|
|
Posted by Matthew Kirkcaldie on 10/12/05 00:45
I have to say you argue the case pretty persuasively. For the record, I
never suggested he wanted Strangelove, 2001, ACO or BL to be shown in
4:3. However, considering he used hard mattes on those films (apart
from 2001), why would he suddenly stop using them them for his last
three films?
Your best point is the quote about asking for the 1.66 matte in film
festivals, and that the EWS transfer was tweaked to look "right" in 4:3,
facts of which I was unaware. Something to think about. I'd like to
know where the latter information comes from if you can remember.
I knew the HD transfers had been screened in 16:9 but I wasn't sure
whether this was OK with the Kubrick estate or against their wishes. I
guess they would have been pre-approved, or yanked after the first was
shown if they were unacceptable. And there's the 40th anniversary
version of Strangelove to consider as well; the varying aspect ratio is
without rhyme or reason on the full-frame version.
Subjectively, I disagree that the compositions are unintentionally
awkward in the 4:3 Shining (and FMJ) - to me it looks more like the
compositional intent was to create an isolated, bleak world. That was
the basis of my e-mail exchange with Gordon Stainforth, who did a lot of
the editing.
Overall I'm glad he made such intriguing and beautiful films that we're
discussing them ad infinitum.
Oh well, I guess we will never REALLY know, despite obviously strong
opinions.
Cheers, MK.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|