Chill Pill

Does anyone know the story behing this fullscreen vs. widescreen 'The Shining' business? Or why Kubrick wanted it that way?

Thanks.

jaeufraser

Ever since 2001 he has filmed all his movies with the 1.33:1 aspect ratio in mind. That has been OAR for Clockwork, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. I believe his reasoning was that he wanted it to be accesible to those with televisions or something along that lines, so he composed it to be open matte.

marty888

The movie .... not the year.

Rypro 525

then why is "clockwork orange " 1:66;1"?

Chill Pill

But wasn't The Shining filmed and viewed in theatres
widescreen?

So there is probably no chance of ever seeing this movie letterboxed, eh?

RocShemp

Clockwork Orange was hard-matted to 1.66:1. The mattes (black bars) are in the negative itself. So technically it is presented on DVD in 1.33:1 (since it never received a windowboxed 1.78:1 transfer) but with thin black bars at the top and bottom of the image.

And it wasn't to make them accessible to those with televisions, per se. He just did not approve of films being cropped to fill TV set images (cos at the time the FCC did not allow letterboxing since they ruled that TVs should be completely covered with image - wich is also why we have overscan). So he decided that, since his movies were only to be a relatively short time in theatres and where they would truly be viewed for years to come would be on TV, he composed his shots open matte. Basically, the theatrical releases of films such as Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut were cropped at the top and bottom and presented in an aspect ratio the director never intended. In these cases, the 1.33:1 releases are the correct way to view the film.

eedoon

The Shining was presented at a 1.85:1 aspect ratio on theatre.

Well you can always make your own black bar with some duck tape

Johnny Zhivago

13/ What aspect ratio was The Shining filmed in?

The entire negative was exposed, meaning that there was no in-camera hard matting so the film was effectively shot in Academy 1.37 but it wasn't intended to be shown in cinemas that way. The film was shot and conceived for 1:1.85 ratio screening (and the camera viewfinders had the 1.85 framelines marked on them) This is the standard ratio that widescreen films in the US are projected in. The 1:185 crop was achieved when the film was projected onto cinemas screens.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/h....html#slot1113

11/ Why are Some Kubrick films only available in the "full frame" aspect ratio (1) on VHS video, DVD and Laserdisc?

"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. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index.html#slot11

Kubrick FAQ > http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/fullindex.html

obscurelabel

Here's a recent thread at HTF about Dr. Strangelove with more discussion:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...4&pagenumber=1

Apparently the new 40th anniversary edition of DrS will be 1.66:1 without the varying aspect ratios.

Also a frame from The Shining, open matte and matted for 1.85:1 (stolen from Juan C at HTF):





w/o black bars:

SFranke

I believe Barry Lyndon's correct ratio is 1.66:1

bis22

IMO, the framing in the above 1.85:1 screen cap looks far superior to the 1.37:1 cap. Last time I watched the DVD, I simply put black strips of construction paper on my TV to matte it to around 1.66:1 and I thought it looked much better.

Supermallet

I remember reading an interview with Jan Harlan where he said that when HDTV is the standard, they will go back and release the Kubrick movies in widescreen.

Josh-da-man

Just going by the above two caps, the fullscreen image shows a greater contrast between the red and white areas, with more of the white floor and ceiling revealed. If we're only looking at the figures, then the 1.85:1 image looks good, but all of the "dead" space in the 1.33:1 shot adds tension to the scene and opens up the space around the figures.

It's entirely possible that Kubrick preferred the more square 1.37:1 ratio. I was watching "Full Metal Jacket" the other day, and couldn't help but notice a lot of vertical movement/composition, which a slimmer 1.85:1 AR would limit.

SunMonkey

Wow, neat stuff. You learn something new every day.

Gerry P.

I'd also add that in the 1:33 shots the numerous vertical and horizontal lines [bars?] of the decor emphasize the distorting effects of the wide angle lens. Notice how extreme the convergence of wall, ceiling and floor is towards the vanishing point in the center of the image. This emphasizes how Jack Torrance is trapped in the Overlook Hotel, and if you know anything about Kubrick's visual/metaphorical aesthetic, then you know what a central predicament being "trapped" is for all of his protagonists.

Giles

any Washingtonians interested in seeing "The Shining" in the theatre, Landmark Bethesda is showing this as a midnight film Oct 29th and 30th.

cultshock

Hmmm, interesting. So the FCC is to blame for creating several generations of people who hate "black bars" and want their TV's filled with picture.

Bill Needle

Looking at the 1.33 shot you get the impression of looking down a shrinking hallway, or a well... towards as you say the vanishing point. And that effect really is all but lost in the 1.85 view.