The Criterion Collection

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by retablo

To me, it feels like a ploy for them to raise the MSRP $10. ANY film could be released both OAR and open matte, but they never do that. I hope it's not the start of a trend.

It's not the start of a trend; they're doing it for OTW because the argument for an open matte presentation is stronger than usual. Kazan had only shot in 1.37:1 up until OTW, and he turned down making the film for Fox because they insisted he shoot in 'scope.

Columbia allowed him to shoot the film in 1.37:1, although he was definitely aware that his final result would be matted to 1.85:1 in most of the big theatres because a lot had converted to widescreen by that point.

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by retablo

To me, it feels like a ploy for them to raise the MSRP $10. ANY film could be released both OAR and open matte, but they never do that. I hope it's not the start of a trend.

Actually, Olive has released the 1958 Paramount Technicolor noir THE TRAP with both a 1.33 and a 1.78 scan on the disc. It looks pretty good at 1.33 but looks better overall at 1.78. On the other hand the Image Blu-ray of SUDDENLY is 1.33 only and definitely looks better zoomed to the 1.78 monitor/projector setting.

There are a few more recent movies (post-1980), like Woody Allen's PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO and Carl Reiner's DEAD MEN DON'T WEAR PLAID that would benefit greatly by a 1.33 video release. I remember when playing them in the theatre stuck with only a 1.85 flat lens, having to ride the framing knob to keep the picture so what needed to be seen was seen. Others originally shot for TV but eventually released theatrically, like MULHOLLAND DRIVE and GETTYSBURG, are titles I'd like to see with a 1.33 option.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

It's not the start of a trend; they're doing it for OTW because the argument for an open matte presentation is stronger than usual. Kazan had only shot in 1.37:1 up until OTW, and he turned down making the film for Fox because they insisted he shoot in 'scope.

Columbia allowed him to shoot the film in 1.37:1, although he was definitely aware that his final result would be matted to 1.85:1 in most of the big theatres because a lot had converted to widescreen by that point.

Right, which means the final composition HAD to be 1.85. You can always open it, but you can't crop it down and keep the sides. Which is why it really should only be 1.85:1... doesn't matter either way, but I'd rather have a proper 1.85 only release and save $10 for versions I'll never watch.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

Others originally shot for TV but eventually released theatrically, like MULHOLLAND DRIVE and GETTYSBURG, are titles I'd like to see with a 1.33 option.

The last hour of Mullholland Drive was shot and composed for theaters, so that could never happen.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by retablo

You should be watching a foreign film. Go, shoo.

I need to do some reading for class

I'll probably watch a couple after the game, though

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's like Skyfall... 1:85 is what they framed for, because that was the new standard. The other sare just open matte. I don't consider open matte to technically be an aspect ratio — and luckily there's not open matte atrocity on the new Skyfall disc, it's straight 2.40:1. Although it seems odd to me that they chose the 1.66:1 to be on the MAIN disc.

To me, it feels like a ploy for them to raise the MSRP $10. ANY film could be released both OAR and open matte, but they never do that. I hope it's not the start of a trend.

Hasn't Criterion been doing this for awhile now? Not necessarily with 2-Disc editions, but with the single disc editions having very little supplemental content, not enough to warrant the 39.99 MSRP, but more than what they consider a barebones 29.99 release?

Also, why is it that Children of Paradise, which is a 2-disc set, is priced as a single disc set? I didn't pay much attention to it when I ordered it, and was surprised to see a second disc at the price I paid for it. Are they trying to compensate for the transfer?

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by retablo

Right, which means the final composition HAD to be 1.85. You can always open it, but you can't crop it down and keep the sides. Which is why it really should only be 1.85:1... doesn't matter either way, but I'd rather have a proper 1.85 only release and save $10 for versions I'll never watch.

The set has 4 hours of video supplements so it's entirely possible it would have been 2 discs anyway, thus costing you that extra $10 regardless.

edit: Apparently not:

Additionally, the 1.67:1 version of On the Waterfront appears on Disc 1 with all of the supplemental features, while the 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 versions appear on Disc 2.

Surprising they managed to cram all that on Disc 1

[retablo]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

The set has 4 hours of video supplements so it's entirely possible it would have been 2 discs anyway, thus costing you that extra $10 regardless.

Children of Paradise was a 2-disc set with the normal $39.99 MSRP.

I mean, not being nitpicky, they did it and I'll buy it. But the fact is, many films were shown 1.85 in the US and 1.66 in Europe, but they don't release both versions on disc every time they put out a film. They could, but they don't. I just hope it doesn't set a precedent. They COULD've put out Repulsion in 1.85 in addition to 1.66, but the OAR was 1.66, no matter how else it played in other theaters. Waterfront was framed for 1.85, then safe framed for open matte for other theaters not yet equipped to show it that way. So I'll take OAR anyday.

[markmorrison]

i finally got around to watching blow out last night and i have to say that i was disapointed. after all the hype and people telling me how blow out is better then blow up i was left with a empty feeling. people really think blow out is the superior film? i just dont get it. blow up is a masterpiece and extremely engaging and blowout was kind of a weak imitation and verys strait forward thriller.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by retablo

Children of Paradise was a 2-disc set with the normal $39.99 MSRP.

Odd considering Heaven's Gate and Brazil were $50.

You would not have got the 1.85:1 version solo from Criterion anyway, as the 1.66:1 version is what Sony went with and is what Grover Crisp considers the superior presentation. That had to be on the disc, so you're actually paying the extra money to get your preferred aspect ratio.

Originally Posted by retablo

But the fact is, many films were shown 1.85 in the US and 1.66 in Europe, but they don't release both versions on disc every time they put out a film. They could, but they don't. I just hope it doesn't set a precedent.

Again, On the Waterfront, like Touch of Evil (also presented in both ratios on the BD) is unique because the director appeared to dismiss widescreen and preferred the 1.37:1 ratio (at least at the time). I don't think for a second that Kazan didn't compose for 1.85:1, since he knew that is how the film would be mainly presented, but he specifically went out of his way to shoot non-anamorphic, so it's a valid argument he himself may have considered the open matte his preferred vision.

[Page14]

Originally Posted by sc1957

Well, then, if you want the best result, ASK HER what she'd like to see... you can hand her a list of titles. Don't rely on Internet strangers.

I agree ... and that's just what I'm planning to do.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

You would not have got the 1.85:1 version solo from Criterion anyway, as the 1.66:1 version is what Sony went with and is what Grover Crisp considers the superior presentation. That had to be on the disc, so you're actually paying the extra money to get your preferred aspect ratio.

Well that sounds like a Grover Crisp problem.

The FACTS, though, are: (a) April 7, 1953 -- Columbia announces their new ratio of 1.85:1; (b) April 28, 1953 -- Columbia announces 100% widescreen; (c) November 17, 1953 -- On The Waterfront commences with principal photography; (d) July 14, 1954 - Variety review, 1.85:1; (e) July 14, 1954 -- Exhibitor review, 1.85:1; (f) July 24, 1954 -- Boxoffice review, 1.85:1.

That's a 1.85:1 film. Oh well.

[paul000]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Hasn't Criterion been doing this for awhile now? Not necessarily with 2-Disc editions, but with the single disc editions having very little supplemental content, not enough to warrant the 39.99 MSRP, but more than what they consider a barebones 29.99 release?

Black Moon is the worst. It literally has nothing interesting for extras outside of the booklet. Theres a 10 minute interview with Malle basically repeating everything you already know, and the French alt soundtrack (which to me doesn't even matter due to the horrible dubbing anyway which I believe was intended). I can't believe I paid full price for it, the disc is the definition of a rip off. Compare it to a release like 12 Angry Men or Videodrome and it really makes you question why they are charging the same price for Black Moon.

[Monty70]

Originally Posted by paul000

Black Moon is the worst. It literally has nothing interesting for extras outside of the booklet. Theres a 10 minute interview with Malle basically repeating everything you already know, and the French alt soundtrack (which to me doesn't even matter due to the horrible dubbing anyway which I believe was intended). I can't believe I paid full price for it, the disc is the definition of a rip off. Compare it to a release like 12 Angry Men or Videodrome and it really makes you question why they are charging the same price for Black Moon.

Black Moon is the Criterion that really called for the lower price point BD releases. Right after that one came out we started to see the $29.99 MSRP.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Monty70

Black Moon is the Criterion that really called for the lower price point BD releases. Right after that one came out we started to see the $29.99 MSRP.

The Makioka Sisters was the first $29.99 blu... which was released two weeks before Black Moon.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Hasn't Criterion been doing this for awhile now? Not necessarily with 2-Disc editions, but with the single disc editions having very little supplemental content, not enough to warrant the 39.99 MSRP, but more than what they consider a barebones 29.99 release?

Also, why is it that Children of Paradise, which is a 2-disc set, is priced as a single disc set? I didn't pay much attention to it when I ordered it, and was surprised to see a second disc at the price I paid for it. Are they trying to compensate for the transfer?

I think it may be because the film is over three hours, that's why there's two disks?

I can't figure how Criterion ascertains which releases are to have the higher MSRP, though many have more than one presentation on the disk (Brazil, On The Waterfront), but that doesn't explain Heaven's Gate or Night of the Hunter at all. Maybe it's a way to make up for specific licensing costs?

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Again, On the Waterfront, like Touch of Evil (also presented in both ratios on the BD) is unique because the director appeared to dismiss widescreen and preferred the 1.37:1 ratio (at least at the time). I don't think for a second that Kazan didn't compose for 1.85:1, since he knew that is how the film would be mainly presented, but he specifically went out of his way to shoot non-anamorphic, so it's a valid argument he himself may have considered the open matte his preferred vision.

Bingo.

The neat thing about the differing ratios for Touch of Evil is how either one really works, adding markedly different textures to the story visually. I wonder if that contrast will be so evident when viewing the different presentations for On The Waterfront - at least along the widescreen vs. academy ratio line (as I don't gather it will be so apparent between the two widescreen ratios).

[retablo]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

he specifically went out of his way to shoot non-anamorphic, so it's a valid argument he himself may have considered the open matte his preferred vision.

It's certainly an interesting discussion, but that opens up a whole ne can: every film shot Super35 exposes the whole negative. Should we be releasing open matte versions of all these films too? (Mic booms aside, this is just for argument's sake.)

Just because something is shot full frame doesn't mean it was intended to be shown full frame... I realize Waterfront is different, but the fact that it's composed for 1.85 means that any other version is a compromise. Just like Skyfall, you can "safe frame" for any other ratio you want, but there has to be a definitive ratio you start with, then work outwards form there. Skyfall, IMO, looked terrible "opened up" to 1.90 for Faux-IMAX... tons of empty headroom — even my gf commented on it, that's how bad it looked, and she's not even a videophile.

Touch of Evil, by 1958, would certainly have been shot for 1.85. It's cool that other versions are being offered, but where do you draw the line, and where does it stop?

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by paul000

Black Moon is the worst. It literally has nothing interesting for extras outside of the booklet. Theres a 10 minute interview with Malle basically repeating everything you already know, and the French alt soundtrack (which to me doesn't even matter due to the horrible dubbing anyway which I believe was intended). I can't believe I paid full price for it, the disc is the definition of a rip off. Compare it to a release like 12 Angry Men or Videodrome and it really makes you question why they are charging the same price for Black Moon.

I'm not sure if I'd want to see any extras for Black Moon. I was so weirded out after seeing that film that I felt no need to see any supplements.

I agree with your point, though. So many Criterions have generous supplements for the same price.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's certainly an interesting discussion, but that opens up a whole ne can: every film shot Super35 exposes the whole negative. Should we be releasing open matte versions of all these films too? (Mic booms aside, this is just for argument's sake.)

Just because something is shot full frame doesn't mean it was intended to be shown full frame... I realize Waterfront is different, but the fact that it's composed for 1.85 means that any other version is a compromise. Just like Skyfall, you can "safe frame" for any other ratio you want, but there has to be a definitive ratio you start with, then work outwards form there. Skyfall, IMO, looked terrible "opened up" to 1.90 for Faux-IMAX... tons of empty headroom — even my gf commented on it, that's how bad it looked, and she's not even a videophile.

Touch of Evil, by 1958, would certainly have been shot for 1.85. It's cool that other versions are being offered, but where do you draw the line, and where does it stop?

No I think you're missing the point. The 1.37:1 supporters know that OTW and ToE would have been composed for 1.85:1 during filming, but that the filmmakers themselves may have (in the case of Kazan) or definitely did have (in the case of Welles) a problem with widescreen at the time. Welles wrote a letter after ToE had been released describing why he hated widescreen and that academy ratio was superior. It's not a big leap to suspect that he may himself have preferred an open matte version of ToE.

This is not at all the same as offering every non-anamorphic or super 35 film open matte, because there is no question of the filmmakers preference in such cases.

edit: an excerpt from his letter:

[in the widescreen process] the image is blurred, camera movements strictly limited, montage impossible.

If he felt this way during ToE (his first widescreen picture), I don't think it's a great leap to suggest he may have actually composed for 1.37:1 and thought "to hell with it, if it looks stupid matted down to 1.85:1 that's Hollywood's fault, not mine"

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's cool that other versions are being offered, but where do you draw the line, and where does it stop?

There is a very simple answer here. At the time when On the Waterfront was completed and released theatrically, there was a massive transition in America from Academy standard to Widescreen standard screens. Because the transition took some time -- meaning that different theater owners switched at different times -- On the Waterfront was screened in 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 (masked). Hence all the "controversy", as many people saw it "officially" in different ratios.

Now, to answer your earlier question, while you could technically release other films 'open mate', you do not have the historical justification to do so. With On the Waterfront you do, because the film was released at a very unique time. This really is the one and only reason why Criterion offer three versions of the film - which, by the way, is also highlighted in their short featurette "On The Aspect Ratio".



Pro-B