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

[Jaime N. Christley]

"But to me it seems there’s only one place in the world the camera can be..."

Sounds like Bresson!

[Welles Fan]

On another occasion, I posted some captures from the widescreen version.

[blunted by community]

thank you max. maybe rkadin will understand what i said if it comes from you.

[R Kadin]

Well,blunted, if you're saying that Welles composed TOE with virtual disregard for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio and that a simple frame by frame comparison between the two formats would be, of itself, conclusive evidence, then I take it you're likewise dismissing other alleged evidence directly connecting Welles with a print in that A/R. In such a case, yes, I would have a problem that line of argument.

On the other hand, if you're saying that you find the compositions work better in the Academy aspect ratio, or perhaps 1.66:1, then I've already conceded ample room for that opinion, and repeatedly so. I just happen to think the film can offer a great deal in all three formats and would be loathe to dismiss any out of hand, regardless how advanced I considered my esthetic sensibilities.

If you're saying that, while Welles might have made provisions for 1.85:1, the DVD now in popular distribution is not a faithful reproduction of what he had provided - which is how I might (forgive me) have mis-read one of your earlier posts disparaging it - then, fine; I remain wholly open to pursuing that topic and have said as much. Bring on the screen caps, take some Academy frames and crop them to 1.85:1 in a more faithful manner and make your case. If it's a compelling one, then maybe we could get a groundswell going here that might, one day, prove useful in reviving a "true" widescreen version we can all enjoy that much better.

Finally, if what this all comes down to is that you would like for there to be a DVD in a "window-boxed" format to complement the omnipresent widescreen one, an approach that's by no means foreign to anyone who has set foot in a video rental store of late, you'll find me already on board.

Enlighten, please, as this is a sub-plot otherwise at risk of "getting old" real, real fast.

[blunted by community]

ah, no. i'm alleging that full screen vs. lbx is like original flavor and bbq. chose the one you like, but make sure people are aware of both. the reconstruction has marvelous work but the framing bugs me. the full screen has incredible framing that makes the whole film a visual symphony when you watch it with no audio, but has hacky parts by the studio. the restoration tried to fix the look of the film and ended up with a milky look instead. the guy that did this had not read anything on welles or he would have known that welles always went for a stark, contrasty, rough look. these points we all agree on. so why x one out in favor of the other? for me the full screen kicks visually, the lbx doesn't. there are bad frames in the lbx, no bad frames in the full screen. so i prefer to mix original flavor and bbq into 1 flavor-- the restoration and the full screen framing. others might prefer a different mixture. maybe they like the lbx look, and unrestored. i can feel that my mix is the right one, and the other guy has the right to think that his mix is the right one, and he can post here to plead his case.

if any one has a dvd-r or +r of the restoration in full screen, please send it to me and ill send it back to you window boxed. and i might be able to get rid of that milky look.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

remember, welles through a lot of the film uses characters to outling the frame. they become part of the frame. so when you window box it you gain so much it's magnificent to look at.
the lbx is missing sides and top, in my opinion.

[R Kadin]

So, having settled that much, let's get back to Jaime N. Christley's original questions that initiated this thread

Can we be absolutely certain that this is the ratio Welles "intended" for the film to be presented?

What is the correct ratio......and as you answer that, what is your source?

It appears that there is sufficient evidence - circumstantial, testimonial and esthetic - not to rule out any format, entirely. That being the case, the "problem" lies not so much with the film in any of its aspects as it does with contending that there can only be one "correct ratio".

Accordingly, to try and portray the current restored, widescreen DVD as a "definitive" version of Welles' vision, against which all others should be discounted, might be an (ahem) oversimplification. That the real answer might be richer and more complex than that would hardly be a novel realization, where any of Welles' works is concerned.

For my part, then, since it's hardly cost-prohibitive or unduly difficult to do so, I am happy to try and scare up more than one incarnation of TOE any enjoy each on its own merits. After all, I've been known at times to nosh on either bbq or original flavour, myself. Sometimes both together.

To the extent that this debate has improved my "TAQ" (i.e., TOE Appreciation Quotient), allow me to extend my thanks to all who have contributed to it. (I do miss the screen caps, though. Too bad they got pulled.)

[maxrael]

i know previous discussions of this ran a little hot... but i think it's still a valid disucssion!

blake lucas wrote on the A Film By yahoogroup:

I'd like to offer something specifically helpful to this discussion.
My experience with many films of that era was that studios might be very conscientious about the proper ratio on first release, but that when they went around to the second-run houses those theatres would pretty much do everything the same way, either 1.66 to 1.85 (depending on what they were set up for) or anamorphic if it was in 'Scope.

I'll offer two concrete examples, because they were films I liked enough to see again very soon after seeing them in opening week.
One is aforementioned "Touch of Evil." Though this played as top half of a double bill (with anamorphic "The Female Animal") in wide release, it was properly shown in 1.33, at least in the Hollywood theatre I saw it in (the Hawaii). But after the first run ended (after only one week!), it turned up in a Westwood theatre (the Village) as second half of a double bill with "Sayonara" (finally played out after long first run) and they showed it wide (my memory is less certain as to whether it was 1.66 or 1.85), so the difference in these two viewings was conspicuous.

the complete thread starts: here