pjflyer

I read Paul Mavis's DVD review of The Barbara Stanwyck Collection (There's Always Tomorrow, All I Desire, The Lady Gambles, Internes Can't Take Money, and more) at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=42245 and...

There's Always Tomorrow is in the wrong aspect ratio. The fine Masters of Cinema disc is correct.

Paul Mavis

I disagree...in a way. I don't know if the film was projected cropped (it very well may have been for 1956), but I believe it was shot in camera at 1.33. Here are two comparison shots, one taken from DVD Beaver's capture of the "widescreen" disc, and mine from the Universal The Barbara Stanwyck Collection, which makes a point of stating on the back of the box that all films are in their correct aspect ratios (which I would suspect was put there specifically for There's Always Tomorrow):






The widescreen sure looks "cropped" to me. As well, in the film's opening credits, there is no mention of any widescreen process, which surely would have been highlighted in '56, when that was a marketing point. So for purists, I would say the Universal full-screen is the correct way to watch the film (especially since the compostions look absolutely perfect full-screen, and to my mind, compromised had they been "cropped" - like Stevens' Shane). But you could certainly play with the Universal transfer on your TV if you wanted both looks.

Of course, if someone has an interview with Sirk saying he shot it in 'Scope, I'll switch the review but quick.

pjflyer

From Dave Kehr's New York Times review:

One of the great American movies, “There’s Always Tomorrow” has inspired reams of critical thought since its rediscovery in the 1970s. But inexcusably Universal is offering it here, not in the widescreen format in which it was made, but in a full-frame transfer probably intended for broadcast television and the narrow screens of yesteryear. This version severely compromises Sirk’s compositions (and is soft and muddy to boot); no serious collector would want to own it.

Paul Mavis

I'm not sure what it proves quoting me Dave Kehr from The New York Times (particularly when he's incorrect saying it was "made" in a widescreen format...and dude, seriously, what the hell do I care what The New York Times says?), but the screen caps above suggest an open matte transfer, meaning it was shot 1.33. Now we can discuss from a purist standpoint what you prefer, and of course it would help to know what Sirk's intentions were for theatrical projection (and I'll gladly change the review if you can quote me Sirk instead of Kehr), but for my money, the cropped widescreen loses information, and it doesn't aid Sirk's compositions. But again, you can crop it on your TV if you wish.

Why don't you tell me what your thinking is on this issue, instead of quoting other people? I'd rather discuss it with you.

X

It's virtually impossible to tell from one frame, but the one on the top looks better to me for that one scene.

But you'd have to know if there was a reason to see people moving about behind the stars to determine if that should be so prominent in the frame.

Paul Mavis

Well, "looks better" is subjective. I think the Academy ratio looks better -- so what? The poster indicated that Universal's transfer was "incorrect." That's a technical question, and one I tried to answer (and not just with one screen cap, but other information, as well, such as no widescreen process screen credit). As I said, you can play with the aspect on your TV if you prefer the widescreen, but Universal's transfer is correct for what was actually shot...unless someone can give me more information about what Sirk specifically intended. And importantly, Universal's open matte transfer allows all the picture information to be accessed; you can crop it at will. But an already cropped transfer is all she wrote for picture information.

X

I'm just going by the one shot you used as proof of what showed it was "cropped" to you.

I did see this review...

for whatever that's worth. Perhaps it's either in terms of viewing.

Paul Mavis

Here are some more, X:















As you can see, very little side information is lost (which could be accounted by overscan), but the top and bottom is tight, with MacMurray's head in the last shot almost getting chopped -- a big no-no in Hollywood compositions at the time.

As I originally posted, it very well may have been cropped for projection (and in older theaters that didn't have widescreens yet in '56, it probably wasn't). But Universal's correct open matte transfer allows you to crop it as it was probably seen in theatres, or full screen as Sirk composed it in the camera (unless he specifically matted it off for wide, and I'm waiting for a Sirk expert on that info).

X

It's really hard to say without context. I'm indifferent on the top one, the middle shot looks better to me "cropped", did the bottom shot result from zooming in or was it panned?

But as long as mics aren't showing on the top of the frame and people wearing shorts on the bottom, I think 1:33 looks fine. And as you say, there's little lost information on the sides so it appears it could be enjoyed either way. I don't have a personal preference between either format in general so it would be interesting to be able to view it both ways to see which is more satisfying. At least this version (and some masking tape) gives you the choice.

S Galbraith IV

My two cents. Beginning with THUNDER BAY (1953), virtually all of Universal's in-house productions that weren't in some other process (e.g., CinemaScope) were shot open-matte and intended for cropping during theatrical exhibition. Initially, most studios favored cropping to 1.85:1, though Disney and MGM went with 1.75:1 for many years (well into the 1970s, as I recall), while most of Europe favored 1.66:1.

Universal initially instructed theater owners and projectionists to crop their non-anamorphic widescreen releases to 2.00:1, though at some point (probably c. 1956-57?) switched to what had more or less become the industry standard (save MGM and Disney): 1.85:1.

By February 1956 pretty much all theaters nationwide were converted to widescreen (indeed, this was true by late summer 1954), the exception being some drive-ins and rural hardtop venues. Given that, and the fact that no 1950s Universal movies were being shown on television (that wouldn't happen until the early-1960s) Sirk and his DP had no reason to frame compositions for 1.37:1. More screen information >does not< = superior transfer. All of the 1.37:1 frame grabs above look awkwardly composed. The empty space above the actors' head is a dead giveaway for cropping.

Paul Mavis

Thanks for the more detailed info, Stuart, but on another blog, some Sirk expert was arguing that Sirk did keep on eye on framing for eventual television viewings, so I'm not sure what does for your argument. That would seem to validate both the full-frame and a crop, if he actually did that.

As I said from the start, it was probably meant to be cropped, but what you see as awkward, I see as more in line with the majority of Sirk's Academy compositions. I don't see it as "empty space," but classically balanced. You prefer the cropped in this case, I assume, but to me it looks cramped. But that's all subjective because the original statement that started this forum is that Universal's transfer is "incorrect," and I don't see how anyone can say that when they're presenting the open matte image -- and when no one has specifically said at what ratio Sirk intended the film to be cropped. If Universal cropped this transfer at 1.66, there would be bloggers complaining it should be 1.85, and vice versa.

But you seem pretty sure the number is 1.85, so I'll go with that when I crop my monitor. Obviously image sharpness may suffer a bit, but you sound more sure than most out there. Thanks!