Anybody seen a widescreen version.
The thing that annoys me the most about this fim not being released on DVD is that this is a full blow widescreen 2:35 to 1 aspect ratio movie. Have they ever shown it letterboxed on TV.
shareI saw this film approximately 20 times in the theatre. I was 13 when I started seeing it, finishing up my eighth grade year in a Catholic grammar school. While this movie did not gross a fortune, it played at neighborhood second run theaters, and they would keep bringing it back again and again because it was such and still is a great film. Honestly, I would be hard pressed to believe this film was 2:35. If you watch a pan and scan version of 2001: A Space Odyssey you know you're missing something due to the quirky pan and scan. However, I just got a full screen version of this, and while I was not happy, I do not believe any footage was missing. At the time of this release, this film was to Jews what Mean Streets was to Italians. Neither film grossed a dime, but ask ANY Italian if they saw Mean Streets or any Jew whether they saw Duddy, they would say 'yes.'
I saw this film approximately 20 times in the theatre. I was 13 when I started seeing it, finishing up my eighth grade year in a Catholic grammar school. While this movie did not gross a fortune, it played at neighborhood second run theaters, and they would keep bringing it back again and again because it was such and still is a great film. Honestly, I would be hard pressed to believe this film was 2:35. If you watch a pan and scan version of 2001: A Space Odyssey you know you're missing something due to the quirky pan and scan. However, I just got a full screen version of this, and while I was not happy, I do not believe any footage was missing. At the time of this release, this film was to Jews what Mean Streets was to Italians. Neither film grossed a dime, but ask ANY Italian if they saw Mean Streets or any Jew whether they saw Duddy, they would say 'yes.'
I don't understand your above comment about the aspect ratio. Even IMDb—right here, at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071155/—indicates that this film was shot in 2.35. ¿And, anyway, why would Ted Kotcheff—no slouch in his field—shoot this in 1.33? It makes no sense.
I have no idea why this film has never been released in widescreen on DVD, but I don't believe for a moment that it was because it was shot in full-screen.
share
Imdb has been wrong before. There are a number of movies that the aspect ratio is wrong on IMDB. If you look at the career of Ted Kotcheff, with the exception of a couple of films, like First Blood, he mainly used the 1.85.1 aspect ratio. Which would explain why the Canadian release of Duddy Kravitz looks fine in it's full screen ratio. If you look at it no major characters have half their face cut in half as what happens in most films that are 2,35.1 and shown full screen. Try watching West Side Story or even A Touch Of Class in full screen and you'll see what I mean.
shareHi, allenblank,
Thanks much for your thoughts.
I did not mean to imply that a film had to have a 2.35:1 aspect ratio to be considered "widescreen." When a film is shot in any aspect ratio that is wider than 1.33:1—and it is then shown theatrically (or made available for purchase in some format) in that same, wider-than-1.33:1 aspect ratio—that, to me, is a "widescreen" presentation.
Such an actual aspect ratio could be 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 2.39:1 . . . or any other ratio wider than 1.33:1, but the horizontal width of the image fills the screen, AND there is absolutely no loss of ANY of the original image; all of the information—and the intent of the artist—is right up there on the screen. The viewer does not have to wonder about what image or information might be missing.
Obviously, there were many films that were filmed in 1.33:1, and that is how they are intended to be viewed.
To me, however, any film that is shown in less than its true, original aspect ratio is simply a censored work of art (meaning that someone, somewhere has made a decision—for whatever reason—to delete some of the information in the original work of art). I will not watch anything that has been censored, and I do not want to own that presentation.
Even if, as you have pointed out:
"...the Canadian release of Duddy Kravitz looks fine in it's full screen ratio. If you look at it no major characters have half their face cut in half as what happens in most films that are 2,35.1 and shown full screen...."
it is, to me, still a censored work of art, and I'm not interested in seeing or owning it.
So far, no one here has verified that the current DVD of "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz" is, in fact, in the actual aspect ratio that Ted Kotcheff originally shot—and wanted—for theatrical (or, unforeseen by him, home use) presentation.
In peace share
[deleted]