This is a very unique case. The interesting thing about this is that there was apparently no "preference" by the director on what aspect ratio the film should be presented, as it was shot to encompass multiple aspect ratios. This is just a rare point in the history of film where filmmaking was at a crossroads. In any case, it's pretty awesome of Criterion to allow viewers to make their own choice.
I prefer the 1.66:1 since it's a nice balance between the two extremes and it's a more pleasing widescreen ratio (widescreen emphasises the horizontal whereas here, you can still notice the vertical). My second is 1.33:1 because it makes me think I'm watching an Italian neo-realist film but made in America.
Agreed. The only problem lies within this very specific timeframe, when Academy ratio was on its way out, but before widescreen was the norm. A film like On the Waterfront was literally shot to be viewable in multiple ratios, depending upon the capabilities of the individual theater, as explained in the video. Therefore, determining the "correct" ratio is not so cut-and-dried. Hence, Criterion's inclusion of three different ratios.
It's comparable to the Mono compatibility. You want a good stereo sound, but you prepare the music, that Mono playback doesn't turn down important parts or may cause unwanted sound changes.
The full frame view romanticizes the tone of the film, however, the squared proportion gives us a stronger perception of realism linking us into the background and its environment.
The 1.85:1 (AKA Academy Flat) and the 1.66:1 ratios are a direct result of CinemaScope and other anamorphic/widescreen films. Theatres installed the giant screens for `Scope movies, but all the other non-scope films would look like home movies when projected on them. The solution: add a magnifying lens to the projector to enlarge the 1.33:1 films to fill more of the wider screen. An aperture plate with the corresponding aspect ratio was also added to mask off the top and bottom on screen, all based on the magnifying power of the lens. As far as I know, no 35mm negative was ever exposed in either the 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 ratios. Always the full frame was shot. Eventually studios would release prints with wide frame lines to keep the projectionist from framing the projected image too high or too low.
No 35mm negative was ever exposed in 1.85? You mean a film in that ratio never had special lenses used to make a (roughly) 16x9 image use up all of a 4x3 film frame, as is done with anamorphic lenses for 2.35 movies?
I wish all masked films were available in their alternative framing. If the full frame on vhs did show more picture, I feel it should be presented as an option, if only to have a good way of seeing how the film looked unmatted. I understand sometimes you are supposed to see less of the image but I don't think such an interesting alternative should be relegated to an old vhs or out of print dvd. As for widescreen movies where the 4:3 version is a straight up pan & scan, I do agree that presentation is garbage and never needs to be included again.
@@Knightmessenger This has just made me want to pick up the Criterion 'On The Waterfront' even more. And I so agree with you; the just released blu-ray of 'This Island Earth' - another film which came out during this crossover period is only in the rather severe 1.85:1 crop (some older DVDs are full frame, which can also be seen on RU-vid), which is much too tight on many shots. Ah, would that Criterion had got their hands on it.
@ShanghaiRooster I should have also mentioned laserdisc. Many open matte films that were widescreen only on dvd can be seen in their 4x3 ratio on that format in a much better quality than the vhs from the same era. The Breakfast Club is one such example and it did get a Criterion release, but only in 1.85. Interestingly, deleted scenes were finally included with the Criterion edition but they are taken from a 4x3 vhs source. So the best way to make an extended edit with a consistent ratio would be to use the LD. (Similar to the recently made available deleted scenes from Planes Trains and Automobiles.)
Some of the early widescreen movies weren't meant to be filmed in a soft matted format. The directors were forced to crop their 1.37:1 films to take advantage of the widescreen craze (Shane is an example).
1:30 Most Disney Movies were made this way. I discovered this late and thought, they would have matted the sides to get 1.33 to 1, but it was otherwise. This was the native format and was compatible to 1.66 : 1 and 1.85 : 1 and of course 16 : 9. Sometimes 35 mm prints were matted, so for a DVD release they used the master film for 16 mm copies and so another distributor appeared.
by doing that, you are loosing resolution when cropping in. Less bad on Blu-Ray compared to DVD, but you would be getting an upscaled picture when cropping in.
If only Kazan was here so he could make choices about when to use each aspect ratio. Imagine we get a Dolan "Mommy" style aspect change right at the perfect moment?
Normally I am a widescreen guy but this isn't a matter of pan and scan and removing half of the image. I'll be watching the full screen version. At least until we find out the director's intended format.
Diminished verticality limits what can be done in a scene. It is unnatural and eliminates the transcendent effect of very vertical spaces. Medieval cathedrals were built as high and narrow as possible to impress the viewer upon entrance. This effect has been severely dampened by more horizontal ratios. When one enters a high Victorian home the high ceilings can be exhilarating. Tall narrow windows draw the eye upward. 8ft standard ceilings of today are almost oppressive by comparison which is why newer homes now have cathedral ceilinged foyers and great rooms. A movie shot in the widest aspect ratio gives the feeling that the entire world, even the outdoors, is contained in an 8ft living room.
He was made up to look like a boxer - to have the puffy face of a man who has been punched, bruised and scarred a lot. I think it's quite effective, especially around the eyes.
