From: wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu (William R. Cruce)
Subject: Re: Kubrick and Directors -was Re: New Release Info ... 
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 20:02:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.061513.3767@engage.pko.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.141434.20562@uhura.neoucom.edu>, wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu (William R. Cruce) writes...
>
>} Directors are not the perfect, god-like creatures we viewers sometimes
>} seem to think. Some of the best of them don't understand home-video and
>} especially laser disc.  I think we could begin to compile a list of
>} directors who should not be allowed near the mastering for laser disc.
>} At the top of the list I would put Kubrick and Friedkin, who also doesn't
>} believe in letterbox (EXORCIST, FRENCH CONNECTION, SORCERER).  
>
>Sorry, Bill, but this time I disagree. While not trying to deify any
>directors, I don't think this is necessarily a question of a director
>not understanding home-video and/or laserdisc. I think Kubrick does.
>That he's supervised some his film-to-tape transfers in letterbox --
>2001, BARRY LYNDON, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (though mildly in this last
>instance) -- and others in full-screen format -- THE SHINING, FULL METAL
>JACKET, and Criterion's forthcoming edition of LOLITA, as opposed to
>MGM/UA's matted edition -- I think it can be argued that he approaches
>each film with an eye to what he thinks is better for the particular
>film in question, rather than just blindly pushing a particular format.
>For all we know, Kubrick might've wanted these latter films in Academy
>Ratio, and composed them so that not too much significant information
>would be lost when they were matted for the theater, just as many
>directors have composed their films so that nothing significant would
>be lost when they were cropped for television.
>
>Keep in mind that those of us who support letterboxing do so because we
>feel that it displays the film the way the director wanted it. If the
>director decides that for video, he wants it transferred full screen,
>then why should we second-guess that?

Perhaps I was a little too terse in my comment.  Allow me to expand :-).

(1) I am still fuming at what John Carpenter did to the new release of
Dark Star (cutting out parts that have been there for 20 years to show
us what he originally wanted) and that has started some major rethinking
on my part about what I want to see in laserdisc releases.

(2) Different movies are put together in different ways so that different
people are responsible for the "look" of the final product, but I side
with the school of critics who believe directors are given entirely too
much credit.  Without getting us into a long winded discussion here, I
think you will concede that in many cases the cinematographer has a great
deal to do with the final look of the film.  In some cases it is the editor
that has made a film stand out from the rest.  For this reason, alone, I
don't think a director should be allowed to come back 5, 10, or 20 years
later and make changes in a film without consulting other members of the
creative team.

(3) Actually the director can do anything he damn well pleases as can 
anyone else, but what I want to see first and foremost is a pristine
transfer of image and sound AS IT FIRST APPEARED IN THEATRICAL DISTRIBUTION.
This is my scholarly and historical side speaking.  Once a film has 
appeared this way, then it is interesting (sometimes amusing) to see
other forms of the film (how it appeared on TV, how the director Would
Have Done It, alternate endings which were shot but not shown, and
matted, pan & scan, etc.).  As Criterion has shown, the laser disc is
an exellent vehicle for doing all of this (or most of it) in one (complex)
release.  BUT, pleeeaaase let's have a good clean ORIGINAL release first
before getting into all the complexities.

(4)  So my reason for wanting letterboxing is not simply wanting to see
what the director (or cinematographer or editor or ...) intended.  I
want to see the film as ORIGINALLY RELEASED.  That includes the format
shown in the theaters and I suppose what I mean is the format shown in
premium first-run theaters not as it appeared cut down on some of the
not-so-wide local screens.  To me, that is the baseline from which we
start.  Then we can see what an older director (who may or may
not be wiser) would do with it now.

(5)  I think it is worth giving serious thought to these issues because
(a)  Technological advances (computers and video) are making possible
     all kinds of editing and modification of films that were heretofore
     impossible and
(b)  The competition and availability of different formats outside the
     theater (TV, vcr, laserdisc, HDTV) offer numerous commercial
     opportunities for reissue of films - and the accompanying pressure
     to make those reissues "different."

(6)  In closing, ponder this.  If CITIZEN KANE had never before been
     released in a pristine transfer to laserdisc and if for the occasion
     of the first release, Orson Welles announced that the latest in
     coloration technology made it possible for him to do something he
     had secretly desired -to make it in color- and that was the only
     way it was going to be released, How Would You Respond?

I would want the original first and the colored one later, thank you.

-- 
BILL CRUCE, NE OHIO COLL OF MEDICINE----INTERNET: wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu 
        Neurobiology Dept., P.O. Box 95, Rootstown, OH 44272
          "The only reason for time is so that everything
                     doesn't happen at once."
From: rjn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:57:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Is ABYSS really 140 minutes long?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA