Mr. Arkadin aspect ratio

[A Sled in Flames]

I've never seen this brought up before but are we absolutely sure that Mr. Arkadin's aspect ratio was 1:33 (4:3 full screen) and not some form of widescreen (1:66, 1:75, etc.)?

—Some evidence to support this theory—

No releases have been widescreen thus far but that doesn't necessarily mean it ain't so. Criterion released some movies open matte back on DVD but are now correctly matting them to widescreen.

There seem to be many films for the 50s that were once considered full screen but now are being released in widescreen since people are realizing that they were most likely shown that way in cinemas (examples. Creature from the Black Lagoon, Paths of Glory, The Killing, On the Waterfont, Anatomy of a Murder, Dial M for Murder, Psycho, and even Welles's Touch of Evil).

Arkadin was filmed in 1954 and released in 1955. Masked/flat widescreen (shot with film stock for the academy ratio but protected for a widescreen ratio) had already been introduced first in April 1953. While Arkadin was not a Hollywood production, I believe by 1955, European theaters had already switched over to the ratio.

I actually am posting this thread because I've just watched Arkadin (Confidential Report cut, to be exact) in a 1:66 aspect ratio on my TV. I don't claim to be a photographer, but the ratio seems to provide ample headroom in a lot of shots (even more so than usual, as is common in Welles's films) and eyes never seem to be too high in frame. The credits are also suitable for this ratio. The only issue was when Michael Redgrave was feeding his pet, it was barely in frame.

Now I'm not asking that any new releases of Arkadin be only widescreen. The best case scenario would be something like the Touch of Evil MoC BD that has both ratios.

That being said, if any of you have proof or theories to the contrary, I'd love to hear them.

[Le Chiffre]

Personally, I prefer more Welles to less. To my eyes, TOUCH OF EVIL looks better at 1.33 then at 1.85, although I don’t have a problem with seeing it in 1.85, since it was shown in theatres that way. However, I’ve never heard of Arkadin being shown in a theatre in any ratio other then 1.33, so that’s the only way I would want to see it.

Roger and I discussed this issue a couple of years ago on Wellesnet Facebook (good luck trying to find that conversation), but it was mainly in regards to THE TRIAL, which is generally considered a 1.85 film nowadays, since the Milestone DVD release thirteen years ago. I can swear, though, that I saw the film in a small arthouse about 20 years ago at 1.33, and was struck by how wonderful it looked in that ratio, unlike all the 1.33 video releases I’ve seen of it, which all looked flawed in terms of visual composition, as if they were cropped from the 1.85 (a crop of a crop!). In our conversation, Roger contended that Welles hard-matted both THE TRIAL and CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, and I remember his case for CHIMES seemed irrefutable. But I still hold out hope, based on that screening so many years ago, that a REAL, full-frame TRIAL will pop up someday.

You make an interesting point about ARKADIN, though, and one has to wonder if A/R may have played a factor in why it took several years for the film to get any distribution in America.

[Roger Ryan]

We were just discussing this topic a week or so ago on the Criterion Forum...

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/vie ... &start=125

I again claimed that I was under the impression that THE TRIAL and CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT were hard-matted (although I thinking closer to 1.66:1 since that was the European standard at the time), but you'll note that David Hare mentions seeing both films in a non-hard-matted format in the 60s so I'll refrain from stating categorically that they were matted. As "mteal" mentions, most (if not all) 4:3 home video releases are just cropped versions of a matted original, meaning the left and right sides are cut off to fit the widescreen image into a standard television screen. Of course there would be no reason to crop anything if these companies had access to true "open matte" or full-negative prints, which is why I suspected the prints were hard-matted when sent out.

Whatever aspect ratio one prefers watching Welles films in, I feel its pretty obvious that all the theatrical features after MR. ARKADIN do not suffer from being cropped to 1.66:1 (or even up to 1.85:1 in the case of TOUCH OF EVIL) the way that KANE, AMBERSONS, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI or OTHELLO would. This seems like proof to me that Welles acknowledged the change to widescreen and had his cinematographers alter the compositions appreciably. As to ARKADIN, I really don't know. This film was produced so close to the changeover to widescreen (and in Europe as well) that I have no idea whether Welles considered widescreen matted screenings. I'll have to check it out with a 1.66:1 crop.

[Le Chiffre]

Thanks for that link, Roger. An excellent discussion. I didn't find the differences between the Spanish and Studio Canal CHIMES DVDs to be all that huge, except in terms of picture quality, but the IMMORTAL STORY comparism was a real eye-opener:


Or, if you're using a mobile device:

[Roger Ryan]

As noted in the Criterion Forum link, the real problem with THE IMMORTAL STORY cropping on DVD is that the cropping appears to be done entirely at the top of the frame for the French release and at the bottom for the British release. A proper 1.66:1 matted version would remove equal portions from the top and bottom of the full camera negative.

[Le Chiffre]

You're probably right, although that arbitrariness in terms of cropping seems to suggest the possibility that no one is really sure how exactly the film is supposed to be cropped.

I'm also assuming that the film was originally shown at full frame on French television, which would make 1.33 a legitimate aspect ratio for the film. If that's the case, I say, why bother cropping it at all? They should just show it the way Welles shot it. My guess is that the film was cropped to 1.66 for it's theatrical release mainly because that's what theatrical standards of the time dictated. Of course, Welles was probably aware of those standards when he made the film, so he, like many other filmmakers, would have been careful to compose with a sensitivity for both ratios.

That certainly wasn't the case with OTHELLO, which I once had the misfortune to see in a theatre with a 1.85 scope on it. The film looked appallingly bad that way. I've never seen ARKADIN cropped, so I can't judge, but I don't really have much desire to, unless there is documented proof that Welles intended it to be seen that way.

[Roger Ryan]

I totally agree. On the Criterion Forum thread, I was approaching the argument from the other side in response to someone who claimed that Welles never intended his films to be seen in anything but full-frame 1.37:1. I think it's pretty clear that the theatrical films (not the television material) from TOUCH OF EVIL on can be cropped to 1.66:1 without noticeably damaging the compositions - even THE IMMORTAL STORY (when cropped properly - not like the French and British DVDs). This is not true of his films released prior to 1953. Like your experience with OTHELLO, I had the misfortune of seeing KANE with a 1.85:1 crop which was just ridiculous.

I'm not sure I've even seen THE IMMORTAL STORY full frame, but I'm sure it would look fine since it was shot for television with that aspect ratio in mind. ARKADIN looks excellent in 1.37:1 and I'm happy to view it that way. The full-frame TOUCH OF EVIL is fine as well but I do think the widescreen cropping improves some of the compositions. I've only seen the widescreen versions of THE TRIAL, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT and F FOR FAKE; all three strike me as well-composed in 1.66:1.

[Jeff Wilson]

As an aside, the Italian DVD (the first one to be released) appears to be the source of the British DVD's transfer, as it has identical cropping. The shorter Italian and French dubbed versions on that Italian disc also use the same cropping.

[A Sled in Flames]

Thanks all for posting your responses. That Criterion thread is interesting so thanks to Mr. Ryan for pointing that out. It's too bad that TIS is so badly matted. I don't particularly care for the movie, but, seeing as it is one of Welles's films, it should be treated with respect, which unfortunately does not seem to work out for most Welles's films.

Unlike what I think about most of Welles post-ARKADIN films, save for maybe "Filming Othello," I think the best thing to do would be to present it open matte in full screen. Seeing how it was a TV movie, this would make the most sense to me, as its the "original/primary" ratio. The theatrical release was secondary in this case...