SHANE, Widescreen or not?

[Mitch Farish]

I have heard that Shane was released to theaters in 1953 with the top and bottom of the picture matted to produce a widescreen effect even though it was composed to a pre-widescreen standard. When it first appeared on TV the mattes were removed so the picture would fill the TV screens of the time. The new blu-ray will be coming out in a 1.77:1 widescreen format. My question is, should this classic be released as it was originally composed, or in its theatrical aspect ratio?

[filmnotdigital]

George Stevens was a painstaking craftsman who started as a cinematographer,Around this period he began taking even more time in post production, not just shooting, so by the time Shane was ready for release, the widescreen image, which he didn't even take into consideration when he started filming this classic Western because it really didn't exist yet, had become popular, There was nothing he could do to prevent the incorrect framing of all that meticulous work, but it is absolutely inauthentic now that we know better to show Shane anymore in widescreen.

[Jack Theakston]

When it first appeared on TV the mattes were removed so the picture would fill the TV screens of the time?

Yes.

The new blu-ray will be coming out in a 1.77:1 widescreen format. My question is, should this classic be released as it was originally composed, or in its theatrical aspect ratio?

I'd vote for both, although admittedly a 1.66-1 version would be more a curio than anything else.

[WaverBoy]

So SHANE will be released cropped instead of its originally intended Academy ratio?

[Mitch Farish]

So SHANE will be released cropped instead of its originally intended Academy ratio?

I gather this is more of a controversy than I thought. In the '50s apparently many films were released to theaters in widescreen, but were shot in 4:3 with a future television release in mind and were shown on TV in 4:3 with the mattes removed. If you look at the screen captures on DVDBeaver for Anatomy of a Murder you see what I mean:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/anatomy.htm

Criterion opted for the the widescreen version, unlike Columbia/TriStar Region 1, who went with 4:3.

[Jack Theakston]

In the '50s apparently many films were released to theaters in widescreen, but were shot in 4:3 with a future television release in mind and were shown on TV in 4:3 with the mattes removed.

"Many" = A handful in 1953. ANATOMY OF A MURDER is supposed to be widescreen, but was shot like all non-scope widescreen films (ie. "flat") where the full Academy frame is shot and cropped in the theater (correctly).

Bob Furmanek has recently put up an interesting article regarding this. It is recommended reading for all:
http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wides ... umentation" target="_blank" target="_blank

[WaverBoy]

But SHANE was never intended by the filmmakers to be in widescreen, correct? So, if it is released widescreen, it will be cropped on top and bottom.

[Jack Theakston]

But SHANE was never intended by the filmmakers to be in widescreen, correct? So, if it is released widescreen, it will be cropped on top and bottom.

Yes, this is true. But even so, the director is quoted as saying his preference was for the widescreen version. So what do you go with? The 1.37-1 should be the de facto aspect ratio for the film, but it would be interesting to see the widescreen version, too.

[Bob Birchard]

I have heard that Shane was released to theaters in 1953 with the top and bottom of the picture matted to produce a widescreen effect even though it was composed to a pre-widescreen standard. When it first appeared on TV the mattes were removed so the picture would fill the TV screens of the time. The new blu-ray will be coming out in a 1.77:1 widescreen format. My question is, should this classic be released as it was originally composed, or in its theatrical aspect ratio?

"Shane" predates the move to "wide screen" (or 1.85:1) format. This format began ca. 1954 and was started by Columbia Pictures to compete with CinemaScope without licensing the process. "Shane" may have been reissued in a hard-matted wide screen format, but it would have gone out in 1953 in the standard Academy 1.37:1 ratio. As Jack notes, except for Technicolor, which commonly hard-matted the image in the matrix phase of their IB process, nearly all other "wide screen" (non-Scope) movies were printed 1.37:1 and matted to the proper aspect ratio with aperture plates and shorter focal length lenses in theaters.

[Bob Furmanek]

The move to widescreen began in early 1953 and kicked into high gear in March. The first films specifically composed for widescreen began on February 24, 1953 (2.66:1) and March 16, 1953 (1.66:1.)

Documentation can be found in this article, "The New Era of Screen Dimensions."

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wides ... umentation" target="_blank" target="_blank

[Richard M Roberts]

But SHANE was never intended by the filmmakers to be in widescreen, correct? So, if it is released widescreen, it will be cropped on top and bottom.

Yes, this is true. But even so, the director is quoted as saying his preference was for the widescreen version. So what do you go with? The 1.37-1 should be the de facto aspect ratio for the film, but it would be interesting to see the widescreen version, too.

Stevens preferred the widescreen version of SHANE? Apparently not so. Read this weeks Greenbriar articles:

http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/" target="_blank


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Bob Furmanek]

Unfortunately, that quote from George Stevens on the Greenbriar site is missing a significant point: he's talking about the 2.66:1 aspect ratio and the lack of height with CinemaScope.

We have found some quotes from Mr. Stevens that will be shared in an article about the widescreen version of SHANE. We'll post a link when it's finished.

[Daniel Eagan]

Unfortunately, that quote from George Stevens on the Greenbriar site is missing a significant point: he's talking about the 2.66:1 aspect ratio and the lack of height with CinemaScope.

We have found some quotes from Mr. Stevens that will be shared in an article about the widescreen version of SHANE. We'll post a link when it's finished.

"Widescreen Documentation" is a tremendous article, just like your other work. Thanks for all your efforts.

[Mitch Farish]

In the '50s apparently many films were released to theaters in widescreen, but were shot in 4:3 with a future television release in mind and were shown on TV in 4:3 with the mattes removed.

"Many" = A handful in 1953. ANATOMY OF A MURDER is supposed to be widescreen, but was shot like all non-scope widescreen films (ie. "flat") where the full Academy frame is shot and cropped in the theater (correctly).

Bob Furmanek has recently put up an interesting article regarding this. It is recommended reading for all:
http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wides ... umentation" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Excellent write-up on the theatrical exhibition of Shane. Sounds like my worst fears have been realized. We're going to loose the sky in the frame, and that will make the Grand Tetons seem cramped. It sounds, too, as if image detail and sharpness will be lost because of expansion of the image toward the edges of the TV screen. This is as much of a defacement as pan-and-scan, which was also intended to fill TV screens. The studios seem to have a horror about having bars on the screen. This was one of the films I most anticipated being released on blu-ray. I'm as disappointed now as when I saw screen caps of Spartacus with its ultra-smooth scrubbed appearance and its brownish color. I can only hope that as some point before I die Criterion or someone else who appreciates art in its native form will correct this travesty.

[Christopher Jacobs]

I'll have to wait and see what the Blu-ray release actually is like before making a final decision on whether to buy it or wait for the possibility of a different edition. If it is presented exclusively in 1.78:1 then I'll likely wait awhile. If it also includes a 1.37 transfer I'll buy it immediately. If the Blu-ray is widescreen only but uses the 1.66:1 ratio, I'll probably get it anyway, since the top and bottom cropping is really pretty much equivalent to the TV "safe" cropping for old standard TV broadcasts, while the sides would reach to the full original width of the frame. I've generally found the 1.66:1 ratio most pleasing of "flat" widescreen formats, and least obtrusive of the standard ratios when forced upon a film composed originally for 1.37:1 (as quite a few pre-1953 films tended to leave a fair amount of headroom in medium shots and even many closeups). Often it really does seem to improve composition in many of the shots, whereas 1.78 or 1.85 usually look either slightly cramped or with information obviously and annoyingly cropped out.

[Bob Furmanek]

An interesting development: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/dv ... z2QkLhh6v8" target="_blank

[Mitch Farish]

An interesting development: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/dv ... z2QkLhh6v8" target="_blank" target="_blank

Given a choice, I'm glad we will now get the film in it's original form, but I don't see why there is a problem with releasing both simultaneously. Didn't Criterion do that with On the Waterfront? Nevertheless, this is good news. Now let's hope they do not scrub away the film grain!

[WaverBoy]

Fantastic news! SHANE uncropped on Blu? I'm in.

[Christopher Jacobs]

That is certainly good news. However, the quote from George Stevens, Jr. sounds odd, wrong, or misleading when it says

He was very satisfied with the look of the 1.66 version. and that 'given the choice of having a 1:37 version placed in the center of a horizontal television screen with bars on each side, or a carefully configured 1:66 to 1 version that filled the screen, I am confident George Stevens would subscribe to the latter.'

because a 1.66 version would not fill the television screen either. It would also have black bars on each side of a 16x9 (1.78:1) screen, just not quite as wide as the bars beside a 1.37 image.

I'm glad we'll get the full image composed for 1.37 on the Blu-ray, and if people want to have it fill their screen with the top and bottom cropped off, all they need to do is push the zoom button on their remotes. For a slightly sharper widescreen picture it would be nice to include the alternate scan at the 1.66 aspect ratio as a bonus, especially if the cropping was reframed on a shot-by-shot basis for the scan, but if only one can be included my vote would definitely be for the originally intended 1.37:1.

[Ray Faiola]

Yeah, but I'd STILL like to know if they restored Joey's final faraway call "Bye Shane!" that was mixed out when the picture was restored in the 90's.

[Phototone]

When theaters converted to Anamorphic wide-screen exhibition, they retained a set of lenses for "flat" films, but these were not the same lenses they had before they got the wide screen, they were wider-angle, producing a bigger picture, which was cropped top and bottom by a custom aperture plate in the projector to come closer to filling the wide-screen, but in general they did not corp severely enough to completely fill the width of a Cinemascope screen. In general, we kept the edges of the screen behind the curtain when showing a cropped flat picture, only opening up the whole screen for a 'scope film. When Hollywood "got the message" that flat films would be cropped, they started allowing for this in their compositions, so all the action appeared within a "safe" area.

By the same token, theaters that did not have room for a full Cinemascope ratio screen, would also crop the width of an Anamorphic film. I've seen this a lot in smaller old theaters in small towns. The image thrown on the screen is determined by the shape of the aperture plate in the projector, which was removable and exchangeable for different films.

[Paul Penna]

Yeah, but I'd STILL like to know if they restored Joey's final faraway call "Bye Shane!" that was mixed out when the picture was restored in the 90's.

On the Home Video Forum, Bob Furmanek has just posted that yes, it's back in the new master used for the Blu-Ray.

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes, the two "lost" words have been restored and are heard in the new masters.

A preview of our upcoming article: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/shane-in-widescreen" target="_blank

[Bob Furmanek]

Special thanks to our good friend, Leonard Maltin: http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmalti ... ieand-more" target="_blank

[Bob Furmanek]

I've added two SHANE trailers to the article; standard ratio and widescreen:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wides ... umentation" target="_blank

[silentfilm]

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/ge ... z2U5BaBpsS

George Stevens Jr. speaks out on the 'Shane' controversy

By Lou Lumenick
Posted: 1:10 PM, April 24, 2013

George Stevens Jr. will not be present when a new 60th anniversary restoration of his father's western classic "Shane'' shows Saturday at the TCM Classic Film Festival (along with a new restoration of Stevens Sr.'s "Giant''). But his absence, he says, has "absolutely nothing" to do with the controversy over the film's aspect ratio. It's because he's introducing a new film that he and his son made at the Tribeca Film Festival on Friday night.

Stevens supervised not only both restorations, but oversaw a high-definition digital transfer of "Shane'' in 1:66, the same aspect ratio that the film was shown in during its original theatrical engagements in 1953. The TCM festival, which scheduled the 1:66 version, announced last week that the film would instead be shown in 1:37 -- the aspect ratio that Stevens Sr. and his cinematographer, Loyal Griggs composed it in -- after Paramont made both versions available. At the same, Warner Home Video, which announced "Shane'' would make its Blu-ray debut on June 4 in the 1:66 ratio, indicated last week that the film would instead go out at 1:37 at a date yet to be confirmed.

The director's son, a noted documentary filmmaker and founder of the American Film Institute, says he doesn't want to talk about the "political correctness brigade'' -- led by blogger Jeffrey Wells -- that successfully lobbied for the switch.

But he's happy to talk about how odd history of how the two aspect ratios came about.

"Shane'' was shot in the 1:37 "Academy'' ratio in 1951 -- "the same way my father shot 'A Place in the Sun,' " the son says. But by the time it was ready for release in early 1953, Fox had announced CinemaScope and the other studios were gearing up for widescreen releases to compete with television. "Shane'' was the first widescreen release of this era -- there had been some experiments with early talkies -- opening on April 23, 1953 at Radio City Music Hall.

"They built a new wide screen at the Music Hall, and they masked off the projector so that some of the top of the picture was cut off at the top and some at the bottom,'' says George Stevens Jr. "It wasn't ideal, but my father went along with it for the initial release because of the competition from CinemaScope and the climate of people wanting the big screen.''

The full screen 1:37 version of "Shane'' has been shown for many years on television, as well as for all video releases to date.

For the Blu-ray, Stevens Jr. says, Paramount originally approached him with the idea that the release should include both versions. For the 1:66, he reviewed the framing shot by shot -- "you can frame it so the Tetons remain. It's quite a beautiful version as a result. Though my preference remains for the (1:37) version my father framed.

"Paramount at one point said to me that 'Shane' was shot so it could be shown in diferent aspect ratios. Not true, it was shot the way it was shot. And it was always my intention to have the true version of 'Shane' released on video. This was never a capitulation on my part.''

Paramount eventually licensed the film to WHV, which he says told him that putting both versions on one disc wasn't a feasible idea.

Stevens hopes the 1:66 version will at least used to replace the widescreen version of "Shane'' he says is currently being shown on AMC.

"Instead of cropping the top and the bottom, they've stcretched the picture the picture so it looks like Jack Palace's horse is 12 feet long,'' he says. "I know my father would prefer my 1:66 version to that.''

WHV will also be releasing the restoration of "Giant'' that Stevens supervised later this year -- in 1:66.

"When we made 'Giant,' my father chose the 1:66 aspect ratio because he liked tight framing,'' says Stevens, who was a producer on the film. "George Stevens shot many scenes in deep shadow and if the operator doing the transfer doesn't know that, they tend to want to remove the shadows. I'm the only person left who was in the editing room who knows what the film is supposed to look like. I have a responsibility to make sure the look is maintained.''

It was while working with his father on the script for "Giant,'' Stevens said, that he met cartoonist Herbert Block -- who, 60 years later, became the subject of "Herblock: The Black and the White,'' which will have its world premiere Friday at the Tribeca Festival. Stevens produced the film, which was directed by his son Michael.

"Dad turned me onto Herblock during the Army-McCarthy hearings and we became friends,'' he says of the Pultizer prize winning cartoonist, who died in 2001. "He lived in Georgetown not far from us. He had a sunny personality but a wicked ability to go after people like Nixon when they were on the wrong side.''

"I was really looking forward to be at the TCM screenings,'' says Stevens, who will join his son for the Tribeca premiere. "But I'm totally locked out'' by the conflict with Tribeca.

[WaverBoy]

So, the verdict appears to be that the director preferred the originally composed Academy ratio version, and not the widescreen version, which "wasn't ideal". Hopefully we can put this to bed now. This should be a great Blu-ray!

[Mitch Farish]

Has anybody seen the screen captures of the Shane BD in the original Academy aspect ratio? You can find them at DVD Beaver. Looks pretty sweet to me.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/shane.htm

[caseyjonzz]

I saw the re-release of Shane in the 1960s and the first thing I noticed was the narrowness of the screen.

As for your question, theatrical films were never intended for viewing on a TV screen. So, the integrity of the film is already compromised. But given a choice, no wide screen.