The Criterion Collection

[Monty70]

Originally Posted by retablo

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

Ya like I was saying, right around the time of Black Moon's BD release.

My bad.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

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

I understand all this, but the film was still composed FIRST for 1.85:1... that, to me, is OAR. And I don't beliebe you can have 2 OARs for a film. You can't for a painting, either. You compose it for a canvas, and that's it. Anything else is a compromise that conflicts with the composition. But that's just me.

It's more the inclusion of the 1.66 version that's baffling — which somehow has become the "preferred" version of Crisp because it's a compromise between the 2 ratios and a "safe" choice. You could do this with ANY film that screened 1.85 in the US and 1.66 in Europe... however, they don't. So I don't see the need to include it here either.

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

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"

That just makes Welles look like a really amateur filmmaker... especially since there are many instances of widescreen films between 1953 and 1958 where the image is not blurred, and camera movements aren't any more limited than before, and montage certainly works perfectly. Ask Hitchcock, for one.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by retablo

You could do this with ANY film that screened 1.85 in the US and 1.66 in Europe... however, they don't. So I don't see the need to include it here either.

Night of the Hunter, Paths of Glory, The Killing, 12 Angry Men, and so on.

All 1.85:1 films, all presented 1.66:1 by Criterion. F*** knows why, but it isn't new.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Night of the Hunter, Paths of Glory, The Killing, 12 Angry Men, and so on.

All 1.85:1 films, all presented 1.66:1 by Criterion. F*** knows why, but it isn't new.

IMDB lists them as all 1.66:1 films to begin with.

They also list On the Waterfront as both 1.37 and 1.85. But no mention of 1.66.

Touch of Evil listed at 1.85 only.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by retablo

I understand all this, but the film was still composed FIRST for 1.85:1... that, to me, is OAR. It's more the inclusion of the 1.66 version that's baffling — which somehow has become the "preferred" version of Crisp because it's a compromise between the 2 ratios and a "safe" choice. You could do this with ANY film that screened 1.85 in the US and 1.66 in Europe... however, they don't. So I don't see the need to include it here either.

This is actually a much more interesting debate to have, retablo

Because the more I see from this film (I've now seen the majority of the 1.85:1 version as well), the less convinced I am that this was the case.

What Columbia wanted the film to be is one thing -- and there is actually photos of documents in the featurette I mentioned earlier proving so -- but what Elia Kazan and Boris Kaufman had in mind when they shot On the Waterfront appears to be an entirely different thing.

This truly is an issue for film historians and Kazan experts to argue -- which they have been doing for years -- but once you actually see these different versions, the 1.85:1 version often appears strangely, let's use Criterion's description here, "intense". I agree with this description. Columbia might have paid for a widescreen film, but what Kazan and Kaufman were shooting appears to have been something entirely different. Which, I must speculate, is also the reason why you have this 1.66:1 version - a "middle ground" of sorts.

But as I said earlier, this debate has been around basically since the film was released back in the 50s. At least now this two-disc set gives everyone the opportunity to be "right", and watch the version of the film he or she believes Kazan and Kaufman had in mind.

Pro-B

[retablo]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This is actually a much more interesting debate to have, retablo

Because the more I see from this film (I've now seen the majority of the 1.85:1 version as well), the less convinced I am that this was the case.

What Columbia wanted the film to be is one thing -- and there is actually photos of documents in the featurette I mentioned earlier proving so -- but what Elia Kazan and Boris Kaufman had in mind when they shot On the Waterfront appears to be an entirely different thing.

This truly is an issue for film historians and Kazan experts to argue -- which they have been doing for years -- but once you actually see these different versions, the 1.85:1 version often appears strangely, let's use Criterion's description here, "intense". I agree with this description. Columbia might have paid for a widescreen film, but what Kazan and Kaufman were shooting appears to have been something entirely different. Which, I must speculate, is also the reason why you have this 1.66:1 version - a "middle ground" of sorts.

But as I said earlier, this debate has been around basically since the film was released back in the 50s. At least now this two-disc set gives everyone the opportunity to be "right", and watch the version of the film he or she believes Kazan and Kaufman had in mind.

Pro-B

I agree, it's certainly interesting, and usually a debate left up to Kubrick enthusiasts. Now we ALL get to enjoy the indecision.

Even though all the reviews clearly list 1.85 as the ratio when they were allowed to review the films. (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.) Which, I'm sure, was a studio decision... but Kazan WAS making a studio picture.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by retablo

IMDB lists them as all 1.66:1 films to begin with.

They also list On the Waterfront as both 1.37 and 1.85. But no mention of 1.66.

Touch of Evil listed at 1.85 only.

imdb is an unreliable source, user submitted and is likely taking this information from the criterion releases themselves. All of those films were shown primarily in 1.85:1 in the States, and there is no reason to believe they were composed for any other ratio. On the Waterfront and Touch of Evil are up for debate, as svet demonstrates above.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

I think I paid less than £10 each for Les Vacances... and Mon Oncle.
I've only watched Les Vacances... and it looked very good to me.

Thanks, time to open up Amazon.uk I think

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by retablo

Even though all the reviews clearly list 1.85 as the ratio when they were allowed to review the films. (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.) Which, I'm sure, was a studio decision... but Kazan WAS making a studio picture.

Indeed. I definitely agree with you.

My feeling has always been that Kazan and Kaufman delivered the widescreen film Columbia paid for. End of story. So, on paper, this was a widescreen film - all documents seem to indicate so, and, as you rightfully point out, published reviews.

Yet what Kazan and Kaufman shot was not a widescreen film. Add to this the fact that theater owners were very slowly transitioning from Academy standard to Widescreen standard screens, and you get all the confusion now.

Pro-B

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Indeed. I definitely agree with you.

My feeling has always been that Kazan and Kaufman delivered the widescreen film Columbia paid for. End of story. So, on paper, this was a widescreen film - all documents seem to indicate so, and, as you rightfully point out, published reviews.

Yet what Kazan and Kaufman shot was not a widescreen film. Add to this the fact that theater owners were very slowly transitioning from Academy standard to Widescreen standard screens, and you get all the confusion now.

Pro-B

I believe Kubrick is on record stating he preferred 1.66:1 for Dr. Strangelove and Lolita, despite them being shot as 1.85:1 and presented as such. So it's certainly possible for a director to shoot one way but prefer another.

[Scottie]

I went ahead and pre-ordered Gate Of Hell.

I couldn't pass up the cheap Pre-Order price, considering it probably won't drop any cheaper (unless with coupons during a BN sale).

On a side note, what do you guys think will be announced for May?

[Monty70]

I'd like to see Ace in the Hole get a blu-ray upgrade. The Ice Storm would seem to be a no brainer as the film already has a 2K scan already to go from the DVD release.

As far as new spine numbers go, The Devil's Backbone has always been my favorite B. del Toro film. Criterion may hold off on that one till the six hundred and sixty sixth spine number is due.

[metaridley]

Just watched I Wish and was floored. It's even better than Nobody Knows and absolutely riveting from start to finish. Hirokazu Koreeda needs more of his films on Blu-ray, Criterion preferably. I wish there was a way to lobby for this.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I went ahead and pre-ordered Gate Of Hell.

I couldn't pass up the cheap Pre-Order price, considering it probably won't drop any cheaper (unless with coupons during a BN sale).

On a side note, what do you guys think will be announced for May?

What pre-order price did you find? It should only be $15 before any member discounts or coupons at the next B&N sale.

[joie]

One way to settle the aspect ratio debate over "On the Waterfront" may be to decide how much of Eva Marie Saint's left leg one prefers to see.

1.33:1:


1.66:1:


1.85:1:


I'll go with 1.66:1, which, by the way, gives the film a certain continental, european air.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by joie

[Show spoiler]One way to settle the aspect ratio debate over "On the Waterfront" may be to decide how much of Eva Marie Saint's left leg one prefers to see.

1.33:1:


1.66:1:


1.85:1:


I'll go with 1.66:1, which, by the way, gives the film a certain continental, european air.

I plan to watch the 1:85:1 first, then enjoy the 1:33:1 for cinematic historian research interests.

Does anyone else think about Robert Redford's outstanding 1994 film, Quiz Show, when On the Waterfront comes up?

Game show audience: "Marty! Marty! Marty!"
John Turturro: "The answer is... On the Waterfront."

[Brad1107]

Do any Australians or importers in this thread know much about the Aus release of Three Colours Trilogy? Was wondering if it had the correct framing of blue? It's only $25 at JB at the moment.

[joie]

Originally Posted by Roninblues

I don't see it any more or less in any shot.

Could be because the picture shows her right leg, but from a different point of view it's her left leg

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by metaridley

Just watched I Wish and was floored...Hirokazu Koreeda needs more of his films on Blu-ray, Criterion preferably. I wish there was a way to lobby for this.

There's a Hong Kong blu-ray I'm thinking of ordering, it's less than 27 dollars at this time.

[mrjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I plan to watch the 1:85:1 first, then enjoy the 1:33:1 for cinematic historian research interests.

Does anyone else think about Robert Redford's outstanding 1994 film, Quiz Show, when On the Waterfront comes up?

Game show audience: "Marty! Marty! Marty!"
John Turturro: "The answer is... On the Waterfront."

Yes. It is my favorite Redford-directed film. Some great performances, particularly Paul Scofield.

Redford has had an interesting career:

1st Period: Stage turned screen actor. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting, and The Great Waldo Pepper are three of his best performances, each one directed by George Roy Hill.

2nd Period: Actor turned director. Ordinary People, The Milagro Beanfield War, and Quiz Show are three of his best films.

3rd Period: Director turned film festival icon.