The Shining (1980)

[sjconstable]

You can see when watching the film that it was not composed for 1.85:1 (or 1.78:1 in the case of the Blu-ray), and the cinematographer who shot the damn film confirms this. Its 1.85:1 ratio was for American theatrical screenings, and 4:3 for home video (pre-widescreen TV age, obviously).

The ideal presentation is 1.66:1. And not zoomed in so the sides are lopped off like Arrow's Blood & Black Lace

[Geoff D]

Kubrick's own storyboard sez otherwise. The 4:3 folks cling to their evidence (most of which comes from ol' Leon), the 1.85 peeps have theirs (which includes the editor on The Shining), and we always end up at the same place: right back where we started. Joy.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Kubrick was such a master of his craft that his films work in the intended, composed-for theatrical ratio AND in open matte. I've kept my DVDs for the open matte versions and the Blu-rays for the 16:9 widescreen versions.

Well, you can't compose for 2 ratios at once. It is literally impossible. You can only frame for the narrower version (1.85) then safe frame for the wider space. But you can't alter anything regarding the 1.33, therefore you can't "compose" for it. You just take what is left and make sure nothing is in the shot, but that's not compositions if you can't alter headroom, etc.

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Jesus christ, no need for the emoticon. It was protected at 1.33 for TV. He was thinking about eventual TV broadcasts.

Bring "protected" is not the same thing as "composition."

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Kubrick was such a master of his craft that his films work in the intended, composed-for theatrical ratio AND in open matte. I've kept my DVDs for the open matte versions and the Blu-rays for the 16:9 widescreen versions.

Was he responsible for casting Shelley Duvall? That would be his only blemish.

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by dubious

You can simultaneously compose for multiple aspect ratios, which is why the 1.33 framed box has 1.85 lines drawn in it, or he would have just have started with a 1.85 box and nothing outside of it.

You can't. You however can protect various other ratios which is exactly what he was doing going by his own words posted there. Composing in one and protecting the other.

[itsaboutHD]

Originally Posted by PLG1962

Off topic in a way for those that have read and loved the book do you like or hate the Kubrick film?

I really liked the book until the ending. It seemed like something written for a serial TV show. I've always suspected that when King was near completion of just about any novel, the publisher would call and say, "if it's not finished by Monday, you forfeit half the royalties." And then King always managed to turn it in on time
The movie's ending is not just better, it's one of the best endings I've seen. Except maybe for No Country For Old Men. The treatment of Hallorann in the movie was disturbing and it took me a couple of years to accept it.

[samuel1976]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Was he responsible for casting Shelley Duvall? That would be his only blemish.

She was perfect in the role.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Well, you can't compose for 2 ratios at once. It is literally impossible. You can only frame for the narrower version (1.85) then safe frame for the wider space. But you can't alter anything regarding the 1.33, therefore you can't "compose" for it. You just take what is left and make sure nothing is in the shot, but that's not compositions if you can't alter headroom, etc.



Bring "protected" is not the same thing as "composition."

Sure, I didn't actually say that his open matte versions were composed that way (I even posted a pic of his storyboard which proves that very point, that the 1.85 was the intended composition), just that they still work remarkably well thanks to his peerless eye for a shot. IMO.

It's great to be able to have both versions to hand anyway.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

It was composed for 1.85:1. see my above post.

While I appreciate that post, it might not mean what you think it means. The full frame is closer to 1.66. It could he composed for 1.66 and protected for 1.85, which is what those frame lines indicate. However, even back then Kubrick had to know that most theaters (especially in the U.S.) were going to play it at 1.85 and absolutely would not play it at 1.66.

[samuel1976]

This old hat debate about aspect ratios makes me want to go on a killing spree.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure, I didn't actually say that his open matte versions were composed that way (I even posted a pic of his storyboard which proves that very point, that the 1.85 was the intended composition), just that they still work remarkably well thanks to his peerless eye for a shot. IMO.

It's great to be able to have both versions to hand anyway.

I think they work better than other films due to Kubrick's penchant for center framing. With everything usually weighted in the center, adding or subtracting information from the sides, top, or bottom doesn't change the composition as much as it would otherwise.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

While I appreciate that post, it might not mean what you think it means. The full frame is closer to 1.66. It could he composed for 1.66 and protected for 1.85, which is what those frame lines indicate. However, even back then Kubrick had to know that most theaters (especially in the U.S.) were going to play it at 1.85 and absolutely would not play it at 1.66.

And that's the point: when he was making his last few movies, he knew full well that it was 1.85 or bust in terms of how it was going to be projected, and seeing as that was the primary environment for seeing the film (TV/video being secondary) they were specifically composed for 1.85. (IIRC there's a photo of Tom Cruise in front of a process rig on EWS and what's on the framing leader behind him? 1.85.)

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by samuel1976

This old hat debate about aspect ratios makes me want to go on a killing spree.

Very good, sir!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I think they work better than other films due to Kubrick's penchant for center framing. With everything usually weighted in the center, adding or subtracting information from the sides, top, or bottom doesn't change the composition as much as it would otherwise.

Exactly. He was so meticulous with how he lined up his shots that the extra height adds a kind of vertiginous quality to his original compositions, instead of them seeming like so much dead space. I'd love to see Shining in full-height IMAX some day, maybe if Warners ever get around to doing full 4K makeovers of Kubrick's movies they can make it happen.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Trust me I know a lot about open matte, hard matte, 4-perf, 3-perf, 35mm, 65mm, IMAX 15/70, LIEMAX, etc, and I am not saying this to be rude to you at all as I have no such bad intention. We are all forum members who share their love of movies.

The point is, again, not what past, modern or future TVs are, but if a filmmaker had specifically asked for a ratio, especially about a movie from a time when both versions were a normal feature, then those versions should be made available in modern high definition formats as well. Back in the day we had 4:3 TVs, but still had videos in 2.35 or 1.85 with thick black bars on top and bottom. They released both versions back then, why can't they do so now as well? That's my point.

Thanks to BobbyMcGee from the the thread -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...=172624&page=5

According to the Stanley Kubrick Archives by Taschen The OAR of most of Kubrick's films were 1.33:1 -

Attachment 123833

P.S: Though Kubrick wanted the full negative frame of The Shining to be released, the 4:3 DVD is actually cropped at the sides, hence it also loses the original vertical framing to maintain the 1.33:1 shape.

I have the book.

Why do you read only what you want?

The stills reproduced in the book are open matte 1.33. Read what is said in the NB:

Though his last three films were masked (composed) to 1.85:1 for theatrical release (is this not what you want?), in compliance with the standard format, Kubrick composed them to be also (as in after though, protecting) viewable at the full aspect ration of the camera negative ratio 1.33:1. (open matte).

Even if the editor wrote that Kubrick wanted Shining in the AR A or B we still have HIS notes saying otherwise.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Exactly. He was so meticulous with how he lined up his shots that the extra height adds a kind of vertiginous quality to his original compositions, instead of them seeming like so much dead space. I'd love to see Shining in full-height IMAX some day, maybe if Warners ever get around to doing full 4K makeovers of Kubrick's movies they can make it happen.

The Shining is actually a movie that I think could work for IMAX. Just the nature of some of the shots outside and inside could look really well.

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Was he responsible for casting Shelley Duvall? That would be his only blemish.

The most subversive casting of a female in a horror film ever. How many "unconventional" looking (I find her quite cute; most men I know are repulsed by her) women are cast in this sort of role? NONE. Kubrick is toying with our sympathies here, and should be applauded for it. If most horror films of the slasher era are metaphors/wish-fulfillment for sexuality/penetration, using Duvall was genius.

[Bob Kramer]

Also, can the mods PLEASE combine these three Shining threads?

[Bob Kramer]

I have the Taschen book as well, and have owned dozens of their titles, and read hundreds more from the library. Every single one, without exception, was riddled with typos, mistakes, omissions, etc. Their QC is atrocious. I trust nothing that appears in the text of their books. The pictures are always nice, but that's it.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

The most subversive casting of a female in a horror film ever. How many "unconventional" looking (I find her quite cute; most men I know are repulsed by her) women are cast in this sort of role? NONE. Kubrick is toying with our sympathies here, and should be applauded for it. If most horror films of the slasher era are metaphors/wish-fulfillment for sexuality/penetration, using Duvall was genius.

Duvall was a terrible choice. Her poor acting is extremely irritating. Not sure what the genius saw in her screen tests that convinced him to put her along side one of the greatest actors ever.

King wasn't a fan either.

As played by Shelley Duvall, Wendy is, he says, "one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film. She's basically just there to scream and be stupid."