Bedazzled (1967), starring Raquel Welch, Dudley Moore - Feb 19, 2019

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geode

If the aspect ratio on the disc is 2.35:1 and the image appears to be squeezed that would most likely mean that the image has been cropped top and bottom. "Stretching" the image vertically would also lead to the same result.

As this played three times in theaters I worked in I saw it a lot, and I can attest that there was really nothing abnormal in the principal photography. Stanley Donen was not playing games like he did in including a lot of shots that were reflections in "Arabesque" ....in which some showed distortion.

Projectionists notice an anamorphic squeeze very quickly because seeing one meant we had the wrong lens in place, without the anamorphic element in front to unsqueeze the image. Most theaters had a prime lens with an anamorphic lens screwed in front of it. One theater in which this ran had Super Panatar attachments. These had a prism in a box that hung in front of the prime lens, with a knob on top that rotated the prism. They could be adjusted to pass the image through with no unsqeezing at all and then up to the proper 2:1 alteration.

Yep, I HIGHLY suspect the American HD transfer used on the ancient DVD and recycled on the OOP American BD was simply done incorrectly back in the late 90s/early 2000s.

It's entirely possible the German licensee just decided to "correct" it the only way they could, lacking access to the original materials, by stretching the video transfer they were given.

That said, it's unlikely we'll ever get a definitive answer. In most cases, I'd try to contact someone associated with the film. DPs are usually easy to contact online, I just contacted a DP for one film last week to see if it was natively 25fps for UK TV or 24fps for theatrical exhibition. Unfortunately, in the case of this film, everyone associated with it is dead, and the studio that made it functionally no longer exists, so we're stuck with the existing OOP discs from the US and Germany, each with flaws.

That said, the 1.85 trailer also looking pinched is an odd factor, and suggests that perhaps Donen was actually trying something strange on the negative, something now lost to the sands of time.

[Geode]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

That said, the 1.85 trailer also looking pinched is an odd factor, and suggests that perhaps Donen was actually trying something strange on the negative, something now lost to the sands of time.

I know for a fact that the theatrical release was not distorted as I saw it projected multiple times. Am I the only eyewitness in this thread? But logic would tell us that this is not the case as no studio would have allowed such self-indulgence by Donen. But why would he have done this? I have seen individual scenes that directors attempted strange things, but they had a reason, but having an anamorphic squeeze through the entire running time? It simply would not be allowed. I know of a Thai movie, "Midnight My Love" (2005), where there are dream sequences that emulate old Thai movies and had an anamorphic squeeze to them. That was because for many years all Thai movies were shot in scope, but when they played on TV they were run squeezed. Nobody took the time or trouble to pan and scan them.

I have never seen any video version of this except my letter-boxed laserdisc, which I remember as being fine. I bought the Twilight Time Blu-ray but it was sent to a cousin and I cannot travel to pock it up because of Covid-19. I am now feeling ticked-off as none of the reviews I read mentioned this problem.

Does it look like this clip, which appears to have about a 25% squeeze?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXnoWb88Jr4

But an alternate Youtube version of this scene exists without the squeeze.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWHhPfIKgvE

But here is a trailer with many scenes shown and none of them distorted, which I think is pretty much slam dunk proof that the distortion was not done by Donen and the original camera crew. But this trailer is a bit of a mystery because almost all trailers at the time of release were "flat" versions and not in scope. Additionally this seems too wide for a Panavision release of 1967, at about 2.55:1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsyqpUP1knQ

[James Luckard]

Yep, the TT BD looks like that first video, with the squeeze.

There are caps from the TT disc here:

https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/73690/bedazzled-1967/

The final video, with the trailer in 2.55, looks like the German disc.

What's also conceivable, I suppose, is that Donen shot it intending it to be 2.55, hard matted on an anamorphic scope print.

However you say with certainty that you saw it in 2.35:1 on a scope print and it looked normal?

You're right, you may the only person here who has ever seen it on an actual 35mm film release print.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

You can search foreign titles by putting the title in the search box at the top of the page and then setting the flag in the right corner to either a globe, which searches the world, or to the flag of the particular country.

The page for that particular release will show if the Amazon there still stocks it.

In this case, no, it appears both German releases are OOP and very expensive.

I’m thankful that I set up an eBay saved search and for whatever reason Medimops were selling a copy for under £15, maybe a misprice I don’t know but I’m looking forward to watching it. Interesting change in title.

I don’t know if there’s any other OOP German Blus worth looking out for though.

[Geode]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Yep, the TT BD looks like that first video, with the squeeze.

There are caps from the TT disc here:

https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/73690/bedazzled-1967/

The final video, with the trailer in 2.55, looks like the German disc.

What's also conceivable, I suppose, is that Donen shot it intending it to be 2.55, hard matted on an anamorphic scope print.

However you say with certainty that you saw it in 2.35:1 on a scope print and it looked normal?

You're right, you may the only person here who has ever seen it on an actual 35mm film release print.

I not only saw it in theaters, I actually handled 35mm prints directly as a projectionist, as I already stated. They were dead standard "scope" prints. I also mentioned the aperture plates in one theater, the Manor, were filed to show the entire frame almost perfectly. This looked completely normal when projected. It was not hard matted. If it had been the frame lines would have showed on the screen. This was never ever done in my experience with scope films....and rarely with "flat" ones.

Stanley Kubrick sent out a note with "Dr. Strangelove" to projectionists to project it at 1.37:1 and not be alarmed by shots matted widescreen, he wanted the aspect ratio to change. I worked in about 30 theaters in the 1970s in San Mateo County, California and Palo Alto. Only two had the lenses and plates to show 1.37:1 the others usually were showing about 1.75:1. "Dr. Strangelove" was shown at 1.75:1 in the house I worked. So, no frame lines showed. You will read that 1.85:1 was standard at the time, but it was not in my experience in my neck of the woods. After it was twinned in 1974, the upper house of The Manor used 1.66:1 which worked far better than in most theaters for Disney re-issues of animated classics, "Gone With the Wind" etc.

But really, what film can you cite that would have been distorted in theatrical release? I can think of none.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geode

I not only saw it in theaters, I actually handled 35mm prints directly as a projectionist, as I already stated. They were dead standard "scope" prints. I also mentioned the aperture plates in one theater, the Manor, were filed to show the entire frame almost perfectly. This looked completely normal when projected. It was not hard matted. If it had been the frame lines would have showed on the screen. This was never ever done in my experience with scope films....and rarely with "flat" ones.

Stanley Kubrick sent out a note with "Dr. Strangelove" to projectionists to project it at 1.37:1 and not be alarmed by shots matted widescreen, he wanted the aspect ratio to change. I worked in about 30 theaters in the 1970s in San Mateo County, California and Palo Alto. Only two had the lenses and plates to show 1.37:1 the others usually were showing about 1.75:1. "Dr. Strangelove" was shown at 1.75:1 in the house I worked. So, no frame lines showed. You will read that 1.85:1 was standard at the time, but it was not in my experience in my neck of the woods. After it was twinned in 1974, the upper house of The Manor used 1.66:1 which worked far better than in most theaters for Disney re-issues of animated classics, "Gone With the Wind" etc.

But really, what film can you cite that would have been distorted in theatrical release? I can think of none.

I can't think of one, and I don't seriously think any of what I suggested is actually likely, I was just desperately trying to think of any explanation possible for the odd aspect ratio on the US and German BDs, especially since various people have defended both.

I agree with you though, I believe it's simply a technical error on the US master used for the DVD and the BD, which the German distributor then tried to remedy the only way possible, by further distorting the image.

Sadly, with the film now buried in the Foxney vaults, these are the only versions we're likely to get.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by Geode

I not only saw it in theaters, I actually handled 35mm prints directly as a projectionist, as I already stated. They were dead standard "scope" prints. I also mentioned the aperture plates in one theater, the Manor, were filed to show the entire frame almost perfectly. This looked completely normal when projected. It was not hard matted. If it had been the frame lines would have showed on the screen. This was never ever done in my experience with scope films....and rarely with "flat" ones.

Stanley Kubrick sent out a note with "Dr. Strangelove" to projectionists to project it at 1.37:1 and not be alarmed by shots matted widescreen, he wanted the aspect ratio to change. I worked in about 30 theaters in the 1970s in San Mateo County, California and Palo Alto. Only two had the lenses and plates to show 1.37:1 the others usually were showing about 1.75:1. "Dr. Strangelove" was shown at 1.75:1 in the house I worked. So, no frame lines showed. You will read that 1.85:1 was standard at the time, but it was not in my experience in my neck of the woods. After it was twinned in 1974, the upper house of The Manor used 1.66:1 which worked far better than in most theaters for Disney re-issues of animated classics, "Gone With the Wind" etc.

But really, what film can you cite that would have been distorted in theatrical release? I can think of none.

I'd get my facts straight if I were you. Kubrick never sent instructions for Strangelove to be shown at 1.37:1. That's utterly rididculous. He sent instructions for Barry Lyndon to be shown at 1.66, 1.75 allowed, never 1.85.

The "instructions" you refer to were Kubrick's request to Criterion to transfer the film open matte for laserdisc. Strangelove was never shown commercially at 1.37:1, not even during the sixties.

[Shanghai Express]

Review is up, three years later. Surprisingly high score (3.25) for an unacceptable transfer.

[chas speed]

There have been many respected reviewers that find no fault with the transfer, but unfortunately this constant complaining is the only attention this release has got. I would have thought people would have moved on. I enjoyed the Blu-ray. The title of this thread that lists the film as starring Raquel Welch is typical of the kind of stupidity that has haunted this classic movie.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by chas speed

There have been many respected reviewers that find no fault with the transfer, but unfortunately this constant complaining is the only attention this release has got. I would have thought people would have moved on. I enjoyed the Blu-ray. The title of this thread that lists the film as starring Raquel Welch is typical of the kind of stupidity that has haunted this classic movie.

Even the new review here makes clear that the pleasing but dated DVD transfer recycled on the TT BD seems to make everyone squished/skinny.

There seems to be no way, at this point, to know if this was an intended artistic effect by Stanley Donen, or a mistake made in the transfer, sadly.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Even the new review here makes clear that the pleasing but dated DVD transfer recycled on the TT BD seems to make everyone squished/skinny.

There seems to be no way, at this point, to know if this was an intended artistic effect by Stanley Donen, or a mistake made in the transfer, sadly.

It probably doesn't help that Peter Cook and Eleanor Bron were both tall and skinny.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Even the new review here makes clear that the pleasing but dated DVD transfer recycled on the TT BD seems to make everyone squished/skinny.

There seems to be no way, at this point, to know if this was an intended artistic effect by Stanley Donen, or a mistake made in the transfer, sadly.

Except by using common sense. I mean, c’mon. No way was this an intended artistic effect by Mr. Donen. It’s called an old bungled transfer. It doesn’t make it unwatchable (not to me anyway) but it’s certainly not optimum.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

Except by using common sense. I mean, c’mon. No way was this an intended artistic effect by Mr. Donen. It’s called an old bungled transfer. It doesn’t make it unwatchable (not to me anyway) but it’s certainly not optimum.

I agree, 99% chance it's a mistake.

However, if any major Hollywood director was famous for experimenting with cinematography in that era, it was Donen (the alter ego dance in Cover Girl, the Tom & Jerry dance in Anchors Aweigh, the use of split screens in Indiscretion, the bold, avant garde photography of Arabesque).

Again, I still think there's a minimal chance this is how he planned the movie to look, but until someone finds an original release print, or inspects the original negative, and also looks at any notes he left behind about how he wanted it printed for release, it'll still be a minuscule possibility.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I agree, 99% chance it's a mistake.

However, if any major Hollywood director was famous for experimenting with cinematography in that era, it was Donen (the alter ego dance in Cover Girl, the Tom & Jerry dance in Anchors Aweigh, the use of split screens in Indiscretion, the bold, avant garde photography of Arabesque).

Again, I still think there's a minimal chance this is how he planned the movie to look, but until someone finds an original release print, or inspects the original negative, and also looks at any notes he left behind about how he wanted it printed for release, it'll still be a minuscule possibility.

One odd thing about "bedazzled" is that Donen seems to love filming through things like windows, glasses, mosquito nets, etc. It seems odd and doesn't help the film, but "bedazzled" is still one of my all time favorite movies.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Again, I still think there's a minimal chance this is how he planned the movie to look, but until someone finds an original release print, or inspects the original negative, and also looks at any notes he left behind about how he wanted it printed for release, it'll still be a minuscule possibility.

I'd say there is a 0.0% percent chance this very obviously screwed up presentation is how the movie is supposed to look.

I mean, the movie played in theaters all over the world. If the movie ever looked like THAT then reviews at the time of its release would all have mentioned the distortion.

There are no reviews that mention that kind of distortion. The transfer is clearly screwed up. There is a post from Geode above who says he projected it at the time and says this aspect ratio is not correct. It's not something you would forget because no movie in history would be distorted like that for basically no reason whatsoever.

The OOP German BD doesn't have the stretchiness issue either. Even if it's probably overmatted, it looks much better than the transfer on the TT disc.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

The OOP German BD doesn't have the stretchiness issue either. Even if it's probably overmatted, it looks much better than the transfer on the TT disc.

It doesn't look overmatted but more that it's squished compared to the TT. The site review for the German Blu has an image that's almost similar to one from the caps-a-holic comparison:

[Show spoiler]DE


TT

Obviously, not the exact frame but notice how the top and bottom are virtually identical in terms of matting/cropping (this shot does have the camera moving which is why the sides aren't identical). It's very likely this was exported incorrectly and Alive never bothered to correct it. Plus, if it was a true 2.60-ish ratio there would be much more information on the left and right sides (ex: the first MGM DVD of "The Great Escape" was notorious for being in 2.69 instead of 2.35 and revealing much more than intended).

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

The OOP German BD doesn't have the stretchiness issue either. Even if it's probably overmatted, it looks much better than the transfer on the TT disc.

I kind of wonder if the German disc just took the squished master and stretched it to look normal, thus giving that weird aspect ratio. It sounds like something they would do, there was that German BD of Last of the Mohicans last year that just retimed the color on Mann's new cut to match the original, they seem fine altering the masters they're given by US studios.

Everyone does look normal on the German disc, for what it's worth.

It's just a shame this title will likely never get another master, unless Disney decides to scan the whole Fox library in 4K at some point down the road. I believe the existing master was created for the DVD that coincided with the dreadful remake about 20 years ago.

[Shanghai Express]

This disc makes me long for death. Hopefully Kino can strike another deal with Disney and do a remaster.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by Shanghai Express

This disc makes me long for death. Hopefully Kino can strike another deal with Disney and do a remaster.

I saw this movie 7 times in the theater in the 70's and 80's and I still have no idea what you guys are whining about. Many respected critics have reviewed this Blu-ray and have found nothing wrong with it. I have noticed that you can see Stanley Donen's reflection through a window
toward the end of the movie during the "heaven" scene, but I can't see this distortion you guys are talking about. Peter Cook and Eleanor Bron are both tall and thin. You are going to have to live with that. I wish someone would put this thread out of it's misery. Any thread that has "Bedazzled starring Raquel Welch" as it's headline is not going to have a lot of truth to it.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by chas speed

I saw this movie 7 times in the theater in the 70's and 80's and I still have no idea what you guys are whining about. Many respected critics have reviewed this Blu-ray and have found nothing wrong with it. I have noticed that you can see Stanley Donen's reflection through a window
toward the end of the movie during the "heaven" scene, but I can't see this distortion you guys are talking about. Peter Cook and Eleanor Bron are both tall and thin. You are going to have to live with that. I wish someone would put this thread out of it's misery. Any thread that has "Bedazzled starring Raquel Welch" as it's headline is not going to have a lot of truth to it.

It’s slightly squeezed, and shouldn’t be. Some people don’t notice things like that. You appear to be one of them. Feel free to no longer post in the thread if acknowledging reality is troublesome.