Orson's Haircut - Letterboxing Touch of Evil

[Dave]

Hi, new to the list, thank you Senor Arau! My question is, and forgive me for flogging what I can only assume is a dead horse, but what led to Touch of Evil's restoration appearing letterboxed? Imagine my Christmas surprise when I compared the cropped DVD to my original (VHS) release version and the 1970's 108minute copy. How can this project be considered faithful to Welles' vision if in fact a third of his picture has been removed? And I can't find one, but does the restoration DVD contain a fullscreen version (1:33-1)? Thank's.

[Jeff Wilson]

The DVD doesn't have a full screen version. I don't recall from earlier discussions if there was any agreement about Orson shooting the film open matte or not, and composing for both ratios. Someone will give you a better answer on that count.

[Le Chiffre]

TOUCH OF EVIL was shot at full-frame 1.33. It is not clear if Welles wanted it to be shown at 1.85 or not, but what IS undeniable is that the 1.33 VHS of the restored TOE contains MUCH more picture then the 1.85 DVD. And the film, to me, simply looks much better at 1.33. In fact, I doubt that I'll even bother watching the DVD again, which was clearly made for widescreen TVs.

I fear it's possible that, if VHS gets phased out and widescreen TVs take over the market completely, the 1.85 DVD of TOUCH OF EVIL will be the only TOE on the market. My advice to someone wanting a copy of the film would be to snatch up a VHS copy of TOUCH while you can. VHS's place in the market is dwindling fast.

[jaime marzol]

no one ever presented any facts about Welles' intentions of how the picture was to be viewed. the only thing one can really go by are the compositions. in which version are the compositions more striking. obviously in TOUCH OF EVIL lbx disc, all the compositions are clipped.

dave, congratulations, you are one of the few that noticed it on his own. when i complained about the editing, schmidlin fired back that every leading critic in the world praised his work, and not one of them said the composition of the lbx disc was clipped. of course, these were critics that cover jim carey movies, and movies about basketball playing dogs. how much stock can you put in what one of those jokers said.

[Cole]

Not only is cropping a problem with the movie, but the visual and sound quality isn’t too good. When I compare it with the Third Man DVD, it pales in quality. Was Carol Reed working with better technical equipment, or does this have more to do with the transfer of the material to DVD? I’m certainly very pleased that people put the time and resources into making TOUCH OF EVIL conform more closely with Welles’ intentions (and one can only hope that we’ll see the day when this also happens to MR ARKADIN). It’s just too bad that the DVD had these other shortcomings.

[jaime marzol]

TOUCH OF EVIL looks better than THE THIRD MAN. i had an encore series laser of it that looked fabulous. when the disc player went down, the TOE disc was in it. i took it in for repair and they damaged the disc. little did i know that would be the last great looking laser disc of it i would find. the repair shop replaced the disc, but the replacement was not of the same quality. and i've purchased 2 other encore series laser discs, and none of those looked as good as my first disc that was damaged.

the dvd is milky looking. not very stark. has too much grey.

[Rick Schmidlin]

According to the records of Phil Lathrop and Russel Metty, both well documented and easy to find a AFI and The Academy Welles intended and composed TOE to be 1:85. This film like Pshycho were shot full frame for future T.V. use. At the time of release and all screenings Welles attended it was screened as labled on the orignal neg. can 1:85. In regard to the DVD , I offered to produce it and was told NO!

Rick Schmidlin

[jaime marzol]

i don't know phil lathrop, or what size 1:85 is. i have no point of reference. i know square screen, or lbx. i assume you are saying that it was intended to be shown square?

what i know about the film is that when i capture a clip from the full sceeen version, and zoom back to get rid of tv overscan, the film becomes a masterpiece of composition, as kane is.

[Rick Schmidlin]

First here is a link on Phil Lathrop the camera operator on TOE:

http://us.imdb.com/Name?Lathrop,+Philip+H.

He was the man behind the camera and was last year a award was given to his widow for his work on TOE by the American Camera Operators Asso.

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.

[jaime marzol]

i'm still confused. 1:85 is what welles wanted. is 1:85 the square screen, of the lbx?

if you are saying that welles composed it with a black stripe above and under the view finder, purely based on what i see on the screen, i dissagree. i have no literature on this.

one of the sadest things is that MAN IN THE SHADOWS, a crappola picture, had the new wide screen equipment, and welles got the old shit. you can see it in the credits of MAN IN THE SHADOWS, what a wide screen jack arnold had to work with.

[Rick Schmidlin]

About half the movies are shot today are 1:85, this started in the 50's. The camera has lenses that shoots full frame but when looking in the viewfinder there is glass mat that shows the camera operation the ratio he desires. A good examble of todays use of this pratice in super 35. Spielberg shots a lot this way. So what he does is he shoots more then what is projected. This way his image is not blown-up from the wide screen for television and nothing is lost. Now it may be that Welles might have thought the same, but Douglas Sirk films as well as all other Universal films dureing that period where shot full frame in prepartion for televsion. This was pre pan and scan, all you could do in 58 was blow up the image which ment scope film and and wide screen films had a problem to to be sold on televsion because of loss of the heads and other body parts.I hope this explains some to you. In regard to the DVD again it an'y my doing.

[jaime marzol]

i understand how that works, so the movie can be shown on tv without blowing up the image. GLENN GARY GLENN ROSS was shot like this, and it's obvious when you put the square version by the letterbox version that the letterbox version is the one with the sizzling composition; i get just the opposite feeling with touch of evil, the square version has sizzling composition.

i never imagined that you or murch would have put the disc out in this way. had artists instead of business weasels been involved, thing would probably have been different.

[Fredric]

This is a really interesting topic of conversation, because I'm just learning about the open matte format. I used to always think that if it wasn't 1.33:1 aspect ratio, it was panned and scanned, but I'm finding out that open matte is commonly practiced.

I'm finding out that if a film is exhibited at 1.85:1 aspect ratio, usually it was filmed at 1.33:1 (TV ratio) with the top and bottom shaved for the theater and then reinstated for TV. When a film is shot around 2.35:1, like Star Wars or The Apartment, there is no shaving on the top and bottom and so the film must be panned and scanned for TV. (Then there's Super 35, but that's a whole 'nother story)

So, for a moment I was thinking, "Hey, if it's a 1.85:1 film, I should get a version with the matte opened, so I can see the top and bottom. More picture = better." But then I learned more:

Two things usually happen. When filming, sometimes boom mics and sound equipment gets shot and the director leaves it in, knowing that it will be shaved off. When the film is shown on TV, you can see the equipment sometimes. Nowadays, you don't see boom mics any more, because the video producers still zoom up in the transfer, and then pan and scan, in order to get rid of the sound eqiupment. In other words, when your watching a film with the matte open, it STILL could be panned and scanned in places.

Number two: I discovered this when watching ALTERED STATES on DVD, which has the open matte on one side and the matted theatrical version on the other. Even though you're getting more picture on the top and bottom, the intimacy level is off from what the director intended. Medium shots become long shots, close ups become medium shots. Even though the fullscreen version has more picture, the letterboxed version of AS is better, IMO, because it's more intimate.

As far as Touch of Evil goes, I'm sure you can throw all of what I said above out the window, because it's Welles, and I can't begin to understand his genius. For me, I'm okay with my letterboxed version of TOE, since I've only seen the 1.33:1 version once in my life. The composition is fine, for me. It would have been nice to have the fullscreen version on the other side of the disc, and the commentary track, and the Reconstructing Evil doc, for that matter. Oh, well.

Jaime, why are you playing dumb with Rick about the aspect ratios? Bordwell's book goes into depth about that stuff. You have read it, right?

[jaime marzol]

fredric:
not playing dumb. i didn't read that part of FILM ART. when they went over it in film class, i shut my brain. it seemed the least interesting field of an incredibly interesting topic, and because they threw out 20 different sizes, aaarrrrgh; sizes from 1917 till the present.

it hasn't been pertinent yet to anything that i have worked on, so i haven't gone back to it. i suppose i will one day.

this issue of how welles intended the film to be watched i'm not covering or mentioning in the book at all, unless i find some facts, and i probably still won't mention it; again it becomes the least interesting field of an incredibly interesting topic.

i'm using captures from the square version, because i find that version to have better composition. welles always used the entire screen to compose his framing, and in some scenes in the lbx version it's obvious nothing was masked in the viewfinder when it was framed. look at the scene when the drunk quinlan comes in the hotel room and strangles grandi, in the lbx version, susan lying across the bottom of the screen is lost. if this isn't a clue, nothing is.

16X9 i understand fully. like 2x4 or 4x8 in lumber size. simple enough.

i forget which is tv, which is movies. there is tv, there is scope, there is panavision, all are different sizes. it took you writing 1.33:1 (tv) to drive it home. maybe i will remember from now on.

1.33:1 is not as self explanatory as 16X9. or as self explanatory as 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 in negative size. or 6x7 in negative size.

we have gone around the TOE-framing tree so many times that i should have remembered months ago.

[Fredric]

Cool, that makes sense.

TV (& old standard films): 4x3
Standard Films: 16x9 (or 5.33x3)
Wide Films: 7x3

and that's all you need to know.

Oops, forgot this is Wellesnet:
European Standard: 5x3