FULLSCREEN IMPARATIVE!

[rtprod]

Hi guys,

I'll weigh in here.  I have a widescreen set-up as well and own both the FULL and WIDESCREEN versions, and have compared.  It's true, you can see a bit more detail on the top and bottom of the frame in the FULL version, however, the compositions are disturbing to me in an odd way, as often they characters seem to be "floating" too far in the center of the frame, with too much footroom on the bottom.  It is disorienting in a strange way, at least to me.  I noticed this right off when Jack and Ennis are walking to the saloon. 

A WIDESCREEN doesn't really "cut off" this information per se, though it is not visible--it was just never intended to be visible when the film was shot, and always intended to be masked to create the delicate compositions we see in the theatrical and WIDESCREEN versions.  So to me it's a little bit of a bonus to see the fim "open matte" as it were, but it feels a bit off actually and I can't adjust to it.

rt

[TJ]

I can do accept the original story and the final version of the film as seen on the screen (and the DVD) that I have as two different works of art. 

I liked Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet," as literature - a play and as a movie.

By the same token, I liked the musical "West Side Story," which was a retelling of Romeo and Juliet, but set in New York City.

I would even take a movie adaptation of Brokeback Mountain where the names and the places were changed completely, while at the same time, the theme or purpose of the original story would remain intact.

[twistedude]

You people who speak against the fullscxreen version always talk in generaliies: "wasn't meant to be seen"  I have been very specidfic, I don't know how many timers, about the "unseen" things that are seen in the fullscreen version.
They do not create "floating" images; they do not detract from the main action of the scene. I ain't gonna go into this again, because I've been into it too many times already.  The discussion on Dave Cullen, which went on for dozens of pages, included one guy with wide and fullscreen vesrions of about 20 scenes, and he came down on both sides--in one, he preferred the wide, in another the full.

Is that a crime?

I wish someone would explain to this poor, ignorant female how the additions to the scenes I have described SO OFTEN--detract from...anything...

[Aussie Chris]

I wish someone would explain to this poor, ignorant female how the additions to the scenes I have described SO OFTEN--detract from...anything...

It doesn't julie.  In most cases, a film is shot in 1.79, 1.85, or 2.35 : 1 and then pan-and-scanned or just plain cropped to fit 4:3.  Historically, because of it being a physical medium, whatever is filmed is also what appears in the theatre, and the TV version is then just hacked to fit.  When this happens, information at the sides are lost making widescreen the superior choice.  One thing to remember though, the director and cinematographer know this so when they are designing their shots, most bare in mind that the critical information needs to be in the centre/side of the screen, but there are some that only hold the theatre version as the only one of importance.  Blade Runner was a good example of this because there were some scenes that just don't work unless you are watching it in 2.35:1 (the narrowest widescreen).

In the digital age however, a film can be shot with a large amount of "additional" information both horizontally and vertically, and the director can make minor changes to the framing at the time of editing by zooming in and out as needed.  With the widescreen release, they look at the motel scene (for example) and want to create an intimate feel so they zoom in to fill the sides of the widescreen, but losing some of the information at the top and bottom (Ennis's arm and ring).  The reverse is true when the desired effect is "expanse" and the result is that 4:3 images often seem claustrophobic.

All the talk about the director's vision and such, well these are all true but I think too much emphasis is being used to justify one version over the other for this reason alone.  The truth is the entire shot was the director's vision, including all of the things like Ennis' wedding ring, the fireworks crowd, the money at the bar, etc.  These are then framed to give the best result possible (or at least the most information visible) for the format in question.

I think it interesting that we have reasons to see both versions.  As much as I would like to see a 4:3 version (it's kind of like reading the short-story to get another impression), I'd get more pissed off by the closed-in outdoor shots if I didn't get widescreen.  This is especially true because I don't have a 4:3 television (even my PC is widescreen).

Anyway, the bottom line here is to buy the version that's right for your TV and your enjoyment.

[TJ]

What Aussie Chris wrote above reminded me of having seen a TV program recently where some scenes were full-screen and even wide-screen, which has been called "letterbox," with black strips at the top and bottom of the screen. The wide shots were used when it was important to the context of the program and the full-screen shots were used when what was to the sides was not that important.

I watch the "Smallville" version of the superboy story on a regular TV broadcast station each week and it is in the "letterbox" format. Since I have a hearing problem which prevents me from hearing voices in the upper ranges, I use closed caption when watching the show. The captions do not interfere with the picture. They are either above or below in the "black" areas. 

[rtprod]

You people who speak against the fullscxreen version always talk in generaliies: "wasn't meant to be seen"  I have been very specidfic, I don't know how many timers, about the "unseen" things that are seen in the fullscreen version.
They do not create "floating" images; they do not detract from the main action of the scene. I ain't gonna go into this again, because I've been into it too many times already.  The discussion on Dave Cullen, which went on for dozens of pages, included one guy with wide and fullscreen vesrions of about 20 scenes, and he came down on both sides--in one, he preferred the wide, in another the full.

Is that a crime?

I wish someone would explain to this poor, ignorant female how the additions to the scenes I have described SO OFTEN--detract from...anything...

Julie, it is a personal preference.  I prefer to see the compositions the way that Rodrigo Prieto shot and masked them, and yes, open matte transfers do create "floating" or oddly off-kilter images directly in the center of the frame in some cases.  Balancing a frame is very delicate and that is why there are areas masked to create different aspect ratios, and why those particular areas often contain boom microphones and other items that are not supposed to be seen, as I mentioned. 

rt

[twistedude]

That is all true, but I would not give up Jack's hand grabbing Ennis's for a whole lot of broad vistas...

[Aussie Chris]

That is all true, but I would not give up Jack's hand grabbing Ennis's for a whole lot of broad vistas...

That's ok Julie, this is one time that I would agree with you.  With indifference to my stance that I must see as much as the original vision as possible of all films on DVD, I would happily sacrifice it all to get just one millimetre more of J&E goodness on to the screen (btw that's 1/25th of an inch for all you imperial dawgs out there).

[SFEnnisSF]

For the record and what it's worth,

I like BOTH versions, and alternate between watching BOTH versions equally.  BOTH are a different experience, and it's good to mix them up by alternating them.  One is not better than the other, they're just both a different experience and it's good to experiece BOTH.

 

[twistedude]

Eric, completely agree. I was just defending the poor maligned fullscreen edition, which was getting a lot of flak.