Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
06-22-11, 03:13 PM
#353
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
It seems clear to me that an exact aspect ratio wasn't that important to Kubrick (nor was he as precise of an artist as we like to think). He cared far more about the composition being respected within multiple venues of presentation. That's why he wanted fullscreen versions for 1.33 devices and started shooting his films more consciously with that in mind. He thought filling the screen was in the audiences best interest. Taking that to the next level he probably would have had modern Home video transfers fill the 1.78 frame where possible. In other words Barry Lyndon is fine. The composition is protected.
06-22-11, 04:17 PM
#354
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
He cared far more about the composition being respected within multiple venues of presentation. That's why he wanted fullscreen versions for 1.33 devices and started shooting his films more consciously with that in mind.
He thought filling the screen was in the audiences best interest.
Taking that to the next level he probably would have had modern Home video transfers fill the 1.78 frame where possible.
In other words Barry Lyndon is fine. The composition is protected.
06-22-11, 04:48 PM
#355
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
I think Drop was referring to Eyes Wide Shut when he mentioned the 1.33:1 ratio. And I can buy that logic that Kubrick did have home video in mind and likely would be fine with 1.78 had he still been alive.
06-22-11, 08:38 PM
#356
Cool New Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
What I found most fascinating about the letter is not the whole aspect ratio deal. Which I'm fine with. Barry Lyndon looks gorgeous on BR. But that SK essentially states how to experience the film. I ordered the soundtrack and will play side 1 before the film, and play side 2 during intermission.
06-22-11, 10:27 PM
#357
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
Cool idea, but I don't think that the record SK refers to in the letter is necessarily the same music in the same running order as that on the commercial soundtrack album.
06-23-11, 08:38 PM
#358
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
Thank you PopcornTreeCt for clearly reading my post.
Everything is speculation at this point, if your going to go down that route, Jay G., we will never know what Kubrick would've wanted. How do we really know his intent behind that letter? Maybe he realized it couldnt be projected in 1.77 and just really wanted to make sure this 1.66 was done instead. It seems nuts of course, but we cannot know.
But his films are being put out on home video in the latest format and his estate is trying to do what they think SK would've done. I just don't understand what Vitali has to gain by sticking to 1.77 if he is wrong. If it's attention, it is so so minor. I'm not sure if anyone knew Kubrick better than him save for family. He probably had more conversations about film with SK than any other person.
There is no way we will get a definitive answer. As much as Wells thinks this ends it, it doesn't.
Everything is speculation at this point, if your going to go down that route, Jay G., we will never know what Kubrick would've wanted. How do we really know his intent behind that letter? Maybe he realized it couldnt be projected in 1.77 and just really wanted to make sure this 1.66 was done instead. It seems nuts of course, but we cannot know.
But his films are being put out on home video in the latest format and his estate is trying to do what they think SK would've done. I just don't understand what Vitali has to gain by sticking to 1.77 if he is wrong. If it's attention, it is so so minor. I'm not sure if anyone knew Kubrick better than him save for family. He probably had more conversations about film with SK than any other person.
There is no way we will get a definitive answer. As much as Wells thinks this ends it, it doesn't.
06-23-11, 09:07 PM
#359
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
To be clear, I knew you were referring to his last 3 films when mentioning the 1.33:1 reformatting. However, I was pointing out that those films don't count since they were filmed after Barry Lyndon, and Barry Lyndon itself was never reformatted to 1.33:1. With this particular film, Kubrick kept it letterboxed on the transfers he supervised, at a ratio of or close to 1.66:1. It's been 1.66:1 for every home video format until this one.
That's true, we don't know what he would've wanted, but we do know what he did want, from the previous theatrical and home video releases.
Again, from the letter:
"'Barry Lyndon' was photographed in 1-1:66 aspect ratio."
He specifically mentions that 1.66:1 was the aspect ratio it was shot in. It's not a ratio he was merely allowing; that was 1.75:1 or taller. It's the ratio the film was composed in, and the ratio he preferred it to be screened in, if at all possible.
I posted this info in another forum, but it seems like maybe I should quote the other references here as well. First, the book evidence:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/s...tio-issue.html
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/s...54329391f7970c
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/s...4e88c01b44970d
Then, some anecdotes from people who were involved with screenings of the films.
Michael Brooke
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/s...538ebbd74e970b
Gary Couzens
http://homecinema.thedigitalfix.com/...ontentid=65400
Unnamed projectionist friend of Glenn Kenny:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/s...tio-issue.html
All of the evidence supports that not only is 1.66:1 the ratio the movie was filmed in, and the one preferred by Kubrick, but that he took measures above and beyond what other directors did to ensure that it was screened in this ratio whenever possible. Thus, we shouldn't be complacent that WHV and Vitali are essentially rewriting history in trying to say that 1.77:1 is the correct ratio, nor should we have to settle for a transfer with a ratio that's merely "allowable" instead of the one that was preferred by the director.
They shouldn't, and I don't think they are. Every other film released on BD has been in OAR. allowing for the last 3 being opened up slightly from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1, although the Kubrick Estate at least isn't claiming those films were meant to be 1.77:1 . WHV has released Lolita, Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove in 1.66:1. Now, if the Estate was of the opinion that Stanley would've wanted 1.66:1 Barry Lyndon cropped to 1.77:1, then why didn't they do it to the other 1.66:1 films?
He's sticking to it because he doesn't believe he's wrong. This is an aspect ratio he's attributed to Barry Lyndon since at least the year 2001. He told the editor of The Kubrick Archive book that Barry Lyndon was 1.77:1, and she marked it as such in the book, and even cropped the film frames printed in the book to that ratio. He's so certain that 1.77:1 is the correct ratio because that's what he remembers it as, and the evidence so far hasn't convinced him otherwise.
The debate will probably never end, but to me, the preponderance of evidence that 1.66:1 is ratio the film was composed in and was Kubrick's preferred theatrical ratio convinces me that a mistake was made.
Again, from the letter:
"'Barry Lyndon' was photographed in 1-1:66 aspect ratio."
He specifically mentions that 1.66:1 was the aspect ratio it was shot in. It's not a ratio he was merely allowing; that was 1.75:1 or taller. It's the ratio the film was composed in, and the ratio he preferred it to be screened in, if at all possible.
I posted this info in another forum, but it seems like maybe I should quote the other references here as well. First, the book evidence:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/s...tio-issue.html
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!"
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!"
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?' "
"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?' "
"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.
From John Baxter's biog, Pg 299.
This story is also reported by Adrian Turner, "Shine On Stanley K", The Guardian, 23rd December, 1988.
Then, some anecdotes from people who were involved with screenings of the films.
Michael Brooke
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/s...538ebbd74e970b
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.
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.
http://homecinema.thedigitalfix.com/...ontentid=65400
We showed Barry Lyndon at Southampton University some twenty years ago, and I vividly remember the note to projectionist (signed by Kubrick) that came with it. 1.66:1 is the intended ratio, but he also said "but no wider than 1.75:1".
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/s...tio-issue.html
"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).
The debate will probably never end, but to me, the preponderance of evidence that 1.66:1 is ratio the film was composed in and was Kubrick's preferred theatrical ratio convinces me that a mistake was made.
Last edited by Jay G.; 06-24-11 at 09:56 AM.
06-23-11, 09:14 PM
#360
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
I feel it should be pointed out that, when Barry Lyndon was made, 1.77:1 was not an aspect ratio used for films. The big three were "scope" 2.35:1, 1.66:1, and 1.85:1. There were some films shot at 1.75:1, mostly in the UK, but this wasn't nearly as common as 1.66:1 was for Europe and 1.85:1 was for the US. And 1.77:1 never, ever was a ratio used until HD video entered the scene in the 90s, well after Barry Lyndon was shot. So Vitali pretty much has to be confused on the aspect ratio, the only question is by how much. I think the other evidence I've quoted shows that even Kubrick composing for 1.75:1 is extremely unlikely.
06-23-11, 11:04 PM
#361
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2011/...i_responds.php
by the way did I mention that Ryan O'Neal named one of his son's Redmond ... much f'n cooler than the neverending banter about aspect ratios
by the way did I mention that Ryan O'Neal named one of his son's Redmond ... much f'n cooler than the neverending banter about aspect ratios
06-24-11, 02:15 AM
#362
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
Good work Jay G. If you were a lawyer in a courtroom arguing this case, you would certainly win. The thing that boggles my mind is how Vitali can defend 1.77, when as you pointed out, this wasn't even a valid ratio until HD sets came into existence. For him to say that Barry Lyndon was shot 1.77 is ludicrous. At least if he would say "This is what Stanley would have done with today's technology", I could respect that opinion. But if I'm not mistaken, he's saying the film was composed for 1.77 which can easily be proven false.
06-24-11, 10:43 AM
#363
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
He cites the paintings of William Hogarth and their "boxy look" as a reference for Kubrick's choice of ratio, but 1.66:1 is a "boxier" aspect ratio, and thus closer to Hogarth's work. In fact, on his Wikipedia page, his "widest" painting is only 1.46:1, while others are much closer to 1.33:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hogarth
Then he mentions that when Kubrick screened the film at home, he'd ask, "Did you put the 1.77 aperture plate in, Leon?" However, as has been pointed out, 1.77:1 aperture plates didn't exist back then, and probably don't know. Even in more recent screenings, theaters have gone with 1.75:1 due to instructions from the Estate. Now, I don't think 1.75:1 is the proper aspect ratio either (it's allowable according to Kubrick's letter, but not preferred), but it does show how out of touch Vitiali is in regards to 1.77:1 as an aspect ratio.
Vitalis states, "Being a pragmatist at heart, Stanley would have had a 'Plan B' which would have been, I paraphrase here, 'If you can't show it in 1.77, show it in 1.66' (a more common format anyway), '... but no wider than 1.75'." Ignoring that this contradicts the letter (which doesn't mention 1.77:1 at all), Vitali contradicts himself when he states "no wider than 1.75:1," since 1.77:1 is wider than 1.75:1
It seems to me that Vitali has seriously confused the aspect ratios 1.66:1 and 1.77:1, at least in regards to this film. All of his "evidence" for 1.77:1 is apparently based on his memories "This is what Stanley told me, etc..." Even when he validates the letter as genuine, his own preconceived notions/memories override even what is written down in the letter.
Hopefully, someone will be able to able to convince Vitali he's wrong. However, since he's had this incorrect impression for so long it may be difficult to convince him, since it's apparently overwritten his actual memories of what Kubrick told him, so Vitali actually "remembers" Kubrick telling him this obviously nonsensical ratio for the film.
06-24-11, 02:00 PM
#365
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes
on
126 Posts
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
Jay G:
I 100% agree with you. You're logic is sound and your evidence complete. But personally, even though I am an OAR purist, when it comes to 1.66 vs. 1.75 vs. 1.77, I think it's just splitting hairs. The difference is very slight. I know right is right and that this isn't right, but the problem is so slight it does not deter me from buying it.
A pan & scan 2001 is A PROBLEM.
Getting the Shining and FMJ in something other than open matte was a triumph.
Fussing about 1.66 vs 1.75 for BL when it's been screened anywhere between 1.66 and 1.85 for the last 30 years just isn't worth my time. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it isn't worth the battle.
I 100% agree with you. You're logic is sound and your evidence complete. But personally, even though I am an OAR purist, when it comes to 1.66 vs. 1.75 vs. 1.77, I think it's just splitting hairs. The difference is very slight. I know right is right and that this isn't right, but the problem is so slight it does not deter me from buying it.
A pan & scan 2001 is A PROBLEM.
Getting the Shining and FMJ in something other than open matte was a triumph.
Fussing about 1.66 vs 1.75 for BL when it's been screened anywhere between 1.66 and 1.85 for the last 30 years just isn't worth my time. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it isn't worth the battle.
06-24-11, 02:48 PM
#366
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
I 100% agree with you. You're logic is sound and your evidence complete. But personally, even though I am an OAR purist, when it comes to 1.66 vs. 1.75 vs. 1.77, I think it's just splitting hairs. The difference is very slight. I know right is right and that this isn't right, but the problem is so slight it does not deter me from buying it.
Also, it should be noted that the different aspect ratio isn't the only possible issue with this transfer. Evidence from screenshots shows that the BD is slightly stretched horizontally in comparison to previous DVD/LD releases, suggesting some possible squeezing of the image to fit into the frame (assuming the previous releases weren't the ones stretched). Also, the vertical cropping on the BD crawls a bit up and down the frame compared to the previous DVD/LD releases, suggesting a possible case of vertical P&S for the film to fit the new framing (again, assuming the previous releases were either fully open-matte or center cropped).
The thing is, it's not just this BD that's been affected. As Truffaut Fan pointed out, Vitali is convinced that 1.77:1 is OAR and the aspect ratio the movie was composed in. And since Vitali is in a position of authority for Kubrick's Estate, his misconception has also affected The Kubrick Archives book, which was published several years ago. If Vitali isn't corrected or overruled, the very history of the film's aspect ratio has the potential to be rewritten, and the film may never be released or screened in the proper aspect ratio again. Even if WHV never fixes this particular release, it's important that Vitali's mistake gets corrected so film doesn't suffer the same fate in the future.
08-04-11, 11:10 PM
#367
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/...oneal.charges/
satisfaction with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun seems a bit extreme
satisfaction with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun seems a bit extreme
08-06-11, 11:16 AM
#370
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
obviously not that we're getting a Special features packed BD of Lolita or Barry Lyndon...
which they deserve to have. Is too much to hope (it won't happen) that CC gets BL and Lolita? I mean...we need some love on these films.
which they deserve to have. Is too much to hope (it won't happen) that CC gets BL and Lolita? I mean...we need some love on these films.
08-06-11, 04:05 PM
#371
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 2,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
Not unless Warner finally decides to join the other majors and license out their films, which to date they have not done.
11-10-11, 08:14 AM
#372
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
11-10-11, 08:54 AM
#373
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: AUSTIN - Land of Mexican Coke
Posts: 3,921
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
Yeah just saw that. About to post myself. Glad I held out for a while! Now what to do with the HD DVDs . . .
11-10-11, 06:04 PM
#374
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes
on
126 Posts
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
Somebody give a quick run down on that set. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Spartacus: (1) probably forthecoming from Criterion (2) avoid all catalogue Universal titles, they're shit
Lolita: Good release, same release discussed in this thread
2001: Same transfer as previous blu
Dr. Strangelove: Good release, same as previous release
Clockwork: Same transfer as previous blu
Barry Lyndon: Good release, same release discussed in this thread
Shining: Same transfer as previous blu
FMJ: Same transfer as previous blu
EYS: Same transfer as previous blu
Unless you don't have these on blu already I don't think there's anything worth spending $148 or $62 bucks on. Particularly when you can pick up individual titles for less than $15
Spartacus: (1) probably forthecoming from Criterion (2) avoid all catalogue Universal titles, they're shit
Lolita: Good release, same release discussed in this thread
2001: Same transfer as previous blu
Dr. Strangelove: Good release, same as previous release
Clockwork: Same transfer as previous blu
Barry Lyndon: Good release, same release discussed in this thread
Shining: Same transfer as previous blu
FMJ: Same transfer as previous blu
EYS: Same transfer as previous blu
Unless you don't have these on blu already I don't think there's anything worth spending $148 or $62 bucks on. Particularly when you can pick up individual titles for less than $15
11-10-11, 07:55 PM
#375
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: Lolita and Barry Lyndon coming in 2011
I wouldn't go that far on Universal. I BELIEVE they had one recent solid catalogue release. I BELIEVE so....I could be wrong. But yeah...mostly shit if not all.