New TOUCH OF EVIL DVD set?

[Tony]

Thanks to both you guys.

[A Kid Ran]

I really hope they use the original 4:3 ratio. I've seen three different versions of TOE and it seems the film is meant to be seen in 4:3. You lose too much information when the image is cropped.

The versions i've seen:

1. The restored version in 4:3 in Chicago last year.
2. The restored version on dvd in "Widescreen"
3. An old vhs copy in 4:3 with additional scenes

[Tony]

Larry's new post on TOE on the blog page mentions Keenan Wynn as being in the film; I don't think I've ever seen him.

[Glenn Anders]

We've been through this one, Tony. Wynn is the bartender, bathed in dim light and shadow, near the end.

Glenn

[Tony]

Thanks for your info and patience, Glenn.

[ToddBaesen]

Since several people seem to feel TOUCH OF EVIL should be presented in an alternate full frame version, I thought I'd re-post what Rick Schmidlin had to say about the matter right here at Wellesnet:


RICK SCHMIDLIN: According to the records of Philip Lathrop and Russell Metty, both well documented and easy to find at the AFI and The Academy archives, Welles intended and composed TOUCH OF EVIL to be shown in 1:85.

This film like PSYCHO was shot full frame for future TV use. At the time of release and all the screenings Welles attended it was screened and labeled on the original negative can as 1:85.

1:33 was the ratio CITIZEN KANE was shot in, as was the practice at the time. But TOUCH OF EVIL was composed by Welles in 1:85, and shot full frame at the order of the studio. Welles was very aware of the composition that he shot the film in. Welles never complained about the ratio because he screened it in 1:85.

Those who prefer the studio version feel more is better, but that is going against the way the picture was shot and meant to be seen in theaters.

This was supported by both Metty and Lathrop later on, as it is by the records of the original studio screenings. The release theatrical screenings further support how the film was presented: 1.85 to 1.

_____

It seems to me this makes it pretty much an open and shut case. Sort of ironic in that for years on homevideo all we got were terrible 1.33 transfers of many widescreen films. But Welles, Russell Metty and Philip Lathrop all indicated they wanted the film shown in 1.85. That is how it was shown when Welles looked at the rough-cut to write his 58-page memo. In his memo he notes when anything was off composition wise, as when Universal apparently optically cropped out the blind woman during Heston's telephone call. So it seems likely Welles's would have noted his displeasure if the film were being projected to him in the wrong ratio.

Just because people saw it for years projected in full frame 16mm versions, doesn't make it the correct way to show the film. I had only seen TOUCH OF EVIL in the 16mm full frame version for many years myself, but when I saw the AFI's beautifully restored 35mm print (of the 108 min. preview version) projected on the huge screen at the Castro Theater (in San Francisco) in the early 80's, I realized I was seeing the correct composition. Incidentally, the Castro Theater could have easily shown the film in 1.33 full frame if that was the correct projection ratio, but the research done by the AFI (pre-Schmidlin) indicated 1.85 as the correct projection ratio.

So while I can fully understand that people might like to see TOUCH OF EVIL projected in the 1.33 format they remember, or because you can see more picture information - I can't quite see how anyone can claim this is how Welles intended the film to be shown - at least without some real proof that counters the original Universal studio records from 1958.

[Alan Brody]

This film like PSYCHO was shot full frame for future TV use.

It seems to me that that makes it an open and shut case right there, since DVDs are normally seen on TV.

[Roger Ryan]

This film like PSYCHO was shot full frame for future TV use.

It seems to me that that makes it an open and shut case right there, since DVDs are normally seen on TV.

But, of course, the new TV standard is 16:9, so...

[nextren]

In full frame the sign "United States Immigration and Customs" (in the famous opening shot) is prominent and clear. It lets us know right away we're at a border crossing. The 1:85 crops nearly half of it, degrading its importance and reducing the showmanlike impact of it found in full frame. Not entirely plausible that Welles composed the film in 1:85.

Here is what Larry French posted on the matter last year:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=155

[ToddBaesen]

Given that so many people simply don't believe what cameramen Russell Metty and Phil Lapthrop wrote in their notes and what the Universal studio records indicate, it still seems to me the film should NOT be projected at 1.33. According to what Sergio posted after doing an A and B comparison you can see a dolly in the full frame version!

What nobody at Universal seems to have considered, however, is doing what Sergio suggested and use the 1.66 to 1 ratio as a compromise format - at least on one version of the film. That would probably make a lot of people very happy! It's also how THE TRIAL and FALSTAFF, the next two films Welles directed were shot and projected.


Here's what Sergio noted:

When I was preparing a lecture that I gave on Touch of Evil last year at the National Film Theatre in London I had the chance to compare the prints of the standard and re-release versions of Touch of Evil both on a Steenbeck and projected on the big screen. I found that the ratio really should be 1.66 and was in fact indicated as such on the re-release print. The easiest way to confirm this was the simple fact that in the third shot of the film, the backward dolly shot in which Heston and Leigh run towards the explosion, if shown at 1.33 then the bottom of the dolly would be clearly visible, but was removed at 1.66. The DVD says that it is masked at 1.85 but in fact it is masked at around 1.77 I think, so as to accommodate widescreen TVs, and I believe that this is still a little too tight, to be honest.

[Tony]

According to Dan Olson's new post on the Rick Schmidlin Q&A, Schmidlin said "It was filmed 1-85 but also for full frame".

Will we ever know?

[mido505]

Folks:

Cinemascope, the first widely adopted widescreen process, had an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. It was an anamorphic process that used a special lens to squeeze the image onto a standard 1.33:1 film negative. A special lens on the projector unsqueezed the image onto the 2.35:1 screen in the cinema.

Cinemascope lenses were expensive, slow, induced distortion in early years, and had shallow depth of field. Looking for a cheaper alternative, the studios settled on a compromised ratio using standard lenses. Films were shot full frame, 1.33:1, but lines in the viewfinder outlined the widescreen viewing area, within which the director and his DP would compose the action. Although action outside the viewing area would be recorded on the negative, it was not meant to be seen later; it was merely a byproduct of the process. When the films were projected, a "soft" matte in the projector masked the exposed footage on the print outside the widescreen area; the area within was blown up to fit the wider screen in the theater. The one drawback to this process was that since a smaller area of the frame was being blown up to fill the big screen, more grain would be apparent in the projected image.

Aspect ratios for these non-anamorphic widescreen movies varied in the early years, ranging from 1.66:1 to 1.75:1 to 1.85:1, finally settling on the latter in the mid to late fifties, when TOE was shot.

1.66:1 and 1.75:1 remained popular formats in Europe during this period, which explains why The Trial and Chimes at Midnight would have been composed and projected at 1.66:1.

In some instances, films were shot with a "hard" matte, meaning that the matte was in the camera, and the area on the negative outside the widescreen outline would not be exposed, and print black, but this was rare. Because aspect ratios varied in theaters, depending on where the film was shown, a certain flexibility was needed. The "soft" matte solved that.

So, TOE was shot both full-frame and 1.85:1, because, during the shooting process, that amounts to the same thing, but it was composed for 1.85:1, and meant to be projected that way, at least in the big first run U.S. theaters. I doubt that concern for future television showings was a major factor in 1958; certainly when 2.35:1 anamorphic movies were shown on tube no one cared that half the image was chopped off. The point was to fill the whole screen on those little early TV's. When movies like TOE were shown, this was easy to accomplish, they were projected without the "soft" mattes and that was that. It is only later, with directors like James Cameron and processes like Super 35 that movies were composed with both media in mind. Yeah, you got more of the image rather than less, but that doesn't mean that the full-frame version of a 1.85:1 film is the correct one. It isn't.

Sorry guys, Schmidlin is right on this. But that being said, although 1.85:1 is the "official" ratio, TOE was most likely shown in Europe at 1.66:1 or 1.75:1 (which explains Sergio's observation that the print of TOE used for the London revival indicated 1.66:1), and even full frame in some venues there and in the U.S.. Unfortunately, one has to make choices, and 1.85:1 is probably the best one.

[Alan Brody]

Anybody that wants to watch it in 1.85 is certainly free to do so. I prefer to watch it in full frame because I think it looks better that way, and I frankly couldn't care less what the "correct" aspect ratio is supposed to be. That's why I won't be buying the new TOE DVD set. I already have a 1.85 TOE that I never watch, and full-frame copies on VHS and LD that I do watch.

I doubt that concern for future television showings was a major factor in 1958;

I disagree. I think even back in 1958 filmmakers were well aware that their films would be seen by future generations mainly on TV. Anything shot with a soft matte was probably shot with both ratios in mind.

[Tony]

Alan: I bet you will buy that new set: you'll be getting the 3 versions on dvd plus fantastic extras and commentaries. Would you like to lay a small wager?

[Alan Brody]

No.