The film was shot full-frame (academy ratio 1.33:1), so it was widescreen only in its theatrical presentation (1.66:1 or 1.85:1 depending on the theater), when the projector gate and screen aprons mask the top and bottom of the frame. This is why Friedkin hasn't pushed for a WS DVD release - as it is, we're truly seeing everything that he filmed. (A 4x3 TV screen is mathematically the same as a 1.33:1 film frame.)
This is pretty apparent in the absence of actual panning and scanning in the DVD. (Watch A League of Their Own on TV for the worst example of P&S you'll ever see...when the woman teaching the team to be "ladies" advocates night games. Trust me - you'll know it when you see it.)
Having managed a movie theater in a past life, I can tell you this is far from uncommon - that is, that films are shot full-frame, only to be "widescreen" on a theater screen. Usually, the director takes this into account, leaving items in the top or bottom "safety zone," knowing they won't show up on a theater screen. Find an old pan & scan VHS copy of Pee Wee's Big Adventure and you'll see some prime examples of this: as they pass a series of road signs at night, the dolly on which the signs are being pulled toward the camera are clearly visible. Watch Pee Wee pull miles of bike chain out of his basket, and it's clear there's a hole at the bottom of the basket and he's pulling through it.
A far worse example of this safety zone "neglect" was Vertical Limit. If you were unfortunate enough to see it in a theater where framing is a lost art, you were treated to clear shots of the stairs the actors were actually climbing (as opposed to a snowy mountainside) and, where they filmed indoors, the scaffolding supporting the sets.
But I digress...happily, Friedkin didn't allow such cheats to show in Sorcerer. Hence, seeing it 4x3 isn't nearly the offense it otherwise might be.
Nevertheless, I'm with all the others crying here for a special edition DVD...widescreen or full frame, it's still one of the greatest suspense films ever made.
reply
share
18 years ago
[deleted]
gldkey
18 years ago
I need to sweep through my library. I SWEAR I've read a quote from Friedkin somewhere on the topic where he said he shot full-frame academy ratio - and as I said, that's why he didn't care that the laserdisc presentation wasn't letterboxed.
Of course, that doesn't explain the disappearing Arc, does it?
Oh, well...still my favorite!
reply
share
motley6
18 years ago
Friedkin didn't shoot all of his movies in widescreen. Sorcerer, Cruising, Boys in The Band, Deal of The Century were all shot in 1:33:1 aspect. If you do see these films letterboxed then they are "badmasked" (forced matte) in order to follow the widescreen craze.
Kubrick was also not a huge fan of widescreen films. That's why Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, and Paths of Glory are all full frame. In fact he threaten to sue Ted Turner in the mid 90's because TNT badmasked The Shining. They gave it a forced matte of 1:85:1 which is not the intended framing and was just as bad as panning and scanning it; instead of the sides getting chopped off, the top and bottom did
The Sting is another movie that has been badmasked recently. The 2 disc special edition is giving a 1:85:1 forced matte when it was shot in 1:33:1. Unfortunately George Roy Hill is not alive to contest the widescreen nuttery of the studio and public.
reply
share
nicolawicz-1
15 years ago
as it is, we're truly seeing everything that he filmed
Well, that's simply not the case. Just compare the shot on the back cover with the same shot in the movie and you'll see how much is cropped.
reply
share