The original aspect ration must be 1.66:1 since the Criterion DVD edition has this ratio.
shareThe original aspect ration must be 1.66:1 since the Criterion DVD edition has this ratio.
It could have been shot in full-frame 1.33:1 (with the expectation that it would later be screened on TV), but matted to 1.66 (or even 1.85) for theatrical screenings. Criterion may have matted it to give a more theatrical viewing experience, especially given the shape of TVs these days, but they would essentially be cutting off a part of the image. It's a valid choice. Even if it was shot in 1.33, they could have been framing the shots so that they were best viewed at 1.66. That's kind of how Kubrick shot The Shining -- which is why you could argue for either the full-frame or widescreen versions of that film being the best version of the film.
shareI beg to disagree. I have no interest in companies who decide to throw away 25% of the image of any movie 'for my own sake'.
If the movie was shot in full frame (4:3), then let the release fit that format. If I have the urge to see it in 1:66 of 1:85 or 1:2,35 then I am man enough to paste black paper on my tv-screen accordingly.
Let the decision on how to shoot the movie be the director's. And let the decision on how to see the movie be mine. The dvd releasing company has no business messing with the format 'for my own sake'. I know my own sake better than they do.
Just imagine a few cut-offs from the Da Vinci's Mona Lisa or Rembrandt's Nightwatch, just so it fits today's tv-screens.
Michel Couzijn
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
[deleted]
"If the movie was shot in full frame (4:3), then let the release fit that format. If I have the urge to see it in 1:66 of 1:85 or 1:2,35 then I am man enough to paste black paper on my tv-screen accordingly."
Well said, sir!