Blood And Black Lace (1964) (VCI Entertainment) - October 23, 2018

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

VCI have the potential to correct the framing and present it in the original aspect ratio. I doubt they have the original negative to work with but if it looks at least decent and has the proper aspect ratio/framing then I'll take it over the Arrow any day.

I read somewhere that the previous video versions, in 1.85:1, were showing too much information on either side of the frame, exposing portions of the image that weren't initially intended to be seen, much like the first release of Criterion's DRESSED TO KILL. After I read that, I compared the Arrow BD to the VCI DVDs (both versions) and felt that the Arrow framing looked much more deliberate in terms of composition. Regardless, I'm personally a big fan of the Arrow release, and can't imagine that anyone will ever out-do it in terms of image quality.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

I read somewhere that the previous video versions, in 1.85:1, were showing too much information on either side of the frame, exposing portions of the image that weren't initially intended to be seen, much like the first release of Criterion's DRESSED TO KILL. After I read that, I compared the Arrow BD to the VCI DVDs (both versions) and felt that the Arrow framing looked much more deliberate in terms of composition. Regardless, I'm personally a big fan of the Arrow release, and can't imagine that anyone will ever out-do it in terms of image quality.

This was just conjecture from people who don't have inside knowledge on the film or have handled the materials.

People who have handled the original theatrical prints and worked on a previous release confirmed that the prints were hard-matted to 1.85:1. There is more horizontal image area on the prints than there is on the Arrow Blu-ray, there is no extra information on prints like there is on negatives or interpositives. Everything has to be properly framed/matted for theatrical exhibition.

Tim, Michael Brooke and yourself are probably unaware of the fact that BLOOD AND BLACK LACE was always theatrically shown at 1.85. This has been irrefutably proven by Alain Petit yesterday. In 1993, Alain, Jean-Pierre Jackson and the late Carlos Sylva worked on a LaserDisc release of the movie. I remember perfectly this as I wrote the text for the jacket of the LD.

This LaserDisc was made years before the German Anolis DVD, and before any DVD in fact. It was made from an authentic 35mm print, the same one that was theatrically released, the same one that was broadcast in the 1980s on the Canal Plus channel. The image was strictly respected when numerized for the LD. And this authentic 35mm print is strikingly similar to the later German DVD, excepted that it was a complete print, with the "gory" shots intact. In 1993, it was a little used, had some scratches and the colors were a little faded, but it was 1.85 operture, and the capture that Alain Petit sent me yesterday is the absolute proof, as the LaserDisc was made, I repeat, from an authentic print. So, Michael Brooke and yourself, I'm sorry to tell that, were wrong from the start. With the permission of Alain Petit - who shares entirely my opinion about the wrong decision taken by Arrow - I posted one of the LD captures in the Latarnia forums. You'll find it Under my alias "todmichel". And this is an historical fact, not an "opinion": this film was shot for 1.85 exhibition.

This laserdisc - as I explained - was produced by close friends and it was a 100% accurate copy of an original 35mm print. This print was already old in 1993, with some scratches, but the images were in the 1.85 ratio and showed much more informations on four sides than the Arrow Blu-ray. Moreover, it's almost similar to the German DVD that was made from another print in German (cut, but completed with snippets from another source).

Furthermore, don't forget that France and Germany were co-producers of the movie and Georges de Beauregard (the French co-producer) had access to the same materials than the Italians.

And Jean-Pierre Jackson, the late Carlos Sylva, and Alain Petit were the men who organized all the Bava rétrospectives on French television (Canal Plus channels). Carlos Sylva was regularly travelling in Italy to find the best and most accurate materials. I know that, as I worked for him sporadically. If a print was in the wrong ratio format, its broadcast was postponed (sp) and another print was ordered directly from the Italian laboratories that kept the négatives and prints.

There is zero evidence that indicates the framing on Arrow's disc is correct, and Arrow have badly misframed releases in the past and tried to cover it up and stated it's correct despite the directors confirming it isn't.

If Blood and Black Lace were 1.66:1 then it would have more image information on the top and bottom when compared to a hard-matted 1.85:1 print, not less information at the sides.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

This was just conjecture from people who don't have inside knowledge on the film or have handled the materials.

People who have handled the original theatrical prints and worked on a previous release confirmed that the prints were hard-matted to 1.85:1. There is more horizontal image area on the prints than there is on the Arrow Blu-ray, there is no extra information on prints like there is on negatives or interpositives. Everything has to be properly framed/matted for theatrical exhibition.



There is zero evidence that indicates the framing on Arrow's disc is correct, and Arrow have badly misframed releases in the past and tried to cover it up and stated it's correct despite the directors confirming it isn't.

If Blood and Black Lace were 1.66:1 then it would have more image information on the top and bottom when compared to a hard-matted 1.85:1 print, not less information at the sides.

Thank you for clearing that up. I have done an about-face regarding my interest in the forthcoming VCI BD. If it contains more side information in the image, I'll pick it up. It's probably my favorite Bava effort.

[todmichel]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Thank you for clearing that up. I have done an about-face regarding my interest in the forthcoming VCI BD. If it contains more side information in the image, I'll pick it up. It's probably my favorite Bava effort.

Dear CineSicko - First, don't get me wrong, this is not a criticism in any way, but I really think that the best way to judge the original 1.85 version and the cropped 1.66 version from Arrow is to have both on hand and make a "de visu" comparizon. I have both the Arrow BR and a DVD from Spain which uses the same master than the German Anolis DVD, and apart from the better quality of the image in BR (of course), the Spanish DVD - it also has an English soundtrack - is by far the better, visually.
Some words of presentation, perhaps. I was born in 1940, lived in Paris, and for thirty years (1952 to 1982 - when I got my first TV set à 42 !) I watched movies EXCLUSIVELY in theaters.
I was the foreign correspondent for Famous Monsters of Filmland, and later co-created and collaborated to a number of magazines dealing with Fantasy, Horror, and SF movies.
When "Blood and Black Lace" was released in France, I worked for the litttle pressbook of the film, so I was able to watch it some weeks before the release. And I'm absolutely sure that it was shown in 1.85. Later, in following weeks, years, decades, I saw the movie again in various theaters (this was possible in a town like Paris, where even silents were shown in theaters !) and it was always shown in widescreen, much larger than the 1.66 used by Arrow.
Later, I worked for the Mangue-Pistache company when they decided to release the movie in laserdisc (I also wrote the text on the back-cover) and there again, it was a 1.85 print.
When Anolis of Germany decided to release the same movie on DVD, they of course respected (more or less) the 1.85 aperture. And at this period, Tim Lucas of Video Watchdog was extatic, arguing that the movie was shown "for the first time" in the correct ratio, etc. If you don't believe me you can consult this old issue of HIS OWN magazine ! Even if he said exactly the contrary when the Arrow BluRay came, a decade later.
I also contributed to the Latarnia Forum, and you can find some of the captures I sent to the forums. I can't talk for other persons, but ANY of these screen caps were taken from a scene, or a moment of a scene, when the camera was static. And in these static shots you can easily watch the cropping made by Arrow. My pseudo on Latarnia was Todmichel.
I was banned from the Classic Horror Films Forums some years ago when I also criticized the British BluRay of Terence Fisher's DRACULA, a movie that I know since its release in Paris in February 1959, and argued that the balance of colors was wrong, and in no way similar to the original Technicolor prints. I was insulted by some who (apparently) never watched the movie in a theater (or saw a "restored" print made with another color process, much later), so I answered of the same manner, and got banned. Anybody and his dog know, by now, that I was right.
Prior to this I also criticized the old DVD issued by Warners (in America) of the first gothic Hammers, from "The Curse of Frankenstein" to "Hound of the Baskervilles". Originally shown in 1.66 in England, France, et. they were shown in 1.85 in US theaters (the reverse of "Blood and Black Lace" !), so parts of the image were missing above and below.
And so on.
You must also take in consideration that I'm from another period, and when I was a moviegoer, I only watched a movie, and my eyes were on the screen and only on the screen for 80 to 90 minutes. No drinks (except perhaps during the intermission), certainly no popcorn, no discussions of any sort - I was alone 95% of the time - and no visit to the toilets... So, it's not too astonishing that I can still remember very well the striking blue of the eyes of Peter Cushing in "The Curse of Frankenstein" (the scene of the resurrection of the dog), so, if I watch a video where his eyes are green, or brown, I can tell immediately that something is wrong.
And in the case of Arrow's BR... totally wrong ! Have a good day, my friend.

[todmichel]

Furthermore, one of the arguments of Tim Lucas is that the sigle "1.85" is not printed on the Italian posters of the film.
This is probably the most inept argument that I ever met, when you know that Italian movie posters are generally full of errors & mistakes, like the word "Technicolor" for many color films made with a different process, false credits (the original poster for "Night of the Living Dead" giving an "American name" to George A. Romero because the distributor thought than "Romero" sounded "too much Italian", and so on. I even have an Italian poster for "Son of Frankenstein" which simply forget to mention Boris Karloff among the players, so, with this "proof", I can develop a theory that this dear William Henry Pratt never was in the film as well...
One of the most ridiculous examples being the Italian posters and print of the Japanese horror film "Kaidan semushi otoko" (1965, directed by Hajime Satô), known locally as "Il pozzo di Satana" - where ALL the names of Japanese cast and crew are replaced by American names !