2,228
edits
List of 35mm features released in 1.37 after 1953: Difference between revisions
List of 35mm features released in 1.37 after 1953 (view source)
Revision as of 19:19, 26 August 2014
, 26 August 2014no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
===Rules of thumb=== | ===Rules of thumb=== | ||
* The big one: Soft-matted widescreen is easily mistaken for full-frame 1.37 - don't be fooled! | * The big one: Soft-matted widescreen is easily mistaken for full-frame 1.37 - don't be fooled! | ||
* | * Don't doubt your eyes. The best test of an aspect ratio theory is how it looks on screen (or, in a pinch, on the bench). Test a reel while switching up on aperture plates & lenses. The opening credits and title card are often the best frames to eyeball. | ||
* Films originally released for TV exhibition or on 16mm are more likely than others to be natively 1.37 | * Films originally released for TV exhibition or on 16mm are more likely than others to be natively 1.37 | ||
* With very few exceptions, Hollywood films made after 1953 are intended to be projected in widescreen aspect ratios | * With very few exceptions, Hollywood films made after 1953 are intended to be projected in widescreen aspect ratios | ||
* With very few exceptions, Japanese films made before the late 1970s are either 1.37 or 'scope | * With very few exceptions, Japanese films made before the late 1970s are either 1.37 or 'scope | ||
* Beware of IMDb. It's sometimes right about aspect ratios, but it's sometimes wrong. | |||
===Note on American films from the 1950s=== | ===Note on American films from the 1950s=== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
Some American films made in the late 1950s, after the rise of widescreen, can be played in either 1.37 or widescreen without suffering. In most cases there is an obvious correct choice. | Some American films made in the late 1950s, after the rise of widescreen, can be played in either 1.37 or widescreen without suffering. In most cases there is an obvious correct choice. | ||
Nonetheless, there is much lively debate among cinephiles about the "correct" aspect ratio of many films from this period. We recommend that projectionists steer clear of these discussions! Instead, focus on the print in front of you (especially any references to aspect ratio written on or printed into the leader) and on primary sources (such as interviews with the filmmaker or historical promotions material). | Nonetheless, there is much lively debate among cinephiles about the "correct" aspect ratio of many Hollywood films from this period. We recommend that projectionists steer clear of these discussions! | ||
Instead, focus on the print in front of you (especially any references to aspect ratio written on or printed into the leader) and on primary sources (such as interviews with the filmmaker or historical promotions material). | |||
| Line 97: | Line 100: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuthering_Heights_%282011_film%29 ''Wuthering Heights''] || Andrea Arnold || 2011 || || United Kingdom || | | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuthering_Heights_%282011_film%29 ''Wuthering Heights''] || Andrea Arnold || 2011 || || United Kingdom || | ||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Chinoise ''La Chinoise''] || Jean-Luc Godard || 1967 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Your_Right_Up ''Keep Your Right Up''] || Jean-Luc Godard || 1987 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Collectionneuse ''La Collectionneuse''] || Eric Rohmer || 1967 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Night_at_Maud%27s ''My Night at Maud's''] || Eric Rohmer || 1969 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire%27s_Knee ''Claire's Knee''] || Eric Rohmer || 1970 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_in_the_Afternoon_%281972_film%29 ''Chloe In The Afternoon''] || Eric Rohmer || 1972 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Moon_in_Paris ''Full Moon in Paris''] || Eric Rohmer || 1984 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Adventures_of_Reinette_and_Mirabelle ''Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle''] || Eric Rohmer || 1987 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyfriends_and_Girlfriends ''Boyfriends and Girlfriends''] || Eric Rohmer || 1987 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Tale ''An Autumn Tale''] || Eric Rohmer || 1998 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Agent ''Triple Agent''] || Eric Rohmer || 2004 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|- | |||
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_Astree_and_Celadon ''Romance of Astree and Celadon''] || Eric Rohmer || 2007 || Full-frame || France || | |||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 102: | Line 129: | ||
===Notes on tricky cases=== | ===Notes on tricky cases=== | ||
* Prints of Frank Zappa's ''200 Motels'' (1971) are printed full frame. Some scenes (in particular the "Dental Hygiene Dilemma" animated sequence) look as if they were intended to be projected full-frame. Other scenes - particularly the scene described under the 'Aspect Ratio' heading in [http://sotcaa.org/editnews/200-Motels-On-DVD.html this DVD review] - are clearly framed for 1.66. In this case, ''this'' projectionist screened the film in 1.66, because it seemed likely that that's the ratio theatrical audiences in 1971 would have seen it in. 1.37 would have been an equally valid choice. | * Prints of Frank Zappa's ''200 Motels'' (1971) are printed full frame. Some scenes (in particular the "Dental Hygiene Dilemma" animated sequence) look as if they were intended to be projected full-frame. Other scenes - particularly the scene described under the 'Aspect Ratio' heading in [http://sotcaa.org/editnews/200-Motels-On-DVD.html this DVD review] - are clearly framed for 1.66. In this case, ''this'' projectionist screened the film in 1.66, because it seemed likely that that's the ratio theatrical audiences in 1971 would have seen it in. 1.37 would have been an equally valid choice. | ||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||