Sidney Sheldon

On Feb 2, 2:21 am, d....TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
>
> As someone who especially enjoys a good cut, I notice these things. In
> Chaplin's silents, cutting helps establish a visual rhythm. His sound films
> do not have the same rhythm. I miss it.
>
It's funny you should mention this, because I stumbled over (almost
literally) the DVD of "A Countess From Hong Kong' and through God
knows what momument of perversity decided to watch it.

And one of the things that really struck me was how clunky the editing
was. It was as if Chaplin had lost all sense of rhythm whatsoever.
And it also shows that Chaplin had no idea whatsoever of how to use
the widescreen format. He just pretends that he's shooting in 1:33 --
with disastrous consequences.

I haven't been able to sit through the whole thing yet and wasn't
planning on posting anything until I had, but your comment made it all
come flooding back like bad fish.

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

"David Totheroh" <dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1170294056.375135.188850@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 10:21 am, "Feuillade" <Feuill... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2:43 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 11:26 pm, "Feuillade" <Feuill... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 2:17 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Sidney Sheldon, whose writing of 'The
> > > > Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer' won the
> > > > Oscar® for Best Original Screenplay over
> > > > Chaplin's 'Monsieur Verdoux,' has died.
>
> > > Jeannie will never come out of the bottle again. :(
>
> > > "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer" isn't a bad script, but I might
> > > have given it to Chaplin.
>
> > > For those of you who are curious, I am going to spend February on my
> > > blog doing a decade-by-decade breakdown (starting in 1934) of which
> > > films I think should have won the Best Picture Oscar, and why.
>
> > >http://celticprogressive.blogspot.com/
>
> > > It might even inspire some debate. And it'll be a nice change from
> > > beating up on a dead presidency...
>
> > Yeah, but it doesn't hold a candle to advocating the elevation of
> > Rollie Totheroh's work over Karl Struss' as superior lighting design.
>
> Speaking of that, has anyone taken a look at teh films that Struss
> shot right before and right after "The Great Dictator" to see what the
> lighting design looks like?
>
> Was he a Toland-esque DP whose style is immediately apparent no matter
> who the director is, or was he a guy who would change his style from
> shoot to shoot, depending on the necessities of the particular
> project?

>That's a very good question. But since my repeated requests >for
>evidence or examples even from just within the Chaplin canon >itself
>were continually ignored, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were >you.

Struss had an interesting career prior to his work with Chaplin. Some films
that he shot in the silent period include BEN-HUR, SPARROWS, and SUNRISE.
These are all obviously quite impressive credits, though it might be noted
that on each of these films he was working with a couple of other
cinematographers. He worked on a good number of other silents, including
D.W. Griffith's 1928 remake of "The Battle of the Sexes", but the three
films I mentioned above are probably his most famous work from this period.
I can cite many, many examples from all three films of stunning
cinematography, but again, as he was working with several other cameramen,
it makes his specific contributions harder to pinpoint.

Interestingly, his work in the sound era is more spotty (in my opinion). Of
the films that I have seen, I can cite some instances where the photography
really stood out for me. One common characteristic I see in alot of his work
is the use of a moving camera and some crane shots as well, but again, it's
often hit or miss.

Struss' work on "The Taming of the Shrew" (1929) has a few interesting
camera moves but generally the dialogue sequences are very static. The same
can be said of his work on Griffith's "Abraham Lincoln", which begins with
an interesting trucking shot through the stormy woods at night (obviously a
miniature), and a few other tracking shots (I'll dig out the DVD soon and
list some specifics) but other than that, the dialogue scenes are generally
very static.

His work on "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1931) features the interesting use of
first-person camera for much of the opening of the film, although this was
probably at the suggestion of Rouben Mamoulian, who was very interested in
technical innovation in his work during this period. He does some
interesting moves with the camera revolving at 360 degrees during the
transformation sequence.

A few of his other big credits during the 30s include "The Sign of the
Cross", "Island of Lost Souls" and "Four Frightened People". In the latter
film, he achieves some particularly beautiful shots of the lead actors by a
waterfall (granted, this isn't too hard to accomplish when you have Herbert
Marshall and Claudette Colbert as your subjects). Having seen these, I would
describe his work as good but not really above average for these types of
films. Finally, his work on Hal Roach's "Zenobia" (1939) is rather flat and
lifeless without much hint of the moving camera that I see in his earlier
work. Then again, this film was a fairly low-budget affair and I'm sure that
affected it.

As it is, I think Struss was an interesting cinematographer. His work
deserves some attention based on some of the films he had to his credit
during the silent era, but overall I would rank his sound era work as more
spotty.

As far as "The Great Dictator" goes, the crane shots in the beginning of the
battlefield sequence suggest some of the work Struss was doing earlier on in
the '30s. It's difficult to tell which parts of "The Great Dictator" bear
similarity to Struss' earlier work in terms of lighting design, but I would
agree with the assessment that he pretty much adapted to whatever style was
appropriate. When shooting a Murnau, expressionist silent (SUNRISE) he
achieved some of the best results ever seen. At the same time, he was
capable of the very flat lighting preferred for many comedies ("Zenobia"),
and as I mentioned before, the only consistency I see from film to film is a
strong use of a moving camera. I definitely would not call him a
Toland-style DP with an instantly recognizable style, though.

For the record, I do not think "The Great Dictator" represented a decline in
the visual quality of Chaplin's work. I don't think it was "better" than
either "City Lights" or "Modern Times" but it certainly isn't a decline.
From a photographic standpoint, it is clear, crisp camerawork and all copies
I have seen look quite good. The lighting design works fine for the film (I
especially like the high-key, low contrast look of the palace scenes, which
seem very appropriate for the setting).

--
Matt Barry
Visit my pages at:
http://mbarry84.tripod.com
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

"Shush" (shushfilmseznospam@yahoo.com) writes:
> On Feb 1, 8:58 am, d... RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
>> I suspect Chaplin hired Struss because Struss had the reputation of being
>> adept at all the most current techniques. Chaplin was stung by comments
>> that his films looked "old fashioned," and he thought hiring Struss
>> would make his films look more like the current studio product.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it did.
>
>
> Struss' filmography shows that he could deliver whatever "look" a
> director or producer would ask for, whether it be something clean and
> straightforward (ZENOBIA) or darkly stylish (JOURNEY INTO FEAR). For
> all we know, Rollie may have been just as capable a cinematographer,
> but Chaplin only wanted one simple style from him. Struss came aboard
> and gave the boss the same look, because regardless of who was behind
> the camera, Chaplin wanted the same straightforward style.
>
> He reminds me of the guys that buy all-terrain 4-wheel-drive SUVs,
> and then never take them off the freeway.
>
>
>
> --Shush--


It doesn't look the same to me. And I'm not talking about lighting.
Though it isn't really obtrusive, the camera in _Dictator_, for example,
moves a lot more like cameras move in non-chaplin films.

In Chaplin films before Struss, cameras move only when there is some reason
for them to move--i.e. the inspired pullback when Charlie is chasing the
matron with nut-shaped buttons on her dress in _Modern Times_. In _Dictator_
the camera moves when it isn't strictly necessary--i.e. in the shot of the
trenches early in the film. I suppose some people might like that shot,
but to me it just seems the sort of thing one sees routinely in
Hollywood films, rather than something characteristic of Chaplin films,
which are more likely to employ a series of cuts rather than a moving
camera. The Chilcoot Pass sequence in _The Gold Rush_ is typical of
Chaplin, or the brisk series of shots that get us into the factory in
_Modern Times_.

As someone who especially enjoys a good cut, I notice these things. In
Chaplin's silents, cutting helps establish a visual rhythm. His sound films
do not have the same rhythm. I miss it.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

On Feb 2, 3:35 am, d... RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> "Feuillade" (Feuill...@aol.com) writes:
> > On Feb 2, 2:21 am, d... RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> > wrote:
>
> >> As someone who especially enjoys a good cut, I notice these things. In
> >> Chaplin's silents, cutting helps establish a visual rhythm. His sound films
> >> do not have the same rhythm. I miss it.
>
> > It's funny you should mention this, because I stumbled over (almost
> > literally) the DVD of "A Countess From Hong Kong' and through God
> > knows what momument of perversity decided to watch it.
>
> > And one of the things that really struck me was how clunky the editing
> > was. It was as if Chaplin had lost all sense of rhythm whatsoever.
> > And it also shows that Chaplin had no idea whatsoever of how to use
> > the widescreen format. He just pretends that he's shooting in 1:33 --
> > with disastrous consequences.
>
> > I haven't been able to sit through the whole thing yet and wasn't
> > planning on posting anything until I had, but your comment made it all
> > come flooding back like bad fish.
>
> > Tom Moran
>
> It's been a long time since I saw it on VHS--not ideal to be sure, but I
> haven't been tempted by the DVD.
>
> No telling what was going on when that one was being made, but I found
> it very nearly unwatchable. Except for some of Cargill and just a glimpse of
> Chaplin, not even the acting survived.
>
> It takes a tremendous amount of energy to create and totally dominate
> films the way Chaplin did in his prime. I doubt that he had the
> focus and stamina to totally control such a demanding medium in his old age.
>
> But he could still compose music. The score is the best part
> of _Countess_.
>
I agree. I think it's his second-best score (the best being "Modern
Times").

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

"David Totheroh" (dtotheroh@aol.com) writes:
> On Feb 1, 9:56 am, "Shush" <shushfilmseznos... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 8:58 am, d... DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I suspect Chaplin hired Struss because Struss had the reputation of being
>> > adept at all the most current techniques. Chaplin was stung by comments
>> > that his films looked "old fashioned," and he thought hiring Struss
>> > would make his films look more like the current studio product.
>>
>> > Unfortunately, it did.
>>
>> Struss' filmography shows that he could deliver whatever "look" a
>> director or producer would ask for, whether it be something clean and
>> straightforward (ZENOBIA) or darkly stylish (JOURNEY INTO FEAR). For
>> all we know, Rollie may have been just as capable a cinematographer,
>> but Chaplin only wanted one simple style from him. Struss came aboard
>> and gave the boss the same look, because regardless of who was behind
>> the camera, Chaplin wanted the same straightforward style.
>>
>> He reminds me of the guys that buy all-terrain 4-wheel-drive SUVs,
>> and then never take them off the freeway.
>
> All interesting observations. But if Chaplin was ultimately
> responsible for the "look" of his films, and Struss was directed to
> produce that same look, it doesn't explain the alleged drop off in
> quality some claim to see after City Lights.
>

I don't see any change until _Dictator_. And it's not so much a change
in quality as a change in overall visual effect. I suppose the shift to
sound-on filming had more than a little to do with it. Movement in the frame
slows down, the camera moves more, the visual rhythm changes, visual gags that
worked in silents lose some of their edge, etc. I don't think it has anything
to do with lighting or image quality. The photography, technically speaking,
looks perfectly OK to me. The scene in which the Barber and Hanna watch the
barber shop burn down is very well done, and the brightly lit pastoral scenes
in Osterlich are lyrical. But overall _Dictator_ is perceptibly different
visually from any of the great Chaplin silents, and not for the better.

The acting, of course, is largely unaffected. The biting satirical mimicry is
the film's greatest attraction.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

"Feuillade" (Feuillade@aol.com) writes:
> On Feb 2, 2:21 am, d....DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>>
>> As someone who especially enjoys a good cut, I notice these things. In
>> Chaplin's silents, cutting helps establish a visual rhythm. His sound films
>> do not have the same rhythm. I miss it.
>>
> It's funny you should mention this, because I stumbled over (almost
> literally) the DVD of "A Countess From Hong Kong' and through God
> knows what momument of perversity decided to watch it.
>
> And one of the things that really struck me was how clunky the editing
> was. It was as if Chaplin had lost all sense of rhythm whatsoever.
> And it also shows that Chaplin had no idea whatsoever of how to use
> the widescreen format. He just pretends that he's shooting in 1:33 --
> with disastrous consequences.
>
> I haven't been able to sit through the whole thing yet and wasn't
> planning on posting anything until I had, but your comment made it all
> come flooding back like bad fish.
>
> Tom Moran

It's been a long time since I saw it on VHS--not ideal to be sure, but I
haven't been tempted by the DVD.

No telling what was going on when that one was being made, but I found
it very nearly unwatchable. Except for some of Cargill and just a glimpse of
Chaplin, not even the acting survived.

It takes a tremendous amount of energy to create and totally dominate
films the way Chaplin did in his prime. I doubt that he had the
focus and stamina to totally control such a demanding medium in his old age.

But he could still compose music. The score is the best part
of _Countess_.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

On Feb 1, 6:00 pm, "Matt Barry" <bar....DeleteThis@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> "David Totheroh" <dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170294056.375135.188850@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 10:21 am, "Feuillade" <Feuill....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 2:43 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 11:26 pm, "Feuillade" <Feuill....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 31, 2:17 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sidney Sheldon, whose writing of 'The
> > > > > Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer' won the
> > > > > Oscar® for Best Original Screenplay over
> > > > > Chaplin's 'Monsieur Verdoux,' has died.
>
> > > > Jeannie will never come out of the bottle again. :(
>
> > > > "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer" isn't a bad script, but I might
> > > > have given it to Chaplin.
>
> > > > For those of you who are curious, I am going to spend February on my
> > > > blog doing a decade-by-decade breakdown (starting in 1934) of which
> > > > films I think should have won the Best Picture Oscar, and why.
>
> > > >http://celticprogressive.blogspot.com/
>
> > > > It might even inspire some debate. And it'll be a nice change from
> > > > beating up on a dead presidency...
>
> > > Yeah, but it doesn't hold a candle to advocating the elevation of
> > > Rollie Totheroh's work over Karl Struss' as superior lighting design.
>
> > Speaking of that, has anyone taken a look at teh films that Struss
> > shot right before and right after "The Great Dictator" to see what the
> > lighting design looks like?
>
> > Was he a Toland-esque DP whose style is immediately apparent no matter
> > who the director is, or was he a guy who would change his style from
> > shoot to shoot, depending on the necessities of the particular
> > project?
> >That's a very good question. But since my repeated requests >for
> >evidence or examples even from just within the Chaplin canon >itself
> >were continually ignored, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were >you.
>
> Struss had an interesting career prior to his work with Chaplin. Some films
> that he shot in the silent period include BEN-HUR, SPARROWS, and SUNRISE.
> These are all obviously quite impressive credits, though it might be noted
> that on each of these films he was working with a couple of other
> cinematographers. He worked on a good number of other silents, including
> D.W. Griffith's 1928 remake of "The Battle of the Sexes", but the three
> films I mentioned above are probably his most famous work from this period.
> I can cite many, many examples from all three films of stunning
> cinematography, but again, as he was working with several other cameramen,
> it makes his specific contributions harder to pinpoint.
>
> Interestingly, his work in the sound era is more spotty (in my opinion). Of
> the films that I have seen, I can cite some instances where the photography
> really stood out for me. One common characteristic I see in alot of his work
> is the use of a moving camera and some crane shots as well, but again, it's
> often hit or miss.
>
> Struss' work on "The Taming of the Shrew" (1929) has a few interesting
> camera moves but generally the dialogue sequences are very static. The same
> can be said of his work on Griffith's "Abraham Lincoln", which begins with
> an interesting trucking shot through the stormy woods at night (obviously a
> miniature), and a few other tracking shots (I'll dig out the DVD soon and
> list some specifics) but other than that, the dialogue scenes are generally
> very static.
>
> His work on "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1931) features the interesting use of
> first-person camera for much of the opening of the film, although this was
> probably at the suggestion of Rouben Mamoulian, who was very interested in
> technical innovation in his work during this period. He does some
> interesting moves with the camera revolving at 360 degrees during the
> transformation sequence.
>
> A few of his other big credits during the 30s include "The Sign of the
> Cross", "Island of Lost Souls" and "Four Frightened People". In the latter
> film, he achieves some particularly beautiful shots of the lead actors by a
> waterfall (granted, this isn't too hard to accomplish when you have Herbert
> Marshall and Claudette Colbert as your subjects). Having seen these, I would
> describe his work as good but not really above average for these types of
> films. Finally, his work on Hal Roach's "Zenobia" (1939) is rather flat and
> lifeless without much hint of the moving camera that I see in his earlier
> work. Then again, this film was a fairly low-budget affair and I'm sure that
> affected it.
>
> As it is, I think Struss was an interesting cinematographer. His work
> deserves some attention based on some of the films he had to his credit
> during the silent era, but overall I would rank his sound era work as more
> spotty.
>
> As far as "The Great Dictator" goes, the crane shots in the beginning of the
> battlefield sequence suggest some of the work Struss was doing earlier on in
> the '30s. It's difficult to tell which parts of "The Great Dictator" bear
> similarity to Struss' earlier work in terms of lighting design, but I would
> agree with the assessment that he pretty much adapted to whatever style was
> appropriate. When shooting a Murnau, expressionist silent (SUNRISE) he
> achieved some of the best results ever seen. At the same time, he was
> capable of the very flat lighting preferred for many comedies ("Zenobia"),
> and as I mentioned before, the only consistency I see from film to film is a
> strong use of a moving camera. I definitely would not call him a
> Toland-style DP with an instantly recognizable style, though.
>
> For the record, I do not think "The Great Dictator" represented a decline in
> the visual quality of Chaplin's work. I don't think it was "better" than
> either "City Lights" or "Modern Times" but it certainly isn't a decline.
> From a photographic standpoint, it is clear, crisp camerawork and all copies
> I have seen look quite good. The lighting design works fine for the film (I
> especially like the high-key, low contrast look of the palace scenes, which
> seem very appropriate for the setting).

Struss' reputation as a photographer had been well established
significantly before he started in film. He was known for his
pictorial style (it was during a photographic vacation to Bermuda in
ca. 1912 that he first met Chuck Rosher), his use of longer than
standard focal length lenses led to tightly cropped compositions that
tended to compress the sense of depth within the image. He also
'invented' a portrait lens, basically a modified single element
projection lens, that resulted in a soft focus image with great depth
of field. During WWI Struss did some experimentation with infrared
photography which he applied to some of his early movie work. But his
war experience was not good. He was betrayed by some of his
photographic friends who (falsely) accused him of having German
sympathies and as a result Struss lost his military photographic
assignment. The break with previous friends in New York contributed to
Struss' decision to move west after his discharge.

It's interesting that you would mention the crane shots at the
beginning of The Great Dictator. I've seen several production stills
from the movie, and in every one Rollie is manning the crane-mounted
camera. In some, he is in direct consultation with Chaplin. I guess
it's possible that Struss designed these shots and that Rollie's job
was simply that of camera operator, but the apparent interaction with
Chaplin would lead me to doubt that.

I'm not familiar enough with Struss' early '30s work to know for sure,
but is it distinctive enough to distinguish it from the admittedly
limited, but effective, crane and tracking shots Chaplin used in The
Circus, City Lights and Modern Times?
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

Tom Moran wrote:

>And one of the things that really struck
>me was how clunky the editing was.
>was as if Chaplin had lost all sense of> >rhythm whatsoever. And it
also shows
>that Chaplin had no idea whatsoever of
>how to use the widescreen format. He
>just pretends that he's shooting in 1:33 --
>with disastrous consequences.

Both Truffaut and Chaplin were shooting
at Pinewood in London. Both films were
made for Universal--which was requiring
that the film-makers shoot without 1:85 masking in the camera, so that
the total
image would be 1.33.

Truffaut complained, but when Chaplin
also did, both were allowed to shoot with the 1:85 masking.

(I have arguedd elsewhere that the term'
"widescreen" is a misnomer when what was being done was simply filming
with
a hard mask in the camera to create
a more rectangular image)
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 22:58:01 -0500, G-HELPS.DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>Tom Moran wrote:
>
>>And one of the things that really struck
>>me was how clunky the editing was.
>>was as if Chaplin had lost all sense of> >rhythm whatsoever. And it
>also shows
>>that Chaplin had no idea whatsoever of
>>how to use the widescreen format. He
>>just pretends that he's shooting in 1:33 --
>>with disastrous consequences.
>
>Both Truffaut and Chaplin were shooting
>at Pinewood in London. Both films were
>made for Universal--which was requiring
>that the film-makers shoot without 1:85 masking in the camera, so that
>the total
>image would be 1.33.
>
>Truffaut complained, but when Chaplin
>also did, both were allowed to shoot with the 1:85 masking.
>
>(I have arguedd elsewhere that the term'
>"widescreen" is a misnomer when what was being done was simply filming
>with
>a hard mask in the camera to create
>a more rectangular image)

And you were wrong then too. The image was formatted to be projected
wide, as in "widescreen." It was not, however, anamorphic or
Cinerama. But those are just flavors of screen dimensions that all
fall under the category of "widescreen."
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

>>I have arguedd elsewhere that the term'
>>"widescreen" is a misnomer when what
>>was being done was simply filming with
>>a hard mask in the camera to create
>>a more rectangular image)

>And you were wrong then too. The image
>was formatted to be projected wide, as
>in "widescreen." It was not, however,
>anamorphic or Cinerama. But those are
>just flavors of screen dimensions that all
>fall under the category of "widescreen."

No, the term is a misnormer. There is
actually LESS picture information on
the cropped 1:33 which you and other
misguided souls call "widescreen" than
there is on the standard 1:33 screen.

True widsscreen provides MORE not
less picture information. Ananorphic
uses the whole 1:33 frame and crams
addiitonal peripheral information onto it via compression.

Universal wanted Chaplin and Truffaut
(who was shooting FAHRENHEIT
451 at the same studio) to shoot without
hard masking to 1:85 so that the
film could be more easily screened
on TV, but Chaplin refused, and so
they allowed Truffaut to proceed using
masking, too.

Just about the only justification for
1:85 framing is that the theatre projectionist doesn't have to install
vertical masking to show genuine
widescreen movies.
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:35:51 -0500, G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>
>>>I have arguedd elsewhere that the term'
>>>"widescreen" is a misnomer when what
>>>was being done was simply filming with
>>>a hard mask in the camera to create
>>>a more rectangular image)
>
>>And you were wrong then too. The image
>>was formatted to be projected wide, as
>>in "widescreen." It was not, however,
>>anamorphic or Cinerama. But those are
>>just flavors of screen dimensions that all
>>fall under the category of "widescreen."
>
>No, the term is a misnormer. There is
>actually LESS picture information on
>the cropped 1:33 which you and other
>misguided souls call "widescreen" than
>there is on the standard 1:33 screen.
>
>True widsscreen provides MORE not
>less picture information. Ananorphic
>uses the whole 1:33 frame and crams
>addiitonal peripheral information onto it via compression.
>
>Universal wanted Chaplin and Truffaut
>(who was shooting FAHRENHEIT
>451 at the same studio) to shoot without
>hard masking to 1:85 so that the
>film could be more easily screened
>on TV, but Chaplin refused, and so
>they allowed Truffaut to proceed using
>masking, too.
>
>Just about the only justification for
>1:85 framing is that the theatre projectionist doesn't have to install
>vertical masking to show genuine
>widescreen movies.

George, I was just teasing. Don't sweat it. :-)
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

Fred wrote:

>George, I was just teasing. Don't sweat
>it. :-)

Oh, OK, but "widescreen" as applied to 1:85 (the standard theatrical
ratio today) is a concoction of marketers and the
term annoys me when used that way.

I guess I am just a quixotic advocate
of the widescreen era of the 50s and
60s.

Following is OT:

Vistavision should be the standard
"flat" process of today and Technirama
(Vistavision plus anamorphics) the
standard widescreen process. Both
are measurably superior to current
systems.

It's ironic that as we progess digitally
and electronically, we regress in terms
of clarity, depth, and visual
immersiveness.

(I am told that the reason Vistavision
is not widely used is that the R & D
costs of developing a silenced Vista
camera---the original ones being
dinosaurs with huge soundproofing
"blimps"---would be prohibitive and would
not be justiied by any prospect of
wide usage.

In the "olden days", a Zanuck could
compel all his studio's films to use
a CinemaScope. No studio head
has that power today)
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon 

On Feb 4, 1:35 am, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> >>I have arguedd elsewhere that the term'
> >>"widescreen" is a misnomer when what
> >>was being done was simply filming with
> >>a hard mask in the camera to create
> >>a more rectangular image)
> >And you were wrong then too. The image
> >was formatted to be projected wide, as
> >in "widescreen." It was not, however,
> >anamorphic or Cinerama. But those are
> >just flavors of screen dimensions that all
> >fall under the category of "widescreen."
>
> No, the term is a misnormer. There is
> actually LESS picture information on
> the cropped 1:33 which you and other
> misguided souls call "widescreen" than
> there is on the standard 1:33 screen.
>
> True widsscreen provides MORE not
> less picture information. Ananorphic
> uses the whole 1:33 frame and crams
> addiitonal peripheral information onto it via compression.
So, why did Chaplin complain about it? Was it just too much of a pain
to try to frame for 1.85 without the masking? I think it would be,
but at the same time, it seems he would have been more comfortable
looking at a 1.33 frame in the camera.


>
> Universal wanted Chaplin and Truffaut
> (who was shooting FAHRENHEIT
> 451 at the same studio) to shoot without
> hard masking to 1:85 so that the
> film could be more easily screened
> on TV, but Chaplin refused, and so
> they allowed Truffaut to proceed using
> masking, too.
>
> Just about the only justification for
> 1:85 framing is that the theatre projectionist doesn't have to install
> vertical masking to show genuine
> widescreen movies.
 >> Stay informed about: Sidney Sheldon