had at least a stereo mix. The 1991 Criterion had a mono mix on the analog left channel, but this looks to have been done to fit the commentary track on the analog right channel:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/laserdisc
Regarding the soundtrack, the release notes say that it was “made from surviving mono and stereo tape sources”, so the composition of the soundtrack is more a limitation of source material than a specific aesthetic choice.
http://www.allmusic.com/album/spartacus-complete-original-film-music-r1206924
A box-set release of the soundtrack has one disc of the stereo mixes of the soundtrack:
http://theseconddisc.com/2010/06/28/it-is-spartacus/
@Homer J: Saying the BD is “massively stretched” is a gross overstatement. There is some minimal stretching, but it’s still not clear which presentation is stretched. If you can provide scans of the images from the books, and from the laserdisc, and provide overlays, then maybe it could become clearer. For now, it just sounds like you’re biased against the BD.
Jay G. – Thank you for above posts. I saw Chevalier’s response to me this morning but wasn’t able to respond at that point. I have nothing to add to your posts as they confirm what I know of the point being raised re: Spartacus (and 1950’s aspect ratios in Hollywood).
Jay, you appear to have succumbed to Pete’s trap/agenda of completely deflecting from the main topic – that 1.77 or 16/9 is not a film ratio, and never was a film ratio, and was not even invented as a TV ratio – and undermining the credibility of the article I was quoting from by cynically resorting to a delirial and irrelevant pedantry. For instance:
“Regarding aspect ratios, 1.33 was the silent film ratio, true, but 1.37:1 is the only called the Academy Ratio, so the quoted article was incorrect.”
Everyone already KNOWS this. In practice both 1.33 and 1.37 are routinely used interchangeably. And 1.33 (properly called 4/3) was the standard (“academy”) ratio for some forty years throughout the silent era, from 1893 to 1932. You’re just splitting hairs here.
“Regarding 1.66:1, mathmatically speaking it would be better to round up 1.66-repeating to 1.67:1, but 1.66:1 is far more common a term.”
Not at all, as 1.66 and 1.67 are also both used interchangeably (the proper ratio is again an interger fraction, 5/3), just as, in relation to 16/9, 1.77 and 1.78 are both used (though Vitali doesn’t seem to realize this, judging from his remarks quoted earlier). Really, this is all ludicrous. You can’t bring yourself to address the central issue.
“Regarding 1.85:1, I think we’re in agreement that it became the dominant format in the US, the disagreement being in how quickly it did.”
You’re turning around what I actually said. I was arguing that 1.66 became the dominant format in the 1950s, with 1.85 only supplanting it much later. But it too is now being supplanted, first on digital video, by the TV 16/9 format as the dominant one, as we see with what’s happened to Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut.
“In regards to Spartacus in mono, do we really want to start an argument about that on this blog post?”
Certainly not. Which, funnily enough, raises the question of why Pete and yourself are doing so.
“However, I don’t think Pete was challenging the amount of supervision Kubrick performed on his films, but was rather challenging the assertion that Kubrick really changed the audio to mono in 1990.”
He misconstrued what was being stated.
And, again, the 35mm anamorphic release (the one most people see or saw, not the showcase 70mm 6‑track transfer/blowup) WAS IN MONO. Technirama 35mm was Analogue monaural optical and/or 4‑track magnetic.
Most people also only saw the 35mm anamorphic reduced print of [i]2001[/i]‘s 70mm 6‑track Super Panavision showcase print. This 35mm print was also mono (mixed from the 6‑track stereo).
But I think, by now, I’ve said quite enough at this particular venue. Those who continue to accept Vitali’s/Warners spin really have given themselves over to an absurd technology fetish, as though technology – however stupid it might be – is the only cultural value they have, that remains for them. Because it isn’t something as trivial as aspect ratios here, isn’t merely about them, or even that digital video inherently and completely destroys the original analogue films (banalizing and desublimating the images, sanitizing them into an anti-expressionistic flatness and a bland, depthless, pseudo-simulation), it’s about something much more serious …
Regarding Spartacus surround, again,
Thinking about the 6‑track process, maybe what Chevalier was thinking about was how, since the original 6 track had 5 front channels and 1 surround, modern 5.1 surround is missing two of these front channels (left-center and right-center), and thus only 4 tracks from the early 6 track format would match up with what’s used for 5.1 mixes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Stereo#Dolby_Stereo_70_mm_Six_Track
However, I would think that the 5.1 mix didn’t use just those 4 tracks, but instead remixed all 6 tracks into the 5.1 arrangement, or possibly 4.0 arrangement, since you wouldn’t want to just omit the audio from those two extra center tracks.
So yeah. I’m watching the Blu-ray now. To my eye 1.66 seems more correct, but again that’s because I’m use to watching it at 1.66. That said, it is a gorgeous transfer. And the Blu-ray collection is nicely packaged. So yeah, not perfect, but I’ll live.
Jay G. – Yes, when re-mixing a 70mm film that was in Todd-AO sound format (5 up front, 1 surround) into modern 5.1 (3 up front, 2 surround, 1 subwoofer), assuming they have the 6 track in usable condition, they basically take the LC and RC tracks and just fold them into the L‑C-R. Many times the surround would still be mono, but split into 2 channels for ease of playback. They will then direct whatever low bass into the .1 channel, but it’s also usually present in the main channels as well. I’ve played a number of them theatrically and they generally sound very good.
They can, and have, done full remixes of some of these films, sometimes taking out the directional dialog (and creating stereo surrounds). Which is, I think, a shame as the directional dialog really works with a well set up home (and theatrical) system.
Chevalier – How did I misconstrue your statement: “Kubrick even insisted that the restored 1990s version of Spartacus be changed from its original 6‑track to mono”. Your implication is that it *was* then released in mono (if that was not your implication, perhaps you should have used the word “wanted” instead of “insisted”). As I stated above, there were no mono prints struck for that theatrical re-release (nor any mono prints struck since then) of Spartacus. Yes, the original release prints of “Spartacus” came in both stereo (70mm & 35mm) and mono (35mm). As did “2001” (stereo in 70mm & 35mm, mono in 35mm). And I’m sure Kubrick participated in the mono sound mixes as he did with the stereo mixes. I do wish WB had kept the mono mixes on the Blu-ray’s of the films they re-mixed to 5.1, I think that was a mistake on their part.
Chevalier,
I think the reason Pete and I have been “deflecting” away from the “1.77:1 is a TV format” discussion is that, at least on my part, I’ve considered it a done argument for a while now. Nobody really considered 1.77:1 as a likely aspect ratio for Barry Lyndon since Vitali was revealed as the source for the Stanley Kubrick Archive book, and the best defense that Robert A .Harris can provide for Vitali is claiming that Vitali misspoke (which, considering the book and earlier interview soundbite, is unlikely).
Even 1.75:1 as a likely intended aspect ratio has been discounted, as the evidence for 1.66:1 is overwhelming. See my post on HTF compiling it:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311684/a‑few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray/60#post_3817051
So since those issues have been settled, and not in contention by anyone on this thread, the only thing left is to “nitpick” at the inaccuracies in your posts.
Such as: while 1.33:1 was indeed the standard format until sound came along, that wasn’t a formal standard set by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, hence it’s not the “Academy Ratio”. AMPAS had to step in after sound was added since each studio/theater initially had different methods for dealing with the aspect ratio change this entailed, hence the name of the ratio they standardized. I feel I must again refer you to the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio
Regarding your statement that “1.66 and 1.67 are also both used interchangeably”, I feel that this is NOT true, at least as far as movies go. I have never seen 1.67 referred to before this thread. The comparison to 1.77:1 and 1.78:1 isn’t the same, since that’s a newer ratio, and a standard usage hasn’t really been established. I should point out that I don’t think that using 1.67 is, strictly speaking, wrong, but it’s unnecessarily confusing, since contrary to your claims, not everyone knows everything about aspect ratios.
Regarding your statement “You’re turning around what I actually said. I was arguing that 1.66 became the dominant format in the 1950s, with 1.85 only supplanting it much later.” Again, this is the point of contention. You claim 1.85:1 supplanted 1.66:1 “much later,” while Pete claims that, at least in the US, 1.85:1 had surpassed 1.66:1 as the dominant format by 1956. I think Pete’s closer to the truth in this regard.
Pete already answered that your statements that “Kubrick even insisted that the restored 1990s version of Spartacus be changed from its original 6‑track to mono,” and later “Kubrick DID insist on changing the sound to mono,” is what was being contested by him in his original response. Nobody’s disagreeing that mono mixes originally existed in parallel with the original 6‑track mix. What was in contention was whether Kubrick wanted to revert the 1990 restoration and/or later video releases to the mono track.
As for me, I was contesting your claim that the “original sound mix… was actually 4‑track”, as well as your claims about the video releases being mono, and finally you stating “Even Alex North’s full soundscore on CDs is mono” as evidence for mono being preferred. The original 70mm sound mix was 6‑track, the video releases have all had at least stereo mixes included, if not surround, and a stereo version of the soundscore on CD exists.
It’s fine if you want to continue arguing for artistic integrity in video releases of Kubrick’s films, but please, be accurate. The more you try and defend the mistakes that you or people you quote make, the more your undermine your own credibility.
Has Warner even spoken about this fiasco? Or are they waiting for it to blow over.
Vitali’s comments were at a Warner Home Video press junket for this release, so I think they’re deferring to Vitali and/or the Kubrick Estate for aspect ratio information. However, I don’t think anyone from WHV has specifically commented on it.
You know what bugs me about the blu-ray more than this or that aspect ratio? The opening of Sarabande playing over the new Warner Logo instead of the proper old red one.
It seems like a small deal, but I grew up with the film a certain way (the aspect ratio I saw it in varied depending on the format) and now it’s different. I still love the new blu, but I wish Warners had maintained the original logo.