widescreen shining?

[j.handsome]

is it just me or is there no widescreen version of the shining out there? it's funny I don't remember it being in 4:3 when I saw it in the theatre...

[disclover]

There is no widescreen DVD available that I am aware of. Although theatres probably matted this film for exhibition, Kubrick was said to prefer open matte for The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. Thus the DVDs of those films are 1.33, to conform with his intended aspect ratio.

[Marq]

Certainly not in Region 1.
This was the director's intention as disclover accurately explained.

[Pirate]

The shining says "as intented" on the back, but full metal jacket does not. I heard that FMJ was shot at 1.66 and matted for 1.85 for some theatres. Why Kubrick decided to have the DVD be in FS is a mystery to me.

-ph

[Frank Gunn]

Hey, if it's good enough for Stanley...

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

Hey, if it's good enough for Stanley...

Ahhh, screw Stanley... he's dead.

Seriously though, FULL METAL JACKET was always one of those titles that bothered me. Because the wording is specifically not about how it was shown in theaters. It is a justification on why they are releasing a full screen disc. Maybe Stanley was nuts when he made that decree.

[Riedenschneider]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Why Kubrick decided to have the DVD be in FS is a mystery to me.

Originally Posted by larphillips

Maybe Stanley was nuts when he made that decree.

larphillips, you're the first poster that interprets the drool smiley as "loco"...

Anyway, I think his 4:3 fetish is a) a product of his passion for still photography, and/or b) his quest for portraying man in his surrounding (and as a life long photographer his surrounding opens vertically. Not too surprising when you make the ultimate vertical film: 2001 - of course, the ultimate irony, in scope).

[tqpix]

I read somewhere that Stanley used to shoot his movies in widescreen. However, he got tired of watching his films get butchered once they reached home video. In order to prevent this from happening, and to ensure the viewers see what he wants them to see on home video, he began shooting his movies in open-matte.

[j.handsome]

to do all that amazing steadicam work and then "intend" to release it in FS...
I guess that's why he's ...was Kubrick and we're (still) not...

[wahlers]

I also took the full-frame issue with Kubrick as part of his psychology.

Once I figured out that my full peripheral vision is approximately like a 2.35:1 letterboxing, which I think is why that size of letterboxing feels natural.

Then, anything from a 1.66:1 to a 1.85:1 is roughly the size/shape of car windshields, which is yet another "view" that people get very familiar with.

While a 1:33:1 frame psychological often creates a cramped feeling, and induces a feeling of claustrophobia much easier than a widescreen presentation.

So, I also took it to be Kubrick (consciously or subconsciously) wanting his frames to have a slight feeling of uneasiness where the majority of the public would never consciously understand why they feel that way...

Maybe it's just me.

[aedavela]

I don't wanna hurt ya, fullscreen, I just wanna bash your brains in.

And I don't think this riddle's gonna be solved anytime soon, folks.

[Nexus 6]

Don't mean to throw another monkeywrench into this discussion, but I had heard that the framing of end credits on Full Metal Jacket had been altered slightly for video, hence the "modified" disclaimer. Not sure, though.

[Marq]

I always like to link to a couple of great interviews with Kubrick estate runner (a title I'd sure love to have) Leon Vitali (aka the dude in the red cloak in Eyes Wide Shut) that heavily discusses the aspect ratios of Stanley's films on DVD:

- http://dvdfile.com/news/special_repo...ick/index.html
- http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

And just for fun, there's this unrelated to aspect ratios page regarding locations is Kubrick films: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tom.ing...wIndexPage.htm

[papibear]

Here's some solid info as to WHY Kubrick films are full frame on video --

Why are Some Kubrick films only available in the "full frame" aspect ratio (1) on VHS video, DVD and Laserdisc?

It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

The decision to release Kubrick's back catalogue as full frame only has been very controversial. The problem for Vitali and other defenders of the Kubrick legacy is that Kubrick never publicly voiced the preference now being attributed to him, so they are always open to the charge of over zealousness in protecting his legacy or even outright betrayal of that legacy. But this seems excessively harsh, Vitali' has been given the Hobson's choice of remaining true to his employers wishes no matter how anachronistic they seem (or may seem in future given the recent advances in home entertainment technology). Like a devoted acolyte, protecting his masters life work his position he will not yield to the clamour of criticism but will remain intractable in his resolve because he is not fighting for himself or defending his personal opinions, but those of the person he devoted half his adult life to serving. Ironically no one will ever know what would have happened if 16:9 widescreen TV sets became commonplace before Kubrick died -- he could might rethought his films one more time and chosen to transfer them to that widescreen ratio, or offered consumers the choice. Who knows? But one thing is certain, as long as his loyal staff and family still have a say in the matter, we will only being seeing his films in the format he wanted them to be shown in before he died.

The following question on that thread is also worth consideration:

What aspect ratio were Kubrick's films shown in theatrically?

"2001," was Super Panavision and should be shown in 2.20:1 in a 70mm print. "Spartacus" was Super Technirama, which was 2.35:1 in the 35mm prints, but might have been cropped to 2.20:1 in the 70mm prints.

"Barry Lyndon," was released theatrically in 1.66:1, even in the U.S. since Kubrick insisted on 1.66 hard mattes being sent to the various theatres showing the film (1.85 is the common "flat" widescreen ratio in the U.S.).

"Dr. Strangelove," was released in home video in Kubrick's preferred "multiple aspect ratio" but there is no way it could have been shown that way theatrically since you cannot change projector mattes in mid-screening (although it could be shown in Academy 1.37 and various hard mattes could appear in the image, cropping it to 1.66 at times -- however, Academy 1.37 had pretty much become obsolete as a projection format in most theatres by the 1960's.) I saw it projected to 1.85 at the Cinerama Dome and the framing looked fine; it was a little "tight" so I suspect that 1.66 would look perfect.

"Clockwork Orange," probably should only be shown in 1.66.

"The Shining," Steadicam operator Garrett Brown has claimed that he was asked to frame for 1.85, but Kubrick since then has preferred that the home video versions be full-frame TV (basically Academy 1.37).

I think that "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" would all look fine if projected at 1.66, even though I suspect that the original U.S. releases of both shown in the 1.85 format.

Hopes this answers some questions.

[Marq]

Originally Posted by papibear

Here's some solid info

Dude, that's only my favourite website in the world. Glad others know about it!
( www.visual-memory.co.uk )

[herald miffkin]

The Shining is about the only film I can say that looks amazing in full frame. Being that he composed his shots with the full frame, he created a certain mood and feeling. I think of The Shining as THE full frame film. It isn't pan and scan (pan and scan ALWAYS sucks and should not exist at this point). Imagine seeing that opening sequence in a cropped format. I'll pass. Every shot in the film is perfectly framed and looks amazing.
The Shining is actually one of my favorite films visually (as well as content wise).

[BubbleGumUK]

The Shining is great.

So, basically, we're saying that it's open matte, right?

And is there any news on the much rumored SE? I have most of the Kubrick films in seperate versions (I'd love the Collection box set, but am not shelling out again) except for Clockwork (which is out in its own SE) and Shining.

I'd pick up Shining in a second then, if it didn't have the Collection banner across the top.

[MooglePorn]

That news above really should eliminate arguements over the framing of these discs... IMO.

[j.handsome]

thanx papibear...
you just cost me about $17.99...

[tomdkat]

Great post, papibear!

I wonder if Stanley Kubrick is considered "ignorant" or "stupid" or "uneducated" since he prefers fullscreen to widescreen.

Originally Posted by from above post

He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested.

Peace...