Shining, FMJ, and EWS look far better in 1:33:1. It looks, to me at least, that it was composed specifically for Full Frame.

On another note, I actually like how is last three movies look in fullscreen, specifically The Shining. It creates a more confining effect that I really think only adds to the film.

that particular shot is an over-the-shoulder of Ermey who has an extraordinary amount of headroom above him -- further evidence to me that Kubrick composed FMJ for 1.85:1. in fact all of the shots on dvdbeaver look like 1.85:1 films with the matte removed.

the story goes that Kubrick was so incensed by the pan & scan broadcast of 2001 on the BBC, that he vowed he would not allow anyone to tamper with his ratio again for TV viewing -- so he made provisions for all non-theatrical viewing to be open matte 1.33:1. all of this, as can be read in his own words, was secondary to his primary compositions.

James Cameron did the same thing when shooting 2.35:1 on Super 35 with "protection" so he could reframe the shots for full frame.

I dunno, man, if you looked at those screen captures at dvdbeaver...to me, the space above Ermey's head is to contrast his height with Modine's, whose head, again, goes all the way to the top of the 1.33:1 frame. Well, aesthetically and compositionally, it works for me.

then why the overabundance of headroom in every other close-up?

Can you direct me as to where I might find these "straight from the horse's mouth" quotes?

in SK's handwritten notes found in the book referenced in the original post.

So you're saying one handwritten note implies a preference for 1.85:1 exhibition and another shows preference for 1.33:1???

you're confused. read the original post again. the notations are an instruction for his second unit to compose their exterior shots at an aspect ration of 1.85:1 while keeping the entire frame clear of booms, production gear, etc as "protection" for when the matte is opened up, presumably for home video.

Then my confusion is with your latter statements, not the original post's, which are of no help because only Kubrick's last two of his films were made in the home video age--he would have been protecting for the pan-and-scan/full-frame option of television broadcast, which would have had yet in the '60s, 70's and '80s to offer widescreen exhibition. In other words, widescreen exhibition on television was not an option; therefore, ALL directors of the time not filming with anamorphic lenses would have made efforts to protect for 1.33:1 broadcast. These handwritten notations do NOT clarify Kubrick's intentions with home video formats that offer an original aspect ratio option.

that's right, no specifics are given as to his preference for video transfers beyond that he protected the full frame. one could speculate that he did so, so that the matte could be opened up instead of P&S which we know he detested. but most importantly, these notations do tell us that on set he was composing for 1.85:1.

I also have to disagree. I really noticed this on EWS, that the composition of the shots clearly looked to me like they were framed in 4:3 aspect ratio. I really can't see how that film could be matted down to 1.85:1 and look right, or nearly as amazingly composed as it does.

Same for FMJ and Shining, but that's just my opinion. I'm a photo student so I look for those things, I could still be wrong though.

I beg to differ. While it's certainly true that the desire to get people back in the movie theaters helped drive the success of panavision, etc., there is most certainly an inherent aesthetic ideal in widescreen ratio composition that's utterly lacking in 4:3--specifically, it more closely models the way we perceive the world, and is therefore a fuller and more immersive experience.

Our eyes are next to each other horizontally, not above each other, and so a field of vision that's wider than it is tall is natural. To further extend this fact of reality, we live in a world where we travel mostly on horizontal surfaces and (in most languages) read text in horizontal lines. Widescreen is preferable because it's simply a superior way to represent the world we live in and the way we perceive it.

The whole point wasn't about composition, but about resolution.

Kubrick obviously was worried about resolution being lost on the old non-anamorphic letterboxing process. He just didn't see why The Shining should be masked, since it would be a lot of resolution on a TV screen lost. Basically, it's a compromsie between screen resolution and image area. Obviously, 2001 and Spartacus would need to be letterboxed. However, for all of his other films, they simply needed as much frame area to be revealed on video as possible.

When he died, anamorphic wasn't really a standard yet. While WB did use 16x9 enhancing, Fox, Criterion, Universal, Disney, Paramount, and MGM were still going for old 4x3.

So, it's logical to assume that with 16x9 being the standard now, matting his films would be the right way for presentation.

I totally agree, Naitram. Having studied photography a bit and looking at the screenshots on DVDBeaver from Shining and Full Metal, I still think the composition was intentionally 1.33:1. Again, I don't think we'll ever know for sure, but that's what it looks like to me. And it think it's beautiful. Needless to say, a master.

never know for sure? these are handwritten notes by Kubrick telling his second unit crew on The Shining to compose their shots for 1.85:1.

You know...I don't f@#king care anymore. I like how the 1.33:1 composition looks, I'm out.

Well y'know on my Region 1 DVD of The Shining during the title sequence there are shots were the helicopter's shadow is visible and on the approach to the Overlook Hotel we can see Rotor Blades intruding at the top of the frame. I somehow doubt that the uber perfectionist Kubrick really wanted either to be visible.

As it happens a film collector friend has a 35mm Print of The Shining. I must ask him what the aspect ration info recorded on the cans is...

At any rate I do believe that Kubrick's insistence on Full Frame mon only video transfers is something he'd have soon abandoned had he lived just a year or two longer.

I don't know, Kubrick was very tech savvy, he had to know things like that were coming. So if he was really intent on having his film seen in the theatrical aspect ratio he would have been making plans. I still don't trust these The Shining notes, they were about 20 years old by the time his last film was complete, he could have changed his mind.

You know, just that fact that Kubrick an ultra perfectionist was not married to his latter films in 1.85:1 ratio, makes me doubt how important it really is.

well, what about The Shining, then? do you doubt he wanted that film composed for 1.85:1? also, FMJ was released when letterboxing was still an extreme rarity so making sure to "protect" for open matte home video was unlikely to change since The Shining. and finally, EWS was released to home video after his death. Warner Bros made their decisions based on the same old guidelines they had with Kubrick that motivated them to use very old "director approved" masters for the first box set. the film itself was theatrically exhibited worldwide at 1.85:1.

Looks like this revelation did anything but clear up the confusion!

If you want to see movies the way they were shown in the theaters, then, at least in the case of the Shining, it seems clear that the 1.85 aspect ratio would be the correct version...perhaps that's what was meant by the matter being "settled."

While I can appreciate Kubrick wanting to protect his vision for the majority of home viewers, it's a bit disappointing that allowances weren't made (or predicted) for people with the desire and wherewithal to recreate the true (or at least as true as possible) cinematic experience at home.

Isn't there supposed to be another Kubrick box set coming out? Maybe they'll include both the theatrical and full frame versions where possible this time.

A bit off topic but has anyone gotten their hands on this book yet? I worship Kubrick but $126 is a whole lot especially on my 16 year old's salery. To give you an idea I get payed every two weeks and this check was the price of the book. So worth the investment or smarter to pass?

DVD Beaver has tons of pics and plenty to say about the book at this link...

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/kubrick-archives.htm

HD Movienet has recently shown both "Eyes Wide Shut" and "Full Metal Jacket" in 1.78:1 (essentially 1.85:1). I was disappointed to find that the framing looked completely off. More than ever, I'm certain that these two films were composed for 1.33:1.

I still think the perfect Kubrick set would include transfers in 1.33:1 and 1.78:1, but I suspect I'd always opt for the former.