The Definitive Answer about the Kubrick Aspect ratio answered; 16X9 is wrong.

[VoodooSamurai]

How is this even a debate?
Leon Vitali, Kubrick's closest assistant answers the debate clearly in no uncertain terms in this interview.

-----------
[from DVDtalk interview]
One of the areas of greatest debate in the DVD community is about aspect ratios. The two films that people talk about the most in terms of aspect ratio are Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, maybe because those are the ones that have been seen theatrical by the DVD buying audience. But people will go through kind of frame by frame and say "In the trailer of Eyes Wide Shut, you can see a sign on the street that you can't see on the full frame video. You can see an extra character…" So how do you address the differences between the theatrical releases of Eyes Wide Shut and of Full Metal Jacket in the DVD releases?

The original video release of Full Metal Jacket was in the supervised hands and owned by Stanley. 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. What he wanted the videos to reflect was how he shot the film through the camera, what was on the original neg and what his composition when he was shooting it was. That's why Full Metal Jacket is in full frame. If people looked, okay? What you get on the video that you didn't get in the theatrical because of the 185 masking, was what Stanley was invisioning. You assume these soldiers in the world that they're in. And he uses wide angle uses to shoot. I mean an 18 millimeter lens was the commonest one. He used 24 sometimes. Wide angle lenses. It was important to him the relationship between things. You can see in Full Metal Jacket how small the people were in relation to this huge landscape.

The thing with Eyes Wide Shot, it was how he saw the thing through the camera and how he set it up. That's what he wanted to reflect in his videos.

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


If full frame was so important why didn't Kubrick release them theatrically that way?

After Barry Lyndon, more and more theaters were showing films 1.85 or in Cinemascope even if it wasn't shot that way. He had no control. He couldn't go around every cinema and say "You show this film in 1.66" as you could with Clockwork Orange, because then the projectors had 1.66 mask. With multi-plexes things are different and so they only show a film in 1.85 or in 2.21, the Cinemascope. You know? You cannot put a mask in 1.66 as it should be for Clockwork Orange. You can't put a 1.77 in as it should be for Barry Lyndon and that's what Stanley understood with The Shining onwards.

He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not.

You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it. Stanley realized that masking for 1.85 would far outweigh having 1.66 projected at 1.85. We did a re-release of Clockwork in the U.K. and it's 1.66. It's composed for 1.66. It's shot in 1.66, and the whole shebang. Well, you know, they had to screen it in 1.85. I can't tell you how much it hurt that film.

That must have been awful.

It's horrible. It's horrible. It's heartbreaking. I mean, it's heartbreaking. You realize that when we got to The Shining, this was after the release of Barry Lyndon, this is how it was all being done.

He realized that the best thing he could do is to at least do it so that he understood that beside the 1.85 frame line, they were going to have the composition that he would want you to see.

From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85 lines. He composed his shots for the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it.

So he did the reverse of what most directors do, who look at the 'TV Safe Area', Stanley looked at the '1.85 Safe Area'.

Absolutely. Absolutely.
--------------

Will WARNER BROTHERS -please- release academy ratio blu-rays of the films, and will Criterion go back for Paths of Glory and The Killing to respect the entire frame that Kubrick envisioned and blocked.

Joe Six Pack are free to hold onto the widescreen versions, let the purists who understand what Kubrick was trying to achieve with his cinematography, have the correct ones in HD. As far as I'm concerned there is no debate, Vitali answers it in no uncertain terms.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

How is this even a debate?

Joe Six Pack are free to hold onto the widescreen versions, let the purists who understand what Kubrick was trying to achieve with his cinematography, have the correct ones in HD. As far as I'm concerned there is no debate, Vitali answers it in no uncertain terms.

Actually, it's my understanding that Vitali has changed course on his proclamations more than once. Also, the fact that Kubrick passed prior to widescreen taking off doesn't answer the question as to whether or not a film he clearly storyboarded at 16x9 - The Shining - would be seen as 'proper' by him given the advent of today's tech.

Additionally, Vitali's statements on The Shining fly directly in the face of one of its editors:

Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre.

All the Steenbecks in the cutting rooms accordingly had their screens marked, or even masked off, with the 1.85:1 ratio. The 6-plate Steenbeck in Stanley and Ray's main cutting room was masked off with black masking tape, because you cannot cut a movie properly unless you can see the frame exactly as it will appear in the cinema.

However the helicopter shadow IS almost certainly visible for about 4 or 5 frames at the edge of the 1.85:1 masking. But it was NOT visible on any of the correctly marked-up Steenbecks, or in the main viewing theatre at Elstree, at least, not as the first version of the film left Elstree in 1980. I think now that this mistake may have crept in very late during the editing of the movie when the first caption-title 'The Interview' was shortened by 8 frames on 23 April 1980 and the Main Title/credit sequence was lengthened accordingly by 8 frames, since the music could not be shortened. (This information is based on my original cutting room notes)

The guy's dead, and clearly framed differently for his films. No definitive answer is forthcoming, that's for sure.

So that's how it is a debate.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

Joe Six Pack are free to hold onto the widescreen versions, let the purists who understand what Kubrick was trying to achieve with his cinematography, have the correct ones in HD. As far as I'm concerned there is no debate, Vitali answers it in no uncertain terms.

Let's be realistic: Joe Six Pack couldn't care less about Kubrick's films.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

Will WARNER BROTHERS -please- release academy ratio blu-rays of the films, and will Criterion go back for Paths of Glory and The Killing to respect the entire frame that Kubrick envisioned and blocked.

Academy ratio??? Where did that come from? Even if one assumes everything Vitali says is gospel isn't he saying 1.66 was (generally) Kubrick's prefered frame?

How do you get from there to 1.37 (4:3ish)?

[42041]

The guy is spewing crap, basically calling Kubrick a complete idiot. To suggest that such a meticulous, visually-oriented filmmaker knowingly compromised the presentation of his movies (framing them for television, lol) is preposterous.

[Dragun]

Look at this storyboard from The Shining

"The frame is exactly 1-1.85. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1.33 area."

[frightism]

Is this conversation seriously coming back from the grave?

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by frightism

Is this conversation seriously coming back from the grave?

I guess so, he was working overtime in the original thread earlier today.

[bboisvert]

This is the same stuff Vitali's been saying for years. It's not "the definitive answer"... it's some truth mixed in with some fiction mixed in with some guesses about the wishes of a dead man.


I'll take the theatrical aspect ratio for these (and, actually, all) films. Thanks.

[Kryptonic]

They were projected in 1.85:1 in theaters. Kubrick composed for that. End of story.

[Kriztoffer Swank]

And the 1.66 framing of Blu-rays like Dr. Strangelove and The Killing offers a nice compromise for movies Kubrick preferred open matte for 4:3 displays. Why can't people be satisfied with that? :p

[VoodooSamurai]

I apologize for my strong language ... It just frustrates me that HD has pretended these original compositions didn't exist. I don't want the future generations to think that the full academy compositions were for nothing, when they are the ones that Stanley Kubrick actually prefers, while 16X9 he made for safety/theatrical screening. Here is yet another interview that confirms this -- as the interview states, you can't go wrong with either, but he also states in no uncertain terms that Kubrick preferred academy ratio. I too think the films lose something when cropped.
(Leon wasn't just some nobody, he was Kubrick's closest assistant and worked with him everyday in his mansion, he also acted in two Kubrick films.)
--------
LV: ...You have the whole frame. When he shot through the camera what he would do was compose for 1.33 -- which is the full TV screen -- and also for 1.85. It's not an uncommon thing to do. But he would intentionally have action going on in the top of the frame. In Full Metal Jacket, a really good example, on the TV screen you see it in a really different context. It doesn't lose its power. Suddenly you're seeing tops of buildings. You're seeing how small these people are inside that milieu. And that danger can come from anywhere. The same with The Shining. It has another kind of power on the TV screen. And another kind of power when it's shown theatrically. But there's no doubt about it, when you see a film like Barry Lyndon or 2001 (*note, 2001, Lyndon, Clockwork Orange, Lolita, Spartacus, Strangelove are not part of the debate, they are as intended)-- and I'd say also The Shining -- theatrically they're a hell of an experience. It's an experience, that's what it is.
-------
JS: I saw Full Metal Jacket during the Film Forum series (in 2000), and all of a sudden it was like -- seeing it cropped to 1.85, and changing the composition, it called so much more attention to the lines within the barracks. But also, every time they're outside and doing something, the troops will maybe be in the foreground or moving along the Z-axis -- but splitting the screen in almost every shot there's a line of troops in the background. My jaw just dropped. Almost every shot. And it just gave the most incredible depth to the compositions.
LV: You know, he was not a fan of 1.85. He always thought, you know, "You pay to see a movie, you want to see the whole picture." He always thought that if you're ripping out 27 percent of your screen space in a letterbox format that was a bit sad.But he understood with the multiplex situation what was happening; that was really the only way to go. That's the same reason he only recorded in mono. Everything except for 2001 -- which in 70mm, there's no point in having a mono track with that -- and Eyes Wide Shut. Because by the time we made Eyes Wide Shut, he realized that most of the multiplexes -- and I would say that 90 percent of the movie houses in the UK are multiplexes now -- understood that sound was something that had become important to the average viewer.
-----------
Inevitably WB will re-release the Kubrick films on HD and 4K, as they do every five years. I really hope that they release the 1.33 box ratio with the 16X9 ones. I'm afraid Paths of Glory/The Killing is another debate though, personally I believe they are also preferred to be 1.33, having seen both versions. *** Barry Lyndon there is some debate about 1.77 vs 1.66, I also prefer 1.66, but since Vitali states that it was always intended for 1.77 I'm gonna put that crusade on hold

[42041]

I'm still confused as to which part of "The frame is exactly 1-1.85, obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1.33 area" leaves any ambiguity as to the intended AR of the Shining?

[VoodooSamurai]

That storyboard for The Shining doesn't contradict the debate at all. It is probably a good way to watch them. but over and over we are hearing he preferred the full picture and considered 1.85 a compromise of the entire composition that SK visualized. "27 % of the whole picture cut off".

that 27 % makes a big difference. It is also why there is no debate for 2001, Clockwork Orange, Spartacus. If those were 1.33 they would look awful. I want to see the entire picture that he composed and visualized, in HD

[whbinder]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

How is this even a debate?

Since you asked a very direct question. I will give you a very direct answer.

There are many many pieces of conflicting information on the subject. Each of these pieces comes from sources that are as legitimate or moreso than the interview you have posted. You have one piece of that puzzle. You have decided to not look any further, or consider any other piece of information because of all the credible pieces of information available on the subject you have chosen this one and decided to look no further.

If only that one piece of information was available, there would be no debate. Since several pieces of credible information are available. There is debate. That is the answer to your question.

Additionally. Since the subject is in debate, you are welcome to enter this information into the discussion of people more informed than you or I. But that has not earned you the right to claim your information as definitive. No piece of information on this subject can be classified as such. Your information in particular has been discredited many many times and certainly cannot be considered definitive.

So that is why there is debate. Your arrogance and unwillingness to participate in thoughtful discussion are why you are met with hostility.

You are welcome to your opinions of which versions of film are more aesthetically pleasing. You are welcome to your guesses on what Kubrick's intentions are. But you are not welcome to repeatedly disrupt these boards to present the same piece of information as the end all of any conversation, any more than someone with one page from the Warren Commission Report can claim definitively what happened in Dallas in 1962.

Your information has been added to the dialogue. Thank you. There is no need to reiterate it repeatedly.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by whbinder

You are welcome to your opinions of which versions of film are more aesthetically pleasing. You are welcome to your guesses on what Kubrick's intentions are. But you are not welcome to repeatedly disrupt these boards to present the same piece of information as the end all of any conversation, any more than someone with one page from the Warren Commission Report can claim definitively what happened in Dallas in 1962.

Eek. 1963. Not 1962.

And it was 48 years ago today.

[Eny-]

This is just trolling now.

[whbinder]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Eek. 1963. Not 1962.

Of course. I stand corrected.

(Dear Clint, this is called rational people admitting their mistakes)

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

That storyboard for The Shining doesn't contradict the debate at all. It is probably a good way to watch them. but over and over we are hearing he preferred the full picture and considered 1.85 a compromise of the entire composition that SK visualized. "27 % of the whole picture cut off".

That's standard protocol for 1.85:1 films. The 1.37:1 frame is exposed, but framed for 1.85:1. The rest is EXTRA, and the filmmakers take care not to get boom mics, lights, etc. in the extra area, for when that area is exposed for 4:3 transfers. That area is NOT an intended area for the composition. Why would someone who knew so much about photography and filmmaking as Kubrick compose for 1.37:1 when he knew that his frame would be cropped to 1.85:1 in the theaters? Makes no sense.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by Dragun

That's standard protocol for 1.85:1 films. The 1.37:1 frame is exposed, but framed for 1.85:1. The rest is EXTRA, and the filmmakers take care not to get boom mics, lights, etc. in the extra area, for when that area is exposed for 4:3 transfers. That area is NOT an intended area for the composition. Why would someone who knew so much about photography and filmmaking as Kubrick compose for 1.37:1 when he knew that his frame would be cropped to 1.85:1 in the theaters? Makes no sense.

Good answer, also it's important to keep in mind that the first use of letterboxing in home video was only 1984. Up to that point home video was either cropping the frame to 4:3 or the dreaded pan and scan. So Kubrick didn't want his home releases pan and scanned, hence his interest in keeping 4:3 safe.