Touch of Evil aspect ratio - what's the real deal?

[mteal]

Jaime Christley,
Sorry, must have confused you and blunted in my insomnia last night. Thanks for the heads up- I've gone ahead and made the changes.

Welles certainly came up with alot of brilliant compositions in both standard ratio and widescreen format, but to be honest, the term "Wellesian" to me speaks more of continuity then of composition. Many filmmakers have been able to create Wellesian visual compositions - including filmmakers that came before Welles - but few if any have been able to come close to the kind of graceful, symphonic continuity that Welles was able to acheive routinely in his films. It's not the images themselves so much, but rather the way they move and flow that makes Welles such a distinctive artist.

The auto in the background as a reference to DQ? Hmmm, could be something there. Could be a reference to Ambersons too- Hal as a medieval Eugene Morgan and Hotspur as a medieval George, with the auto as the secret weapon that destroyed Merry Ol' England. . Or maybe it was a reference to Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court. Lots of possibilities: maybe this deserves it's own thread.

[Wilson]

To be honest, my own thought on the car in Chimes is this: Welles, working on a very tight budget, probably didn't have the time or money to reshoot once he saw it in there. Personally, I doubt he would have carried the whole modern/old world thing that far as to make it purposeful, but that's just my own opinion.

[Glenn Anders]

A reasonable conclusion, Jeff.

Unless it's egregious, these arguments about a ratio don't interest me much. The cutting, the slashing of Welles' films (and those of others) does. Those versions more strongly cause one to doubt his/her memory of a work.

Glenn

[mteal]

I guess I wasn't being facetious enough. I'm sure you're right, Jeff. In fact, he may not have ever even noticed the flaw. I doubt very much that Welles would ever be so surreal as to purposely put an auto in a Shakespeare movie, no matter how rich the metaphor.

[Jaime N. Christley]

Whether the aspect ratio question is important or not is up for debate, but changing the amount of information on the screen has greater similarities to cutting out or re-ordering the sequence of frames, shots, and scenes than you might think. It's not as easy to detect the impact of a projectionist, studio, or DVD company screwing around with the aspect ratio (but, arguably, it's easy to get outraged at meddling in the cutting room without quite understanding the consequences of that meddling), and maybe the impact isn't as significant. But if you aren't interested in how it affects the film, you might ask yourself if you really deserve to be carry around your "Orson Welles Fan Club" membership card.

Let me put it this way - what if Warner Home Video's 2-disc DVD release of Citizen Kane presented the film in 1.85:1? Would that be "not interesting"?

[maxrael]

links to two of the best TOE aspect ratio discussions:

Orson's Haircut

where Rick says:

1:33 was the ratio Kane was shot as was the practice at the time. But TOE was coposed by Welles in 1:85 but shot full frame at the order of the studio. Welles was very aware on the compostion that he shot the film in. Welles never complained about the ratio because he screened it a 1:85. I guess those who prefer the studio version feel more is better, but that is going aganst the way the picture was shot and was ment to be seen in theaters. This was supported by both Mety and Lathrop later on the it is by the records on the orig. studio screening and the release theatrical screening that further support how the film was presented. A little homework on this matter goes a long way.

F for fake DVD

where Sergio says:

When I was preparing a lecture that I gave on Touch of Evil last year at the National Film Theatre in London I had the chance to compare the prints of the standard and re-release versions of TOUCH OF EVIL both on a Steenbeck and projected on the big screen. I found that the ratio really should be 1.66 and was infact indicated as such on the re-release print. The easiest way to confirm this was the simple fact that in the third shor of the film, the backward dolly shot in which Heston and Leigh run towards the explosion, if shown at 1.33 then the bottom of the dolly would be clearly visible, but was removed at 1.66 - the DVD says that it is masked at 1.85 but in fact it is masked at around 1.77 I think, so as to accomodate widescreen TVs, and I believe that this is still a little too tight, to be honest.

There was a really good post which i can no longer find, alas i can't remember the finer details, but i seem to recall Jaime M mentioning a geographical marker that ties various scenes together that can only be seen in his windowboxed version...

Personally speaking i find the discussion fascinating... and in my little world Sergio's post quoted above, makes the most sense to me!! ;D

atb,
max!

[Roger Ryan]

The easiest way to confirm this was the simple fact that in the third shor of the film, the backward dolly shot in which Heston and Leigh run towards the explosion, if shown at 1.33 then the bottom of the dolly would be clearly visible, but was removed at 1.66

Ironically, you can see the dolly track in "Citizen Kane" as well, in the scene where Kane returns from vacation and clumsily accepts the trophy from the Inquirer staff. I agree with the earlier post that these kind of mistakes don't automatically determine what the correct aspect ratio should be, but I believe some directors/cinematographers will forgive certain objects/equipment sneaking into frame if they believe these things will be cropped out later. The most frequent "flaw" in Welles' films in regard to composition tends to be camera shadows; since he loved to get the camera right up in the face of the actors, a shadow created by the camera tends to sneak into the framing.

[Glenn Anders]

I am only saying that I am of an age when, as widescreen came in, seemingly every producer and exhibitor wanted to show films in Cinemascope. Hence, musicals were shown with the dancers feet cut off. [A practice which seems to have affected Baz Lurhmann, if his recent CHICAGO is any example.]

Of course, I would want to see CITIZEN KANE in the format I first saw in a small town theater, in 1941.

If you don't think that makes me a premier member of your club, I'll form one of my own.

It does bother me that sometimes arguments erupt over things that no one is likely to remedy.

Glenn

[Jaime N. Christley]

Of course, I would want to see CITIZEN KANE in the format I first saw in a small town theater, in 1941.

If you don't think that makes me a premier member of your club, I'll form one of my own.

I'm not sure what this means - you want to see CITIZEN KANE the way you saw it in 1941, so that doesn't qualify you for membership in a club.

Er, first of all, the "club" bit was just a figure of speech. Second, it's a question you have to ask yourself, not me. If you're happy with cropping this and that, then who am I to judge. I can only give you a little evidence, a little speculation, and let you decide for yourself.

[Jaime N. Christley]

I agree with the earlier post that these kind of mistakes don't automatically determine what the correct aspect ratio should be, but I believe some directors/cinematographers will forgive certain objects/equipment sneaking into frame if they believe these things will be cropped out later.

This is a common practice in student films, where the eventual TV broadcast and VHS release isn't an issue, but it's far less common in studio pictures, especially in recent years. The most you'll get is an accidental boom mic if a projectionist is asleep on the job.

[TheMcGuffin]

Actually, to the contrary, little flubs are quite common in all hollywood pictures, from smaller budget movies like the first American Pie (where there is a C stand and a crew member walking through a shot) to the Jerry Maguire (where in the big football scene you can see a dolly track and crew in a shot). These little things slip by, usually to the knowledge of the filmmaker, for serveral reasons usually in this order 1) it was the best take 2) no one would notice the mistake because it was so quick 3) it would cost way too much to reshoot, or the cast wasn't available for a reshoot.

There are entire websites dedicated to pointing out these flubs. These things slip by because they happen so quick that they aren't noticed and until the shot is watched over and over again in the editing room.

Just my two cents...

[Jaime N. Christley]

It's still not a common problem.

[blunted by community]

maxreal, the jaime m. post you are refering to is where he writes about the stripper sign above rancho grande. like the castle in arkadin, this sign is visible as a location anchor point in much of the film. welles went through great pains to make sure this sign hovers above the in-town scenes, and in the letterbox version this is gone. also there is a lot of depth in the full screen version that is cut out of the letterbox version. i can't imagine welles cutting depth out of his film.

[Glenn Anders]

I agree with Blunted here. We want to see films the way the director wanted us to see them, not in some new trendy format of the moment. To my mind, it is either carelessness or a desire for people to throw away what they have and replace it, at the expense of the integrity of the work.

It was to this point that I made my remark about how I saw . . . KANE in 1941.

Glenn

[blunted by community]

absolutley, glenn.

and the reason i so fervently argue this, is that i am passionate about welles and everything he ever did. i hate the thought of some one new to welles seeing TOE in a less than desirable form and think that this is the best welles could do. it's not. most here admit that the lbx version has an over abundance of clipped heads, and some less than desirable framing, but no one seems to want to admit that the lbx version is a comglomerate rip-off designed to make us throw away what we have, and buy the new fangled version. perhaps it's because of their admiration for messiah schmidlin, who knows.

i also hate the thought of the restored version claiming to be orson welles' vision restored. it's not. they did the best they could with what they had, it's not restored to OW's vision. OW's vision, unfortunately, went the way of AMBERSONS; lost and gone forever.