tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post7753525899036106063..comments2008-03-04T13:44:41.580-08:00Jamie S. Richhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10574127694740978803noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-62873743279679117012008-03-04T13:44:00.000-08:002008-03-04T13:44:00.000-08:00Criterion should then (slightly)revise their Mission Statement...<BR/><BR/>http://www.criterion.com/asp/about.asp<BR/><BR/>"...Each film is presented uncut, in its original aspect ratio, as its maker intended it to be seen."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-75908036237114124032008-03-03T11:59:00.000-08:002008-03-03T11:59:00.000-08:00Sorry, my friend, but we'll have to continue to disagree. I don't see the logic in that quibble. It makes no sense to me for Criterion to involve the creative team, get their stamp of approval, and then turn around and say, "Well, we're also going to release the movie in the way you don't want us to." Regardless of Storaro's reasoning, to then override it after getting him involved is counterintuitive. To me, <I>that</I> seems more like a move from a big studio.<BR/><BR/>Though, at the same time, I guess I also give you props if you put your money where your mouth is and don't buy it; again, hearkening to my work in comics, so many readers never vote with their wallets.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for contributing, whoever you are. I actually like that there is some discussion going on here. I do wish you'd at least sign a first name or something, though.Jamie S. Richhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10574127694740978803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-5073638503430544452008-03-03T11:45:00.000-08:002008-03-03T11:45:00.000-08:00I have no problem with filmmakers tinkering with their work for DVD release. It’s a pretty common practice nowadays. What I don’t like in this Criterion release is that they DID NOT INCLUDE a version in its original aspect ratio. If it was a studio release I would have tolerated it more but this is Criterion -- its main customers are cineastes and film geeks like me who are very particular with these kinds of technicalities.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion Storaro’s reason for cropping his old films into 2:1 aspect ratio is in order to promote his "Univision" film system. There lies the madness…Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-25787127221216885532008-03-03T09:57:00.000-08:002008-03-03T09:57:00.000-08:00By the by, for a more comprehensive discussion and comparison of the different aspect ratios, <A HREF="http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/lastemperor.htm" REL="nofollow">DVD Beaver is always a great source</A>. They have screen comparisons of various releases.<BR/><BR/>I wanted to link to a great diary entry by Pete Townshend about people who argued with him over how <I>Live at Leeds</I> was mixed, based on their memory and their bootlegs, and his defense of his final say over his own music, but alas, it appears that his old journals are offline.Jamie S. Richhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10574127694740978803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-21964936766840110012008-03-03T09:34:00.000-08:002008-03-03T09:34:00.000-08:00Yeah, I addressed the cropping in the full review, and there is a link to the blog there. Having worked in a creative industry for most of my adult life, it never ceases to amaze me, though, when consumers somehow know better than the people who made the material. If Storaro says this is what he intended, than who can argue? Same thing happened with the coloring on <I>Berlin Alexanderplatz</I> and <I>Days of Heaven</I>; it's a shame that when the control of the look of a film is put back in the hands of those who made the film, segments of the audience try to tell them they can't have it how they want. <BR/><BR/>For those curious, what I wrote about the video:<BR/><BR/>Vittorio Storaro oversaw this new high-def transfer, preserving The Last Emperor at a 2.00:1 aspect ratio. I can find no fault with the job done, Criterion has clearly taken meticulous care to fully realize this sumptuous movie. The colors are fantastic, and the clarity of detail impeccable. The only possible complaint is that the original aspect ratio for the film is actually 2.35:1 (and 70 mm prints were 2.20), and so there has been some cropping; what may have been lost, if anything substantial, is not evident. (It also appears that the wider framing was never the wish of the filmmakers, as explained by Criterion: http://www.criterion.com/blog/2008_02_01_archive.html#1098242570263302949.)Jamie S. Richhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10574127694740978803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-70647931470372299972008-03-03T09:17:00.000-08:002008-03-03T09:17:00.000-08:00This version is cropped. For that reason I'd skip it. Criterion wrote a blog about it but I'm not buying it. The same thing was done when the Apocalypse Now DVD was released. What a shame.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-20668300184706882212008-02-26T22:59:00.000-08:002008-02-26T22:59:00.000-08:00Whoo! My first comment here! And from the esteemed Mr. Acito!<BR/><BR/>Can you believe I had never seen this movie before last week? It was a lot to digest, but it's everything it's always been said to be.Jamie S. Richhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10574127694740978803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-56043307865243785942008-02-26T22:05:00.000-08:002008-02-26T22:05:00.000-08:00You've reminded me what a wonderful film this is. Now I can't wait to see it again.Marc Acitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05308790905794774874noreply@blogger.com