From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (Two days and a wake-up...)
Subject: Re: Brazil (WS) LD
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 08:11:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.194444.452@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes...

} Opening the matte always ruins the framing of scenes in the film.

Never say "always".

} For an example of this, take a film which is not matted (that is to
} say it was filmed in a wide aspect ratio both physically (wrong word,
} I know) and artistically -- Blade Runner. There are many scenes in
} B.R. where the director has framed close up shots of characters in
} the film such that their eyes are at the top of the screen (the tops
} of their heads are cut off). The reason this was done was to emphasize
} the eyes, a very important thing in the film. [...]
} Now take those scenes and "open the matte" if that were possible and
} that emphasis on the eyes is completely lost. So, more visible film
} would actually be LESS artistically.

First, I think the argument is specious because you deliberately picked
a film where it's not possible to "open the matte", so there's no basis
for comparing what happens from one "version" to the other. And unless
you can see it with the matte open, you can't know for sure whether the
emphasis is lost or not.

Secondly, you're assuming that if Scott had been using a matted ratio
composition rather than an anamorphic ratio composition that he wouldn't
have done something different that would *not* be harmed by opening
the matte.

Thirdly, you're assuming that any "extra" image would appear on both
the top and the bottom. Not necessarily so. Cameron, for example,
composes his Super 35 films with what's called a "common topline".
The 2.35:1 image and the 1.85:1 image share the same top edge, and
all the "extra" image in the latter is at the bottom of the screen.
If the eyes (to use your example) still appeared at the top edge of
the screen, the viewer's attention could still be drawn to them,
rather than seeing them as just part of a more expansive background
of the character's face.

}} 2) The real issue with Brazil is that various length versions exist.

} While definitely an issue, see above.  A matted version is far more
} important to me -- I fell in love with the US release and although the
} European release would be interesting to see, I'd rather have a version
} that I know I'll like first.  Later they should release a seperate Euro.
} matted version as well, or release the extra scenes in a suplement
} section on a letterboxed version of the US release.

I don't understand. You go on about seeing things the way they are
*intended*, and then talk about wanting to see the US version, because
that's the one you "fell in love with". Given that the US version is
a compromise (though Gilliam has said that he prefers the US version
*in some respects*) cut between Gilliam and Universal, it's not really
what Gilliam intended. So how do you reconcile these contradictory points?

Secondly, this brings in the issue of ratios and what is the "right"
ratio for a matted film. I will bet you dollars to donuts that BRAZIL
was matted at a 1.85:1 ratio in the US, and further, that it was matted
to 1.66:1 in Europe. Now, since Gilliam is a British (by residence
and working location, not strictly by nationality) director, it's most
likely that he composed for 1.66:1. Which means that the US version
was slightly cropped. But that's the only version you've seen, so you
make all your artistic judgements based on that composition. Now, while
the 1.66:1 isn't completely open-matte, it is *relatively* open compared
to the 1.85:1 US version, and therefore contains extra image that
throws off the balance of what *you* expect from the framing. Except
that 1.66:1 is what the director composed for, so any composition in
that ratio is the "right" one.

Now, it's a perfectly valid argument to say whatever particular version
and ratio that you've seen the film in is what you prefer, and thus
what you want to see on disc. But please don't confuse this with what
is "intended". Unless it's a film *you* directed, or you have an article
or interview from the director that explicitly spells out what he had
in mind, you can't know exactly what was "intended".

Keep in mind that what you see in a particularly composition (such as
the example you cite from Kurosawa's DREAMS) is what *you* bring to
the picture (and some people have the nerve to claim that film is a
passive medium!), which is not necessarily the same thing as what the
artist intended.

Case in point: There was a fellow on the net some years back who was a
complete and total Kate Bush fanatic. And he had all sorts of complex
deconstructions her songs. Well, he finally got a chance to interview
her (and he posted his interview to the net), and during the course of
that interview, he went on about the meaning of one of her songs, and
she said, "Oh, that's not at all what I had in mind. I only meant to
say blah, blah, blah."

Now the thing about Kurosawa is that he has a *very* exact sense of
composition, and never wastes a shot. It's all meticulously thought
out, and everything has a purpose. But my point is that the purpose
*you* see in a particular shot may not be the same as what *he* saw.

-- 

	"She's my radiation baby.
	 She's my teenage fallout girl."

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
From: davea@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Dave Angelini)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:47:03 GMT
Subject: BETA TAPES FOR SALE
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA