Ken's "Great Directors" Avatar Win-Nothing Contest IV

[Ken_McAlinden]

I liked the hat on my previous avatar so much that I kept it for several months. All good things must come to an end, though, so here is my new beyond-obvious great director avatar. First one to correctly identify him wins the last fabulous no-prize of 2007.

Regards,

[deem]

Kubrick?

[Ken_McAlinden]

Kubrick?Yep. That went about as quick as I expected. How would you like your no-prize delivered?

I've been Kubrick immersed lately thanks to the DVD, HD DVD, and Blu Ray reissues of five of his films. The avatar picture is clipped from a picture of Kubrick with Arthur C. Clarke from the mid-60s. I don't think "2001:ASO" was in active production yet since Kubrick had a beard in most of the production photos I have seen.

Regards,

[deem]

Yep. That went about as quick as I expected. How would you like your no-prize delivered?

Well, I already have one of those. Better to pass it along to someone else.

[Robert Campion]

Very interesting! Never seen that picture before. I prefer my Kubrick with a salt and pepper beard.

On a related note, I will never, never, never, never, never, never. never, never, watch THE SHINING cropped to a widescreen format. I don't need a 5.1 soundtrack either. MONO baby. Good enough for Phil, good enough for Stan, good enough for me! The snobbery of certain DVD review sites drives me absolutely crazy. NEWS FLASH. Stanley didn't care one whit about your home theater. Prediction: In 5 years, the next KUBRICK set will have 2001 cropped to 16:9. So much for OAR.

[Pinknik]

Would you refuse to see THE SHINING in theaters then? After all, it would most likely be presented in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, just like it was when it was released to theaters the first time. "The Shining," Steadicam operator Garrett Brown has claimed that he was asked to frame for 1.85, but Kubrick since then has preferred that the home video versions be full-frame TV (basically Academy 1.37). I don't think cropping this film to look like its theatrical presentation is pissing on the man's grave.

[Robert Campion]

It's possible to film a movie for two aspect ratios at once. Most movies suffer for it (Super 35.) Viewing THE SHINING in full frame opens up the hotel and the terror IMHO :thumbsup:

I should say, getting beyond the subject of Kubrick if I must, as someone who's studied composition like others study melody or harmony, that I don't understand the need for intermediate ratios (1.66, 16x9, 1.85.) This initially happened 50 years ago, and I suspect the anamorphic DVD is merely the second coming of Vistavision.

Nonetheless I smell homogenization in the push for a standarized intermediate ratio. This has nothing to do with THE SHINING. What I mean is that few directors anymore are composing for either the tightness of 1.33 or the width (heaven help me i almost said wideness!) of 2.35. Wes Anderson is the exception in the latter category.

[Pinknik]

I believe I understand. I like my full frame DVD of THE SHINING, but I figure I'm not opposed to seeing it cropped, as that was at least thought of during its production. I don't think I mind there being a 1.66:1 or 1.85 ratio, but I do agree with your thought that AN ASPECT RATIO should be composed for, without so much thought given to "safe for this, safe for that". Sorry about knocking your thread off the rail there, Ken. However, interesting sidetrack, Robert. :)

[thegage]

Would you refuse to see THE SHINING in theaters then? After all, it would most likely be presented in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, just like it was when it was released to theaters the first time. "The Shining," Steadicam operator Garrett Brown has claimed that he was asked to frame for 1.85, but Kubrick since then has preferred that the home video versions be full-frame TV (basically Academy 1.37). I don't think cropping this film to look like its theatrical presentation is pissing on the man's grave.
When this film was originally released I saw it in one of the big, prestigeous theaters in Boston. I swear that it was projected in in full frame, and the reason it stands out in my memory is (1) the helicopter blades in the opening aerial shots were visible at the top of the screen, and (2) the lights and light elements often at the top of the frame (e.g. the ceiling light in Ullman's office) were also visible. Both of these aren't in a 1:85 presentation.

John K.

[Robert Campion]

When I saw EYES WIDE SHUT in 1999, it were shown full frame. The trailer for BOWFINGER, misframed as it were, revealed Heather Graham's flesh-colored bra at the bottom of the picture. You can believe I'll never forget that :righton:

[Ken_McAlinden]

When this film was originally released I saw it in one of the big, prestigeous theaters in Boston. I swear that it was projected in in full frame, and the reason it stands out in my memory is (1) the helicopter blades in the opening aerial shots were visible at the top of the screen, and (2) the lights and light elements often at the top of the frame (e.g. the ceiling light in Ullman's office) were also visible. Both of these aren't in a 1:85 presentation.

John K.The helicopter blades are visible whether it is matted or not. They are more visibile when unmatted, but never completely covered. The film works well unmatted because of its use of extermely balanced compositions throughout. The supplements on the recent DVD, HD DVD, and BRD include extensive comments from steadicam pioneer Garrett Brown about exactly how meticulous Kubrick was about his placement of the center crosshairs of the viewfinder. Comments from Brown from other sources as well as (IIRC) shots of the on-set video monitors in the Vivian Kubrick "Making of ..." documentary convinced me that 1.85:1 was the only ratio they were actively considering while shooting the film, though. Based on my own spot-checking, there is also more image on the sides of the frame in the new 16:9 versions then there was in the previous 4:3 DVDs, making them slightly short of "full-frame". While I would have appreciated the inclusion of the film's original mono mix, I have to admit that the 5.1 mix on this and the previous remastered DVD is pretty faithful in its execution, with noticeably improved musical fidelity compared to the original DVD that did include the mono mix. It must have been a chore to remix this soundtrack as the score has a lot of edit pieces from a variety of sources.

Regards,