>and i'm puzzled . . i would have thought the premise that
>> an altered aspect ratio damages or changes film
>would lead to a PRO-letterboxing lecture . . .
I am further puzzled because the vast majority of films these days are shot without any consideration for composition... the action is deliberately kept to one area of the screen in order to allow for theatrical "wide-screen" and TV "full-screen." If you ever visit a film set, check out the monitors they use when playing back shot footage -- there are usually lines on the glass that show how the image will look in both formats. Leo, perhaps you can add some technical detail on how "masking" (is that the right term?) works?
Kubrick, for example, was never much of a wide-screen enthusiast. His cinematic heroes were those from before the 50s (before wide-screen had become part of the norm). He made the exception with 2001 because he felt the wide-screen process could better communicate the vastness and emptiness of space. In other words, its purpose was to help tell the story (by the way, both Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove have brief moments of alternative ratios). Plus, in later years, I think he also recognized that the video market was an important one. Hence, his last film was specifically shot with the standard TV screen in mind -- not standard theatrical wide-screen. This is written all over the EWS box, and appears on the video intro. Yet this still doesn't prevent so-called "purists" from jumping up-and-down and screaming "We want a LETTER-BOX version of EWS! We want to see the film as Kubrick intended!"
On the flip-side, the distribution of letter-box films on video has always been screwed-up. For years I couldn't see a letter-box version of The Wild Bunch, but I could rent or buy a letter-box version of Patrick Swayze in Road House! Now... letter-box is finally becoming accepted, but EVERYTHING is coming out in this format (after filmmakers spent 20 years mostly forsaking wide-screen, and deliberately shooting their films to avoid the "pan-and-scan" process). Recently I bought a DVD of Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me for my young nephew, and we both squinted as we tried to watch the 2.35 anamorphic framing on the family 27" TV. Trust me, neither of us were watching the film for the skill and mastery of its framing. Screw artistic integrity! Just show me enough so I can follow the action and have a good laugh!
Here in Canada we have a pay TV service called MoviePix. They specialize in showing films (mostly U.S.) from throughout the 20th century. One of their gimmicks is to show "letter-box" versions of films. In one of their promos they demonstrate the difference between "letter-box" and "full-frame" -- supposably to show why "letter-box" is superior. But some of the examples they use in the promo include "Red Violin" and "Saving Private Ryan" -- two contemporary examples that were clearly shot with TV in mind. The main difference with the "letter-box" of these two titles is that a black bar covers the top and bottom of the screen, actually showing you LESS of the film -- whereas the argument is suppose to be that letter-boxing shows you MORE.
In the over 100 year history of cinema, wide-screen composition is only a consideration in a small fraction of films (mostly those made in the 1960s and 70s, before home video became a factor in distribution). Yes, I yearn for the day when I can finally to see The Conformist as it was originally intended... if not in a theatre, a beautiful letter-box video will do (come on, Paramount!)... but can't we also accept that MOST films do not benefit from this process? That most filmmakers are not interested in telling stories through visuals, except to convey information? That there is no standard of excellence? That the "Deluxe Letter-Box" version of Runaway Train is virtually identical to the "full-screen" TV version, so why make a fuss?
.
----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 09:47:10 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There's quite a few in many different technologies. You can check out
"Wide-Screen Movies" by Carr and Hayes.
However, just to name a few off the top of my head:
Napoleon (1927)
Chang (1927)*
Old Ironsides (1927)*
The Mystery of Picasso (1955)
*though, to be honest, this wasn't really a ratio change as was a size of
screen change.
And of course, Frank Tashlin played with this in one or two of his films in
the 1950s.
Dennis
Milestone Film & Video
In a message dated 5/9/00 6:15:39 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< "GalaxyQuest" is in about a 1.85 aspect ratio for the first 20 or so
minutes before changing to a full widescreen ratio. Can anybody think of
other films that also mixed ratios? Not counting ones where it's motivated
by something like a video monitor.
(If you didn't see "GalaxyQuest" theatrically then you'll miss this since
the studio decided it would be too confusing for home viewing so the tape
and DVD are both one ratio throughout.)
LT >>
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128
Harrington Park, NJ 07640-0128
Phone: (201) 767-3117 or (800) 603-1104
Fax: (201) 767-3035
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: <A HREF="http://lcweb.loc.gov/film/arch.html">http://www.milestonefil
ms.com</A>
----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:41:36 +0200
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Staalen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <p0431010ab53d35fd94c5@[199.174.203.156]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yes, Crooklyn. It's when the family goes down south to visit
relatives. But it's not actually a change of ratio, because the screen is
just as wide. But these scenes are filmed with an anamorphic lens, and
then shown in standard wide-screen, making the picture compressed
horisontaly. It was used, I believe, to give it a claustorphobic
feeling. Of corse, it didn't work at all.
Staalen.
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Kami Chisholm wrote:
> one of Spike Lee's films, I think it's Crooklyn, does this.
>
> At 11:03 PM -0400 5/8/00, Lang Thompson wrote:
> >"GalaxyQuest" is in about a 1.85 aspect ratio for the first 20 or so
> >minutes before changing to a full widescreen ratio. Can anybody think of
> >other films that also mixed ratios? Not counting ones where it's motivated
> >by something like a video monitor.
> >
> >(If you didn't see "GalaxyQuest" theatrically then you'll miss this since
> >the studio decided it would be too confusing for home viewing so the tape
> >and DVD are both one ratio throughout.)
> >
> >LT
> >
> >-------------------------------------------
> >Full Alert Film Review
> >http://wlt4.home.mindspring.com/fafr.htm
> >
> >Funhouse
> >http://wlt4.home.mindspring.com/funhouse.htm
> >
> >----
> >For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> >http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>
> ----
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
>
----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:41:23 -0400
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Grindon, Leger" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Recommended Bk on dialogue for screenwriters & scholars
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Screen-L subscribers:
I want to bring your attention to a new book Overhearing Film Dialogue
by Sarah Kozloff from University of California Press. It just appeared in
paper as well as cloth. Kozloff analyzes the general characteristics of
screen dialogue in Hollywood films and then explores its practice in four
genres -- the Western, screwball comedy, gangster film and melodrama. Her
understanding displays insight into the mechanics of screenwriting as well
as the function of movie talk -- its almost uncanny ability, when
well-executed, to assume the colloquial sound of normal conversation while
being carefully shaped to construct plot, reveal character and excite our
emotions. In addition the book is fluently written, well-illustrated and
peppered with evocative examples from both classical and contemporary
Hollywood films, from Wuthering Heights to Reservoir Dogs. Kozloff offers
plenty of ideas for working screenwriters as well as displaying a thorough
and perceptive sense of how film dialogue functions for the critic or film
scholar. Overhearing Film Dialogue manages to avoid being either a manual
of screenwriting tips or a theoretical treatise reserved for academics. If
you love the movies and enjoy reading about them, this book will provide an
engaging experience. Overhearing Film Dialogue is a valuable tool for any
screenwriting instructor and an excellent text to add to the reading list.
For those in film studies this is an important addition to the literature on
film sound, as far as I know there is no work that deals in a comparable
manner with the structure, design and impact of screen dialogue. I
recommend it hardily for summer reading and future reference.
Sincerely,
Leger Grindon
Professor of Film Studies
Middlebury College
----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:11:26 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Dennis P Bingham <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Credits at end of film
Comments: To: Sharon Knolle <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I'm always reluctant to say that anything was "first," but the earliest
example I can think of of a film that left all its credits for the end,
save for the title itself, was none other than CITIZEN KANE. One person
this precedent made an impression upon was the film's co-editor, Robert
Wise. At least two of Wise's films as director have all their credits at
the end: WEST SIDE STORY (1961, which might make it the earliest post-KANE
example) and STAR! (1968), which also reprised KANE's newsreel structure:
Here the newsreel bears the title of the film itself.
THE GODFATHER opened with nothing but the title and is probably the film
that formally began the practice as a fashion. But earlier, Kubrick's
2001 and CLOCKWORK ORANGE open with nothing but the director's name and
the titles, with all credits at the end (and on 2001 these were among the
longest to that time, which is probably why Kubrick did it this way.
Also, like the two Wise films 2001 was a 60s roadshow, for which one
could purchase a printed program, making opening credits less necessary).
Dennis Bingham
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 16:23:48 -0400
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
>"Red Violin" and "Saving Private Ryan" -- two contemporary examples >that were clearly shot with TV in mind. The main difference with the >"letter-box" of these two titles is that a black bar covers the top >and bottom of the screen, actually showing you LESS of the film --
This would be true of open-masked films and neither of these were done in that format. Unless the published specs are wrong then in both these cases it is quite literally less of the image since the sides are trimmed. Even for open-masked films it's a question of whether you want more of the top/bottom or sides.
LT
----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:51:04 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
My tape of _Destroy All Monsters starts in 2.35 and goes to about 1.85
after the credits. It is from Pan Asia Video, not the ADVision version,
which might not even be legal, so that may account for it. It uses the
Toho International print with credfits at the beginning and a bored
dubbing cast. I also have a boot that is so high quality it looks
professionally done, even though it's pan and scan, which has the AIP-TV
dubbing, which is far better, even though I don't like dubbing to begin
with. I don't know if the ADVision transfer of the film, which I don't
have, has this same oddity.
===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Cracks in the Fourth Wall Filmworks/Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
(with special musical guest Leila Josefowicz)
"Who's John Adams?" --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., at Monticello,
after failing to recognize busts of other founding fathers.
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Lang Thompson wrote:
> "GalaxyQuest" is in about a 1.85 aspect ratio for the first 20 or so
> minutes before changing to a full widescreen ratio. Can anybody think of
> other films that also mixed ratios? Not counting ones where it's motivated
> by something like a video monitor.
>
> (If you didn't see "GalaxyQuest" theatrically then you'll miss this since
> the studio decided it would be too confusing for home viewing so the tape
> and DVD are both one ratio throughout.)
>
> LT
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Full Alert Film Review
> http://wlt4.home.mindspring.com/fafr.htm
>
> Funhouse
> http://wlt4.home.mindspring.com/funhouse.htm
>
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:52:35 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
_The Pillow Book_ changes aspect ratio, as intended by the director
depending upon at what point in time the action is occuring. I believe
this is lost on the video though. I saw it at Madame Walker Theatre,
where the Academy ratio parts were partially on the curtains, annoyingly
enough.
Scott
===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Cracks in the Fourth Wall Filmworks/Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
(with special musical guest Leila Josefowicz)
"Who's John Adams?" --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., at Monticello,
after failing to recognize busts of other founding fathers.
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Daniel I Humphrey wrote:
> As I recall, The Horse Whisperer and Brainstorm both had aspect ratio
> changes in them. So did The Road Warrior, although its change occurred
> between the prologue and the film itself, so perhaps it doesn't count...
>
> Daniel Isaac Humphrey
> Department of Art & Art History
> University of Rochester
> 424 Morey Hall
> Rochester NY 14627-0456
> www.rochester.edu/College/AAH/people/grad/humphrey.html
>
> ----
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
>
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:55:31 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Credits at end of film
Comments: To: Sharon Knolle <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I have heard this about _Star Wars_ being the first, but it isn't true. I
can think of _Tommy_ (1975) right off as an example. Perhaps _Star Wars_
was the first AMERICAN film to do this.
All three Evil Dead films lack opening credits, as does Raimi's
_Crimewave_, although in _Army of Darkness_, Bruce Campbell is credited at
the beginning "Bruce Campbell vs. Army of Darkness."
===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Cracks in the Fourth Wall Filmworks/Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
(with special musical guest Leila Josefowicz)
"Who's John Adams?" --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., at Monticello,
after failing to recognize busts of other founding fathers.
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Sharon Knolle wrote:
> I'm working on an article about film credits appearing at the end of the
> movie.
> Examples where this happens: All Star Wars films, Ronin, Titanic, The X-Files
> movie, The Matrix, and also Gladiator.
> I believe that the first film where this occurred was Star Wars but Lucasfilm
> couldn't confirm this for me.
> A colleague suggested Lucas would have needed a special dispensation to be
> able to run the credits after the film: but from who?
> the director's guild? actors guild? All help appreciated.
> If you have other examples of films with end credits or know of any
> documentation on this trend, please send them my way.
> Thank you.
>
> Sharon Knolle
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
>
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:03:31 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In _Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home_, Spock, Kirk, and Taylor cannot be
shown in the same shot in the front of the truck in pan and scan. In
_Dark City_, The table cannot be seen extending in pan and scan. In
_Heart and Souls_ the four spirits cannot be seen in the same shot near
the beginning, flying toward Thomas. In _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_,
Wise's immensity compositions are destroyed because there is not a human
in every shot, as in the widescreen version. These arer examples I can
think of odd the top of my head. I know a number of scenes in _Dune_
don't make any sense in pan and scan, and there is a scene in Jun Fukuda's
_The War in Space_ (1977), that has a conversation shot from under a glass
table. In pan and scan (the only way it is available in the U.S., where
it was released directly to television), all we can see are the noses of
Ryo Ikebe and Kensaky Morita, as they have their conversation. I once
gave a speech on letterboxing and used this shot as an example of just how
damaging pan and scan can be.
Scott
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Robert Hunt wrote:
> The only film that I can think of with authentic aspect-ratio chnages is
> Douglas Trumbull's "Brainscan". In it's original release, the "brainscan"
> sequences were in 70mm while the narrative proper was in 35mm. My memory is
> foggy on this but I think the 70mm was in 'scope while the remainder of the
> film was 1.85..At any rate, this must have been a nightmare for
> projectionists....
> There are other films which include varied ratios for more obvious reasons,
> like "That's Entertainment", or the opening scenes of "Superman" amd "Popeye".
> Two other scenes that toy with screen size in different ways but are probably
> worth mentioning:
> "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?" begins with Tony Randall "opening" the
> frame to its approproate Cinemascope dimensions...
> and finally, "Finian's Rainbow",which was reportedly released in a wider
> format that it was shot, resulting in the omission of Fred Astaire's feet
> during the dance numbers.....
> And speaking of aspect ratio, for years I've been giving students my
> standard anti-letterboxing lecture, but I'm wondering if anyone can offer
> fresh examples of how an altered aspect ratio damages or changes film
> content, perspective, etc....
> R. Hunt
>
> ----
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
>
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:05:44 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Credits at end of film
Comments: To: Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
_Who's That Knocking at My Door_ credits Berthune and Keitel, but the rest
are deferred to the end. _Tommy_ would be like this, since it credits
Stigwood, Russell, and The Who.
Scott
===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Cracks in the Fourth Wall Filmworks/Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
(with special musical guest Leila Josefowicz)
"Who's John Adams?" --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., at Monticello,
after failing to recognize busts of other founding fathers.
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Donald Larsson wrote:
> Sharon Knolle requests:
>
>
> > I'm working on an article about film credits appearing at the end of the
> > movie.
> > Examples where this happens: All Star Wars films, Ronin, Titanic, The X-Files
> > movie, The Matrix, and also Gladiator.
> > I believe that the first film where this occurred was Star Wars but Lucasfilm
> > couldn't confirm this for me.
> > A colleague suggested Lucas would have needed a special dispensation to be
> > able to run the credits after the film: but from who?
> > the director's guild? actors guild? All help appreciated.
> > If you have other examples of films with end credits or know of any
> > documentation on this trend, please send them my way.
> > Thank you.
>
> The first relatively contemporary film that I'm aware of running
> credits at the end was APOCALYPSE NOW. There were a number of comments
> about it at the time.
>
> I also seem to recall seeing an older film (in black & white?) not too
> long ago, where I was surprised to see the deferred credits--but my
> memory may be playing tricks on me . . . again.
>
> Don Larsson
>
> ----------------------
> Donald Larsson
> Minnesota State U, Mankato
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
>
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:22:39 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Cudotvorni Mac/The Magic Sword
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I am looking for this film, which is Yugoslavian, and is a loose
adaptation of the BasCelik folktale, well known to Slavic peoples, but
virtually unknown here. I have tried all sorts of search services, and
they all say it's too obscure for them to find it, or tell me it's
available from MGM, when I specifically tell them it is NOT Bert I.
Gordon's film starring Basil Rathbone.
Cudotvorni mac (1950)
Genre: Fantasy / Adventure
Plot Outline: Evil Bas-Celik is terrorizing
people, but only the magic sword can harm him. A young hero
goes on the dangerous quest to find that sword.
User Rating: awaiting 5 votes.
Cast (in alphabetical order)
Milan Ajvaz
Vera Ilic-Djukic
....
Vida
Ljubisa Jovanovic
Marko Marinkovic (I)
Rade Markovic
....
Nebojsa
Mihajlo-Bata Paskaljevic
....
Gricko
Pavle Vujisic
....
Vitez
Milivoje Zivanovic
....
Bas-Celik
Directed by
Vojislav Nanovic
Writing credits
Vojislav Nanovic
Original music by
Kresimir Baranovic
Cinematography by
Milenko Stojanovic
Film Editing by
Milanka Nanovic
Production Design by
Mladen Josic
Production Companies
Zvezda Film [yu]
Distributors
Ellis Films Inc. (1952, USA)
Also Known As:
Magic Sword, The (1950)
Spada del giustiziere, La (1950) (Italy) [it]
Runtime: Yugoslavia:101
Country: Yugoslavia
Language: Serbian
Color: Black and White
Sound Mix: Mono
===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Cracks in the Fourth Wall Filmworks/Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
(with special musical guest Leila Josefowicz)
"Who's John Adams?" --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., at Monticello,
after failing to recognize busts of other founding fathers.
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 02:42:47 +0000
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> MESSAGE-ID field duplicated. Last occurrence
was retained.
From: Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Reply: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 23:03 08/05/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>"GalaxyQuest" is in about a 1.85 aspect ratio for the first 20 or so
>minutes before changing to a full widescreen ratio. Can anybody think of
>other films that also mixed ratios?
Yes - THE HORSE WHISPERER (1998). It starts with a 1:1.85 picture within a
'scope matte and the picture changes to full-gate scope on the reel 2 - 3
change. It was a real pain because you always had to remember to be there
to press the masking open button about 40 minutes into the film. If I
remember correctly, the change to 'scope happened on a shot of a car
driving over a suspension bridge.
Also THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES (1968) begins with a
sequence of silent aviation footage shown as 1:1.38 with the image of an
Edwardian stage and screen mask covering the rest of the 70mm frame. As
the Ronald Searle animated title sequence starts, the moving image expands
to fill the entire frame.
L
------------------------------------
Leo Enticknap
Technical Manager
City Screen Cinemas (York) Ltd..
Coney St., York YO1 9QL.
United Kingdom
Telephone: 01904 612940 (work); 01904 673207 (home); 0410 417383 (mobile)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 03:01:43 +0000
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> MESSAGE-ID field duplicated. Last occurrence
was retained.
From: Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Letterboxing
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mike Frank asks what the 'standard anti-letterboxing argument' would be.
As I understand it, it holds that if a film is photographed in order to be
shown in a certain ratio, thern showing it in any other ratio (i.e.
carrying out the technical change necessary to achieve this) fundamentally
changes the visual qualities of the image from those which were intended by
the film-maker, and thus is not advisable. To this, however, I would add
these caveats:
1. Hollywood now generally adopts a 'shoot-and-protect' policy for films
in spherical ratios. Basically, the US, the UK, certain parts of Western
Europe and Japan uses 1:1.85 as the industry standard spherical ratio, and
therefore most Hollywood productions which are not in 'scope are designed
to look their best in 1:1.85. However, France, India, Australia and most
of South America use 1:1.66 as their standard, whilst Russia and China
still have 1:1.33 as their primary film format. Added to this, films are
increasingly having to be compatible with the widescreen TV standard of
16:9, which translates roughly as 1:1.76. Therefore, Hollywood films still
have to be showable in these systems, which is why the prints do not
generally have hard mattes. You could, if you wished, show MANIAC COP 4 in
the Academy ratio - but a large swathe of the frame would contain no
action. Ironically, this is exactly the opposite of letterboxing, i.e.
showing more of the original frame and magnifying it less.
2. Like subtitling, the quality of panning and scanning varies widely. If
the printer is constantly scanning an Academy-sized box in the middle of a
'scope frame, the result is guaranteed to look abysmal; but if it tracks
the essential action without moving too suddenly or often, then the film
can look surprisingly acceptable. Added to which, a television is not the
same as a cinema screen and therefore it could be argued that letterboxing
is essential in order to give a production an equal chance when transposed
to a different medium. It's not an argument I would personally accept, but
it's the only one I can think of in favour of letterboxing. After all, do
people regularly complain that films were originally released with
multi-channel soundtracks are regularly broadcast (or sold on retail video)
with mono sound?
L
------------------------------------
Leo Enticknap
Technical Manager
City Screen Cinemas (York) Ltd..
Coney St., York YO1 9QL.
United Kingdom
Telephone: 01904 612940 (work); 01904 673207 (home); 0410 417383 (mobile)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 02:44:41 +0000
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> MESSAGE-ID field duplicated. Last occurrence
was retained.
From: Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Credits at end of film
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 22:16 08/05/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm working on an article about film credits appearing at the end of the
>movie.
[...]
>I believe that the first film where this occurred was Star Wars but Lucasfilm
>couldn't confirm this for me.
I can give you a much earlier example - CONFESSIONS OF A NAZI SPY (1938).
L
------------------------------------
Leo Enticknap
Technical Manager
City Screen Cinemas (York) Ltd..
Coney St., York YO1 9QL.
United Kingdom
Telephone: 01904 612940 (work); 01904 673207 (home); 0410 417383 (mobile)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 03:04:03 +0000
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> MESSAGE-ID field duplicated. Last occurrence
was retained.
From: Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Following on from Darryl Wiggers' post on Kubrick and widescreen, would I
be right in thinking that Hitchcock never made a film with a wider ratio
than 1:1.85? I can think of several VistaVision titles, but none in 'scope.
L
------------------------------------
Leo Enticknap
Technical Manager
City Screen Cinemas (York) Ltd..
Coney St., York YO1 9QL.
United Kingdom
Telephone: 01904 612940 (work); 01904 673207 (home); 0410 417383 (mobile)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 23:24:15 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Robert Hunt <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A correction to my earlier posting: I believe I referred to Douglas
Trumbull's film "Brainstorm" as "Brainscan".
Also, if I remember correctly, "The Mystery of Picasso" changes to widescreen
for the sequences where Picasso paints "on the screen"...
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:12:03 +0800
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Andrew Albert J. Ty" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Credits at end of film
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I just screened Miller's Crossing for my lecture-discussion on genre in
film theory class today, and Joel Coen's name appears on the end credits as
well.
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:42:43 -0400
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Darryl Wiggers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="-----------------------------7d06414620"
This is ...
-------------------------------7d06414620
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
| Following on from Darryl Wiggers' post on Kubrick and widescreen, would I
| be right in thinking that Hitchcock never made a film with a wider ratio
| than 1:1.85? I can think of several VistaVision titles, but none in 'scope.
If you assume, from my argument, that because Kubrick had a preference for the 1.33:1 ratio that ALL filmmakers of his era (and before) should have felt the same way -- of course not. And I think I made it clear that even Kubrick saw the advantages of the wide-screen when he made 2001 (2.20.1 ratio) and, hence, made an exception.
.
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:18:36 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Ed Owens <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Let me add a vast assortment of musicals (Gigi, My Fair Lady, Hello Dolly,
and The Music Man, just to name a few) where dance numbers are abysmally
cropped and parts of songs are often sung by offscreen voices (voices that
become embodied in the letterboxed versions).
Ed
In a message dated 5/10/00 9:47:48 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>In _Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home_, Spock, Kirk, and Taylor cannot be
>shown in the same shot in the front of the truck in pan and scan. In
>_Dark City_, The table cannot be seen extending in pan and scan. In
>_Heart and Souls_ the four spirits cannot be seen in the same shot near
>the beginning, flying toward Thomas. In _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_,
>Wise's immensity compositions are destroyed because there is not a human
>in every shot, as in the widescreen version. These arer examples I can
>think of odd the top of my head. I know a number of scenes in _Dune_
>don't make any sense in pan and scan, and there is a scene in Jun Fukuda's
>_The War in Space_ (1977), that has a conversation shot from under a glass
>table. In pan and scan (the only way it is available in the U.S., where
>it was released directly to television), all we can see are the noses of
>Ryo Ikebe and Kensaky Morita, as they have their conversation. I once
>gave a speech on letterboxing and used this shot as an example of just
>how
>damaging pan and scan can be.
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:26:53 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Leo Enticknap responds:
> Mike Frank asks what the 'standard anti-letterboxing argument' would be.
> As I understand it, it holds that if a film is photographed in order to be
> shown in a certain ratio, thern showing it in any other ratio (i.e.
> carrying out the technical change necessary to achieve this) fundamentally
> changes the visual qualities of the image from those which were intended by
> the film-maker, and thus is not advisable.
I think that there is a confusion of terms here. "Letterboxing" as I
understand the term usually refers to "preserving" the original
wide-screen format of a film. This usually makes for a smaller image
overall on the TV screen (since it is not as high as the screen--the
top and bottom will be black; in some older version, there are
arabesque curlicues or other designs on the top and/or bottom to fill
the void.)
"Anti-letterboxing" would imply that one is against this practice. I
think that the original post using the term was a typo--but if there
were such a thing, it might be justified on a few grounds:
a) that the larger image is simply clearer on most standard TV screens
and the smaller but wider image in letterboxing is too hard to see;
b) that some processes (in fact, most today) take full-screen
composition into account during filming, so nothing is lost from the
sides when the full image is shown on TV
Don Larsson
----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
[log in to unmask]
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:11:41 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Mark Wolf <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
In this debate about letterboxing, little has been said about the issue of
resolution; while video is of course much resolution whether letterboxed or
not, letterboxing (and I usually prefer it) can be quite a bit lower
resolution than pan-n-scan. So it becomes a trade-off between composition
versus resolution; do you want your lost detail to be removed from the ends
of image, or uniformly from the entire image? And then there's the issue of
color resolution; the delicate cinematography in Tarkovsky's films, for
example, become rather murky on video. And there's plenty of other examples
in which resolution makes a big difference.
MJPW
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:19:53 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Robert Hunt <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In the midst of this excellent discussion (many thanks for the fina
examples), I've got a question: Does anyone know the actual origin of the
term 'letterboxing"? How long has it been in use?
rh
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:43:46 +0300
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Vidovic, Boris" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Cudotvorni mac
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Scott,
I think you should try to contact Yugoslav Film Archive. Addresses,
e-mail etc can be found at:
http://www.kinoteka.org.yu/
Good luck,
Boris Vidovic
Finnish Film Archive
Helsinki
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:30:26 +0000
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Donald Larsson observes:
>I think that there is a confusion of terms here. "Letterboxing" as I
>understand the term usually refers to "preserving" the original
>wide-screen format of a film. This usually makes for a smaller image
>overall on the TV screen (since it is not as high as the screen--the
>top and bottom will be black; in some older version, there are
>arabesque curlicues or other designs on the top and/or bottom to fill
>the void.)
Sorry folks... got confused and inverted the terms 'panning and scanning'
and 'letterboxing'. Swap 'em round and my previous post should hopefully
make sense.
L
------------------------------------
Leo Enticknap
Technical Manager
City Screen Cinemas (York) Ltd..
Coney St., York YO1 9QL.
United Kingdom
Telephone: 01904 612940 (work); 01904 673207 (home); 0410 417383 (mobile)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:42:53 +0000
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Darryl Wiggers writes:
>If you assume, from my argument, that because Kubrick had a preference for
>the 1.33:1 ratio that ALL filmmakers of his era (and before) should have
>felt the same way -- of course not. And I think I made it clear that even
>Kubrick saw the advantages of the wide-screen when he made 2001 (2.20.1
>ratio) and, hence, made an exception.
Far from assuming that, I get the impression that most prominent
film-makers with this period ranged from experimenting with widescreen
(even if, like Fritz Lang, they found it a negative experience) to
positively embracing it. It just struck me as a side-issue, reading your
post, that Hitchcock never went wider than VistaVision. Having now looked
this up, it seems that 1:1.66 was his preferred ratio during the latter
stages of his career (e.g. Psycho, The Birds, Marnie).
L
------------------------------------
Leo Enticknap
Technical Manager
City Screen Cinemas (York) Ltd..
Coney St., York YO1 9QL.
United Kingdom
Telephone: 01904 612940 (work); 01904 673207 (home); 0410 417383 (mobile)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:56:08 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Darryl Wiggers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>In the midst of this excellent discussion (many thanks for the fina
>examples), I've got a question: Does anyone know the actual origin of the
>term 'letterboxing"? How long has it been in use?
My recollection is that it first appeared around 1981-2 on the VHS version
of Woody Allen's Manhattan (released by UA), one of the first video
releases in this format. But the format didn't catch on ,and neither did
the term. Over the next 10 years the term, and format, was mostly limited
to laser disc releases. MGM/UA (merged after the Heaven's Gate disaster)
often used the phrase "Deluxe Letterbox" (even when releasing titles like
"Runaway Train," shot 1.33:1). 20th Century Fox prefered saying
"Widescreen." Warner Bros. used neither, usually printing a small print
explanation on the back of the packaging that the film was "matted" (sp).
Eventually the term "letterbox" began to gain favor in the mid-90s, when
more VHS titles were released in this format, but it still varied between
"Widesreen" and "Letterbox" depending on the distributor. I haven't
carefully studied the packaging of DVD releases but I still notice the term
"Widescreen" kicking around. I guess my question is, do certain companies
hold patents on these words, much like their "VistaVision" and
"Cinemascope"?
dw
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:51:15 +1000
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Ken Mogg <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change [Hitchcock's preferred screen ratio]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Leo Enticknap wrote:
> It just struck me as a side-issue [...] that Hitchcock never went wider than
> VistaVision. Having now looked
> this up, it seems that 1:1.66 was his preferred ratio during the latter
> stages of his career (e.g. Psycho, The Birds, Marnie).
Leo, where did you look this up? My information about Hitchcock's preferred
ratio, as included in the 'Author's Note' of my book (the uncut UK edition
...), is slightly different:
'All of the VistaVision films, from TO CATCH A THIEF to NORTH BY NORTHWEST,
have a recommended aspect ratio of 1.85:1. PSYCHO's screen shape is
controversial. Officially, its "theatrical ratio" is 1.85:1, but Gus Van Sant,
for one, remembers the original cans were labelled 1.75:1. All of Hitchcock's
films after PSYCHO carry an official aspect ratio of 1.85:1.'
- Ken Mogg (author, 'The Alfred Hitchcock Story').
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:04:10 -0700
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: John McMurria <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: cfp: film, tv, & youth culture
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CALL FOR PAPERS: *a reminder that abstracts are due June 1*
"Screen Teens: Film, Television and Youth Culture"
For the screen industries 'teenagers' mean business. They are frequent =
film-goers and brand-impressionable television viewers with pockets full =
of disposable income, and a demographic that has surged in recent years =
as the 'echo' generation enters their teen years. And for young people, =
this means that screen media occupy an ever-larger place in the business =
of their everyday lives. At this moment of resurgence, this collection =
of essays would like to reassess the cultural and historical =
implications of film, television and youth culture from the post-war =
years to the present. This anthology looks at how teens matter to screen =
industries, and how screen texts matter to young people. It focuses on =
how representations of youth have come to pervade the popular media, and =
on the implications of screen media becoming increasingly constitutive =
of youth culture.
This volume combines the disciplinary strengths of screen studies =
(genre, textual, and industry analysis) with critical media and cultural =
studies (political economy, everyday uses, identity politics) to =
interrogate the interfacing of production and consumption contexts, =
texts and their uses, and culture industries and lived publics. Sections =
and topics of consideration include but are not limited to the =
following:
Section I - "Popular Culture and Youth"
Ground clearing essays here consider conceptual questions central to =
youth studies and the popular including youth and consumerism, political =
economy, citizenship, ethnography, cultural policy, interpretation, =
empirical studies, cultural regulation and postmodernism. If youth =
studies have focused on music and subcultures, this section investigates =
methodological options for considering how screen media (re)constitute =
youth cultures, and why teen screen events become sites for channeling =
social and cultural anxieties or ideological contradictions.
Section II - "Genre and Teen Cycles"
Genres are cultural forms born at the intersection of culture industries =
and lived publics. Essays here investigate the generic constitution of =
the 'teenpic', teen television series, or teen subgenera through this =
interplay of industries and publics.
Section III - "Youth Matters"
From music, fashion and sex to identity, freedom and alienation this =
section considers the things of significance, pleasure and struggle for =
young people as they interface with the media. They are also of concern =
to institutions, governments, censors, parents, juries and associations. =
Essays here follow a topics/themes/issues approach that elaborate youth =
matters and media such as violence, race, sex, censorship, grrl culture, =
stars, audiences and fandom.
Section IV - "Consuming Teens"
This section considers how the culture industries approach youth as =
market, audience, and consumer including: media synergies and =
conglomeration; advertising, marketing, market research, branding and =
scheduling; the music industries and film and television; delivery =
technologies and youth culture (the internet, cable and satellite).
Section V - "Screen Teens and Global Youth Culture"
Cultural production is increasingly global in circulation and design, =
and youth culture has often been a driving force in this globalization =
of popular media. This section seeks papers that consider diverse local, =
national, regional, and international screen industries and contexts:
Please e-mail 500 word abstracts and a short bio (or any inquiries) by 1 =
June 2000 to John McMurria, [log in to unmask] Completed papers for =
accepted abstracts will be due by 1 March 2001.
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:37:11 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Far from assuming that, I get the impression that most prominent
> film-makers with this period ranged from experimenting with widescreen
> (even if, like Fritz Lang, they found it a negative experience) to
> positively embracing it. It just struck me as a side-issue, reading your
> post, that Hitchcock never went wider than VistaVision. Having now looked
> this up, it seems that 1:1.66 was his preferred ratio during the latter
> stages of his career (e.g. Psycho, The Birds, Marnie).
I take it the letterboxed tape of Psycho (which I've never seen) is either
cropped to make it 1.85, or the package is mislabeled. Does anyone have
any details on this?
Scott
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:12:57 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
See p. 58 of the current issue of Video Watchdog, for an excellent example
of the importance of letterboxing, with _Fright Night_.
I loathe pan and scan. I'll watch non-anamorphic films in pan and scan,
but not anamorphic ones, unless they have not been released any other way
(and I'm still holding out on films like _Nashville_ and _GATTACA_, which
I understand are destroyed by pan and scan.
BTW, _The Searchers_ looks incredibly distorted in pan and scan.
Scott
===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Cracks in the Fourth Wall Filmworks/Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
(with special musical guest Leila Josefowicz)
"Who's John Adams?" --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., at Monticello,
after failing to recognize busts of other founding fathers.
On Wed, 10 May 2000, Leo Enticknap wrote:
> Mike Frank asks what the 'standard anti-letterboxing argument' would be.
> As I understand it, it holds that if a film is photographed in order to be
> shown in a certain ratio, thern showing it in any other ratio (i.e.
> carrying out the technical change necessary to achieve this) fundamentally
> changes the visual qualities of the image from those which were intended by
> the film-maker, and thus is not advisable. To this, however, I would add
> these caveats:
>
> 1. Hollywood now generally adopts a 'shoot-and-protect' policy for films
> in spherical ratios. Basically, the US, the UK, certain parts of Western
> Europe and Japan uses 1:1.85 as the industry standard spherical ratio, and
> therefore most Hollywood productions which are not in 'scope are designed
> to look their best in 1:1.85. However, France, India, Australia and most
> of South America use 1:1.66 as their standard, whilst Russia and China
> still have 1:1.33 as their primary film format. Added to this, films are
> increasingly having to be compatible with the widescreen TV standard of
> 16:9, which translates roughly as 1:1.76. Therefore, Hollywood films still
> have to be showable in these systems, which is why the prints do not
> generally have hard mattes. You could, if you wished, show MANIAC COP 4 in
> the Academy ratio - but a large swathe of the frame would contain no
> action. Ironically, this is exactly the opposite of letterboxing, i.e.
> showing more of the original frame and magnifying it less.
>
> 2. Like subtitling, the quality of panning and scanning varies widely. If
> the printer is constantly scanning an Academy-sized box in the middle of a
> 'scope frame, the result is guaranteed to look abysmal; but if it tracks
> the essential action without moving too suddenly or often, then the film
> can look surprisingly acceptable. Added to which, a television is not the
> same as a cinema screen and therefore it could be argued that letterboxing
> is essential in order to give a production an equal chance when transposed
> to a different medium. It's not an argument I would personally accept, but
> it's the only one I can think of in favour of letterboxing. After all, do
> people regularly complain that films were originally released with
> multi-channel soundtracks are regularly broadcast (or sold on retail video)
> with mono sound?
>
> L
> ------------------------------------
> Leo Enticknap
> Technical Manager
> City Screen Cinemas (York) Ltd..
> Coney St., York YO1 9QL.
> United Kingdom
> Telephone: 01904 612940 (work); 01904 673207 (home); 0410 417383 (mobile)
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
>
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:24:49 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and
ignored.
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Pontecorvo books in Italian
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear friends,
I'm searching for two books published on Gillo Pontecorvo published in Italy.
They are:
Irene Bignardi's "Memorie estorte a uno smemorato: Vita di Gillo Pontecorvo"
(Milan: Feltrinelli, 1999)
"primo piano sull'autore: Gillo Pontecorvo: La dittatura della verita"
published by the XVII Rassegna del Cinema Italiano in 1998 for a Pontecorvo
retrospective.
Does anybody out there have a good source to buy books from Italy? Thanks!
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
[log in to unmask]
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:37:02 -0400
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: wanda bershen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Please Post
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear Moderator:
I have sent this to a number of organizations like MLA, OAH,etc. for email
posting. Would be a great help to announce also on Screen-L. Please let me
know if that is OK -- and if it needs editing for you.
Many thanks
Wanda Bershen
May 2000
EXPANDED FUNDRAISING/GRANTWRITING SERVICES
FOR FILM & VIDEO PROJECTS LAUNCHED BY
RED DIAPER PRODUCTIONS & THOMAS & ASSOCIAT"ES, INC.
Film, video & Web based media are increasingly programmed and produced not
just for television but also for museums, local & regional historical
societies, universities, public libraries and other community organization
-- for conferences, symposia, special exhibits, & public programs utilizing
screenings and discussion.
By partnering with THOMAS & ASSOCIATES, Inc., a firm specializing in
Staffing, Consulting and Training Programs for Museums and Art Businesses
Nationwide we can offer access to a large pool of highly talented
development professionals eager to apply their skills to media-related
fundraising and able to work at reasonable rates.
Services include:
· Grantwriting
· Researching funding sources
· Consulting on strategy for production, distribution, exhibition
· Consulting on educational uses of media.
Geri Thomas, Thomas & Associates, Inc. and Wanda Bershen, Red Diaper
Productions jointly have over 20 years of fundraising, museum exhibition,
curatorial, public programming & media curating experience. RED DIAPER
PRODUCTIONS is a specialized distribution & programming company dedicated
to increasing the audience for innovative domestic & international films.
Services include programming, exhibition, distribution and fundraising for
selected projects.
Successful media proposals have included those to: New York State Arts
Council, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the
Humanities, The Rockefeller Foundation, Trust for Mutual Understanding,Lila
Acheson Wallace Foundation,Soros Foundation and the Independent Television
Service.
Museum & Art clients have included: Baltimore Museum of Art, Cooper Hewitt
National Design Museum, The Jewish Museum, Christie's, New York University,
American Craft Museum, Brooklyn Museum of Art, Brooklyn Academy of the
Arts, The Studio Museum in Harlem.
Contact us at:
Red Diaper Productions Thomas & Associates, Inc.
Tel/fax: 212-598-022 Phone: 212.625.2011
Email: [log in to unmask] Fax: 212.625.2514
WEB: www.reddiaper.com Email: [log in to unmask]
WEB:www.artstaffing.com
Wanda Bershen
RED DIAPER PRODUCTIONS
451 East 14 Street 8F
NYC, N.Y. 10009
tel/fax: 212-598-0224
email: [log in to unmask]
www.reddiaper.com
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:50:37 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Dan Streible <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Job announcement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA FILM SOCIETY
The Columbia Film Society (CFS) seeks Executive Director with experience
and proven potential as a manager, communicator, fund-raiser, leader, and
team player. Extraordinary opportunity to have an impact on the community
arts scene. Responsibilities include: working with the Board and other
staff to establish goals and plans for new and existing programs, leading
and motivating staff and volunteers to achieve these plans, raising and
managing an annual budget of $180,000, and overseeing community outreach
and volunteer development.
The ideal candidate will have: excellent organizational and management
skills; experience in grant-writing, fund-raising, and administration for
non-profit arts organizations; an ability to recruit and motivate
volunteers; strong writing and communication skills; and experience in
media arts.
The CFS is an exciting, well-supported grassroots organization that seeks
to provide films and videos in a context stimulates community debate and
artistic appreciation. Founded in 1979 as a non-profit media arts
organization, the CFS operates a repertory film theater
(www.nickelodeon.org) and sponsors a variety of education programs,
including visiting media artists, community forums about social issues
raised by films and videos, and courses in media production. Staff
includes Education Director, Theater Manager, and four part-time employees.
The excellence of our culturally-diverse programming has been
well-recognized in the region, and our recent emphasis has been on becoming
a recognized community center for media literacy and media arts education.
The metropolitan area has a population of 500,000 and includes the
University of South Carolina (25,000 students) and the state government.
Immediate opening. Salary starts at $22,000-25,000 (depending on
experience) for a full-time position, plus health insurance and annual
leave. The CFS is an Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action employer.
Send a resume and three references to David Whiteman, President, via fax
(803-254-0299) or e-mail ([log in to unmask]). Review of applications will
continue until the position is filled.
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:06:14 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change [Hitchcock's preferred screen ratio]
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Ken Mogg quotes:
> 'All of the VistaVision films, from TO CATCH A THIEF to NORTH BY NORTHWEST,
> have a recommended aspect ratio of 1.85:1. PSYCHO's screen shape is
> controversial. Officially, its "theatrical ratio" is 1.85:1, but Gus Van Sant,
> for one, remembers the original cans were labelled 1.75:1. All of Hitchcock's
> films after PSYCHO carry an official aspect ratio of 1.85:1.'
For what it's worth, PSYCHO is the one film of the "major phase" of
Hitchcock's American films in the 1950s-early 1960s that was not
photographed by Robert Burks.
I've noted before that the VistaVision process can yield interesting
results when you are screening in different media. The videotape
version (and 16 mm. version) I've shown are in full-screen format and
allow you to see the tops of the cylcoramas and studio lights in some
of the outdoor scenes, especially those near Mt. Rushmore, as well as
the cutaway tops of the taxicabs and cars in NY.
Don Larsson
----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
[log in to unmask]
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:56:12 -0700
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: David Ezell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Perhaps the most painful of all the musical moments is
the Act One finale from THE KING AND I (where the gag
is that Anna cannot have her head higher than the
King). The video camera pans to Anna, cuts to the
King, back and forth. Poor home viewers never get to
see the visual joke as Yul Brenner slides slowly into
a full split, and Anna struggles to keep up with him.
David Ezell
NYC
--- Ed Owens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Let me add a vast assortment of musicals (Gigi, My
> Fair Lady, Hello Dolly,
> and The Music Man, just to name a few) where dance
> numbers are abysmally
> cropped and parts of songs are often sung by
> offscreen voices (voices that
> become embodied in the letterboxed versions).
>
> Ed
>
> In a message dated 5/10/00 9:47:48 AM,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >In _Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home_, Spock, Kirk,
> and Taylor cannot be
> >shown in the same shot in the front of the truck in
> pan and scan. In
> >_Dark City_, The table cannot be seen extending in
> pan and scan. In
> >_Heart and Souls_ the four spirits cannot be seen
> in the same shot near
> >the beginning, flying toward Thomas. In _Star
> Trek: The Motion Picture_,
> >Wise's immensity compositions are destroyed because
> there is not a human
> >in every shot, as in the widescreen version. These
> arer examples I can
> >think of odd the top of my head. I know a number
> of scenes in _Dune_
> >don't make any sense in pan and scan, and there is
> a scene in Jun Fukuda's
> >_The War in Space_ (1977), that has a conversation
> shot from under a glass
> >table. In pan and scan (the only way it is
> available in the U.S., where
> >it was released directly to television), all we can
> see are the noses of
> >Ryo Ikebe and Kensaky Morita, as they have their
> conversation. I once
> >gave a speech on letterboxing and used this shot as
> an example of just
> >how
> >damaging pan and scan can be.
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication &
> Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:08:10 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
In-Reply-To: <l03020900b540708d4918@[216.249.3.51]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Darryl Wiggers replies:
> Eventually the term "letterbox" began to gain favor in the mid-90s, when
> more VHS titles were released in this format, but it still varied between
> "Widesreen" and "Letterbox" depending on the distributor. I haven't
> carefully studied the packaging of DVD releases but I still notice the term
> "Widescreen" kicking around. I guess my question is, do certain companies
> hold patents on these words, much like their "VistaVision" and
> "Cinemascope"?
I don't know about the last question (though I tend to doubt it), but
"widescreen" seems to be gaining favor again. I notice that our local
Suncoast video outlet and some of the rental outlets use "widescreen"
as the preferred term.
Don Larsson
----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
[log in to unmask]
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:03:11 -0700
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: David Ezell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: letterboxing and films at home
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I have come to agree with Roger Ebert when he wrote
that seeing films on video is a completely different
experience than in the theater.
Although I like to see most films in the letterbox
format, sometimes, because of the issues discussed
here, it makes the experience uncomfortable, or even
laughable. If one sees a film at home, certain
adjustments, or sacrafices, unfortunately must be
made.
David Ezell
NYC
--- Mark Wolf <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In this debate about letterboxing, little has been
> said about the issue of
> resolution; while video is of course much resolution
> whether letterboxed or
> not, letterboxing (and I usually prefer it) can be
> quite a bit lower
> resolution than pan-n-scan. So it becomes a
> trade-off between composition
> versus resolution; do you want your lost detail to
> be removed from the ends
> of image, or uniformly from the entire image? And
> then there's the issue of
> color resolution; the delicate cinematography in
> Tarkovsky's films, for
> example, become rather murky on video. And there's
> plenty of other examples
> in which resolution makes a big difference.
>
> MJPW
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication &
> Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=====
David Ezell
Director of Research
Site59.com
New York, NY
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:05:35 -0700
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: David Ezell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Where letterboxing comes from
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
My understanding is that it is inspired by British
mail boxes, called letterboxes. The screen is the
shape of these boxes.
David Ezell
NYC
--- Robert Hunt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In the midst of this excellent discussion (many
> thanks for the fina
> examples), I've got a question: Does anyone know the
> actual origin of the
> term 'letterboxing"? How long has it been in use?
>
> rh
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at
> ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=====
David Ezell
Director of Research
Site59.com
New York, NY
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:24:33 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Darryl,
Great history -- thanks! From our perspective, a company that uses both terms
at whim, we basically choose what sounds best. There is still a lot of
negative commercial feedback to "letterboxed" videos (especially to the term)
so we like to use "Collector's Edition: Widescreen Version" on the front and
use the term letterboxed or give the proper screen ratio on the back. This
way, the public -- hopefully -- will have no surprises. (Also, we suspect we
sell more copies this way, but I'll never know since we don't release pan and
scan videos.)
You would be surprised at how many people really hate letterboxing and will
not buy the video if they see the term. They feel that instead of getting
more visual information, that they are getting less due to the black bands.
There was even a letter complaining about this to the Bergen Record in New
Jersey this past month. When we get phone calls like this, we explain
letterboxing to them and sometimes it works but many times they are extremely
unhappy.
Neither term is copyrighted.
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128
Harrington Park, NJ 07640-0128
Phone: (201) 767-3117 or (800) 603-1104
Fax: (201) 767-3035
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: <A HREF="http://lcweb.loc.gov/film/arch.html">http://www.milestonefil
ms.com</A>
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:39:36 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Ed Owens <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/12/00 9:41:09 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>(and I'm still holding out on films like _Nashville_ and _GATTACA_, which
>I understand are destroyed by pan and scan
Good news. Nashville is finally coming to DVD this summer, available for the
first time in its original framing. Altman fans rejoice!!!!
Ed
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:40:55 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Ed Owens <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/12/00 9:40:46 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>I take it the letterboxed tape of Psycho (which I've never seen) is either
>cropped to make it 1.85, or the package is mislabeled. Does anyone have
>any details on this?
>
>Scott
Comparison yields that the non-letterbox version is opened up at the top and
bottom.
Ed
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:51:52 -0700
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Noah Lopez <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> You would be surprised at how many people really hate letterboxing and will
> not buy the video if they see the term. They feel that instead of getting
> more visual information, that they are getting less due to the black bands.
> There was even a letter complaining about this to the Bergen Record in New
> Jersey this past month. When we get phone calls like this, we explain
> letterboxing to them and sometimes it works but many times they are extremely
> unhappy.
This past winter, my parents bought a DVD player, and asked me to hook it
up to their entertainment system for them. When everything was set up, we
put in some of the discs that they had purchased and they were absolutely
irate to find that these particular DVDs didn't have a "standard" option,
just the "widescreen" film. "We bought a DVD player specifically so that we
could see films without the black bars!" they exclaimed, oblivious to the
fact that 99.5% of all VHS cassettes are without the black bars.
Noah
>
> Neither term is copyrighted.
>
> Dennis Doros
> Milestone Film & Video
> PO Box 128
> Harrington Park, NJ 07640-0128
> Phone: (201) 767-3117 or (800) 603-1104
> Fax: (201) 767-3035
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Website: <A HREF="http://lcweb.loc.gov/film/arch.html">http://www.milestonefil
> ms.com</A>
>
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:16:40 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: films with ratio change
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
David Ezell notes:
> Perhaps the most painful of all the musical moments is
> the Act One finale from THE KING AND I (where the gag
> is that Anna cannot have her head higher than the
> King). The video camera pans to Anna, cuts to the
> King, back and forth. Poor home viewers never get to
> see the visual joke as Yul Brenner slides slowly into
> a full split, and Anna struggles to keep up with him.
Another example of pan-and-scan loss is REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. See,
for example, the opening scene in the police station. Ray uses both
wide-screen and depth of staging to link Dean, Wood, and Mineo before
any of them has spoken a word to the other. The impact is totally lost
in the pan-and-scan version. In a different way, the impact of the
spatial isolation and loneliness in 2001 is diluted considerably in
non-wide-screen editions.
Don Larsson
----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
[log in to unmask]
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:49:17 -0400
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Michael Hammond <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Call for Papers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Previously On: Approaches to the Contemporary
Television Serial
The increasing popularity and prevalence within television
schedules of serials such as "ER", "Ally McBeal", "Cold Feet", "Buffy
the Vampire Slayer" and "The Sopranos" poses a number of
fascinating questions. To what extent do these serials constitute
a definable television genre? When and why did they emerge?
What is their place within an increasingly complex television
landscape? What can they tell us about relations between Britain
and the United States and constructions of 'transnational'
television? Many of these serials achieve both popular success
and critical praise. Clearly they can tell us much about
contemporary modes of reception and articulations of 'quality'
television.
This book will set out to find answers to these questions and
others via analysis of a number of these serials. We invite
contributions on recent drama serials screened on British
terrestrial television and we encourage diversity both in terms of
texts studied and methodology. As such the book will give a
very timely account of these highly prominent programmes and
their position within a changing television industry while
simultaneously providing examples of the various approaches
and methodologies of an increasingly hybrid television studies
discipline.
In the first instance please send proposals of 300-500 words by September
30 2000 to:
Dr. Lucy Mazdon
School of Modern Languages
University of Southampton
Highfield, Southampton
S017 1BJ
00 44 023 80 595435
[log in to unmask]
Michael Hammond
Department of English
University of Southampton
Highfield Southampton
SO17 1BJ
00 44 023 80 596708
[log in to unmask]
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:50:18 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Darryl Wiggers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
>You would be surprised at how many people really hate letterboxing and will
>not buy the video if they see the term. They feel that instead of getting
>more visual information, that they are getting less due to the black bands.
>There was even a letter complaining about this to the Bergen Record in New
>Jersey this past month. When we get phone calls like this, we explain
>letterboxing to them and sometimes it works but many times they are
extremely
>unhappy.
I know your pain. I have often tried to carefully explain the letter-
box/widescreen system to people -- and usually to those who are patient and
anxious to understand (i.e. viewer relations people who are fielding
complaints) -- yet, all-too-often, the look on their faces tell the whole
story: They just don't "get it." And what further complicates the issue are
the contemporary films (majority of Hollywood and others in North America)
that often rely on the 1.85.1 soft-matte process and mostly create
the "illusion" of widescreen -- they do, in fact, show you less (a little
width is added but nowhere near as much anamorphic 2.35:1). That's what's
so odd about the MoviePix promo that's currently running on this pay-tv
service in Canada. It starts by doing a good job of showing the benefits of
this format by comparing pan-and-scan clips of Lawrence of Arabia with
exact same shots in "letter-box" but then shows some contemporary examples
that reveal virtually no change -- except for those damn black bars people
complain about. Plus, they program the "letterbox" of Beetlejuice (soft-
matted at 1.85:1 but also compatible for 1.33:1 TV projection) alongside
the pan-and-scan of South Pacific (intended for projection in a 2.35:1
ratio only)
This mess has also confused supposedly hard-core film enthusiasts who kick
up dust over titles that were made for TV, and never intended
for "widescreen" presentation, even at 1.66:1 (i.e my earlier Eyes Wide
Shut example, which was intended for a 1.37:1 ratio, much like our 1.33:1
TVs). Try explaining soft-matting to film purists who insist that ALL
directors (especially a "genius" like Kubrick) always have a "vision" --
and it's always in widescreen.
And is it true that the future standard for digital TV is going to be
1.78:1 widescreen (assuming most of us can afford it)? Good grief, this IS
going to be a mess.
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:56:53 EDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letterboxing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/12/00 3:41:53 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< And is it true that the future standard for digital TV is going to be
1.78:1 widescreen (assuming most of us can afford it)? Good grief, this IS
going to be a mess. >>
That is the format they've been using for high-definition digital television,
but when or if we and the other companies start doing this, I'm sure it'll
still be letterboxed to the proper ratio.
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128
Harrington Park, NJ 07640-0128
Phone: (201) 767-3117 or (800) 603-1104
Fax: (201) 767-3035
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: <A HREF="http://lcweb.loc.gov/film/arch.html">http://www.milestonefil
ms.com</A>
----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 15:25:21 +0100
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Mark Jancovich <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Cult Movies Conference
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Institute of Film Studies
University of Nottingham
In Collaboration with the Broadway Cinema, Nottingham
Defining Cult Movies:
the cultural politics of oppositional taste
An International Conference to be Held
Friday 17 November - Sunday 19 November 2000
Contributors will include: Matt Becker (University of Minnesota) Mark Betz
(University of Alberta) Harry M. Benshoff (University of North Texas) Mark
Bould (Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College) Mikita Brottman
(Indiana University) Andrew Caine (Cardiff University) Brigid Cherry
(University of Stirling) Stephen Chibnall (DeMontfort University) Frank
Donohoe (Southampton Institute) Shmuel Duvderani (Tel Aviv University)
Rebecca Feasey (University of Nottingham) Elena Gorfinkel (New York
University) Janet Harbord (Middlesex University) Joan Hawkins (Indiana
University) Joanne Hollows (Nottingham Trent University) Leon Hunt (Brunel
University) Nathan Hunt (University of Nottingham) Ian Hunter (DeMontfort)
Peter Hutchings (University of Northumbria at Newcastle) Mark Jancovich
(University of Nottingham) Sara Gwenllian-Jones (Cardiff University) Peter
Kr=E4mer (University of East Anglia) Antonio Lazaro (University of Nottingham=
)
James Lyons (University of Nottingham) Moya Luckett (University of
Pittsburgh) Ernest Mathijs (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) Andy Medhurst
(University of Sussex) Xavier Mendik (University College Northampton) Jason
Middleton (Duke University) Lothar Mikos (AV-Medienwissenschast) Bill
Osgerby (University of South London) Roberta Pearson (Cardiff University)
Anna Powell (Manchester Metropolitan University) Eithne Quinn (University o=
f
Central Lancaster) Jacinda Read (DeMontfort University) Tico Romao
(University of East Anglia) Ethan de Saife (University of Wisconsin-Madison=
)
Steven Schneider (Harvard University) Jeff Sconce(University of Southern
California) Mark Sheil (Univesity College Dublin) Julian Stringer
(University of Nottingham) Andrew Syder (University of Southern California)
Andrew Willis (University of Salford) Harmony Wu (University of Southern
California).
---Please complete the form below:
Name and Address
Telephone, fax and email
Special needs, please specify _________________________________
I would like to book _ number of places for (tick one of the following
boxes):
Conference (including full three days and tickets for all 6 films =A3100
Consessionary Rate* =A360
Day Rate Friday =A330 Consessionary Rate* =A320 Saturday =A350 Consessionar=
y
Rate* =A330 Sunday =A350 Consessionary Rate* =A330
Film Ticket for all 6 films =A321.00 Consessionary Rate* =A314.40
Accommodation: A list of local hotels with a range of prices will be
available but we can also book you a room at a local hotel for =A335 a night.
The deadline for these bookings is October 16th, but you are advised to boo=
k
early to be sure of a room. If you desire the latter option, please specify
the nights that you require: Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Total amount: ______________
Please send a cheque or money order in pounds sterling made payable to The
University of Nottingham, and address it to: Defining Cult Movies
Conference, Institute of Film Studies, School of American and Canadian
Studies, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom. Tel=
:
44 (0) 115 951 4250. Fax: 44 (0) 115 951 4250. For more information contact
Antonio Lazaro: [log in to unmask] or visit the Institute=B9s
website: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/film
* Concessions are available to full-time students, state pensioners,
registered disabled, unemployed and children under 16 years. Please bring
proof of consessionary status when registering at the conference.
----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]