I admit that my comportment during the recent online debate concerning the aspect ratio of Stanley Kubrick’s 1975 Barry Lyndon and its new Blu-ray version was not always entirely pleasant or reasonable, or that it yielded entirely reliable findings. This is the sort of thing that can happen when one allows one’s (entirely understandable, I’d say) desire to tweak Jeff Wells to override concerns of etiquette and/or common sense. I did try to employ due diligence in my research and turned up some documentation supporting a 1.77 or so aspect ratio, and I did ask for other citations that would demonstrate otherwise.
And now I have a document that should clear up quite a bit with respect to Kubrick’s desires and intentions: a letter to projectionists signed by Kubrick. It came to me through the courtesy and kindness of screenwriter and critic Jay Cocks, who writes: “I knew Stanley pretty well for a while, but at the time of the Time Barry Lyndon cover I was in LA beginning preliminary work on Gangs of New York. So I had no hand in the Time cover, but still managed to let Stanley know how great I thought the movie was. He replied with his usual gracious, funny note and enclosed this letter, because he thought I’d be interested. Bet you will be too.”
Indeed. I thank Mr. Cocks. And I reproduce the letter below.
I shared this document with a representative of Warner Home Video, who responded, “We stand firmly that we are 100% in compliance with Mr. Kubrick’s wishes and edict” and that “the letter from Kubrick to projectionists was the reference for our 1.78 aspect ratio call.”
UPDATE: Playing Hardcastle to my McCormick, Jeff Wells tracks down Kubrick aide de camp Leon Vitali and receives a detailed response that’s well worth reading; check it out here. Nice work, Jeff.
Wooooow. In other words, the Orwell’s 1984 “How many fingers am I holding up?” Warners are EVIL.
Nice work, GK. (I wonder how Wells will try to negate this.)
Fingerprint analysis? Graphology?
BOMBSHELL. Does this mean there’s a bunch of egg all over Leon Vitali’s face?
And correct me if I’m wrong, and apologies if this is a *dumb question*, but wouldn’t item #2 make more sense if it read “please be sure you project it at this ratio, and in no event at MORE than 1−1.75”? He’s saying under no circumstances should BL be projected in a ratio wider than 1.75, right?
I think I had mentioned in one of our conversations that I would love to see some primary source materials regarding the original aspect ratio. Well, this is it…and from the man himself. Interesting that it does allow for projection up to 1.75, so the Blu-ray gets a “Close, but no cigar” for fidelity to his original theatrical intentions.
I haven’t even made the jump to Blu-ray yet, but I sure want me some ‘Barry Lyndon’-headed notepaper.
Graig – yes, if I got that letter (and I’ve received/read a few similar letters as a projectionist) I would take it to say to run the film at 1.66:1 (preferred) up to 1.75:1 (acceptable), but no wider.
That’s obviously a forgery! Has nobody here seen this movie with John Malkovich? How quickly people forget.
Anyway. Thanks for all this, even if it is slightly depressing news. Maybe WHV will reissue it at some point? Looks like they at least tried to get it right, too, unlike Fox with that faulty French Connection blus.
Where’s the long-form letter?
Am I nuts here, or how can the claim “the letter from Kubrick to projectionists was the reference for our 1.78 aspect ratio call” make any sense at all (assuming they are referring to the same letter)?
Can you imagine being some Filipino kid working at the AMC in the Valley and getting that letter? It’s kind of hard not to laugh at the pomposity…
Also there’s so little difference between 1.66 and 1.77, this is such a mountain out of a molehill. Not like it was shot in Panavision and presented in 1.33. Anything in the 1.66−1.85 ratio is close enough that it’s all one big who-gives-a-shit and might as well be opened to 1.33 for TV, because the letterbox bars are so razor-thin it’s just annoying.
Plus all of the world knows that 2.35:1 is the best aspect ratio ever, and anything shot narrower is LAZY and HACKY.
>I wonder how Wells will try to negate this.
Why would he need to? Doesn’t this letter support his point of view?
>Plus all of the world knows that 2.35:1 is the best aspect ratio ever, and anything shot narrower is LAZY and HACKY.
Yeah, total hackwork, that Citizen Kane… oh wait, I should write more words in all-caps, THAT WILL MAKE IT TRUE!
Can we say “Anal Retentive” boys and girls?
Vilmos Zsigmond is also on record as saying that 2.35:1 is a superior cinematic ratio, but he has the advantage of being avuncular, intelligent and not a TOTAL FUCKING ASSHOLE.
It’d all be worth it if, just for once, Warner Brothers put out a statement that said, “WE JUST DON’T CARE.” They’ve contradicted themselves so many times over the past 10+ years in what “Stanley’s intentions” were that it all seems very, very obvious.
“The letter that said ‘it should be 1.66, but absolutely no wider than 1.75’ is why it’s in 1.78!” Wha–?
I realize I’m not contributing anything new to the conversation, but I’m expressing my incredulity anyway.
Of course it’s the best ratio. Don’t you get UNDERWHELMED when you go into the theater and the screen is that small, boxy shape? It shows a lack of effort, versus shooting in widescreen.
Yeah, yeah, you guys can throw “What about Godfather and Clockwork Orange and Annie Hall” and whatnot at me all day long, but think of Nashville or John Carpenter or There Will be Blood or Fincher or Easy Rider or Close Encounters, Jaws, Deer Hunter, Heaven’s Gate, Lawrence of Arabia, Tetro, Road Warrior, Once Upon a Time in The West, and ten zillion other movies that used 2.35:1 so beautifully, the RECTANGLE shape functioning as a canvas to create depth and scope and width and distance and poetry and beauty…
Versus a SQUARE BOX.
Easy Rider? Nope.
Mr. Ehrenstein: I don’t think it’s anal retentive, no; the allowable 1.75 versus the BluRay’s 1.78 might be as negligable as 1.33 to 1.37, but pace Mr. Lex, 1.66 versus 1.78 is a sizable enough difference to matter.
Gee, what Mike Nichols movies were more visually distinctive:
The Graduate and Catch-22…
…or Heartburn and Silkwood.
1.85 is the Hackspect ratio.
Lex:G is the ASSHOLE ratio.
Lex– disregarding what’s in the frame, I think 2.35 is a more pleasing aspect ratio than 1.66, 1.85, 1.78, maybe even 1.37. But that’s just it. As Martin Scorsese is fond of saying, and our host is fond of quoting, cinema is a matter of what’s in the frame and what’s out; so saying that films made with one aspect ratio are inherently better than films made with another aspect ratio is pretty ridiculous.
And there are times when I see a film shot in 2.35, and I’m all like, seriously, THE HOUSE BUNNY, that needed to be in 2.35? It works well for some things, not so well for others.
When Kubrick used the term “no less than…” I think he means “less” in terms of the cropping/loss of the image as it goes wider. So in that way it makes sense.
Lex, must you recycle the same jokes on multiple blogs, especially when the guys who run them read each other’s work on a daily basis? The Filipino kid thing wasn’t even funny the first time, as i highly doubt you’d see one in a projection booth back in 1975. Or maybe I’m not giving the progressiveness of California’s projectionist’s union enough credit.
I have to agree with Graig that Vitali ends up looking a lot worse than GK. But Hauser Tann still wins the thread.
“And correct me if I’m wrong, and apologies if this is a *dumb question*, but wouldn’t item #2 make more sense if it read “please be sure you project it at this ratio, and in no event at MORE than 1−1.75”? He’s saying under no circumstances should BL be projected in a ratio wider than 1.75, right?”
He’s stating the ratio in the opposite direction of how we normally see it today. 1:1.66 = 0.60, and 1:1.75 = 0.57. He didn’t want it less than 0.57. 1:1.78 = 0.56.
So Warners is taking the letter to mean that the allowed aspect ratio is anywhere in the range of 1.66 to 1.75, and that 1.78 is not negligibly different than 1.75, and they therefore take the position that they are in the clear.
In other news, please stop feeding the Lex troll.
@JBS: Normally, I wouldn’t have indulged, but I took his 3:17 comment to be passionately and legitimately argued. It might be _wrong_– and I think it is– but I thought it was in this instance worth engaging. (His post at 2:54, maybe not so much.)
@Gordon:
As I recall, Wells’ argument this whole time is 1.66 is the only acceptable ratio in which to see BL. Here M. Kubrick is giving projectionists up to 1.75– which, let’s be real is basically the same diff. (See also: 2.35 which isn’t really 2.35– it’s 2.39 or 2.40.)
My bigger point: Wells is an insufferable blowhard trying his hardest to get pageviews. (See also: his recent post wherein he argued that MGM’s non-anamorphic KISS ME DEADLY DVD from 2000 is visually superior to Criterion’s 2011 Blu.)
Thanks for the letter–it was fascinating to read!
I think WHV’s “transgression” is overblown. Yes, the *preferred* aspect ratio for BL is 1.66:1, and Warner could have (should have?) presented the film that way. Even so, the difference between 1.78:1 and the Kubrick’s maximum recommended aspect ratio of 1.75:1 is so miniscule that it’s not worth worrying about. I guess I’m with JBS on this point.
BL was an open matte film, and the cinematographer very likely *protected* the image for 1.85:1 on the assumption that many theaters would project it that way regardless of Mr. Kubrick’s instructions. Does anyone have access to Kubrick’s actual written instructions to Alcott? that might help shed some light on things.
Anyway, you have to keep in mind that in projection a certain amount of the image often gets cropped by the screen masking, even beyond what is cropped by the aperture plates. How many times have you all seen films in the theater with minor or major masking/aspect ratio problems? There is always a certain fudge factor involved in real-life projection scenarios, and cinematographers have to plan for that when they frame a shot.
The difference between 1:33:1 (TV) and 1.85:1 (standard widescreen) is pretty big, but that’s the kind of thing cinematographers actually have to account for when they shoot a film. The difference between 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 is small change in the grand scheme. Let’s keep a sense of perspective here.
He clearly strongly prefers the 1.66 ratio. Why Warners went against his strong presence–the way he visualized the film–is a real mystery. Seems like someone musta fucked up.
2.35 is the most misused ratio in cinema.
But Kubrick is giving that maximum recommendation because he recognizes that not all theaters will be willing/able to go with 1.66. But when you’re a big company putting out what is supposed to be the definitive edition of one of his movies it seems preposterous to say that 1.78 reflects his wishes.
I also agree with John M. about the consistent misuse of 2.35.
James, in one way, you’re right. There should be some perspective. However, Kubrick is one of cinema’s most precise and specific filmmakers when it comes to this kind of thing, and so his personal wishes are something that a studio in business with him for 30 years should have honored. Your phrasing of his “recommended” ratio is incorrect; he didn’t RECOMMEND 1.75, but appeared willing to tolerate it w/r/t this film.
And I say this as someone who is far from an SK worshipper, or even a huge fan of the film in question.
By “presence” I meant “preference.” Even if The Ghost of Stanley Kubrick haunts hallways everywhere.
I just now processed the tidbit above that Cocks was doing preliminary work on GANGS OF NEW YORK at the time of BARRY LYNDON’s release.
That there’s some gestation.
The Barry Lyndon disk is gorgeous. No, it’s not 1.66. But yes, it’s gorgeous.
Now, if all this anger could please be directed toward the colorist with diarrhea in his eyes who transferred the LionsGate Blu-ray of Ran, maybe we could get some place on that disk.
I noticed that too, John. But am I the only one who doesn’t think this project would have been better had Marty made it in the late 70’s? Sure, the screenplay might have been more focused, but Marty’s compositional skills were not sophisticated enough at that point IMO to tackle the scope of his project, and no way even a young De Niro tops DDL’s Bill the Butcher.
Who knows, it could have been been Heaven’s Gate before Heaven’s Gate.
As a film-history artifact, I do love that letter. The changeover dots being 1 ft 9 frames off. This is the aspect ratio. Here’s the amount of light we want on the screen (hasn’t Roger Ebert spent years complaining about theater owners who save money by dialing down light, even before the whole 3D projection issue? Kubrick would have had a cow). What to play before the movie, during the intermission and after the movie in the theater.
When I saw this on TV sometime in the 1980s I did not worship it the way I did when I saw it at Film Forum during its re-release a while back. All movies gain from being shown in as close to the original circs as possible, but with Barry Lyndon, for me, it was the difference between rather detached admiration and walking out of the theater swearing I’d just seen a masterpiece. It does seem to me that a man who would write a memo this precise deserves, at a minimum, to have his Blu-Ray in 1:66. Is there any logical reason, financial or otherwise, that Warner wouldn’t have gone by his wishes–if they knew what they were? I’m mystified.
It’s a very established fact that Stanley Kubrick suffered early on from arthritis on his right forefinger. Which means that, when he typed, he had difficulties reaching the “7” key on the keyboard with the finger. He often used his left forefinger to reach the key but he sometimes hit the wrong key, the “6”.
It’s quite plausible that he actually meant “1/1:77”. He didn’t correct the typo, as he didn’t like liquid paper and he was fed up because that was already the 114th draft he had typed.
Warner and Vitali don’t have the same issue and they’re apparently busy flexing their middle finger to the audience.
Lazarus, best case scenario is Scorsese making it every decade, so we can track his progression.
This is maybe not feasible from a financing standpoint.
1 – 1:66. Isn’t that the Golden Ratio?
Very few first-run (i.e., non-art) houses back then could project 1.66. Hell, when I reissued CITIZEN KANE in 1991, we got a ton of complaints that chain theatres were running it 1.85 despite our explicit instructions to run it 1.33. A friend in Cincinnati complained at her local Loew’s, and was snottily told that “these old movies can’t project properly on our state-of-the-art equipment.” Which pissed her off even more; she was given a refund.
If/when WHV puts out another version of Barry Lyndon, they should restore the original ’70s Warner logo at the beginning of the film instead of the current one that’s there now. That bugs me way more than the aspect ratio business.
Awsome post, keep up the good work, I ‘ll come back for more..!
It is a big deal. The BluRay composition looks crap. 1.66 looks much better. I instinctively realized this even before I knew anything about this whole aspect ratio fiasco. People defending Warner have no right watching the film. They’re clueless.
It’s not like they cropped out something important, like Dakota Fanning’s toes or something. Also not like Barry Lyndon is The Shining or Clockwork Orange or something hard‑R with violence and nudity that’s cool. I love BL just fine, but FACE THE FACTS: It’s the ONE costume movie, EVER, that guys are okay with it, just because it’s the director of 2001 and Strangelove and FMJ.
But yeah: It’s a 1/19th of an inch sliver of Maria Schneider’s big stupid hat. And I’m sure they didn’t mess with O’Neal bring-down-the-house delivery of the line “At the pleasuuuuure… of FINDIN’ it!”
Get lost with your apathy Lex. It is a big deal to people who care about the film. It’s like cropping the Mona Lisa or pissing on Cezanne.
You mean like how when they transfer ANY MOVIE to DVD or Blu they’re taking film and digitizing it into a malleable file in an entirely different medium that then tweak and re-color and telecine and shade to have the smooth look of a brand-new high-tech digital movie instead of what it actually looked like as projected in a theater?
YEP YEP.
Incidentally, I think a crime at least as large as the aspect ratio one (which, while not ideal, apparently stumbles somewhat close to SK’s worst-case scenario), is that the Warner Bros. logo in the opening credits has been altered. The original credits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8D4c0hLkZk} have the Handel coördinated with the old Warners animated logo. The Blu-Ray presentation just sticks an unmoving white version of the current logo over a black screen. It seems like a silly thing, but the impact of the music is lessened by its divorce from the logo.
@ The Siren: I think re-watching is also a factor. All great movies benefit from re-watching, of course (Altman once said that you couldn’t really watch a movie the first time, because you’re too busy following the plot to really pay attention to the filmmaking). But more than any other Kubrick film, BARRY LYNDON is all about its structure—the whole isn’t just greater than the sum of its parts, the parts are deliberately flattened in order to better fit the whole. The very first time I saw it, my immediate thought was “I need to see that again”, not because I loved it, but because it was so clearly a film about its structure (much like, arguably, CLOCKWORK).
>You mean like how when they transfer ANY MOVIE to DVD or Blu they’re taking film and digitizing it into a malleable file in an entirely different medium that then tweak and re-color and telecine and shade to have the smooth look of a brand-new high-tech digital movie instead of what it actually looked like as projected in a theater?
I think the idea is actually to approximate what it looked like as projected in a theater under ideal conditions. The fact that digitization is one of the circuitous avenues en route to that goal is a matter of means, not ends, and therefore beside the point.
YEP YEP.
I love how the supposedly more-intelligent-than-most-blog-commenters around here are still feeding the troll.
Really?
Lazarus, the day you post anything interesting on ANY blog will be the first, as opposed to your usual petty sniping and shit-talking.
I’d also LOVE to know how I’m a TROLL, which suggests some dude going by “titsfan69” telling everyone they’re assholes, instead of the brilliant and incisive comedy and commentary I bring across the movie blogosphere that have made me a BELOVED FAVORITE of many esteemed and prominent critics.
Real sorry you don’t have dudes hooking you up for screenings and offering to give you airspace, but at the very least the LEXMAN is the most important voice on ALL OF CINEMA, not a “troll.”
Dork.
Um, fellas.
At the risk of sounding like Otter defending Bluto, I have to say that as long as Lex is on topic, he’s not a troll, whatever his eccentric ideas. Films as diverse as “Raging Bull” and “There’s Always Tomorrow” offer eloquent contradiction to his willful declaration that 1.85 is a “hacktacular” format, or whatever it is he called it. As puling lefty Richard Goldstein once said of Howard Stern, let him bray. And/or fight back with evidence!
However. Getting into fights over who’s a troll or not does get distracting. So may I suggest that Lex stay on topic, and that those who want to take issue with his positions do same, and that those who want to ignore this subset of comments just…ignore them. There’s plenty else to talk about. Thanks!
I sleep now, as the lost skeleton said. Y’all behave but remember, have fun!
The Warner logo has been altered on the Blu-Rays for Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and The Shining.
Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon both have music and opening titles integrated with the old animated WB logo. The rhythm is thrown off in both cases, since the animated logo is replaced by a static screen (black or red). A contemporary WB logo card (not the older one with the cloud background) is on Barry Lyndon; the “clouds” WB logo (or, an obvious, grainy digital freezeframe thereof) is on The Shining and Clockwork Orange.
It’s extremely annoying that studios do this. I especially miss the minimalist United Artist logo that’s supposed to be on the front of Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hair and a bunch of others. The replacement logo is garish and has music and completely throws off the mood of those openings.
You guys, the signature on that Barry Lyndon letter is NOT Stanley Kubrick’s signature: http://www.amazon.com/Stanley-Kubrick-Archives-Alison-Castle/dp/3822822841
Wells is a braying asshole and Vitali showed him a lot more respect by even responding to his hysteria.
And a troll jumps into threads to shout the same shit over and over, insult folks repeatedly then cry “who me?” when called out.
Wells is a great guy.
Leon Vitali’s response left me flabbergasted. I’ve lost all respect for the guy. Wells is right when he mentions the contradictions within the response or between the response and the Kubrick letter (or every contemporary evidence). And Vitali doesn’t even address the fact that there was no such thing as a theatrical presentation in 1.77:1 before the 90s. If “pragmatist” Kubrick truly wanted a 1.77:1 why couldn’t he have settled for the existing 1.75:1 aspect ratio?
I can see two distinct possibilities. Either Vitali is flat out lying and tries to save face due to his mistake or it’s a Freudian faulty act, a subconsciously deliberate mistake, a parapraxis. The guy mentions he was fed up with Kubrick’s requests for the Barry Lyndon aspect ratio, that it was a “mantra” regarding the film. Couldn’t be the “1.77:1” stuff a way to get a subconscious revenge on decades of harassment? Would it be really a shock that somebody working for 25 years with Kubrick went a little funny in the head?
LexG: “Wells is a great guy.”
To quote from Kurosawa’s ‘Hidden Fortress’ – admittedly a fine example of widescreen mastery (but not automatically superior to, say, ‘Seven Samurai’ sorely because of that) – “A shitworm doesn’t know it’s in shit.”
Did anyone notice ? There’s no intermission on the Blu-ray. Kubrick clearly states here the film had an intermission.
In addition to being mutilated on all sides (if you take into account the overscan of most TV, people are basically looking at a 1.85 cropped frame on their TVs), which could have been rectified by simply framing the Blu-ray in 1.66:1, (thus having people at home basically looking at a 1.75 frame, taking into account overscans), the film should have been presented on 2 discs, with intermission, for maximum bitrate quality and respect of the theatrical presentation.
After all, 2001 DO have the prologue with black screen included… If I remember correctly ?
Hmmmm—now David’s raising a fun question… How many DVDs or BluRays include the old intermission cards?
Heck, maybe those better acquainted with pre-mid-80s-projection could tell me: Were intermission cards supplied by the studio, or the theater? Would the filmmaker have any say over their look?
David, there’s a title for the intermission on the Blu-ray. It was already there on the DVD.
The 10th entry is especially informative (about the soundtrack during the intermission). It shows that Kubrick wanted to replicate the roadshow theatrical presentation that he had used on “2001” and that was now discontinued. Requesting what piece from the soundtrack should be played as pre-film music or during the intermission was a very conservative thing, which is in line with sticking to the old fashioned 1.66:1 aspect ratio.
Warner usually does a very good job with the presentation on DVD or Blu-ray. They restored the roadshow presentation for 2001, The Great Race or even Finian’s Rainbow (La Vallée du bohneur) and they left the intermission titles for Barry Lyndon or Once Upon A Time in America.
Thanks for the up, I haven’t got to watch it fully yet 🙂
Regarding intermissions, all the Leone film are missing them… I clearly remember going to take a pee at the intermission for Duck You Sucker, for example. I believe the intermission experience on long films should be preserved (ie the film should stop, and then you can launch part two at your convenience) they were not meant to be seen in one sitting (seating).
“We stand firmly that we are 100% in compliance with Mr. Kubrick’s wishes and edict” and that “the letter from Kubrick to projectionists was the reference for our 1.78 aspect ratio call.”
lol what does that mean. I’m sticking to my original DVD.
It means if you keep repeating a lie, it becomes the truth. No matter the facts. I doesn’t matter how much proof you can produce. The people who talks louder and talks last are the people who are right.
TFB “How many DVDs or BluRays include the old intermission cards?
Heck, maybe those better acquainted with pre-mid-80s-projection could tell me: Were intermission cards supplied by the studio, or the theater? Would the filmmaker have any say over their look?”
It’s been my experience that many/most films that had theatrical intermissions have had them preserved on their DVD/Blu release: Barry Lyndon and 2001 are intact.
I’ve run a number of theatrical shows in 35mm (as well as seeing countless others) with films that have intermissions, etc. and in every case the actual on-screen “Intermission” card is on the print itself and has been put there by the filmmakers (many times with music playing out over it – one of the best is Ben-Hur). It is printed into the negative of the film and is usually timed to be long enough for the theatre’s curtain to close over it (approx. 8 to 12 second draw) as the audience should never see the blank screen without picture on it.
Thanks, Pete!
Lord Bullington does tend to look bad.
As for screen ratios, forget not the great film’s last line: “They are all equal now.”
Here’s Lord Bullington duelling over screen ratios.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDupoFh5Op0
Dwigt, you put your finger on something I was wondering about. Kubrick did not permit initiative in his employees, so you have a bunch of people who spent their lives doing just as they were told and saying (it’s reported) “But what do I tell Stanley?” if anything didn’t go according to the masterplan. Now the organisation is without a head, and the years of slavery may have engendered some resentment. As Tavernier wrote to Kubrick, “As a filmmaker you are a genius, but as an employer you are an imbecile.” And since Vitali spent most of his life supporting SK, he can’t admit to feeling any resentment so it can only emerge via unconscious sabotage of the legacy. A fascinating case study.
You guys. Something to consider.
Vitali represents the Kubrick estate with regards to the transfers of Stanley’s films. Not only are they behind him on the 1.77 decision, but I’m sure if anybody objected, like say, Philip Hobbs, who also worked with Kubrick and became part of the family as his son-in-law, or even Jan Harlan, his brother-in-law and executive producer – they would’ve done something about it.
As it is, they support Vitali.
We can point to a document from 1975 as proof of one thing, regarding theatrical exhibition, or we can accept the decisions of those who knew him and worked with him over the years.
Obviously, Stanley changed his mind on lots of issues. How many of you are aware that there are actually 2 different official versions of The Shining? The US version is 142 minutes, the international version is 119. They are both official Kubrick cuts of the film.
Furthermore, if you’ve bought as many version of 2001 as I have, you’ll have noticed how many variations there were. On laserdisc, during the black sections prior to the beginning and the second half, it actually said on screen OVERTURE and ENTR’ACTE. Then, when the initial DVD came out, not only were these titles missing, but the second one was entirely cut from the film – it went from the intermission card right to the Discovery moving along in space. Then, for later editions and up to the present, the second black section was restored. All of this was a way to deal with trying to adapt to video something that was inherently part of the theatrical experience – if you’ve seen a proper projection, the music that plays over the black plays as audiences take their seats; nothing is on screen, the curtain is closed, and at the end of the music, the curtain parts and the picture begins.
This is why I understand where Vitali and the estate are coming from. Kubrick was constantly adapting his work.
When he created the restored Dr. Strangelove, he ignored the original theatrical aspect ratios, which shifted between 1.33 and 1.66, and went only with 1.33 – and occasionally, you’d see blurry bars which looked like the matte box was in frame. Subsequently, when the 4k restoration was done a few years ago, 1.66 was chosen for the entire film. Where was the outrage then?
Keep something in mind, while you’re trashing Vitali: He represents the Kubrick estate. If it was not for the estate, WB or the other studios would do whatever they wanted without any direct influence.
I just want to make clear, in the vein of what The Chevalier is talking about, that I don’t intend any disrespect to Vitali nor am I involved in an enterprise of trying to directly gainsay him. I was looking for textual evidence of certain claims, and having received them, I’m publishing them. The Chevalier’s right; Kubrick himself changed his mind often in the process of adapting his work for home video. And one area in which I’m largely in sympathy with Vitali is that the various insistent choruses of “Kubrick WOULD HAVE done this” from people whose insight into Kubrick is more limited than Vitali’s or Hobbs’ or who have you are…well, less well-informed, in certain respects, than Vitali himself inarguably was.
“Keep something in mind, while you’re trashing Vitali: He represents the Kubrick estate. If it was not for the estate, WB or the other studios would do whatever they wanted without any direct influence.”
That’s the point, isn’t it? Vitali is doing a poor job at representing Kubrick and Kubrick’s work, and WB is already doing whatever they want.
Kubrick deemed that the film looks best at 1.66. The BluRay is supposed to respect this by putting bars at the sides. Cropping the image, stretching it and letting technicians (!!!!) pan and scan individual shots based on what THEY think is right and then PRETENDING that this is not going on because MAYBE Kubrick would have wanted his images distorted on future widescreen tvs, is wrong. For the cinema, he wanted 1.66. The compositions look best at 1.66. 1.66 is what should be preserved.
No, Ivan.
That document is from 1975, and it solely concerns theatrical. The reality is, Kubrick was constantly reevaluating his films and how they should be shown, in particular with regards to home video.
The estate is behind this transfer. Obviously they know something you don’t and which has no bearing on a theatrical request from 36 years ago.
I’ve been in touch with the estate on the matter. They fully back Vitali.
Clockwork remains 1.66. Why didn’t they change that?
And for everybody claiming Vitali intentionally sabotaged Lyndon… Vitali STARS in the fucking movie! Why would he sabotage a movie he STARS IN?
But if Kubrick states that he would like it to be shown at an aspect ratio of no less than 1.=1.75, isn’t he saying outright that he wanted it shown at 1.75: 1 (although he does flat-out say at the beginning that he wanted it shown at 1.66: 1? I don’t follow his reasoning.
Curious as to how Kubrick has reevaluated the presentation of Barry Lyndon on home video for the Blu-ray release. A message from the spirit world? Never saw the VHS (or Beta or Laserdisc, if they existed), but the DVD is 1:66.
I have DVD’s that say they are made at a ratio of 1.75:1, as well as DVD’s made at the ratio of 1.66:1. I play them on a widescreen TV, and they are anamorphically enhanced. And if one is at a wider ratio than the other, there probably should be black lines on the top and bottom, yet there are none. The only times I see those black spaces are on 1.37: 1 films like “The Wizard of Oz” or “Fantasia”, or on any movie shot at a 2.20: 1 ratio or wider.
You guys. There’s no conspiracy here.
This transfer was not done with ignorance.
There was no malice involved.
It was supervised by the star of the movie who subsequently worked as the director’s assistant for 20+ years.
Furthermore, it was okayed by Jan Harlan, the movie’s executive producer and the director’s brother-in-law.
This is their call.
Move on.
Actually, the DVD (which is the LD master if I remember correctly) is 1.52. I just calculated it.
Telling us to move on is like telling us Storaro is right into reframing Argento 2.35:1 films into 2.0:1 so move on as he was the DP. I say balls. These people are clearly senile. It doesn’t matter what they did before or who they are, they are wrong. They are destroying a legacy. Put James Cameron in charge.
I’ve personally met both Storaro and Vitali. Both couldn’t be nicer or take their work more seriously. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything. Just that I accept their decisions as being made sincerely, and with what they believe is their best intentions.
“Obviously they know something you don’t”
Quoth Gestapo Major ‘King Kong’: and what would that be?
Jesus, it sounds like Vitali & The Rest have had a chat with some kind of Ned-Beatty-character-in-‘Network’ and THE TRUTH, in caps, is just too shocking for common mortals to bear. So shocking, in fact, that they have to tell ridiculous and blatant lies, and keep repeating them. I mean, sure there are more convincing explanations to concoct rather than stick with “when he was four years old, a burning bush told Kubrick he would eventually direct a film titled ‘Barry Lyndon’ and under no circumstance the AR of such film would be other than 1.77”. And WHV saying “yeah, we know water is good for vegetables (no allusions were none intended), that’s why we are carefully giving them napalm” doesn’t help.
It is not the fact itself (I don’t even have a Blu-ray player), it is the clumsiness of the lies. Is Malcolm Tucker the head of the Kubrick estate and WHV or what?
As for why would Lord B. want to sabotage his own movie… remember, we’re dealing with the same guy who interrupted his own beloved mother’s piano performance to publicly insult his stepfather. Just saying.
Chevalier said: “That document is from 1975, and it solely concerns theatrical.”
But shouldn’t the Bluray capture what Kubrick viewed as the perfect ratio for theatres? If he wanted a more ‘widescreen’ image, a more traditional ‘epic’ look, he would have gone the route of “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Spartacus”. He didn’t. He wanted 1.66.
Or are you arguing that, because previous DVD releases did not “capture the theatrical ratios”, therefore “no home release is bound to capture theatrical ratios”? I don’t like that argument.
I don’t see why the Bluray’s should be altered (on the criterion forum, they show how the master war cropped, stretched, and then individual scenes pan and scanned either upwards or downwards based on the aesthetic judgements of WB staff to compensate for the croppings) and then this alteration justified because, gee, it’s “almost within the ratio parameters Kubrick specified”.
Chevalier said: “The reality is, Kubrick was constantly reevaluating his films and how they should be shown, in particular with regards to home video.”
But he wasn’t constantly reevaluating anything. And it’s been documented that he preferred full frame, height and “boxier” shapes. Also, all his approved Barry Lyndon dvds or laser discs preserve this height.
Chevalier said: “The estate is behind this transfer.”
Yes and Warner is behind the transfer too: “Why don’t you get with the program and come in for the big win!”
Has Vitali and Harlan sat down and watched the new bluray fully? Do you think they are in the labs when Warner are doing micro pan and scans all over the place? To what extent was their involvement with the Warner labs? To what extent to Harlan and Vitali think about these blurays? What are their day jobs? Why aren’t more people consulted? Why are they given so much weight? Do their opinions really carry weight with Warner?
Chevalier said: “Why would he sabotage a movie he STARS IN?”
I think they are all confused and much of what they do has unintentional after effects. A good example of the way Warner “accidentally and unintentionally ruins films” is their recent “Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid” “special edition”, which restores the original butchered cut (the cut taken away from director Sam Peckinpah), ignores Peckinpah’s later directors cut, and yet is “authorised” because Warner and Paul Seydor “authorised it”. Every fan of the film bought that “new” butchered cut. No fan likes it. All are awaiting a proper release.
D Cairns said: “And since Vitali spent most of his life supporting SK, he can’t admit to feeling any resentment so it can only emerge via unconscious sabotage of the legacy. A fascinating case study.”
You mean this fiasco is all down to Vitali looking for Satisfaction?
Warner said: “We stand firmly that we are 100% in compliance with Mr. Kubrick’s wishes and edict” and that “the letter from Kubrick to projectionists was the reference for our 1.78 aspect ratio call.”
But how can this letter be their reference when it is ignored? And why do they say THE REFERENCE, implying that it was the only point of reference?
Jordon said: “I especially miss the minimalist United Artist logo that’s supposed to be on the front of Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hair and a bunch of others. The replacement logo is garish and has music and completely throws off the mood of those openings.”
Not to mention that the original logo was done by Saul Bass, who is usually a name treated with some respect.
David said: “Did anyone notice ? There’s no intermission on the Blu-ray. Kubrick clearly states here the film had an intermission.
The film does still have the intermission. Bizzarely, though, there have been some reports that some copies still have the Saul Bass logo at the beginning.
>therefore “no home release is bound to capture theatrical ratios”? I don’t like that argument.
This is how I feel too – I think home video has advanced sufficiently, in both screen size and image resolutions, that we may safely use theatrical standards as a guideline for presentation.
Obviously, no idea what The Ghost Of Kubrick would have to say about it.
Lex – It is universally acknowledged by most cinematographers that shooting full frame (aka 1.37 or 1.33) is much MORE difficult than shooting widescreen. Afterall, everything looks good in widescreen, right? It is very very difficult to make a nice image in a square box… thus shooting in full frame takes much MORE effort than any other aspect ratio. Your argument that shooting 1.33 is lazy is stupid and your insistence on widescreen shows a lack of film education and a plebeian sensibility.
Kubrick had a habit of cutting some of his films right after release. He did that to 2001. I’m not sure by how many minutes. The Shining when I saw it at the first press screening, had a scene in the last reel where Shelley Duvall, recouperating in the hospital, is told by barry Nelson that there where no ghosts at the hotel. Ever. Then it cut to the last shot
where the cemara closes in on the photo with Jack Nicholson in it à la Michael Snow.
Yes, Kubrick changed his mind over the years but what makes Vitali’s recollection dubious is that he says that Kubrick composed the film in 1.77:1 from the very beginning (he told him so during shoting) and that it was always the intended aspect ratio. The letter from 1975 shows without any ambiguity that Kubrick was adamant it was photographed as 1.66:1 and should be projected as such. So, Vitali’s memory is at least partly wrong.
The other point is that there was no thing such as a 1.77:1 aspect ratio in 1975. It just didn’t exist at the time. The closest thing would have been 1.75:1. It just makes no sense to compose a film in 1.66:1, then to decide it was always 1.77:1. Kubrick made edits to his movies until the very end (that’s why I don’t buy the story that Eyes Wide Shut was “finished”) but I don’t think he reframed the picture on selected shots.
Vitali and Harlan might be nice guys but they were never really involved in the technical side of the movies. Vitali might have been curious about it but he had little input and had to deal daily with a human broken record. Just read Ian Watson’s essay about working with Kubrick on A.I. during the 90s. The stories told look quite sensationalistic (Kubrick asking “Where’s Leon?” to Vitali) but Christiane K. has obviously no bad blood with him as she was photographed with him after the piece was published:
http://www.ianwatson.info/kubrick.htm
Actually what I meant is that the film is not presented on the Blu in two separate parts, to replicate the intermission experience. I believe all the Leones bar the first Dollar should also be that way. They’ve got to stop at the point the director made them stop, giving you a bit of time to sink in all the information you just seen on screen, until starting the second part.
Regarding intermissions on disc, I don’t see what would be gained by having 2 discs instead of 1 as long as the 1 disc version had the appropriate intermission/fade out/entr acte/part 2. You just pause at the correct spot.
The original US release prints of the Leone films were not formatted with Intermission segments ( other than the long version of OUATIA). I don’t know about other countries/versions.
So I’m reading Vitali’s new explanation and I’m thinking, this makes even less sense than his previous rants.
Vitali was a good disciple.
I admit the letter is damning, but if Warner were intent on disregarding Kubrick’s intentions, why did they release Lolita and A Clockwork Orange in their original ratios of 1.66? Why would they treat Barry Lyndon differently? It seems they must have some legitimate reason for the 1.78 in this case or perhaps they made an honest mistake and are trying to cover (with Vitali’s help). I don’t think this mystery is solved.
“I have DVD’s that say they are made at a ratio of 1.75:1, as well as DVD’s made at the ratio of 1.66:1. I play them on a widescreen TV, and they are anamorphically enhanced. And if one is at a wider ratio than the other, there probably should be black lines on the top and bottom, yet there are none. The only times I see those black spaces are on 1.37: 1 films like ‘The Wizard of Oz’ or ‘Fantasia’, or on any movie shot at a 2.20: 1 ratio or wider.”
An anamorphically-enhanced 1.66:1 disc should have no black bars on the top and bottom – only on the sides. A 1.85:1 disc should have small bars on the top and bottom, but it’s common for “1.85:1” discs to actually be 1.78:1 (Warner does this consistently). If you’re watching a 1.66:1 disc and you’re not seeing any black bars on the sides, then there’s two possibilities:
1) The TV has significant overscan that’s cropping out the black bars (part of the actual image would be lost as well).
2) The TV is not set to 1:1 mapping, in which the TV displays (or attempts to display) every single pixel being sent to it by the player. Many TVs have a mode that will detect a 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 picture and then automatically adjust it (by cropping and expanding the picture) so it fills the entire 16:9 frame. This is a Bad Thing and was responsible for Glenn’s own little mixup on the Barry Lyndon BD (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2011/05/how-to-tell-an-aspect-ratio-from-a-hole-in-the-ground.html).
The easiest way to test if either of these applies to you is to get a DVD that’s definitely 1.66:1 and look for the black bars on the sides. Some examples are the “Dr. Strangelove” 40th anniversary edition, the 2007 reissue of “A Clockwork Orange,” and a number of Criterion discs (do a Google search for “1.66:1 site:www.criterion.com/films/*” to get the full list). If you don’t see the black bars on these discs, then your TV is in need of some adjustments. (Hopefully you just need to activate 1:1 mapping, since overscan can be difficult to get rid of.)
What’s extraordinary is that this “debate” about aspect ratios has been going on continuously for the past decade, with intermittant feverish flair-ups such as the present one. Appended below, for instance, is a discussion that occurred some 6 years ago, with all the very same arguments and points being presented.
But I think what has happened with Leon Vitali is merely symptomatic of what happened after Kubrick died. Vitali found a new Master: Warners. There were similar retrospective denials, PR spin, and confabulations made by Warners and the members of the Kubrick Estate in relation to the completeness of Eyes Wide Shut and later the provenance of Kubrick’s A.I., all of which were completely false (recall too that after the release of Eyes Wide Shut, Ted Turner fired all of Kubrick’s connections in Warners eg Bob Daly and Terry Semel, who had been dealing with Kubrick for decades).
I was always surprised, just after Kubrick died, by the sudden, near hysterical, outpourings to the media (all and any media) by many of those directly associated with Kubrick, both family and colleagues. After decades of total silence by ALL OF THEM while he was alive, suddenly they were now all desperate to talk to everyone and anyone, to throw themselves at anyone who had an ear (recall the character of Marion in Eyes Wide Shut, who throws herself at Dr Bill Harford, with impassioned love pleas, her dead father just feet away). Suddenly they were giving numerous interviews to everyone, to documentary filmmakers (eg Paul Joyce’s The Last Movie, filmed just after Kubrick’s death, or those young Italian fans, who interviewed everyone for their low-budget 20-hour doc on Kubrick), to the press (eg the Sight & Sound interview with Kubrick’s family), the internet (eg members of his family like daughter Katharina posting regularly to newsgroups and discussion fora, creating her own FAQ at the [now sadly defunct and neglected] Rod Munday-curated The Kubrick Site, but which she was subsequently forced to take down).
The legitimate question arises: if they were so concerned about talking to the media in order to correct all the myths about Kubrick, why didn’t they do it when he was alive, when it mattered (you can’t libel the dead)? I’m not suggesting that Kubrick was some kind of despotic, authoritarian patriarch tyrannically presiding and ruling over his family and colleagues with an iron fist, but it’s certainly clear that – after all the demonization of him during and after the release of A Clockwork Orange – he subsequently distanced himself – and family and colleagues – from the media, remaining permanently aloof thereafter (though he initiated a libel action just before his death against the – infamously racist, sexist, and irresponsible – Punch magazine). I also recall his daughter Anya (who passed away a few years ago after a long illness) being interviewed on a British TV channel in the 1990s about her appearance in some opera production (she was an opera singer), but when the interviewer discovered she was Kubrick’s daughter and began asking questions about her father, Anya immediately ended the interview. There’s also the tragic departure of Kubrick’s youngest daughter, Vivian, who had made the well-known on-set doc about The Shining when she was just 18, and later another on-set doc about Full Metal Jacket that was never completed (about 20 hours of the footage from this doc is held by the Kubrick Estate), as well as the soundtrack for that film. Kubrick had wanted her to contribute to the soundtrack for Eyes Wide Shut, but whatever happpened, she ran away to Los Angeles and joined the Scientologists (Kubrick wrote a lengthy letter to her, pleading for her return, to no avail), where she is still a closely guarded and ‘protected’ member today (when she attended Kubrick’s funeral, she was intimidatingly ‘minded’ by some Scientology goons who kept her away from the rest of Kubrick’s family), while living quite anonymously.
Then there’s the Kubrick Estate’s Jan Harlan and his Kubrick ‘car-boot’ sale, desperately offering Kubrick’s uncompleted (and long abandoned) projects to anyone who might be interested, while changing his PR spin to match the changing Hollywood weather, as the A.I. fiasco conclusively proved.
If Kubrick kept such a tight rein over his work and his family and his colleagues while he was alive, it was inevitable that such colleagues and family would be considerably distraught, disoriented, and confused after his death, desperate to fill the symbolic void by searching for a new Master, a new “father figure”. They found one. Each of them.
——————–
From a discussion from 2005 on aspect ratios in Kubrick’s films following an interview with Leon Vitali that was published at the DVDFile website:
JOSHUA ZYBER: I’ve read that article. In fact, I was working for DVDFile at the time it was published. I suggest that if you read the whole thing you’ll find that Mr. Vitali is significantly less knowledgeable about any technical matters than he would have you believe. His explanation for why the 1.66:1 DVDs for Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork Orange are not anamorphically enhanced shows a complete misunderstanding of what the term means.
Kubrick’s preference for home video (again, made after the fact, not
during the films’ production) was to show the entire image on the camera
negative, regardless of original compositional intent. 2001 was shot in
65mm, and has a native aspect ratio of 2.2:1. A Clockwork Orange and
Barry Lyndon were shot in “flat” 35mm, but with hard mattes in the
camera masking off an approximately 1.5:1 image. What we get on DVD is
everything on the frame. Strangelove was shot in a hybrid process, some
shots hard matted and other shots not. The film was *never* intended to
be shown in a varying aspect ratio.
Had Kubrick wanted these last three movies to be composed for a 1.37:1
Academy Ratio, he would not have used hard mattes in camera, especially
not for only a random sampling of shots in Strangelove. All of these
movies were composed for theatrical exhibition at either 1.66:1
(European standard) or 1.85:1 (American standard). Home video was not
even a valid concern when these movies were made. They were made to be
seen in theaters, and those were the ratios he knew they would be
displayed at.
Because he was rather eccentric, Kubrick got it in his head that he
didn’t like black letterbox bars on his television and would rather see
everything on the photographic negative, raggedy in-frame camera mattes
and production flubs included. However, at a restrospective screening of
his films prior to his death, Kubrick himself instructed the festival
organizers to project his films at the 1.66:1 European ratio, which was
his preferred theatrical framing.
In the wake of his death, a great many people stepped forward claiming
to be the definitive arbiter of Kubrick’s final wishes. Steven
Spielberg, from seemingly out of nowhere, proclaimed himself Stanley’s
best friend in the whole world, and just look at what a mess he made of
the long-in-development “A.I.” project. He couldn’t even deliver a
decent tribute to the man at the Academy Awards. Remember all that
nonsense about Kubrick’s films being infused with “hope and wonder”?
It’s like he never saw a Kubrick movie in his life, and was just trying
to describe his own treacle.
I would take anything Leon Vitali says with a grain of salt. I think
time will prove him less knowledgeable about Kubrick’s intent than he
would have everyone believe.
The plain fact of the matter is that Leon Vitali had no idea what
anamorphic enhancement was in relation to DVD transfers, and yet he was
the final authority in making all technical and artistic decisions
regarding the presentation of Kubrick’s films on DVD. He was, cut and
dried, not qualified to make those decisions.
Here’s my question for you: We know that Vitali was Kubrick’s
“assistant”. In what capacity? What qualifies him to make definitive
statements about technical and artistic matters that he clearly did not
understand? [NOTE: Vitali was mainly Kubrick’s casting assistant].
DAVID MULLEN: The later films were composed for matted widescreen theatrical release, which means matted to 1.85. On the Kubrick newsgroup, someone who worked with Kubrick as an assistant editor on “The Shining” [editor Gordon Stainforth] has stated that all camera and editing equipment were marked to indicate the 1.85 cropping. The steadicam operator Garrett Brown has also stated that all of his steadicam work was framed for 1.85.
Ths is also blatently obviously in all the medium close-ups in the film,
which are unusually low in frame in the matted TV version. In the
transfer of “Eyes Wide Shut”, which Kubrick did NOT supervise, the headroom and
framing has been adjusted to look “correct” in full-frame, while the
transfers of “The Shining” and “Full Metal Jacket” are straight unmatted
transfers with no framing adjustments – hence the odd headroom and dead
space above people’s heads in a number of shots.
Kubrick simply preferred that his films be shown unmatted on 4:3 TV’s –
he didn’t compose them for 1.33, or else they would have been oddly
cropped-looking in the movie theaters (ever seen an old Academy 1.37
film cropped to 1.85? Looks terrible.) He wanted them to be transferred
full-frame to 4:3 video, hence why “Dr. Strangelove” comes out as having
multiple aspect ratios (since now some in-camera mattes have become
visible that weren’t seen theatrically), and why “Clockwork Orange” is slightly
letterboxed but has one scene with a different hard matte, and why “Barry Lyndon”
is slightly letterboxed, since it also used a camera matte. His
last three films were shot unmatted, so no mattes appear in the transfer.
When he’s been asked about his PREFERRED projection format for film
festivals, he’s asked for a 1.66 : 1 matte to be used – not to show
them projected in 1.33 even though a film festival could do that.
Apparently for “Barry Lyndon” he had 1.66 mattes sent to all the
theaters showing the film that only had 1.85 mattes. But by “The Shining”, I
think he realized that 1.85 was going to be used, since it was going to get a
much wider release than “Barry Lyndon” and 1.85 was becoming the world-wide
standard for matted widescreen projection.
So to say that a matted widescreen version would be “butchered” is
inaccurate and misleading. Kubrick never indicated what he thought
should be done for his films if 16:9 TV ever became commonplace. I doubt he would have insisted on a 4:3 image boxed on the sides of 16:9.
In any case, a 1.66 : 1 matte would preserve the aspect ratio that
Kubrick seemed to prefer for theatrical projection. It wouldn’t be a
“butchering” of the image since Kubrick was making films primarily for
widescreen movie theaters, not for 4:3 TV. Anyway, the 4:3 full-frame
transfers of his films, the ones that he supervised, are currently available for those who want to see them.
Before the thread dies, this just has to be added to it: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/this_will_go_over_well_were_sure_michael_bay_writes_to_theater_projectionis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
Nice work!!! I agree with Graig that Vitali ends up looking a lot worse than GK.
Charlie Dusek
Great post. Want more.