The Criterion Collection

[Benoit Blanc]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have a few of those in my collection too.

PM me a list if ya feel like it, I'm intrigued.

[CRASHLANDING]

Originally Posted by jkoffman

Quote (Originally Posted by postmodel):

I emailed Criterion about The Virgin Suicides

CRITERION: As always, we worked closely with the creators of the film to preserve their vision for this release.

Quote (Originally Posted by MifuneFan):

I emailed Criterion about the [Summertime] AR

CRITERION: Our production team believes that 1,37:1 is the best way to present this film

In fairness, no one that could reasonably considered a "creator" of Summertime is still alive, unlike The Virgin Suicides. So Criterion really has no choice but to rely on their own best judgment.

My understanding is that it was originally shot in Academy ratio but composed to accommodate widescreen showings (via matting) if the theater preferred, so it's not like Criterion is cropping the image for this presentation. Would have been nice to have both, but I don't see this as a major offense like some other situations.

[Cremildo]

Why are some people choosing to ignore Mr. Furmanek's evidence that Summertime was made with widescreen in mind? Criterion had the choice to look such information up.

[tatterdemalion]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

I ran into the same problem. Giant porn collection too?

I don't own porn but wouldn't have a problem listing them if I did. Nothing to be embarrassed about owning an Annette Haven film.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Then who was that old woman I saw sitting in the window?

[JasonMichael]

Originally Posted by koberulz

It doesn't take that long, if the barcodes are in the database.

Tell that to my fifteen year old flip phone! I ain't entering all my movies by hand.

[hariseldon]

Originally Posted by Jaymole

I decided to take my collection off from view because I got too many asinine and snarky comments from posters. I kept it in view before because I thought it may help people who browsed it in making them aware of certain films... it was definitely not to show off.

Made mine private years ago for a similar issue. I started getting weird posts and even stranger PM about why I bought items and my viewing habits, how much I made or what I did for a living to be able waste that much money on movies, seriously personal questioning my sanity or honesty and none of your business stuff even on a collectors forum, etc.)

It got to be a distraction for the forum and me. It's still there and in DVDProfiler if I need it for some reason (theft, distributing to my heirs -- who don't want them to begin with, and just general 'do i have that item?')

[Matt89]

I think it's insane that some people on here judge others from either the content of their collections or the size and scope of them, as if it's some sort of d*ck measuring contest. Do they think that people have only seen the films in their collection and nothing else? Some of my friends have nothing but avi files of their favourite films stored on a harddrive and don't own any physical media, and they're some of the biggest cinephiles I know. I met a lot of them in film studies in undergrad, so they're definitely "movie" people. Also, when it comes to my collection, I like what I like and I don't give a crap what other people think.

I used to have my collection catalogued on FilmAficionado and when they closed up shop I began cataloguing my films here. I only had maybe 500-600 at the time so it wasn't an insane amount of physical media to go through, but I sort of had fun doing it? Is that crazy? LOL. I've also gone through periods where I've purged huge chunks of my collection so sometimes I actually forget what I own and cataloguing my movie collection has helped when browsing second-hand shops and other places that sell physical media. Nothing worse than getting home and realizing you already own the film you just bought. It's happened to me once (and I was able to exchange it) but never again lol.

~Matt

[jkoffman]

Originally Posted by hariseldon

Made mine private years ago for a similar issue. I started getting weird posts and even stranger PM about why I bought items and my viewing habits, how much I made or what I did for a living to be able waste that much money on movies, seriously personal questioning my sanity or honesty and none of your business stuff even on a collectors forum, etc.)

It got to be a distraction for the forum and me. It's still there and in DVDProfiler if I need it for some reason (theft, distributing to my heirs -- who don't want them to begin with, and just general 'do i have that item?')

I’m guessing that times and the culture here eventually changed, but maybe I’m just lucky. I’ve only been more active here in the last 4 years or so, and I honestly don’t think that I’ve ever had a single negative PM here, or from a total stranger, nor has anyone ever mentioned anything about my collection. I didn’t even know it was a thing until JWBORED piped up.

[jkoffman]

Originally Posted by CRASHLANDING

In fairness, no one that could reasonably considered a "creator" of Summertime is still alive, unlike The Virgin Suicides. So Criterion really has no choice but to rely on their own best judgment.

My understanding is that it was originally shot in Academy ratio but composed to accommodate widescreen showings (via matting) if the theater preferred, so it's not like Criterion is cropping the image for this presentation. Would have been nice to have both, but I don't see this as a major offense like some other situations.

If you’re interested, check out the Summertime thread. There’s much documentation that shows otherwise. I struggle with Criterion’s “we think it looks better this way” response.

[CRASHLANDING]

Originally Posted by jkoffman

If you’re interested, check out the Summertime thread. There’s much documentation that shows otherwise. I struggle with Criterion’s “we think it looks better this way” response.

Thanks - and I respect your opinion and that of others on this. But I just read through that thread and I'm still not seeing anything conclusive. The evidence from Mr. Furmanek being cited as "definitive proof" is a single newspaper quote from producer Ilya Lopert that states the film is being "shot for widescreen presentation." But that could simply mean that it's being composed to allow for widescreen. His other two sources are reviews stating the AR as 1.85:1, but those also don't necessarily prove that was the preferred presentation. As others correctly noted, widescreen had mostly become the standard by that time and is how most reviewers would have likely seen the film so we'd expect that to be cited in their reviews.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, nor am I saying that 1.37:1 is the best or "right" choice. Just that I don't think it's quite as clearly wrong as is being suggested. Personally, I wish they had included both versions, especially in the absence of clear guidance by Lean or Hildyard. But as I said earlier it does matter that this was originally shot in 1.37:1 and was exhibited that way in at least some theaters. Criterion isn't cropping off the sides of a widescreen image to create an Academy ratio version - that decision would be much more deserving of criticism.

I'm going to post these thoughts in the Summertime forum and carry on any further discussion there, with apologies for derailing this thread. I have never seen the film myself, so I'm looking forward to the opportunity with this release even if some are disappointed.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by CRASHLANDING

Thanks - and I respect your opinion and that of others on this. But I just read through that thread and I'm still not seeing anything conclusive. The evidence from Mr. Furmanek being cited as "definitive proof" is a single newspaper quote from producer Ilya Lopert that states the film is being "shot for widescreen presentation." But that could simply mean that it's being composed to allow for widescreen. His other two sources are reviews stating the AR as 1.85:1, but those also don't necessarily prove that was the preferred presentation. As others correctly noted, widescreen had mostly become the standard by that time and is how most reviewers would have likely seen the film so we'd expect that to be cited in their reviews.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, nor am I saying that 1.37:1 is the best or "right" choice. Just that I don't think it's quite as clearly wrong as is being suggested. Personally, I wish they had included both versions, especially in the absence of clear guidance by Lean or Hildyard. But as I said earlier it does matter that this was originally shot in 1.37:1 and was exhibited that way in at least some theaters. Criterion isn't cropping off the sides of a widescreen image to create an Academy ratio version - that decision would be much more deserving of criticism.

I'm going to post these thoughts in the Summertime forum and carry on any further discussion there, with apologies for derailing this thread. I have never seen the film myself, so I'm looking forward to the opportunity with this release even if some are disappointed.

The only reason Summertime would've been screened in 1.37:1 in 1955 would've been because certain theatres were incapable of showing widescreen films (aka they hadn't been converted yet). However, by 1955 that was becoming extremely rare. Widescreen was the standard in Hollywood by the end of 1953 and nothing was shot with the intention of being screened in academy ratio after that transition.

I think many people fail to realize how quickly Hollywood transitioned to widescreen and once they made that transition, everything was shot with the intention of being shown in widescreen. The studios had to quickly find a way of bringing audiences back to the theatres after attendance plummeted following WWII, the Paramount decree of 1948 and the advent of television. The baby boom was also a major contributing factor as people moved out of urban centres (where a majority first-run movie theatres were located) into suburban neighbourhoods to raise their families. Thus, widescreen was invented to bring audiences back, to give them something they couldn't get from the comfort of their own homes. Widescreen was a HUGE selling point, and it would've hindered their attempt to recoup lost revenue by continuing to release films in academy ratio.

~Matt

[CRASHLANDING]

Originally Posted by Matt89

The only reason Summertime would've been screened in 1.37:1 in 1955 would've been because certain theatres were incapable of showing widescreen films (aka they hadn't been converted yet). However, by 1955 that was becoming extremely rare. Widescreen was the standard in Hollywood by the end of 1953 and nothing was shot with the intention of being screened in academy ratio after that transition.

~Matt

Fair point, though it certainly seems this was shot to accommodate both ARs since it's the widescreen version that is masked. Again, I wish Criterion had given both options, but this is what they've chosen to release. Since we aren't losing any of the image that was actually shot, I can live with it. Understand that others are disappointed.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by CRASHLANDING

Fair point, though it certainly seems this was shot to accommodate both ARs since it's the widescreen version that is masked. Again, I wish Criterion had given both options, but this is what they've chosen to release. Since we aren't losing any of the image that was actually shot, I can live with it. Understand that others are disappointed.

It would've been shot in 1.33:1 regardless as that's how all flat widescreen movies were filmed, with the intention of being matted later on for theatrical exhibition, whether it be 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2:1, etc.

By the end of 1953, widescreen was the standard. Virtually nothing was filmed with the intention of being shown in 1.37:1 after 1953.

~Matt

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by Matt89

By the end of 1953, widescreen was the standard. Virtually nothing was filmed with the intention of being shown in 1.37:1 after 1953.

~Matt

Except some of them auteur types:

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Except some of them auteur types:

Well, yes of course. However, the discussion being had specifically relates to Hollywood filmmaking in the 1950s. When I say no film was released with a 1.37:1 AR in mind post-1953, I mean American films made during the studio era.

This obviously doesn't apply to a vast majority of European films from the likes of Godard, Fellini, Bergman, etc. as those weren't American films made within the framework of the studio system.

~Matt

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Except some of them auteur types:

[Show spoiler]

Seriously? Why didn’t you just post The Artist while you were at it?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Seriously? Why didn’t you just post The Artist while you were at it?

I thought we were all trying to forget that movie.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I thought we were all trying to forget that movie.

How could we forget the great BP sewage spill of 2012?

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I thought we were all trying to forget that movie.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

How could we forget the great BP sewage spill of 2012?

So much disdain. I enjoyed the movie when I saw it on the screen, and thought it was cute, although I never felt like revisiting it. That said, I have a greater liking for the OSS117 movies that the actor-director pair made (the first 2, haven't seen the third), and had been dearly hoping for English-friendly releases that subtitle the commentary and extras on those.