Original AR of "Paths of Glory" (1957)

jay1bala · External Since: Feb 13, 2005 Posts: 17

What was the original aspect ratio of Paths of Glory (1957)?
I thought I had seen a widescreen version...
or it may have been a diffrent B&W war film with Kirk Douglas.

Regards,
Jay Bala.

davidm2 · External Since: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 91

Most (not all) "flat" (spherical) 4-perf 35mm features after 1954 were
matted during projection, either to 1.66, 1.75, or 1.85. Studios had
different matted widescreen aspect ratios they preferred but they
couldn't really control how the theaters would show it. 1.37 Academy
projection became increasingly rare in the 1950's.

Kubrick preferred that his flat 35mm movies be left unletterboxed in
the 4x3 video versions, unless a camera hard matte appeared, which was
OK (hence in the old transfers he approved for laserdisc, the small
amount of letterboxing visible in "Barry Lyndon" and "Clockwork
Orange", and the variable mattes in "Dr. Strangelove") but the truth
is that when there was a major restrospective of his work in London a
few years before his death, he asked that these movies be projected
with a 1.66 projector mask.

So I would say that "Paths of Glory" should be projected in 35mm with
a 1.66 projector mask. As for letterboxing on video, either to 1.66,
or in a transfer to 16x9 HD, possibly full-frame 1.78 would be OK,
otherwise side-mattes to 1.66. 1.85 would be a little excessive.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles

jay1bala · External Since: Feb 13, 2005 Posts: 17

Good information.

I think I must have seen the 16x9 version. It was on a 4x3 CRT TV. It
looked very nice.

Regards,
Jay Bala.

> So I would say that "Paths of Glory" should be projected in 35mm with
> a 1.66 projector mask. As for letterboxing on video, either to 1.66,
> or in a transfer to 16x9 HD, possibly full-frame 1.78 would be OK,
> otherwise side-mattes to 1.66. 1.85 would be a little excessive.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles

jay1bala · External Since: Feb 13, 2005 Posts: 17

> Kubrick preferred that his flat 35mm movies be left unletterboxed in
> the 4x3 video versions, ...

Likely because thats how it was framed and you may lose information
when cropped... unless carefully croped shot by shot.

>... when there was a major restrospective of his work in London a
> few years before his death, he asked that these movies be projected
> with a 1.66 projector mask.

I find little or no basis for this AR in the horizontal format for
displaying dynamic images such as movies to be a potential candidate.
My guess is that some britsh must have talked fancy to Kubrik with
such over-confidence and self-importance. I guess he fell for it.

There is a case to be made for that AR for static images such as
photographs and movies in vertical orientation. I don't know of any
movies shot in that orentation.

Regards,
Jay Bala.

davidm2 · External Since: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 91

I'm not sure what you're talking abou regarding 1.66t, but 1.66 was
another widescreen aspect ratio used in Europe.

Kubrick shot "Barry Lyndon" for 1.66 projection and even sent Warner
Bros. people out to every theater in the U.S. showing it to make sure
they got a 1.66 projector mask to use instead of the common 1.85 one.
That story is in Ciment's Kubrick book.

Kubrick didn't "compose" his movies for 1.33 once Academy was no
longer a release print format for projection. He composed them for
being cropped to widescreen. He just "preferred" to see them uncropped
on TV because it reminded him of classic Academy movies that he loved.
But people who worked on his later films all atest to the fact that
the camera viewfinders, on-set monitors, and editing room monitors all
were marked to show the widescreen framing for theatrical and Kubrick
composed with this in mind -- he didn't primarily compose for 4x3 TV
and secondarily for theatrical. I asked DP Douglas Milsome of "Full
Metal Jacket" what aspect ratio the movie should be projected at and
he says 1.66.

It's just a little more vague on "Paths of Glory" since that was at
the end of Academy projection -- technically, all movies by then
(other than scope) were being shown with a widescreen projection mask
(1.66, 1.75, or 1.85) but you occasionally hear about some
exceptions. However, I think "Paths of Glory" probably should be
shown in 1.66. Even the IMDB agrees, though it's not always accurate:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050825/technical

David Mullen, ASC

jay1bala · External Since: Jun 01, 2007 Posts: 7

On May 19, 1:44 am, davi....DeleteThis@earthlink.net wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're talking abou regarding 1.66t, but 1.66 was
> another widescreen aspect ratio used in Europe.

I may have mixed in- and out-of context messages. BBC and in general
Europe often gets things right, for example PAL by EBU as oppose to
NTSC! But I dont know why they came up with 1:1.66 AR. Its time to
dump this AR.

> Kubrick shot "Barry Lyndon" for 1.66 projection and even sent Warner
> Bros. people out to every theater in the U.S. showing it to make sure
> they got a 1.66 projector mask to use instead of the common 1.85 one.
> That story is in Ciment's Kubrick book.

If it was composed for an AR it is right to enforce that even if the
AR is not the most ideal. I think I wrote some where that Gone With
The Wind is very well composed in 4:3 AR. I dont like 4:3, but for
this film it works! Credit goes to the DP. (It is very surprising that
for such a massive production with so many changes during the
production the film is a job well done.)

Often, its how a shot was composed initially that, sometime, matter.
Take for example, Henri Cartier-Bresson photos. They are not all that
balanced and some appear not compose well, but look again ... there is
tension, there is emotion not just to the content, but the composition
itself. Its "moving" for the viewer, its dynamic. It imparts or
induces certain dynamic emotion. All this with just a Leica M3 and no
fancy lights. It will be interring to see this brought to
cinematography. An inner secondary emotion.

If I am not mistaken, Henri Cartier-Bresson did not crop his pictures.
He composed and he shot a frame of life as it was taking place.
Freezing the reaction/emotion he felt at that time.

>I asked DP Douglas Milsome of "Full
> Metal Jacket" what aspect ratio the movie should be projected at and
> he says 1.66.

Good movie. Good set ups. Very good work.

> It's just a little more vague on "Paths of Glory" since that was at
> the end of Academy projection -- technically, all movies by then
> (other than scope) were being shown with a widescreen projection mask
> (1.66, 1.75, or 1.85) but you occasionally hear about some
> exceptions. However, I think "Paths of Glory" probably should be
> shown in 1.66. Even the IMDB agrees, though it's not always accurate:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050825/technical

Amazon lists it as 4:3. But I think you made a good case for 1:1.66
and 16:9 is not too far off and acceptable.

Regards,
Jay Bala.