[A Threat To Movie Legacies As Serious As Pan-And-Scan]

Re: filmlover's post, 2:03...

Okay, that's something of a fair question. Where I got the information was in watching the movie so many times, when it first came out and subsequently over the 40+ years since. When it first came out I was a film student at NYU and thought it was one of the most important films of American cinema; I saw it certainly 20 times [!] in that first year, at many theaters, sometimes sitting with notebook in hand, taking notes on the editing and the shooting. I interviewed the late Dede Allen in 1968 about her editing work, and later worked with her assistant, Jerry Greenberg, and so on.

 

None of this can provide a link or a bibliographical reference. It's a shockingly old man's (61!) memory; is it unreliable? I've spent 30+ years handling film in editing rooms, and I'm very comfortable with the 35mm frame, and know how mattes work in a projector. This is my business, and this film has a special place in my view of the craft and art.

 

I remember well going to different theaters and wondering at the beginning whether the matte would be in place to cover Bonnie's underwear, and sometimes it was not. But the difference between one and the other was not the difference between 1.33 and 1.85. I remember well conversations with a projectionist friend who talked about that matte and also (frowning) his cranking up the sound at the movie's climax.

 

It's frustrating that even on this site the aspect ratio is said to be 1.85. Even intimidating. But I have a clear memory, and (if you look at my 11:54 post -- ET) the very clear evidence of the cropped photos in the opening title sequence... I am looking around for clearer evidence -- something that would be irrefutable, but meanwhile I am confident enough to take this stand, because it seems to me quite important, no different at all from the pan-and-scan issue, but perhaps harder to certify...

 

Thanks for asking.

 

Edited by: dialoguy on May 21, 2010 2:27 PM

[A Threat To Movie Legacies As Serious As Pan-And-Scan]

Re: filmlover's post, 12:01...

I'm not sure what you're saying is "not always quite true." Yes, there is often a "safety" area within the 35mm frame wherein can often be found hanging microphones and the like, and so there is a matte that should be placed in the projector that trims off just that area. It does not make the picture widescreen. And, yes, a faithful transfer of such a film would do well to matte the safety area just as was done in theatrical projection. However, none of that is really relevant to the question here at hand, that a classic film, blessed by the Library of Congress, has been distorted and damaged by a careless attempt to make it "fit" the modern tv screen

 

Edited by: dialoguy on May 21, 2010 1:09 PM

 

Edited by: dialoguy on May 21, 2010 1:42 PM

[A Threat To Movie Legacies As Serious As Pan-And-Scan]

Re: hamradio's post, 11:58...

Just as no amount of clicking and adjusting can make a pan and scan Ben-Hur reveal its widescreen self, just so can you not, no matter how you adjust the aspect ratio, discover the top and bottom of a fullscreen image that's been hacked into widescreen. The point is: there is a loss, and it is the loss of the director's original intention.

 

Edited by: dialoguy on May 21, 2010 1:08 PM

 

Edited by: dialoguy on May 21, 2010 1:40 PM

[A Threat To Movie Legacies As Serious As Pan-And-Scan]

Whoa! I was almost nineteen when I saw Bonnie and Clyde in August, 1967. Like many of my generation, I was stunned by the film. I was just going into NYU's film school and it was one of the most talked-about films of the day. EVERYONE recognized it as a major change in the direction of American film. I saw the film many, many, many times... I am not telling you something I've deduced or gathered, I am telling you what is the case: Bonnie and Clyde was never a widescreen film, period. There was a light matte that was sometimes used and sometimes not, that served the purpose of very slightly taking off the top and bottom, that served, for instance, to hide Faye Dunaway's underwear in the opening scene, but it was nothing that would take away from the essential squareness of the image.

 

Here, try this simple test. Watch the credits, which are very simple, alternating names with photos "from the period," each one matted with a white border and very precisely placed. There are some pictures that sit in "portrait" mode (emphasizing the vertical) and others that are "landscape" oriented. These latter look equally fine in the widescreen and fullscreen formats, But the "portrait" images, centered on the screen, are cut off -- the white matte at the edges -- top and bottom with the letterboxing. Look at it! Rather than formally centered in the center of square black screen, it is truncated, chopped -- mutilated, by the letterboxing. Do you really imagine this was the graphic plan? That the film was shot to include the fully matted photo, but with the intention of cutting it off?

 

Of course not. Instead of trying to explain away what's being said here, the point is to become AWARE, and press the issue.

[A Threat To Movie Legacies As Serious As Pan-And-Scan]

Pan and Scan was introduced because widescreen (letterbox) movies did not fit into the more or less square frame of tv sets, which themselves had been designed to hold an image like most movies of the era, about 1.33:1. (4:3) As tv screens became larger it became practicable to show widescreen formats within that square set, and this was called "letterboxing" and it developed a great many supporters among the knowledgeable or discriminating. It has been strongly supported by the TCM community.

 

New televisions are almost entirely widescreen these days, and most broadcasts, whether cable or otherwise, offer an HD version that fits the now standard 16:9 format . So now we have a new problem which is that films that properly fit a 4:3 format are clipped top and bottom to fit the new 16:9 format!

 

A primary example of this is Bonnie and Clyde which was released in a classically "square" format in 1967 but which now is described almost universally as having been a letterbox movie (on the TCM Website as well), but that is not so! An early DVD release was a two-sided affair, with the 1.33 on one side and the 1.85 on the other. The square pic had the traditional disclaimer -- cropped to suit the tv -- but that was inappropriate; the disclaimer should have been on the letterbox version. The latest "Anniversary" release includes only the letterbox version, cut off above and below.

 

And of course this leads to an amazing confusion, where Netflix users turn off the movie when they see the disclaimer and demand the letterbox version -- they won't be fooled! But they are being fooled.

 

I imagine Bonnie and Clyde is not an isolated instance. Packagers want to fill the new wide screen because viewers like to see it filled. Please, make this a real concern in the TCM community. This is just as serious a violation of the filmmaker's intent as pan-and-scan.